Fairey Battle restored
- Thread starter v2
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Glider
Captain
I never cease to be amazed at the effort and skill that goes into restoring aircraft remains that are little more than scrap.
Good luck to them
Good luck to them
Thorlifter
Captain
And another rises from the ashes..........
Glider
Captain
If only to remind people of the bravery of those that go to war.
Old Wizard
2nd Lieutenant
I suppose one could start a whole new thread about the incompetents in the Air Ministry, Navy Fleet Air Arm and Army [particularly tank construction] for many of their decisions.
Still it is a tribute to the brave crews that did have to fly her in combat so that the world could be a better place.
to the crew that had to fly her.
Negative Creep
Staff Sergeant
That's just down the road from where my parents live and I grew up. Used to be a Short factory there as well
Negative Creep
Staff Sergeant
Agreed. In a way I'd rather see something like this restored than yet another Spitfire or Hurricane
The Battle always gets panned as a piece of junk, which is a bit lazy imho. Compare it, say, with the Ju-87 which is a plane with a much better reputation. The Battle was more advanced and had a higher performance. Where it fell down was the way in which it was required to be used, this is not a fault of Fairey's or the Battle, similarly with the Defiant. another well designed and built aircraft that did as it was asked, it was the question that was wrong.
ToughOmbre
Senior Master Sergeant
I'll second that Micdrow! Every time I see and old warbird I immediately think of the brave men that flew them.
TO
pbfoot
1st Lieutenant
Like to see that
must be a few at the bottom of Lake Erie they were used as target tugs up here
must be a few at the bottom of Lake Erie they were used as target tugs up here
runningdog
Airman
Well said. Very lazy in my opinion, using hindsight to judge actions, decisions, equipment, is easy, too easy. The aforementioned hindsight is an absolutely useless tool. Simple to use, it ony requires a simple mind to operate.
I'll bet if you were an RAF bomber pilot and you were offered a Battle to replace your Heyford or your Hawker biplane, you'ld have jumped at it. You wouldn't have known where it was taking you. Nontheless, come the day, I'm sure most of us would have done what was being asked.
I agree with micdraw and others, honour the men who flew it, thank those who have restored it, and, if you ever see it in the air, enjoy it............
I agree that the Battle wasn't the most successful airplane ever. However, I also agree with those who say it should be preserved both as history and to honor those who had to fly it into combat. Remember that history isn't always comprised of successes - sometimes the failures tell us something also, in terms of aeronautical designs and concepts that worked and those that didn't, what tactics worked and didn't, etc., and also gives us a feel and appreciation for the brave men who had to fly some of these unfortunate machines in combat. Also remember that unsuccessful doesn't necessarily mean a bad design either - as has been discussed in the thread concerning the worst aircraft of WWII, some of these planes were obsolete at the time they finally fought, or were just in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Airframes
Benevolens Magister
Totally agree with you about the need for preserving the Battle. O.K., it might have been obsolete for the task(s) it was ASKED TO DO, but it's what the R.A.F. had at the time and, when originally designed, was very advanced compared to, say, a Hart, or other biplane designs. Yes, it might have been, (by the standards of 1940, or more so today) a 'dog', but that 'dog' still went to war, as old, underpowered and underarmed as it might have been, and it was involved in some very courageous actions, which, with the infamous hindsight, could now be viewed as 'desperate' or 'glorious' or even foolhardy. But the men who flew this aircraft against such heavily defended targets as the Maastricht bridges did so in the knowledge that they were carrying out their duty, in an aircraft that only two or three years previously, was regarded as ultra-modern; the technological advances in aviation during this period were astounding, and probably will never be seen again in such a relatively short time span. Compare this with a 'modern' military aircraft, that might have an average service life of, say, twenty years or more! Whatever an individual's thoughts about a particular aircraft, if that aircraft went to war, and its crews, of whichever nation, made the ultimate sacrifice, then it is worth remembering, and therefore, very definitely worth preserving so that future generations might learn.
KrazyKraut
Banned
- 337
- Apr 21, 2008
The Ju-87 performed much better as a dive bomber than the Battle did as a light bomber. Unlike the Ju-87, the Battle never really fulfilled the role it was designed for. Hopelessly underpowered and little offensive armament. It was a failure and a complete waste of good engines and crews.
Still nice to see one restored for the sake of historical value.
I disagree, the Battle completely fulfilled the role it was designed for, but by 1940 that role was superfluous. The Battle was designed to the same formula as the highly successful DH 4 and Hawker Hart light bombers. As such it was a resounding success. It was only when it went to war that the fallacy of the original requirement was revealed, there was no actual fault in the aircraft which, with the Merlin, had the most powerful engine available was was nowhere near the biggest or heaviest single engine bomber (see Wellesley), so that statement is incorrect.
The sentence "The Ju-87 performed much better as a dive bomber than the Battle did as a light bomber" is exactly the point I was making. The Battle was the better and more advanced aeroplane, if the Ministry and the RAF had been looking for a dive bomber then the Battle could have been among the best, but they weren't and so the Battle is doomed to be remembered as a slow vulnerable death trap. Its armament was standard for the time (same as the Ju 87 in fact) but no-one is suggesting the Ju 87 was a waste of time. There were high hopes for the Battle when the war began, there was no hint of it being underpowered or underarmed. This was a failing of the planners, not of the aeroplane.
The sentence "The Ju-87 performed much better as a dive bomber than the Battle did as a light bomber" is exactly the point I was making. The Battle was the better and more advanced aeroplane, if the Ministry and the RAF had been looking for a dive bomber then the Battle could have been among the best, but they weren't and so the Battle is doomed to be remembered as a slow vulnerable death trap. Its armament was standard for the time (same as the Ju 87 in fact) but no-one is suggesting the Ju 87 was a waste of time. There were high hopes for the Battle when the war began, there was no hint of it being underpowered or underarmed. This was a failing of the planners, not of the aeroplane.
