- Thread starter
- #61
Wild_Bill_Kelso
Senior Master Sergeant
- 3,231
- Mar 18, 2022
What was her speed and range
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Skua was supposed to go into service at the end of 1937, they made into service at the end of 1938,I'd say it's ok for the 'second tier' defense, against basically flying boats and real long range types, though the speed is a valid point. Even Fulmar is better in this sense. Folding wing Martlet probably best.
I'd say it's ok for the 'second tier' defense, against basically flying boats and real long range types, though the speed is a valid point. Even Fulmar is better in this sense. Folding wing Martlet probably best.
What was her speed and range
...against the LW or Reggia Aeronautica?I don't think the FAA ever engaged Zeros in large formations, at least not until late in the war when the IJN pilots were inexperienced.
The range info as a small fleet carrier would have to include 'best distance as a target'.25 kts top, 4500 miles range at 16 kts according to Wiki.
After they were retired from front line service in 1941, I would have sent every Skua to Malaya and Ceylon. Though aircrew would have been an issue, theirs having moved to Fulmars and TSRs, and the RAF having little experience on dive bombers.. But as they said on Tales of the Riverbank, that's another story.I kind of agree with this. Skua has the tempting trait of wearing two hats (three if you count recon). Range is about the same as a Fulmar.
25 knots is good for such an old ship, though i guess most of the time it's doing 15
It's amazing that 18 knot, <500ft CVEs could launch Avengers without cats.Perhaps, but it's still kinda slow for launches, especially as planes are getting heavier. And tooling around at 25 kts is definitely going to eat into that already-short 4500 miles.
It's amazing that 18 knot, 400ft CVEs could launch Avengers without cats.
Only when lightly loaded and into a good bit of wind.It's amazing that 18 knot, <500ft CVEs could launch Avengers without cats.
The North Atlantic could always be assured of the latter.Only when lightly loaded and into a good bit of wind.
When there is enough wind I should imagine there would be no restrictions on payload weight for the Avenger?Only when lightly loaded and into a good bit of wind.
One problem is that wind is variable and you need it for TO, but also for safe landing on; it was landing on in light wind that was the bane of the Seafire off Salerno, whilst they operated from CVEs.When there is enough wind I should imagine there would be no restrictions on payload weight for the Avenger?
Interestingly, in his comments on the new
aircraft composition, Captain Short (of USS Bogue) suggested that four
slower type aircraft, such as the Swordfish, be
substituted for three 'TBF-is: "The Swordfish, for
instance, can be operated in weather which precludes
the landing and take-off (except by catapult) of the
TBF. They could be used for night operations and
rough water work when the employment of the heavy
and faster TBF would be unduly hazardous in this class
of vessel. Further, a slow aircraft at night would prove
more effective in spotting submarines than a fast
one''(76) The suggestion was not followed. (Gannon, Black May)
there may well have been times when the Swordfish might have been a better solution for anti-submarine operations - when the wind was non-existent - or when the wind was far too strong, but the Avenger was certainly the better anti-submarine aircraft, for the USN at least. The Bogues captain was suggesting replacing just some of the Avengers with Swordfish, not all of them. In any case the Grumman TBF Avenger was responsible for the sinking of far more U-boats than the Swordfish in the Atlantic.One problem is that wind is variable and you need it for TO, but also for safe landing on; it was landing on in light wind that was the bane of the Seafire off Salerno, whilst they operated from CVEs.
The Skipper of USS Bogue had this to say:
Sometime back I found Bogue's Action Report for that timeframe and it stated that TBF operations had to cease when their Catapult failed, but fortunately that was just at the end of that deployment.
AIUI, almost all TBF CVE operations involved the use of catapults. Swordfish were primarily used on CVEs that didn't have catapults.there may well have been times when the Swordfish might have been a better solution for anti-submarine operations - when the wind was non-existent - or when the wind was far too strong, but the Avenger was certainly the better anti-submarine aircraft, for the USN at least. The Bogues captain was suggesting replacing just some of the Avengers with Swordfish, not all of them. In any case the Grumman TBF Avenger was responsible for the sinking of far more U-boats than the Swordfish in the Atlantic.
I'm always surprised that people are surprised about the TBF/TBM Avengers take of abilities.
Firstly some data.
A Bogue class CVE was capable of about 18 knots and a Casablanca 19 knots.
A Bogue class flight deck was 436ft long (British ships had this extended to 440-450ft) and a Casablanca 474ft.
The BuAer figures for a fully loaded Avenger (16,412 lb gross weight) show the effects of wind speed on take off distance.
Nil wind (Calm) - 1,071ft
15 knots - 650 ft
25 knots - 435ft.
So it doesn't take very much natural wind to make fully loaded Avenger operations possible without a catapult.
And around the world, outwith the Doldrums (the Intertropical Convergence Zone) there are very few days when there is no wind at all. A carrier captain might however have to work a bit to find it in more tropical areas. But in more temperate areas it didn't often prove to be much of a problem. After all we are not talking about having to range large numbers of these aircraft on the flight deck at the same time as in a fleet carrier.
Intertropical Convergence Zone - Wikipedia
en.m.wikipedia.org
And as I've noted previously, even fleet carrier operating speeds were generally only in the region of 15-25knots.
I found this in the Somerville Papers:I'm always surprised that people are surprised about the TBF/TBM Avengers take of abilities.
Firstly some data.
A Bogue class CVE was capable of about 18 knots and a Casablanca 19 knots.
A Bogue class flight deck was 436ft long (British ships had this extended to 440-450ft) and a Casablanca 474ft.
The BuAer figures for a fully loaded Avenger (16,412 lb gross weight) show the effects of wind speed on take off distance.
Nil wind (Calm) - 1,071ft
15 knots - 650 ft
25 knots - 435ft.
So it doesn't take very much natural wind to make fully loaded Avenger operations possible without a catapult.
And around the world, outwith the Doldrums (the Intertropical Convergence Zone) there are very few days when there is no wind at all. A carrier captain might however have to work a bit to find it in more tropical areas. But in more temperate areas it didn't often prove to be much of a problem. After all we are not talking about having to range large numbers of these aircraft on the flight deck at the same time as in a fleet carrier.
Intertropical Convergence Zone - Wikipedia
en.m.wikipedia.org
And as I've noted previously, even fleet carrier operating speeds were generally only in the region of 15-25knots.
3. RAA reports that Shah cannot obtain requisite wind over deck for landing training owing to the low airs at present experienced in these parts; he suggested she should be sent to the Cape but with this I cannot agree as it would take her off the Station far too long. Saratoga states they consider 30 knots over the deck is necessary for the training of Avengers in escort carriers and 28 knots is necessary for operations; if this is correct it would appear that during quite a considerable part of the year the escort carriers armed with Avengers would be unable to operate. (p.539)