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.If anyone have book " Battle File " of Sidney Shail can see where is mentioned proposed twin engine battle.
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.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.
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.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.
If speculations are based on real proposed versions i like it .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.
The key word is "If"If speculations are based on real proposed versions i like it .
Really? Looks like something sketched on the back of a fag packet to me. Very different from their standard GA drawingsDo we know anyhing about the first image posted in Post#1 ?
It -looks -'Official' . . .
cheers,
Robin.
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 forReally? Looks like something sketched on the back of a fag packet to me. Very different from their standard GA drawings
Really? Looks like something sketched on the back of a fag packet to me. Very different from their standard GA drawings
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)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.
That's not quite right. When Fairey was faced with the cancellation of Battle orders at its Stockport plant at the end of 1937, it put forward several options to turn the plant over to a Fairey design (rather than build another firm's aircraft). Four options were put to the Air Min in late 1937, but Air Member Research and Development Wilfrid Freeman was only vaguely interested in Option C - a twin Merlin Battle, calculated with a max speed of 297mph. Nothing came of it, Stockport going over to build the Fulmar (among other things). See National Archives AIR 6/32 Progress Meeting 11th January 1938OK, unless anyone can produce 'reliable' evidence to the contrary I do not believe that there ever was a Fairey project for a twin-engine Battle. The only source for the idea appears to be Ian Huntley, whose writings are hardly the most factual.