yulzari
Tech Sergeant
The Rolls Royce Griffon was a Royal Navy sponsored design. What could the Fairey Barracuda have been were it designed from the beginning around the Rolls Royce Griffon and not the Rolls Royce Exe (later swapped for the Merlin)?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Can we get it to replace the Swordfish instead of the Albacore?The Rolls Royce Griffon was a Royal Navy sponsored design. What could the Fairey Barracuda have been were it designed from the beginning around the Rolls Royce Griffon and not the Rolls Royce Exe (later swapped for the Merlin)?
Overloaded for the Merlin and Exe but was it so for the Griffon?It might have helped having a Griffon, but the engine was perhaps the least of its worries. It was overloaded and a victim of the usual RAF/Admiralty tendency to put all its eggs in one basket. Aerodynamically it was a bit of a mess, which was unusual for a product of Lobelle's (Fairey's Belgian chief designer), but building an observer's lounge below the wing, making it also a dive bomber and a torpedo bomber didn't help. Those big Youngman flaps were definitely effective and were designed to aid not only in dive bombing but also torpedo attacks; the aircraft diving down at speed, launching the torpedo, retracting the flaps and escaping, but didn't help drag reduction - it's tailplane had to be relocated owing to airflow interference from them. Apart from being underpowered and a sluggish climber, pilots also complained that it was directionally unstable and it suffered from rudder over-balance.
If the Griffon is available earlier, maybe the Barracuda is still a slug, but the Spitfire program says thank you very much.It might have helped having a Griffon, but the engine was perhaps the least of its worries.
He had become convinced that the drag of a hand operated gun was pointless, especially as rising speeds made it's operation increasingly difficult. Hence his light bomber and Firefly had no gun provision with the extra speed of a smooth fuselage being of more use and available turrets (e.g. Defiant type) even more draggy and very heavy. Although the later Spearfish had remote guns in side barbettes as technology improved.The Observers lounge was a result of wanting clear vision without a big wing in the way. Of course with a bit of hindsight ASV Radar made it obsolete. I like to think if Lobelle hadnt been handicapped by the Observers station he could have designed a low wing fuselage with a semi recessed torpedo something like a Fairey Battle with a chin radiator.
I would quite like to see a powered low drag turret for defence, as poking a machine gun out of the back of the cockpit was pretty much useless by 1940.
View attachment 610380
Don't you have to consider what engines the other planes on the carrier have?
If the Griffon is available earlier, maybe the Barracuda is still a slug, but the Spitfire program says thank you very much.
Also, while the engine is likely too small vs the Sabre, the folks at Hawkers may want to try a Griffon in the Typhoon. Griffon Lancaster?
Overloaded for the Merlin and Exe but was it so for the Griffon?
It's true, but what I'd really like the Brits to do is use reasonable foresight. Break out of the silos and share some info. Willful systemic blindness is not the same as a lack of hindsight.Yup, hindsight is fabulous.
Hindsight wasn't needed, just cross department knowledge and a little informed foresight. For example, instead of compromising the Barracuda design with an observer's window, have the Air Ministry tell their aircraft procurement department to walk down the hall to the radar department and ask them what they think radar will do for naval aviation in a year or so.The Observers lounge was a result of wanting clear vision without a big wing in the way. Of course with a bit of hindsight ASV Radar made it obsolete.
It's true, but what I'd really like the Brits to do is use reasonable foresight. Break out of the silos and share some info.
Hindsight wasn't needed, just cross department knowledge and a little informed foresight. For example, instead of compromising the Barracuda design with an observer's window, have the Air Ministry tell their aircraft procurement department to walk down the hall to the radar department and ask them what they think radar will do for naval aviation in a year or so.
Ha. I wonder what other examples of the impact of lack of intergovernmental communication we can come up with. Did the IJNAF and IJAF know that both were working on separate machine gun and cannon programs?Ahhh bureaucracy. Government departments not talking to each other? Unheard of!
Ha. I wonder what other examples of the impact of lack of intergovernmental communication we can come up with.
Ugly as it was, it looks like one of the best landing of the FAA's monoplane aircraft.The basic problem with the Barracuda was the requirement for a high wing to give best visibility as required by the FAA spec. The high wing caused issues with the airflow over the elevators, and forced the use of extremely long, heavy and draggy LG.
The Barracuda Mk V was deployed with the Griffon. Perhaps this is where we should start.The Rolls Royce Griffon was a Royal Navy sponsored design. What could the Fairey Barracuda have been were it designed from the beginning around the Rolls Royce Griffon and not the Rolls Royce Exe (later swapped for the Merlin)?