Ideally you would want single seat fighter not a two seater so unless you can get the 148 to carry a 1000lb 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.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.
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.
Specification A.39/34 was for a short-range army co-operation aircraft to replace the modified light bombers previously used.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
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.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.
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
Source:
Model Airplane News Cover for October, 1937
And now...
Thou shalt clean up that windscreen, get rid of the GIB and replace the Perseus with a Wright R-1820. Set trim for DOWN.
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
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.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
I agree that the main problem with the Battle was that it was underpowered and that it had some development potential. The problem is that the Air Ministry/MAP didn't want it. They wanted wanted Austin to build Short Stirlings and Fairey to build Handley Page Halifaxes (after its contracts to build Avro Manchesters were cancelled).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...