Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
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 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
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.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?
A pretty expendable career in british service.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."
The Chesapeake was withdrawn from FAA service in summer 1941, about the same time as the Blackburn Skua.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.A pretty expendable career in british service.
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The Chesapeake was withdrawn from FAA service in summer 1941, about the same time as the Blackburn Skua.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
Here's a diecast one we can buy. SBD-5 Dauntless Dive Bomber UK Royal Navy FAA MK.1Never know about that and never seen a SBD with british roundels.
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).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 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.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 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.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.
This is the difference the carrier navy sees. The maximum speed etc. is what the pilot sees. With Albacores you have more operational opportunities.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. .
Interesting. Proposed as a TB, DB or both? Any known proposed flying characteristics? Why wasn't developed?Fairey did offer monoplanes.The F9-30
View attachment 595818
That looks like a big beastFairey did offer monoplanes.The F9-30
View attachment 595818