Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
While the Skua wasn't a great aircraft, it was a competent dive bomber (ask the crew of the Königsberg about how useless it was). Unlike the SBD, it was operating in a comparatively target-poor environment (the Kriegsmarine was both smaller and its surface fleet less aggressive than the IJN) and in one where it was more likely to meet heavy fighter opposition. Overall, it doesn't compare too badly to the SBD.
The Roc was a piece of crap. Period. First, to be an effective fighter it must be reasonably able to combat enemy fighter aircraft; the Roc could not compete with biplane fighters in service at the time. Indeed, the Roc was barely faster than the Douglas B-18 or the Martin B-10, both obsolescent at the start of WW2. If the only thing providing air cover for your carrier task force is Blackburn Rocs, an attacking air group need not bother with escorts. The laden bombers (say SM.79s) would be faster than the defending fighters.
Could an effective carrier fighter be based on the Perseus engine? Possibly. It would have to be very carefully designed and would be more like the Curtiss CW-21/CW-21B or Caudron CR.714 than any really successful fighter aircraft.
The Roc was a very competent divebomber, and would have made a good recon and shore based short range strike aircraft, especially when fitted with a slipper aux fuel tank. Certainly the idea was flawed, but it could have been used to good effect in secondary roles.
Well, yes true, but I meant arrested-speed dives of 70 degrees from altitude. Anything with under-wing or central racks that can clear the prop can drop bombs in a dive.Not so, both the Albacore and Barracuda fulfilled the torpedo dive-bomber recon roles.
Britain's best carrier fighter of all time. Though per Wiki the ratio isn't great "Fulmars was recorded as having destroyed a total of 112 enemy aircraft against the loss of 40 Fulmars". As a comparison, in the Falklands, the FAA shotdown 20 aircraft for a loss of 6 Sea Harriers. If we apply the Fulmar's record, the FAA would have lost an additional 40% for a total loss of 11 SHAR.the Fulmar, had a stellar performance. Our most successful carrier fighter in WW2.
Couldn't the Roc position it's guns straight forward? Or was there no prop disruption system? I assume that's what the guns-forward Defiant has below.P/O Clarke said of the Roc during an encounter with an He 59: "If only I had one front gun! Just one, and I'd be able to make a normal fighter attack. Instead I was reduced to placing my aircraft in a ridiculously dangerous position while the other fellow had all the advantages...
Couldn't the Roc position it's guns straight forward? Or was there no prop disruption system?
Blackburn's cocked up the centre of gravity so the Perseus (or Mercury in the prototype) had to have the engine bearers lengthened to push the engine weight forwards. It gives rise to the thought that one could revert to the original length(ish) and put in a heavier engine.Why is the engine so far forward? What's in the empty space behind it? Shortening this forward section or the tail length may also be worthwhile, but now we're getting into an entirely new aircraft.
Perhaps they didn't cock up the CG, perhaps the plan was to fit the 14 cylinder Hercules later. The Su-2, a similar size and function plane, got Ash-82 engine later. Quite a good performance too. Lower loss ratio per sortie compared with Il-2.Blackburn's cocked up the centre of gravity so the Perseus (or Mercury in the prototype) had to have the engine bearers lengthened to push the engine weight forwards. It gives rise to the thought that one could revert to the original length(ish) and put in a heavier engine.
Circling back to Blackburn, did the a Roc have this feature?The turret had a a position and gun switch to point forwards with the barrels pointing above the propellor and handed over to pilot control. With the original concept sight the pilot then had x4 guns to use in forward firing.
You mean to say there was a Mk.II and the Mk.Is were the prototypes. These were powered by the Mercury and had minor differences from production variants, which were, strictly speaking, Skua Mk.IIs. I know, it's a pedantic point, but for the sake of accuracy...
Well pre war assumptions were made, the turret fighter didn't perform as expected. But pre war the thinking wasn't based o Germany controlling France and Norway and so able to range far into the North Sea and Atlantic. The Roc did have some advantages, it didn't use Merlins, and it was very similar to the Skua so small carriers didn't need two types of engines and many other spares. Many procurement decisions were based on such ideas as keeping companies and design teams and even military arms together and in production for future use. You can say that the Roc and Firebrand were useless, but the Firebrand didn't have an enemy when introduced, by keeping things together the Buccaneer eventually emerged which wasn't useless. The A-36 Apache was a fairly good dive bomber, even if it was a completely useless dive bomber it was worth making to keep production lines running and people getting employed and trained for the later P-51B/C/D.True, in Brown's case I was thinking of aircraft he evaluated during his time with the FAA, such as the Blackburn Firebrand. My suggestion wasn't meant to focus entirely on Brown, one would have hoped the FAA's procurement and evaluation team always included some experienced pilots.... but perhaps not, as someone approved the Roc for production even though it was slower than almost anything it had to catch.
.
True, I can agree with that. If you have deep pockets, roll the dice and keep throwing good money after bad you may eventually get something useful.You can say that the Roc and Firebrand were useless, but the Firebrand didn't have an enemy when introduced, by keeping things together the Buccaneer eventually emerged which wasn't useless.
too many people had swilled the sleeve valve cool-aid.It's difficult to understand why the Perseus was ever built
Actually, one of the highlights of my I. T. career was when one of our customers asked us to do something that was completely stupid. So we did, made lots of money out of it. Then they realised why their profits had fallen, so we put in what they needed in the first place, but hadn't listened to us. Hey, but we kept them happy, got more business out of them. Sounds like Blackburn, doesn't it.too many people had swilled the sleeve valve cool-aid.
From wiki but a bit edited.
"A long series of tests and materials changes and improvements required six years and an estimated £2 million to cure. By 1933, the problems had been worked out and the Perseus went on to become the first sleeve valve aero-engine in the world, to be put into large quantity production.[2]"
Large scale is a few dozen a year in the first few years, if that.
"The result was a Bristol Mercury-sized engine adapted to the sleeve valve system, the Perseus, and its smaller cousin, the Bristol Aquila. The first production versions of the Perseus were rated at 580 horsepower (433 kW), the same as the Mercury model for that year, which shows that the sleeve system was being underexploited. The engine was quickly uprated as improvements were introduced and by 1936 the Perseus was delivering 810 hp (604 kW), eventually topping out at 930 hp (690 kW) in 1939, while the Perseus 100 with an increased capacity of 1,635 cu in (26.8 L), produced 1,200 hp (890 kW) at 2,700 rpm at 4,250 ft (1,296 m).[3] This far outperformed even the most developed versions of the Mercury.
I don't know what the Mercury was being rated at in 1936 but it obviously caught up with Perseus in the next year or two. The two may have see-sawed back and forth a bit for several years?
Now IF wiki is correct and Fedden spent 2 million pounds on this project in the middle of great depression there was some pressure to show some results, like selling some engines and not trashing the project. I have seen no actual prices for the two engines and I don't know if the Perseus was priced significantly higher than the Mercury.
The Perseus 100 is a Mystery engine from the end of WW II-1946, It is not listed in Lumsden and may never have been flown in a test bed aircraft or even run in a test house, No photo was available in Feb 1946 for "Aircraft engines of the World" for it's 4th edition.
It may have been under rated in the late 30s versions in order to maintain or establish reliability? Certainly the early Hercules engines using the same cylinders had problems.
I believe (could be wrong) that Fedden and Bristol had too much money, time and prestige tied up in the sleeve valve project ot give up on it.
Actually, one of the highlights of my I. T. career was when one of our customers asked us to do something that was completely stupid. So we did, made lots of money out of it. Then they realised why their profits had fallen, so we put in what they needed in the first place, but hadn't listened to us. Hey, but we kept them happy, got more business out of them. Sounds like Blackburn, doesn't it.
How many of the shoddy designs were a result of having to satisfy an impossible client spec? With a specified engine and crew and payload and range that just couldn't be met without liberal use of unobtanium and futuralumin.True, I can agree with that. If you have deep pockets, roll the dice and keep throwing good money after bad you may eventually get something useful.
.