Fairey Battle: Performance and Tactics

[tomo pauk]

Wikipedia says the last Fulmar was delivered to the RAF on 11 December 1942. Wouldn't the final Fulmar of Dec 1942 have a different Merlin than the first of Jan 1940?

It did have a different Merlin, the Mk.30 was installed on Fulmar II (vs. Merlin VIII on Fulmar I).

 

[Shortround6]

Though of course available in far to trivial numbers, I'd suggest that the Bloch 175 had potential. You may even consider the additional advantage that few germans would think it looked French.

Good catch,

 

[Shortround6]

As for the thickness of the wings: They really do look quite thick. That said, the aircraft performed okay for the time it first flew, but the RAF did have some legendary issues with wind-tunnels.

The problems with the wind tunnels may have had nothing to do with the Battle. However.

Carrying two 250lbs bombs inside of each wing did.

Were there any proposals to re-engine the aircraft?

Not to my knowledge, there may have been propsals, how serious they were might be subject to question. it was used as a test bed for a number of engines.

Why would you want to redesign the wings and fuel-tanks? I gather by the term "bomb-cells" that they didn't have a centralized bay in the fuselage?

see photo. The fuel tanks were in the section of wing between the landing gear and the fuselage. The bomb aimer laid prone in the belly of the fuselage to use his bomb sight, ( a real clue the plane was not intended for low level bombing.)

What was wrong with the landing gear?

as for the landing gear.

It retracted straight back and left 1/2 (or more?) of the wheel exposed. This helped make it a great trainer for an air force transitioning from fixed gear to retractable because in the event of a wheels up landing the plane was more easily repaired. However, for any talk of an "improved" battle for combat you have to change the landing gear to wind up flush, this is going to require more volume inside the wing. retracting inwards means the fuel tanks have to be moved or much reduced in size and new ones added elsewhere. retacting outwards puts them in the bomb cells. Perhaps you can retract rearwards and turn them like P-40 landing gear?

The plane had a 106 imp gal tank in each wing root. perhaps for short range ground attack you could get away with smaller tanks.

That said, I agree with the forward guns, I would have wanted at least 2 x 0.303" (that was the norm), and potentially either increase the number of 0.303" or use a different caliber.

adding an extra gun (or 3) might not be that big a deal, you just have to provide access, run the firing controls and probably arrange for heating.

Please note that the Firefly MK 1 with a 1735hp Griffon engine and a wing about 75% the size and 9 1/2 ft less wing span was only good for 316mph at 14,000ft.

You are going to need one heck of engine to get the Battle anywhere near as fast as it has to be to fight in 1941/42.

 

[Zipper730]

The planned use if there was a plan was just as likely to be based on bombing tents in the middle east.

I was mostly curious how much skill the RAF had with CAS in 1939.

Even with the over optimism about what bombing could achieve I cant see anyone considering that the Battle was going to make any effect bombing cities.

Correction: The RAF seemed to be based predominantly on busting cities/defending against city busting. The idea behind a bomber size treaty was to prevent city busting campaigns and keep bombing relegated to military targets only.

The problems with the wind tunnels may have had nothing to do with the Battle. However. Carrying two 250lbs bombs inside of each wing did.

So, the wings were large to stuff bombs in them? So, your proposal would have been to have redesigned the wings to put fuel there instead of bombs?

Not to my knowledge, there may have been propsals, how serious they were might be subject to question. it was used as a test bed for a number of engines.

What kind of engines was it a testbed for?

The fuel tanks were in the section of wing between the landing gear and the fuselage. The bomb aimer laid prone in the belly of the fuselage to use his bomb sight, ( a real clue the plane was not intended for low level bombing.)

Okay. Considering the goal of the bomber design was a light-bomber that could dive-bomb if need-be, I don't think that kind of change would be all that realistic to spec.

That said, a dive-bomber would have been smart: The RAF seemed to have little interest in it (very few proponents of dive-bombing remained), but it's fundamentally a good idea if you have a decent degree of speed and agility (SBD Dauntless).

as for the landing gear. . . . It retracted straight back and left 1/2 (or more?) of the wheel exposed. This helped make it a great trainer for an air force transitioning from fixed gear to retractable because in the event of a wheels up landing the plane was more easily repaired. However, for any talk of an "improved" battle for combat you have to change the landing gear to wind up flush, this is going to require more volume inside the wing. retracting inwards means the fuel tanks have to be moved or much reduced in size and new ones added elsewhere. retacting outwards puts them in the bomb cells. Perhaps you can retract rearwards and turn them like P-40 landing gear?

Rear retraction with a 90-degree twist seems workable. From what I recall, the P-36 had this kind of gear too...

The plane had a 106 imp gal tank in each wing root. perhaps for short range ground attack you could get away with smaller tanks.

IWould a P-36 style gear reduce fuel capacity? I figure more fuel is better (unless you crash on takeoff).

adding an extra gun (or 3) might not be that big a deal, you just have to provide access, run the firing controls and probably arrange for heating.

True, do you have any estimates how much the guns and ammo would weigh? As for access, firing controls, and heating -- do you have any idea how much that would weigh?

Please note that the Firefly MK 1 with a 1735hp Griffon engine and a wing about 75% the size and 9 1/2 ft less wing span was only good for 316mph at 14,000ft.

The Firefly's issues revolved around...

1. A two-seat arrangement: It was based on the radio-navigation systems used being dependent on two crew instead of one crewmember: This would make the plane a little bit heavier and require a bigger wing to lift it along. That said, I'm not sure how much interval occurred between the following
   • Fulmar being proposed or encouraged (official or not)
   • Fulmar starting and finishing development
   • Fulmar making first flight
   • Fulmar entering service
   • Firefly being proposed (official or not)
   • Firefly undergoing development to first flight
   • I know the Firefly flew 12/22/1941, and entered service in 3/1943.
2. A thick wing over a thin-wing: Probably to improve carrier handling characteristics. I do think if there was a shot at getting up to 370 mph, I think that sounds pretty good, as it would probably solve a lot of problems seen in the Seafire...

The timetable is important to figure out what could be done.

 

[Shortround6]

Point about the Firefly was that it was a much smaller airplane than the Battle and used a much more powerful engine (1495hp at 14,500ft).
Trying to the turn the Battle into a close support aircraft or low altitude strike aircraft requires way too much work.

Please remember that the Designer and Fairey developed a smaller airplane to compete with the Hawker Henley, it was this smaller aircraft that was turned into the Fulmar.

Please review the two specifications. The Battle was supposed to carry 1000lbs of bombs 1000 miles at 200mph. As I have said many times, this is a ridiculous requirement for a tactical or close support aircraft. It may have been capable of diving but the exact limits are unknown to me, others may be able to help.
The specification that lead to the Henley required only 550lbs of bombs and a much shorter range (fuel capacity wound up being 94 gallons? in the Henley) how every it was to be fully stressed for dive recover with a full bomb load (you don't want to lose a plane and crew because the bomb release gear hangs up) and a top speed of approximately 300mph.

You started this thread without having any idea of what the Battle could or could not do or even the well known fact that it carried it's bombs inside the wing.

The answers to most of your questions are on this site or on WWII Aircraft Performance, you just may have to to dig for them.

 

[Zipper730]

Point about the Firefly was that it was a much smaller airplane than the Battle and used a much more powerful engine (1495hp at 14,500ft).

I just responded because of the fact that it was mentioned. I wasn't planning on diverting the subject into the Fairey Firefly...

Trying to the turn the Battle into a close support aircraft or low altitude strike aircraft requires way too much work.

Maybe you're right, but I figure speed could be built up a bit, and it had good agility.

I still haven't really seen much about tactics that were used. I'm curious why they had so much trouble coordinating escorting of bomber formations?

Please remember that the Designer and Fairey developed a smaller airplane to compete with the Hawker Henley, it was this smaller aircraft that was turned into the Fulmar.

I thought the Battle came before the Henley...

Please review the two specifications. The Battle was supposed to carry 1000lbs of bombs 1000 miles at 200mph. As I have said many times, this is a ridiculous requirement for a tactical or close support aircraft. It may have been capable of diving but the exact limits are unknown to me, others may be able to help.

I didn't know it could carry 1000 pounds that far, I just thought it could fly 1000 miles under some load.

As for dive limits, that would be something useful to know.

The specification that lead to the Henley required only 550lbs of bombs and a much shorter range (fuel capacity wound up being 94 gallons? in the Henley) how every it was to be fully stressed for dive recover with a full bomb load (you don't want to lose a plane and crew because the bomb release gear hangs up) and a top speed of approximately 300mph.

One of the Hawker's strengths was that it could be built of Hurricane components. That said, I'm curious if it would have been possibility to build a clean-sheet design that would have longer range and load.

 

[Greyman]

Maximum permissible speed was 340 mph ASI and 3600 rpm (no constant-speed props).

 

[Zipper730]

Maximum permissible speed was 340 mph ASI and 3600 rpm (no constant-speed props).

At the risk of sounding stupid: This is for the dive limits correct?

 

[Greyman]

Yes. Looking at actual testing of the airplane -- the rpm limits were always reached in dives before the ASI limit.

 

[yulzari]

IIRC the bomb racks in the wing were extended out of the wing for dive bombing to both clear the wing and act as dive brakes. Happy to be corrected.

 

[tomo pauk]

...
As I have said many times, this is a ridiculous requirement for a tactical or close support aircraft. It may have been capable of diving but the exact limits are unknown to me, others may be able to help.
...

From manual, that can be downloaded from here:

 

[Graeme]

What kind of engines was it a testbed for?

There were many...

(Air International March 1981)

 

[pbehn]

It needed an RB-211

 

[Graeme]

According to the article, if the P.24 had been delivering the full 2,000 hp - the theoretical top speed was 365 mph.

Fairey Monarch - Wikipedia

 

[pbehn]

It was probably a good test bed, room for engineers and monitoring equipment you don't have in most SE aircraft.

 

[Zipper730]

There were many...

View attachment 567638

(Air International March 1981)

The Bristol Hercules could have been a good candidate: It was used on the Beaufighter which first flew in 1939...

 

[Shortround6]

According to the article, if the P.24 had been delivering the full 2,000 hp - the theoretical top speed was 365 mph.

It is this speed range (high 300mph and into the low 400s) that the british had some trouble with their wind tunnels or calculations.

The Bristol Hercules could have been a good candidate: It was used on the Beaufighter which first flew in 1939...

Unfortunately, without rework the Hercules rather spoils the view over the nose.
The Early Hercules was good for about 1375hp for take-off (a definite improvement over the early Merlins) and around 1410-1425hp at low altitudes in low blower. However the power in high blower was 1210-1250hp at 15-16,750ft depending on fuel. Drag of the early Hercules installation is going to suck up a fair amount of the extra power.

The Battles, as flown in France had little, if any armor or BP glass and quite possible self sealing tanks unless refitted in the Field?.
Any ideas for using them past the summer of 1940 should take into account several hundred pounds of protection.

I ran across this website Messerschmitt Fodder - U.K. Fairey Battle with Tons of Photos
with a fair number of Photos of Battles in France. Some seem like propaganda photos (8 men looking at a map spread out on the snow in front of their planes?)
while 2 show a good use of the Battle

The British Expeditionary Force in France 1939-1940. A low level attack by Fairey Battle aircraft on a German horse drawn transport column.

At such an altitude the bomb sight and bomb aimer were useless. Useful as the Battle may have been for such duties too often in the Battle for France it was used to attack bridges or river crossings with high concentrations of AA guns. Large, slow and unprotected the Battles suffered as might well be expected.

 

[Zipper730]

Unfortunately, without rework the Hercules rather spoils the view over the nose.

That bad eh? I was just basing it on engines available with enough horsepower to be useful.

The Early Hercules was good for about 1375hp for take-off (a definite improvement over the early Merlins) and around 1410-1425hp at low altitudes in low blower. However the power in high blower was 1210-1250hp at 15-16,750ft depending on fuel. Drag of the early Hercules installation is going to suck up a fair amount of the extra power.

I'm curious how the R-2600 would compare and would the RR Vulture be a good choice?

with a fair number of Photos of Battles in France. Some seem like propaganda photos (8 men looking at a map spread out on the snow in front of their planes?) while 2 show a good use of the Battle

One problem I can readily see is that they often made attacks at very low altitude when they'd have been better off starting high up and diving down onto a target instead. From what was written in a manual for the Fairey Battle, the plane could do some very steep dives, with the limit being set (in essence) by airspeed and propeller RPM.

 

[Greyman]

The low attacks were used because anything at higher altitude was too vulnerable to heavier AA and especially to enemy fighters. The swarms of escort fighters Allied bombers would enjoy in later years are a far-flung dream at this point.

As slow as the Battle was on the deck (about 200 mph), that method of attack was the one the offered the least exposure to the massed German defenses.

 

[Zipper730]

The low attacks were used because anything at higher altitude was too vulnerable to heavier AA and especially to enemy fighters.

Which, then brings me to another question: Why did the RAF have so much difficulty coordinating fighter escort? They could never seem to get their fighters and bombers in the same basic area of sky...