Fairey Battle evaluated in the USA

In the new Flypast

this is all covered in depth – a very good read

Let’s start with PM Baldwin getting re-elected in June,1935. Key appointments were Vt.Swinton at A.M, advised by Lord W.Weir (as in Scottish heavy engineering; Controller of Aeronautical Supplies, 1917-18, 1918 Air Minister), Industrial Advisor, and (1/4/36, replacing Dowding), AM W.Freeman as Air Member for R&D. They inherited an industrial “Ring”, where, in the locust years, A.M had confined business to 16 airframe and 4 engine design teams (1), ample yet also providing dual sources for the meagre workload. Within 1936 they had organised a rerun of 1916’s “shadow” scheme, bringing auto into Aero production…because Aero was an insignificant sector, wholly unfit to rise to be core of Imperial Defence. RAF was smaller than Air Arms of France, Italy, USSR, even Ocean-girded US. Until Hawker Siddeley A/c Co. Ltd. was formed in July,1935 UK’s manufacturing payrolls Top 30 were landbound. In ’34 UK-Aero built 1,108/exported 298 frailplanes: rubbish business next to, say Vickers the armourer. In 1935 Austin Motors employed 19,000, Morris Motors, 10,200 (2). The 16 airframers in the Ring, in 4/35 collectively employed 14,903 operatives (and 3,717 administratives)(3). When Hawker bought out rural Gloster A/c Co. in May,34, a shed in a meadow, their recent work had been 10 airframes designed by Hawker and 2 Motorised Barrow bomb-carts (4). In ’35 only Vickers and Bristol had non-Aero business; Bristol Engine/Airframe then had 1,416 hands. By 1942 that had became 52,095, GAC, by 1943, 14,000 in 40 plants…but what no aero-hagiography tells is that starting 12/42 with Fairey, MAP had put in to many Aero-parent sites as Controllers, volume-production managers from real industry (Canada same in DHC). Gee whizz! designs, nice; hard kit in P/O Prune’s hands, better.

Sir Richard Fairey had his fair share of Rearmament business – the vast Stockport site, 1918 National Aircraft Factory, was his from 1934, Army Co-operation rested on Battle, RN – on which Empire security rested – looked forward to Fulmar and Barracuda – the screwing-up of whose supply severely prejudiced Defence of the Realm. He had tried to licence Curtiss D.12, to develop various Monarchs: today’s word is “overstretch”. Similarly the equally difficult William Morris, Lord Nuffield had tried to bring Wolseley Motors into Aero. The sense of the times was that a gravy-train of arms business was there for the taking – dot.com of the day. There were many Stock Exchange flotations after the Election, as every Airspeed tried to break the “Ring”, inc. licensing Burnelli, Douglas, Fokker, Pratt, even Heinkel. Freeman looked at those on whom he must rely – little RR (modest builder of Kestrels, struggling to test Merlin, Vulture, Peregrine, Exe), or near-bankrupt Westland, or rip-off Hawker (5), and despaired for his country. RAE would be stretched to guide the in-crowd: forget apprentices, charlatans and fantomisers.

The Fox story can be overdone.

(1) Avro, AWA, BPA, Bristol, Blackburn, DH, Fairey, Gloster, HP, Hawker, Parnall, Saro, Short, Supermarine, Vickers Aviation, Westland; ASM, Bristol, Napier, RR.
(2) D.Edgerton, England and the Aeroplane,P72, Macmillan,1991 (also a free E-book)
(3) P.Fearon, A/c Manufacturing,in N.K.Buxton/D.H.Aldcroft{Eds},Br.Industry Between the Wars,Scolar P,79,P216; and HP Between the Wars, P.166, in RPT Davenport-Hines, Business in the Age of Depression and War,Routledge,1990
(4) D.N.James,Gloster A/c,Putnam,87,Pp.28/416.
(5) S.Ritchie, Industry and Air Power, Cass,97, P17, May,’33: A.M.: Hawker “amongst the worst profiteers”, dearer than 2nd.-sources (on Hart).

Sorry all if my previous seemed a bit ~ blunt ~ wasn’t intended that way.
That’s a good point Baz, but Fairey’s were hardly operating out of a garden shed. Napiers weren’t, I guess, that much bigger, were they? The Air Min wanted Bristol and RR to concentrate on certain work and forced them to drop others – very eggs1basket, perhaps. What would have happened if the Merlin had failed further development in, say, 1940?

Anyone with meaningful data on these companies sizes and performances?

Hi James
I just meant relative size of companies and the amount of political ‘clout’ they had,Fairey had a lovely aerodrome etc (great west ?) but were stitched up by HMG and heaved out to make way for Heathrow,the lions share of production contracts went to the manufacturers with most political clout.
Part of the problem also may have been because the smaller company owners might not have been ‘yesmen’ to various government agencies,the Fairey family and Handley Page I would possibly put into that category.

cheers baz

Sorry all if my previous seemed a bit ~ blunt ~ wasn’t intended that way.

I think that it was difficult for the smaller aircraft/engine companies to gain production contracts because of the huge influence that the larger companies ( say DH or RR ! ) had with the government.

That’s a good point Baz, but Fairey’s were hardly operating out of a garden shed. Napiers weren’t, I guess, that much bigger, were they? The Air Min wanted Bristol and RR to concentrate on certain work and forced them to drop others – very eggs1basket, perhaps. What would have happened if the Merlin had failed further development in, say, 1940?

Anyone with meaningful data on these companies sizes and performances?

Anyone able to rise above widget connections and look at policy? Was it true that Fairey’s were (de-)shafted because of a rationalisation (that there isn’t any evidence by government elsewhere) or was it Fairey’s reward for building better aircraft and American engines than the Empire was allowed? Alertken, where are you?

I think that it was difficult for the smaller aircraft/engine companies to gain production contracts because of the huge influence that the larger companies ( say DH or RR ! ) had with the government.

cheers baz

Anyone able to rise above widget connections and look at policy? Was it true that Fairey’s were (de-)shafted because of a rationalisation (that there isn’t any evidence by government elsewhere) or was it Fairey’s reward for building better aircraft and American engines than the Empire was allowed? Alertken, where are you?

You’re right.

I should’a looked at my copy of the double Mamba entry from Jane’s… it says the props are spun completely independent of each other.

Just like the interweb to be wrong… :p

Bager, that last line is incorrect,as when one engine was shut down,it`s prop was feathered.The gearbox was to provide the drives for the ancillaries,electrics,hydraulics,etc.

I thought the Double Mamba was two engines, each driving their own propellor in opposite directions on the same thrust line. Either engine could be shut down and re-started in flight.

Roger Smith.

“The Double Mamba was an Armstrong Siddeley gas turbine turboprop engine design of around 3,000–4,000 hp (2,500–3,000 kW). It was used mostly on the Fairey Gannet anti-submarine aircraft developed for the Fleet Air Arm of the Royal Navy.

The Double Mamba (also known as the Twin Mamba) was a development of the Armstrong Siddeley Mamba with two Mambas driving contra-rotating propellers through a combining gearbox.

Engine starting was by cartridge, however, forced air restart was achieved in flight. One engine could be shut down in flight to conserve fuel.”

Both propellers were always driven, regardless of which (if any) engine was shut down.

A neat little phrase, here used twice, that I suspect doesn’t tell the full story.

Because “the Air Ministry believed that too much effort was being expended on too many engine designs it ended all work by Fairey’s power plant department” in 1943.

Why? Did they support good engines and cull ones requiring much more development? (No.)

Really nothing to do with Fairey’s Fox and the Curtiss D.12 thoroughly annoying the Air Min (and the SBAC, I suspect) meaning that Fairey’s weren’t ever going to get contracts however good their engine work was?

Cynical, moi?

K9370. The Monarch power plant has already been fully described so no need to repeat that. It was housed in a long, bulbous cowling from which double rows of exhaust stubs protruded on each side. A large ventral radiator was installed under the wing’s centre section. There was almost no ground clearance which must have made it fun when landing.

K9370’s maiden flight with the Monarch was made by Christopher Staniland, Fairey’s chief test pilot, in June 1939. Further flights were made by F.H.Dixon and several RAF pilots. On 12th July 1941 it arrived at Farnborough for further trials. A total 0f 87 hours were flown in the UK.

At first Fairey had seen the Monarch as a potential power plant for naval strike aircraft, the contra-rotating propellers eliminating torque and so making carrier landings easier. Possibly the barracuda and Firefly were considered but it was also put forward for other types such as the Blackburn B20 and Hawker Tornado.

Details of the Monarch reached the USA and its high power made it a potential engine for the P-47. US authorities requested an example be made available for evaluation but few examples had been assembled so it was decided to ship the engine fitted to the Battle. To save time removing and installing it into another airframe in the US, K9370 was transported with its engine to the USA. It arrived between December 1941 and January 1942., going to Wright Field. British roundels were removed and USAAF stars painted on the wings and red and white stripes on the rudder, The serial number was retained. After 253 hours of flight testing it retuned to the RAE in 1943. Because the Air Ministry believed that too much effort was being expended on too many engine designs it ended all work by Fairey’s power plant department in 1943.

I think the Fleet Air Arm Museum has the only surviving example of a Monarch which you can arrange to see for a fee.

You should be able to see a couple of photographs of K9370 here, before and after it went to the USA.

http://aolpictures.aol.co.uk/ap/viewShare.do?shareInfo=mFQYMXJcDsXlCxZqJmV2erN4LG3wLvVJLetG86uqWS9WGd%2bBXiXp6w%3d%3d

It was originally fitted with a cap in front of the propellers, this being replaced later with a spinner.

I think there were about seventeen Battles used as test beds for various engines,

so, is there anything that was on US companies drawing boards that the Battle might have influenced??

Again, I wasn’t referring to the Battle per se, rather UK/European ways of doing things.

Considered more advanced by who?

And for better or worse, they had real combat experience before the U.S. entered WWII. If the UK was willing to provide a copy, why not look at it? True, it wans’t going to be a wold beater, but you’d be foolosh not to see what it’s like. And the UK was making some decent aircraft and engines at the time.

I thought the Double Mamba was two engines, each driving their own propellor in opposite directions on the same thrust line. Either engine could be shut down and re-started in flight.

Roger Smith.

I never knew that, about the engine research etc….. never ceases to amaze me, what you can find out on this forum, thank you.

It seems this would be safer for the “shut one down in flight for better cruising fuel efficiency” procedure than the “double Mamba” was, with no coupling stage to fail and screw things up.

As Steve says, it was more for the amazing P.24 engine. I have details on it somewhere, but from memory it was the forerunner of the Double Mamba coupled powerplant arrangement. Can’t remember if it was two engines driving co axial props through a common gearbox or one engine with two independant ‘halves’.

http://www.freewebs.com/faireyaviation/aviation.htm

“Fairey P-24. The “Monarch” engine was of 2,240 horsepower (hoped tobe developed to 3,000 hp) and was flying in prototype form in 1939 but was cancelled by the Air Ministry which thought Britain had too many aeroengine companies. Each Monarch engine actually consisted of two 12 cylinder units, each of which drove its own contra-rotating propeller.

With the P24 design – there was no “coupling” of its two component halfs – They were two entirely separate engines – one of which drove its propeller through the hollow driveshaft of the other. Other than that there was absolutely no mechanical linkage between the two “halves” at all – So very little to go wrong.

The P24 Monarch was a very advanced engine if the surviving details are true…Compressed Glycol /Water Cooling – As first used in Rolls Royce production engines (Merlin XII) from the end of 1940. RPM of 3,000 (same as wartime Merlins) 2 Stage, 4 Speed supercharger (Rolls Royce only ever managed a 2 speed Supercharger on the Merlin and only managed a 3-speed supercharger on post-war Griffons). With a 2-stage, 4 speed supercharger you would expect the Monarch to have had a very impressive performance at height.

There were two designs – The 16 Cylinder H-16 “Prince” of 1.540 hp and the 24 cylinder P-24 “Monarch” of 2,240hp (perhaps more). The H-16 had only a two-speed single stage supercharger. The H-16 could well have boosted a Battle Bomber to close to 300 mph – who knows with a Monarch – 350 mph + The Fulmar and Barracuda could have had similar boosts in performance – along with “Twin-engine” reliability.

Both the H-16 and P-24 used essentially the same cylinders as the earlier P12 Prince – Which had first flown in 1934, and it used poppet-valves, and so would have had none of the problems Bristol + Napier had with sleeve-Valves, so it is by no means unreasonable to think that with a bit of government backing the H-16 and P-24 could have been in production as early as 1938, and certainly by 1940.

As it was CR Fairey said to have spent at least 1 million pounds (at today’s prices) out of his own pocket on the project. ‘Forsyth went ahead in October 1935 with the totally new P.24, aimed at carrier-based aircraft. Twin-engine reliability was to be gained (for the first time in any engine) by having two halves each comprising a vertically opposed 12-cyclinder unit with a side supercharger, with pressure-glycol cooling. Each crankshaft was geared to its own coaxial propeller of Fairey constant speed type. Each half engine was tested throughout 1938 (the test bed could not handle the 2,200 total horsepower), and on 30th June 1939 the P.24 was flown in a Battle (K9370). With a potential for 3,000hp, the P.24 was considered for the Hawker Tornado and then the P-47 Thunderbolt, the Battle flying some 250hrs at Wright Field in 1942, but wartime pressures forced the termination of what was a very promising engine.’

There was nothing radical enough in the design of the Battle to warrant shipping it over to the US. There was every reason to ship out the P.24 engine though.

Best wishes
Steve P

From the link in the original:

“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.”

Thus, the P.24 engine was the point of the exercise… and since it was already fitted in the Battle test-bed, it could be evaluated in flight… if the whole thing was shipped (not just the engine). That’s why the Battle went.

European aircraft were considered more advanced so the attitude
probably was “let’s see if they had any ideas/concepts (as opposed to designs) we can use…or equally important…any bad ideas we should stay away from.”

Considered more advanced by who? I’d have a Boston before a Blenheim any day. 🙂 The US aviation industry was pretty much at the cutting edge prior to 1941 eg. P-38, P-51 etc. The Battle was just a typical current military monoplane, similar to many types that the American aircraft industry was churning out. There was nothing radical enough in the design of the Battle to warrant shipping it over to the US. There was every reason to ship out the P.24 engine though.

Best wishes
Steve P

so, is there anything that was on US companies drawing boards that the Battle might have influenced??

Roger Smith.

It never hurts to see other ideas on combat aircraft, especially at a time when the American industry was just gearing up for war.

European aircraft were considered more advanced so the attitude
probably was “let’s see if they had any ideas/concepts (as opposed to designs) we can use…or equally important…any bad ideas we should stay away from.”

As Steve says, it was more for the amazing P.24 engine. I have details on it somewhere, but from memory it was the forerunner of the Double Mamba coupled powerplant arrangement. Can’t remember if it was two engines driving co axial props through a common gearbox or one engine with two independant ‘halves’.