I remember looking at one in a book with my father commenting on it and thinking how big and ungainly it was and that it couldn't of gone very well. Sadly this was confirmed to me as I read the performance stats.
The Roc shot down one German bomber and damaged three more. No Roc was lost to enemy aircraft, the only combat loss of a Roc was a single one to flak while dive-bombing a German gun emplacement near Calais. Thus the Roc could be said to have the best aerial loss ratio of any British fighter of WW2! 😃 A few points about the video - It was the Navy that were all for the turret fighter concept. As late as February 1940, Admiral Forbes, C-in-C of the Home Fleet called for all future Navy fighters to have turrets. The files in the public record office show that it was the Air Ministry who were increasingly against the Roc's use. They would happily have cancelled it, or at the very least seen them handed over to the RAF as training aircraft. There is an enduring myth that the Royal Navy had little say in what aircraft it used. On the contrary, the Navy set the doctrine and specified the type of aircraft it wanted. You have to remember that the Navy had decided it didn’t need traditional fighters. Instead, the Fleet was expected to defend itself with AA fire alone. To this end, millions had been spent on converting and building “anti-aircraft cruisers” to defend the fleet. The only role for fighters was to ward off any slow, fleet-shadowing floatplanes that could stay outside the range of the AA barrage. Hence the dual-role spotter and fighter Roc. The video says, “on paper, the Roc had …. more powerful armament than the Skua.” - How so? The Roc had 4 browning machine guns with 600 rounds per gun, the Skua also had 4 forward-firing Browning machine guns with 600 rounds per gun, but it also had a Lewis gun in the rear cockpit with six 96-round magazines. The video says the Roc could carry two 250-pound bombs and eight “practice” bombs. The light series carriers under the Rocs wings carried eight 25-pound Cooper bombs - very real, deadly bombs that the skua and Roc both used in combat. The Boulton-Paul P85 was not simply the Defiant with a radial engine - it was a much larger aircraft with space for a third crewman between the pilot and gunner (see Les Whithouse’s book on Boulton Paul for details). The video says the Perseus engine was “old” dating from 1932 - The first prototype Perseus was indeed, first built in 1932, but it only gave 515 horsepower and for the next few years were only used in a few prototype and test aircraft while it was being developed. The Perseus XII used in the Skua and Roc only got into production in 1938/39 and gave 905 horsepower, very respectable for the time (the contemporary Merlin III gave 1,000 horsepower). The Perseus was only produced in any real numbers for civil use after 1939 when the Short C30 Empire flying boat and DH95 Flamingo started using them. - The Roc chasing the Heinkel floatplane back to France was not forced to retreat due to German Flak, the Roc pilot’s account of the incident (published in the RAF Flying review in October 1961) makes no mention of any German flak, instead he says he was running out of fuel, having just had to switch over to the reserve fuel tank in the nose.
@@neiloflongbeck5705 Just NO. Same thing with the forward windscreen. It's just not true. The glare is, in fact, even worse than with a very flat backward slope. Where are the lights that reflect. On the ground, right. The more sky you have in the screen the less reflections there will be.
Interesting the 2 man fighting scout hung on so long in the Royal Navy FAA, the concept went out with the biplane with the USN and IJN. Jeez, expecting it to carry floats along with the extra ton of turret it was already expected to lug around. All of that being pulled through the air with about 800hp which made the Skua already extremely anemic.
What comes as a surprise is that no prototype was built for The Blackburn Roc. As would normally be the case with any new type of aircraft like The Hurricane and The Spitfire as well as The Legendary Lancaster Bomber.
On turret fighters generally, I only knew the Boulton Paul Defiant and never realized that there were other designs to this specification. Smarter again thanks to Rory.
They made a series of highly successful and influential torpedo-carrying naval aircraft - The Dart, Ripon and Baffin. Their Shark, when fitted with the Pegasus engine, was in many ways superior to the Swordfish, only being dropped because it used up too much scarce aluminium. Their B-2 trainer, a metal rival to the Tiger Moth, trained many RAF Battle-of-Britain Pilots. Don't forget the Beverley (although that was initially designed by General Aircraft). Blackburn built huge numbers of other companies designs - They built 42 Siskin IIs, 1,700 Fairey Swordfish, 635 Fairey Barracudas, 250 short Sunderland Flying boats, 125 Percival Prentices and 30 Boulton Paul Balliols. They were also major subcontractors for parts of other aircraft. As canny Yorkshiremen, they stayed in business as an independent company longer than their more-well known rivals.
Yet strangely came up with the very successful Buccaneer later on. All that work that went into those things only for them to fail so badly. What a waste of energy and resources, I always think, just for killing each other.
good to find out that the turret machine guns had interrupter gear. t'was something i had wondered about when i first saw such a thing. i will go on to assume that the Defiant's turret also had interrupters.
9:40 is this just some weird angle or did the prop rotate counter to most piston singles? Looking at the prop blade angles I first thought the image must be mirrored, but the writing is the right way.
The biggest problem was that the Blackburn Roc was nowhere capable of redeeming itself due to the use of a radial engine. At least with the Boulton-Paul Defiant, had that plane been fitted with a much more powerful Rolls-Royce Merlin 45 or even 61 engine, at least could have gotten the top speed to around 370 mph (595 km/h), which would have made it at least a decent bomber interceptor had the turret's original four 0.303 machine gun installation was replaced by a two 20 mm Hispano cannon installation.
1939 winter war. Brits offered Roc to Finns and we turned it down. They even painted Finnish insignias one of them. We gladly took Blenheim ls &lVs and Hurricane mark 1s.
So, not only did Boulton-Paul's design get rejected, they were forced to build their competitor's winning design. Talk about adding insult to injury. Meanwhile, the board rooms of Vickers, Supermarine, Hawker and Avro must have echoed to their directors pissing themselves laughing.
Bouton Paul, war or no war, I would have told them to go fish. Why bother with a design not made here. Never in any of my companies. Selfish, yes, logical, also yes, mean, again yes.
Take one hideous plane with questionable performance, add loads more weight, what could possibly go wrong? The least the could have done was swap the Perseus engine for a Hercules.
The Blackburn Roc, just like the other turret fighters, was ot expected to go toe to toe with enemy fighters. There was no such aircraft as the Me.109 or Me.110. Both were built by Bayerische Flugzeugwerke AG (which had the RLM designation of Bf). Only after the name of the company was changed to Messerschmidt in July 1938 did tge designation change to Me. The last designation to carry the Bf designation was the Bf.163 which first flew in February1938.
I hear 'flying failures', think Blackburn and then hear Blackburn. Makes my day.
I remember looking at one in a book with my father commenting on it and thinking how big and ungainly it was and that it couldn't of gone very well. Sadly this was confirmed to me as I read the performance stats.
Buccaneer?
It speaks volumes that this thing had a long duel with He 59 ending in a draw, He 59 being a biplane looking more at home in WW1
One aerial victory? I'm actually impressed
I'm sure the Luftwaffe liked it.
At least B-P's Defiant was a pretty plane...
The Roc shot down one German bomber and damaged three more. No Roc was lost to enemy aircraft, the only combat loss of a Roc was a single one to flak while dive-bombing a German gun emplacement near Calais. Thus the Roc could be said to have the best aerial loss ratio of any British fighter of WW2! 😃 A few points about the video - It was the Navy that were all for the turret fighter concept. As late as February 1940, Admiral Forbes, C-in-C of the Home Fleet called for all future Navy fighters to have turrets. The files in the public record office show that it was the Air Ministry who were increasingly against the Roc's use. They would happily have cancelled it, or at the very least seen them handed over to the RAF as training aircraft. There is an enduring myth that the Royal Navy had little say in what aircraft it used. On the contrary, the Navy set the doctrine and specified the type of aircraft it wanted. You have to remember that the Navy had decided it didn’t need traditional fighters. Instead, the Fleet was expected to defend itself with AA fire alone. To this end, millions had been spent on converting and building “anti-aircraft cruisers” to defend the fleet. The only role for fighters was to ward off any slow, fleet-shadowing floatplanes that could stay outside the range of the AA barrage. Hence the dual-role spotter and fighter Roc. The video says, “on paper, the Roc had …. more powerful armament than the Skua.” - How so? The Roc had 4 browning machine guns with 600 rounds per gun, the Skua also had 4 forward-firing Browning machine guns with 600 rounds per gun, but it also had a Lewis gun in the rear cockpit with six 96-round magazines. The video says the Roc could carry two 250-pound bombs and eight “practice” bombs. The light series carriers under the Rocs wings carried eight 25-pound Cooper bombs - very real, deadly bombs that the skua and Roc both used in combat. The Boulton-Paul P85 was not simply the Defiant with a radial engine - it was a much larger aircraft with space for a third crewman between the pilot and gunner (see Les Whithouse’s book on Boulton Paul for details). The video says the Perseus engine was “old” dating from 1932 - The first prototype Perseus was indeed, first built in 1932, but it only gave 515 horsepower and for the next few years were only used in a few prototype and test aircraft while it was being developed. The Perseus XII used in the Skua and Roc only got into production in 1938/39 and gave 905 horsepower, very respectable for the time (the contemporary Merlin III gave 1,000 horsepower). The Perseus was only produced in any real numbers for civil use after 1939 when the Short C30 Empire flying boat and DH95 Flamingo started using them. - The Roc chasing the Heinkel floatplane back to France was not forced to retreat due to German Flak, the Roc pilot’s account of the incident (published in the RAF Flying review in October 1961) makes no mention of any German flak, instead he says he was running out of fuel, having just had to switch over to the reserve fuel tank in the nose.
A wind screen like they never ever heard of 'aerodynamics'.
With an airframe like that… no 🏴
Borrowed from a Model T Ford
It would reduce internal reflections.
@@neiloflongbeck5705 Just NO. Same thing with the forward windscreen. It's just not true. The glare is, in fact, even worse than with a very flat backward slope. Where are the lights that reflect. On the ground, right. The more sky you have in the screen the less reflections there will be.
@drstevenrey that's tge reason for control tower windows leaning outward. Plus very few lights in the sea at night.
Interesting the 2 man fighting scout hung on so long in the Royal Navy FAA, the concept went out with the biplane with the USN and IJN. Jeez, expecting it to carry floats along with the extra ton of turret it was already expected to lug around. All of that being pulled through the air with about 800hp which made the Skua already extremely anemic.
What comes as a surprise is that no prototype was built for The Blackburn Roc. As would normally be the case with any new type of aircraft like The Hurricane and The Spitfire as well as The Legendary Lancaster Bomber.
On turret fighters generally, I only knew the Boulton Paul Defiant and never realized that there were other designs to this specification. Smarter again thanks to Rory.
Same here. Indeed, thank you.
The Boulton Paul Defiant should have been chosen it could have been reworked into forwarded firing version for the RN as well
Having watched a few documentaries on Blackburn it would seem the ONLY decent aircraft they ever made was the Buccaneer
They made a series of highly successful and influential torpedo-carrying naval aircraft - The Dart, Ripon and Baffin. Their Shark, when fitted with the Pegasus engine, was in many ways superior to the Swordfish, only being dropped because it used up too much scarce aluminium. Their B-2 trainer, a metal rival to the Tiger Moth, trained many RAF Battle-of-Britain Pilots. Don't forget the Beverley (although that was initially designed by General Aircraft). Blackburn built huge numbers of other companies designs - They built 42 Siskin IIs, 1,700 Fairey Swordfish, 635 Fairey Barracudas, 250 short Sunderland Flying boats, 125 Percival Prentices and 30 Boulton Paul Balliols. They were also major subcontractors for parts of other aircraft. As canny Yorkshiremen, they stayed in business as an independent company longer than their more-well known rivals.
The windscreen WTF
Go for t he Boulton Paul ! .. Go for the Boulton Paul ! .. We prefer the ROC ! .. grabbed failure from the jaws of Victory..
Yet strangely came up with the very successful Buccaneer later on. All that work that went into those things only for them to fail so badly. What a waste of energy and resources, I always think, just for killing each other.
Interesting video - thanks!
Quite an advanced design concept. It was designed to make the luftwaffe laugh themselves out of the sky. It only worked once
Pilot: "what is it called?"
Leader: "the Roc"
Pilot: "hmm, I say it flies like one. Well named indeed."
good to find out that the turret machine guns had interrupter gear.
t'was something i had wondered about when i first saw such a thing.
i will go on to assume that the Defiant's turret also had interrupters.
The Roc should have been marketed as a dive bomber than a fighter with its prickly defensive turret , it could have made something of itself
They could have just left the Skua alone and kept it for its original role.
9:40 is this just some weird angle or did the prop rotate counter to most piston singles? Looking at the prop blade angles I first thought the image must be mirrored, but the writing is the right way.
I wonder whether those people at the Air Ministry later worked for British Railways - the men from the ministry know best!!
Scathing! 😂 My goodness, almost as if Ruairidh had a personal score to settle with the type. 😂
Is the Bristol Brabazon going to be in the series at some point
The biggest problem was that the Blackburn Roc was nowhere capable of redeeming itself due to the use of a radial engine. At least with the Boulton-Paul Defiant, had that plane been fitted with a much more powerful Rolls-Royce Merlin 45 or even 61 engine, at least could have gotten the top speed to around 370 mph (595 km/h), which would have made it at least a decent bomber interceptor had the turret's original four 0.303 machine gun installation was replaced by a two 20 mm Hispano cannon installation.
when you expect roc(k) and roll and gets elevator music....
Am I correct in thinking the Roc used a Single Row Radial?
He said 9-cylinder sleeve valve radial so… you can’t have two rows with an odd number of total cylinders.
1939 winter war. Brits offered Roc to Finns and we turned it down. They even painted Finnish insignias one of them. We gladly took Blenheim ls &lVs and Hurricane mark 1s.
Managing to be worse than the Defiant is an impressive achievement in all the worst ways.
3:47 "Aerodynamics".
So, not only did Boulton-Paul's design get rejected, they were forced to build their competitor's winning design. Talk about adding insult to injury.
Meanwhile, the board rooms of Vickers, Supermarine, Hawker and Avro must have echoed to their directors pissing themselves laughing.
Windscreen taken from Rear windscreen Late 50s full size Mercury? Nice Fullsize Vehicles. USA!
Photos are Excellent.
The sad thing is that they didn't just build more skua.
Generally with planes of it looked right, it is and this doesn’t 😂
They say that if a plane looks good then it probably flies well. This thing seems to prove the opposite to be true as well.
Still, The Roc went on to become a big hollywood actor, so it has that going for it. Plane "The Roc" Johnson.
Gud vid.
It’s true what they say, if it looks right it is but, as in this case, it just looked a mess 🏴 the Roc was Skua’d.
Death Metal Roc
- Hush Kit
Blackburn Rock..
Death Metal Roc
Ive never understood why the Brits didn't go over to manufacturing largely superior US designs during WW2
Ah Boulton Paul... their "Defiant" was about as succesful ...😊
I see this as customer error. Blackburn built what yhe customer wanted, its just the customer wanted something stupid.
If it looks good, it flies........ nevermind.
Bouton Paul, war or no war, I would have told them to go fish. Why bother with a design not made here. Never in any of my companies. Selfish, yes, logical, also yes, mean, again yes.
Take one hideous plane with questionable performance, add loads more weight, what could possibly go wrong?
The least the could have done was swap the Perseus engine for a Hercules.
If it looks right it flies right..... this was just downright ugly.
The Blackburn Roc, just like the other turret fighters, was ot expected to go toe to toe with enemy fighters.
There was no such aircraft as the Me.109 or Me.110. Both were built by Bayerische Flugzeugwerke AG (which had the RLM designation of Bf). Only after the name of the company was changed to Messerschmidt in July 1938 did tge designation change to Me. The last designation to carry the Bf designation was the Bf.163 which first flew in February1938.