Improved Skua for FAA?

[Admiral Beez]

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.

Perhaps a single forward mg, but removing fighter parts doesn't seem to get us there. With such a wingspan and overall size, what was driving the poor bombload? Ability to get into the air I suppose, but the engine is running about 900 hp, which isn't huge but it's not a 500 hp Aquila.

 

[Dinger]

The Skua had a few things that could be improved on to make it a better all-round combat aircraft. The one thing that everyone misses in their appraisal of it is that long nose - It is mostly air! Look at the photographs of the first prototype (photo on one of a series of webpages devoted to the type - halfway down see Link Images of the Blackburn Skua ). It initially had a much shorter nose (not unlike the Douglas Dauntless), but the prototype was found to have stability problems and one of the cures was to extend the nose. That added extension is almost completely empty! So the most obvious enhancement you could give the Skua in 1941 is not a more powerful radial - but a liquid-cooled engine. The obvious choice would be a Merlin XX with a neat under-chin radiator (like the Hawker Henley). That would fill up that nose nicely! The added power should enable it to easily lift a 1,000 lb bomb. The next major improvement would be its radio equipment. The Skua had no speech-based radio set, making it impossible to readily co-operate with other aircraft, pretty essential in the dive-bomber and fighter roles - So an improved radio fit is essential. Then make the fuel-tanks self-sealing with a modicum of armour protection at the rear, at the same time perhaps make the two fuel tanks between the pilot and gunner a bit bigger (plenty of room to do so) to make up for the increased fuel consumption of the Merlin. Give the pilot some armour protection at his back and bulletproof glass in the front windshield. The steep windshield is one thing I would not change, it accommodated the wide range of movement of the pilot's seat up and down that gave him an excellent view when landing (see Eric "Winkle" Browns description of the Skua). Give the gunner/WT operator a proper seat to sit on with a proper harness to keep him safe while dive-bombing (he only had a bench and a single strap to stop him being thrown out, lots of Skua crewmen were injured by being thrown about in the cockpit). Improve the dingey release mechanism (which often failed). Improve the anti-spin parachute deployment and release mechanisms so that they don't run outside the fuselage and cause drag. Likewise take advantage of fitting a Merlin engine to replace the ludicrous Blackburn "quick release" keyring mechanisms for holding the engine covers in place for the more streamlined type used on the Hurricane and Spitfire, to cut down on drag. Lastly, if resources will stretch to it, get rid of the upturned wingtips and give the Skua proper dihedral across the whole of its wings (as they did in the Roc) which cures the instability problems of the misplaced C of G. Doing this in 1941 is problematic since the production line has already been moved over to produce Bothas, unless you are going to rework the existing remaining Skuas (and there were never very many to start off with).

 

[Shortround6]

Perhaps a single forward mg, but removing fighter parts doesn't seem to get us there. With such a wingspan and overall size, what was driving the poor bombload? Ability to get into the air I suppose, but the engine is running about 900 hp, which isn't huge but it's not a 500 hp Aquila.

Please remember that British flight decks were a bit shorter than American flight decks.

as for the bolded part. Most American radials early on were rated at take-off power and the vast majority (after 1940 at least) were 2 speed.

The older British radials were single speed. While the Perseus XII was good for 905hp at 6500ft it was only good for 830hp for take off, not sure if it was ever rated for 100 octane fuel.
While the RAF had 100 octane for fighter command during the summer of 1940, other commands were not so lucky, 87 octane hung on a while longer and the Skuas went out of front line service in 1941.
I have no idea if the Skua was stuck with a 2 pitch prop pr had a constant speed, it two pitch it explains a lot about the lightbomb load.

 

[Kevin J]

Please remember that British flight decks were a bit shorter than American flight decks.

as for the bolded part. Most American radials early on were rated at take-off power and the vast majority (after 1940 at least) were 2 speed.

The older British radials were single speed. While the Perseus XII was good for 905hp at 6500ft it was only good for 830hp for take off, not sure if it was ever rated for 100 octane fuel.
While the RAF had 100 octane for fighter command during the summer of 1940, other commands were not so lucky, 87 octane hung on a while longer and the Skuas went out of front line service in 1941.
I have no idea if the Skua was stuck with a 2 pitch prop pr had a constant speed, it two pitch it explains a lot about the lightbomb load.

The Perseus 100 used 100 octane but it was a single row Centaurus.

 

[Clayton Magnet]

whatever its other shortcomings may be, she was certainly no looker

 

[Admiral Beez]

whatever its other shortcomings may be, she was certainly no looker

I guess its ugliness makes for easy recognition.

 

[Shortround6]

The Perseus 100 used 100 octane but it was a single row Centaurus.

The Perseus 100 was a very late war if not post war engine. In fact a Photo was not available in Feb 1946 for the 1946 edition of "aircraft engines of the world"
I know of no production plane that used this engine (or even planned to).
Bristol may have been desperate to sell but I don't think there were any buyers, the engine certainly seems to be well out of the way for any 1941-42 aircraft.

 

[Greyman]

I have no idea if the Skua was stuck with a 2 pitch prop pr had a constant speed, it two pitch it explains a lot about the lightbomb load.

Two-pitch only.

 

[Shortround6]

Thank you

 

[stug3]

Skua cockpit

Skua rear gunner

 

[PFVA63]

Hi,
Thanks for posting those images. They are very interesting and infomative.

Pat

 

[stug3]

Skua Mk. II Bristol Perseus

 

[Admiral Beez]

Hi,
Thanks for posting those images. They are very interesting and infomative.

Pat

This photo of the fuel tanks between the pilot and gunner surprised me. No fire protection for the crew, just gas tanks essentially in their laps.

 

[Kevin J]

This photo of the fuel tanks between the pilot and gunner surprised me. No fire protection for the crew, just gas tanks essentially in their laps.

View attachment 560196

My improved Skua would be a Fulmar.

 

[Shortround6]

The best idea for improving the Skua would be to fit a P & W R-1830 to it.
Even with 87 octane fuel and a single speed supercharger it gives about 200hp more for take-off and about 50hp more several thousand feet higher than the Perseus fitted.

Ideas for the Merlin require Merlins to begin with, and unless you steal them from Battles or Defiants they are in short supply. Then unless you use the Merlin VIII or some variation of it you haven't solved much of anything. Merlin and radiator weigh 5-600lbs more than the Perseus and a Merlin III on 87 octane has 880hp for take-off, only about 75hp more. Granted it will be lot faster at 15-18,000ft but that is not where the enemy torpedo bombers and low level horizontal bombers and fleet shadowers are going to be.
Using the Merlin X would be a nice solution but prying Merlin X engines from bomber command (or from their adherents in the air ministry) would be a most difficult task. There is no substitute for the Merlin X in the British heavy bombers in 1939/40.

2nd best idea is using the Pegasus. At lest with a two speed supercharger you do get a very usable boost in take-off power to increase the loaded weight of the aircraft. However you are in competition with the Hampden and the Wellington (and others) for engines.

 

[yulzari]

The improved Skua was with a Merlin engine: closely followed by a Fairey Fulmar airframe. As Fulmars came into service they displaced the Skuas. A more productive search would be for an improved Fulmar with a Griffon actually following the OTL Fulmar on the production line. There were 3 Griffons on test by the end of 1939 and it had moved on to the MkII by the summer of 1940. It would save the far too long delay to get the OTL Firefly into general service.

The Skua production line had been taken down by Blackburns at the end of the initial contract and Boulton Paul had to make the Roc so there would have been a shortfall in Skua airframes anyway whilst the Fulmar production line was current. With the extra torque and power of the Griffon the Fulmar would then be able to lift a decent war load off the deck and deliver it in a steep dive or low level shallow dive as required whilst being able to defend itself thereafter.

 

[Glider]

I admit to believing that the Skua has a reputation that it doesn't really deserve. As an early war dive bomber it was as good as most of the rest and was also able to better defend itself than most.
Had the British replaced the Battle with the Skua then the RAF would have had a GA aircraft it sorely needed in the first two years of the war

 

[Admiral Beez]

I admit to believing that the Skua has a reputation that it doesn't really deserve. As an early war dive bomber it was as good as most of the rest and was also able to better defend itself than most.
Had the British replaced the Battle with the Skua then the RAF would have had a GA aircraft it sorely needed in the first two years of the war

Had the RN not lost HMS Courageous and Glorious through misuse the Skua might have scene action at Taranto. Dive bombing at night? Perhaps a dawn follow up strike against the tank farms?

 

[Admiral Beez]

Skua Mk. II Bristol PerseusView attachment 560194

Looks like there's space to put another Perseus behind the first one. Attach the two Perseus by a shaft.

No, I don't mean make a new double banked engine, just connect two existing Perseus.

 

[Kevin J]

Looks like there's space to put another Perseus behind the first one. Attach the two Perseus by a shaft.

View attachment 560506

I guess if you can put a RR Vulture in a Henley then you can put a Centaurus in a Skua, but what about the effect on c.g? Would you need a B.P. turret on the back to compensate for the heavier engine on the front? Now maybe that may have made the Blackburn Roc workable.