Fairey Albacore. Was so awful?

[Escuadrilla Azul]

As most know, the Albacore was designed as the Swordfish sustitute but failed to replace It and get phased out of frontline squadrons, and production, much earlier than its predecesor.

It didn't get the RP that the Swordfish got, neither the ASV radar.

Was It because its flying characteristics were utter bad? Or the gains weren't offset by other problema? Or just it failed to get a niche role as sub hunter in CVEs as the Swordfish did do to not been STOL enough?

 

[yulzari]

The Albacore lifted more off a naval carrier deck, further and faster. Did excellent dive bombing in the Western Desert and the Channel ports. Cruised faster than a Swordfish flat out. Twice the bomb load of a Fairey Battle or Bristol Blenheim and four times that of a Skua. It's operational cruising speed was similar to the Japanese Nakajima B5N. Technically it remained in service (in Aden in 1946) beyond the service of the Swordfish.

The Swordfish only survived by being able to launch and land off an escort carrier and cruise for 5 hours around a limited locality. Essentially filled the role now done by ASW helicopters. In it's designed roles it was comfortably out performed by the Albacore. It too dive bombed but over Northern France. Blackburn continued to make spare to maintain the Swordfish but Fairey ceased making Albacore spares when the Albacore was replaced by the Barracuda. It was the presence of such spares that kept Swordfish available for anti midget submarines into 1945.

 

[Escuadrilla Azul]

The Albacore lifted more off a naval carrier deck, further and faster. Did excellent dive bombing in the Western Desert and the Channel ports. Cruised faster than a Swordfish flat out. Twice the bomb load of a Fairey Battle or Bristol Blenheim and four times that of a Skua. It's operational cruising speed was similar to the Japanese Nakajima B5N.

The Swordfish only survived by being able to launch and land off an escort carrier and cruise for 5 hours around a limited locality. Essentially filled the role now done by ASW helicopters. In it's designed roles it was comfortably out performed by the Albacore. It too dive bombed but over Northern France. Blackburn continued to make spare to maintain the Swordfish but Fairey ceased making spares when the Albacore was replaced by the Barracuda. It was the presence of such spares that kept Swordfish available for anti midget submarines into 1945.

So it was only the STOL capabilities of the Swordfish and loitier time over Atlantic convoys that made It Outlast the Albacore.

 

[yulzari]

So it was only the STOL capabilities of the Swordfish and loitier time over Atlantic convoys that made It Outlast the Albacore.

Yes. Operationally, if they could have used Albacores on escort carriers they would have preferred to do so, but the Swordfish did it's one trick well. Plus Blackburns, who made most of the Swordfish and had a purpose built factory to do just that, could continue to support it whilst Fairey needed their factory to make Barracudas instead of Albacores after 1942.

 

[RCAFson]

As most know, the Albacore was designed as the Swordfish sustitute but failed to replace It and get phased out of frontline squadrons, and production, much earlier than its predecesor.

It didn't get the RP that the Swordfish got, neither the ASV radar.

Was It because its flying characteristics were utter bad? Or the gains weren't offset by other problema? Or just it failed to get a niche role as sub hunter in CVEs as the Swordfish did do to not been STOL enough?

The Albacore was superior to the Swordfish in STOL, ceiling, speed, range, ordnance loads and it was fitted with ASV II radar, but not the later centimetric types. However, the Albacore was considerably more expensive to make, and unlike the Swordfish was only built by Fairey while the Swordfish was subcontracted to Blackburn. Consequently when Fairey began producing newer aircraft designs they had to shut down the Albacore production line.

 

[Juha3]

According to Eric Brown Albacore was less manoeuvrable and had heavy controls. With only one peashooter rear gun in both Albacore had even less chances to survive interception and was easier target to AA.

 

[RCAFson]

According to Eric Brown Albacore was less manoeuvrable and had heavy controls. With only one peashooter rear gun in both Albacore had even less chances to survive interception and was easier target to AA.

As noted in Brown's "Wings of the Navy" Albacores also were also fitted with twin Vickers K MGs for the rear gunner. Wallace in "Carrier Observer" describes how, on 5 April 1942, an Albacore out maneuvered an intercepting Zero. Being "less maneuverable" than the legendary maneuverable Swordfish, didn't mean unmanoeuvrable in an absolute sense.

 

[fastmongrel]

The manoeuvrability of the Albacore is a curious one. I have read that during a torpedo attack the planes controls were so heavy that dodging flak was impossible and after the drop all the pilot could do was to fly straight over the target.

Then I have read that the plane was so manoeuvrable during landing that pilots used to try and beat each other by landing and stopping on a cross on the runway. The Albacore was used as a night time bomber aircraft in N Africa dive bombing targets from 3000 feet illuminated by a parachute flare.

RCAFson says that an Albacore outmanoeuvred a Zero I think it also shot it down if it's the same incident I am thinking of. So how is it an aircraft that needs the muscles of an 800 pound Gorilla to dodge Flak can also land on a spot and dodge a Zero.

I wonder if it's those British roundels again they really must have used some extraordinarily heavy draggy paint

 

[RCAFson]

The manoeuvrability of the Albacore is a curious one. I have read that during a torpedo attack the planes controls were so heavy that dodging flak was impossible and after the drop all the pilot could do was to fly straight over the target.

Then I have read that the plane was so manoeuvrable during landing that pilots used to try and beat each other by landing and stopping on a cross on the runway. The Albacore was used as a night time bomber aircraft in N Africa dive bombing targets from 3000 feet illuminated by a parachute flare.

RCAFson says that an Albacore outmanoeuvred a Zero I think it also shot it down if it's the same incident I am thinking of. So how is it an aircraft that needs the muscles of an 800 pound Gorilla to dodge Flak can also land on a spot and dodge a Zero.

I wonder if it's those British roundels again they really must have used some extraordinarily heavy draggy paint

SOP was to use a divebomber attack profile during a torpedo attack, and in that case the aircraft could build up considerable speed, perhaps leading to heavy controls. Additionally, Fairey may have made the controls heavy so that pilots wouldn't overstress the airframe, something that occasionally happened with the Swordfish.

The Albacore that I referred to previously didn't shoot down the Zero although they duelled for some minutes. An Albacore did claim a Ju-87 front gun kill during the Kirkenes and Petsamo raid in August 1941.

 

[buffnut453]

The manoeuvrability of the Albacore is a curious one. I have read that during a torpedo attack the planes controls were so heavy that dodging flak was impossible and after the drop all the pilot could do was to fly straight over the target.

Not sure I'm tracking this correctly. There wasn't a WW2 aircraft out there that could "dodge flak". It was a physical impossibility (unless the pilot could see the shell coming towards him and react in time to avoid it...which I very much doubt).

I'm not sure any torpedo bomber was overly manoeuverable while still carrying its load. Additionally, during the actual attack, the torpedo pilot would be concentrating on ensuring the weapon was correctly aligned towards the target. It's also not that uncommon for torpedo aircraft to have to overfly the target after weapon release, If nothing else, staying low may actually increase chances of survival compared to climbing...and turning a formation of aircraft is much harder, and slower, than just turning an individual aircraft.

 

[fastmongrel]

The Albacore that I referred to previously didn't shoot down the Zero although they duelled for some minutes. An Albacore did claim a Ju-87 front gun kill during the Kirkenes and Petsamo raid in August 1941.

Probably what I was mixing up with the Zero fight.

I'm not sure any torpedo bomber was overly manoeuverable while still carrying its load. Additionally, during the actual attack, the torpedo pilot would be concentrating on ensuring the weapon was correctly aligned towards the target. It's also not that uncommon for torpedo aircraft to have to overfly the target after weapon release, If nothing else, staying low may actually increase chances of survival compared to climbing...and turning a formation of aircraft is much harder, and slower, than just turning an individual aircraft.

But for some reason the Albacore is damned as a heavyweight slug when it seems it was no worse than any other torpedo bomber.

 

[Graeme]

(Ian Cameron - Wings of the Morning)

 

[RCAFson]

View attachment 595564

(Ian Cameron - Wings of the Morning)

AFAIK, the Albacore never participated in an attack on Scharnhorst. Top speed was about 145- 150 knots but they could dive nearly vertically at over 200 knots. The only time they suffered crippling losses was at Kirkenes and Petsamo (Aug 1941) when they had to fly through hills and a fjord lined with flak and then were caught un-escorted by a force of Me-110s, 109s and JU87s, and it's likely that any contemporary torpedo bomber would have suffered similar losses. 11 of the 20 Albacores that attacked Kirkenes were shot down, but probably about 3 were lost due to flak, while 1 of 9 that attacked Petsamo was shot down, probably by a 109.

 

[Admiral Beez]

As most know, the Albacore was designed as the Swordfish sustitute but failed to replace It

I think the Albacore was the wrong successor to the Swordfish. The FAA should have just kept ordering Stringbags whilst demanding its successor be something akin (but produced from 1939 onwards) to the Barracuda or a torpedo variant of the Battle/Fulmar. Skip the complexities of high angle divebombing, keep it simple.

 

[RCAFson]

I think the Albacore was the wrong successor to the Swordfish. The FAA should have just kept ordering Stringbags whilst demanding its successor be something akin (but produced from 1939 onwards) to the Barracuda or a torpedo variant of the Battle/Fulmar. Skip the complexities of high angle divebombing, keep it simple.

The FAA was saddled with a number of older, slower carriers with short flight decks and given available engines a monoplane TB strike aircraft wasn't feasible plus DB capability was a critical requirement. The Albacore itself was delayed due to development problems with the Taurus engine and it would have entered service a year sooner except for the engine problems.

 

[Admiral Beez]

The FAA was saddled with a number of older, slower carriers with short flight decks and given available engines a monoplane TB strike aircraft wasn't feasible plus DB capability was a critical requirement.

Then just keep making Swordfish until a monoplane TSR with a sufficiently powerful engine for CVL/E ops can be procured. If the Avenger can fly off 15 knot CVEs, so can other monoplane strike aircraft.... the trick is getting a powerful enough Merlin or Hercules engine. Until that's available, keep pumping out the Stringbags. Keep the Swordfish's low angle divebomb capability, I'm saying delaying the Barracuda while sorting out how to combine high speed, high angle divebombing and torpedo capability is a waste of time. The Swordfish's replacement need only mirror the formers existing DB capability.

 

[Escuadrilla Azul]

Then just keep making Swordfish until a monoplane TSR with a sufficiently powerful engine for CVL/E ops can be procured. If the Avenger can fly off 15 knot CVEs, so can other monoplane strike aircraft.... the trick is getting a powerful enough Merlin or Hercules engine. Until that's available, keep pumping out the Stringbags. Keep the Swordfish's low angle divebomb capability, I'm saying delaying the Barracuda while sorting out how to combine high speed, high angle divebombing and torpedo capability is a waste of time. The Swordfish's replacement need only mirror the formers existing DB capability.

Perhaps the Dauntless could be a good answer to keep the DB capability and would be small enough to be fitted in the smaller british carriers.

EDIT: It is kinda weird that the british didn't field the Dauntless given that they used many others USA carrier planes.

 

[Admiral Beez]

EDIT: It is kinda weird that the british didn't field the Dauntless given that they used many others USA carrier planes.

I suspect this is due to the SBD's non-folding wings, and that the Swordfish and Albacore could already divebomber and carry a torpedo - an important consideration with the RN's small CAGs.

The USN received its first SBD in early 1941, by which time the only British carriers in service that could operate the Dauntless were HMS Indomitable (forward lift only, commissioned Oct 1941), HMS Furious, HMS Eagle and IIRC, the old Argus. The SBD's wingspan was 42 ft, but the lifts on the three Illustrious class and HMS Ark Royal were between 24 and 22 feet wide, with HMS Hermes' lift being 36 feet wide. Since the Seafire and Sea Hurricanes used on HMS Indomitable (see hangar below), Eagle, Furious and Argus were already non-folding types, there was no room for a non-folding dive bomber.

Nevertheless the FAA did receive nine SBDs, but I suspect they decided to wait for the Tarpons (Avengers).

Canada was producing the Helldiver and like the Dauntless it was evaluated by the FAA, and also rejected. Great info on the Canadian Helldivers here Harold A. Skaarup Web page

 

[Escuadrilla Azul]

595649[/ATTACH]

Never know about that and never seen a SBD with british roundels.

I think your explanation must be true but still is some kind of weird since FAA don't hesitate in ordering other non foldable wings aircraft (fighters all, all to be said). It should be interesting to read the evaluation about the SBD.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Never know about that and never seen a SBD with british roundels.

I think your explanation must be true but still is some kind of weird since FAA don't hesitate in ordering other non foldable wings aircraft (fighters all, all to be said). It should be interesting to read the evaluation about the SBD.

Perhaps the USN wanted them all for themselves, they did have eleven Essex class ordered by the time the Dauntless enters USN service in early 1941.

The Royal Navy did get some other USN dive bombers....

The Vought Chesapeake (SB2U Vindicator) dive bomber, v-156-b1

And the Brewster Bermuda (SB2A Buccaneer), though I believe these were not carrier capable. The few the Brits got went to the RAF....

Of course the most well known US dive bomber in British service is the Vultee Vengeance.