Fairey Battle and her modifications

If anyone have book " Battle File " of Sidney Shail can see where is mentioned proposed twin engine battle.
 
airman said:
If anyone have book " Battle File " of Sidney Shail can see where is mentioned proposed twin engine battle.
Click to expand...
Indeed, as do others. However none provide a primary source and more than likely all rely on Huntley's comments. Greg Baughen, in 'The Fairey Battle: a reassessment of its RAF career", notes that there is no mention of such a project in the official Fairey drawing register, which certainly raises more than a few questions.
 
Schneiderman said:
Indeed, as do others. However none provide a primary source and more than likely all rely on Huntley's comments. Greg Baughen, in 'The Fairey Battle: a reassessment of its RAF career", notes that there is no mention of such a project in the official Fairey drawing register, which certainly raises more than a few questions.
Click to expand...
So consideer that Ian Huntley is an archivist that probably had accessed to Farey and he worked for Farey. So additional sources can be useful.
 
airman said:
So consideer that Ian Huntley is an archivist that probably had accessed to Farey and he worked for Farey. So additional sources can be useful.
Click to expand...
Indeed, yet several of his articles are erroneous to the extent of being fantasy, and his desire to portray Richard Fairey as a far-sighted innovator prevented from fulfilling his visions by blinkered officials hardly stands up to scrutiny.
 
Schneiderman said:
Indeed, yet several of his articles are erroneous to the extent of being fantasy, and his desire to portray Richard Fairey as a far-sighted innovator prevented from fulfilling his visions by blinkered officials hardly stands up to scrutiny.
Click to expand...
If speculations are based on real proposed versions i like it .
 
Do we know anyhing about the first image posted in Post#1 ?
It -looks -'Official' . . .

cheers,
Robin.
 
robunos said:
Do we know anyhing about the first image posted in Post#1 ?
It -looks -'Official' . . .

cheers,
Robin.
Click to expand...
Really? Looks like something sketched on the back of a fag packet to me. Very different from their standard GA drawings
 
Schneiderman said:
Really? Looks like something sketched on the back of a fag packet to me. Very different from their standard GA drawings
Click to expand...
There's a long history of official designs initially sketched on the back of a fag packet! From personal experience, problem reports on the in-house change management system at GMAv Rochester were called Basic Overview of Functional Problem, but that wasn't what the acronym initially stood for ;)

More seriously, if and when Fairey talked about a twin-engined Battle, could he really have meant a Battle with the two halves of a Monarch?
 
Schneiderman said:
Really? Looks like something sketched on the back of a fag packet to me. Very different from their standard GA drawings
Click to expand...

That's why I was asking, I can see it's not a works drawing. I was thinking along the lines of a sketch to show the 'Man from the Ministry', or sent to the aeronautical press, to try to drum up some interest,along the lines of 'we're looking at a twin engined Battle. If we built it, this is what it would look like.'

cheers,
Robin.
 
robunos said:
That's why I was asking, I can see it's not a works drawing. I was thinking along the lines of a sketch to show the 'Man from the Ministry', or sent to the aeronautical press, to try to drum up some interest,along the lines of 'we're looking at a twin engined Battle. If we built it, this is what it would look like.'

cheers,
Robin.
Click to expand...
Many concepts would indeed have started life this way, but if their intention was to convince the Air Staff that their Specification needed to undergo a radical change I suggest that something far more professional would have been required. Preferably without the minor but rather odd error (I'll let you spot that)
 
After a game of "spot the difference" I found the minor error, but I've seen worse errors on GA drawings before.

The two sketches look a little rougher around the edges, they do look much more conceptual in nature. The GA drawing looks genuine to me, the dimensions seem to be properly scaled etc. If it is a fake, then a draughtsman/someone who knew what they were doing must have drawn it (it predates the digital era at any rate).
I feel anyone could have doodled the two sketches though.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom