Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
At 0430 the KB was ~215nm from TF16/17, and USN intel gave Fletcher a very good idea of where to expect the KB. With ASV recon he can close earlier.hopefully.
They take off early, cruising at 90 knots
View attachment 717496
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
So a two-seat Spitfire should be perfect?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).
Not so much "missed" as left out because I was focusing on the period in 1937-1940 when the Perseus and Mercury were playing musical chairs...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
You have done a nice job of going through some of pathways. Some of which are nearly incomprehensible to some of us today.focusing on the period in 1937-1940 when the Perseus and Mercury were playing musical chairs...
Where do these figures come from?Swordfish at TOGW of ~9000 lbs (2x crew, 201 USgal normal + 72 USgal aux. fuel tank in navidator/observer position, 1x 1600 lb torpedo and 4x 20 lb flares) with 60 minutes/42 USgal not available for range - had a range of about 750 miles at 105 mph best Vcruise for range.
Swordfish at TOGW of ~8250 lbs (3x crew, 201 USgal normal internal + 82 USgal external fuel tank on torpedo crutch, ASV Mk II radar and 8x 20 lb flares) with 60 minutes/42 USgal not available for range - had a range of about 820 miles at 105 mph best Vcruise for range.
This is probably the best data on Iowa speeds that existsWell, in theory. In practice, I've seen no realistic (deep load) performance metric for the Iowa class that gives them more than a fraction of a knot over the South Daks. All you really get for 25% more hull-length and 60% more horsepower is a pretty ship.
Ordered as an Amphibian Boat Reconnaissance aircraft for the FAA, Supermarine couldn't build them in 1940 due to demand for Spitfires. Production had to wait until new contracts were placed with Saunders Roe in Jan 1942 with the first production aircraft flying in Jan 1943.Sea Otters! Even by FAA standards, there's something impressively British about a catapult-launched gunnery-spotter/scout for battleships with added dive-bombing capability that had its first flight in 1938, and didn't enter squadron service until 1944, by which time the hangars it had been designed were being turned into cinemas...
In fact, it's so and so, NavWeaps gives the weight of the 18" (45 cm) Mark XII torpedo (the standard early war British aerial torpedo) as 1548 lbs.Swordfish at TOGW of ~9000 lbs (2x crew, 201 USgal normal + 72 USgal aux. fuel tank in navidator/observer position, 1x [1500 lb] torpedo and 4x 20 lb flares) with 60 minutes/42 USgal not available for range - had a range of about 750 miles at 105 mph best Vcruise for range.
Swordfish at TOGW of ~8250 lbs (3x crew, 201 USgal normal internal + 82 USgal external fuel tank on torpedo crutch, ASV Mk II radar and 8x 20 lb flares) with 60 minutes/42 USgal not available for range - had a range of about 820 miles at 105 mph best Vcruise for range.
edit: made a typo, the torpedo weight was 1500 lbs not 1600 lbs, corrected it.
The issue of roundness tolerance was solved in March 1938. ("The Bristol Sleeve Valve Aero Engines" Patrick Hassell Rolls-Royce Heritage Trust)The 2nd phase was 1939-40 with the Perseus in large scale production and the Hercules (using the same cylinders) also going into large scale production. This is when they discovered that they could not make the sleeves stay round in mass production and the engines (mostly Hercules?) were using excessive oil in as little as 20 hours of operation.
They were also realizing that 900hp engines were not actually going to power war winning aircraft. Why this was so surprising is a little hard to figure out. The Sleeve valve program at Bristol was always a little behind the curve. The backwards Americans were building 30 liter engines that made 900hp in the mid 30s when the Pegasus was struggling to make 800hp. By 1940 the American engines were making 1000-1100hp (the American 1200hp was pretty much sea level for take-off).
Was it?The issue of roundness tolerance was solved in March 1938. ("The Bristol Sleeve Valve Aero Engines" Patrick Hassell Rolls-Royce Heritage Trust)
I thought I took that into account with American engines were making 1000-1100hp (the American 1200hp was pretty much sea level for take-off).On the question of lack of power, bear in mind that the P&W and Wright engines have high TO powers, but their maximum continuous cruise powers are significantly less than TO power.
The Bristol engines have a lower TO power, but their max rich and max weak powers are a much higher % of their TO power cf P&W and Wright.
I think there is a confusion in terminology on the Wright engine. 625hp would be about right for the max lean cruise. I don't know when in changed but the US engines didn't have a 5 minute max power rating in the 30s or maybe even 1940. 1941 may be different. They had a T-O rating that was at a higher RPM and could be a little as one minute. There were no "military" ratings. The Normal rating was often the max rich continuous rating, granted it sucked fuel like multiple holes in the fuel tank and was not practical. But all the other ratings when expressed as a percentage were based off this rating, as in a 60% rating was 60% of the normal rating and not the T-O rating.Hawk 75A with GR-1820-G105A. TO power 1100 hp. Max cruising 625 hp. (Curtis manual 6895-A) 1287 lb 2.06 lb/hp (max cruise)
Pegasus XVIII. TO power 980 hp. Max power level flight periods exceeding 5 minutes 850 hp at 5000 ft. 1110 lb 1.31 lb/hp (max cruise)
Perseus XI, XII, XIV. TO power 830 hp. Max cruising & climb 745 hp at 6500 ft. 1025 lb. 1.38 lb/hp (max cruise)
The Taurus was a good concept on paper, but the vibrations were an insurmountable problem.
I am not sure the Perseus 100 even made it to the bus stop. I am not sure that a picture exists of it. It was announced in early 1946 (?) but after that???????It was gone from lists/publications in 1947.The Perseus 100 was a good 1200 hp 9-cyl radial, but it completely missed the bus. With Bristol having a chronic shortage of engineering staff, this one should never have been released from the department of good ideas.
The Taurus had several problems and in early days was quite unreliable in the Beuaforts. Solved by changing the crankshaft clamping method. However that left the cooling problems.The Taurus has been criticised, and indeed, did not live up to the hoped for power, but it was principally used for long over ocean combat missions in the Beaufort and Albacore so cannot have been actually unreliable.
I didn't intend to direct my comment at you. I was pointing out the chronology which gets overlooked in any discussion about the Skua. The RNs complicated system was better than nothing at all which is what the USN had at the time.?????????????????????????????????
I never said that the US system was in service when the Skua was designed.
Two statements, both true:
1. The British system was not user-friendly (based on accounts by FAA personnel)
2. The RN eventually adopted the US system
AFAIK the Skua was finally designated DBF:Did the Fulmar get an "FR" designation for "fighter-reconaissance" the way that the Swordfish got the "TSR"?
Did the Skua ever get that sort of designation?
The specification issued
On 12 December 1934, Specification O.27/34 was duly issued for a replacement FDB to replace the existing Hawker Osprey aircraft in the fleet. In the main, it followed the outline discussed already. The principal points were:
It was to be a single-engined ship-plane(17), either monoplane or biplane for the FAA to operate from carriers, and its role was defined as '(a) to disable the opposing FAA by dive bombing attacks on hostile carriers and other vessels, and to undertake such other dive bombing as may be required. (b) to engage hostile aircraft in the air'.
Dimensions to be a height of 14 feet 9 inches, a length of 33 feet, a wingspan of 46 feet, with wings folded this to be 16 feet only. The time given to fold the mainplanes to this dimension was 30 seconds.
Endurance, carrying a single 500lb bomb, to be 3 hours, extended to 5 hours fully economical speed....
...THE SKUA IS HATCHED
The Skua I as she finally emerged, was described as 'a two-seater dive-bomber fighter'(1) (note the reversal of priorities from the original designation), suitable for operation as a ship plane or landplane. (Smith, Skua!)
Yes. Aircraft would lose lots of speed in dogfights, and/or lose altitude to convert potential energy into kinetic energy (speed).And, again a question that shows that I know nothing, would planes decelerate that much in combat?