Could the FAA have been better prepared for WW2? (1 Viewer)

[Admiral Beez]

The Taurus was far from reliable, although the issues suffered in early examples with the Taurus were eventually overcome, so it would certainly have to be considered.

I can imagine the butterflies had someone told Bristol in late 1920s and early 1930s to forget the sleeve valve ideas, just make big displacement, powerful and reliable poppet valve engines, same as everyone else is doing. It reminds of Britain chasing other technological dead ends, like rubber decked carriers, and hydrogen peroxide submarines.

 

[Schweik]

I only mention the Battle as a demonstration that at least one firm had the will and means to make a single-engined, all-metal, retractable undercarriage strike aircraft. I do not think either the Battle or its related Fulmar should be considered for the role. The Fulmar may carry a 500 lb. bomb, but getting off a 25 knot, <700ft carrier like Hermes or Eagle with a 2,000 lb. torpedo is something else. The Nakajima B5N2 operated from small and slow CVEs, like Shin'yō, with sub 1,000 hp engine, similar in power to the Merlin, but with a much wider wingspan and 2,000 lbs less weight (empty), or 1,000 lbs less (max takeoff).
I suggest we look elsewhere than modifying a Fulmar to carry a torpedo. IMO, Fairey's TSR submission needs to be a new design, something with the span and wing loading to get off the little decks in rough seas. And there are other firms than Fairey. Blackburn is about to introduce their all-metal, monoplane, retractable undercarriage Skua. Maybe they can propose something suitable?

Well, this is definitely hindsight but dive bombers could be used to kill ships fairly effectively too. It seems like they could have made a better dive bomber to fly from those tiny escort carriers. We also see aircraft like the huge TBF / TBM which seemed to do Ok on escort carriers later in the war.

One of the problems I think that derailed them (which we still contend with today) is the institutional desire to create jack of all trades, ultra versatile aircraft, particularly for naval use, especially for the smaller escort carriers, since they carry so few planes to begin with. I think this often ended up with creations like the Skua which weren't particularly good at anything. I can see the huge advantage of course if you had a plane that could do it all, but we know (again hindsight) that as a design challenge, it's a very big one - just out of reach for most aircraft designers it turned out, as few of these really worked out. The best compromises - especially when it came to naval aircraft- were usually fighters. A fighter could drop bombs, but bombers rarely worked out as fighters.

Based on what they had available, a Fulmar had the best (still not that great, but better than the others) range and the extra crewman for navigation, so keep one or two of those on the ship for recon and bomber escort. Keep your best CAP fighters, Sea-Hurricanes or Sea-Gladiators I guess, until Martlets become available. And then bombers. That's the hard one. Neither Swordfish nor Albacore seem really ready for WW2, but if that's the best you have ... I would say go with the Albacore due to slightly better range and weather capability, and the dual ability to dive bomb as well as carry torpedoes. We know they both can kill ships but they have quite poor range for naval combat and are of course highly vulnerable to fighters.

Sea Hurricanes or even Sea Gladiators are again, reasonable fighters for the early part of WW2, except for their range... Fulmars seemed to really struggle in the Med to catch enemy bombers.

 

[Schweik]

What you really want though is something like a monoplane Albacore with retractable gear. Hopefully with a wing that isn't overly thick. But that's a few design hurdles to jump through - viable monoplane design, retractable landing gear, better streamlining, and hopefully more fuel capacity. Or an SBD with folding wings

 

[RCAFson]

What you really want though is something like a monoplane Albacore with retractable gear. Hopefully with a wing that isn't overly thick. But that's a few design hurdles to jump through - viable monoplane design, retractable landing gear, better streamlining, and hopefully more fuel capacity. Or an SBD with folding wings

If you add folding wings to an SBD you end up with a Skua. Even if the FAA was given B5N2s, by the time you add folding wings, armour and SS tanks, you can't fly it from many FAA carriers.

 

[fastmongrel]

given B5N2s, by the time you add folding wings

B5N2 did have folding wings but your right by the time all the equipment needed by the FAA is added the B5 weighs as much as a Fulmar.

 

[RCAFson]

Well, this is definitely hindsight but dive bombers could be used to kill ships fairly effectively too. It seems like they could have made a better dive bomber to fly from those tiny escort carriers. We also see aircraft like the huge TBF / TBM which seemed to do Ok on escort carriers later in the war.

One of the problems I think that derailed them (which we still contend with today) is the institutional desire to create jack of all trades, ultra versatile aircraft, particularly for naval use, especially for the smaller escort carriers, since they carry so few planes to begin with. I think this often ended up with creations like the Skua which weren't particularly good at anything. I can see the huge advantage of course if you had a plane that could do it all, but we know (again hindsight) that as a design challenge, it's a very big one - just out of reach for most aircraft designers it turned out, as few of these really worked out. The best compromises - especially when it came to naval aircraft- were usually fighters. A fighter could drop bombs, but bombers rarely worked out as fighters.

Based on what they had available, a Fulmar had the best (still not that great, but better than the others) range and the extra crewman for navigation, so keep one or two of those on the ship for recon and bomber escort. Keep your best CAP fighters, Sea-Hurricanes or Sea-Gladiators I guess, until Martlets become available. And then bombers. That's the hard one. Neither Swordfish nor Albacore seem really ready for WW2, but if that's the best you have ... I would say go with the Albacore due to slightly better range and weather capability, and the dual ability to dive bomb as well as carry torpedoes. We know they both can kill ships but they have quite poor range for naval combat and are of course highly vulnerable to fighters.

Sea Hurricanes or even Sea Gladiators are again, reasonable fighters for the early part of WW2, except for their range... Fulmars seemed to really struggle in the Med to catch enemy bombers.

I don't think the criticism of the Skua is warranted. It was a very capable carrier aircraft and a very good DB with the ability to tackle enemy bombers and recon aircraft. It only seems poor in comparison to single seat fighters.

The TBF was only viable if the CVE has a high capacity catapult. The Albacore carried 193IG of internal fuel, with provision for a 100IG aux internal fuel tank and/or a 60 or 116IG external tank. With 193IG internal fuel and a torpedo, it's range was still better than a TBD, for example. With full fuel, nominal range was in excess of 1100nm. If the Taurus had been reliable from the start, the Albacore would have played a much greater role in the early part of WW2.

It would have helped if the Fulmar1/2 had a Merlin X/XX and with these engines performance would have been nearly equal to the Marlet.

 

[RCAFson]

B5N2 did have folding wings but your right by the time all the equipment needed by the FAA is added the B5 weighs as much as a Fulmar.

They did fold but not to the minimum 19ft required by the FAA.

 

[Shortround6]

There were a bunch of paper designs.
Unfortunately for some reason the air ministery or admiralty wanted mid wing or high wing aircraft, see supermairne Dumbo. Some had fixed landing gear. They did perform better on paper but not good enough. Putting the Griffin on hold while the worked on the. Merlin didn't help.

 

[swampyankee]

The problems that are perceived with the Swordfish and the Skua are, in my opinion, largely due to problems with the specifications process. The Swordfish was required to be able to be catapulted from cruisers and capital ships, which puts hard limits on stall speed and wing span. It also requires a strong structure. I don't know if it was ever used as a catapult aircraft past a few trials, but those requirements had a deep influence on the design. The Skua seems to have been on a fairly reasonable spec, but wasn't as well executed as it could have been. As for the Roc, the concept of "turret fighter" was intrinsically flawed, although the people writing the specs didn't know that yet.

On the ship, the carriers' specs also suffered from problems (but so did everyone else's), mostly related to aircraft handling and storage arrangements. Since ships take longer to build and design than aircraft, or at least they did before the 21st Century (I'm looking at the F-35 here....), this is a worse problem than the aircraft, especially since the RN didn't use a deck park or deck-edge lifts.

 

[tomo pauk]

re:"How good were Fulmars at "STOL" vis a vis the small carriers?"

As far as I have been able to find, the Fulmar was right up there with the best of the British naval aircraft as far as TO and landing on carriers goes.
The only problem (I think) was it was somewhat underpowered, even in the Mk II model with the Merlin 30. The ability to carry a torpedo would be precluded by lack of space under the aircraft (I think). I have mentioned a wargame campaign that I participated in a number of years ago in other threads. One of the designs I modified was the Fulmar. Two of my mods were adding the ability to mount a bomb swing under the fuselage and installing a developed model of the 'R' engine. The 'R' engine would have provided more than enough power to lift the Mk XII aerial torpedo, but there was really not enough space under the fuselage to fit the torpedo. The enlarged and deepened radiator did not help the situation, but even with the standard Merlin 30 and its radiator there was not enough space for the torpedo.

Clearance problem for a torpedo-wielding Fulmar is related to it's tail sitting too low, not to radiator? Both Fw 190 and G.55S featured raised tail wheel strut so the torpedo can be carried.
British/Fairey can design a carrier-borne 'attacker' with Hercules in the nose for 1939, instead of wasting the early Hercules engine in the god awful Saro Lerwick. But yes, a 'militarized' R engine has a major appeal. Now if we only have a what-if topic onn the engine.... oh, here it is

 

[Schweik]

The problems that are perceived with the Swordfish and the Skua are, in my opinion, largely due to problems with the specifications process. The Swordfish was required to be able to be catapulted from cruisers and capital ships, which puts hard limits on stall speed and wing span. It also requires a strong structure. I don't know if it was ever used as a catapult aircraft past a few trials, but those requirements had a deep influence on the design. The Skua seems to have been on a fairly reasonable spec, but wasn't as well executed as it could have been. As for the Roc, the concept of "turret fighter" was intrinsically flawed, although the people writing the specs didn't know that yet.

On the ship, the carriers' specs also suffered from problems (but so did everyone else's), mostly related to aircraft handling and storage arrangements. Since ships take longer to build and design than aircraft, or at least they did before the 21st Century (I'm looking at the F-35 here....), this is a worse problem than the aircraft, especially since the RN didn't use a deck park or deck-edge lifts.

This seems to be the big issue to me as well, though I always wondered if there were issues with some of the firms like Fairey and Blackburn on top of whatever was going on inside FAA. How are they still coming up with designs like the Barracuda and the Firefly at the middle and (functionally) near the end of the war.... it must be the specs.

 

[Schweik]

I don't think the criticism of the Skua is warranted. It was a very capable carrier aircraft and a very good DB with the ability to tackle enemy bombers and recon aircraft. It only seems poor in comparison to single seat fighters.

The TBF was only viable if the CVE has a high capacity catapult. The Albacore carried 193IG of internal fuel, with provision for a 100IG aux internal fuel tank and/or a 60 or 116IG external tank. With 193IG internal fuel and a torpedo, it's range was still better than a TBD, for example. With full fuel, nominal range was in excess of 1100nm. If the Taurus had been reliable from the start, the Albacore would have played a much greater role in the early part of WW2.

It would have helped if the Fulmar1/2 had a Merlin X/XX and with these engines performance would have been nearly equal to the Marlet.

I'm not really a fan of the TBF either, though it's easier to put a high capacity catapult on a carrier than stretch it, and it seems more viable than any of these FAA bombers. Skua just didn't have the performance to cope with modern fighters at all, and is marginal against bombers. Range was pretty bad for a carrier bomber too. I'm not sure what enemy recon planes it's going to catch after 1941 or so, surely there are some, but even Hurricanes were having problems catching a lot of Axis bombers by the time the fighting was heating up around Malta. With a top speed barely over 200 mph it's way to slow to catch most of the Italian bombers like an SM. 79 or CANT 1007. It might be able to (barely) catch some float planes like a Z.506, He 115 or Ar 196. That's about all it's good for and no guarantee's it's going to win the fight.

 

[Schweik]

I admit the design challenges were immense. But I think part of the solution to the specs issue is to just admit you can't make a jack of all trades aircraft, especially for these CVE / light Carriers, that era ended some time in the middle of WW I. Make a purpose built torpedo bomber, a dive bomber, a fighter, and a recon fighter. Might even have to break down CAP fighter and recon fighter. These escort carriers seemed to be sent out on specific missions anyway.

If you are trying to sink the Bismark out in the middle of the Atlantic, you really only need your torpedo bombers and recon planes.

If you are trying to escort a convoy to Malta you mainly need your best possible CAP fighters. (high altitude capable, fast as possible, as many guns and ammunition as can be managed, and good rate of climb, but very long range isn't necessarily required. Of course loiter time is good to have...)

If you are (God forbid) trying to tangle with the IJN, you'll need a mix of CAP fighters, recon / escort fighters, torpedo bombers and maybe dive bombers. But maybe instead of trying to put all that on one ship you break it up - one with the strike squadron and one with the CAP squadron and so on.

 

[Schweik]

(I don't mean they had aircraft carriers in WW I, I mean generic multi-role aircraft were left behind during that War).

 

[nuuumannn]

This seems to be the big issue to me as well, though I always wondered if there were issues with some of the firms like Fairey and Blackburn on top of whatever was going on inside FAA. How are they still coming up with designs like the Barracuda and the Firefly at the middle and (functionally) near the end of the war.... it must be the specs.

During the 1930s the RAF began insisting on aircraft that could do a thousand and one things, the TSR spec, fighter/dive bomber specs, the latter of which meant no single seat modern fighter as a result and this hampered the FAA and the admiralty to no end in the years ahead to the point where it played catch up throughout the war - thank heaven for the USA and Lend Lease!

The last one for example meant that it didn't get a 'modern' single seater until the Martlet in late 1940, and even then it was only intended as a stop gap until something better came along (they wanted Spitfires, and the Firebrand to not be a turd). Prior to these combo all singing all dancing machine requirements to save money, the FAA had single seat fighters, torpedo bombers, general reconnaissance types, catapult aircraft (yes, the Swordfish was often carried as a catapult aircraft aboard capital ships, as was the Fulmar, interestingly enough, it was designed as a catapult fighter after all) and so forth, so the change came with the new generation of aircraft, although multi role aircraft had appeared before, naturally.

I don't mean they had aircraft carriers in WW I,

Oh yes they did. The RN effectively invented the modern carrier as we know it and the concept of the CAG. HMS Furious was the first aircraft carrier with a flying off deck and landing deck, although this wasn't used in action, only during trials owing to a lack of a means of restraining an aircraft on landing. Arrestor hooks came after the end of the war. Furious carried out the first successful carrier launched air strike in history, Sopwith Camels attacking the German airship station at Tondern, although because of a lack of arresting mechanism the Camels had to ditch or land and the pilots make their own way back (hmmm - imagine that during the Pacific campaigns - eek). The first CAG was what was known as F Sqn, commanded by Sqn Cdr Edwin Dunning, the same fella who carried out the dicey landings aboard Furious' forward deck and lost his life doing so, and was equipped with Sopwith Pups, 1 1/2 Strutters and Camels and Beardmore WB.IIIs (a Pup converted with folding wings and floatation gear especially for service aboard carriers), as well as BE.2cs for ground based training.

There was also HMS Argus, the first flat top carrier, commissioned in 1918. It did nothing of note during the war, but the very first aircraft carrier based torpedo squadron was embarked, but not flown from the carrier, 185 Sqn RAF equipped with Sopwith Torpedoplanes. Argus was instrumental in pioneering arresting systems and countless Sopwith Pups were expended landing on her deck and crashing into safety barriers...

 

[SaparotRob]

During the 1930s the RAF began insisting on aircraft that could do a thousand and one things, the TSR spec, fighter/dive bomber specs, the latter of which meant no single seat modern fighter as a result and this hampered the FAA and the admiralty to no end in the years ahead to the point where it played catch up throughout the war - thank heaven for the USA and Lend Lease!

The last one for example meant that it didn't get a 'modern' single seater until the Martlet in late 1940, and even then it was only intended as a stop gap until something better came along (they wanted Spitfires, and the Firebrand to not be a turd). Prior to these combo all singing all dancing machine requirements to save money, the FAA had single seat fighters, torpedo bombers, general reconnaissance types, catapult aircraft (yes, the Swordfish was often carried as a catapult aircraft aboard capital ships, as was the Fulmar, interestingly enough, it was designed as a catapult fighter after all) and so forth, so the change came with the new generation of aircraft, although multi role aircraft had appeared before, naturally.



Oh yes they did. The RN effectively invented the modern carrier as we know it and the concept of the CAG. HMS Furious was the first aircraft carrier with a flying off deck and landing deck, although this wasn't used in action, only during trials owing to a lack of a means of restraining an aircraft on landing. Arrestor hooks came after the end of the war. Furious carried out the first successful carrier launched air strike in history, Sopwith Camels attacking the German airship station at Tondern, although because of a lack of arresting mechanism the Camels had to ditch or land and the pilots make their own way back (hmmm - imagine that during the Pacific campaigns - eek). The first CAG was what was known as F Sqn, commanded by Sqn Cdr Edwin Dunning, the same fella who carried out the dicey landings aboard Furious' forward deck and lost his life doing so, and was equipped with Sopwith Pups, 1 1/2 Strutters and Camels and Beardmore WB.IIIs (a Pup converted with folding wings and floatation gear especially for service aboard carriers), as well as BE.2cs for ground based training.

There was also HMS Argus, the first flat top carrier, commissioned in 1918. It did nothing of note during the war, but the very first aircraft carrier based torpedo squadron was embarked, but not flown from the carrier, 185 Sqn RAF equipped with Sopwith Torpedoplanes. Argus was instrumental in pioneering arresting systems and countless Sopwith Pups were expended landing on her deck and crashing into safety barriers...

I've read somewhere that it was due to HMS Argus being so slow that the arresting cables and tail hooks were developed. Not enough headwind over the deck.
I found it odd that the RN pioneered so many important developments in carrier aviation (angled deck, magic mirror, heavier than air aircraft carrier, etc.) and yet had so many mediocre aircraft.

 

[Shortround6]

There was a whole generation of British torpedo bomber designs that pretty much disappeared. Only the Barracuda made it to production, very late. The only other design to make to hardware was the Supermarine 322
Protective eyewear recommended.

See Tony Butler's book "British Secret Projects fighters and bombers 1935-1950"

Most of the drawings/models show a similar general outline to the above. Blackburn, Bristol, Fairey, Hawker, Supermarine and westland all submitted proposals to a specification from Jan of 1938. after the selection process narrowed the field to 2 Fairy got a prototype contract in Jan 1939 and a production contract in Feb 1939. Supermarine got a contract for two prototypes, as much to test the wing concept as anything else. The Wing could change incidence (tilt) which is one reason it was rejected for production.

warning, 2nd photo

there 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.

Most of the proposals used either the Taurus or RR Exe engine.

 

[nuuumannn]

I found it odd that the RN pioneered so many important developments in carrier aviation (angled deck, magic mirror, heavier than air aircraft carrier, etc.) and yet had so many mediocre aircraft.

Yeah, cause and effect I think. The navy had as many good ones as it had bad ones (the Skua and Albacore for example weren't mediocre per se, they were good aeroplanes and both did what they did with a degree of competence, but...) and ultimately you go to war with what you've got rather than what you want and in the navy's case in 1939 someone else had chosen what the navy had. Doesn't explain why the Firebrand and Barracuda were a bit rubbish but that's down to the manufacturers overthinking things.

 

[nuuumannn]

There was a whole generation of British torpedo bomber designs that pretty much disappeared.

Britain was a pioneer in the torpedo bomber evolution and I think hung onto the earliest stipulations of what was expected, until the TSR and one airframe doing everything specs appeared. The original concept was embodied in the Sopwith Cuckoo and Dart in a slow steady biplane that could evade enemy attention with manoeuvring at low speed after dropping their torpedoes. Low speed was essential to enable accuracy and proper dropping techniques. The RAF developed this strategy after research during the Great War in carrying out torpedo drops in conditions of secrecy and it never really changed. Exercises against the RN's capital ships tended to reinforce the idea of course.

A Sopwith Cuckoo undergoing dropping trials with a torpedo with a dummy warhead in the Firth of Forth in 1918. The trail is a red dye for tracking the torpedo in the water.

Cuckoo releasing torpedo 1918

Originally, neither the Cuckoo nor Dart had armament to save weight and both were single-seaters, but their successors in the Baffin and Ripon, which were essentially Darts enlarged and refined did, but the idea was the same, and the Albacore also hoped to embody this too, but was dropped in favour of the Swordfish because of the latter's better manoeuvrability, and versatility and ease of maintenance etc.

Again though, what happened to the Barracuda is all on its designers (and the all singing all dancing spec, again)!

 

[Shortround6]

I think the Skua gets a bit of poor rap.
Imagine how the SBD would be regarded if was stuck with an under 1000hp engine for it's career? While the SBD did get 1000hp in the first 4 versions it got 1200hp in the SBD-5, the most common version.

and let's remember that the SBDs father was the Northrop BT-1 which entered service in 1938 with an 825hp engine.

The Barracuda was the only production plane out of the mess in the earlier post. It had gone from high wing to low wing and back to high wing, It lost the RR Exe engine 2 1/2 months after the production contract was signed and the Merlin 30 substituted (? check timeline?) and the air ministry managed to add all kinds of requirements. How much was Fairey's fault is certainly subject to question.

Stick a Pegasus in the Skua, increase the bomb load to 1000lbs (the 500lb bomb is not a ship killer, at least not British 500lb bombs) perhaps more fuel could be fitted for more range with the 500lb bomb. the SBD had some serious range limits with heavy war loads.