Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
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.
From where?
Before 1940 Carriers were assumed to operate beyond "reasonable" range of land based air power, which is perhaps a hundred or so miles* at best.
*Even assuming that a land based force could locate the carrier, then assemble and launch a strike.
The F3F compares fairly closely with the 253mph Gloster Gladiator which entered service in 1937.
The Skua was designed to be able to dive bomb, not as a pure fighter.
The second sentence quoted assumes that enemy side is staffed by idiots.
The British bombers of the time were with range of 15+ times the 100 miles distance, so let's assume that enemy side is not just staffed by idiots, but assume the same for their design offices at aircraft-making companies?
As I stated the Skua was reasonably successful against Lufwaffe bomber and it even shot down a number of Ju88s.
I'm referring to the Roc, not the Skua. According to the BAe website, the Roc was slower than the Skua when the latter was in fighter configuration, and both were 30+ mph slower than the Gladiator. While the Skua was primarily a dive bomber, the Roc was a fighter which was slower than the dive bomber serving alongside it in the same service and significantly slower than contemporary carrier-based biplane fighters.
That shows that notion that RN cannot be possibly a target of the enemy bomber attack coming from land bases, as stated in post #79, was wrong.
F3F-2 = 260mph at 17250ft
F3F-3 = 264 at 15200ft (data from Francillion)
What was the F3F-3's speed at ~7000ft? Might be a bit slower than at it's rated altitude?
The bulk of F3F production comprised the slightly slower F3F-2. There were only 28 F3F-3s built, and they were all delivered in late 1938 to mid 1939.
When fitted with the same prop the Roc had a nearly identical speed to the Skua (but the Skua was carrying a 500lb bomb).
I believe on the Skua the bomb was semi recessed, I don't know if this helped or hurt.
The other fighters are more than likely slower at 6000ft and under than at their rated altitudes. However the A5Ms rated altitude was only about 3000ft higher than the Skua's and that doesn't seem like enough difference to get rid of 40-50mph.
The Grumman F3Fs at least the -2 & -3 had tow rated altitudes as they had two speed superchargers, I have no doubt they were slower low down but they did have about an extra 100hp at the lower critical altitude than they did had the higher one. In fact the engine in the Grumman was rated at 850hp max continuous in low gear at 6000ft. If the pilot pushed for military or take-off power he might have an extra 100hp above that for a few minutes. Climb is about 50% better or more over the Skua even if the speeds are closer than the book figures appear.
The British seemed to have had an inordinate fondness for turreted fighters.
Building the Roc as a turret fighter was a bad idea rather than building more Skuas,
I have to give the Skua some credit; when introduced in 1938 it was the first monoplane carrier dive bomber (two years before the SBD and Aichi D3A) and the first dive bomber with folding wings and retractible undercarriage. As a fleet fighter, in 1940 the competition was the FAA's own Sea Gladiator, plus the Grumman F3F and Mitsubishi A5M.On the whole, the Skua is probably the more effective aircraft as a fleet defender (rather than a pure fighter), especially given it's versatility.
I have to give the Skua some credit; when introduced in 1938 it was the first monoplane carrier dive bomber (two years before the SBD and Aichi D3A) and the first dive bomber with folding wings and retractible undercarriage.
Outside of the Flycatcher, I believe every single-seat fighter that made it into regular FAA service (sorry Firebrand) until the Supermarine Attacker was based on a RAF model. Following in this tradition, when the Fury/Nimrod was replaced in both RAF and FAA service by the Gladiator, the next follow-on should have been the Hurricane for both services. It's hard not to think that some idiot in FAA procurement decided that "sharing RAF types just won't do anymore and we want something special just for us". If you're going to make something special, then license-build the Martlet or a Super Goblin.This is true, just like the FAA making decent work with ther Fulmar, although both types can very much be put in the category of you go to war with what you've got, not what you want. Mind you, the Skua was subject to that prevalent between the wars FAA requirement that its multi-seat aircraft should be multi-role. Oddly, only single-seaters had one specific role in the FAA.
Not quite true. Northrop BT-1I have to give the Skua some credit; when introduced in 1938 it was the first monoplane carrier dive bomber (two years before the SBD and Aichi D3A)
the next follow-on should have been the Hurricane for both services.
And given the tradition of shared fighter types from the Flycatcher onwards that makes total sense.... Nimrod/Fury to Sea Gladiator to Sea Hurricane to Sea Spitfire.The Sea-Hurricane was only ever intended as a stop-gap...The Navy's idea was initially Sea-Spitfires.
Why did the FAA divert from this on the Fulmar and Firefly?
I think the staff assumptions were that the bombers would not have a single seat fighter escort, and that any bombing attack would have to be preceded by recon flights. I don't think there was an assumption that bombers couldn't reach the fleet.That shows that notion that RN cannot be possibly a target of the enemy bomber attack coming from land bases, as stated in post #79, was wrong.