Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Did the FAA perceive that the Skua was a marginal aircraft? View over the nose is especially important on carrier based aircraft. The Bolkhovitinov Spark just looks like a bad idea.Not looking for an improved Skua, but instead a clean sheet design. Given the engine and other limitations of the time, was it feasible to make a >200 mph (loaded), folding-wing (need to fit Ark Royal's 22 ft lift), steep angle divebomber armed with 2,000 lbs. of bombs (1,000 lb centreline, 500 lb underwing) to enter FAA / RN aircraft carrier service by summer 1939? For starters we'd need to develop a 1,000 lb. armour piercing bomb, as the RAF and FAA do not have one.
I'm not sure Bristol can help, how about two Merlins on one shaft like on the Bolkhovitinov Spark?
View attachment 657088
Though the pilot's view for landing will be hilariously terrible, so maybe not!It might also rip apart when recovering from a near 90 degree dive.
View attachment 657089
Anyway, can we get the FAA a 200+ mph, 2,000 lb armed ship killer for 1939?
Anyway, can we get the FAA a 200+ mph, 2,000 lb armed ship killer for 1939?
How about getting a single 1000lb bomb, of any type, onto the shipboard aircraft?how about two Merlins on one shaft
I think we're too early for the Hercules to have the aircraft in service before WW2. Though the Hercules engine was first run in 1936 so the pre-war aircraft could be "designed-for-but-not-with" the Hercules. Settle for a smaller engine until the Hercules is ready.How about a dive/torpedo bomber with a Bristol Hercules engine? The Hercules is in the ballpark of a Wright R-2600 in displacement. The problem with the Skua, the Roc, and the Barracuda is that they used small engines. The Hercules was much better.
Devastator is not a dive bomber. I did my best in the OP.Ju-87C copy powered by Merlin X?
TBD Devastator copy powered by Pegasus?
Albacore powered by Pegasus?
The French demonstrated how to build an AP on the fly - take a BB cannon round, remove the cannon fuse (needs high speed rotation to arm, you won't get that with bomb), with fuse removed empty explosive, weld on fins, replace explosive, install bomb fuse. If you want to get really fancy machine in mounting lug. RN has a number of 12" rounds kicking around from the Great War - that's a 850lb+ AP/SAP/HE bomb on short notice. You can special order the perfect round later.
But how many 1k lb AP bombs do you need? They aren't heavy enough to penetrate deck armour of Scharnhorst/Bismarck classes; they're overkill for anything else (They'd go through bottom before exploding).
Closest historical plane would have been Hawker Henley. Design was for 2-250lb bombs in bombay, 2-100lb on wings. That's with Merlin II and fabric covered wings. Upgrade the Merlin to the VIII (from Fulmar) on 100 octane (might need to increase cooling a smidge) and metal covering on wings. Modify bomb bay to hold single 12" ordinance (250lb would have been about 8"; I don't know if they were tandem or side by side), collapsible fins if bomb bay length is issue/bulge bomb bay door if required for larger diameter.
I wonder what happened to the stockpiles of 12" and 13.5" shells from the RN dreadnoughts and predreadnoughts scrapped in the 1920s?The AP bombs used by the Imperial Japanese Navy during the attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941, which sank the USS Arizona among others, were developed from discarded artillery sells, 14 inch calibre if I recall. I think they were in the 800 kg weight class (1,700 lb.).
Don't know. But unwanted munitions often ended up dumped in piles at the bottom of the North Sea or Irish Sea. The RN would only have needed to retain a small proportion of the AP version of these shells to create a stockpile of aerial AP bombs.I wonder what happened to the stockpiles of 12" and 13.5" shells from the RN dreadnoughts and predreadnoughts scrapped in the 1920s?
The Bristol Pegasus (as Shortround6 mentioned above) was rated at 900-1000 BHP for TO in its latest Marks at the start of the war. The US was able to develop the SBC Helldiver biplane and SBD Dauntless monoplane in the same timeframe, both using engines in the 900-1000 BHP for TO range and both capable of carrying a 1000 lb bomb at over 200 mph.
The Stuka is by far the better example. The TBD wasn't stressed for dive bombing, which required a vastly heavier structure.In 1938, Pegasus was rated at 980-1010 HP (87 oct fuel).
Ju-87R (1000 HP for take off with Jumo 211A) was erstwhile rated for a 1100 lb bomb + two drop tanks, and in 1940, on same power, was rated for a 2200 lb bomb + two drop tanks. Yes, it was not a navalized bomber.
Douglas TBD carried a 2200 lb torpedo with 900 HP low-level rated R-1830.
The French didn't expend any more energy than what I outlined - fins were welded on, fuses replaced. Their AP bombs weight exactly the same as the cannon rounds. (I picked the French as they were 18+ months earlier than Japanese and a more improvised solution)It takes a bit more work than outlined above.
Some of the shells have different shaped noses and/or ballistic caps.
Since the shells are not spinning, or not spinning very fast, even with fins you need to make sure you have the desired stability.
AP shells often had an explosive weight of around 2%.
Since the AP bomb no longer has to rotate at high speed and be subjected to tens of thousands of PSI chamber pressure when firing and Since the deck armor is thinner the shells have nowhere near the stress put on them compared to punching through thicker armor.
A lot of the converted battleship shells were bored out with thinner walls so they would hold more explosive.
This also meant they were lighter than the parent Battleship shells.
In some cases the ballistic caps/windshield were removed.
The Ju-87C is more/less a navalized Ju-87R, and it was rated same or higher.Ju-87R (1000 HP for take off with Jumo 211A) was erstwhile rated for a 1100 lb bomb + two drop tanks, and in 1940, on same power, was rated for a 2200 lb bomb + two drop tanks. Yes, it was not a navalized bomber.