Improved Skua for FAA?

[Admiral Beez]

When the Blackburn Skua was removed from fleet service in 1941 the RN didn't have a monoplane dive bomber until mid-1943 when the Barracuda enters fleet wide service. Removing the Skua made sense, since RN CAGs were small in number and if you have single-role fighter, DB and TSR types, and if the TSR can also carry bombs for slight glide slope attacking, the DB has to go.

But if the Skua can be made into something more, perhaps it's worth keeping some onboard. We need it to be faster and with a higher bomb load. Basically the FAA needs a Douglas SBD Dauntless. What can we do to the Skua in a Mark III version to get it there? Our starting point is the Mark II Skua that was in service until 1941.

For starters, looking at these pics.... fix the aerodynamics. The vertical canopy has to go, and all the lumps and protrusions need to be smoothed out. What can we replace the 890hp Perseus with? Hercules is not ready, likely too big and never intended for single engine use. There was a 1,200 hp version of the Perseus, Bristol Perseus - Wikipedia

Just look at how streamlined the Japanese divebomber Yokosuka D4Y Suisei, first flown 1940 is in comparison.

 

[tyrodtom]

I've often wondered what was the reasoning for that vertical windshield ?
Less glare when you're flying into the sun ?
Very few other aircraft tried that approach to windshield design.

 

[tomo pauk]

When the Blackburn Skua was removed from fleet service in 1941 the RN didn't have a monoplane dive bomber until mid-1943 when the Barracuda enters fleet wide service. Removing the Skua made sense, since RN CAGs were small in number and if you have single-role fighter, DB and TSR types, and if the TSR can also carry bombs for slight glide slope attacking, the DB has to go.

But if the Skua can be made into something more, perhaps it's worth keeping some onboard. We need it to be faster and with a higher bomb load. Basically the FAA needs a Douglas SBD Dauntless. What can we do to the Skua in a Mark III version to get it there? Our starting point is the Mark II Skua that was in service until 1941.

For starters, looking at these pics.... fix the aerodynamics. The vertical canopy has to go, and all the lumps and protrusions need to be smoothed out. What can we replace the 890hp Perseus with? Hercules is not ready, likely too big and never intended for single engine use. There was a 1,200 hp version of the Perseus, Bristol Perseus - Wikipedia

Just look at how streamlined the Japanese divebomber Yokosuka D4Y Suisei, first flown 1940 is in comparison.

The Suisei from the pcture 1st flew in 1943?

There was no 1200 HP version of the Perseus until too late, basically it was a Centaurus cut in half (a gross generalization, I know), and used a far better fuel than it was the case with the vanilla Perseus.

Aerodynamics were excellent when compared with Stuka or the Val. What was not excellent was engine power indeed, especially once above 5-6 thousand feet due to the as-used Perseus having the superchager gearing set for low level. At 15000 ft, it was making ~670 HP. There was no 2-speed supercharged Perseus in production (probably not even as a prototype). The hi-alt Perseus, the Mk.X, was good for 880 HP at 15000 ft, but just 750 HP for take off (so our bomb load will badly suffer with that engine).
What can be done is installation of a better engine. The Pegasus was a decent engine, it was available as a 2-speed supercharged version, that gave ~970 HP for take-off, but also 1000 HP at 3000 ft, and 885 HP at 15000 ft. A 1-speed supercharged version, gearing being for 'mid' level, will give 840 HP for take off, and 930 HP at 10000 ft - that is just a slight gain vs. Perseus.
The Taurus is another engine worth a look. Never known as dead reliable, it was also just a low-level engine, power of about 1100 HP down low. Taurus is much heavier than the 9-cyl radials, it is also of smaller radius, but then again the big Skua will not became a Spitfire if we install a smaller radial on the Skua itself.
US engines can be used, Cyclone or Twin Wasp.
A more speculative engine for the Skua is the Merlin. Installaed weight will be probably two times of the Perseus.

Wing should gain Fowler flaps to help out with increased aircraft weight.

 

[nuuumannn]

The reasons why the Barracuda took so long to enter service was not because the navy were slow to act, but because it was a troublesome airframe that required changes before it was fit for service. The Barra was built to the pre-war requirement for a Skua replacement, which was for a torpedo bomber, dive bomber and general recon platform - incorporating too much into one airframe, which resulted in the massive piece of ironmongery that was the Barra. This was the same with a new single-seat fighter for the navy; the Firebrand was supposed to be the aircraft, but it was a dog's breakfast and eventually ended up as a less than adequate torpedo bomber.

The Skua was a dead end in development terms - might as well investigate a new airframe altogether. It was a big aeroplane, bigger than the Suisei, which is quite svelte by comparison and is more of a contemporary with the Barracuda.

 

[Shortround6]

Tomo is correct on the Perseus 100 engine. It used a 178mm stroke (same as the Centaurus) instead of the 165mm stroke of the older Perseus engines. I am not sure it ever flew in a production aircraft. It used the better fuel to allow 9lbs of boost. A Centaurus 57 only used 11.5lbs of boost while using water injection.

easiest and cheapest way to get a good engine into the Skua was buy P & W R-1830s.

 

[Admiral Beez]

The Skua was a dead end in development terms - might as well investigate a new airframe altogether. It was a big aeroplane, bigger than the Suisei, which is quite svelte by comparison and is more of a contemporary with the Barracuda.

I didn't realize the Skua was so large, until I saw the tiny crew.

 

[Admiral Beez]

 

[PFVA63]

Hi,
Similar to what Adm Beez notes above, I didn't realize just how large this plane was either. Looking at Wikipedia it appears that it was just a little longer than the SBD Dauntless (10.85m vs 10.1m), a bit wider in wing span (14.1m vs 12.7m), but with a slightly smaller wing (29.6m2 vs 30.2m2) and a lighter empty weight (2498kg vs 2905kg).

Overall, other than trying some clean up of the body and maybe looking at a P&W or Wright Cyclone engine (if a vailable) I'm not really too sure what else could be done. And overall I wouldn't expect those changes to make a radical improvement in performance.

Pat

 

[Admiral Beez]

Overall, other than trying some clean up of the body and maybe looking at a P&W or Wright Cyclone engine (if a vailable) I'm not really too sure what else could be done.

What about ditching some of the elements from the Skua's fighter role? Remove some or all of the forward armament. I'm not sure what else a fighter has that a DB doesn't need, maybe gunsights or some armour?

 

[tyrodtom]

I think a dive bomber might need armor at least as much, if not more than a fighter.

I doubt that any gunsight is enough of a weight penalty to worry about.
And there's not many dive bombers, if any, without some forward firing armament.

 

[Shortround6]

Four .303 guns weigh just under 100lbs and 500rounds per gun weighed about 120lbs. I don't remember how much ammo the Skua carried, adjust accordingly. 6lbs per 100 rounds. Mounts ammo boxes, etc.. extra.. 50 guns in the SBD went over 70lbs each and .50 cal ammo is 30lb per hundred rounds.
Gun sights are 3-5 lbs.

 

[Greyman]

600 rounds per gun for the Skua.
248 pounds would be saved by taking out the guns, ammo and ammo boxes.
283.5 if you tore everything out (accessories, mountings, firing mechanisms, etc.)

For what its worth the Lewis gun and 6 mags was 95.5 pounds (mountings, sights, stowage pegs, everything).

 

[Admiral Beez]

The biggest flaw in the Skua is the paltry 500 lb. bomb load, compared to 2,225 lb. on the Douglas SBD Dauntless. If we can increase the Skua's bomb weight we can forgive its other failings.

 

[Kevin J]

The Albacore circa 1940 like the Barracuda could perform the dive bombing task. I don't think the FAA needed a fast dive bomber as it's targets were warships not IJN aircraft carriers. The Fulmar II, 1941 onwards, could carry a 500 lb bomb in a 70 degree dive, but no dive brakes, although some were tested. Unless the RN has lots of Ark Royal configuration carriers for operation in 1941/42 against IJN carriers, I can't see the point of a fast dive bomber, and my choice would be the Fulmar II, maybe even Fulmar III with Merlin 32 and dive brakes for 1942/43 but that requires the two Implacable class carriers to be completed. The only way you're going to get more carriers available is to retain and modernise the 4 Iron Duke class battleships and Tiger and to build 5 Ark Royal type carriers instead of the King George V class battleships. If you want an even faster dive bomber then you need to start with the Defiant, replace the turret with a gunners position, move the radiator to under the nose, put a bomb rack under the fuselage and install upward folding wings.

 

[Admiral Beez]

but that requires the two Implacable class carriers to be completed. The only way you're going to get more carriers available is to retain and modernise the 4 Iron Duke class battleships and Tiger and to build 5 Ark Royal type carriers instead of the King George V class battleships.

My ideal RN carrier is a faster and slightly longer Centaur class. Single hangar, skip the Majestic/Colossus and even the two Implacables. So it's Ark Royal to Illustrious/Indomitable to Centaur to Audacious.

 

[Kevin J]

My ideal RN carrier is a faster and slightly longer Centaur class. Single hangar, skip the Majestic/Colossus and even the two Implacables. So it's Ark Royal to Illustrious/Indomitable to Centaur to Audacious.

So you want the 1959 Hermes in 1941?

 

[Admiral Beez]

So you want the 1959 Hermes in 1941?

No, angled deck and deck edge lift are too far a leap for 1941.

Basically this, HMS Centaur, but with straight deck paint. Cheaper and faster to build than an AFD carrier, far more useful than a Majestic/Colossus CVL.

 

[Kevin J]

No, angled deck and deck edge lift are too far a leap for 1941.

Basically this, HMS Centaur, but with straight deck paint. Cheaper and faster to build than an AFD carrier, far more useful than a Majestic/Colossus CVL.

View attachment 559780

It's a result of design evolution, you won't get it by 1941. You might get an Ark Royal development with a deck edge lift.

 

[Admiral Beez]

It's a result of design evolution, you won't get it by 1941. You might get an Ark Royal development with a deck edge lift.

Centaur is essentially a single level Ark Royal or an Illustrious without the armoured box. Nothing really evolutionary there. But I am suggesting the Centaurs follow the Illustrious, so when the four Illustrious/Indomitable start in 1937 the follow-on design should be Centaurs.

 

[Kevin J]

Centaur is essentially a single level Ark Royal or an Illustrious without the armoured box. Nothing really evolutionary there. But I am suggesting the Centaurs follow the Illustrious, so when the four Illustrious/Indomitable start in 1937 the follow-on design should be Centaurs.

You've clearly never had to design anything in your life, it's a learning process, and when you look back you think, wow, that was either crap, or cobbled together.