Needles and Stings

[Romantic Technofreak]

Hi all,

I would like to hear your opinions on a theme that puzzles me. How to produce a really, really fast WWII torpedo bomber?

Well, you know Nakajima produced a very fast reconnoisater, the C6N "Myrt" or "Saiun", while at the same time providing the IJN with the optically very similar B6N "Tenzan" rsp. "Jill". Well, as somebody called the C6N looking slim like like a needle, the B6N has a somehow plumper outline. And I wonder had it not been possible to produce just one aircraft for two puposes? That means, a torpedo bomber version of the C6N?
So, to combine the needle with the sting: originally, the torpedo is the sting-equipped ray fish.

If you read this link: Aviation of Japan 日本の航空史: The Need for Speed: Developing and Delivering Saiun
you may find Nakajima went to the limit of such an aircraft to reach its goals. What might be even worse if you demand to carry a torpedo, and futher if you mean this is to be completely or partially enclosed by the the fuselage, thereby not producing an optical appearance and (much related) speed performance like the Grumman Avenger? But, the Saiun used to carry a large belly tank. To change it for a torpedo might not be the worst task.

And, this is not only a Japanese theme. I wonder why nobody sees the Fairey Fulmar is a torpedo bomber? Of course I know it was none. But the Fulmar's sleek outline suggests it should host a torpedo. At least this is what I personally mean. The Fulmar was not the fastest fighter, and it should leave this role to better suited aircraft like Sea Hurricane and Seafire, while itself incorporating a much more attractive torpedo aircraft than any Swordfish or Albacore ever could, thus even outrunning the later Barracuda and Firefly.

Let me show you some pictorial underlinings, combined from drawings available on the net. I know I am not a famous computer artist. My pictures of the "Fairey Stingray" are just to show you what I want to say.
Mk. I: the otherwise unchanged Fulmar as torpedo bomber. Maybe the air intake has to be moved to the wing roots.

Mk. II: gets a Spitfire nose to suggest speed.

Mk. III: futher gets a Defiant turret, so this may have a sensible form of use.

Or did Fairey even suggest such aircraft, but they were refused for whatever reason?

Hope you enjoyed, and are motivated to tell me your thoughts!

Regards, RT

 

[elbmc1969]

First off, the Fulmar's structure needs to be strong enough to support a torpedo under the fuselage. I doubt that it was designed that way.

Second, the undercarriage would be far too weak to support a torpedo variant trying to come back aboard with a torpedo. (Don't even consider the turret variation ...)

Third, adding the turret from the Defiant adds a lot of weight, requires structure to support it, changes the center of gravity increases form drag, and requires changes to the rear fuselage to clear the field of fire. The Defiant also had a retractable fairing to reduce drag when the turret wasn't in use.

 

[Shortround6]

It might be possible but you can forget sticking that turret back there.

You could rip out 1/2 the wing guns and 3/4s of the ammo and save around 400lbs, Some Fulmars carried a 60 imp gallon belly tank, (420 lbs of fuel plus tank weight?) so you are halfway there. Now figure out if the plane actually has the desired radius of action (and speed) to perform the desired missions.

 

[XBe02Drvr]

Any plane designed to go fast is likely to not be very flyable at torpedo dropping speeds. A full suite of high lift devices might do the trick, but would add much weight and complexity, reduce fuel capacity, and impact range.
Cheers,
Wes

 

[tomo pauk]

Nakajima installed a cutting edge wing on the C6M - laminar-flow type with double-slotted Fowler flaps. Combination that provided both low drag (= more speed) and excelent low-speed capabilities (needed for taking off from CV with heavy load) . The leading edge slats were aslo there. So indeed there is a way.
The F6F was also certified to carry a torpedo, the heavy brute Mk13. Reasonably fast it was.
In case land-based 1-engined torpedo bomber is what is needed - both Fw 190 and Fiat G.55 were flown with torpedo, even if it seems those rarely (if ever) saw combat.
Late P-40 were cetrified for 2 x 225 gal ferry tanks (~3000 lbs), so lift capacity is there. On 1200 HP for take off.

 

[jetcal1]

Perhaps you need a Blackburn Firebrand or Boeing F8B. Something big with a slightly out-sized engine.

 

[nuuumannn]

Anything but the Firebrand, that was designed as a fleet fighter and ended up as a mediocre torpedo carrier some years after the fact. Perhaps the Westland Wyvern springs to mind in its initial form? Development was begun in 1944.

0307 FAA Museum Wyvern

 

[jetcal1]

Anything but the Firebrand, that was designed as a fleet fighter and ended up as a mediocre torpedo carrier some years after the fact. Perhaps the Westland Wyvern springs to mind in its initial form? Development was begun in 1944.

View attachment 5514790307 FAA Museum Wyvern

Sure, an Eagle powered Wyvern would qualify as would an AM-1. Firebrand was merely listed for illustrative purposes.

 

[pinsog]

If it needs to be carrier capable, then a Corsair might be a good choice. If it was going to do it a lot then it would need the internal wing tanks put back in, except they need to be made self sealing.

If it can be land based, then a P38 would be a good choice since it could do in excess of 300 mph while carrying 2 torpedoes.