Beyond The Sprues

Modelling => Ideas & Inspiration => Aero-space => Topic started by: Volkodav on November 24, 2018, 09:36:58 PM

Title: RNAS & FAA Dive/Torpedo Bombers
Post by: Volkodav on November 24, 2018, 09:36:58 PM
In relation to the original topic, a book I recent finished reading, The Rise of the Bomber, provided an interesting perspective on the RN choice / development of aircraft pre war.  Basically the suggestion was gaining control of the FAA, including aircraft specifications, was actually a wasted opportunity because instead of developing useful types, or even continuing with reasonably successful adaptions of land based types, they developed the Skua, Roc and continued with the Swordfish and developed the Albacore and Barracuda.

Just imaging if they had simply adopted a navalised Hawker Henley as a Scout/Dive Bomber, with no pretence of being a fighter, and developed a Sea Hurricane prewar, or even better, a naval fighter, based on the Gloster F.5/34.  Torpedo bomber, why not a variant of the Fulmar?
Title: Re: RNAS & FAA Dive/Torpedo Bombers
Post by: Old Wombat on November 25, 2018, 04:24:14 PM
I guess they were a bit miffed by having lost the RNAS to the RAF (despite Admiralty collusion in the process) & were trying to break new ground that they no longer understood (despite being pioneers of various elements of aviation advancement during WW1).

The early development/adoption of the Sea Hurricane is a good idea & a more powerfully engined Gloster F.5/34 looks like it would have made an excellent naval fighter.

Personally, I think that regaining control of the FAA is less of an issue than allowing the loss of control of the RNAS in the first place. If the RNAS had continued in the inter-war years the Admiralty & the RN would have had senior naval officers who had a better understanding of what was required in the purpose & development of carrier aircraft.
Title: Re: RNAS & FAA Dive/Torpedo Bombers
Post by: jcf on November 26, 2018, 04:59:59 AM
I split this off from the USN topic.

Hurricane fighter; Henley dive bomber; Hotspur based torpedo bomber, turret removed
and replaced with a twin flexible MG mount.

All with identical folding outer wing panels.
Title: Re: RNAS & FAA Dive/Torpedo Bombers
Post by: Volkodav on November 28, 2018, 08:53:48 PM
I split this off from the USN topic.

Hurricane fighter; Henley dive bomber; Hotspur based torpedo bomber, turret removed
and replaced with a twin flexible MG mount.

All with identical folding outer wing panels.

Exactly! 

The prewar delusion seemed to cross from the RAF to the FAA with the Hotspur and the idea of broadside air battles, but a hotspur would make for an interesting torpedo bomber as I assume it would be lighter than the Henley with out strengthening for divebombing.
Title: Re: RNAS & FAA Dive/Torpedo Bombers
Post by: Volkodav on January 14, 2020, 05:51:39 PM
Apparently the Fulmar was a proper replacement for the Skua, in that it was stressed for a 60 dive with a 500lb bomb!  Don't know if it ever carried the 500lb bomb, or was even rigged with rack suitable for them, but it is interesting for what could have been.  Just imagine the RN and USN compared notes and came to the same conclusion about dive bombing verses torpedo bombing, RN Carriers being heavy with Fighter / Scout / Dive Bombers, instead of TSRs (Swordfish) and Single seat fighters being seen as the best defence against dive bombers.
Title: Re: RNAS & FAA Dive/Torpedo Bombers
Post by: GTX_Admin on January 15, 2020, 04:01:02 AM
Apparently the Fulmar was a proper replacement for the Skua, in that it was stressed for a 60 dive with a 500lb bomb! 


Makes sense given the Fulmar was developed from the Fairey P.4/34:

(https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/firearmcentral/images/8/8f/Fairey_P4-34_outline.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20171217110347)
(http://www.aviastar.org/pictures/england/fairey_p4-34_1.jpg)