Blackburn Roc & Skua designed as single seat fighters?

[Giant Man Eating Rabbits]

What if alongside it's twin crew turreted Roc then Skua fighters, Blackburn also designed single seat versions for the RAF Fighter competition that was ultimately won by both the Hurricane and Spitfire?

Would this be possible?
How effective would this fighter be especially in the BoF, BoB and against the Bf-109?
What design changes would need to be done when removing the turret and what improvements would it need?
Would the engines and their incremental power increase allow continued service like the Hurricane at least?
Could the design be navalised as to serve on RN carriers instead of Fulmars?
What other air forces would possibly use the aircraft?

 

[CaptainCalvert]

Anything that removes the Roc's turret is an improvement in my book. A two man version with rear twin vickers K and 4 or 6 in the wing would be better than a roc as a fighter, probably has better visibility than the turreted version as well. For defensive missions, where navigation wasn't such a big deal you could leave out the rear gunner for extra speed and climb.

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

A two man version with rear twin vickers K and 4 or 6 in the wing would be better than a roc as a fighter,

That's called a Skua, which was a reasonable dive bomber with a secondary role of dealing with enemy scouts not a fighter. What it needs is to be built with the 1200hp Hercules rather than the 910hp Perseus and even then it would be no match for a real fighter. It's a big heavy aircraft and just taking out the back seat won't change much.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

That's called a Skua, which was a reasonable dive bomber with a secondary role of dealing with enemy scouts not a fighter. What it needs is to be built with the 1200hp Hercules rather than the 910hp Perseus and even then it would be no match for a real fighter. It's a big heavy aircraft and just taking out the back seat won't change much.

What he said. Plus put a 1,200hp Hercules on the Roc and sling an 18in torpedo underneath it. Then we might have a half-decent torpedo bomber for the first half the war.

In defence of the Skua it's (as @Peg Leg Pom wrote) more correct to regard it as a dive-bomber with a secondary role as an anti-shadower fighter and the British equivalent to the SBD. (Incidentally it had two 0.50 calibre machine guns in the wings which gave it similar firepower to the Skua.) I wouldn't be surprised to learn that the Skua and the 1939 version of the Dauntless had similar performance.

The crucial difference is that the Dauntless was developed and given ever more powerful engines while the Skua was not. We might have a much different view of the SBD if the aircraft that fought the battles of 1942 & 1943 were fitted with a 900hp engine.

 

[Paul_Sussex]

I always wonder if Taurus might be a better fit than Hercules for an improved Skua/Roc. Not so much development headspace, but good enough once the bugs are ironed out? A Skua closer in performance to a Dauntless and a single seat Roc fighter?

 

[tomo pauk]

In defence of the Skua it's (as @Peg Leg Pom wrote) more correct to regard it as a dive-bomber with a secondary role as an anti-shadower fighter and the British equivalent to the SBD. (Incidentally it had two 0.50 calibre machine guns in the wings which gave it similar firepower to the Skua.) I wouldn't be surprised to learn that the Skua and the 1939 version of the Dauntless had similar performance.

The crucial difference is that the Dauntless was developed and given ever more powerful engines while the Skua was not. We might have a much different view of the SBD if the aircraft that fought the battles of 1942 & 1943 were fitted with a 900hp engine.

I'd also agree that the Skua was an okay dive bomber 1st and foremost, while also being a decent fighter if enemy's fighters were not around.
Dauntless 1st flew in 1940, so Skua certainly comes ahead. Dauntless' engine was 1000 HP for the best part of the ww2, what was more important was the it's engine was with 2-speed S/C, while the Perseus on the Skua was with 1-speed S/C that was set for low altitudes. That meant that Dauntless had some 20% more power at 15000 ft.

British can opt to install on the Skua the Pegasus XVII, the 2-speed version of the Pegasus line, and at 15000 ft have 30% more power than what Skua had (and 10% more than what SBD had there), and do it even before ww2 starts.

I always wonder if Taurus might be a better fit than Hercules for an improved Skua/Roc. Not so much development headspace, but good enough once the bugs are ironed out? A Skua closer in performance to a Dauntless and a single seat Roc fighter?

Sorta 25-30% more power, even if it was a low-altitude engine like the Perseus. Taurus will certainly be easier as a retrofit, while the Hercules will demand more work in order for installation not to over-stress the air frame.

What if alongside it's twin crew turreted Roc then Skua fighters, Blackburn also designed single engine versions for the RAF Fighter competition that was ultimately won by both the Hurricane and Spitfire?

Would this be possible?
How effective would this fighter be especially in the BoF, BoB and against the Bf-109?
What design changes would need to be done when removing the turret and what improvements would it need?
Would the engines and their incremental power increase allow continued service like the Hurricane at least?
Could the design be navalised as to serve on RN carriers instead of Fulmars?
What other air forces would possibly use the aircraft?

Several question:
- what size of aircraft we're aiming for?
- must it have a radial engine, or a V12 is okay?
- must we wait for the Hercules?
- date of series production?

 

[yulzari1]

When the Skua was being proposed it was at the bleeding edge of naval aviation including the engine. It had gone out of production when the Dauntless was going into production. A Dauntless period Royal Navy dive bomber which could be used as a fighter was more the Fulmar than the Skua.

The 1,200bhp Perseus was post WW2 with Centaurus cylinders.

 

[tomo pauk]

When the Skua was being proposed it was at the bleeding edge of naval aviation including the engine. It had gone out of production and the Dauntless was going into production. A Dauntless period Royal Navy dive bomber which could be used as a fighter was more the Fulmar than the Skua.

Agreed all the way, bar the engine choice. That was not a 2-row type, it was not a powerful engine to begin with, it's S/C was behind the curve, and it was only 1-speed S/C.

The 1,200bhp Perseus was post WW2 with Centaurus cylinders.

It also used 100/130 grade fuel, not something that either manufacturer or the user of the original Perseus could've counted on just after 1935, when the 87 oct fuel was hot stuff.

 

[Paul_Sussex]

Notional single seat Roc and Skua with Taurus engines - originals from https://warmachinesdrawn.blogspot.com/

 

[Cryhavoc101]

Given its roll as an Anti snooper aircraft could it not have a heavier armament such as a pair of FFS cannon - maybe cowl mounted with 2 or 4 Browning MK 2s in the Wings?

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Dauntless 1st flew in 1940, so Skua certainly comes ahead. Dauntless' engine was 1000 HP for the best part of the ww2, what was more important was the it's engine was with 2-speed S/C, while the Perseus on the Skua was with 1-speed S/C that was set for low altitudes. That meant that Dauntless had some 20% more power at 15000 ft.

In that case would it be better to regard the Roc as being equivalent to XBT-2 (which was the SBD's prototype) or even the Northrop BT-1 from which the Dauntless was developed?

 

[yulzari1]

Agreed all the way, bar the engine choice. That was not a 2-row type, it was not a powerful engine to begin with, it's S/C was behind the curve, and it was only 1-speed S/C.


It also used 100/130 grade fuel, not something that either manufacturer or the user of the original Perseus could've counted on just after 1935, when the 87 oct fuel was hot stuff.

Name a two row radial with more power production made in the UK during the Skua design period. The supercharger was a normal one for the period and the Royal Navy had no doctrinal requirement for high altitude performance and wanted optimum low level power. Design it in parallel with OTL Albacore design and you then have the Taurus and can hope for the Hercules. Myself I would hope for a Sea Spitfire or Hurricane and a Fulmar for the Skua role.

The Royal Navy had finished Skua production before the war and decided the Roc was too poor to be worth embarking on carriers even before it entered service. I think that addresses the OP on their behalf. Probably the Roc would have been most usefully employed in the Middle East as a dive bomber.

 

[Roderick Hutchinson]

It might work as they might be stop gap fighters, until the expansion of Spitfire production and later American fighters arrive, this is just a guess.
It would be interesting to play this out.

 

[tomo pauk]

Name a two row radial with more power production made in the UK during the Skua design period.

You haven't specified UK in the post above, nor that engine is supposed to be a radial.

The supercharger was a normal one for the period and the Royal Navy had no doctrinal requirement for high altitude performance and wanted optimum low level power.

Dive bombers and fighters are not torpedo bombers. A dive bomber has use of flying at higher altitude, both because it will be getting better cruising speed, because it puts it away from the reach of 25mm and lesser AA assets, and because his bomb will be hitting at greater speed.
Just because own carrier aircraft are supposed to fly low (a mistake in RN doctrine), it does not mean the enemy will fall into that trap.
Optimum lower power was not where the Perseus shined, either - Pegasus was still better in that regard. A better S/C also improves low-altitude performance, but at Bristol that will need to wait until 1943-ish for the service engines.

Myself I would hope for a Sea Spitfire or Hurricane and a Fulmar for the Skua role.

Agreed.

 

[Giant Man Eating Rabbits]

Several question:
- what size of aircraft we're aiming for?
- must it have a radial engine, or a V12 is okay?
- must we wait for the Hercules?
- date of series production?

I'm hoping for an out and out fighter.
I'm happy to have either radial or a V engine so long it allows a longer improvement so increasing it's service life such as the Hurricane.
I'm also hoping that series production could begin around 1937/8 as with OTL.

 

[tomo pauk]

I'm hoping for an out and out fighter.

Okay. This probably puts the wing area to under 250 sq ft, or even under 200 sq ft if we want a 1-row radial in the nose (less weight, less power).
Among the engines, Mercury as on the Gladiator or on the Blenheim will do the job; Perseus X (a high-altitude version, that eneded up unused) gives another 10% to what Mercury was able to do, but it adds the drag, so perhaps stick with Mercury all along? Mercury also did very good on 100 oct fuel once available.

I'm happy to have either radial or a V engine so long it allows a longer improvement so increasing it's service life such as the Hurricane.

Merlin is the go-to engine from the late 1930s to the end of the war. British small radials were meh for the needs of a fighter aircraft, unfortunately. American radials offer improvement, but Merlin is still the king, and it is widely available.

I'm also hoping that series production could begin around 1937/8 as with OTL.

Okay.
That disqualifies the Hercules, though.

 

[Driftless]

Did the "flat-nose" windscreen have any appreciable impact on drag? I can't recall any other WW2 era fighter/fighter-bomber with that configuration. Some pre-war creations, but not later craft.

 

[The Wooksta!]

Skua was to have had Mercury and the prototype flew with it. Then the RAF said no, Mercury production is ours for Blenheims, so Skua was redesigned to take Perseus.

Skua has a bad rep, which is a shame as it was a capable aircraft and there was at least one ace on the type.

 

[CaptainCalvert]

That's called a Skua, which was a reasonable dive bomber with a secondary role of dealing with enemy scouts not a fighter. What it needs is to be built with the 1200hp Hercules rather than the 910hp Perseus and even then it would be no match for a real fighter. It's a big heavy aircraft and just taking out the back seat won't change much.

Good point.
But evefy Skua made in place of a Roc would be an improvement.

 

[Paul_Sussex]

Did the "flat-nose" windscreen have any appreciable impact on drag? I can't recall any other WW2 era fighter/fighter-bomber with that configuration. Some pre-war creations, but not later craft.

I read somewhere (lost in the mists of time) that this was designed to reduce reflections obscuring the pilots view?