Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

What if ... twin engined Fairey Battle

Discussion in 'Allied Aviation Of WWII' started by efestos, May 6, 2017.

  1. efestos

    efestos Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2010
    Messages:
    485
    Likes Received:
    26
    I found the proposal of a twin engined F Battle in the internet ... no idea if it's just a fake , a coverde "what if" or if it actually any similar proposal ever existed.

    As a "what if" must say that the Heinkel 111 was described as an evolution of the single engined Heinkel 70. The twin Battle would have been ligther than the Beaufigther , and available before the BoB... In the role of night figther could have been far better than the Boultoun Paul Defiant ...



    From "war birds" and others ...
     

    Attached Files:

  2. CAC

    CAC Ace of Spades

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2010
    Messages:
    4,285
    Likes Received:
    278
    It was an outdated design...engines, both radial and inline were needed elsewhere and guns larger than .303 were a prob to install...
     
  3. Skipper

    Skipper Kommodore

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2006
    Messages:
    24,931
    Likes Received:
    2,354
    Agreed, while the shape looked rathter modern , the technology dated from the 1930s and was outdated in 1940 . The problem with radial engines would be an extra charge of weight, not to mention the extra guns . Both speed , balance and probably petrol tanks would have been problematic, as a vicous circle between power and weight would be hard to solve.
     
  4. Sheldrake

    Sheldrake Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2013
    Messages:
    1,214
    Likes Received:
    268
    Ho Hum.

    In the early 1930s the RAF specified the Fairy Battle as an updated version of the 1928 Hawker Hart using the technology of the 1930s
    [​IMG]

    Lord Rothemere thought the RAF was being complacent and awarded a prize for a high speed commercial aircraft capable of taking six passengers i.e. a similar specification to a light bomber.

    The twin engined battle would have been a contender. Fit two radial engines and widen the fuselage and you have the winner.

    [​IMG]

    The battle's thick wing probably rule out performance comparable to the Moquito.

    The problem with the Blenheim and Battle was that they were used with inadequate escorts against targets defended by fighters and flak. After the fall of France light day bombers and close air support were low down the RAF's priorities. Most of the battle squadrons eventually became heavy bomber squadrons.

    Lets imagine a different scenario, where there was no fall of France and a western front instead, There would have been a lot of pressure on the RAF to provide aircraft that could provide close air support and survive close to the battle front. If you took out the third crew member and used the weight saved to armour the aircraft, obviously fitting self sealing tanks you end up with an aircraft rather similar to the IL2.
    [​IMG]
     
    Skipper likes this.
  5. Skipper

    Skipper Kommodore

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2006
    Messages:
    24,931
    Likes Received:
    2,354
    That's sounds interesting indeed. I beliieve that precisely the battle of France and the ill fortune of the Potez 63 and the, Leo 451 made the British engineers very cautious about investing in equivallent twin engined aircraft in the RAF. The Potez 63 was initially meant for recco and was hastely reconverted into a dive fighter:/ bomber. This proved to be a disaster and the crews were sacrified for very little results in May-June 1940. I can imagine this made aircraft designers think twice. I'm not drawing a comparison between the Battle and the Po63 , but my point is to show that a similar conversion could be costly and have disastrous effects. This is why I can imagine the RAF focussed on cheaper one engine aircraft,, not to mention the crew members and, the extra training the lack of time etc ... . At least the Spitfire was ready.
     
  6. Sheldrake

    Sheldrake Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2013
    Messages:
    1,214
    Likes Received:
    268
    The availability (or rather scarcity) of the Merlin engine was a key constraint on much aircraft - and some tank construction.

    Merlin engines were vital for the Spitfire and Hurricanes and then for the Mosquito and Avro Lancaster. Several aircraft variants were designed around alternative engines: Halifax, Beaufighter, Typhoon and Whirlwind.
     
  7. CAC

    CAC Ace of Spades

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2010
    Messages:
    4,285
    Likes Received:
    278
    Pity the peregrine had its problems...
     
  8. efestos

    efestos Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2010
    Messages:
    485
    Likes Received:
    26
    May be the term of comparison shouldn't be the Mosquito but the Blenheims , Beauforts, Beaufighters, and Defiants.
    Other way in a four cannon design (a posibility) you wouldn´t need the bomb bays in the wings ...

    And here is the pure "what if" with a Fulmar. :)
    [​IMG]
     
  9. Sheldrake

    Sheldrake Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2013
    Messages:
    1,214
    Likes Received:
    268
    A twin engined Fulmar might have filled the Beaufighter/Mosquito role, but the Navey were looking for a carrier fighter. At that time no one had landed a twin engine aircraft onto a carrier.
     
  10. TiredOldSoldier

    TiredOldSoldier Ace

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2008
    Messages:
    3,222
    Likes Received:
    445
    No variant of the Merlin would be powerful enough for a Typhoon that was effectively a generation later than the Spit and weighted more. Unfortunately the Sabre, like most WW2 X configuration engines proved troublesome.

    IMO you cannot get a twin engined battle, a light bomber with two Merlins designed before the war would be very different design from a Battle, it would have enough power to be very hard to catch if designed as a fast bomber but you could very well get it wrong and get cross between a Beaufort and a Mosquito or a Me 110 (early versions of the RR Merlin and DB 601 had very similar output).
     
  11. Martin Bull

    Martin Bull Acting Wg. Cdr

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2002
    Messages:
    13,318
    Likes Received:
    1,236
    Location:
    London, England.
    Actually, none of the British nightfighters were particularly effective until efficient radar was developed - a twin-engine Battle would have rather useless.
     
  12. efestos

    efestos Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2010
    Messages:
    485
    Likes Received:
    26
    Oops, I thought the Defiant did a decent work as night fighter in the BoB. (Must say any corrections of my english/expressions would be sincerely welcome)
     
  13. Takao

    Takao Ace

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2010
    Messages:
    6,468
    Likes Received:
    1,155
    Location:
    Reading, PA
    It would be an adequate night fighter when the Mk II Defiant, fitted with the more powerful Merlin XX and radar, came out in late 1941.

    As to the night fighter period of the Battle of Britain and the Blitz, there were only some 11 night kills claimed by the combined Hurricane and Defiant.
     

Share This Page