Why the Skua Only Carried a 500lb Bomb

[RCAFson]

Just to do what the Japanese did, buy a couple, to see what other were doing.
UK was kind of ignoring what others were doing, and didn't help that the RAF was choosing for FAA
'That's good enough for you, old chap'

Douglas was always improving their product, and helped that they had gained that promising young man, Ed Heinemann as Chief Engineer in 1936, after the takeover of Northrop.

Blackburn, OTOH.....

All that buying a couple of BT-1s would have done is confirmed to the FAA that the USN was well behind the curve in DB design...:

Weak armament
no folding wings
low powered engine
Stall characteristics that were probably worse than the Skua

The USN should have been the ones approaching Blackburn to buy the Skua.

 

[buffnut453]

Northrop, and then Douglas after the buyout, had been trying to sell attack aircraft to fill that role since the early '30s, military version of the Gamma, gradually improved, until the SBD was reached
View attachment 717208Gamma 2E
View attachment 717209BT-1 first flight 1935
View attachment 717210 XBT-1 with R-1535 and XBT-2 with R-1820, both with retractable gear. The XBT-2 flew in 1938, and had designation changed to SBD in 1939.

If the Chinese and Spanish could buy the Gamma in 1937, so could the FAA, and keep up with the improved models.

Apart from the Lockheed Hudson, please show me a single instance where the US exported a current, front-line aircraft overseas in the 1930s.

From the carrier-based perspective, how were those front-line USN aircraft superior to anything the FAA already had? As R RCAFson noted...no folding wings, relatively light armament. What, exactly, is the FAA supposed to learn from that?

 

[buffnut453]

Just to do what the Japanese did, buy a couple, to see what other were doing.
UK was kind of ignoring what others were doing, and didn't help that the RAF was choosing for FAA
'That's good enough for you, old chap'

Douglas was always improving their product, and helped that they had gained that promising young man, Ed Heinemann as Chief Engineer in 1936, after the takeover of Northrop.

Blackburn, OTOH.....

Are you back to the old trope that the Japanese "copied" Western designs? Show me how Japanese procurement of ANY US aircraft significantly informed the design of its own aircraft.

The Skua was ground-breaking when it was designed. The problem is it got leap-frogged by other designs while its supposed replacements were delayed. Even after the FAA took back ownership of its aircraft procurement, it was hampered by trying to make every aircraft a multi-role platform, which resulted in over-complicated designs that took far too long to get into service. Some of that was driven by the relatively small sizes of RN carriers...but some of it was just plain old poor requirements.

It's also much easier to plan out a procurement effort when you're not fighting a war. The US had over 2 years in which it could see what was happening in Europe (and elsewhere) and adjust its force structure and aircraft capabilities accordingly. In many respects, the US was learning from the Brits, not the other way round.

 

[Shortround6]

It's also much easier to plan out a procurement effort when you're not fighting a war. The US had over 2 years in which it could see what was happening in Europe (and elsewhere) and adjust its force structure and aircraft capabilities accordingly. In many respects, the US was learning from the Brits, not the other way round.

This is close but not quite right.
In Early 1939 the USN was putting out the requirement for the SB2C. It took quite a while to get that thing to even be half way right.
March of 1939 was when they issued the requirement that lead to the Avenger. They got 13 proposals and by late summer had whittled the field down considerably. By Nov 1939 it was down to two prototypes from Grumman and one form Vought although contracts wouldn't be signed for another 6 months.
The Navy had ordered the XF4U in June of 1938, inspected a mock up in Feb of 1939 and had a flying prototype in May of 1940. Yes it needed hundreds of changes.

Grumman had done a couple of designs in 1938 for fighters to use the Wright R-2600 engine but put them aside to work on the F4F and the TBF, Grumman started work again in Sept 1940, because as you say, the war in Europe was showing that better aircraft than the F4F were going to be needed in the near future.

This is leaving out some of the other prototypes and also rans. The Force structure was tweaked and the aircraft capacities were adjusted bit but the USN fought the war in 1943/44 with the aircraft they had planned in 1938-40.
They had several advantages, The R-2600 was in small scale production in 1939 with 163 made and with 1925 built in 1940 the Navy was somewhat assured they had a decent powerplant for the intended aircraft. The R-2800 was flying in XF4U-1 in the summer of 1940 with an 1800hp engine (it went through several).

The USN was not learning much from the RN. Perhaps they should have so their torpedoes wouldn't be so bad?
Now the US was not trying to fight the war at the same time so development of prototypes went a bit faster than in Britain. The TBF went fast, the SB2C which started earlier finished later, good thing we had the SBD

The USAAC maybe could have used some more/better lessons. But the order for the P-47 was placed in 1940 and the P-43 orders were only intended to help fund factory expansion and to keep the work force together and enlarge it and train it so it would be ready to make the P-47s when the time came.
A-20, B-25, B-26 and B-24 were all prewar designs although a lot tweaking to the armament (adding power turrets) went on.

 

[buffnut453]

This is close but not quite right.
In Early 1939 the USN was putting out the requirement for the SB2C. It took quite a while to get that thing to even be half way right.
March of 1939 was when they issued the requirement that lead to the Avenger. They got 13 proposals and by late summer had whittled the field down considerably. By Nov 1939 it was down to two prototypes from Grumman and one form Vought although contracts wouldn't be signed for another 6 months.
The Navy had ordered the XF4U in June of 1938, inspected a mock up in Feb of 1939 and had a flying prototype in May of 1940. Yes it needed hundreds of changes.

Grumman had done a couple of designs in 1938 for fighters to use the Wright R-2600 engine but put them aside to work on the F4F and the TBF, Grumman started work again in Sept 1940, because as you say, the war in Europe was showing that better aircraft than the F4F were going to be needed in the near future.

This is leaving out some of the other prototypes and also rans. The Force structure was tweaked and the aircraft capacities were adjusted bit but the USN fought the war in 1943/44 with the aircraft they had planned in 1938-40.
They had several advantages, The R-2600 was in small scale production in 1939 with 163 made and with 1925 built in 1940 the Navy was somewhat assured they had a decent powerplant for the intended aircraft. The R-2800 was flying in XF4U-1 in the summer of 1940 with an 1800hp engine (it went through several).

The USN was not learning much from the RN. Perhaps they should have so their torpedoes wouldn't be so bad?
Now the US was not trying to fight the war at the same time so development of prototypes went a bit faster than in Britain. The TBF went fast, the SB2C which started earlier finished later, good thing we had the SBD

The USAAC maybe could have used some more/better lessons. But the order for the P-47 was placed in 1940 and the P-43 orders were only intended to help fund factory expansion and to keep the work force together and enlarge it and train it so it would be ready to make the P-47s when the time came.
A-20, B-25, B-26 and B-24 were all prewar designs although a lot tweaking to the armament (adding power turrets) went on.

Agreed...my comment about the US learning from the RN was over-the-top. However, the aircraft the USN had in-service in the 1930s weren't exactly world leaders. That's the key point I was trying to make. I just got a little over-excited.

 

[marathag]

Are you back to the old trope that the Japanese "copied" Western designs? Show me how Japanese procurement of ANY US aircraft significantly informed the design of its own aircraft.

No, but they were keeping track.

And they did copy some things, like the direction finder for returning back to the carrier.

 

[marathag]

However, the aircraft the USN had in-service in the 1930s weren't exactly world leaders. That's the key point I was trying to make. I just got a little over-excited.

Devastator was better than the Shark or Swordfish.
F2A-1 Buffalo was better than the Sea Gladiator
Vindicator was better than the Skua. Hell, the Curtiss SBC Helldiver Biplane was better than the Skua

 

[buffnut453]

No, but they were keeping track.

No...the IJN was largely AHEAD of the USN in aircraft development during the mid/late 1930s, not just keeping track.

 

[Shortround6]

Agreed...my comment about the US learning from the RN was over-the-top. However, the aircraft the USN had in-service in the 1930s weren't exactly world leaders. That's the key point I was trying to make. I just got a little over-excited.

A lot of us do tend to forget how long it took for aircraft to go from the planning/design stage to actual squadron use
Of course we have been fed the crap about planes like the F6F being designed to counter the Zero since WW II too many times to count.

 

[marathag]

No...the IJN was largely AHEAD of the USN in aircraft development during the mid/late 1930s, not just keeping track.

Val wasn't better than the Vindicator. A5M wasn't as good as the Grumman F3F. Kate was slightly better than the Devastator, and no comparison with the torpedoes.
Zero was a 1940 aircraft, however.

 

[Shortround6]

No...the IJN was largely AHEAD of the USN in aircraft development during the mid/late 1930s, not just keeping track.

The US was rather spotty.
We kept biplane fighters around about as long as the Italians
But we had the unloved TBD

Flying in 1935 and going into squadron service in the summer of 1937. Some the actual planes at Coral Sea and Midway may have been up to 5 years old.

It took Japanese several years to catch up.

 

[buffnut453]

Val wasn't better than the Vindicator. A5M wasn't as good as the Grumman F3F. Kate was slightly better than the Devastator, and no comparison with the torpedoes.
Zero was a 1940 aircraft, however.

I'd argue that the A5M was better than the F3F and that the Val was comparable to the Vindicator. None of those Japanese aircraft benefitted from ANYTHING that Japan bought from the US.

 

[Shortround6]

Zero was a 1940 aircraft, however.

Not really.
Much like the P-40.
It was there in small numbers but it was not really combat ready.
In the case of the Zero it had nothing to do with protected tanks or armor.
It had to do with wing strength and modifications to improve aileron response.
AN early Zero had crashed and the first 21 were subject frequent inspections.
A trim tab had been added to improve aileron response, After a 2nd crash (13 months after the first) it was found that the trim tab induced flutter at a lower speed and the flutter could fatigue or over stress the wing. Until all aircraft were modified all aircraft were restricted to 250kts indicated air speed and a max of 5 Gs pull out.
It took until the fall of 1941 to get this all sorted out.

 

[ThomasP]

B5N1 began design in 1935, first flight January 1937, entered production in 1937, service mid-1938, and combat vs China in late-1938.

 

[RCAFson]

Devastator was better than the Shark or Swordfish.
F2A-1 Buffalo was better than the Sea Gladiator
Vindicator was better than the Skua. Hell, the Curtiss SBC Helldiver Biplane was better than the Skua

The Devastator had less range than the Swordfish, wasn't stressed for divebombing, and it's STOL and wing fold characteristics meant it wasn't operable from RN carriers, much less escort/MAC carriers, where the Swordfish soldiered on until 1945. The Swordfish was intended for replacement by the Albacore in 1939, but had to carry on as the Albacore was delayed into service by engine production problems. By May 1941 the Swordfish was fitted with ASV radar, and yet could still carry a full weapons load including the much superior RN Mk12 torpedo. The Devastator would have been completely useless for the FAA.

It's difficult to imagine how the F2A-1, with it's completely inadequate armament, would have faired against Luftwaffe bombers in 1940. Increasing the armament led to a vicious cycle of LG failure, which made the F2A a less than carrier capable fighter.

Any serious research into the Vindicator will reveal that it wasn't capable of true divebombing as it had no effective divebrakes. A large number ended up in UK service where it was found to be unsuitable for combat operations.

Only the SBC-4, which entered service after the Skua could be considered equivalent to the Skua in terms of performance, but it had fixed wings, less range and only a single .3in forward firing MG. Why would the FAA want this aircraft?

 

[marathag]

I'd argue that the A5M was better than the F3F

	F3F	A5M4
Engine	Wright Cyclone 950HP	Nakajima 41 710HP
empty weight	3307	2874
Max TO	4797	4017
Max Fuel	130 gallons	87 gallons, 42 gallon drop tank
Speed	264mph@15000ft [email protected].	270mph@9800ft [email protected].
Climb	2,800 ft/min	3m35s to 9800ft =2735 ft/min
Range	980 miles	658 miles internal 870 drop tank
Armament	1 0.30 M1919 500 rnds 1 0.50 M2 200rds	(2) 7.7mm Type 89 MGs 500 rounds
Notes	Enclosed Cockpit, Reliable Radio	Open: Type 96 Radio not as reliable

 

[marathag]

It's difficult to imagine how the F2A-1, with it's completely inadequate armament, would have faired against Luftwaffe bombers in 1940.

Worked against Soviet Bombers over Finland. But the FAA main task wasn't to be participating in the Battle of Britain, but to protect Carriers

 

[SaparotRob]

Worked against Soviet Bombers over Finland. But the FAA main task wasn't to be participating in the Battle of Britain, but to protect Carriers

That's a good point.

 

[marathag]

Great Lakes TG2 124 mph top speed 56 mph landing speed, 656sq.ft area and 4155 pounds of payload. 200 gallons of fuel. Cruising speed 96 mph. The TG-2 was a slightly improved T4M from Martin that dated to 1928, but more powerful 620HP Wright Cyclone in place of the P&W Hornet. These stayed in service til 1938

Fairey Swordfish 138 mph top speed, 104mph cruising speed, 46mph landing speed 607sq.ft and 4000 pound payload 201 gallon tank, optional 82 gallon tank in observers place

Blackburn Shark MkII 152 mph top speed, 62 mph landing speed, 489sq.ft area and 4011 pounds of payload, 171 gallon tank. optional 150 gallon tank. Cruising speed 118 mph

Devastator had a 206mph top speed, 128mph cruising speed, 63 mph landing speed, 422sq.ft area and 4594 pounds of payload, 207 gallon tank.

Swordfish was able to stay in service, from Allied air supremacy.

 

[RCAFson]

Worked against Soviet Bombers over Finland. But the FAA main task wasn't to be participating in the Battle of Britain, but to protect Carriers

Quote:

"The B239Es were taken to Trollhättan, Sweden (the home of Saab Aircraft) where the Finns replaced the flight instruments with metric calibrated units, installed four 12.7-mm machine guns, armour plate behind the pilot's seat and self-sealing tanks...."

Nordic Buffalos — How An Obsolete U.S. Navy Fighter Found a New Lease on Life in Finland's War with the Soviets - MilitaryHistoryNow.com

“Despite their superiority in numbers and their losses, the Soviet’s never gained air superiority. That belonged to the Finns.” By Marc Liebman BY THE END of the Russo-Finnish War in March 1940, military planners in...

militaryhistorynow.com

In it's Finnish modified form the F2A would not have been operable from a carrier, at least for any length of time before it's LG would have failed.