Kevin J
Banned
Now this would have come in handy in the Mediterranean and the Far East as it should be superior to the Blenheim.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Now this would have come in handy in the Mediterranean and the Far East as it should be superior to the Blenheim.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
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.Now this would have come in handy in the Mediterranean and the Far East as it should be superior to the Blenheim.
That would be 4,000 less Hurricanes and Spitfires.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.
Ah, I see the logic. I thought it meant an extra 2,000.No, you already have 1 engine per Battle. Turning them to twins means one more engine each.
Kestrels would have done just fine, Peregrines better.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.
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.Kestrels would have done just fine, Peregrines better.
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.
(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.
That would be 4,000 less Hurricanes and Spitfires.
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.
Maybe the Battle didn't need dive brakes as it's own drag might have been enough
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
Swap out the Rollers for Bristols.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.
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.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
What historical Bristol powered planes don't get built? aside from the Bothas.Swap out the Rollers for Bristols.
I am not taking the analogy too far but it is interesting to note the size comparison between the Me110 and the Battle.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?.