- Thread starter
-
- #21
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
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.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.
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.
I guess its ugliness makes for easy recognition.whatever its other shortcomings may be, she was certainly no looker
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"The Perseus 100 used 100 octane but it was a single row Centaurus.
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.
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.Hi,
Thanks for posting those images. They are very interesting and infomative.
Pat
My improved Skua would be a Fulmar.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
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?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
Looks like there's space to put another Perseus behind the first one. Attach the two Perseus by a shaft.Skua Mk. II Bristol PerseusView attachment 560194
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.Looks like there's space to put another Perseus behind the first one. Attach the two Perseus by a shaft.
View attachment 560506