Merchant Navy Swordfish

[Graham Boak]

I saw that as a standard carrier for a lighter bomb, I'd expect to see a heavier carrier and additional supports for a long heavy store such as a torpedo.  Which would also block the window, and need to be detachable for all the other missions expected of a Fleet TSR.  So this carrier could also be readably detachable.

 

[Dave Swindell]

 

1 hour ago, occa said:

OK but what for are the rails that reach behind that panel on the sides ?

My question was also meant in general not specifically to the Merchant version

 

Sorry @occa, that was a quick reply about that particular installation whilst I went away and dug out reference books for your more general question. The panel is a sliding hatch and was fitted to all Swordfish.

2 hours ago, occa said:

Was there a window behind the sliding panel ?

I'm fairly sure there wasn't a window behind the panel, partly because of all the mounting gear that could pass through the panel for securing to (presumably) the fuselage longerons and crossmembers, and partly because of the glass wind deflector which can be seen hinged up inside the fuselage just forward of the sliding hatch. When the hatch was open, this could be hinged down into the slipstream to deflect it away from the open hatch. If the fuselage behind the hatch was glazed there would be no need for a wind deflector.

1 hour ago, Seahawk said:

My understanding is that the sliding hatch covers the bomb-aiming window, which would not be required when the torpedo crutches are installed because the pilot aimed the torpedo himself.  Given this is a RP-armed Mk.II, I'm surprised to see the torpedo crutches still in place. 

The hatch is there for high level bomb aiming, but as explained above I think window is a misnomer, it would be more accurate to call it an opening or aperture. The object attached through the hatch is a standard bomb carrier, the torpedo crutches aren't fitted in this picture. The forward crutch located on the two spigots visible just inboard of the forward undercarriage legs, the aft crutch located just inboard of the catapult spools / just outboard of the aft edge of the sliding hatch. The torpedo (or sea mine as sometimes carried in it's place) was secured to the release gear which was attached to a beam that ran on the centreline between the two crutches, and the release operating mechanism actuating cables ran through the same holes in the sliding hatch as those for the standard bomb carrier shown in the photo. In either case, if fitted, the sliding hatch couldn't be operated, and as you state, aiming would be done by the pilot.

 

14 hours ago, dogsbody said:

 

Excellent photo's @dogsbody, thanks to Carl and yourself for posting them, I've not seen photo's showing the standard bomb carrier fitted on the centreline station, let alone in such clarity.

The damage happened on Boxing Day (26th December) 1943, and was photographed after arrival off the Imperial Oil Wharf, Halifax in January 1944 (Sturtivant, The Swordfish Story pp 132/133)

[DCRanger]

Is it a bomb rack or is it for an external fuel tank?

[Dave Swindell]

8 minutes ago, DCRanger said:

Is it a bomb rack or is it for an external fuel tank?

Standard bomb carrier

[Seahawk]

2 hours ago, Dave Swindell said:

I'm fairly sure there wasn't a window behind the panel, partly because of all the mounting gear that could pass through the panel for securing to (presumably) the fuselage longerons and crossmembers, and partly because of the glass wind deflector which can be seen hinged up inside the fuselage just forward of the sliding hatch. When the hatch was open, this could be hinged down into the slipstream to deflect it away from the open hatch. If the fuselage behind the hatch was glazed there would be no need for a wind deflector.

The hatch is there for high level bomb aiming, but as explained above I think window is a misnomer, it would be more accurate to call it an opening or aperture. The object attached through the hatch is a standard bomb carrier, the torpedo crutches aren't fitted in this picture. The forward crutch located on the two spigots visible just inboard of the forward undercarriage legs, the aft crutch located just inboard of the catapult spools / just outboard of the aft edge of the sliding hatch. The torpedo (or sea mine as sometimes carried in it's place) was secured to the release gear which was attached to a beam that ran on the centreline between the two crutches, and the release operating mechanism actuating cables ran through the same holes in the sliding hatch as those for the standard bomb carrier shown in the photo. In either case, if fitted, the sliding hatch couldn't be operated, and as you state, aiming would be done by the pilot.

All makes sense to me.  A moment's reflection would have shown the idea that such a light rack was for carriage of a torpedo to be utterly fatuous. 

 

But what was it for?   My recollection of Brand's book is that these aircraft were flown as 2-seaters with the Observer moving aft into the TAG's position, suggesting that the long-range fuel tank was fitted behind the pilot.  My only 2 ideas are the torpedo-shaped long-range tank as a further aid to endurance or a single depth charge to back up the RPs. but, with such small flight decks, all efforts would surely have been made to minimise take-off weight.  Having already thrown out one daft idea today, I have to say I don't really find either idea convincing

[EwenS]

Could the bomb rack be for the carriage of the Mark 24 Fido Mine/acoustic torpedo? It was designed for carriage on a normal US bomb rack. Weight 680lbs, length 84 inches. So about half the size of a conventional torpedo. Not sure if the Swordfish ever carried them.

 

Which Mark was Brand flying? 836 operated Mk.III from Dec 1944 with the big radar between the undercarriage legs. That model had the observer’s cockpit filled with the radar black boxes. That displaced the observer to the TAG cockpit and the aircraft was flown as a two seater, with the observer having to become a contortionist to operate the radio.

[stevehnz]

5 hours ago, Seahawk said:

I'm surprised to see the torpedo crutches still in place.  Can't think of anything else that would be fitted to it. 

Depth charge? In reading Escort Carrier recently, it seems they often carried 3 depth charges & I'd guess the third one on the centre line station. Perhaps

Steve.

[Dave Swindell]

1 hour ago, Seahawk said:

All makes sense to me.  A moment's reflection would have shown the idea that such a light rack was for carriage of a torpedo to be utterly fatuous. 

 

But what was it for?   My recollection of Brand's book is that these aircraft were flown as 2-seaters with the Observer moving aft into the TAG's position, suggesting that the long-range fuel tank was fitted behind the pilot.  My only 2 ideas are the torpedo-shaped long-range tank as a further aid to endurance or a single depth charge to back up the RPs. but, with such small flight decks, all efforts would surely have been made to minimise take-off weight.  Having already thrown out one daft idea today, I have to say I don't really find either idea convincing

The only photo's I've seen with something on a centreline bomb rack show a single standard depth charge. I also found a photo what appeared to be a long range fuel tank mounted in the torpedo crutches, this would make sense as it could carry a larger load than a standard bomb carrier, but it was a trials aircraft with what appeared to be a Leigh light so it might have been a housing for the batteries for this. I don't recall any other long range tanks apart from the "Taranto" tanks fitted over the Observers position.

 

Regarding crew members, I believe on convoy protection they often flew solo to extend the range, and armament restricted to markers (smoke floats/flares) the object being to keep the aircraft airborne patrolling over the convoy for as long as possible and to mark any suspicious contacts for the escorts to deal with. The aim wasn't to sink U-boats, rather to keep them submerged and away from the convoy. 

 

One point I've never determined is where the ASV radar sets were mounted on the MkII Swordfish, it's clearly not in the same position as illustrated on the MkIII above the observers station.

[dogsbody]

Proper thanks go to Carl Vincent, for sending me the photos to post here. 

 

I'm just acting as a image posting service. Do you thank Flickr, Postimages or Imgur when you post your photos here?

 

I'm more than happy to do it for Carl. You should see the large cache of images on my 'puter that Carl has sent me in the last year.

 

 

 

Chris

[JWM]

I have found a color profile of Swordfish fro 836 Sq, however photos do not support roundels on bottom wing shown there. Interesting are colors of nose art (red)

http://www.wings-aviation.ch/32-FAA/2-Aircraft/Fairey-Swordfish/836-1944.png

taken from here http://www.wings-aviation.ch/32-FAA/4-Sqn/836.htm

 

whereas sometimes it is shown EDSG (Worpaint No 12)

Regards

J-W

 

 

 

 

[AltcarBoB]

Not much room to hit the arrestor wires on the MAC ships. 😨

[dogsbody]

While looking through my picture files on the 'puter, I found this. Apparently, i saved it from somewhere, to show the Yagi aerial on the wing strut. I noticed it had familiar nose art.

 

 

 

 

Chris

[dogsbody]

Some more from Carl:

 

 

"  While not of great value as far as aircraft detail goes, this photograph may be of interest. It was taken from an RCAF aircraft of EAC and shows a MAC-ship (identity/date/position unknown) in an operational environment. Also of interest, the convoy appears to be composed entirely/almost entirely of tankers. As most of the MAC-ships were basically tankers with flight decks, its inclusion in this convoy makes sense. "

 

 

 

 

Chris, for Carl

[dogsbody]

After looking around and finding this site https://www.hazegray.org/navhist/carriers/uk_mac.htm , I think the above MAC ship is Ancylus, as that forward deck ID looks like it's MF.

 

 

 

 

Chris

[Dave Swindell]

12 hours ago, dogsbody said:

to show the Yagi aerial on the wing strut.

Hi Chris, not sure whether this was intended as a response to my query about ASV sets, just to be clear it's the location and distribution of the kit in the fuselage that I'm looking for. The position of the aerials on the outer struts and wing centre section are shown in photo's including the one you've posted, which also shows there would be a distinct lack of room in the fuselage for the equipment boxes with 3 crew members on board. The photo also clearly shows the "anti splits strop" fitted between the main undercarriage wheels to prevent total undercarriage collapse after a heavy arrival on board a small heaving carrier.

[dogsbody]

7 hours ago, Dave Swindell said:

Hi Chris, not sure whether this was intended as a response to my query about ASV sets, just to be clear it's the location and distribution of the kit in the fuselage that I'm looking for. The position of the aerials on the outer struts and wing centre section are shown in photo's including the one you've posted, which also shows there would be a distinct lack of room in the fuselage for the equipment boxes with 3 crew members on board. The photo also clearly shows the "anti splits strop" fitted between the main undercarriage wheels to prevent total undercarriage collapse after a heavy arrival on board a small heaving carrier.

 

No, I posted it to show the similar nose art to the photo in the second reply in this topic.

 

 

 

Chris