Roc Gear Bay Color

[Tweener]

Was the color of the Roc gear bay interior green or aluminum?

Thanks,
Tweener

[ClaudioN]

You mean the Blackburn Roc? AFAIK, it was the underside colour.

Out of the production line, this could be either Sky Grey or starboard White, port Black, depending on the overall finish.

 

When the underside colour changed to Sky, gear bays may not have followed. That, is they might have retained the original colours.

Then, there were the target tug Rocs, with black/yellow striped undersrdes. Again, what happened to the gear bays is not something you can determine with certainty. What's your subject?

 

Claudio

 

[JOCKNEY]

Just been reading a book about the FAA operating in Norway. 

The ROC was so slow it couldn't catch anything as a fighter !

Good luck with your build 

[ClaudioN]

14 hours ago, JOCKNEY said:

The ROC was so slow it couldn't catch anything as a fighter !

Incredible as it may seem, there was a measure of rationality in the Roc design philosophy as a turret fighter.

As late as February 1940, Admiral Forbes, C-in-C of the Home Fleet, commented:

The Roc as a free gun fighter with an excellent multi-gun turret is more than superior to the Skua; it offers the only chance of effective action against an enemy aircraft of equal or superior performance.

Explanation follows:

To be effective, the fixed gun fighter must have a superior performance and, unless vastly superior, is confined in attack to a limited arc of approach, thus making the defensive armouring of the enemy comparatively easy. Fleet Air Arm fighters are unlikely to have such superiority and it is therefore recommended that such fighters should in future be either wholly free gun turret fighters or perhaps fitted with one large calibre fixed gun in addition.

 

This was the "official" theory before the Norwegian campaign.

[EwenS]

On 31/07/2022 at 12:11, ClaudioN said:

Incredible as it may seem, there was a measure of rationality in the Roc design philosophy as a turret fighter.

As late as February 1940, Admiral Forbes, C-in-C of the Home Fleet, commented:

The Roc as a free gun fighter with an excellent multi-gun turret is more than superior to the Skua; it offers the only chance of effective action against an enemy aircraft of equal or superior performance.

Explanation follows:

To be effective, the fixed gun fighter must have a superior performance and, unless vastly superior, is confined in attack to a limited arc of approach, thus making the defensive armouring of the enemy comparatively easy. Fleet Air Arm fighters are unlikely to have such superiority and it is therefore recommended that such fighters should in future be either wholly free gun turret fighters or perhaps fitted with one large calibre fixed gun in addition.

 

This was the "official" theory before the Norwegian campaign.

And by the end of 1939 the RN had reassessed its future fighter needs and the various designs submitted to meet Specs N.8/39 (two seat fighter to succeed the Fulmar) and N.9/39 (a turret fighter to succeed the Roc) issued in July 1939. All the designs submitted for both Specs were rejected. And the whole idea of a new turret fighter rejected.

 

Companies were then asked for new designs for a single seat and a two seat fighter to be based around the same airframe.

 

In Jan 1940 there was a meeting with the companies who submitted revised designs and the following were chosen:-

1. A two seat fighter by Fairey that was then developed into the Firefly under a new Spec 5/40/F calling for a speed of 350mph; and 

2. A proposal from Blackburn for a single seat fighter with a Bristol Hercules engine was considered to have enough promise to be developed further under a new Spec N.11/40 dated Aug 1940 with the Sabre engine and a speed over 400mph. And so was born the Firebrand.

 

So by the time he made his statement in Feb 1940, Forbes was well out of touch with those responsible for the future of Naval Aviation in the RN.