• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

Fairey Battle modifications

Justo Miranda

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 2, 2007
Messages
4,238
Reaction score
1,893
Aircraft illustrated August 1974
 

Attachments

  • Escanear0001.jpg
    Escanear0001.jpg
    353.2 KB · Views: 584
  • Escanear0002.jpg
    Escanear0002.jpg
    44.3 KB · Views: 388
  • Escanear0003.jpg
    Escanear0003.jpg
    42.7 KB · Views: 344

Antonio

ACCESS: Top Secret
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2006
Messages
3,475
Reaction score
203
The Fulmar was based on a sub-scaled Battle. See Le Fana de L'Aviation January 08 issue for more details
 

robunos

You're Mad, You Are.....
Senior Member
Joined
May 1, 2007
Messages
1,896
Reaction score
233
is the 'fairey double engined bomber' by any chance the P.24 engined battle as discussed elsewhere on this forum?

cheers,
Robin.
 

Apophenia

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2007
Messages
2,588
Reaction score
890
Justo: amazing find. I worked up a 'what-if' twin-engined Battle but had no idea that it had been a genuine proposal.

Robin: It sure looks like the P.24 Prince installation. If so, we have a hint as to how the P-47 and Blackburn B20 P.24 installations might have looked. 8)
 

Justo Miranda

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 2, 2007
Messages
4,238
Reaction score
1,893
robunos said:
is the 'fairey double engined bomber' by any chance the P.24 engined battle as discussed elsewhere on this forum?

cheers,
Robin.

Yes.
 

Attachments

  • Escanear0001.jpg
    Escanear0001.jpg
    206.5 KB · Views: 333
  • Escanear0002.jpg
    Escanear0002.jpg
    206.2 KB · Views: 315

red admiral

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 16, 2006
Messages
616
Reaction score
74
Pictures of the prototype. Although one of the pictures is labelled "monarch" I'm pretty sure its the Prince version.
 

Attachments

  • battle monarch.jpg
    battle monarch.jpg
    31.1 KB · Views: 167
  • battle prince.jpg
    battle prince.jpg
    215.9 KB · Views: 182

robunos

You're Mad, You Are.....
Senior Member
Joined
May 1, 2007
Messages
1,896
Reaction score
233
yes, thanks, also, note the US markings on the prince Battle......

cheers,
Robin.
 

robunos

You're Mad, You Are.....
Senior Member
Joined
May 1, 2007
Messages
1,896
Reaction score
233
yes, thanks, also, note the US markings on the prince Battle......

found some more on this, (while looking for something else, naturally, :D)

from 'Aero Engines', by Bill Gunston, 1st edition. (my italics)

"with a potential of 3000 hp,the P.24 was considered for the hawker tornado and P-47 thunderbolt,
the [P.24 powered] battle flying some 250 hours at wright field in 1942.

edit, checking in putnam's Fairey, the aircraft was shipped to the USA on december 5th, 1941, and was still at wright field in september 1942. when it returned to the RAE in 1943, 340 hours had been logged, including 87 in Britain, giving 253 hours of use in the USA.
cheers,
Robin.
 

Pioneer

Seek out and close with the enemy
Senior Member
Joined
May 22, 2006
Messages
1,838
Reaction score
197
robunos said:
yes, thanks, also, note the US markings on the prince Battle......

cheers,
Robin.

So does anyone know when, what role and service was the ‘Battle’ assessed for by the United States?

Regards
Pioneer
 

airman

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Oct 14, 2007
Messages
1,214
Reaction score
82
Website
zeef.com
i attach page printed in pdf about Farey P4/34 or version dive - bomber of Farey Battle
 

Attachments

  • fareyp4_34.pdf
    15.6 KB · Views: 101

Apophenia

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2007
Messages
2,588
Reaction score
890
airman,

The Fairey P4/34 submission wasn't a direct development of the Battle, it was an entirely new design. Spec P4/34 was for a light bomber/divebomber, ultimately won by the competing Hawker Henley. The Fairey P3/34 then evolved into the two-seat Fulmar naval fighter.

BTW, Orlogsværftet began licence production of the P4/34 (LVI) for the Marinens Flyvevæsen in February 1939. The 12 Danish aircraft were to be O.V.231-O.V.242 (c/n 93-104) but none were finished. The Danish P4/34s (along with 12 new Macchi C.200s) were to equip a new, land-based unit, 3.Luftflotille.

http://www.ole-nikolajsen.com/RDAF%20history/b-Marinens%20flyvevasen.htm
 

airman

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Oct 14, 2007
Messages
1,214
Reaction score
82
Website
zeef.com
Apophenia said:
airman,

The Fairey P4/34 submission wasn't a direct development of the Battle, it was an entirely new design. Spec P4/34 was for a light bomber/divebomber, ultimately won by the competing Hawker Henley. The Fairey P3/34 then evolved into the two-seat Fulmar naval fighter.

BTW, Orlogsværftet began licence production of the P4/34 (LVI) for the Marinens Flyvevæsen in February 1939. The 12 Danish aircraft were to be O.V.231-O.V.242 (c/n 93-104) but none were finished. The Danish P4/34s (along with 12 new Macchi C.200s) were to equip a new, land-based unit, 3.Luftflotille.

http://www.ole-nikolajsen.com/RDAF%20history/b-Marinens%20flyvevasen.htm
Oops ! :eek: :eek: you have right ! :-[
 

robunos

You're Mad, You Are.....
Senior Member
Joined
May 1, 2007
Messages
1,896
Reaction score
233
So does anyone know when, what role and service was the ‘Battle’ assessed for by the United States?

it's my understanding that the US were interested in the _engine_, not the the aircraft.

from putnam's Fairey, pp. 272-273:-

"when the US authorities asked for a P.24 engine for evaluation, the decision was made to ship the battle [aircraft], complete with engine and propellors, so that time would not be wasted in preparing another powerplant or in modifying an american aircraft to take the engine."

cheers,
Robin.
 

Apophenia

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2007
Messages
2,588
Reaction score
890
Also in the Putnam book Robin had already mentioned (Fairey Aircraft Since 1915), HA Taylor says

"... Gen Arnold saw the engine and asked that one or more examples should be shipped to American for test and evalution. The proposal was that it should be be built under licence by the Ford motor company for installation in the Republic P-47 Thunderbolt fighter. To save time, the Battle test-bed, complete with P.24 and propellers, was sent to Wright Field..."
 

Rickshaw

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2011
Messages
2,023
Reaction score
106
Are there any pictures/drawings of what the P-47 would have looked like with the P.24 engine?
 

robunos

You're Mad, You Are.....
Senior Member
Joined
May 1, 2007
Messages
1,896
Reaction score
233
just guessing, but i would have thought fairly similar to the XP-47H, but with visible exhaust stubs, the radiator being belly mounted, although maybe a P-40 style chin radiator.

cheers,
Robin.
 

Attachments

  • xp47h.jpg
    xp47h.jpg
    53.9 KB · Views: 276

kitbasher

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Sep 3, 2008
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
Apophenia said:
Justo: amazing find. I worked up a 'what-if' twin-engined Battle but had no idea that it had been a genuine proposal.
I'd be interested t see your model, as i'm doing onee on the What If? modellers web forum, http://www.whatifmodelers.com/index.php?topic=21075.msg299160#msg299160. ;D ;D
 

Apophenia

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2007
Messages
2,588
Reaction score
890
Kitbasher: My 'what if' medium was paper not polystyrene. PM inbound.
 

Justo Miranda

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 2, 2007
Messages
4,238
Reaction score
1,893
Fairey P.24 engine, from "Aeroplane" January 2009
 

Attachments

  • Escanear.jpg
    Escanear.jpg
    567.6 KB · Views: 399

PMN1

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2006
Messages
740
Reaction score
82
There is an ongoing thread on the P.24 here

http://warbirdsforum.com/showthread.php?t=287
 
J

joncarrfarrelly

Guest
Experimental Engineering Section of the Power Plant Laboratory at Wright Field reports on Fairey P.24 engine, from the AEHS site:
http://www.enginehistory.org/Misc/P150137.pdf

http://www.enginehistory.org/Misc/P152543.pdf

http://www.enginehistory.org/Misc/P161688.pdf

Jon
 

PMN1

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2006
Messages
740
Reaction score
82
Page 6 of the second report is ineresting...

Captain Forsyth states the following developments should be undertaken in this country (the US)

Undertake F-32, a 5.25 x 6 engine with 4 blocks of 8 cylinders

Undertake 5.5 x 6 engine for 3,000hp

Undertake 6 x 6 engine for 3,400hp
 

PMN1

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2006
Messages
740
Reaction score
82
Anyone know what engines were proposed for the twin engined 1933 variant if if any performance figures were suggested?
 

PMN1

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2006
Messages
740
Reaction score
82
Had this back in an e-mail discussion on the twin engined Battle

'A twin engined Battle might have made an ideal night-fighter. - Room in the nose for both radar and guns.

Interestingly "The Battle File" indicates that the AM realised the Battle was obsolescent in 1939 but kept production going at Fairey's Stockport factory and at Austin through most of 1940 just to give the workforce something to do pending the switch-over to the Avro Manchester at Stockport and Short Stirling at Austin. So throughout the crucial Battle of Britain period both factories were producing aircraft that were of little or no value to the war effort - In 1940 Stockport produced 218 battles and Austin produced 480 - now cut that in half to use the same number of engines - that’s still about 350 twin-engined Battles that might have been produced in 1940 alone.

Same engine combinations as the original battle - choice of either Fairey's own Prince P12 in the 700-900 hp range or Merlin - with the Air Ministry refusing to consider the Prince, leaving only the Merlin. - Like the normal battle the early Merlins would be the generally unsatisfactory Mk I followed by the Mk II and III for the majority of production up until 1940. - Wonder what the performance would have like for a 1941 twin-engined Battle with two Merlin XX with 1,390 hp each?

The "Battle File" book says that after the original twin-engined proposal in late 1933 interest in the twin-engine version disappeared until 1937 when Fairey revived the idea, this time with the bigger P-16 engine or Merlin. The Air Ministry became interested again in 1938 but then for a year or so they were keener on the P-24 engined version of the Battle, (authorising the building of the prototype) before loosing interest altogether - by which time the Beaufighter was on the verge of entering service (with the Gloster 9/37 expected to follow).

If production of a twin-engined Battle had gone ahead then replacing the single-engined Battle in production at Austin's Longbridge plant would have presented a problem - assembled Battles there were hoisted up a steep ramp from the flight-shed assembly factory to the tiny hill-top testing aerodrome by a sort of ski-lift assembly. I doubt if it could have accommodated a twin-engined aircraft. So they would have had to adopt early the scheme they used when Battle production was switched to Short Stirlings - Shipping the major assemblies to the near-by Elmdon aerodrome (now Birmingham airport) for final assembly there before flight-testing.'
 

Similar threads

Top