Why the Skua Only Carried a 500lb Bomb

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

The Shark was replaced in frontline service by the Swordfish prior to Sept 1939.

TBD performance was far less than it's claimed stats as evidenced by pilot statements up to Midway. In any event it and the TG2 were not stressed for divebombing and the TG2 had fixed wings. Again, these aircraft were not operable from RN carriers.
 
What was the weight of the -239s vs the porky F2A-3?
 
...........................................................................239..................................F2A-3
Empty............................................................3744.................................4372
Gross, 4guns, 110gal of fuel................5276..................................6321
Max gross....................................................5314.................................7159

remember that the engine in the F2A-2 was 270lbs heavier than the engine in the 239 just to start things off.
 
Great article! I spent way too much time looking at the picture of the Buffalo.
 
From wiki

"It was the first American carrier-based monoplane to be widely used,
the first all-metal naval aircraft,
the first with a completely enclosed cockpit,
the first with power-actuated (hydraulically) folding wings."

Were there things wrong with it? sure.
However like the Skua, there was no MK II version. The Guys at Midway were using the same 850-900hp engines (running on 87 octane fuel?) that they had been built with in 1937-38.
Same engines used in the PBY-2 flying boats, the PBY-3s got 1050hp engines. PBY-5s got 1200hp engines.

Part of the range problem was the US MK 13 torpedo. It was about 500lbs heavier than the British torpedo so they had to loose 500lbs somewhere else, like fuel.
The MK 13 torpedo was only slightly more aerodynamic than a parachute.

two position torpedo mount?
One does wonder if they could have gotten rid of those fore and aft strips on wing for reduction in drag?
 
The TBD Devastator's torpedo was, as I understand these things, utterly useless... except for the fact that its fuel was a drinkable alcoholic beverage, and when mixed with pineapple juice, provided a palatable hooch for the officially alcohol-free US Navy.

In contrast, I have nothing but enthusiasm for the Dauntless's fairly unique ability get a particularly large weight of metal horizontally off one carrier's deck and return it vertically onto another one, allowing a single aircraft to play steampunk Luke Skywalker... but it's not really supposed to do anything else, in contrast with the Skua, which is basically a Val - designed to mob opposing heavy units in larger numbers using 500lb GP - that's supposed to double as a fighter and has all the sensible carrier-plane stuff like folding wings, catapult stress, and the ability to float when crashed...

Vindicator was better than the Skua. Hell, the Curtiss SBC Helldiver Biplane was better than the Skua
As someone else has said, the Vindicator/Chesapeake couldn't dive-bomb, and I'm not sure how easily it could get off a deck with a useful cargo in the first place... it rather shows up the speed performance of Fleet Air Arm fighter types, but not the dive-bomber part...

The Val, with its fixed undercarriage, seems to have outperformed both the Skua and the Vindicator, which is perhaps more shocking...

Me, I'd advocate for Bristol just making one or two small radials by 1935-ish. Pegasus is a given; where the Pegasus cannot fit install Mercury; ditch Perseus and Taurus (bar as prototypes).
That seems logical...

The story of all these switcharounds seems rather odd...

1. As I understand it, circa 1936 the Mercury was allocated for the Blenheim, the Skua and the Lysander, while the Perseus was allocated for the M.15/35 twin-engined, narrow-fuselage torpedo-bomber project that became the Botha (though even here, I've seen a statement that the original engine allocated was the Aquila, and that the parallel Bristol Beaufort retained this, with only the Botha being swapped over).

2. The torpedo-bomber became a wide-body aircraft with a side-by-side cockpit and a more flexible carrying capacity, but while the Beaufort was allowed to upgrade to the Taurus in mid-1937, the Botha was made to keep the now-underpowered Perseus; meanwhile, the Skua and the Lysander were both swapped from the Mercury to the Perseus, first flights with the new motor being in August and December 1938. Was all this really to free up Mercury capacity for the Blenheim, or to make use of the Perseus?

3. In a quite separate line of engine production, the Miles Master was due to upgrade from the Kestrel to the Peregrine, which was also assigned for the Whirlwind... but in October 1939, the Air Ministry ordered the cancellation of the Whirlwind to switch the floor space and workforce to make more Lysanders (which seems to imply even more Perseus engines); this caused the cancellation of the Peregrine, so the Miles Master was hastily ordered to switch to the Mercury.

4. In the event, a proportion of Lysander production continued to be engined with the Mercury, switching fully back to that motor in August 1940; on the other hand, although a proof-of-concept Miles Master with a Mercury flew in late 1939, the plane continued to come off the production line with the Kestrel until I think 1941, when it switched over to the Mercury; I'm less clear over the Blenheim; I'd assume the Mk. IV continued in production until it was superceded by the Bisley (for which the internet gives an in-production date of in November 1941) and Mercury-engined Bolingbroke in Canada, but I'm not totally sure...?

Any corrections or commentary?

How much more drag does a longer airframe produce, though? All I know about drag along the sides of the plane is that no-one realised that that the air along the side of the fuselage needed to travel through the same space as the air over the wing root, except possibly the people who designed the English Electric Lightning...

The 72 knot stall speed was 'all up' LG and flaps raised. Stall speed was ~66 knots in landing condition with flaps and LG extended according to Wings of the Navy.
yeah, the speed itself isn't bad, but sudden stall behavior you don't want.
So the issue is less the landing speed than the abrupt sideways plunge out of the sky?

And, again a question that shows that I know nothing, would planes decelerate that much in combat?

Moxie means chutzpah.
I've certainly not been accused of lacking the Scottish equivalent, though I'm not sure we have a word for it in quite the same way...
 
Longer fuselage will have the more favorable lenght/width ratio than a shorter fuselage that has the same width; we assume here a V12 powered ww2 fighter comparison, with crew one behind another. Cue the 20th century ships, where ~10:1 length/beam ratio was often used on fast ships (cruisers, battlecruisers), and 7-8:1 on not so fast ones ('normal' battleships). Also, cue the thickness to chord ratio on the fighters' wings, where 13-15% was a much better call than 17-19% wrt. drag of the wing (assuming same/similar profile series).
 

Devastator might have had better performance as an airframe but as a weapon system it was entirely useless due to the poor reliability of the USN's torpedoes. It would be like delivering the best fighter aircraft in the world but installing guns that never fired successfully. I'm not blaming the Devastator airframe for the torp problems but if the aircraft can't actually perform the mission it was built to meet, then it can hardly be described as "better" than anything.
 
Hi
You appear to have missed that the Mercury was also used on the Gloster Gauntlet and Gladiator, Miles Martinet and all the British built Blenheims Mks. I, IV and V (Bisley) had Mercury engines, as did the Supermarine Sea Otter.

Mike
 
Priorities and allocations changed with time and please remember, allocations could take place 1-2 years before actual airframe production or delivery.

In 1937-38 and 39 the Blenheim was a hot item, in 1940 not so much and in 1941 it was "we have several factories tooled up for them, they aren't really good for much but it will take 1-2 years to build anything better (and may require engines from the US)"
Repeat for several other aircraft.

The Miles Master was built to take advantage of hundreds of RR Kestrels sitting in warehouses after overhaul, When they started running out of those the switched to the Mercury. They later switched to the P & W R-1535 twin Wasp junior, which must have been another warehouse deal. Nobody in the US or Canada really wanted anything to do with an 800-825hp 14 cylinder engine in 1941-42. Perhaps they were left over French engines ordered for the Breguet 695??
 
One does wonder if they could have gotten rid of those fore and aft strips on wing for reduction in drag?
USN should have asked for a more refined TBD, with uprated engine and windtunnel work.
Torpedo placement was a design requirement, as rather than a recessed mount or bay, there had to be an area for the bombardier to lie prone and use the new norden bombsight for level bombing.


Douglas should have spent some money on trying to interest the USN on a TB2D rather than wasting all that $$$ on the XB-19
 
Let's replace the TBDs used at Midway with Swordfish (or better yet Albacores).

The smaller footprint of the Swordfish will allow for more aircraft per squadron; say 18. About 5 hours before dawn, TF16 and 17 fly off 12 ASV equipped Swordfish with LR fuel tanks and (hopefully) locate the KB.

The rest of the Swordfish are then flown off for a predawn torpedo strike using their ASV radar to locate the KB, and they all return except for one or two unlucky enough to get hit by random flak.

Alternately, they are flown off for a dawn dive bombing strike armed with ~1500lbs of bombs.

Alternately, they are flown off for a day torpedo strike using a dive bombing mission profile (as per FAA doctrine).

Alternately, they are flown off for a day dive bombing mission.


Each of these mission plans was unavailable to USN TB squadrons because the TBD was incapable of performing them.
 
Douglas should have spent some money on trying to interest the USN on a TB2D rather than wasting all that $$$ on the XB-19
Trouble is that it was the Navy that was spending the money on the TBD and it was the Army that had contracted for the XB-19. Douglas did want to get out of it much earlier as they were loosing money but the Army insisted. Douglas had to complete the contract or loose future Army contracts.
 
Each of these mission plans was unavailable to USN TB squadrons because the TBD was incapable of performing them.
And the RN couldn't do some of the missions that the US air groups could do.

The Problem with some of the US carriers was not the size of the deck park but the size of of the magazines and the amount of aviation fuel, both were huge compared to the RN carriers but when you are operating 70-80 aircraft per strike at 140-180 US gallons per plane (12,000 US gallons per strike) you can run out of fuel pretty quick.
 
I've previously researched and crunched the numbers for avgas use by Enterprise at Midway. She used about 1/3 or less of her avgas during the entire operation (about 400 sorties with most returning with 10-20% fuel). Adding 4 more aircraft per carrier, especially given the simple construction of the Swordfish, shouldn't present a problem.

The Swordfish and Albacore (and even the Shark) could do every mission type that the TBD could do and the others (except I'm not sure if the Shark was stressed for DBing) as I mentioned above.
 
I had looked into the TBD and Swordfish a while ago. The Admiral had brought up the "had the Swordfish been at Midway" what-if. I thought radar equipped Swordfish was a very interesting idea. I think the Swordfish might have pulled it off but the Shark?
 
The smaller footprint of the Swordfish will allow for more aircraft per squadron; say 18. About 5 hours before dawn, TF16 and 17 fly off 12 ASV equipped Swordfish with LR fuel tanks and (hopefully) locate the KB.
hopefully.
They take off early, cruising at 90 knots

What bearing? Radar gives around 60 miles notice, best case

Would VT8 still be bait to occupy the fighters to let the Divebombers thru? as it was for SBDs, 18 were lost from Fighters and Flak, around 40%
Could Swordfish do as well?

At full load of ordnance, you have 550 miles of range, but slower cruise than TBDs and SBDs
 

Users who are viewing this thread