Design the best FAA fighter to be in service by Jan 1940

I don't think the Skua would be called a bad dive bomber because its attacks were at 65 degrees, that would be sufficiently steep to get the hits needed.

The Skua was a solid enough dive bomber, especially when you consider that it became operational about two years before the SBD-1, a plane the US Navy loved so much they gave them to the Marines.
 
The Skua was a solid enough dive bomber, especially when you consider that it became operational about two years before the SBD-1, a plane the US Navy loved so much they gave them to the Marines.
How many Skuas were dropping bombs in 1944.
SBD DNA goes back to the Northrop Gamma of 1933,
051116-F-1234P-088.JPG
the A-17 of 1935, when Northrop designs passed over to Douglas

789px-Northrop_A-17_front_three-quarters_view.jpg

when Reorganized as a subsidiary of Douglas Aircraft Company in 1937
 
How many Skuas were dropping bombs in 1944.
SBD DNA goes back to the Northrop Gamma of 1933,
051116-F-1234P-088.JPG
the A-17 of 1935, when Northrop designs passed over to Douglas

789px-Northrop_A-17_front_three-quarters_view.jpg

when Reorganized as a subsidiary of Douglas Aircraft Company in 1937

Oh please, I never said the Skua was better than the Dauntless, I simply pointed out that it was in squadron service with the FAA over two years before the Dauntless was in service with the USN. In that context it was a decent dive bomber for the first couple of years of the war. It's a shame the FAA tried to have it do double duty as a fighter instead of designing it and employing it strictly as a dive bomber.
 
[QUOTE="yulzari, post: 17412693, member:[/QUOTE]



Is the fuselage fabric covered? And is that a window on the low side of the cockpit?
 
[QUOTE="yulzari, post: 17412693, member:
Is the fuselage fabric covered? And is that a window on the low side of the cockpit?[/QUOTE]
All metal. The window is to illuminate the cockpit to make reading the instruments easier.

A few more including views of the 90 degree flaps.
vvi.jpeg
vviii.jpeg
vviv.jpeg
 

Jack1971

Banned
The Skua was a solid enough dive bomber, especially when you consider that it became operational about two years before the SBD-1, a plane the US Navy loved so much they gave them to the Marines.
The only thing the Skua needs is a larger bomb load.
 
The only thing the Skua needs is a larger bomb load.

Which means it needs more engine power, more than the 24.9 litre version of the Perseus could provide. The larger 26.8 litre Perseus 100 produced 1200hp, but I think this development was long after the Skua and Roc had ceased production.
 
The Perseus 100 was basically half a Centaurus.

Yep, so the Skua will likely have a short service life. Much like the contemporary Devastator it would be good in the early years but get slaughtered in 1942. However that could give it plenty of scope to do good stuff, if the RN liked dive bombers, which they didn't.
 

Jack1971

Banned
Which means it needs more engine power, more than the 24.9 litre version of the Perseus could provide. The larger 26.8 litre Perseus 100 produced 1200hp, but I think this development was long after the Skua and Roc had ceased production.
IDK that for certain. Maybe the bomb load was limited in the design in order to keep the weight down and top speed as high as possible, or perhaps engine or catapult performance was expected to be even lower. Is it such a stretch to carry a single 1,000 lb bomb with the existing engine?
 

Jack1971

Banned
With the Air Ministry spec. for the cannon armed fighter (that OTL culminated in the Whirlwind), Boulton-Paul was to build two prototypes P.88a Hercules, and P.88b Vulture. Performance estimates with the former were based on the estimated power of 1500 hp.,
Hurricane with Vulture would have been interesting. Here’s the Henley powered by a Vulture for comparison purposes.

hawker-henley-vulture1-jpg.111796
 
IDK that for certain. Maybe the bomb load was limited in the design in order to keep the weight down and top speed as high as possible, or perhaps engine or catapult performance was expected to be even lower. Is it such a stretch to carry a single 1,000 lb bomb with the existing engine?

Even if 1000lbs is too much surely it wouldn't be too difficult to makes a suitable bomb size. Maybe 650lbs SAP is the biggest bomb a Skua can carry without losing too much performance, so set up a line for that size bomb.
 
Yep, so the Skua will likely have a short service life. Much like the contemporary Devastator it would be good in the early years but get slaughtered in 1942. However that could give it plenty of scope to do good stuff, if the RN liked dive bombers, which they didn't.

Slaughtered doing what though? Remember, RN fleet carriers were carrying Albacores well into 1942.
 

hipper

Banned
Yep, so the Skua will likely have a short service life. Much like the contemporary Devastator it would be good in the early years but get slaughtered in 1942. However that could give it plenty of scope to do good stuff, if the RN liked dive bombers, which they didn't.

Er Remember that The Swordfish albacore and Barracuda were all Dive bombers the RN loved dive bombers, the RN only stopped using dive bombers when it adopted the Avenger as it’s attack aircraft
 

Jack1971

Banned
Er Remember that The Swordfish albacore and Barracuda were all Dive bombers the RN loved dive bombers, the RN only stopped using dive bombers when it adopted the Avenger as it’s attack aircraft
I think the RN loved TSRs that could dive bomb, including the Fairey Spearfish and Blackburn Firebrand. But, beyond a light cruiser sunk at anchor, did the RN sink or cripple anything else with dive bombers? I suppose we could count a mission kill on Tirpitz, again static at harbour. But torpedo armed RN aircraft took out far more.
 
Last edited:
Slaughtered doing what though? Remember, RN fleet carriers were carrying Albacores well into 1942.

True, but that doesn't make the Albacore a good plane, it just means the RN was limited as to what it could do and had to avoid situations where serious opposition was likely.

Er Remember that The Swordfish albacore and Barracuda were all Dive bombers the RN loved dive bombers, the RN only stopped using dive bombers when it adopted the Avenger as it’s attack aircraft

What proportion of the attack sorties flown by these 3 aircraft involved the traditional dive bombing attack profile of a dive at greater than say 60 degrees? Was it something like 50% or closer to 5-10%?
 
I think the RN loved TSRs that could dive bomb, including the Fairey Spearfish and Blackburn Firebrand. But, beyond a light cruiser sunk at anchor, did the RN sink or cripple anything else with dive bombers? I suppose we could count a mission kill on Tirpitz, again static at harbour. But torpedo armed RN aircraft took out far more.

Of course the RN loved a TSR that can dive bomb, it gives you flexibility with the always-limited number of carrier aircraft.
Just where were all those targets the RN didnt attack with dive bombers anyway?
 

hipper

Banned
I think the RN loved TSRs that could dive bomb, including the Fairey Spearfish and Blackburn Firebrand. But, beyond a light cruiser sunk at anchor, did the RN sink or cripple anything else with dive bombers? I suppose we could count a mission kill on Tirpitz, again static at harbour. But torpedo armed RN aircraft took out far more.

The Italian Destroyers Battisti, Manin and Sauro in the Red Sea, various E boats in the channel 1940
 
Top