Fairey Albacore. Was so awful?

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

There were 2 primary reasons for the design and purchase of the Albacore.

1. There was no acceptable 1938 monoplane Torpedo-Dive Bomber design that showed any advantage over the Albacore (in expected operations) that did not also have disadvantages that limited any reason to buy the monoplane. The primary reason for this was no available engine of the power needed to allow the monoplane designs to operate off of carriers as well as the biplane designs could. This engine problem is the same one that limited the capability of the Skua (hence its 500 lb maximum bomb size, where the competitive biplane designs for the Skua type could carry a 1000 lb maximum bomb size). I would also say that the engine problem is what delayed the Barracuda's service entry, which was the first RN/FAA carrier capable monoplane that could lift the same ordnance load as the Albacore.

2. Around 1930 the RN/FAA considered the limit for carrier flight operations to be Beaufort 6 (winds of 22- 27 knots, waves of 9-13 ft), a decision based on the light weight aircraft of the time being blown around. Around 1935 the RN/FAA began to train for night operations, with the intent of being able to attack shore targets (and ships if they were locatable) day or night in any weather in which the carrier aircraft would operate. By the time (1937-1938) the RN/FAA decided they needed a more capable TB or TSR then the Swordfish, they were already well versed in night and all-weather operations.

Due to reasons 1 & 2 the Albacore was designed to carry a maximum weapons load of around 2000 lbs, operate day or night and in any practical weather - practical as defined by the RN/FAA. During one war-time launch in Beaufort 8 conditions (winds of 34-40 knots, waves 18-25 ft) they had to spot each plane individually to the fore of the island (the TO runs were only 1.5-2 aircraft lengths) and time the TO runs to the rise and fall of the bow.:shock:

Somewhere on the internet there is a video of Albacores launching in very heavy seas. It is hard to see due to the film being shot from the front quarter, but you can tell that the Albacore is not even reaching the bow of the carrier before it is already 30-40 ft above the flight deck and turning to port in order to avoid getting blown back into the island. I used to have a download of the video but it went away when my last laptop crapped out.:(
 
Last edited:
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.

The Taurus engine problems could not have been foreseen and the Albacore was a much better strike aircraft than the Swordfish.

The Avenger didn't arrive in numbers until Aug 1942 and normally had to be catapulted off a CVE.

The biggest design flaw in the Barracuda was the mid wing design, which forced the use of very long, heavy and draggy LG. Additionally, the mid wing mounted Fairey-Youngman flaps created airflow problems over the tailplane, which would have been avoided in a low wing design. However, the wing location was mandated by the FAA, not Fairey.
 
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

View attachment 595663

Don't remember about Vindicator in FAA service. I don't ser any SN or squadron Codes. It was used operationally or just for trials and evaluation?
 
Don't remember about Vindicator in FAA service. I don't ser any SN or squadron Codes. It was used operationally or just for trials and evaluation?
I recommend clicking on the link above for details on the FAA's experience with the Vindicator. It does not appear to have ever landed on a RN carrier.

"Squadron No. 811 based at RNAS Lee-on-Solent was the only squadron to receive enough Chesapeakes for operational service. The Squadron received a total of 14 aircraft during July of 1941. The aircraft remained on duty for only five months, being replaced by Fairey Swordfish aircraft in November."
 
I recommend clicking on the link above for details on the FAA's experience with the Vindicator. It does not appear to have ever landed on a RN carrier.

"Squadron No. 811 based at RNAS Lee-on-Solent was the only squadron to receive enough Chesapeakes for operational service. The Squadron received a total of 14 aircraft during July of 1941. The aircraft remained on duty for only five months, being replaced by Fairey Swordfish aircraft in November."
A pretty expendable career in british service.
 
Last edited:
A pretty expendable career in british service.
The Chesapeake was withdrawn from FAA service in summer 1941, about the same time as the Blackburn Skua. Perhaps rather than rejecting the Chesapeake outright, the FAA had decided that they didn't want a dedicated dive bomber of any type. They certainly could have bought Helldivers from CC&F if they wanted a dedicated DB, shown in Canadian production below in 1942/3.

DyPW1KJjedFr-nxptbrujItBkEY97DjJncBqM6PLx5yYyapD0ZK597Sf7Gh5XJ16_w=s1200.jpg
 
Don't remember about Vindicator in FAA service. I don't ser any SN or squadron Codes. It was used operationally or just for trials and evaluation?

The UK took over French orders for the SB2U and thus ended up with a number of SB2Us.

It was found, during FAA trials, to have very poor STOL characteristics when carrying a useful war load. There had been some plans to operate them from CVEs but this was not feasible due to the STOL issues.
 
The Chesapeake was withdrawn from FAA service in summer 1941, about the same time as the Blackburn Skua. Perhaps rather than rejecting the Chesapeake outright, the FAA had decided that they didn't want a dedicated dive bomber of any type. They certainly could have bought Helldivers from CC&F if they wanted a dedicated DB, shown in Canadian production below in 1942/3.

View attachment 595739

The SB2U wasn't really a DB as it was found to be unsuitable for that role, even in USN service.

The FAA did obtain SB2Cs and during trials they were found to be unsuitable for CVE operations while their folded dimensions prevented operations from RN fleet carriers.
 
Never know about that and never seen a SBD with british roundels.
Here's a diecast one we can buy. SBD-5 Dauntless Dive Bomber UK Royal Navy FAA MK.1

Armour Franklin Mint 1/48 Scale Diecast - B11b934 DB 1 Dauntless for sale online | eBay
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...Was It because its flying characteristics were utter bad?
I'd take the Albacore over the Devastator. The latter is 45 mph faster in top speed, but the Albacore has a higher cruise speed, longer range and much better STOL characteristics. Coincidentally, both were eventually in large part replaced by the Avenger (Tarpon).
 
Last edited:
As an eBay Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
Here's a diecast one we can buy. SBD-5 Dauntless Dive Bomber UK Royal Navy FAA MK.1
I'd take the Albacore over the Devastator. The latter is 45 mph faster in top speed, but the Albacore has a higher cruise speed, longer range and much better STOL characteristics. Coincidentally, both were eventually in large part replaced by the Avenger (Tarpon).
I think the Devastator got a bad reputation because the less than stellar performance in Coral Sea and Midway but it's highly doubtfull that any other TB of the time would had fared it any better given the lack of fighter escort and the faulty torpedos. Not even the TBF had an auspicious combat record at Midway.

At Salamua-Lae, the Devastator fared well and helped the Allied war effort.
 
I think the Devastator got a bad reputation because the less than stellar performance in Coral Sea and Midway but it's highly doubtfull that any other TB of the time would had fared it any better given the lack of fighter escort and the faulty torpedos.
I certainly don't think the Albacore would have fared any better at Midway. The best carrier torpedo bomber available in sizeable quantities is the Nakajima B5N, bar none.
 
(To the tune of My bonnie lies over the ocean.)

The Swordfish relies on her Peggy,​
The modified Taurus ain't sound.​
So the Swordfish flies off on her missions,​
While the Albacore stays on the ground.​
Bring back, bring back,​
Oh bring back my Stringbag to me, to me .....​

FAA song, quoted by Lord Kilbracken in his excellent memoir Bring Back My Stringbag (ISBN 0 330 26172 X).

He also mentions that one of the many problems with the Barracuda was that it literally anaethetised unfortunate pilots. A hydraulic pipe was vulnerable to fracturing in just the right place to spray hydraulic fluid into the pilot's face. The fluid contained ether. Quite a few people died before they figured that one out.

Finally, he was with 811 when they were flying the Chesapeakes. It was an evaluation job: the pilots found nothing much wrong with them but the FAA decided that Hitler was doomed in any event.
 
The only thing wrong with either the Swordfish or Albacore is that there aren't enough of them. June 1940, HMS Glorious has only six on board (not that six dozen onboard would matter if left in the hangar). Nov 1940, HMS Illustrious and Eagle have only twenty-one between them for the Taranto raid. It's no better in 1941, the attacks on the battleships Bismarck and V.Veneto each consisted of penny packets of aircraft.

Italian battleship Vittorio Veneto - Wikipedia

Imagine if the single Swordfish that scored the torpedo hit on V.Veneto had a dozen compatriots.
 
Last edited:
The SB2U/Chesapeake was a pretty good aircraft for its time, and in my opinion compared well with the SBD-3 (its somewhat newer design contemporary). It had a few problems that the SBD did not, ie a bit underpowered, not the best airbrake setup, and too little protection for its fuel tanks (only 118 USgal in SSFT, the rest unprotected). If they switched out the R-1535-2 for the R-1820-52 the SB2U would have been just as fast (or a bit faster) at the same altitude with the same load. (Vought actually did fit 1 airframe with the R-1830-? and it flew quite well. They intended to offer it to the French but . . . ) Additional SSFT for more of its fuel could have been incorporated into the airframe. Weights when similarly equipped would have been almost the same (~9,500 lbs clean).

The only significant problem I see is the 16' 4" height with wings folded. Most of the RN carriers would not have been able to stow them in their hangers. Nor would they have been able to fold/unfold the wings while in the hangar unless it was done between the deep support beams (I think). A wing tip modification similar to what was done to the Corsair would probably have been doable (I think).

Assuming availability, there could be an argument for buying it.

R-1535-2_____________R-1820-52
_____________________ 800 BHP at 16,000 ft
750 BHP at 9500 ft
_____________________ 950 BHP at 5,000 ft

825 BHP at TO_______1000 BHP at TO
 
Last edited:
I'd take the Albacore over the Devastator. The latter is 45 mph faster in top speed, but the Albacore has a higher cruise speed, longer range and much better STOL characteristics. .
This is the difference the carrier navy sees. The maximum speed etc. is what the pilot sees. With Albacores you have more operational opportunities.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back