Arg, I'd rather start with a clean sheet, frankly. I can think of eminently more suitable designs to modify than a big heavy two-seat dive bomber role optimised aircraft that possessed terrible manoeuvrability and low performance and was powered by an underpowered sleeve valve engine. Start with an existing single-seat fighter, as the admiralty thought to do initially as its stop-gap.
Skua: 100lb or 500lb bombs hit Konigsberg?
- Thread starter elbmc1969
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Arg, I'd rather start with a clean sheet, frankly. I can think of eminently more suitable designs to modify than a big heavy two-seat dive bomber role optimised aircraft that possessed terrible manoeuvrability and low performance and was powered by an underpowered sleeve valve engine. Start with an existing single-seat fighter, as the admiralty thought to do initially as its stop-gap.
Admiral Beez
Major
Every single dedicated fighter (sorry Skua, you don't count) on British carriers since the onset of naval aviation with the exception of the Fulmar and Firefly and the postwar Venom, Vixen and Phantom was a single seater. The British were not twin-obsessed, and operated far more single seat fighters on their carriers in WW2 than twin seaters.
But for that matter, the Fulmar, to this day holds the FAA record for most air to air kills, mostly against unescorted Italian tri-motor bombers and German Stuka, IIRC. Not bad for an aircraft that was withdrawn quite early on. I'm not sure the Sea Hurricane or Seafire with their faster speed but shorter legs would have done significantly better.
I wonder what the second highest scoring FAA fighter was? Perhaps the Sea Harrier, with 20 kills against Argentina in 1982?
Admiral Beez
Major
I'd like to have seen a prototype flown to test these assumptions. If must, just add concrete or lead weights into the wings to simulate the added mass of a folding mechanism. Then test against a Fulmar for speed, roll and rate of climb.
If the Hurricane IIC with its heavy quad 20mm cannons and two 250 lb or 500 lb. bombs was considered a useful combat aircraft, then surely it's worth flight testing to review the ROI of the added weight of a wing fold? Here's HMS Argus. I'm sure whatever RN warships or allied convoy she's escorting would be pleased to have triple the number of folding wing Sea Hurricanes in this hangar, no matter the weight penalty.
Last edited:
ThomasP
Senior Master Sergeant
The main problem that I see with upgrading the Skua is a suitable engine, ie one with enough power increase to offset any increase in weight and drag, and any reduction in range. Although pilot armour was retrofitted, the Skua was never fitted with SSFT (I think). So if we are going to make the necessary changes for a more combat worthy Skua we would either have to redesign the fuel system with SSFT in mind, or retrofit SSFT in the existing space causing a consequent increase in weight and reduction in range.
As for the SeaHurricane, by the time the Hurricane Mk II came out there would not have been any serious problem with the added weight of the folding mechanism, the Merlin XX had enough power. In my theoretical SeaHurricane Mk III, I replaced the 'C' wing armament (4x 20mm with 94 rpg, at ~800 lb) with a similar arrangement to the Seafire 'B' wing (2x 20mm with 120 rpg and 4x .303 cal Browning with 400 rpg, at ~640 lbs), which all by itself should save ~160 lbs. Since the weapons are outboard of the wing fold mechanism there should not even be any reduction in roll rate. The use of 45 Impgal DTs, along with an additional 20 Impgal SSFT in each outer wing section, would allow time on CAP (with combat) equal to the Fulmar at about 4.5 hrs.
As for the SeaHurricane, by the time the Hurricane Mk II came out there would not have been any serious problem with the added weight of the folding mechanism, the Merlin XX had enough power. In my theoretical SeaHurricane Mk III, I replaced the 'C' wing armament (4x 20mm with 94 rpg, at ~800 lb) with a similar arrangement to the Seafire 'B' wing (2x 20mm with 120 rpg and 4x .303 cal Browning with 400 rpg, at ~640 lbs), which all by itself should save ~160 lbs. Since the weapons are outboard of the wing fold mechanism there should not even be any reduction in roll rate. The use of 45 Impgal DTs, along with an additional 20 Impgal SSFT in each outer wing section, would allow time on CAP (with combat) equal to the Fulmar at about 4.5 hrs.
I would really like to know aircraft stats for FAA claims, and Barret Tillman (who frequents this forum) states that the FAA logged a total of 455 kills in WW2, with American built fighters accounting for more than a third of that total, as follows: 67 for the Martlet/Wildcat, 52.5 for the Corsair and 52 for the Hellcat. Have you got anything more, Admiral?
Can we include the RNAS, whose totals would, I'd imagine be quite high?
Admiral Beez
Major
Operating from land? Definitely. RNAS' 10 Naval Squadron's all Canadian flight in their olive-black painted Sopwith Triplanes led by ace pilot Raymond Collishaw claimed 87 German aircraft in three months.
Last edited:
Shortround6
Major General
Part of the problem is timing.
A useful fighter bomber and a useful intercepter have rather different performance characteristics. Hurricane II with under wing bombs just points out the futility of trying to use a heavy aircraft as an interceptor.
Hurricane II had almost 1300hp for take off (plus a constant speed prop) the early Hurricane I had 880hp for take off. ( and what kind of prop prior to the summer of 1940?)
Granted the propellers were a policy decision (and a stupid one) and not a technical one (lots of other people using constant speed props at the time).
Another problem is endurance, a Fulmar could stay in the air over twice as a long as a Hurricane, even without belly tank. Fulmar also carried a lot more ammo per gun.
Total waste of time. You are lugging around too much wing and dive brake, bigger wing than a P-47. Bigger than a Corsair. You have an engine about the diameter of a Corsair engine with about 45% of the power, You can change the canopy all you want, this thing is simply too big for the available power.
No engine available to the British (British built) in 1938-40 except the Merlin is going to give any significant change in performance (Taurus is really a non starter for several reasons, one is that it doesn't really become available until 1940.
You would be better off with a Gladiator MK III rather than futz with the Skua.
If you want better FAA aircraft you have mug the bomber boys in a dark alley in 1938-39 and steal some of their toys (better props even if not great).
- Thread starter
- #48
Because the USN and IJN had passed them. The RN lacked crash barriers until 1938, took years to use them for allowing the landing aircraft to sit on the deck ahead of the crash barrier for some time, and took years to finish equipping all of their carriers. The RN catapults were beyond awkward, so launching aircraft took far longer than it should have (four times as long as for the USN. The four belly hooks on their aircraft added drag (lousy turbulence patterns behind them). The RN crippled itself by adopting a requirement, based on experience in the Great War, that all aircraft must be able to use the catapults on cruisers and destroyers, thus the absurd catapults on their carriers.
The result was that Furious could not safely have more than 18 of its aircraft in the air at any one time. Courageous needed an hour to launch her aircraft and two hours to land them.
Finally, RN tactical doctrine was that carrier-based fighters could not intercept incoming enemy aircraft, while anti-aircraft fire was believed to be highly effective. This was overwhelmingly wrong and dangerous.
- Thread starter
- #49
No. The Skua only had a radio-telegraph, not voice. The second crewman was almost always a Telegraphist/Air Gunner (TAG) who sent and received messages by Morse code, which was impractical for a single-seater. Since the Skua was used for ASW patrols and surface search, this was essential (the Skua's speed made it much more useful for surface search than the Stringbags). The TAG also operated the carrier homing system (homing on the carrier's rotating radio beacon). Since the RN system required the use of a watch and constantly watching the timing of the signal, it was also completely impractical for a single-seat aircraft. The beacon was essential for long-range escort missions if a fighter was separated from the rest of the formation.
The pilot navigated--the TAGs had no navigation training and were not even included in the pre-flight briefings until well after Norway! Observers were sometimes carried in place of the TAG. These were RN officers who did have navigation training. No more than one observer per mission was rare (so a group of 20+ aircraft might have a single observer), although Skuas operating separately on ASW missions might all carry observers.
The Skua actually had pretty good streamlining--the worst part was the nearly-vertical windscreen. Changing the length of the fuselage is problematic because of CG and control authority problems. The long nose of the Skua was essentially empty and was added to move the CG forward. The width of the fuselage was determined by the dimensions of the engine. The pilot sat very high to have any visibility over the very long nose (and for visibility over the coamings). You could reduce the fuselage height and drop the pilot a lot, maybe make the belly a little less rounded, but that would have moved the wings up as well, changing airflow over them. The backseater added very little weight. If you wanted to make the greenhouse shorter, you could. You could fair it into the fuselage at the cost of the all-round visibility. Of course, with the much higher speed of enemy fighters, the backseater was very useful for spotting attackers and even deterring them a little with his gun.
Overall. Enh. Wouldn't bother.
Admiral Beez
Major
Roger that, I agree with everything you posted above. Got you covered earlier.
- Thread starter
- #51
1) Regarding the USN and IJN overtalking them, depends on your perspective. Each one of the carrier navies had quirks and oddities that the others didn't, as well as innovations and ideas that the others didn't.
2) Actually, the Royal Navy used crash barriers to prevent errant Sopwith Pups and 1 1/2 strutters from careening into Furious' superstructure during landing trials in 1918/1919.
3) The RN didn't design naval aircraft, aircraft companies designed naval aircraft to officially released sppecifications, so hook and strop design defficiencies are down to the manufacturers, not the navy itself.
4) How is it that the RN could not intercept incoming aircraft using its carrier fighters? There are plenty of examples of RN aircraft attacking and successfully shooting down enemy aircraft. The decision to attack using AA against German bombers attacking ships in the Channel doesn't necessarily mean that "The RN is useless, becoz".
5) Regarding the time it took for aircraft to get airborne, under what circumstances are you talking? Was that in combat or was it during peacetime? Provide examples and of the Japanese and US responses in similar circumstances, rather than just saying they took too long.
In conclusion it's great that you can identify that the admiralty made mistakes from your computer desk in 2020. The US Naval command and the Imperial Japanese Naval command also made policy mistakes, too (Mark 14 torpedo anyone? Pearl Harbor, anyone?) I suspect your arguments are deliberately biased. I also suspect that by not answering previous critiques to your earlier statements, you won't be swayed and have it nailed that the RN is rubbish regardless. Am I right?
- Thread starter
- #53
Not at all! The RN was very good in some areas, but it also had critical weaknesses in doctrine, organization, and culture.
I have tried to answer critiques, but there have been too many for me to keep up. Also, they way I receive notifications meant that I was replying to older messages and closing the window without seeing newer messages.
More importantly, I have been working on multiple projects, dealing with a very upset little girl, getting her dinner, spending time with my wife, and watching baseball with them. Your ad hominem attack is unbecoming.
Good that you acknowledge that and that is what I am after. I believe that criticism is healthy, but it has to be objective - disliking something for personal and emotive reasons doesn't make for a fair argument - and yes, you are right, the RN and the British did lots of stuff wrong, but you have to, on the flip side admit their brilliance when they exhibited it as well as the rubbish stuff.
My responses are not attacks, they are questioning your motives; there is a difference and on a public forum like this it is often necessary and should be expected. However, I am sorry that you are having personal difficulties, but to be frank, under the circumstances around the world there are lots of us who are - best not to bring those to the forum.
I do unreservedly apologise if I have upset you however, it isn't my intent. I am blunt however and I behave the same way in person - it's one of my most attractive features
- Thread starter
- #55
I'm not having "personal difficulties;" I am not at your beck and call.
You're not blunt, you're snotty.
I've sent you a PM, let's keep it civil and refrain from insults. It's not worth it.
Just to move things along a little, if anyone is interested in a good wee book on the Skua and Roc, the Mushroom Models book by Matthew Willis is a good starting point and has some excellent photographs, as well as good profile drawings and plenty of detail in the text.
Amazon product ASIN 8389450445
Amazon product ASIN 8389450445
