Fairey 2-engined bomber - any worth in that?

[tomo pauk]

Many times called 'twin Battle', there was Fairey's 2-engined bomber monoplane project from 1933. Seems like it was offered to fulfill the specification P.27/32, that was eventually won the by the Battle design.
Engines on the twin look like small V12s - Kestrels, not Merlins?
So for the sake of discussion, lets say Fairey wins the spec. What might we expect from the A/C, despite the insufficient info we have? What to do with it come ww2? Plausible improvements by then (other engines, hopefully)? What else does not get to be made (apart from Battle, obviously)?

 

[Shortround6]

Engines on the twin look like small V12s - Kestrels, not Merlins?

Quite possibly the Fairey P.12 Prince engine.

Fairey P.12 Prince Aircraft Engine

Starting in the mid-1920s, the Fairey Aviation Company made a number of attempts to enter the aircraft engine business in Britain. Designed by Richard Forsyth, the P.12 Prince was their first origi…

oldmachinepress.com

With the Air Ministry's opposition to Fairey getting into the engine business the only real hope for the Twin Battle (Twittle or Twattle?) was to use Kestrels.
With the hoped for Arms Treaty aiming for a 6300lb empty weight for a single engine plane trying to design a plane that would take two Merlins as a "back up" if the Arms Treaty was re-instated/modified is too much of a stretch.

So for the sake of discussion, lets say Fairey wins the spec. What might we expect from the A/C, despite the insufficient info we have? What to do with it come ww2? Plausible improvements by then (other engines, hopefully)?

The only logical path forward was using the Kestrels and progressing to the Peregrine as it became available.

Adding a 2nd Merlin to the Battle would have increased empty weight by about 1900-2,000lbs. and possibly more (depends on props and fuel/oil tanks, etc

Granted swapping Merlins for Peregrines would not be quite that bad (but empty weight with twin Kestrels/Peregrines was going to be heavier to begin with) , but using Merlins and trying to go fast was going to suck up a lot of fuel.

You are not going to get a metal Mosquito several years early

 

[tomo pauk]

Adding a 2nd Merlin to the Battle would have increased empty weight by about 1900-2,000lbs. and possibly more (depends on props and fuel/oil tanks, etc

Powered by Merlins would've probably meant that resulting aircraft is roughly weight of the Bf 110?

You are not going to get a metal Mosquito several years early

Not with that thick wings and early Merlins

 

[Admiral Beez]

Did Fairey ever produce a twin engined aircraft?

I would have liked to have seen a twin Griffon or Sabre FC1 as a transport.

 

[wuzak]

Did Fairey ever produce a twin engined aircraft?

Does the Fairey Gannet count - powered by the twin Mamba coupled turboprop.

What about the Fairey Rotodyne?

I would have liked to have seen a twin Griffon or Sabre FC1 as a transport.

Why twin?

Would it not be better with 4 Merlins?

 

[Admiral Beez]

Why twin?

It's the Fairey twin thread. Otherwise, yes, four Merlins or Hercules will do fine.

 

[EwenS]

Fairey F.2 1917

Fairey F.2 - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Fairey Hendon monoplane heavy bomber 1930

Fairey Hendon - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Do the Jet Gyrodyne or Rotodyne count at all? 1 & 2 engines respectively but then 2 & 4 rotor tip jets to add to the mix.

 

[EwenS]

There was also a 1944 design for a Fairey "Naval Strike Fighter" with a tandem Merlin arrangement based on the Spearfish airframe.

Fairey Project A

Model of Fairey Project A strike fighter for the Royal Navy circa 1944. Artist's concept Fairey Project A strike fighter. Source: http://www.century-of-flight.net/Aviation%20history/photo_albums/timeline/ww2/Fairey%20Firefly.htm

www.secretprojects.co.uk

 

[tomo pauk]

A current and interesting discussion wrt. the 2-engined bomber by Fairey can be read here.

 

[Howard Gibson]

Many times called 'twin Battle', there was Fairey's 2-engined bomber monoplane project from 1933. Seems like it was offered to fulfill the specification P.27/32, that was eventually won the by the Battle design.
Engines on the twin look like small V12s - Kestrels, not Merlins?
So for the sake of discussion, lets say Fairey wins the spec. What might we expect from the A/C, despite the insufficient info we have? What to do with it come ww2? Plausible improvements by then (other engines, hopefully)? What else does not get to be made (apart from Battle, obviously)?

If the engines become Merlins, you have an interesting high speed bomber. Those wings are awfully thick though.

 

[yulzari]

If the engines become Merlins, you have an interesting high speed bomber. Those wings are awfully thick though.

But then, if you thin the wings, you need a bigger fuselage to accommodate the bombs which sit in wing bomb cells in the OTL Battle. But then the extra power would let you carry a far heavier bomb load so again you would need a bigger fuselage but you now have extra space in the wings for more fuel.

 

[nuuumannn]

The issue that affects this aircraft in service is the same that affects the Battle, pre-war doctrine in use in a battlefield environment leads to high losses and a poor combat record, thus affecting its reputation and scarring it as a bad aircraft, which, it has to be said, the Battle actually wasn't. It's reputation is tainted by its tactical use during the Battle of France.

 

[Howard Gibson]

But then, if you thin the wings, you need a bigger fuselage to accommodate the bombs which sit in wing bomb cells in the OTL Battle. But then the extra power would let you carry a far heavier bomb load so again you would need a bigger fuselage but you now have extra space in the wings for more fuel.

The Germans did fine carrying bomb on external mounts. How long a range does this bomber need? I would be willing to give up a couple of hundred miles of range for twenty or thirty mph of top speed.