Author Topic: RNAS & FAA Dive/Torpedo Bombers  (Read 696 times)

Offline Volkodav

  • Counts rivits with his abacus...
  • Much older now...but procrastinating about it
RNAS & FAA Dive/Torpedo Bombers
« 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?

Offline Old Wombat

  • "We'll see when I've finished whether I'm showing off or simply embarrassing myself."
  • "Define 'interesting'?"
Re: RNAS & FAA Dive/Torpedo Bombers
« Reply #1 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.
"This is the Captain. We have a little problem with our engine sequence, so we may experience some slight turbulence and, ah, explode."

Offline jcf

  • Global Moderator
  • Turn that Gila-copter down!
Re: RNAS & FAA Dive/Torpedo Bombers
« Reply #2 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.
"Evil our grandsires were, our fathers worse;
And we, till now unmatched in ill,
Must leave successors more corrupted still."
Horace, 65BC - 8BC. Marsh translation.

Offline Volkodav

  • Counts rivits with his abacus...
  • Much older now...but procrastinating about it
Re: RNAS & FAA Dive/Torpedo Bombers
« Reply #3 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.

Offline Volkodav

  • Counts rivits with his abacus...
  • Much older now...but procrastinating about it
Re: RNAS & FAA Dive/Torpedo Bombers
« Reply #4 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.

Offline GTX_Admin

  • Evil Administrator bent on taking over the Universe!
  • Administrator - Yep, I'm the one to blame for this place.
  • Whiffing Demi-God!
    • Beyond the Sprues
Re: RNAS & FAA Dive/Torpedo Bombers
« Reply #5 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:


All hail the God of Frustration!!!