FAA Seafire vs Corsair

[ThomasP]

Swordfish was built without SSFT or armour. Fitting armour protection for the pilot and consolidating the fuel load into a single SSFT was considered, but not proceeded with due to a combination of factors.

Skua was built without SSFT or armour. Some surviving airframes had armour fitted to protect the pilot from the rear.

Albacore was built with pilot rear armour and SSFT from the start.

Fulmar from the start was built with an 'armoured' SSFT that acted as pilot protection from the rear, with bullet-resistant glass windscreen. At some point, armour plate on the upper firewall at the front of the cockpit was added. Some Fulmar were later fitted with pilot rear head armour.

 

[EwenS]

You will never see me defending the Devastator or the Vindicator. But I was chiming in on a discussion of the Skua vs. the SBD which was already ongoing. Pointing out that the Skua was a terrible aircraft by comparison to the SBD, in contrary to what some were claiming, may be low hanging fruit, but it apparently needed to be pointed out.

By the time the Skua was retired, most front line combat aircraft flying on both sides in the Battle of Britain had already been fitted with some armor and some kind of self sealing fuel tanks. So the necessity of doing this had been recognized and implemented with other aircraft. Nor were the British the only people to realize that these were needed. The French also had several aircraft with these protective features flying and fighting during the Battle of France - the D.520 fighter, Br 693 fast bomber and Potez 63.11 had armor and self sealing tanks. Many Soviet aircraft, like the later variants of the I-16 fighter and Su-2 bomber were already being fitted with armor before the Battle of Britain even started, based on combat experience in the Spanish Civil War and in Manchuria. The LaGG-3 and Yak 1 fighters and the Il-2 and Pe 2 bombers (all introduced in 1941) all had at least some armor, which was later enhanced.

Armor and self sealing fuel tanks were not necessary for training flights in the US in 1940, but the Americans were already starting to fit armor, bullet proof glass and self sealing tanks to aircraft being sent to France and Britain before the Skua was retired. Once the war started, most of the USN and USAAF combat aircraft had both fairly heavy armor and self sealing tanks, (considerably better protection in fact than the aluminum "armor" on the fuselage fuel tank of a Hurricane or Spitfire at the time). Important export aircraft such as the Tomahawk IIB, in action with the RAF in 1941, had both armor and self sealing tanks.

Most Skua units were equipped with the Fairy Fulmar when the Skua was retired. According to "armouredcarriers.com", the Fulmar had at least one armored and self sealing fuel tank between the two crew positions, and the pilot had a bullet proof glass windscreen, but no armor behind his seat, and the navigator also had no armor of any kind. If that is correct, I would call that inadequate for a combat aircraft at that time. Did the Fairey Swordfish have armor or self sealing tanks? I was unable to find any reference to it. Same for the Fairey Albacore.

I would say that luckily for the servicemen of the FAA, the Skua was quickly retired, and though the Fulmar, Swordfish and Albacore soldiered on, they were soon augmented by more capable aircraft such as Martlets and Avengers which were better equipped for positive outcomes during encounters with enemy aircraft.

There seems to be a loss of perspective in this debate about the Skua and its operational use and the actual numbers involved.

Although only 190 were built, there were only ever 4 front line squadrons equipped with them and only 3 of those took them into combat.

800 - Oct 1938-Apr 1941. Spent most of its life on Ark Royal until 24/3/41 and then returned to the U.K. in April on Furious to re-equip with Fulmars.

801 - Mar-May 1939 with a couple of days at sea on Courageous in April before becoming a deck landing training squadron and renumbered as 769 on 24 May 1939, when the FAA reverted to RN control, then operating a variety of types.

801 reformed and used Skuas Jan 1940 - May 1941. Spent most of its time to Dec 1940 on Furious, then shore based except for a detachment left on Furious until early Feb 1941 while she ferried Hurricanes from Britain to Takoradi in West Africa. And they did virtually no flying. Became 800 X Flight on Fulmars in May 1941. 801 next reformed in Aug 1941 on Sea Hurricanes.

803 - Dec 1938 - Oct 1940 spent most of its time on Ark Royal with a few days on Glorious in April 1940. Converted to Fulmars and went to Formidable.

806 - Feb-Jun 1940. Only used Skuas from formation and while working up on Illustrious. All were replaced by Fulmars before she sailed to join the Med Fleet. This was the first squadron to receive the Fulmar.

In Sept 1939, Ark Royal's air group had 18 (9 each for 800 & 803 squadrons). 801 began in Jan 1940 with 6 increasing to 12 in June. And by the beginning of 1941 there was only 800 squadron on Ark Royal using them operationally, alongside 808 with Fulmars. 800 was replaced by 807 with Fulmars in April.

So at its peak there were maybe 30 airframes on the front line!

While Martlets began to arrive in late 1940 (from French orders) it was early 1942 before they became available in quantity to equip front line squadrons. And the Avenger only joined the FAA from Jan 1943.

 

[Shortround6]

Pointing out that the Skua was a terrible aircraft by comparison to the SBD, in contrary to what some were claiming, may be low hanging fruit, but it apparently needed to be pointed out.

What needs to be pointed out is that there were only 190 Skuas built. the last 50 were delivered as target tugs starting in Aug of 1939.

The Last Skua
dive bomber/ fighters were delivered on July 31st 1939.

This was the "SBD" in service in 1939.

The FIRST SBD-1s were delivered in the summer of 1940.

Apparently that needs to be pointed out.

 

[MikeMeech]

What needs to be pointed out is that there were only 190 Skuas built. the last 50 were delivered as target tugs starting in Aug of 1939.

The Last Skua
dive bomber/ fighters were delivered on July 31st 1939.

This was the "SBD" in service in 1939.

View attachment 682077

The FIRST SBD-1s were delivered in the summer of 1940.

Apparently that needs to be pointed out.

Hi
Already has been #493, for what it is worth. Of course without self-sealing fuel tanks or armour plate.

Hi
Skuas of Nos. 800 and 803 Sqns. dived bombed and sank the German cruiser 'Konigsberg' in Bergen Fjord on the 10th April, 1940. That month the first production SBD-1 was completed, it did not fly until 1st May and was not delivered to the USN until 6th September, 1940. When comparing types it should be remembered how much later than the Skua that the SBD entered service. The SBD was not a better aircraft than the Skua in April 1940 by the time the former saw action the Skua was long gone operationally (February 1941).

Mike

Mike

 

[Shortround6]

Hi
Already has been #493, for what it is worth. Of course without self-sealing fuel tanks or armour plate.

Mike

We are also comparing Skua end dates with SBD start dates.

Skua production delivery started in Sept 1938 although slowly. So we are comparing two planes that entered production almost 1 3/4 years apart.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

I think this is a rather slippery oversimplification going on here.

This aircraft (the A-17, made by Northrop, the same firm which produced the BT-1 you posted an image of) was already in production in the US from 1936 and had been deployed to the military by 1938. The US military chose to focus on multi-engine bombers so these were put on the back-burner, but these aircraft were directly related to the SBD, and I think already compared well to a Skua even that far back.

This was the version of the BT which was in production when the Skua was arriving on Carriers in 1939 - the BT-2 (bottom part of this image). The BT-2 had the larger engine as you can see and lacked the goofy looking fared undercarriage, these having been replaced with fully retractable wheels (like in the A-17 / A-33)

The SBD -1 (from the BT-2, below) went into service with the USMC in 1940, and with the Navy in early 1941. This is already a much better aircraft than the Skua, even before it got self sealing fuel tanks. The considerably upgraded SBD-3 was already in production by the time the SBD-1 was reaching units in early 1941.

The US did not rush the combat equipment into production at that point because, unlike the British, they were not already in war. But the SBD-3, based on the original mid 1930s designs of the BT-1 and A-17, proved to be a war-winner, very capable of sinking ships and fairly good at surviving attack by enemy fighters (especially when flown by highly trained USN pilots). Which is why they built 5,900 of them instead of 190.

Had the Skua been a more worthy design, I think it too would have been further developed. The Fulmar which replaced it was an adequate recon plane but wasn't a good fighter and certainly not a dive bomber. The RN / FAA adapted their obsolete Swordfish biplane to the needs of WW2 admirably, and certainly dealt a crippling blow with it to the Italian Navy at Taranto, but they could have used a functional modern strike aircraft for their Navy. They ultimately relied on the Avenger for this role as neither the Swordfish, the Albacore, nor their late arriving replacement the wonderfully named but technically challenged Fairey Barracuda proved capable in the strike role. I think the Firefly was the first adequate FAA carrier based strike aircraft.

Though the Corsair was arguably better.

 

[SaparotRob]

The SBD definitely looked better than the Skua. Especially the windscreen.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

I fully concede that the SBD was better than the Skua in part because it was a more complete design finished a bit later. The Skua, like the Swordfish and I'd say the Fulmar too, was rushed into action before it was ready, but this is the nature of war.

However, based on the A-17 design of 1936-38, had there been any real urgency, I believe they could have gotten something much more like the SBD into production earlier, the critical element being the availability of the more powerful R-1820 engine, with the possible other option being the R-1830.

 

[Shortround6]

I fully concede that the SBD was better than the Skua in part because it was a more complete design finished a bit later. The Skua, like the Swordfish and I'd say the Fulmar too, was rushed into action before it was ready, but this is the nature of war.

Production of the Skua as a dive bomber was stopped before the start of the war in Poland. There was no development during the war. It may have been rushed in the build up to war but Only the target tugs were being built when the war started.

The British changed their minds about dive bombing before the war started. Somebody/s thought that fleet defense could have done better with Blackburn Rocs.

The Skua never got a 1939-40 engine so we don't know what improvements could have been made. Because Blackburn was tooling up to make the Botha the Roc was farmed out to Boulton Paul for actual production which delayed things there.

But putting the Skua back into production seems a non starter given the actual situation.
Keeping the tooling at Blackburn, killing of the Roc and the Botha might have lead to a more combat capable FAA in 1940-41.

The whole A-17 to SBD linage is a little bogus.
Like the people that claim the Fulmar was developed from the Fairey battle.

The A-17 used a wing that was about 60 sq ft bigger and had about 6ft more wing span. The A-17 was also about 3/4 of ton lighter than a SBD.

A lot of times planes from the same design teams look similar and use some the same features.

 

[yulzari]

Production of the Skua as a dive bomber was stopped before the start of the war in Poland. There was no development during the war. It may have been rushed in the build up to war but Only the target tugs were being built when the war started.

The British changed their minds about dive bombing before the war started. Somebody/s thought that fleet defense could have done better with Blackburn Rocs.

The Skua never got a 1939-40 engine so we don't know what improvements could have been made. Because Blackburn was tooling up to make the Botha the Roc was farmed out to Boulton Paul for actual production which delayed things there.

But putting the Skua back into production seems a non starter given the actual situation.
Keeping the tooling at Blackburn, killing of the Roc and the Botha might have lead to a more combat capable FAA in 1940-41.

The whole A-17 to SBD linage is a little bogus.
Like the people that claim the Fulmar was developed from the Fairey battle.

The A-17 used a wing that was about 60 sq ft bigger and had about 6ft more wing span. The A-17 was also about 3/4 of ton lighter than a SBD.

A lot of times planes from the same design teams look similar and use some the same features.

I agree, although one can argue that the Fairey Fulmar was developed from the Light Bomber that was itself based upon the Battle. The Skua got the best available engine at the time it was designed. It had to be British and @900bhp was all that was coming out of a factory at that moment. The Pegasus itself was no more powerful at that time so the Perseus was as good as it got.

As I said on the Better Skua thread, the improved Skua was the Fulmar. If you wanted to dive bomb then strap four times the bomb load onto an Albacore and cruise to the target at much the same speed. As to what sort of bombs, well that is another thread.

 

[EwenS]

I keep reading the stories that the last 50 Skuas (or 70 per one source) were delivered as target tugs. Reading through the individual aircraft histories that does not appear to be true.(See Sturtivant "Fleet Air Arm Aircraft 1939 to 1945").

Most were going to an MU and then to 759 squadron, the Fleet Fighter School, initially. L3055 the second to last produced was with Ark Royal 800 squadron in May 1940 when lost. L3046 was on Ark in April 1940. Same with L3007 from July1940, the first of the last 50. L3009, L3010, L3011, L3015, L3020, L3028, L3033, amongst others all served with the 4 front line Skua squadrons in 1940/41.

Does anyone have a copy of Matthew Willis's "Blackburn Skua and Roc" to hand? The answer is probably in there.
Amazon product ASIN B00RWO3J64
View: https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B00RWO3J64/

 

[Reluctant Poster]

I keep reading the stories that the last 50 Skuas (or 70 per one source) were delivered as target tugs. Reading through the individual aircraft histories that does not appear to be true.(See Sturtivant "Fleet Air Arm Aircraft 1939 to 1945").

Most were going to an MU and then to 759 squadron, the Fleet Fighter School, initially. L3055 the second to last produced was with Ark Royal 800 squadron in May 1940 when lost. L3046 was on Ark in April 1940. Same with L3007 from July1940, the first of the last 50. L3009, L3010, L3011, L3015, L3020, L3028, L3033, amongst others all served with the 4 front line Skua squadrons in 1940/41.

Does anyone have a copy of Matthew Willis's "Blackburn Skua and Roc" to hand? The answer is probably in there.
Amazon product ASIN B00RWO3J64
View: https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B00RWO3J64/

Skuas were being used for target towing by early 1940.
DH Clarke had a column in Royal Airforce Flying Review called "What Were They Like to Fly" in which he wrote stories about the myriad of aircraft types he flew. In his article "Ghost Fighters Over Dunkirk" he recounts his story of flying his Skua towing flares over Dunkirk to hopefully illuminate any German ships trying to interfere with the evacuation.

He wrote another article on flying the Skua which I will look for. Incidentally the Skua was one of his 6 favorite aircraft to fly (Gauntlet, Fury (biplane), Harvard, Macchi C 200, Skua and of course the Spitfire)
Here's a reprint of his experience with the Macchi

STORMO! "Acid Test" by D.H. Clarke, D.F.C, A.F.C

The Model Magazine of the Regia Aeronautica and ANR

www.stormomagazine.com

 

[Shortround6]

from the Light Bomber that was itself based upon the Battle.

It's that "based on" part that is the problem.
The light bomber used a small wing in all aspects, not just a Battle wing cut down.
The light bomber did away with the bomb cells inside the wing
The light bomber used sideways retracting landing gear
The light bomber used a shorter fuselage.
The light bomber used a skinner fuselage without a bomb aimers position in the crew compartment.

They were designed by the same man and the same team.

 

[yulzari]

It's that "based on" part that is the problem.
The light bomber used a small wing in all aspects, not just a Battle wing cut down.
The light bomber did away with the bomb cells inside the wing
The light bomber used sideways retracting landing gear
The light bomber used a shorter fuselage.
The light bomber used a skinner fuselage without a bomb aimers position in the crew compartment.

They were designed by the same man and the same team.

True, otherwise it would be an actual Battle. Based upon the experience and engineering of the Battle but designed as you say.Then that was the experience and engineering drawn upon for the Fulmar which had wing guns and folding wings etc. Not conversions of the original but drawing upon the original.

 

[Shortround6]

True, otherwise it would be an actual Battle. Based upon the experience and engineering of the Battle but designed as you say.Then that was the experience and engineering drawn upon for the Fulmar which had wing guns and folding wings etc. Not conversions of the original but drawing upon the original.

The Dauntless/ A-17 was sort of the same. Based on experience and engineering, but not quite the same (nobody tried to use A-17s from carrier decks although they did use them a floatplanes.

 

[Reluctant Poster]

I fully concede that the SBD was better than the Skua in part because it was a more complete design finished a bit later. The Skua, like the Swordfish and I'd say the Fulmar too, was rushed into action before it was ready, but this is the nature of war.

However, based on the A-17 design of 1936-38, had there been any real urgency, I believe they could have gotten something much more like the SBD into production earlier, the critical element being the availability of the more powerful R-1820 engine, with the possible other option being the R-1830.

I think the main advantage the A17 had was the normal undercarriage. The "spats" semi retractable style seemed to have some popularity in the 30s. The Devastator and Seversky P-35 come to mind. the only advantage I can see is less damage in a wheels up landing.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

The Dauntless/ A-17 was sort of the same. Based on experience and engineering, but not quite the same (nobody tried to use A-17s from carrier decks although they did use them a floatplanes.

You are certain they didn't share any major components or other design features between A-17 and BT-2/ SBD? A lot of articles suggest a link though I haven't seen very solid evidence. The pictures, especially the fuselage, look similar enough that it gives me doubts that it is just "company culture". Was Jack Northrop the designer in both cases or was it someone else?

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

I think the main advantage the A17 had was the normal undercarriage. The "spats" semi retractable style seemed to have some popularity in the 30s. The Devastator and Seversky P-35 come to mind. the only advantage I can see is less damage in a wheels up landing.

yeah I agree, and I think that's kind of the idea of that. Plus I think that simpler landing gear isn't as hard to make as the rotating / folding kind like on a Hawk or P-40, and doesn't take up as much wing space as the more conventional type like on a P-51. The landing gear on the B-17 was semi-recessed kind of like that.

Having wheels that still provide some cushion (and maybe still rotate?) in 'up' makes a lot of sense for pilots who are transitioning from fixed undercarriage trainers, which was still an issue for a while into the war.

I also think that the paramount importance of speed above almost all other factors was only slowly beginning to dawn on aircraft designers the world over. The British and Germans just kind of got lucky with the Spitfire and 109 design. I know the legacy of Supermarine and what they learned with the S-6, I am not sure why they made the 109 such a neat, trim little package so that it had such potential for high speed, but they certainly did it.

Other 30s vintage aircraft had similar potential but never got powerful enough engines to really shine. I'm looking at you D.520, Yak-1. Or didn't get them at first, but shined later when an improved engine did finally become available - yes that means you G.50 / 55, MC. 200 / 202 / 205, LaGG-3 / 5 / 7, Yak series etc.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

You are certain they didn't share any major components or other design features between A-17 and BT-2/ SBD? A lot of articles suggest a link though I haven't seen very solid evidence. The pictures, especially the fuselage, look similar enough that it gives me doubts that it is just "company culture". Was Jack Northrop the designer in both cases or was it someone else?

Components were probably similar but not interchangeable but no doubt how this design emerged. Jack Northrop worked with/ for and part of Douglas until he broke out on his own during the late 30s. The BT-1 design was absorbed by Douglas, Ed Heinemann refined the design ns the SBD was born.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

Ah, really interesting. So Jack Northrop made the original design and Ed Heinemann perfected it. No wonder it worked out so well.