Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Even if turret fighter wasn't quite as dumb as you say (and I do agree with you) the idea that you could make a useful terret fighter using an engine barely more powerful than the one used in the Gladiator should have shot up red flags, flares, and warning signs the size of billboards hung from Big Ben.Instead of a license-built Grumman aircraft, how about a decent aircraft instead of, say, the Roc? I'm sorry, but "turret fighter" was basically a dumb idea, and I don't think one needs 20/20 hindsight to figure that out. The turret, its mechanism, and the gunner must have added well over 1,200 lb to the aircraft and probably added 15% to its zero-lift drag.
This should also be a clean-sheet design, but even a monoplane (even fixed-gear!) derivative of the Gladiator would be better than the Roc.
Even if turret fighter wasn't quite as dumb as you say (and I do agree with you) the idea that you could make a useful terret fighter using an engine barely more powerful than the one used in the Gladiator should have shot up red flags, flares, and warning signs the size of billboards hung from Big Ben.
Dumb doesn't begin to describe it.
I'd even take a biplane with retractable gear over the Skua, like the Canadian Car and Foundry FDB-1.This should also be a clean-sheet design, but even a monoplane (even fixed-gear!) derivative of the Gladiator would be better than the Roc.
I imagine removal of the rear seat, dive brakes, bomb racks and fittings, a more streamlined canopy and a little smoothing out of the exterior surfaces would have made the Skua something faster than the Gladiator. I'm surprised that no one at Blackburn thought to give it a try. I mean, here's a Roc without the turret, didn't anyone think, hmm...?Agreed. Basing it on the Skua, hardly an example of sterling aerodynamics, didn't help. Even a rank amateur designer would realize that adding weight and drag to an aircraft too slow to be an effective fighter would not make an effective fighter.
But it could intercept and shoot down a Do 18
He 115 might be a problem. which means the bar is practically underground it is so low.
here's a Roc without the turret, didn't anyone think, hmm...?
And then they thought, man that was some really bad ale at the pub last night.
Rock has a wing bigger than the one on P-47 and thicker, Engine has about 45% of the power.
Trying to turn big wing, small engine load carriers into fighters by changing the canopy is like trying make a race car out of an estate car/station wagon by cutting the roof off.
Things aren't as rosy for the Roc as it appears. The A%M hada wing about 2/3s the size, was around 1/2 the weight and hit is max speed at 3000 meters. Engine in the Skua/Roc hit peak power at 6,500ft, better for low altitude work but the A5M wasn't exactly high altitude either.Compare the Skua and Roc with single seat naval fighters in 1939 but also remember that the Skua/Roc had an engine that was expressly optimized for low altitude performance, so on paper, the SS naval fighters appear faster, but in reality there was little difference under ~8K ft where most of the fighting took place.
IJN = A5M
USN = F3F
Things aren't as rosy for the Roc as it appears. The A%M hada wing about 2/3s the size, was around 1/2 the weight and hit is max speed at 3000 meters. Engine in the Skua/Roc hit peak power at 6,500ft, better for low altitude work but the A5M wasn't exactly high altitude either.
The F3Fs with Wright cyclone engines used a two speed supercharger, High gear had a FTL at around 14-15,000ft but low gear peaked at about 6,000ft.
However, the Skua/Roc was better armed than any of it's contemporaries and, again, the speed differential is not nearly as great any many would assume. We have ~225mph for the Skua (with a 500lb bomb) at 6700ft, and the GSG was about the same, and the other fighters are going to be slower than at their rated altitudes.
...
Friedman, British Carrier Aviation, p.370.Any sources for the speed figure with bomb?
Friedman, British Carrier Aviation, p.370.
196 knots (225.5mph) at 6700ft at 8228lb with a 500lb bomb.
Agreed. Basing it on the Skua, hardly an example of sterling aerodynamics, didn't help. Even a rank amateur designer would realize that adding weight and drag to an aircraft too slow to be an effective fighter would not make an effective fighter. One wonders what the staffs at both the Fleet Air Arm and Blackburn were thinking.
Keep in mind that it was a mid 30's design that ceaced production in 1939, so (IIRC) not even built during WWII.
It was a very early example of a monoplane dive-bomber, the fact that it was almost as fast as a contemporary biplane was a bonus.
As the fighter/observation Fulmar was ready to enter service the FAA clearly wasn't planning to have the Roc/Skua as its primary fighter.
Also, any development prior to June 1940 would assume that British carriers wouldn't face modern land based fighters, or that escort missions would be needed - as without radar it was assumed that no defending fighters could react fast enough to intercept.
...
Thank you. What was the speed without the bomb?
(my bold)
What about the modern bombers that might target the RN?
Compare the Skua and Roc with single seat naval fighters in 1939 but also remember that the Skua/Roc had an engine that was expressly optimized for low altitude performance, so on paper, the SS naval fighters appear faster, but in reality there was little difference under ~8K ft where most of the fighting took place.
IJN = A5M
USN = F3F
UK = GSG
Building the Roc as a turret fighter was a bad idea rather than building more Skuas, but the aircraft was capable of divebombing and it actually had a lot of potential as a strike/Recon aircraft.
From where?(my bold)
What about the modern bombers that might target the RN?
The F3F compares fairly closely with the 253mph Gloster Gladiator which entered service in 1937.The reported top speed of the F3F was 264 mph, that of the Roc, 228 mph. The Skua is listed (Blackburn B-24 Skua | BAE Systems | International) as 225 mph in fighter configuration. The Roc is listed at 223 mph from Blackburn B-25 Roc | BAE Systems | International. Since it heavier than the Skua, with the same engine, I would expect it to be slower than the Skua.
It compares rather badly with the F3F and the Sea Gladiator.