Fairey Battle Whiffs

[kitnut617]

FTB?

Sorry Simon --- Flying Test Beds.  The Battle proved to be quite a good one from what I've read.

[PR19_Kit]

I suspect that was because it was large enough, and had a crew of three, to carry a reasonable load of test instrumentation. I doubt telemetry had developed far enough in those days. It hadn't even got to a decent level by the 1960s!

[Mossie]

FTB?

Sorry Simon --- Flying Test Beds.  The Battle proved to be quite a good one from what I've read.

Thanks Robert!

[The Wooksta!]

Flying Test Bed.

I like the idea of giving it a Hercules though.  The adaptor bit in the Wellesley would be a good start.

[jcf]

The Hercules was fitted to Battles N2042 and N2184, the landing gear were repositioned and fixed in place.

The R-R Exe and a Merlin XII with chin radiator were also tested on the Battle, serials K9222 and N2234 respectively.

K9240 was flown with the Napier Dagger.

[Old Wombat]

So, from the sound of it, no matter what you do to a Battle it wont be a WhIf because it's already been done as a test-bed..... Unless you do it as an operational aircraft!

[The Wooksta!]

RAAF coastal patrol? The bombs would be useful against subs but the aircraft would be a sitting duck against the Japanese.

Somewhere, I have a part built Battle and I think I now know what to do with it.

[kitbasher]

Two engines - as argued for by Lobelle - like this?
http://www.whatifmodelers.com/index.php/topic,21075.msg340144.html#msg340144

[jcf]

Two engines - as argued for by Lobelle - like this?
http://www.whatifmodelers.com/index.php/topic,21075.msg340144.html#msg340144

... or the Fairey Twin-Engine Day Bomber of 1933, drawing originally posted by Justo Miranda in the above mentioned Secretprojects thread.

[The Wooksta!]

Very handy...

[raafif]

come on Greg where's the Battle floatplane ?  Want to compare it to the Hampden float version 

[GTX]

come on Greg where's the Battle floatplane ?  Want to compare it to the Hampden float version 

You mean this one:



Sorry I thought I had already posted it  .

regards,

Greg

[beowulf]

nice!  ...that just looks kinda 'right' to me

[PR19_Kit]

I found an article about the Battle FTBs in a Flypast magazine, Jan 2009 issue with a P-51 on the front. There's a whole series of Battle items in there as well.

Somewhat surprisingly some of the FTB Battles had fixed landing gear, the Sabre and Hercules versions in particular. Apparently the idea was to increase the drag so the engines could be tested at high power settings, as the normal airframe was so sleek!

And my guess about the Battle's use as an FTB because it had multiple seats and lots of space for test gear turned out correct, as well as the fact that the Battle was of modern construction, being a stressed skin monocoque airframe, so was current with fighter and bomber build methods then being used. A contemporary FTB aircraft, the Folland Fo 108 (surely a candidate for the 'World's Ugliest Aeroplane'?) was built for the test-bed job, and similarly was provided with three seats and lots of internal space for test gear.

[Mossie]

There's a few Fairey & Blackburn aircraft that could beat the F.108 to the title!

With the 'Frightful', I think it depends on the engine installation.  The airframe itself isn't particularly ugly, just a bit agricultural.  The Hercules installation seemed to suit it, the Sabre with chin radiator made it ugly, but in a way that suited it's lines.  The Sabre without chin radiator just looked odd & the Centaurus installation.... it's mother would have shunned that one!  I guess some of the Hawker Tempest & Fury test installions show that a change in engine can ruin the face on a perfect body.