Just Leo had some...scathing...opinions on the aerodynamics of the Skua undercarriage. And I (very vaguely) remember reading somewhere that the windshield was steeply angled to avoid reflections when divebombing?
Blackburn Skua - a reasonable wank
- Thread starter tomo pauk
- Start date
He did - I recall the conversation about the windshield and IIRC it was the placement of the fuel tank between the cockpit and Engine that prevented any modification
And given the RAFs distrust of 'Loss altitude bombing' (which tells you pretty much all you need to know regarding their attitude to dive bombing) during the 30s it was only the navy and a handful of RAF officers who drove dive bombing development during this time.
There was one RAF officer who having worked with the Swedes actually managed to bring back to the UK one of their dive bombing sights and tried to convince the powers that be that it was better than level or glide bombing but to no avail.
Even as late as El Alemain it was a pair of RN Albacore squadrons based in the region carrying out all of the dive bombing attacks on tactical targets and not the RAF.
The problem is 'when' - its no good if this happen in 1944!
I was not able to find a date when this output was achieved?
Wikipedia suggests that it was well in advance of the Centaurus. Well in advance. If we look at the Centaurus entry the Perseus is not even mention as part of the Centaurus's development except for contributing the cylinder design to it as the Hercules.
The Perseus 100 was, AIUI, basically a totally different engine to the original Perseus. In other words they went from Perseus to Hercules with the same cylinder, enlarged the Cylinder for the Centaurus and then put those Centaurus cylinders on a Perseus to create the Perseus 100.
According to my 1996 reprint of Janes All The World's Aircraft 1945-46 (first issued in February 1946), "...The company will later offer a development of the nine-cylinder Perseus engine using Centaurus instead of Hercules type cylinders..."
The Centaurus was type tested in 1938, so an earlier Perseus 100 may be possible, but you would need something (or someone) to drive the development.
The Centaurus was type tested in 1938, so an earlier Perseus 100 may be possible, but you would need something (or someone) to drive the development.
To be completely honest the problem with the Skua is that it is neither a Fighter or a Bomber due to the sharing of roles being incompatible. I am now thinking that the process should go as follows.
Skua Mk 1 is OTL.
This is recognised to be inadequate to catch RAF Blenhiems on exercise. As a result Blackburn looks at the results and decides it wants to split the aircraft in two common variants.
Number one change is the use of a 1100hp Pegasus engine. Maybe use Fuel Injection to get the power, plus 100 octane fuel.
Dive Bomber airframe is optimised for carraige of 1000lb bomb and has a single 0.303 firing from the Left Wing and a twin 0.303 browning mount for the rear gunner. Top speed is as Mk 1 when loaded but airframe is better shaped in small ways. After dropping bomb it is fairly quick and a hard target.
Fighter airframe is converted to a single seat with a teardrop canopy. All divebombing reinforcement is removed resulting in improved power to weight ratio. IE airframe can be built lighter. Wings still fold and 6 0.303 machine guns with 400rpg are fitted. As a fighter it is superior to the Gladiator in climb and speeed but not as nimble. Against a Hurricane it is slower but has better visibility and can do a negative g pushover thanks to fuel injection.
I would expect to shave at least a 500lb of structure off the airframe maybe pushing performance towards 290mph. It is adequate as a fleet fighter but not an equal to land fighters.
Skua Mk 1 is OTL.
This is recognised to be inadequate to catch RAF Blenhiems on exercise. As a result Blackburn looks at the results and decides it wants to split the aircraft in two common variants.
Number one change is the use of a 1100hp Pegasus engine. Maybe use Fuel Injection to get the power, plus 100 octane fuel.
Dive Bomber airframe is optimised for carraige of 1000lb bomb and has a single 0.303 firing from the Left Wing and a twin 0.303 browning mount for the rear gunner. Top speed is as Mk 1 when loaded but airframe is better shaped in small ways. After dropping bomb it is fairly quick and a hard target.
Fighter airframe is converted to a single seat with a teardrop canopy. All divebombing reinforcement is removed resulting in improved power to weight ratio. IE airframe can be built lighter. Wings still fold and 6 0.303 machine guns with 400rpg are fitted. As a fighter it is superior to the Gladiator in climb and speeed but not as nimble. Against a Hurricane it is slower but has better visibility and can do a negative g pushover thanks to fuel injection.
I would expect to shave at least a 500lb of structure off the airframe maybe pushing performance towards 290mph. It is adequate as a fleet fighter but not an equal to land fighters.
I guess that pilots of the Aichi D3A will look at the U/C of the Skua and comment: boy, this is one streamlined U/C
They will probably say the similar thing about the Skua's wing: d@mn, that Skua has a wing that is both thinner and of smaller area than what we have; look, they also have the double the number of guns aboard than we have.
Granted, pilots flying the Skuas will likely say: seems to me, old chap, that Japanese know how to make a good, light and small radial engine
Who are 'we'?
marathag
Banned
OTOH, Swede Vejtasa shot down three Zeros while in the front seat of a SBD.
But he was not an average pilot, either, and soon was switched over to flying fighters.
Advantages of the SBD was it was rugged, and could easily pull more Gs in a turn than say, a Zero could.
The biggest disadvantage to the SBD for being an early Fighter-Bomber, was the lack of a reflector gunfight and not much forward firing Armament(two cowl .50s)and the lack of training of the SBD pilots to actually act as fighter pilots.
For example, the SBD empty weighed just under 500 pounds more than a P-40E, with similar power. But was in a far draggier airframe, and not just from being a radial, but a third more wing area, and so on.