Blackburn Skua was it that bad?

[fastmongrel]

The Blackburn Skua always seems to be in peoples lists of worst aircraft of WWII but was it really that bad as a dive bomber. It seems to have had similar performance figures as other contemporary dive bombers and going on what I have read it was the first aircraft to sink a major warship during combat. The only problems I can see was it could only carry a 500 pound bomb and the engine was a bit underpowered. Was it a flawed aircraft in any way or has it just had a bad press.

[Shortround6]

Probably just bad press.

It was powered by an engine that was just too low powered. If it had an engine that could have been developed to give 1200hp or so (about a 33% increase) it might be remembered a bit differently.

It doesn't seem to have aquired quite the reputation of the Brewster dive bomber or the last Curtiss as being unpleasant to fly.

[Thorlifter]

From what I know about it, it was a good plane in the right element. It could handle its own against bombers or other dive bombers, but against newer fighters, it was a sitting duck.

[fastmongrel]

Originally Posted by Shortround6

Probably just bad press.

It was powered by an engine that was just too low powered. If it had an engine that could have been developed to give 1200hp or so (about a 33% increase) it might be remembered a bit differently.

Doing a bit of research (okay reading wikipedia) it seems there was a larger 26.8 liter 1635 cubic inch Perseus 100 engine that produced 1200 horsepower. It doesnt say if it was contemporary with the Skua though probably post war I think, most war time engines seem to have used roman numeral engine numbers.

[tomo pauk]

Skua was the best carrier-capable dive bomber when introduced, and it gave a good account despite having a low powered engine. I don't recall any bad press about Skua - was that maybe about Roc that was not up to the task of carrer-borne fighter?

As for 'better Skua', RN had a couple of more options to upgrade (=change) the engine: Taurus (1000+ HP) and early Hercules (around 1300HP) do come in mind.

[parsifal]

Skuas performed most often as fighters, and in this role were quite effective. though it would be foolhardy to mix it with a first line figter, it did perform quite well in places like the med.

Perhaps it was not responsible for large losses to the enemy, but iet provided valuable fleet defence, at a time when the RN needed all the aircover it could lay its hands on

[tomo pauk]

Originally Posted by parsifal

Skuas performed most often as fighters, and in this role were quite effective. though it would be foolhardy to mix it with a first line figter, it did perform quite well in places like the med.

Perhaps it was not responsible for large losses to the enemy, but iet provided valuable fleet defence, at a time when the RN needed all the aircover it could lay its hands on

So, the RN could've used a better performing planes in the 1st half of war after all.
Good to know

[Juha]

Hello Tomo
Taurus has reliability problems even in late 1940 so it was unacceptable engine for a single-engine carrier plane at that time.

Juha

[tomo pauk]

That leaves us with Hercules.
Not bad, since it was feasible for 1939 (Beaufighter was airborne in July 39 with those). If we decide to have only 1 crew member in order to save weight, the resulting plane would weight almost same as Skua. So 1270HP would've had to deal with 2500-2700kg empty weight. Later, engine power climbs to 1350 (1940) to 1700HP (later in war).
So we don't need Roc, Sea Hurricane, Seafire, Fulmar, Firefly (yuck for later two).

Not bad for an ugly duckling

[Juha]

Hello Tomo
IIRC also Hercules run into difficulties and was running late but of course one could change priorities but on the other hand RAF desperately needed Beau in late 40 and for a while after that and Mk II, with Merlins, wasn't very successful. IIRC, also Wimpy Mk II was problematic, which made Wimpy Mk III, Hercules powered, very important.

Juha

[freebird]

Considering that it was developed in the late 30's, before the advent of the Me109E or Spitfire, it performed quite well indeed in it's role. It replaced some slow biplanes in the FAA, like the Sea Gladiator. It was reasonably comparable with the early WWII Italian fighters like the CR 32 or CR 42, with which it would have had much more chance for interaction in the Med

[tomo pauk]

Actually, Skua was a late 1930s design, contemporary of 109, or Hurricane. It was a good dive bomber, but FAA realy needed a better fighter. Moreso since their planes were fighting in Norway & France too.
The Italian air threat was more in shape of bombers (eg. SM-79 was faster then Skua/Roc/Fulmar trio) , while MC-200 was the main fighter back in 1940.

[tomo pauk]

Originally Posted by Juha

Hello Tomo
IIRC also Hercules run into difficulties and was running late but of course one could change priorities but on the other hand RAF desperately needed Beau in late 40 and for a while after that and Mk II, with Merlins, wasn't very successful. IIRC, also Wimpy Mk II was problematic, which made Wimpy Mk III, Hercules powered, very important.

Juha

Why was RAF desperately needed Beaufighters in late 1940?

EDIT: I see, you probably mean the night-fighter variant. Well, the Merlin XX with 1300HP was ready in summer 1940, so that would do for Beau.

[buffnut453]

Always had a soft spot for the Skua ever since, as a nipper, I found an old Novo kit of the aircraft (along with a Tupolev SB-2) in a newsagent's in Wales. I think as a dive bomber it was quite adequate in the role, and as such was very much "of its time". As a fighter, it was much less successful but then designing an aircraft with mixed roles from the outset often seems fraught with problems, presumably due to the number of design compromises required (eg Skua, Fulmar, Tornado GR1), whereas bolting on new roles to aircraft that excel in one role often seems more successful (eg Mosquito, F-15E, P-47 etc). It's also worth remembering that the requirements for naval aircraft in the UK have often been somewhat bemusing (to whit the Firebrand - a single seat fighter that can launch a torpedo...and why would anyone want to do that???).

[freebird]

Originally Posted by tomo pauk

Actually, Skua was a late 1930s design, contemporary of 109, or Hurricane. It was a good dive bomber, but FAA realy needed a better fighter. Moreso since their planes were fighting in Norway & France too.
The Italian air threat was more in shape of bombers (eg. SM-79 was faster then Skua/Roc/Fulmar trio) , while MC-200 was the main fighter back in 1940.

Contemporary perhaps, but the Skua is a 2-seat Fighter/bomber, so comparing it to an Me109E or Spitfire is like apples & oranges.

The Skua was a good, versatile aircraft, but it was never intended to operate agains land-based fighters.

From "History of War"

Blackburn Skua

In the pre-war years it was believed that the new generation of high performance fighters then under development would not be able to operate from aircraft carriers. It was also believed that naval aircraft needed two crewmen to cope with the complexity of navigation over water, inevitably increasing the weight of the aircraft.

Blackburn Skua Finally, there was a tradition of multi-purpose aircraft, designed to make the best use of the limited capacity of each aircraft carrier. In the case of the Skua it was designed to perform as both a fighter and a dive bomber, not entirely compatible roles.

It was a compromise between a straight bomber/TB (the Swordfish,) too slow to be used as a fighter, and a straight fighter with limited or no ability as recon/diveB.

If you compare it with theNorthrop A-17 the two aircraft are quite similar, and it was a good bit faster than the Devastator.

The Skua would be very capable as a fighter against the type of aircraft that it was expected the RN might encounter, the Japanese Mitsu G3M, or the Italian SM 81/79. If the British had the Hermes with a dozen Skuas available to sail with the Repulse/PoW, it is unlikely in the extreme that the Japanese would have been able to sink them.