FAA variant of Vickers Wellesley

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

The design that led to the TBF wasn't even requested by the USN until 1939 with prototype contracts awarded in April 1940. Production didn't start until 1942.

Douglas only built 130 TBD between 1937 and 1939 for the USN. Does it really represent a huge improvement in performance over the Swordfish?
 
I researched that myself.
The answer is "nope". It's gotta be better than a Wellesley, though.
 
Yes and no. The TBD first flew in 1935. First production was in 1937. Out of the 129 built the last 15 were built to replace attrition. The TBD never got an upgraded engine.
 
nuuumannn said:
This is the thing, why would you build the Wellesley or buy foreign when you've already got the Swordfish?
Click to expand...
as far as buying foreign goes............
An enclosed cockpit.
A power operated wing folding arrangement.
All metal.
More speed.
Variable speed propeller.

Of course if you don't have any bombs bigger than 500lbs then the need to mount a 1000lb bomb doesn't matter to the Swordfish.
 
Shortround6 said:
An enclosed cockpit.
A power operated wing folding arrangement.
All metal.
More speed.
Click to expand...


Less utility and doesn't fulfil British expectations of the requirement. The British wanted a multi-role platform that possessed low speed manoeuvrability, so in the early 1930s when the Swordfish was conceived, biplane torpedo types were more suited to what was wanted. This began, as mentioned earlier during the Great War. Not only that, the Swordfish outlasted its intended replacement and the TBD. Granted, its replacement wasn't much of an advance over it, but the Applecore offered crew comfort at least. It's also worth mentioning that the TBD was around 2,000 lbs heavier than the Swordfish despite being marginally smaller - in length, and although the TBD had a greater span, the Swordfish had more wings and a greater wing area.
 
Last edited:
So, just a wee reminder regarding the FAA's torpedoplane requirements, the spec that the Swordfish was built to S.15/33 for a General Purpose Spotter-Reconnaissance and Torpedo Aircraft that was capable of being produced and or converted for use on floats and wheeled undercarriage and could be catapulted from warships. The Swordfish or TSR.II (sound familiar? For Torpedo Spotter Reconnaissance) was chosen because it was the most suitable and it first flew in 1934, although a production contract was also awarded to Blackburn's entry the B.6 Shark also.

The Swordfish's replacement specification was based on two cancelled specifications, M.7/36 and O.8/36 which mirrored the Swordfish's TSR specification but with higher minimum speeds. A contract was issued to Fairey based on these two specs but no one else issued a tender, which is odd, so the FAA received the Albacore by default. Perhaps a purpose built monoplane - there is nowhere in the spec that calls for specifically a biplane - that matches the catapult floatplane/landplane torpedo carrier light bomber reconnaissance spec?

The TBD is underpowered for its weight, so it really needs more power if it was to be able to carry out the catapult and floatplane requirements.
 
Perhaps we are looking at this the wrong way; instead of trying to convert the Wellesley into a carrier aircraft, which in my opinion is a bad idea, why not use the technology that Vickers employed in designing the Wellesley as the basis of a carrier strike aircraft to fulfil either S.15/33 or its replacement? It doesn't have to/should not be a "Wellesley", but it has to be able to provide increased performance over existing entries to the spec, ie the Blackburn and Fairey entries, yet still be able to carry out the floatplane and catapult requirements.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

A
1939-1942 FAA: Better aircraft or more aircraft?
2 3
Replies
51
Views
2K
Admiral Beez
A
W
What if the Me109Z instead of Bf110?
Replies
11
Views
941
Admiral Beez
A
A
Best of the pre-war rest: Czechoslovakians, Poles, Romanians or Yugoslavs?
Replies
6
Views
693
Airborne2001
A
A
Given the engines available, best FAA strike and fighters 1939-1940?
3 4 5
Replies
83
Views
5K
SaparotRob
M
If German have access to high ocatane fuel, how does that impact the performance of their fighters?
Replies
19
Views
658
Luft.4
L
Menu
Log in
Register