Favourite Naval Fighter

[Admiral Beez]

I had never considered the Dewoitine D.373! It is a looker

I like it too, seen below landing on Bearn.

Reminds me of the XF12C-1 (Curtiss Model 73). Which, like the Skua has to be one of the first folding wing, retractable undercarriage aircraft.... though the very first may be the Beardmore.

 

[glennasher]

The Blackburn Skua wings folded back with the wing leading edge up. A bit like a Sto wing but the leading edge on Sto wing points down. Blackburn Sharks had hydraulic locks on the backwards folding wings.View attachment 629467

That definitely helps the looks of the Skua, by covering up most of the thing.

 

[SaparotRob]

Didn't cover up enough.

 

[wlewisiii]

Really? For starters, does the US really have to care about foreign patents?

The US has a long history of recognizing foreign patents. My favorite example is the M1903 Springfield rifle and Mauser. From 1905 to 1914, the U.S. paid $200,000 in royalties to Mauser for patent infringements on Mauser's rifle designs. That included 75 cents per M1903 Springfield Rifle produced, and charges for stripper clip production. Mauser did not actually sue, but both the United States and Mauser's attorneys agreed that the patent infringement had occurred and that any lawsuit would be won by Mauser.

 

[drgondog]

I'll let the evidence speak for itself, if a plane is killing enough of it's own pilots during wartime that it is removed from service you know the number was high. The thread is about naval fighters, I voted for the Hellcat, the fighter that replaced the F4U, enough said. As for exact numbers, sorry I'm not doing all that research to prove a point the available evidence already does.

So far - not enough facts to support the contention. Any rational explanation for survival and continuance of the F4U over the F6F post war? I chose F8F but easily could have picked F4Uor F6F.

By any standard, the F6F was more of a 'pilot's airplane' with respect to handling qualities - but even the USN pilots picked F4U and F8F as Best Fighter more than F6F - Patuxent River Fighter Evaluation Oct-Nov 1944. Recognition that here was importance of Performance Envelope over 'all around great airplane'.


It is all opinion and your choice is fine.

 

[pbehn]

So far - not enough facts to support the contention. Any rational explanation for survival and continuance of the F4U over the F6F post war? I chose F8F but easily could have picked F4Uor F6F.

By any standard, the F6F was more of a 'pilot's airplane' with respect to handling qualities - but even the USN pilots picked F4U and F8F as Best Fighter more than F6F - Patuxent River Fighter Evaluation Oct-Nov 1944. Recognition that here was importance of Performance Envelope over 'all around great airplane'.


It is all opinion and your choice is fine.

On popular metrics of performance mainly top speed, the Spitfire Mk I was superior to to the Mk II, but the LW noticed that a newer better performing Spitfire had been introduced.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Didn't cover up enough.

I've always liked this pic.

 

[Peter Gunn]

I've always liked this pic.

View attachment 629538

So whoever was responsible for canopy design on that was a German collaborator?

 

[Admiral Beez]

So whoever was responsible for canopy design on that was a German collaborator?

Perhaps. We must remember how innovative the Skua was when designed in 1936. It was the first ever all-metal, monoplane carrier aircraft with folding wings and retractable undercarriage, plus a conformal bomb rack. The nearly vertical windshield was intended to give the pilot a good view whilst dive bombing. Aside from the Canadian-modified Sharks shown below, IIRC the Skua was the first single-engined, tandem-seat aircraft Blackburn made with an enclosed canopy, so they got it a little wrong.

But look at the list of Britain's WW2 aircraft, is there anything from 1936-38 that's single-engined, tanden-seat that has a canopy (capable supporting a rear-facing seat and machine gun) the Skua could have been modeled on? Hawker Henley, de Havilland Don? Rubbish. There's the Fairey Battle's windshield that should work, but the Skua's rear gunner has a much better field of view and fire, unless the Battle's gunner wants to almost climb out of the aircraft. Besides, beyond the Skua's windshield the canopy is as good as any. Fix that windshield and IMO it looks fine. It just needs to drop the fighter pretenses and get a bigger engine so to support a larger bomb load.

As it was, if we had a dogfight of the pre-war single-engined dive bombers I'd take the Skua with its four wing mounted mgs over the D3A, Ju-87, Ba.65, LN.401 or SB2U. For example, compared to the Skua's ROC of 1,580 ft/min the the ROC for the Ju-87 was 450 ft/min. Only the SBD would be the better pick.

 

[fastmongrel]

That definitely helps the looks of the Skua, by covering up most of the thing.

Looks gorgeous to me

 

[fastmongrel]

So whoever was responsible for canopy design on that was a German collaborator?

Supposedly the flat windscreen was designed like that to give perfect vision during the dive. A more streamlined optical windscreen possibly wasn't available with the current technology.

It must have knocked 10mph off the speed.

 

[GrauGeist]

Supposedly the flat windscreen was designed like that to give perfect vision during the dive. A more streamlined optical windscreen possibly wasn't available with the current technology.

It must have knocked 10mph off the speed.

I was thinking along the same lines:
Built-in dive brake...

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

I was thinking along the same lines:
Built-in dive brake...

Fix'd for accuracy, lol.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Given the level of innovation put into their 1936 design for the Skua, I'd like to think Blackburn could have come up with a good, Bristol-powered single seat fighter had they been asked in 1936. Imagine, an all metal, folding wing, retractable undercarriage, enclosed (and streamlined) canopy fighter, likely armed with eight machine guns and capable of over 320 mph entering service in 1938, when everyone else is flying the likes of this...

This would be on par with the Bf 109 and P-36 of the time. Unless the idiots at Blackburn screw up like they did on the Firebrand.... but again that was a multirole design. Give Blackburn a fighter-only spec and they should be able to make something competitive, likely looking a little like the Gloster F5/34.

 

[Clayton Magnet]

Given the level of innovation put into their 1936 design for the Skua, I'd like to think Blackburn could have come up with a good, Bristol-powered single seat fighter had they been asked in 1936

They probably could have, but pre-war Royal Navy/FAA thinking was that the air defense of the carrier would be handled by anti-aircraft guns and an armoured flight deck. With all the aircraft "safely" stored below decks. The Skua (and Roc) was only expected to fend off recce planes, shadowing the fleet. If they had developed a single seat fighter, it would have taken up the preciously few hanger positions below decks, OR they would have had to store them on the flight deck, defeating the purpose of the armour

 

[Admiral Beez]

They probably could have, but pre-war Royal Navy/FAA thinking was that the air defense of the carrier would be handled by anti-aircraft guns and an armoured flight deck.

Agreed, and the RN got what it wanted. I wonder if the RN ever asked the FAA squadron commanders and senior pilot officers what they needed/wanted?

 

[Shortround6]

There seems to have been a disconnect between what the users (pilots/squadron commanders) wanted and what the the guys in charge of doctrine wanted.

Some of this is not helped by the age of some of the ships and their capabilities. We get into a chicken and egg argument.

The 6 old carriers (Argus, Eagle, Hermes, and the 3 sisters) had truly pathetic aviation fuel storage capacity for dawn to dusk operations of even a few aircraft for days on end.
How much this influenced "tactics" I don't know.

The main problem was that the treasury was not exactly lavish providing funds. The Gunnery boys did not have things all their own way, for instance the saga of the 2pdr was long and frustrating.

" Vickers won the contract and presented an eight-gun mockup for examination in July 1923 at Vickers, Dartford. Lack of funding delayed proving ground firing trials out to 1927, with sea trials aboard HMS Tiger not being held until 1928. Service introduction was delayed to the end of 1930 and consisted of a single mounting installed on HMS Valiant. Satisfactory completion of trials on Valiant encouraged the Treasury to increase funding and during 1931 Nelson, Rodney and Revenge each received one mounting while Hood received two. The following year saw Furious and Royal Sovereign each receiving two mountings while Renown received one."

Unfortunately what was an advanced weapon in 1929-32 was not anywhere near the front of the pack in 1938-40 with the advances in aircraft.

If the treasury will not buy AA guns in anywhere near the desired quantities buying and operating extra squadrons of aircraft may be a doubtful proposition.

 

[Admiral Beez]

If the treasury will not buy AA guns in anywhere near the desired quantities buying and operating extra squadrons of aircraft may be a doubtful proposition.

I was thinking of a swap for Skua single seat fighter instead of DB. The Swordfish can dive bomb, so a CAG made up entirely of Skua fighters and Stringbag TSRs shouldn't alarm the beancounters.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

[...] a CAG made up entirely of Skua fighters and Stringbag TSRs shouldn't alarm the beancounters.

... or anyone else?

 

[Admiral Beez]

... or anyone else?

Just about any warship without carrier or landbased aviation support should fear a fully equipped RN CAG of Stringbags. Seven battleships from three nations crippled by the Swordfish: Bismarck, Veneto, Littorio, Duilio, Cavour, Richelieu and Dunkerque, plus numerous smaller vessels, including the cruisers Gorizia and Pola and at least twenty-two U-Boats.

The only thing the Swordfish lacked was a good fighter to protect it. If Blackburn had produced a single seat (all metal, retractable undercarriage, folding wing, streamlined enclosed canopy, etc.) fighter instead of the twin seat dual role Skua, the Swordfish may have survived the Channel Dash to rack up more hits and assisted kills.