AHC: make Fairey Battle relevant until 1945

If the Battle was navalised, I'd think it likely that Fairey would be asked to adapt it to the Griffon, considering that it was the Fleet Air Arm that initiated Griffon development in 1938.

Hopefully with the FAA needing the engine means it doesn't get put on hold by Beaverbrook in 1940.
 
There is a whole host of engines that can make Battle better, in one way or another.
Air-cooled: Pegasus and Cyclone are probably as low as it make sense. 2-row radials are a mixed bag - Twin Wasp is a sensible choice, Taurus was troubled at begining, better later. Advantage of those engines is their smaller weight than of the Merlin, Pegasus might be readilly available.
Hercules might be the best fit, it flew on the Battle in OTL. R-2600 - if US can spare any, the ones from Lockland are problem. Napier Dagger is probably not worth it.

Water-cooled: a better Merlin is obvious choice, so is Griffon for the later part of the war.
 
If a radial engine is chosen for the Battle I think it most likely to be the Hercules. It's powerful, in production and British. For a Sea Battle it will also help act as a dive brake.
 
The big question in my mind is, if the Battle gets a new powerplant and is adapted to carrier use, how likely is it that they're going to rename it? Fairey Traflagar anyone?
 
The big question in my mind is, if the Battle gets a new powerplant and is adapted to carrier use, how likely is it that they're going to rename it? Fairey Traflagar anyone?

I'm sure they would name it after some sort of fish like their other TBR aircraft. Maybe the Albacore since the OTL Albacore probably won't be happening now.
 
It probably depends on if the RAF version enters service first, if so they'll likely just call it the Sea Battle. They didn't give the Hurricane or Seafire a predatory birds name which was the naming convention.
 
There is a whole host of engines that can make Battle better, in one way or another.
Air-cooled: Pegasus and Cyclone are probably as low as it make sense. 2-row radials are a mixed bag - Twin Wasp is a sensible choice, Taurus was troubled at begining, better later. Advantage of those engines is their smaller weight than of the Merlin, Pegasus might be readilly available.
Hercules might be the best fit, it flew on the Battle in OTL. R-2600 - if US can spare any, the ones from Lockland are problem. Napier Dagger is probably not worth it.

Water-cooled: a better Merlin is obvious choice, so is Griffon for the later part of the war.

Merlin and then Griffon had a great deal of treasure thrown at them to keep them viable right to the end of the war and beyond into the start of the Jet age.

So to my thinking an aircraft that starts life with a Merlin and whose air frame and basic design serves on for the entire war either ends with a Merlin or is adapted to the Griffon
 
Merlin and then Griffon had a great deal of treasure thrown at them to keep them viable right to the end of the war and beyond into the start of the Jet age.

So to my thinking an aircraft that starts life with a Merlin and whose air frame and basic design serves on for the entire war either ends with a Merlin or is adapted to the Griffon

I'd agree with that; as the design evolves around a liquid-cooled powerplant, it becomes harder and harder to change it without requiring more extensive modifications.

Also, let it be said that threads like this are a huge reason I like AH.com.

Most AH Websites My Age: "WI: Super Yamato vs. Mega Montana vs. H-44 AGAIN!!1!!" "WI: Notler and the Notzis Built 50 000 Jets in 1941?"

AH.com: "WI: Obsolescent Light Bomber adapted into Carrier-Based Torpedo Bomber with capabilities in line with contemporaries?"
 
I'd agree with that; as the design evolves around a liquid-cooled powerplant, it becomes harder and harder to change it without requiring more extensive modifications.

Also, let it be said that threads like this are a huge reason I like AH.com.

Most AH Websites My Age: "WI: Super Yamato vs. Mega Montana vs. H-44 AGAIN!!1!!" "WI: Notler and the Notzis Built 50 000 Jets in 1941?"

AH.com: "WI: Obsolescent Light Bomber adapted into Carrier-Based Torpedo Bomber with capabilities in line with contemporaries?"
Pretty well summarized...you can actually learn things on this site.
 
The late Just Leo's take on the subject - a Battle on steroids, featuring the Fairey 24-cylinder engine with leading-edge radiators, armed with a torpedo: picture
 
A Sea Battle has some interesting effects. A faster, long legged aircraft at Taranto as well as having a crack at Bismarck spring to mind.
 
A Sea Battle has some interesting effects. A faster, long legged aircraft at Taranto as well as having a crack at Bismarck spring to mind.
Hmm. Illustrious launches its strike from further away, and likely recovers its aircraft and is able to run sooner so doesn't get bombed. Both Illustrious and Formidable are at the Battle of Cape Mapatan so none of the Italian ships survive and Italy is down another Battleship? Also as I said earlier a Sea Battle makes the Sea Gladiator a very unlikely choice when the FAA replaced the Hawker Nimrod fighter, so either a Sea Hurricane or the Gloster F. 5/34 would have been selected. These would still be in service in until at least 1942 and the Stuka probably wouldn't have got through to Illustrious. The Fulmar would if ordered be a scout dive bomber not a fighter.
 
Last edited:

Driftless

Donor
Hmm. Illustrious launches its strike from further away, and likely recovers its aircraft and is able to run sooner so doesn't get bombed. Both Illustrious and Formidable are at the Battle of Cape Mapatan so none of the Italian ships survive and Italy is down another Battleship?

A faster, longer-ranged Sea Battle would have a pretty fair "get-away" speed from any pursuit. Certainly, almost double that of the Swordfish. Also, with the extra range, they could take a dog-leg route getting home to lead pursuit in the wrong direction - if needed - offering another buffer for the carriers.
 
Here is an interesting one, before the battle was designed with the Merlin, Fairey Aviation designed a twin engine version designation P27/35-scheme 5 which used two Fairey Prince V12 engines of 700 to 900hp. The AM killed the project as they wanted a single engine aircraft and did not want Fairey building aircraft engines. Now it just so happens that the Fairey Prince weight and Dimension wise seams to have been very comparable to the RR Peregrine engine. So if the AM had not killed the Prince V12 we might have seen Whirlwinds in 1939/40 with two 900hp engines on 87 octane fuel. This might have also given more impetus to getting the Hispano 2mm in production earlier. Oh I do so like butterflies and the law of unintended consequences!
 
A Sea Battle has some interesting effects. A faster, long legged aircraft at Taranto
Hmm. Illustrious launches its strike from further away, and likely recovers its aircraft and is able to run sooner so doesn't get bombed.
The direct air line from Malta to Taranto is only 349.59 mi (562.61 km) would a Sea battle have range to strike without a carrier?
OTL Battle carried 212 imp gals (~250 US gals); the aux tank of 45 gals was removed by some time of 1939/40? IIRC the tanks were not self-sealing.
With bomb cells now housing fuel tanks we might see 300 imp gals (almost 360 US gals)? That is more than the bigger, heavier and thirstier Grumman Avenger carried internally, with torpedo on board that meant more than 1000 miles radius on the Avenger.
We can add Aberdeen to Stavanger is 312.13 mi (502.33 km) for more FAA/RAF CC fun.....a 600km+ torpedo bombers early war makes the Axis life much more interesting.
 
The direct air line from Malta to Taranto is only 349.59 mi (562.61 km) would a Sea battle have range to strike without a carrier?

We can add Aberdeen to Stavanger is 312.13 mi (502.33 km) for more FAA/RAF CC fun.....a 600km+ torpedo bombers early war makes the Axis life much more interesting.
The fairey Battle had a range of 1000 miles, but that's without anything hanging in the breeze. Still that can be compensated for by using the wing bomb cells as extra fuel tanks. Those distances should therefore be possible. Best to factor in another 100miles or so for combat manoeuvring but raiding Taranto from Malta should be doable. Does that mean Fliegerkorps X doesn't get sent to the Med quite so early?
 
With the earlier development of midair refueling it could be put into use as a tanker.
Put a search radar on board and the Battle could become an AWAC being extremely useful in countering night time bombing raids
 
Hmm. Illustrious launches its strike from further away, and likely recovers its aircraft and is able to run sooner so doesn't get bombed. Both Illustrious and Formidable are at the Battle of Cape Mapatan so none of the Italian ships survive and Italy is down another Battleship? Also as I said earlier a Sea Battle makes the Sea Gladiator a very unlikely choice when the FAA replaced the Hawker Nimrod fighter, so either a Sea Hurricane or the Gloster F. 5/34 would have been selected. These would still be in service in until at least 1942 and the Stuka probably wouldn't have got through to Illustrious. The Fulmar would if ordered be a scout dive bomber not a fighter.


Illustrious did not get bombed during Op Judgement - she was bombed in Jan 41 during Operation Excess ;)

What Sea Battles might allow is for Ark Royal to bounce her Sea Battles to Malta and for them to join the attack on the Italian fleet (Malta - Taranto is 320 miles) with over twice the aircraft and one would assume twice the torpedos 5 torpedo hits might translate into 10 or more - in fact thinking about it Lusty might do the same with her airgroup and both ships could stay well out of harm's way and have a land airfield massed strike from Malta rather than having to stage smaller groups of 11 odd aircraft in waves with the air groups returning the following day (or striking elsewhere).

It opens up all sorts of possibilities!
 
Top