The Long and Winding Road: an analysis of British Built Naval plane construction 1930-45

Ideally you would want single seat fighter not a two seater so unless you can get the 148 to carry a 1,000lb AP bomb i don't see it being made.
Except that the contemporary FAA wanted two-seat fighters because they thought an observer/navigator was needed when they were escorting strike aircraft and for reconnaissance missions.

The Admiralty also claimed that it was the range and STOL requirements that made naval fighters perform more poorly than land-based fighters not the second crewman. IIRC the specification for the Blackburn Firebrand was developed alongside the one for the Fairey Firefly to prove that a single-seat naval fighter wouldn't be any better.

Therefore, I could see the Bristol 148 being developed into a two-seat fleet fighter in the same way that the Fairey P.4/34 was turned into the Fulmar. Whether it would have been better than the Fulmar is another matter.
 
I'm quite fond of the 148 as well, it had real potential.

View attachment 569115
What's the wingspan with the wings folded? Even more important what's the height with the wings folded? They might have to fold backwards instead of upwards.

They have to be a maximum of 14 feet high to fit inside both hangars on Implacable and Indefatigable the main hangar on Indomitable. It's 16 feet for Ark Royal, Illustrious, Formidable and Victorious.
 
It had a 40 foot wingspan and was 31ft 4in long and stood 10ft high (prop down). I take your point about the folding wings, and agree they would have been folded along the fuselage. It was just the easiest way for me to show a folded wing when I did it. Like most such drawings I play around with it was just visualise my ideas.
 
Last edited:
It was designed to the same specification as the Lysander and met them at least as well so I don't see why not. It had to be able to land on short rough strips laid out in fields so should have been able to handle the stress of a carrier landing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bristol_Type_148 View attachment 569287
Specification A.39/40 was for a short-range army co-operation aircraft to replace the modified light bombers previously used.

I suspect that the Admiralty's range requirements would produce an aircraft with a heavier structure for the extra fuel which would be even heavier when loaded with fuel. That would degrade its performance considerably. That doesn't necessarily mean that it wouldn't have bee better than the types used IOTL only that the performance figures are optimistic.

OTOH a Blackburn Skua fitted with an engine producing 890hp was capable of 224mph. It might perform as well as the navalised Bristol 148 Mk 1 and Mk 2 if fitted with a Taurus producing 1,050hp or a Hercules producing 1,270hp respectively.
 
Last edited:
It had a 40 foot wingspan and was 31ft 4in long and stood 10ft high (prop down). I take your point about the folding wings, and agree they would have been folded along the fuselage. It was just the easiest way for me to show a folded wing when I did it. Like most such drawings I play around with it was just visualise my ideas.
IIRC the requirement was a maximum of 18ft wide to allow 3 abreast in the hangars of the Ark Royal and Illustrious classes that were 60 to 62 feet wide. I've not tried to measure it but it looks like less than 20 feet when folded.
 
Pretty much anything could fly faster than the Skua with the same engine, it was a typically horrible bit of Blackburn design.
JustLeo got quite... rude... about it
 
We tried tidying up the wind screen - before - its an obvious fix

Just Leo beat us with facts and engineering limitations - by pushing the screen forwards you effectively extend the cockpit into where the Oil tank is
Yeah, I looked at a cutaway and just noticed that bolo.

If you go to the cite and look at item 96 (oil filler tube) on the cutaway, you see that you have to move the reservoir. (Item 91.). Where to put it? How about between items 107 and 108? That would be the oil coolant radiator and the alcohol reservoir. KaBOOM? Hey, you got to do what you got to do. Who designed this clown show anyway? G.E. Petty? What else did he screw up?

Skua, Roc, Botha, Firebrand?

Might have to research him.
 
Pretty much anything could fly faster than the Skua with the same engine, it was a typically horrible bit of Blackburn design.
JustLeo got quite... rude... about it
Well you have to admit it folded up into a nice compact package and had the bomb recessed into the fuselage.......hmmmm.......maybe that was the problem...........push the bomb out ,drop the fuel tank down,lengthen the fuselage a few feet and shove the pilot back a bit.
 
But was the Skua that bad, compared to it's contemporaries? The Vindicator was in service from 1937, but the D3A1 not until 1940.

I was surprised to see Wiki quote fairly comparable sizes for the Perseus and Taurus. (Is that correct?) Maybe if O30/35 was for a single seat fighter and Fairey were told that the Swordfish was not enough of an improvement over a Pegasus engined Shark, an ATL FAA could press for a re-engined Skua and have an all Taurus line up by 1940?

temp.jpg


Losing three Brownings and their ammunition might help make up for the additional 250 pounds of the Taurus?
 
Last edited:
While its vilified (thanks yet again to AM incompetence) the Battle was actually not a bad plane.
Make the wing shorter (you could make it wider to keep the same area??), put a later Merlin or Hercules into it, and you have (by 1940 standards) and impressive torpedo plane. It could also dive bomb at 80 degrees...
 
Top