Which aircraft wasn't improved by a 400% + increase in horsepower.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Which aircraft wasn't improved by a 400% + increase in horsepower.
A Griffon engined Spit was a spit, a Merlin engine Mustang was a Mustang. Many British twin or four engine types had two types of engines if only to prove the type. Doubling the number of engines and doubling the power of those engines makes a different typeTrue. But replace the Merlin with anything and it's not a Battle.
So we're talking Pe-2 equivalent perhaps with a couple of RR Peregrines?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
Twin Mustang was still a Mustang, but I agree with your point, and I hate posters who get pedantic.A Griffon engined Spit was a spit, a Merlin engine Mustang was a Mustang. Many British twin or four engine types had two types of engines if only to prove the type. Doubling the number of engines and doubling the power of those engines makes a different type
at the risk of being pedantic a twin Mustang was a Mustang in name only. Try using P-51 Mustang parts in a P-82. Very few are going to be interchangeable.Twin Mustang was still a Mustang, but I agree with your point, and I hate posters who get pedantic.
I think the Battle was fine as is, provided sufficient air cover. Can any CAS aircraft operate successfully when faced with unopposed fighter opposition?
What the Brits didn't have was a dive bomber, and that's where I think the Battle is let down, not in performance as it was faster than a Stuka and carried more bombs.
Yes, anywhere the enemy fighters are to be expected, the fighter escort/cover need to be provided for own bombers and/or CAS aircaft.
Battle was allowed to dive bomb up to 80 deg: page from the manual.
The Battle was never intended to be a CAS aircraft or dive bomber. It was found that it could do some of the Jobs, more by happenstance than by design.
Being allowed to to dive bomb at 80 degrees is not the same as being designed to dive bomb at 80 degrees.
once again Fairey and Lobelle didn't think the Battle was a dive bomber or CAS aircraft. They designed this to the same requirement as the Hawker Henley.
No 3rd crew member.
7 feet less wing span, no bomb bays in the wings. 2ft 4in shorter fuselage. 26mph faster using the same engine.
The air Ministry didn't buy it but that doesn't mean the Battle was intended to be close support aircraft, merely misused as one.
Actually the P51H had very little in common with the previous models. It should have been called the Mustang II. Although the Ford car of the same name was not exactly a winner.at the risk of being pedantic a twin Mustang was a Mustang in name only. Try using P-51 Mustang parts in a P-82. Very few are going to be interchangeable.
The Battle was never given a dive bombing sight or dive brakes.
The A-36 was given dive brakes, it may have been given a different sight than the fighters?
The F4U had a provision to use it's landing gear as a dive brake.
The P-47 had neither.
Being "allowed to" and "designed for" are not the same thing and may very well show up later in airframe fatigue life.
Just because you can dive (and pull out) from a steep angle doesn't always translate to the same degree of accuracy. How fast you are going and what altitude you have to release the bomb and start the pull out are major factors affecting dive bomber accuracy.
The Battle may have been over built. Most dive bombers were built to a higher load standard than level bombers ( a large part of the weight penalty when many bombers (german) were converted to dive bombing).
Yes, anywhere the enemy fighters are to be expected, the fighter escort/cover need to be provided for own bombers and/or CAS aircraft. .
The B-29 was another generation of bomber, with B-17s and B-24s in massed raids the USA could tolerate a 4% loss rate to all causes, with the B-29 they couldn't. Against heavily defended bridges trying to make precision horizontal attacks you need a lot of fighter cover and missions to get the job done.I totally agree. I fact I am trying to think of bomber campaigns where un-exported bombers didn't get mauled, when there was peer level fighter opposition. The B-29s over Japan didn't get mauled, but that was not a peer contest. The Japanese lacked high altitude fighters when the B-29s came at high altitude by day, and lacked a night fighter force when the B-29s came at night. Supported by adequate fighter cover over France, the Battle would have been remembered very differently.
You need a lot more than that.Against heavily defended bridges trying to make precision horizontal attacks you need a lot of fighter cover and missions to get the job done.
Using bridge killing bombs might help too. 250lbs bombs may be too small.
I like the twin engined layout. Maybe Austin Motors could have built it instead of the Merlin powered Battle. Say twin Peregrine with 100 octane. Our very own Pe-2 equivalent. Say 330 mph same as Pe-2? 4 500 lb bombs external too, same as. Look at the external dimensions, almost identical to Pe-2. Range would have been a bit short I imagine, but difficult for either the Italians or Japanese to catch. Against the Germans we would need a fighter escort though to clear the skies of their interceptors first.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
An analysis by the Mediterranean Allied Air Forces of 609 fighter-bomber strikes on bridges in Italy concluded that "the 500-lb bomb is not an effective weapon for the destruction of masonry bridges ... the 1,000-lb is much preferable."
I'm not sure how bridges on the Meuse compare with those on the Savio ... but I'd bet the old 250-lb GP left a lot to be desired.
Using bridge killing bombs might help too. 250lbs bombs may be too small.
All that said I don't believe the Blenheims in France either fared much better or had much better results. Open to correction.
Battle was supposed to do just over 200mph at sea level with bombs inside, full throttle (880 hp). Flying formation with bombs outside???
Forget fighters, that is a recipe for disaster against AA guns.
I like the twin engined layout. Maybe Austin Motors could have built it instead of the Merlin powered Battle. Say twin Peregrine with 100 octane. Our very own Pe-2 equivalent. Say 330 mph same as Pe-2? 4 500 lb bombs external too, same as. Look at the external dimensions, almost identical to Pe-2. Range would have been a bit short I imagine, but difficult for either the Italians or Japanese to catch. Against the Germans we would need a fighter escort though to clear the skies of their interceptors first.