Could the FAA have been better prepared for WW2?

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Shortround6 said:
here may have been either a requirement (or very strong suggestion ?) that one or more crewmen be provided with observation windows in the side of the aircraft as Bristol and Hawker drawings both show some sort of window below the high mounted wing.
Click to expand...

The Barracuda also had this 'Observer's Lounge' under its wing, which was the centrepoint of the design, with the aeroplane designed around it, it seems. It too was a Torpedo Bomber Reconnaissance aeroplane, combining the duties of torpedo carrier, dive bomber and recon platform able to be fitted with floats too (! If ever there was a good reason not to make a multi role carrier based airframe, the Barracuda is it!) Lobelle tried to make an advanced design but bit off more than he could chew with its aerodynamics, which can be laid at the original spec requiring different things from the same airframe.
 
I had already damaged my vision by Wikipedia-ing the aircraft mentioned in post # 108. This prompted my post on great carriers/crap planes.
 
There's nothing on the Barracuda that precludes its development and launch instead of the Albacore. Yes, the Merlin the Barracuda entered service with in 1942 was more powerful than what was available in 1939, but it's still a 1,000 hp motor.
 

Compared to Albacore and Barracuda, Dumbo does not look either uglier or less well streamlined.
 
tomo pauk said:
Compared to Albacore and Barracuda, Dumbo does not look either uglier or less well streamlined.
Click to expand...

The S-322 had excellent performance which exceeded the TBF in speed and was about equal to the SB2C. It suffered from slow development but would have been a real winner if it could have achieved production status in 1942.
 
Admiral Beez said:
There's nothing on the Barracuda that precludes its development and launch instead of the Albacore. Yes, the Merlin the Barracuda entered service with in 1942 was more powerful than what was available in 1939, but it's still a 1,000 hp motor.
Click to expand...

The Barracuda II entered service with 1600hp for TO. The lighter Barracuda I was judged to have inadequate TO power with the Merlin XXX at 1300HP. There's no way the Barracuda 1 would have been carrier capable with less than 1300hp on TO. The big problem with the Barracuda was the very long, draggy and heavy landing gear needed for the high mounted wing. The high wing was required by the spec to give the aircrew good vision for recon flights.
 

Too bad that Hercules was not in the nose of the Barracuda from day 1.
 
The side windows are notable.



We need to get the Barracuda off the deck with sub 1,300 hp. Weight needs to go from somewhere.
 
RCAFson said:
The Hercules was ~500lb heavier than the Merlin VIII/XXX and had roughly the same TO power.
Click to expand...

Add another 300 lbs for cooling system for the Merlin (per 292 lbs cooling system on Allison V-1710s, or 322-326 lbs on P-39). Merlin VIII/30 - 1275/1300 HP for TO.
Hercules XI - 1550 HP for TO.
 
Hey Tomo Pauk,

Based on the drawings I did for the campaign, the radiator would have to be moved to allow a Mk XII torpedo to be carried at an acceptable CG position, at least if it were to be carried in a similar manner to how it was on the other FAA TBs. Because of this and the low clearance under the fuselage it was deemed (by myself and the referees) to not be practical. But you are correct that the aircraft could have had its tail raised in order to provide clearance. The amount it would have to be lifted, however, is quite great. Maybe if it was only launched by catapult/trolley?

Hey guys,

Just a few bits and pieces I have run across over the years that you might find interesting, concerning the Fulmar and Albacore.

The Albacore, like the Swordfish, was required to be capable of catapult launch from capital ships (as well as carriers), using the cross deck catapults on the rebuilt QEs and new build KGVs. Somewhere on the internet there are pictures of them undergoing trials (ie folded in the hangar, getting launched, etc).

One of the reasons the RN/FAA did not develop the specialized monoplane dive bomber further was (as has already been mentioned) the perceived need for multi-role airframes. One reason for this perceived need was that the RN had initiated the requirement for bad weather operations (early-1930s) and night operations (around 1935), and dive bombers can not dive bomb in either (at least not effectively/safely). Because of this and the somewhat low aircraft complement, the Albacore was specified to be DB capable also.

I do not know if the possibility was carried through to the final AM specification, but at some point early in its gestation it was contemplated fitting a power operated gun turret (unspecified as to type, but a weight of 400 lbs for the turret installation was to be allowed) to the resulting aircraft. The possibility of using a Kestrel engine derivative was also pondered, but was dropped before the final specification was issued (I think).

It is not often brought up, either in forums or literature on the Fulmar (not sexy enough?), but it was also bad weather and fully night capable, and often operated in conditions as bad as the Swordfish and Albacore. Again, somewhere on the internet is some fairly good coverage of its ops in very bad weather, at night, and both. And as mentioned above, it was quite capable of dive bombing - but limited to one 250 lb bomb under each wing in the Mk I model. The Fulmar Mk II was also fitted to carry a 500 lb bomb under the center fuselage and was capable of safe release at upto 60°. But as I mentioned up-thread, I have not run across any real info on the Fulmar actually using the 500 lb bomb.
 
Last edited:
tomo pauk said:
Add another 300 lbs for cooling system for the Merlin (per 292 lbs cooling system on Allison V-1710s, or 322-326 lbs on P-39). Merlin VIII/30 - 1275/1300 HP for TO.
Hercules XI - 1550 HP for TO.
Click to expand...

There's also the weight required to balance the heavier engine and the required cowling.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

A
Perun: Building the Worst WW2 Air Force
Replies
12
Views
912
swampyankee
G
Better Dambusters
2
Replies
25
Views
2K
GTX
Biplanes for ww2: where could've these still mattered?
2 3 4
Replies
63
Views
3K
The Stannum Liberator
G
Should Napier have been building the Griffon instead of the Sabre?
2 3
Replies
57
Views
5K
MIflyer
M
A
1939-1942 FAA: Better aircraft or more aircraft?
2 3 4
Replies
63
Views
5K
Admiral Beez
A
Menu
Log in
Register