AHC: make Fairey Battle relevant until 1945

Looking at the wing area, it is very similar to the Pe-2. Provided that suitably modified (new?) wing can take 2 Merlins, it will result with a very useful aircraft.

How does it live load through the fuselage? (SNAP.) That counter-engine torque applied to the air screws is one of the reasons you see the robust wing on the Lightning. Might be a "small" problem on this aircraft which looks to be a tad "fragile".
 
How does it live load through the fuselage? (SNAP.) That counter-engine torque applied to the air screws is one of the reasons you see the robust wing on the Lightning. Might be a "small" problem on this aircraft which looks to be a tad "fragile".
look on the wing here
th
on the 18% wing of the Airacuda, same as theBattle
 
The Airacuda had that problem. 13 pieces of garbage built, light bomb load, severely maneuver restricted for assorted reasons. Suspect that not only was it underpowered, but it might have had the wrong wing planform.
 
I suppose if you think the BF110 or Pe-2 were good planes?
BF110 - first flight 1936, 6,170 built served till end of WWII.......
Pe-2 first flight 1939, 11,070 built served till 51......
Just how many other planes also did the entire 2nd world war in service? Are you not setting a very high bar to what's a "good" plane?
 
BF110 - first flight 1936, 6,170 built served till end of WWII.......
Pe-2 first flight 1939, 11,070 built served till 51......
Just how many other planes also did the entire 2nd world war in service? Are you not setting a very high bar to what's a "good" plane?

14,000 Liberators. Not a great plane actually. It was there and it could carry bombs. THAT is why a plane gets built. Just barely good enough in the emergency. Once in use one tends to not have time or resources for something better in the middle of a war. Just good enough trumps better every time as it should because you cannot interrupt the war effort or waste time and resources for something tomorrow when you need to hunt U-boats and bomb Cologne today.

BTW. The Pe-2 was a deathtrap in a dive. Me110? Tail tore off. The main spar may have stayed on, but that does you no-good when you have a ground contact at 100 m/s.
 
14,000 Liberators. Not a great plane actually. It was there and it could carry bombs. THAT is why a plane gets built. Just barely good enough in the emergency.
Ok by that standard.....I cant think of many good planes...... I mean Spitfire obviously hasn't got the range, Mosquito rots in tropics, P51 & B29 are to late.......
 
Good enough is good enough, if you look for the perfect aircraft you'll never leave the ground.

Loss rate as in NRTB due to mechanicals; (Battle of the Atlantic) in the B-24 over the expected life of the airframe (about 50 missions) was a staggering 40%. Main reason for suspected loss? Engines out or the wing failed. (SNAP). The B-24 was not very good.
 
Personally I sea a Sea Battle with a Hercules engine as being a good idea . Below are the mods I would place on the airframe .

First is the wings . These need to be tuned into a folding wing and the examples I would use for inspiration are the wings on the Fulmar . this would enable a smaller footprint . In fact I would take the complete wing from it . Flaps choice is very important here as the right flaps can act as dive brakes .

Guns . Rear firing gunner given either a twin 0.303 browning on flexible mount or a twin lewis gun .
Forward firing ……. instead of 8 0.303 grab the chance to go with 4 50 cal . each with 350 rpg

Bombload .
Three hardpoints .
Wings are equipped for 2 500lb or 60 gal fuel tanks .
Centreline is a recessed mounting point for an 18 inch torpedo or a single 1000lb bomb .

Engine . remove the Merlin and replace with the Hercules . Start with a mark II with 1350 hp . By mid 1943 Mark IV of 1600 hp .

This will give a good strike aircraft with decent range and hitting power . It removes the need for the Barracuda and makes a good bomber for the war .

Fuselage could do with being cleaned up and made smoother .

The resulting Sea Battle will be very different yet have some of the same issues . It is not a go it alone aircraft . it needs an escort .
In the South Pacific it would be deadly especially if equipped with radar and doing night recon and strike .
 
It might be of use to note that Fairey concluded that a cleaner airframe with no rear gun gave a better chance of survival by a marginal performance improvement than the weight and drag of any hand held rear machine gun/s. Hence the Fulmar body.
 
Loss rate as in NRTB due to mechanicals; (Battle of the Atlantic) in the B-24 over the expected life of the airframe (about 50 missions) was a staggering 40%. Main reason for suspected loss? Engines out or the wing failed. (SNAP). The B-24 was not very good.

Be interesting to know if the loss rate could be reduced by use of the single tail of the Privateer and B-24N from the start.
 
It might be of use to note that Fairey concluded that a cleaner airframe with no rear gun gave a better chance of survival by a marginal performance improvement than the weight and drag of any hand held rear machine gun/s. Hence the Fulmar body.

The second and third set of eyeballs were valuable when scouting for enemy ships.
 
Be interesting to know if the loss rate could be reduced by use of the single tail of the Privateer and B-24N from the start.

I don't know. The B-24, early on, was a bomber pressed into the LRMP/ASW role with few modifications. The PB4Y2 Privateer was extensively modified due to lessons learned in the North Atlantic. This was the addition of a flight engineer station and flight engineer man to babysit and monitor the engines (USN LRMP aircraft practice subsequently adopted by the postwar USAF) and the engines were de-rated (no need for high altitude turbo supercharger circuits which proved to be a fire hazard.) for safer low to medium altitude band normal supercharger engine performance. The tail control was considerably improved. Main wing spar was still a bolo. Weak join at the spar box at the aircraft shoulder. It could fatigue and snap in flight if ground maintenance DID NOT WATCH IT between missions and keep air frame repairs up to specs.
 
... which is one of the things I like about the much maligned Barracuda. Those windows below the shoulder mounted wings massively increased the crew's field of vision.

The Barracuda was not a bad aircraft. It just arrived a little late for service once wrung out into Mark III. Its tendency in the early models to pitch nose down during a trap, was something of a quirk that could be corrected by training. Every plane has such quirks and oddities. That is why test pilots fly and find them and figure out counters to make the plane pilot manageable. This plane was no SB2C pilot killer piece of garbage that no amount of training could ever make "user safe".
 
Top