Fairey Battle: Performance and Tactics

[Shortround6]

That's a strange feature to omit from a plane that could do dive-bombing, wouldn't you say?

you are forgetting or ignoring the fact that the Battle was NOT intended to be a dive bomber. Yes the plane itself could be dived steeply and was strong enough to withstand the pull out but it was not intended as a dive bomber or equipped as one.

 

[Zipper730]

you are forgetting or ignoring the fact that the Battle was NOT intended to be a dive bomber.

What I got out of things up to this point was that it was a level bomber first, a dive-capable plane second. I figured the second one would have included some provision to capitalize on the inherent capability of the airframe...

 

[Admiral Beez]

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.)

Goodness, is there glass there, or is this poor chap exposed to all weathers?

 

[Shortround6]

No glass, sliding metal panel/hatch cover kept most of the drafts out when the bomb aimer wasn't using the sight.

 

[Greyman]

No glass, sliding metal panel/hatch cover kept most of the drafts out when the bomb aimer wasn't using the sight.

 

[wuzak]

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

At that time the Hercules was available in such abundance that Bristol were required to build a Merlin Beaufighter (the II) in case the engine supply could not keep up with demand.

 

[Admiral Beez]

View attachment 567812

I imagine that's also a handy escape hatch.

 

[wuzak]

Perhaps installing the 2x12 cylinder Fairey Monach engine would have solved the problem, but did it ever work? Then again, by the time the engine would have worked we would have had the Mosquito bomber and the heavily armoured Typhoon, so we wouldn't have needed it.

No, it really did not work. And was certainly not going to be available in quantity for use in the Battle in 1940-1942.

The graphic from Graeme's post describes the top profile as being the test bed for the Fairey Prince. As far as I am aware, the Prince name was given to the V-12 engine and the H-16 (P.16), The P.24 was given the name Monarch.

The P.24 did fly in the Battle, but it only had 4 exhausts per bank rather than the normal 6. This would explain why pictures of the Battle engine test bed would be confused as being powered by the P.16.

I'm not certain that the P.16 was ever built, run, or flew. Wiki lists the P.16 and P.24 as having both run for the first time in 1939 and having the same weight, though different power outputs.

There were many...

View attachment 567638

(Air International March 1981)

 

[Shortround6]

For more information on the Fairey Monarch see. Fairey P.24 Monarch Aircraft Engine

For the "what if" people, please note that by the time the Monarch was completing trouble free 2 hour (yes 2 hours) test runs the Battle was with multiple squadrons in service.
The Monarch was more a contemporary of the Vulture and Sabre.

 

[Allan Hunter]

No glass, sliding metal panel/hatch cover kept most of the drafts out when the bomb aimer wasn't using the sight.

Yes, and it could be very cold! My father told me about his training days on the Battle, in 1940. The reason the mark VII bombsight had a long leather 'lanyard' was so that one end could be secured inside the aircraft and the sight would not drop out of the hole, should the alloy mounting fail! The wind noise and engine sounds also made it very hard to hear or be heard on the intercom, and my father told me they were equipped with a long stick to jab at the pilot's legs, to direct him onto the target. Two jabs meant go left, one jab meant right. In fact intercom etiquette always used 'left left' for left, and just 'right' for right, so this was all part of the drill.

Being at the hatch could be very cold, except on one occasion. That was when the glycol tank boiled over and dripped scalding coolant on my father's back. Focused on the run up to the target, and wearing his thick Sidcot, he was surprised to feel pleasantly warm. Shortly afterwards they force-landed when the engine over-heated..... It's all in his memoir, "From Coastal Command to Captivity".

Best wishes, Allan

 

[fastmongrel]

For all the Battles horrible record over France have a look at the record of the early single seat IL-2 Stormoviks during the first year of the Barbarossa campaign. Its very grim reading only the few lucky ones survived 10 missions. As for dive bombing even the vaunted Ju87 Stuka spent most of its time not dive bombing.

 

[yulzari]

I have to wonder how well the much vaunted Skyraider could have survived in a peer conflict? If you are going to drag 1,000lb of bombs behind a Merlin they may as well go under a Hurricane. But then I have 20/20 hindsight.

 

[Zipper730]

I have to wonder how well the much vaunted Skyraider could have survived in a peer conflict?

Depends what model of the Skyraider. It entered service in 1946.

 

[Shortround6]

I have to wonder how well the much vaunted Skyraider could have survived in a peer conflict? If you are going to drag 1,000lb of bombs behind a Merlin they may as well go under a Hurricane. But then I have 20/20 hindsight.

Now, how do you get the Hurricane to carry the 1000lbs of bombs AND fly 500 miles, drop them and return to base another 500 miles. ( I have quoted max range but you get the idea)
The Battle was badly misused in a role it was not intended for.
This does not take a lot of hindsight as Fairey and the Battles designer built a smaller plane for dive bombing/army support which was turned into the Fulmar. SO they obviously didn't think the Battle was the proper airframe for the job several years before the Battle for France.

 

[fastmongrel]

I have to wonder how well the much vaunted Skyraider could have survived in a peer conflict? If you are going to drag 1,000lb of bombs behind a Merlin they may as well go under a Hurricane. But then I have 20/20 hindsight.

A Skyraider with a 1,000 hp engine would barely get off the ground. Skyraiders empty weight is greater than the max possible take off weight for a Battle so with a useful load of fuel and ordnance a Skyraider is going to make a Battle seem like a speed demon.

 

[Shortround6]

Ok, a few numbers.

Merlin III on 87 0ctane = 880hp for take off.
Merlin XX on 100/130 = 1280 hp for take off.

Battle wing area 422 sq ft and has a gross weight of 10,792lbs= 25.6lb sq ft.
Hurricane wing area 258 sq ft and a gross weight of 6363lbs + 1000lbs of bombs equals 7363lbs =28.5lbs sq ft.

Hurricane weight is with a metal two pitch prop but no armor and no self sealing fuel tanks.
Battles, at least many of them, had two pitch props.

British planes have to get in and out of those small British airfields.

What Hurricane could do in 1941/42 with the Merlin XX engine and constant speed prop for load carrying is not what a late 1938 or 1939 Hurricane could do with a Merlin III and a two pitch prop.

 

[Admiral Beez]

The Fairey Battle needs to be converted to twin and up-engined to Sabre and then to Centaurus or Derwent. Now we're talking.

 

[pbehn]

The Fairey Battle needs to be converted to twin and up-engined to Sabre and then to Centaurus or Derwent. Now we're talking.

View attachment 575019

Yup, but we are not talking about the Battle.

 

[fubar57]

Yep

 

[Admiral Beez]

Yup, but we are not talking about the Battle.

True. But replace the Merlin with anything and it's not a Battle.