Did the Barracuda have anything on the Avenger?

[Greyman]

Other than dive bombing...

I know little of either aircraft.

 

[Rick65]

Beauty - especially when landing

 

[Catch22]

Not really, no. The British torpedoes were too long to fit inside an Avenger's bay, so I guess that's one point, but the Avenger actually replaced the Barracuda in FAA service. By the end of the war basically all of the front line squadrons had traded their Barracudas for Avengers.

 

[RCAFson]

Not really, no. The British torpedoes were too long to fit inside an Avenger's bay, so I guess that's one point, but the Avenger actually replaced the Barracuda in FAA service. By the end of the war basically all of the front line squadrons had traded their Barracudas for Avengers.

That's completely untrue. The Barracuda continued in service as a "frontline" aircraft from it's service introduction until the end of war, flying missions off the the Norwegian coast into 1945 and by war's end, the lastest CVLs to arrive from the UK to the Pacific carried the Barracuda.

One thing that many people don't realize is that the BPF was not allowed, under it's operational agreement with the USN, to attack major naval targets in Japanese waters, so having a highly capable naval strike aircraft was not a priority for the BPF.In early 1944, the RN had actually removed the Avengers from its carriers due to their poor torpedoes.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I don't see the Barracuda as a bad aircraft; it seemed to have served well. Had a few crashes while in service and a few design issues (poor high altitude performance and cockpit pressure gauges that operated on full system pressure rather than with a reducer and calibrated gauge, and not the only aircraft to have this BTW). It served the entire war was replaced by the Avenger long after WW2.

IMO its biggest flaw was its engine - inline engine aboard ship on a strike aircraft.

 

[Trilisser]

What is inherently wrong with an inline engine on a carrier strike aircraft?

 

[FLYBOYJ]

What is inherently wrong with an inline engine on a carrier strike aircraft?

1. Glycol - a hazardous item you don't want on a carrier if you could avoid it.
2. More susceptible to ground fire
3. More maintenance intensive because of another system within the aircraft

 

[RCAFson]

Liquid cooled engines have some advantages:

The Merlin 32 dry weight was about 1400lb, and it produced 1640hp.

The R2600-8 dry weight was 2045 lb and it produced 1750hp.

The FAA used liquid cooled engines from 1940 and they seemed to have good reliability and serviceability.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

The FAA used liquid cooled engines from 1940 and they seemed to have good reliability and serviceability.

Until a .22 round punctures a coolant line or you start getting fitting leaks dues to temp changes and vibrations. No doubt liquid engines could make power, but in the end a round engine with one less fluid running through it makes better sense.

 

[Shortround6]

Liquid cooled engines have some advantages:

The Merlin 32 dry weight was about 1400lb, and it produced 1640hp.

The R2600-8 dry weight was 2045 lb and it produced 1750hp.

The FAA used liquid cooled engines from 1940 and they seemed to have good reliability and serviceability.

The R-2600-8 didn't have around 300lbs worth of radiator and coolant.

The Merlin 32 weighed 1430lbs dry and was good for 1640hp at 2,000ft. The R-2600-8 was about 1980lbs, the 2045lb weight is for a BB series engine which the -8 was not. The -8 was good for 1700hp take-off and 1700hp Military at 4100ft, and 1450hp at 14,100ft. The Merlin 32 may be down to around 1250hp at 14,000ft.

Actual weight difference is around 250-300lbs and at anything above 2000ft the R-2600 shows an increasing amount of power ( which it needs to counter the higher drag of the engine, drag of the Barracuda airframe is debatable, it may frighten the air out of the way

 

[vikingBerserker]

the RN had actually removed the Avengers from its carriers due to their poor torpedoes.

I disagree with that as Aug 15th 1945 the HMS Indefatigable launched her Seafires and Avengers over Odaki Bay for a bombing mission. ( Whirlwind - The Air War Against Japan 1942 - 1945 by Barrett Tillman, page 244.)

 

[FLYBOYJ]

The R-2600-8 didn't have around 300lbs worth of radiator and coolant.

It didn't, more the reason why a radial on a WW2 naval aircraft made more sense.

 

[RCAFson]

I disagree with that as Aug 15th 1945 the HMS Indefatigable launched her Seafires and Avengers over Odaki Bay for a bombing mission. ( Whirlwind - The Air War Against Japan 1942 - 1945 by Barrett Tillman, page 244.)

Yes, when the possibility of attacking major naval targets largely disappeared, the Avenger was again used by the BPF, but the point is that the FAA considered the Barracuda to be a better strike aircraft against naval targets, not only because the Barracuda could carry an RN torpedo, but also because of it's dive bombing capabilities.

 

[RCAFson]

The R-2600-8 didn't have around 300lbs worth of radiator and coolant.

The Merlin 32 weighed 1430lbs dry and was good for 1640hp at 2,000ft. The R-2600-8 was about 1980lbs, the 2045lb weight is for a BB series engine which the -8 was not. The -8 was good for 1700hp take-off and 1700hp Military at 4100ft, and 1450hp at 14,100ft. The Merlin 32 may be down to around 1250hp at 14,000ft.

Actual weight difference is around 250-300lbs and at anything above 2000ft the R-2600 shows an increasing amount of power ( which it needs to counter the higher drag of the engine, drag of the Barracuda airframe is debatable, it may frighten the air out of the way

Of course both engines would have a higher installed weight. The Merlin 32 also had a lower specific fuel consumption, which was typical of liquid cooled engines.

According to the SAC data, R2600-8 max output on a TBF-1c was 1700hp up to 3000ft, declining to 1500 to 5800 ft, declining to 1450hp from 7800-12000ft.

I don't have a power curve for a Merlin 32 on a Barracuda, but on the Seafire LIIC, max engine output (18 lb/3000rpm) could be held to 2700ft in a climb at 188 mph and 5100ft, level, at 340 mph:
Seafire L Mk. IIC Trials
So I would expect the Barracuda level FTH be somewhere in the middle of those two altitudes on the Seafire.

 

[RCAFson]

some basic stats:

Barracuda II / TBF-1C*** (both with full internal fuel and a Torpedo)
weight: 13900 / 16412lb
Fuel: 225 / 275IG
max HP: 1640 / 1700
Wing area: 414 /490 sq ft
Wing span: 49' 2" / 54' 2 "
wing loading: 33.6 / 33.4 lb sq ft
power loading: 8.48 / 9.65 Lb/hp
Service ceiling: 18200** / 21400ft
Time to 10,000ft: 12.57* / 13 min (both at rated climb power)
Vmax: 225 at 1750** / 257 mph at 12000ft

*** = USN SAC
** = aircraft profile 240. FTH should be higher.
* = wikipedia (source: Barracuda pilots notes - these numbers seem correct according to my copy) A page from a manual can be seen here:
http://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-8...M0/TCH3tKy8y8M/s1152/Barracuda_fuel_range.jpg , according to my calculations and these figures, the Barracuda burns 21IG to climb to 10,000ft and fuel consumption at rated power climb = 105IG/hr and this equals 12 minutes, not 12.57. However, the Feb 1945 Pilot's notes for the Barracuda II and III shows slightly higher consumption and 12.57 min appears to be accurate.

 

[vikingBerserker]

Yes, when the possibility of attacking major naval targets largely disappeared, the Avenger was again used by the BPF, but the point is that the FAA considered the Barracuda to be a better strike aircraft against naval targets, not only because the Barracuda could carry an RN torpedo, but also because of it's dive bombing capabilities.

Do you have a source for this as what I am reading states the Avenger replaced the Barracude due to it's low performance on all Fleet Carriers starting in 1944 and the Barracuda's really did not reapper on carriers in the PTO until 1945 but on the CVLs.

 

[RCAFson]

Do you have a source for this as what I am reading states the Avenger replaced the Barracude due to it's low performance on all Fleet Carriers starting in 1944 and the Barracuda's really did not reapper on carriers in the PTO until 1945 but on the CVLs.

The last CV based Barracuda strikes in the IO were Oct 17/19 1944, from Indomitable based Barracudas. CV, CVE and shore based Barracudas continued to strike at Norwegian targets until wars end (Aircraft profile 240 although after Sept 1944 there were no more RN CVs in European waters). However after this date the BPF was operating under a mandate that forced them into striking land based targets only, and here the Avenger had an edge in range and payload, especially near the equator, as Aircraft profile 240 put it: "The use of the Barracuda against land targets was inappropriate." The Avenger was also equipped with a Norden bomb sight for accurate medium level horizontal bombing.

Halsey:

On the 18th, the U.S. Navy bombed the naval base at Yokosuka, were the battleship Nagato was anchored. Through intense flak, the Navy's bombers scored several heavy hits, but could not sink the battleship (no torpedoes could be used). The British fleet struck other targets; Halsey did not want them to take part in the sinking of the Japanese fleet.On the 19th, U.S. ships shelled a radar station with inconclusive results. But the weather was growing worse by the hour, and few planes were launched by either force, so the Allied fleets broke off their operations to refuel, an operation to be concluded on the 21st, later the 22nd. As, however, some U.S. ships still received fuel on the 23rd, the combined fleet could not sail for its next attack positions until the afternoon of the 23rd, ready to hit their next targets on the 24th. They would hit the enemy fleet again: anchored at Kure were most of the last remaining Japanese heavy ships. Again, the British were not allowed to participate in the strikes, being assigned different targets. The U.S. Navy, meanwhile, struck heavily on the 24th and the 28th. They sank the battleships Hyuga, Ise and Haruna, severely damaged the carriers Katsuragi and Amagi, as well as the Ryuho, and damaged the carrier Kasagi, Aso, and Ibuki (which were incomplete). Cruisers Tone and Aoba, veterans of all major campaigns, and the light cruiser Oyodo, flagship of the Combined Fleet, were sunk too. The British, by coincidence, had their share of heavy ship sinkings too: British raids against land targets by accident found the escort carrier Kaiyo, which in three attacks was destroyed along with two frigates

.Endgame: The Final Strikes on Japan, 10th Jly to 15th August, 1945

In an often-quoted passage from his
memoirs, Halsey explained that his Chief of
Staff, Rear Admiral Robert Carney, argued
that the British should be excluded from the
Kure strikes:
Mick's argument was that although this division
of forces violated the principle of concentration and superiority, it was imperative that
we forestall a possible postwar claim by Britain
that she had delivered even a part of the final
blow that demolished the Japanese fleet. I
hated to admit a political factor into a military
equation—my respect for Bert Rawlings and
his fine men made me hate it doubly—but
Mick forced me to recognize that statesman's
objectives sometimes differ widely from combat
objectives, and an exclusively American attack
was therefore in American interests.

http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/jfq_pubs/4017.pdf

Since strikes on naval targets were not going to happen, there was no driving need for the Barracuda:

CAB 80/78/44 - "EXPANSION AND DISTRIBUTION OF FLEET AIR ARM SQUADRONS DURING THE FIRST QUARTER OF 1944" - says:

"2.The ineffectiveness of the American Torpedo has necessitated the withdrawal of Avenger squadrons from HMS VICTORIOUS and the substitution of Barracudas. This has resulted in more Avengers being available for A/S work in the North Atlantic.

 

[Oreo]

How sad (to me, anyway), that politics should have factored into such a decision. This admission, to me, rather than making the USN look good, makes its leadership look lame.