Torbeau With Flap and Spoiler Wing as higher speed Avenger?

[perfectgeneral]

Looking at the similar size, but much greater weight of the Beaufighter compared to the Avenger carrier capable torpedo bomber, I wonder...
What if a full length Fowler flap wing with less thickness and spoilers at 70% back in the wing (for lateral control when flaps are down) were made to attempt to make the design STOAL for aircraft carrier roles?

40° Rolling flap settling offers 100% greater lift.

 

[mtpalmer1]

The Mosquito might make a better starting point as it actually landed on a carrier and wasn't as tricky to handle as a beaufighter.

mosquito carrier landing - Google Search

If you insist on a Beaufighter, the flaps may very well help but there are some further modifications/considerations that would be a must for me from the outset.

Handed props/engines to reduce swing on application of power.
Experienced pilots only - all must be pre-existing Beaufighter veterans!
Some fashion of quick release harnesses and canopies.
Increased tail and rudder area - low-speed yaw authority is imperative!
Extensive trials on land before moving to a carrier.

[Yoda] Dangerous your path is [Yoda]

 

[perfectgeneral]

Handed props/engines to reduce swing on application of power.
Experienced pilots only - all must be pre-existing Beaufighter veterans!
Some fashion of quick release harnesses and canopies.
Increased tail and rudder area - low-speed yaw authority is imperative!
Extensive trials on land before moving to a carrier.

Yes. Probably reversed in the prop gearing.
Experienced yes, veterans no.
Did they sink quick?
The flaps will need some heavy trip against the down nose. Lower twin tail behind each engine?
Always

 

[Machiavelli Jr]

If the Sea Mosquito was highly borderline off a WW2 British carrier, I think it's pretty unlikely that the heavier and less powerful TorBeau can be made to work reliably and safely. The FAA were desperate for a modern torpedo fighter, if they thought a Beaufighter derivative would be remotely viable, I'm sure they'd have tried it.

 

[ennobee]

How did the Beaufighter do in regard to folding wings? I recall the main reason the Fleet Air Arm lived the Avenger was that it not only had very snug folding wings, but that also it could fold and unfold its wings by itself, using its own hydraulics. At that time, the Fairey Baracuda still had wings that had to be folded by a five man ground crew using long sticks to push the wings up.

I fear that full flaps are only a small change to make compared to redesigning the complete wings to make them fold and enable the Beaufighter to not only land on aircraft carriers but also being able to actually fit into the carrier's hangar

 

[mtpalmer1]

Did they sink quick?
The flaps will need some heavy trip against the down nose. Lower twin tail behind each engine?

There was a twin-fin variant if you want to go in that direction but I had more of a tail chord extension and the fillet of the MK.X in mind.

I'm trying to engage and not stymie discussion but I really have to emphasize, the Beaufighter was a serious handful to handle. Which is fine on a wide expanse of field but it would be downright hazardous on a carrier deck. I mentioned quick release gear because I think any crew brave enough to attempt this would appreciate any measure to aid a quick egress from the aircraft as I suspect more than a few will end up in the drink.

I fear that full flaps are only a small change to make compared to redesigning the complete wings to make them fold and enable the Beaufighter to not only land on aircraft carriers but also being able to actually fit into the carrier's hangar

I can see this happening on a trials basis, in which case the Beaufighter wouldn't need to be struck below. On an "operational" aircraft (and I have to stress incredulity here) any wing fold would have to be outboard the engines and thus the footprint wouldn't be reduced all that much. In terms of look, the S-2 wing fold would best illustrate IMO.

After a quick back of a post-it note calculation, with some guess-work as to where the likely wing break would be, I think you could take one up and down on Implacable's forward lift but the hangar height would preclude you rolling it off. You could store one in Illustrious's hangar, if you made it from a kit of parts, as the lift is too narrow. So deck parks only then....

 

[perfectgeneral]

If they are deck parking off the edge with back wheel support I don't think there is much pressure for a wingfold. RN policy of armoured decks makes for an interesting CV design pressure if these predated the armoured carriers (that would have to be based on a Blenhiem, but with R-1830 Twin Wasp engines, turret ditched to save weight). The engine is already used on the Devastator the RN cannot have, Bristol Taurus as back up engine option. The Experimental use on HMS Ark Royal's flight deck might call for a bigger lift and maybe a bigger, taller hanger. Remember that these aircraft carry a torpedo at undreampt of speeds for a carrier aircraft so aren't dismissed lightly in future ship designs.

Back to the BeauReaper. You seem adamant that despite handed props, Fowler flaps and slots the low speed handling characteristics remain poor. That picture looks so much like a Gloster Reaper that I want that name for them. The Bristol Reaper would have larger control surfaces than that. Maybe a third, central, tail fin - like on the E-2 and C-2. The S-2 Tracker wingfold I would describe as single fold sideways over the top, one wing ahead of the other. In terms of hanger height note that the tallest part of the S-2 is that big tail. That's why I favour the twin/triple fin.

 

[mtpalmer1]

Well of course, the S-2 is a tricycle aircraft, the Beaufighter a tail-dragger, so in terms of hangar height, a revised tail will be of no use. You could, of course, turn the props to form a Y from the front and employ some form of depressing oleos to lower the Beaufighter's resting angle. You might just scrape said aircraft into Implacable's hangar but I would describe clearances as marginal. In a seaway? Not for me, thanks. You could also only load a torpedo on the flight deck with the aircraft back at full height.

In terms of tail area, the F7F is pretty similar in terms of weight and that has some pretty prodigious tail surface. Undoubtedly sized for an engine-out condition. That much tail isn't viable on a British carrier (at least until post-war) but yes, I am adamant that more tail area is necessary than a standard Beau, even with your other mods. The Beaufighter is hardly a watchword in harmonized control or stability! A third tail would add unnecessary drag and structural weight. An enlargement of the twin-tail depicted above would suffice - I'll leave it to you as to whether you want to retain an elliptical form or change to triangular, square etc.

If the RN adopts a doctrine of twin-engine torpedo aircraft and sizes the carriers to fit, that removes a lot of referential framework. It makes any meaningful comparisons and extrapolations difficult. It's a pretty fundamental doctrinal shift. What prompted it? Why is such high speed for torpedo bombers decided to be necessary in, what, 1937? Earlier?

Higher transit speeds? Ship speeds are pretty immutable. They certainly can't outpace an aircraft. It seems an awful lot of expense and effort, at a financially constricted time for a slightly more prompt strike capability. Higher attack speeds? I'm not sure AAA fielded circa 1937 would justify it. Also, the Mark XI torpedo was limited to a drop speed of 150kts. The Mark XII improved on this "later" although I'm not entirely sure when "later" is. The document linked below implies a limit of 180mph until the introduction of the Mark XV. It seems likely then, that these high-speed Torp-Blenheims would have to slow to drop, rather negating the point. A hardened torpedo could of course be brought forward but as far as Illustrious's decision gate?

https://www.rafmuseum.org.uk/documents/Research/RAF-Historical-Society-Journals/Journal_45_Seminar_conventional_weapons.pdf

 

[Astrodragon]

Well of course, the S-2 is a tricycle aircraft, the Beaufighter a tail-dragger, so in terms of hangar height, a revised tail will be of no use. You could, of course, turn the props to form a Y from the front and employ some form of depressing oleos to lower the Beaufighter's resting angle. You might just scrape said aircraft into Implacable's hangar but I would describe clearances as marginal. In a seaway? Not for me, thanks. You could also only load a torpedo on the flight deck with the aircraft back at full height.

In terms of tail area, the F7F is pretty similar in terms of weight and that has some pretty prodigious tail surface. Undoubtedly sized for an engine-out condition. That much tail isn't viable on a British carrier (at least until post-war) but yes, I am adamant that more tail area is necessary than a standard Beau, even with your other mods. The Beaufighter is hardly a watchword in harmonized control or stability! A third tail would add unnecessary drag and structural weight. An enlargement of the twin-tail depicted above would suffice - I'll leave it to you as to whether you want to retain an elliptical form or change to triangular, square etc.

If the RN adopts a doctrine of twin-engine torpedo aircraft and sizes the carriers to fit, that removes a lot of referential framework. It makes any meaningful comparisons and extrapolations difficult. It's a pretty fundamental doctrinal shift. What prompted it? Why is such high speed for torpedo bombers decided to be necessary in, what, 1937? Earlier?

Higher transit speeds? Ship speeds are pretty immutable. They certainly can't outpace an aircraft. It seems an awful lot of expense and effort, at a financially constricted time for a slightly more prompt strike capability. Higher attack speeds? I'm not sure AAA fielded circa 1937 would justify it. Also, the Mark XI torpedo was limited to a drop speed of 150kts. The Mark XII improved on this "later" although I'm not entirely sure when "later" is. The document linked below implies a limit of 180mph until the introduction of the Mark XV. It seems likely then, that these high-speed Torp-Blenheims would have to slow to drop, rather negating the point. A hardened torpedo could of course be brought forward but as far as Illustrious's decision gate?

https://www.rafmuseum.org.uk/documents/Research/RAF-Historical-Society-Journals/Journal_45_Seminar_conventional_weapons.pdf

Attack speed is always useful, for a number of reasons.
A fast plane gives the AA less time to get ready, and is more difficult to track/hit.
Less warning time for the defence, and less time for the CAP to react and get into position.
A faster plane will still be caught by a CAP, but it will take longer to hunt down and kill, and more will escape. Dragging the CAP out of position for longer allows other attacks to be less well defended against.
Torpedo drop speed is a bit of a red herring - it wasn't increased earlier because it was adequate for the current aircraft. When the aircraft got faster, it was increased.

 

[mtpalmer1]

Attack speed is always useful, for a number of reasons.

Yes, I'm familiar with the concept. My question is, is it THAT useful to justify the expense. Building fleet carriers that must be by definition larger than Implacable from 1937? A necessarily smaller air group with effectively double the engines per torpedo dropped? Won't this increase in pace also have a knock on effect on RN fighter development? Money is being freed up in this period because of looming war but this much? It's a pretty fundamental shift. It may very well be desirable to have "more speed" but is it justifiable? Budget-able? It must have been something huge to justify what amounts to a tear-down/rebuild of the Fleet Air Arm.

Torpedo drop speed is a bit of a red herring - it wasn't increased earlier because it was adequate for the current aircraft. When the aircraft got faster, it was increased.

Do you know this to be the case? It seems pretty circular reasoning to me. Just like that, as well? Beauforts and Wellingtons were "faster" than their drop speeds but still languished with the Mark XII for years. Yet here, we have a hardened torpedo made available, what 4-5 years early, just by the asking? The nation really dropped the ball waiting so long for the Mark XV IRL then.

Torbeaus were still making do with Mark XIIs in 1943! The case for a "fast-drop" torpedo in 38/39 is... doubtful. This would-be Torp-Blenheim slowing to drop is no worse than the other British torpedo-bombers of the era, then? True but other torpedo bombers wouldn't be expensively re-writing the very fabric of RN naval architecture doing it.

I could see a Bristol twin TB (not a Beaufighter but more of a slim-line cousin) being on RN carriers, circa 1944. This late-1930s add-on scenario though. I really don't see it.

The aircraft you want to be emulating, is this little beauty. The Sturgeon.

It folds away nicely too.

 

[sparky42]

Yes, I'm familiar with the concept. My question is, is it THAT useful to justify the expense. Building fleet carriers that must be by definition larger than Implacable from 1937? A necessarily smaller air group with effectively double the engines per torpedo dropped? Won't this increase in pace also have a knock on effect on RN fighter development? Money is being freed up in this period because of looming war but this much? It's a pretty fundamental shift. It may very well be desirable to have "more speed" but is it justifiable? Budget-able? It must have been something huge to justify what amounts to a tear-down/rebuild of the Fleet Air Arm.


Do you know this to be the case? It seems pretty circular reasoning to me. Just like that, as well? Beauforts and Wellingtons were "faster" than their drop speeds but still languished with the Mark XII for years. Yet here, we have a hardened torpedo made available, what 4-5 years early, just by the asking? The nation really dropped the ball waiting so long for the Mark XV IRL then.

Torbeaus were still making do with Mark XIIs in 1943! The case for a "fast-drop" torpedo in 38/39 is... doubtful. This would-be Torp-Blenheim slowing to drop is no worse than the other British torpedo-bombers of the era, then? True but other torpedo bombers wouldn't be expensively re-writing the very fabric of RN naval architecture doing it.

I could see a Bristol twin TB (not a Beaufighter but more of a slim-line cousin) being on RN carriers, circa 1944. This late-1930s add-on scenario though. I really don't see it.

The aircraft you want to be emulating, is this little beauty. The Sturgeon.

It folds away nicely too.

Just looking at what they did to make it an ASW bird makes you cry (and wonder what the hell the lads in Shorts were smoking at the time)

 

[perfectgeneral]

If the Sea Mosquito was highly borderline off a WW2 British carrier, I think it's pretty unlikely that the heavier and less powerful TorBeau can be made to work reliably and safely. The FAA were desperate for a modern torpedo fighter, if they thought a Beaufighter derivative would be remotely viable, I'm sure they'd have tried it.

Well we all like an earlier (Sea) Mosquito. That could be made much less borderline. Could lifting the tailwheel with a trolly jack lower the props much? Could a prop half (say) open landing gear position still support and move the aircraft on the ground? Landing multiplies the weight of the aircraft with every g. Jack it up on the lift or on deck. Choc trollies to improve mobility and maybe jack the landing gear back up into place. The I'm sure they would have tried it argument is like a argument for perfect history. They chose the Spearfish over the Sturgeon. There is always room for hindsight. Maybe not this one, but something could easily have been missed or shied away from. It is in the very nature of AltHist to look for the other path.

Looking at the original Sturgeon, I feel more certain that an earlier twin engine torpedo bomber is possible. Ten foot contra-props is a tidy fix of two problems. Twenty five foot wide when folded? Certainly twenty excluding the props.

 

[CaptainCalvert]

Attack speed is always useful, for a number of reasons.
A fast plane gives the AA less time to get ready, and is more difficult to track/hit.
Less warning time for the defence, and less time for the CAP to react and get into position.
A faster plane will still be caught by a CAP, but it will take longer to hunt down and kill, and more will escape. Dragging the CAP out of position for longer allows other attacks to be less well defended against.
Torpedo drop speed is a bit of a red herring - it wasn't increased earlier because it was adequate for the current aircraft. When the aircraft got faster, it was increased.

Speed to get into general position is a benefit even if you have slow down for the attack. After the attack, the speed either allows a fast getaway (probably tge best thing) or you can provide a measure of fighter cover.
That leads onto the ability to send a few along without torpedoes as fighters or to use them for carrier defence. Multi role aircraft are useful and it sure beats a Roc as a stand-in fighter.