- Thread starter
- #41
Admiral Beez
1st Lieutenant
How about against the Betty and Nell over Force Z? I’m not sure the Skua or Chesapeake has the speed?
Two FAA Squadrons, Vought Chesapeakes ordered to Singapore, Aug 1941
- Thread starter Admiral Beez
- Start date
This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
The design was put in place for visibility reasons, which elicited praise from carrier crews, especially since it had such a high nose position on the ground. Performance wise, I can't say anything about its impact, but that wasn't sterling to begin with. It was a compromise from the outset and made an excellent dive bomber but a poor fighter. The prototype's looks were marginally better than production aircraft because the snout wasn't extended, this feature introduced because of stall issues. It did have nasty stall characteristics, resulting in various modifications to the aircraft across its entire airframe to reduce the impact - stall warning was a problem and various fixes were implemented to increase warning time before the stall. The Skua was not an aeroplane that could be spun either, it didn't like recovering from spins, so they were prohibited and it suffered from longitudinal instability at low speed, not ideal for a carrier aircraft. It suffered its fair share of aerodynamic oddities during development, and the results can be seen in production aircraft compared to the prototype.
It did have a protracted development time as a result of these issues and the fact it was peacetime and things moved slowly, but the Air Ministry and the Admiralty had their reservations about it even before it entered service and it was under threat of cancellation at one point, but the heads at the Air ministry relented and it eventually entered service, because at that point there was nothing else that could do the jobs the Skua was designed to do. This meant the Admiralty requested Gladiators because the Skua made a poor fighter...
buffnut453
1st Lieutenant
Thumpalumpacus
1st Lieutenant
Max speed of Skua is 225 as given by Wiki. Lower than both bombers, it would have to on-the-spot to make a difference.
Thumpalumpacus
1st Lieutenant
I feel the sudden need to gouge out my eyes with a dull tablespoon. Mysterious.
buffnut453
1st Lieutenant
That's a picture of a nice Messerschmitt and someone's parked their dump truck just as the photographer has gone to take the picture...
buffnut453
1st Lieutenant
In this one you can't see the Messerschmitt and neither can the pilot...
Seriously though, Mark, these are good images, post away.
- Thread starter
- #50
Admiral Beez
1st Lieutenant
Greg Boeser
Senior Master Sergeant
Clipped wing version?
special ed
Chief Master Sergeant
- 3,917
- May 13, 2018
In spite of the Skua bad mouth, I pointed out in another thread Skuas scored air to air kills during operation torch. I'd have to read it again but, it killed D.520s and a Hawk 75. The French weren't beginners as they had been in the battle for France and knocked down some Wildcats during Torch, while the Skua drivers weren't combat proven.
Yup, right place, right time and does nothing to prove the type's chops. An Avro Anson shot down a Ju 88 once, doesn't mean it's a good fighter. The Skua was used as such because of the lack of fighters available to the FAA and what it does prove is the crews making the best out of the situation rather than any benefits the Skua offered in the role.
- Thread starter
- #54
Admiral Beez
1st Lieutenant
Torch is late 1942. I thought the Skuas were withdrawn in 1941.
Weird, wasn't me who said it, I was quoting the other guy and that's a good point...
- Thread starter
- #56
Admiral Beez
1st Lieutenant
On the Vindicator/Chesapeake, could it have flown from Hermes? France’s carrier was dead slow and small and yet operated the type.
Vought V-156F aboard French aircraft carrier Béarn | World War Photos
V-156F carrier Bearn
www.worldwarphotos.info
- Thread starter
- #57
Admiral Beez
1st Lieutenant
Instead of scrapping or grounding them in 1941, I would have shipped all the useable Skuas and Chesapeakes to the IPTO. In Burma the Vengeance did stellar work as the RAF/RAAF’s first divebomber. No reason the Skua and Vengeance can’t do the same job a year earlier once Malaya is lost. There’s also PNG and the Solomons, the latter is British territory and should see some investment from the homefront.
- Thread starter
- #58
Admiral Beez
1st Lieutenant
Some good info here, especially about trying to use a reverse pitch prop as an air brake, and how in the end only shallow dives were permitted.
Nice, if a little dry clip. I like the nickname the "Cheesecake". The RN were not that fond of it, it had a long take-off run and the intent was to operate it from escort carriers, but it couldn't carry a useful load so that idea was dropped. During trials it was found to have poor visibility over the nose on the ground, particularly on the right hand side because of the intake, which obscured the pilot's view forward. Its performance was criticised, although its range was praised, but it was underpowered. The only frontline FAA unit to operate the type replaced them in November 1941 with Swordfish, whose performance was worse, but even though it had a lighter MTOW than the Chesapeake, it could carry a heavier load and it could operate from the smallest carriers.
AIUI the only time Skuas met French fighters was during Operation Catapult (purpose to immobilise the French fleet at Mers-el-Kebir) in July 1940. One Skua was lost in exchange for several French fighter damaged.
By Operation Torch they were long gone from frontline service. The air to air kills that the FAA achieved against the French in Nov 1942 were by Sea Hurricanes and Seafires.
