Fairey Battle: Performance and Tactics

[Kevin J]

The Battle was actually DESIGNED to be able to be upgraded to two engines. That 3 view diagram attached by Kevin J is a proper Fairey proposal and the single-engined Battle was optimised so that the maximum number of parts could be used in a twin-engined version. You only have to look at the design of the backwards-retracting undercarriage to see it can easily be adapted to a twin-engine design. You have to remember why the Battle was designed and ordered into production - In the early, to mid-1930s there was hope that the ongoing international disarmament talks would restrict the size and payload of bombers. The Battle was designed to exactly match the limits of those proposals and so ensure the RAF still had a force of bombers if the Hampdens, Wellington's and Whitleys were banned. The Fairey design team very cleverly designed the Battle so that it could be adapted to use twin engines if the disarmament talks broke down. At various points, Fairey asked the Air Ministry to reconsider switching their orders for Battles to the twin-engined version but the Air Ministry always refused. The one factory that could not have easily produced twin-engined Battles is the Austin Longbridge shadow factory. - There completed Battles had to be winched up a "ski-tow" from the flight shed to the tiny airfield on top of the hill. The airfield was hardly large enough to allow single-engined Battles to be flight-tested and would have struggled with twin-engined aircraft. The Flight shed itself and the ski-tow would not have accommodated twin-engined aircraft. When Longbridge switched to producing Stirlings and then Lancasters they had to be towed in bits across the city to the airfield at Elmdon (modern Birmingham airport) to be assembled and flown. Ironically the flight-shed was actually designed by a German company! It had a unique method of roof-construction. It was standing until a few years ago but was knocked down to make way for housing. I had many happy working in it in the 1980s-1990s on the computerised engine test cells they had installed there. Heres how a twin-engined battle might have looked.
View attachment 575255

Now this would have come in handy in the Mediterranean and the Far East as it should be superior to the Blenheim.

 

[Reluctant Poster]

Now this would have come in handy in the Mediterranean and the Far East as it should be superior to the Blenheim.

Where do the engines come from? Rolls Royce was already increasing production at a prodigious rate. 2000 twin engine Battles means 2000 less Hurricanes or Spitfires.

 

[pbehn]

Where do the engines come from? Rolls Royce was already increasing production at a prodigious rate. 2000 twin engine Battles means 2000 less Hurricanes or Spitfires.

That would be 4,000 less Hurricanes and Spitfires.

 

[Shortround6]

No, you already have 1 engine per Battle. Turning them to twins means one more engine each.

 

[pbehn]

No, you already have 1 engine per Battle. Turning them to twins means one more engine each.

Ah, I see the logic. I thought it meant an extra 2,000.

 

[Kevin J]

Where do the engines come from? Rolls Royce was already increasing production at a prodigious rate. 2000 twin engine Battles means 2000 less Hurricanes or Spitfires.

Kestrels would have done just fine, Peregrines better.

 

[Shortround6]

Kestrels would have done just fine, Peregrines better.

No Peregrines, need all of them for Whirlwinds. There are no Kestrels either, unless you take used ones out of Hawker Harts or Miles Master trainers.
Merlins are being made on the same lathes, milling machines and other machinery that made Kestrels and by the same workers.

 

[Shortround6]

We can slice it anyway we want, this still remains: the tool (= Battle) have had the feature (=can safely dive bomb at steep angle); user opted not to use the feature, and also opted not to train to use the feature.

The tool was large and slow=easy target for AA guns.
The tool needed to release the bomb at higher altitudes than dedicated dive bombers=poor accuracy.
The tool was far from ideal for the job.

However the user also failed to provide a low level bomb sight (under 3000ft) which also hampered the use of the tool in low level attacks.

 

[tomo pauk]

(1)The tool was large and slow=easy target for AA guns.
(2)The tool needed to release the bomb at higher altitudes than dedicated dive bombers=poor accuracy.
(3)The tool was far from ideal for the job.

(4)However the user also failed to provide a low level bomb sight (under 3000ft) which also hampered the use of the tool in low level attacks.

1 - Yes, just like Ju-87, or the much later A-24/SBD and D3A.
2 - Disagree. We know for a fact that P-47 was dive-bomb even faster, and was very accurate when dive bombing
3 - The tool was far better in that job than a doctrine (dive-bomb doctrine that was not existing) or training for the job (that was also not existing) at the side of User.
4 - Just like the Ju-87 of the day?

 

[Dinger]

That would be 4,000 less Hurricanes and Spitfires.

One idea. How about just halving the production of Battles? The Fairey Stockport Plant and the Austin plant built 698 Battles in 1940 alone. These were largely "follow-on" orders just to keep the factories busy until they were tooled up ready for aircraft due to replace them on the production line (Avro Manchester at Stockport and Short Stirling at Austin were originally planned). They were mostly twin-seat trainers or already fitted out as target-towers. Now it is true that some of these orders were placed for "aircraft without engines", but the records show most of those aircraft were flying well before the end of 1940, so the engines must have come from somewhere. See Sidney Shail's book "The Battle File" for an overview of production and bare details of the service history of each Battle built. Those aircraft mostly went overseas as Trainers to Canada, South Africa and Australia to fill the needs of the Empire training scheme. - With the same number of engines you could build 349 twin-engined Battles (assuming the Austin ones had their final assembly at Elmdon). I think the RAF could have found a combat use for 300 odd aircraft of that capability in late 1940, both as bombers and potentially night-fighters (hard to see it being worse than the Blenheim night-fighter). I'm sure the Empire training scheme could have found some alternative aircraft to stand-in. Just an idea

 

[Shortround6]

comparison of the dive bombers under consideration plus a few light bombers.

Plane............................Battle....................Ju-87B................SBD-3.................D3A1........................Bf 110C....................A-20.................Pe-2

Wing span.................54ft.......................45ft 3 in............41ft 6in.............47ft 2in.....................53ft 4in..................61ft 4 in...........56ft 4 in
Wing area.................422sq ft................354 sq ft...........325sq ft...........376sq ft.....................414 sq ft...............464sq ft.............436sq ft
Length.......................42ft 4 in................36ft 5in..............33ft 1in............33ft 5in....................39.ft 7in.................48ft.....................41ft 6in
HP at sea level.........880........................1200?...............1000..................1000/1070.................2200hp?................2400hp.............2200hp?.

Maybe the Battle didn't need dive brakes as it's own drag might have been enough

I tried to use figures as close to 1940 as I could. A little rounding off of fractions of an each. Somebody may want check some of the power figures.
The Battle was also cursed with a two pitch prop? It was not a spritely airplane.

 

[tomo pauk]

comparison of the dive bombers under consideration plus a few light bombers.

Plane............................Battle....................Ju-87B................SBD-3.................D3A1........................Bf 110C....................A-20.................Pe-2

Wing span.................54ft.......................45ft 3 in............41ft 6in.............47ft 2in.....................53ft 4in..................61ft 4 in...........56ft 4 in
Wing area.................422sq ft................354 sq ft...........325sq ft...........376sq ft.....................414 sq ft...............464sq ft.............436sq ft
Length.......................42ft 4 in................36ft 5in..............33ft 1in............33ft 5in....................39.ft 7in.................48ft.....................41ft 6in
HP at sea level.........880........................1200?...............1000..................1000/1070.................2200hp?................2400hp.............2200hp?.

Maybe the Battle didn't need dive brakes as it's own drag might have been enough

I tried to use figures as close to 1940 as I could. A little rounding off of fractions of an each. Somebody may want check some of the power figures.
The Battle was also cursed with a two pitch prop? It was not a spritely airplane.

Battle was cursed with a lot of stuff, like no fighter escort doctrine. Neither of the listed 1-engined bombers was able to survive against the capable air defense doing their job while suffering manageable losses.
The Ju-87B-1 have had 1000 HP for take off (1-min rating, 900 HP 5-min rating at SL, 920 HP 5-min rating at 17000 ft; engine Jumo211A). The Ju 87B-2 upped that, 1200 for take off, 930 HP at SL (30 min rating), again 930 HP at 16000 ft (30 min rating); engine Jumo 211B.
Likewise, the SBD-1/2/3 have had 1000 HP for take off, 950 next best power setting at SL, 800 HP at 15000 ft. We know that Merlin offered more above 10000 ft than any of these engines, and that neither Ju 87 nor the Val were very streamlined aircraft. Neither of these aircraft was spritely aircraft, especially when bombed-up - there is a reason why people went with two engines for bombers whenever possible & feasible in that time. Battle can carry twice as much as the Val. Granted, both Ju 87 and SBD surpassed it in payload after few years the Battle was introduced.

The DB7 have had ~2200 HP down low, the A-20 went to 3200.

 

[Greyman]

Maybe the Battle didn't need dive brakes as it's own drag might have been enough

The Battle had good dive characteristics but with it's 2-pitch prop the limiting engine speed (3600 rpm) is reached quickly, even with bomb doors open and bombs extended. An aircraft that size would have quite the recovery height as well.

Dive bomb runs of about 30-35 degrees were practicable.

 

[MikeMeech]

One idea. How about just halving the production of Battles? The Fairey Stockport Plant and the Austin plant built 698 Battles in 1940 alone. These were largely "follow-on" orders just to keep the factories busy until they were tooled up ready for aircraft due to replace them on the production line (Avro Manchester at Stockport and Short Stirling at Austin were originally planned). They were mostly twin-seat trainers or already fitted out as target-towers. Now it is true that some of these orders were placed for "aircraft without engines", but the records show most of those aircraft were flying well before the end of 1940, so the engines must have come from somewhere. See Sidney Shail's book "The Battle File" for an overview of production and bare details of the service history of each Battle built. Those aircraft mostly went overseas as Trainers to Canada, South Africa and Australia to fill the needs of the Empire training scheme. - With the same number of engines you could build 349 twin-engined Battles (assuming the Austin ones had their final assembly at Elmdon). I think the RAF could have found a combat use for 300 odd aircraft of that capability in late 1940, both as bombers and potentially night-fighters (hard to see it being worse than the Blenheim night-fighter). I'm sure the Empire training scheme could have found some alternative aircraft to stand-in. Just an idea

Hi

By 'late 1940' Beaufighter Ifs are already coming into service, 29 Sqn. fully operational on 2 Sept. 1940, and 25 Sqn. on 10 October, so why another twin for the night fighting role? I doubt the twin Battle would have a better performance.

Mike

 

[Admiral Beez]

Where do the engines come from? Rolls Royce was already increasing production at a prodigious rate. 2000 twin engine Battles means 2000 less Hurricanes or Spitfires.

Swap out the Rollers for Bristols.

 

[pbehn]

One idea. How about just halving the production of Battles? The Fairey Stockport Plant and the Austin plant built 698 Battles in 1940 alone. These were largely "follow-on" orders just to keep the factories busy until they were tooled up ready for aircraft due to replace them on the production line (Avro Manchester at Stockport and Short Stirling at Austin were originally planned). They were mostly twin-seat trainers or already fitted out as target-towers. Now it is true that some of these orders were placed for "aircraft without engines", but the records show most of those aircraft were flying well before the end of 1940, so the engines must have come from somewhere. See Sidney Shail's book "The Battle File" for an overview of production and bare details of the service history of each Battle built. Those aircraft mostly went overseas as Trainers to Canada, South Africa and Australia to fill the needs of the Empire training scheme. - With the same number of engines you could build 349 twin-engined Battles (assuming the Austin ones had their final assembly at Elmdon). I think the RAF could have found a combat use for 300 odd aircraft of that capability in late 1940, both as bombers and potentially night-fighters (hard to see it being worse than the Blenheim night-fighter). I'm sure the Empire training scheme could have found some alternative aircraft to stand-in. Just an idea

The Battle wasn't sent to France to attack bridges or provide CAS. It was sent there to shorten the range to Germanys industry. In hindsight I wouldn't have built a single Battle I would have built more Hurricanes and put a couple of cannons and a bomb under the additional production to strafe and bomb the bridges in question. However in hindsight I would have just blown the bridges up when the French had control of them.

 

[Shortround6]

Swap out the Rollers for Bristols.

What historical Bristol powered planes don't get built? aside from the Bothas.
And if you are going to use 9 cylinder Bristol radials just can the Battle and build more Blenheims.

 

[Shortround6]

for some perspective on the Battle in 1938 this was the British bomber line up as of Jan 1st, 1938,

Heavy bombers
3 squadrons with Whitleys

5 squadrons with Harrows.

7 squadrons with Heyfords

1 squadron with Vickers Virginias

and 1 squadron with Fairey Hendons.

the medium bomber squadrons of which there were 6 had one squadron of Overstrands

and the rest had Vickers Wellesley's

Light bombers in next post.

 

[Shortround6]

Picture of the Wellesley

Light bombers.
The Battle that most people want to cancel.

equipped 5 squadrons and was requipeing a 6th. while the Blenheim

equipped 6 squadrons and was requiping a 7th. However the Hawker Hind

equipped 22 regular RAF squadrons (with two changing over) and 6 auxiliary squadrons with another 5 flying the almost identical Hawker Harts.
There was one squadron of torpedo bombers flying Vickers Vildebeest IIIs.

There were 16 squadrons in Africa, the middle east, India and the far east. One squadron had Blenheims, one had Wellesley's and one had Vildebeests. The rest had an assortment of biplanes including Hawker Harts.

It is theis collection of antiques that the Battle and Blenheim must replace during 1938-39 for the British to keep up any credibility whatsoever as an air force. Hanging a few bombs under a MK I Hurricane is not going to cut it.

The [Edit;Blenheim/Battle] as a trainer helped pilots get used to "modern" aircraft and helped ground crew/s learn to fix planes with flaps, retracting landing gear, at least a two pitch prop and not fixed pitch, metal skins and the like.

The Battle was hardly a successful warplane but more a necessary evil that allowed some companies to cut their teeth on all metal construction (including skins) and gave the rapidly expanding RAF something to fly besides fixed pitch prop, fixed landing gear, no flap, open cockpit biplanes in the few years before WW II.

 

[yulzari]

Plane............................Battle....................Ju-87B................SBD-3.................D3A1........................Bf 110C....................A-20.................Pe-2
Wing span.................54ft.......................45ft 3 in............41ft 6in.............47ft 2in.....................53ft 4in..................61ft 4 in...........56ft 4 in
Wing area.................422sq ft................354 sq ft...........325sq ft...........376sq ft.....................414 sq ft...............464sq ft.............436sq ft
Length.......................42ft 4 in................36ft 5in..............33ft 1in............33ft 5in....................39.ft 7in.................48ft.....................41ft 6in
HP at sea level.........880........................1200?...............1000..................1000/1070.................2200hp?................2400hp.............2200hp?.

I am not taking the analogy too far but it is interesting to note the size comparison between the Me110 and the Battle.