Making Bad Designs Good

[rickshaw]

You make an excellent point there.  The Battle was not "crap" when it was designed in 1932.  Remember, it was only up against biplane figters!  The Bf109 was not introduced into Luftwaffe service until 1936.  The Battle was an advanced design for it's day.  However, it was based on outmoded thinking and tactics.   It was, as said, a large, underpowered light bomber.   It wasn't unmaneuverable either, remember the fleet fighter, the Fulmar was based on the Battle design with a more powerful engine and the Fulmar could hold it's own against Bf109s and Italian fighters which were very nimble indeed.   It's major problem was the tactics in which the Battle was used and the growth of aerodynamics and technology in such a short time.

Your liking the Battle to "crap", Kendra/Robyn shows just how shallow your thinking can be.  It's like suggesting that the F-51 was "crap" in 1950 because it couldn't beat a MiG-15 in Korea.  It was, only five years earlier one of the most advanced fighter designs in production.

[tomo pauk]

As a what if, and perhaps in spirit (?) of theis thread, I like to picture the navalized Battle, say Fairey offer it to the specification that brought Albacore. Historically, Battle was tested with radial engines (Taurus, Hercules; also Cyclone, that would imply that Pegasus would also fit), so that might fly, pun intended Plain vanilla 'Sea battle' with Merlin VIII (like the one on Fulmar, with better power for take off than Merlin III) wouldn't be too shabby.
Later versions, with engines of take off power of 1600-1700 HP, either Merlin or Hercules, in production in lieu of Barracuda. Yes, the Battle was tested with Fairey-Youngman flaps, the ones neat as used on Firefly.

[rickshaw]

I wonder how well it would have done with a Griffon instead of the Merlin in the nose?  The Barracuda was equipped with one and while only 37 of that mark were produced when the war ended it had considerable potential as a naval strike aircraft.

There wasn't much wrong with the design of the Battle, it just needed more power and different tactics to make it effective, sadly both were missing when it met the Germans.

[KJ_Lesnick]

kitbasher

Even designer Marcel Lobelle suggested 2 engines but the Air Ministry remained wedded to an outmoded concept.

Really?  Why did they remain attached to it?  Did it have anything to do with the treaty I mentioned?


tomo pauk

It was not past the 'sell date' in the time it was introduced. The 1st monoplane in RAF? Fastest bomber when introduced? That Battle did not received better engines does not mean it was crap.

Why didn't it receive better engines then?


rickshaw

You make an excellent point there.  The Battle was not "crap" when it was designed in 1932.

The specification was issued in 1932, the plane flew though in 1936.  I guess that is a bit longer than the Hurricane (specification issued in 1934, first flight in 1935), Spitfire (specification issued in 1935, first flew in 1936)

Remember, it was only up against biplane figters!  The Bf109 was not introduced into Luftwaffe service until 1936.

1936?  I thought it wasn't until 1937...

However, it was based on outmoded thinking and tactics.

I'm not sure what you mean by outmoded thinking and no idea what tactics should have been used compared to what was

It wasn't unmaneuverable either, remember the fleet fighter, the Fulmar was based on the Battle design with a more powerful engine and the Fulmar could hold it's own against Bf109s and Italian fighters which were very nimble indeed.

How many g's could it pull, and if not that could you provide some reference to compare against?

Your liking the Battle to "crap", Kendra/Robyn shows just how shallow your thinking can be.  It's like suggesting that the F-51 was "crap" in 1950 because it couldn't beat a MiG-15 in Korea.  It was, only five years earlier one of the most advanced fighter designs in production.

No, it's not: You often criticize me a lot and I usually put up with it -- if you read back I talked about the idea of making bad designs good and everybody told me that it was basically a design that should have never been built.  I operated around that advice since I figured most people here knew more than I did.

[tomo pauk]

The British (rightly) concluded that two-engined bomber is a better use of engine and crew production (and 4-engined one was even better); the Battle was probably produced in 1000 examples more than it was prudent, that might be the due to the investment in the production lines and the upcoming war. Even if we stick a 1400-1600 HP Hercules on the Battle, using those Hercules engines on Wellington gives more bombload over distance, for half of pilots needed, plus a meaningful defensive punch for daylight operations.
In case the Battle, or any other bomber of similar performance, is flown during the daylight unescorted, it will be slaugtered by capable fighter opposition. As proven in many instances during the ww2.

[PR19_Kit]

In case the Battle, or any other bomber of similar performance, is flown during the daylight unescorted, it will be slaugtered by capable fighter opposition. As proven in many instances during the ww2.

Especially when it had almost zero defensive armament!

[tomo pauk]

Indeed, the defensive armament was really a weak point once ww2 started.
Still, we can recall that: Wellingtons attacking Heligoland Blight suffered badly, despite the nominally much better armament; the LW bombers could not fight their way during the BoB without fighter escorts; USAF heavies suffered when unescorted, despite heavy guns.

[KJ_Lesnick]

Was the Fairey Firefly considered a good design, a bad design, or just unremarkable?

[rickshaw]

Was the Fairey Firefly considered a good design, a bad design, or just unremarkable?

Outmoded would be a better description of it.   When it was designed, it was barely acceptable and was quickly overtaken by technological development.

[wuzak]

Was the Fairey Firefly considered a good design, a bad design, or just unremarkable?

Outmoded would be a better description of it.   When it was designed, it was barely acceptable and was quickly overtaken by technological development.

They remained in service until the mid 1950s, serving in the Korean war and beyond.

[KJ_Lesnick]

Rickshaw

Outmoded would be a better description of it.

Why'd they need two crewmen?

When it was designed, it was barely acceptable and was quickly overtaken by technological development.

Would you say it'd been considerably better if the plane was designed with only one pilot, 2-5 feet shorter?

[rickshaw]

Rickshaw

Outmoded would be a better description of it.

Why'd they need two crewmen?

Their Lordships decreed that flying and navigating over long distances was behind the capabilities of most pilots, so they decreed that Naval fighters should be two seaters.  Fairey Fulmar was another with a navigator in a rear cockpit.   Wartime exigencies caught up with them and they realised that pilots were versatile chaps and so the navigator was eliminated.   Too late for the Firefly.

When it was designed, it was barely acceptable and was quickly overtaken by technological development.

Would you say it'd been considerably better if the plane was designed with only one pilot, 2-5 feet shorter?

Shorter might be better from a stowage viewpoint but it wasn't necessary from an aerodynamic viewpoint.  The Firefly was quite a good dogfighter by all accounts.  One successfully downed several Japanese fighters over Sumatra IIRC.   It was the extra weight of the navigator and all his gear which didn't help.

[piko1]

let's fix P-39 from now on A-39 cause US Air Force and Vietnam leaded to the S variant of the P-39

first remove that useless  Allison V-1710 and let's use short version of Allison T56 with 2200hp with 4 bladed prop
removing the radiators makes more space for fuel range problem fix 
additional structural integrity reinforcement ala Russian Battle Experience (i need to find the P-39 book it's somewhere around the house to see what else they did to improve the cobra since they made a lot of changes on the Battle field )   

[PR19_Kit]

Would you say it'd been considerably better if the plane was designed with only one pilot, 2-5 feet shorter?

Then it would have been a Hurricane........

[rickshaw]

Would you say it'd been considerably better if the plane was designed with only one pilot, 2-5 feet shorter?

Then it would have been a Hurricane........

More a Spitfire with better undercarriage.  Remember, the Firefly had a better engine than the Hurricane and better wings and undercarriage than the Spitfire.