There is one on display at the Military History Museum in Brussels. You can see how much bigger it is than the Hurricanes and Spitfires with the same engine.
I serviced and flew in Fairey Battles, re the bomb aimers position, there was a sliding floor, the bomb aimer would lie down on the fuselage floor and slide the floor tray back for direct observation. Was on board for a one wheel landing which went perfectly, removed the starboard wing tip , removed rubbish and replaced wing tip. Oleo gland ring was the undercart problem. Remarkably strong aircraft. They became drogue tows for air gunnery practice.
One minor correction - the Fairey Battle's defensive weakness was not as a result of not having a MG pointing downwards - it was the lack of self-sealing fuel tanks , crew armour and bullet proof canopy glass , all basics that were not fitted to many RAF pre-war aircraft . Thanks for posting .
My father used to fly in Fairey Battle target tug’s, at RAF Eshott in Northumberland during the Second World War as a drogue operator. Before he gathered his true wings in 2009, he wrote his memoirs chronicling in detail his experience with the Fairey Battle aircraft and the aircrew that used to fly them. I have recently published his book to Kindle; it is a fascinating look into life in the RAF during the war, the aircrew and the Fairey Battle. The book is; JUGGLING WITH JESUS FOR A BOB A DAY.
A little alternative history: Let's say we swap out the Merlin for a 1375hp Bristol Hercules (available in 1937), equip the plane with self-sealing fuel tanks and equip it with underwing bomb racks, so it can take 250lb or 500lb bombs, possibly even mount a Bolton-Paul four-gun turret in the rear of the greenhouse. Later, as new versions of the Hercules becomes available we can get up to 1700hp, possibly cannon fixed armament, or rockets. Actual history: the Battle was used as a flying testbed for engines well over 2000hp, so it was a sound airplane with nice characteristics.
I recall as a lad, my mum and her friend playing with a ouija board, it told mum that id been a Battle crewman killed in action in 1940, gave the date and place......the bridges in the Netherlands....theres no way the ladies could have known that!
Those RAF guys who flew this plane in the Battle of France in 1940 had serious guts. They soon realised that the aircraft wasn't up to the job, but they had to still keep flying into action. They got totally hammered. It was like a smaller version of what happened to so many Russian pilots in the early stages of Operation Barbarossa. Going into action again and again with hopelessly outclassed aircraft. Poor bastards.
No point comparing the Battle to single engine fighters and expecting any kind of result. It needed fighter protection, as did all its contemporaries and like its contemporaries, had no chance without it.
A very nice flying plane that was overtaken by technology, just like the TBD Devastator, the light day bomber didn't need three crewmen to deliver a 1,000 lb bomb load, a concept from WW1.
I can't help but think that the Battle would have had a much better reputation if it had been used by the Germans in Poland and on the Eastern front, while the Stuka would have been dismissed as a failure if the British had used it in the Battle of France.
Which basically means that what it needed was air superiority. That is true for all CAS types, be they dive bombers like the Stuka or light tactical bombers like the Battle. The Stuka worked well as long as the Luftwaffe had local air superiority but was extremely vulnerable without it. The Battle never fought under such luxurious circumstances!
Its the poor men that had to fly these dreadful aircraft that deserve the tribute, such terrible losses. If only our government had invested more in aircraft development before the war we might have had something better.
There is one on display at the Military History Museum in Brussels. You can see how much bigger it is than the Hurricanes and Spitfires with the same engine.
I serviced and flew in Fairey Battles, re the bomb aimers position, there was a sliding floor, the bomb aimer would lie down on the fuselage floor and slide the floor tray back for direct observation. Was on board for a one wheel landing which went perfectly, removed the starboard wing tip , removed rubbish and replaced wing tip. Oleo gland ring was the undercart problem. Remarkably strong aircraft. They became drogue tows for air gunnery practice.
One minor correction - the Fairey Battle's defensive weakness was not as a result of not having a MG pointing downwards - it was the lack of self-sealing fuel tanks , crew armour and bullet proof canopy glass , all basics that were not fitted to many RAF pre-war aircraft . Thanks for posting .
My father used to fly in Fairey Battle target tug’s, at RAF Eshott in Northumberland during the Second World War as a drogue operator. Before he gathered his true wings in 2009, he wrote his memoirs chronicling in detail his experience with the Fairey Battle aircraft and the aircrew that used to fly them. I have recently published his book to Kindle; it is a fascinating look into life in the RAF during the war, the aircrew and the Fairey Battle. The book is; JUGGLING WITH JESUS FOR A BOB A DAY.
A little alternative history: Let's say we swap out the Merlin for a 1375hp Bristol Hercules (available in 1937), equip the plane with self-sealing fuel tanks and equip it with underwing bomb racks, so it can take 250lb or 500lb bombs, possibly even mount a Bolton-Paul four-gun turret in the rear of the greenhouse. Later, as new versions of the Hercules becomes available we can get up to 1700hp, possibly cannon fixed armament, or rockets.
Actual history: the Battle was used as a flying testbed for engines well over 2000hp, so it was a sound airplane with nice characteristics.
I recall as a lad, my mum and her friend playing with a ouija board, it told mum that id been a Battle crewman killed in action in 1940, gave the date and place......the bridges in the Netherlands....theres no way the ladies could have known that!
The attack on the Mahstrict bridges was an awesome display of bravery!
Those RAF guys who flew this plane in the Battle of France in 1940 had serious guts. They soon realised that the aircraft wasn't up to the job, but they had to still keep flying into action. They got totally hammered. It was like a smaller version of what happened to so many Russian pilots in the early stages of Operation Barbarossa. Going into action again and again with hopelessly outclassed aircraft. Poor bastards.
No point comparing the Battle to single engine fighters and expecting any kind of result. It needed fighter protection, as did all its contemporaries and like its contemporaries, had no chance without it.
@@thethirdman225 You might find "The Fairey Battle: A Reassessment of its RAF Career" by Greg Baughen interesting.
A very nice flying plane that was overtaken by technology, just like the TBD Devastator, the light day bomber didn't need three crewmen to deliver a 1,000 lb bomb load, a concept from WW1.
Technology didn't make any difference. Local air superiority did.
Thanks for the information
Yes, it's one of those aircraft that was good on paper, but in reality turned out to not quite fullfill the intentions made by the designers.. :)
The light bomber that was too heavy
I can't help but think that the Battle would have had a much better reputation if it had been used by the Germans in Poland and on the Eastern front, while the Stuka would have been dismissed as a failure if the British had used it in the Battle of France.
Which basically means that what it needed was air superiority. That is true for all CAS types, be they dive bombers like the Stuka or light tactical bombers like the Battle. The Stuka worked well as long as the Luftwaffe had local air superiority but was extremely vulnerable without it. The Battle never fought under such luxurious circumstances!
Its the poor men that had to fly these dreadful aircraft that deserve the tribute, such terrible losses. If only our government had invested more in aircraft development before the war we might have had something better.
The british Nakajima B5N Kate
I dread to think what it was like being the bomb aimer
Where did the navigator fit?
Where did the navigator fit, was there room for a chair inside the enclosed section?
Exactly that
Flammin flyin coffins !