You have served in the Royal Navy?It's really exciting!Do you have any airticle about it?Or,could you please send some photos about your logbook and your service in the military?I'm really interested in your experience.
Bob Chambers, e-mail, 03.11.2016 16:55
The Barracuda had two large clear panels in both the wing roots. Can anyone shed any light on what they were for? Viewing panels to look out of? or to look into from the ground?
Michael Ponting, e-mail, 28.05.2016 21:37
Anyone out there who remembers Maurice Coote....air gunner/wireless operator who flew in Barracudas 1944/45
Michael Ponting, e-mail, 08.05.2016 17:18
I live next door to an ex observer/airgunner who was operational in a Barra in 1941 onwards.....I'll get some of his views...watch this space...he's 90 now
Klaatu83, e-mail, 29.04.2016 04:46
"It wasn't originally designed primarily as a torpedo bomber OR a dive bomber. It's primary role was as a spotter/reconnaissance aircraft - hence the lavish views accorded to the observer. The pilot was merely the chauffeur." Actually, the Barracuda was designed to fulfill the Royal Navy's specification for a "Torpedo/Spotter/Reconnaissance" aircraft. It was the same specification that the Fairey Swordfish and Fairey Albacore had been designed to satisfy. British aircraft carriers had stowage space for a limited number of aircraft, so those aircraft had to be multi-role aircraft. For that reason, the Blackburn Skua was designed to serve both as a fighter and a dive-bomber, while the Fairey Fulmer Fleet Fighter carried a navigator in order to serve as both a fighter and a reconnaissance plane. By the same token, the Barracuda was intended to serve as a reconnaissance plane, an anti-submarine plane, a torpedo plane, a dive-bomber and as an observation plane from which to direct the gunfire of the fleet's battleships. I understand that Barracudas never actually used torpedoes in anger during WW-II, but that they carried out a great deal of dive-bombing and anti-submarine work.
R Bovill, e-mail, 06.03.2015 12:34
I first flew the Barracuda 2 in a non operational squadron during the war and afterwards in 815 squadron from Eglinton NI in an anti-submarine role. It was underpowered - very noticeable on take off with depth charges under each wing. However once the gear was up it climbed away quite well. I found it easy to fly and enjoyed my time in the squadron. The 'Barra' certainly was not the horror it was described as elsewhere as most who have actually flown it will testify. Those who criticise without having actually flown it should pipe down. With over 40 different marks and types of aircraft in my logbook I have flown far worse.
Marcus Mowbray, e-mail, 03.02.2015 19:30
My father enjoyed his time in a Barracuda as a trainee Observer/Navigator. He liked standing up behind the pilot when diving. The pilot was supposed to concentrate on the target, the O/N's job was to look out for on-coming enemy ammunition or planes and advise the pilot which way to turn to avoid it. Not a great plane but it did play a part.
VinceReeves, 05.03.2013 21:02
The Barracuda was a pretty good aircraft, and was very effective against enemy shipping - 40,000 tonnes sunk off Norway in 1944-45.
It wasn't originally designed primarily as a torpedo bomber OR a dive bomber. It's primary role was as a spotter/reconnaissance aircraft - hence the lavish views accorded to the observer. The pilot was merely the chauffeur.
ksquared, e-mail, 03.10.2012 20:07
Was the Barracuda actually designed as a torpedo bomber - or was it optimised for dive bombing? I recall comments from a test pilot of note (Winkle Brown?)indicating that it excelled as a dive bomber by virtue of speed stability in a steep dive. Did the RN abandon dive bombing after its early success with a Skua strike against the German cruiser Konigsberg? If an aircraft is used for roles it was not optimised for problems are to be expected.
Kristin Ann High, e-mail, 11.09.2012 16:30
The Barracuda was a far superior Dive Bomber than any of the aircraft mentioned here in direct comparison. It was superior in every respect to the Swordfish except perhaps as a trainer. It could carry and tremendous warload at appreciable ranges and was far more rugged than the Jap aircraft cited (Jill). Improperly flying any aircraft will crash it---witness the many "far superior" Avengers in the waters of Lake Michigan or off Hawaii. The one time it flew on operations against the Jap 1st Mobile Fleet WITHOUT air superiority, the much-lauded Avenger was shot out of the sky without scoring a single torpedo hit. Of course, there were only 12 of them, flown by inexperienced crews, against experienced enemy single-engine fighters. Maximum IAS for the Mk.II/III was 235 mph, maximum continuous cruise was 193 mph, and economical cruise was 172 mph (149 knots). Capt. Brown puts the cruise at 160 knots (185 mph), considerably above that Mr. Ward flew at; Captain Brown seems also to have been able to employ the Barracuda in a Dive without finding it "positively dangerous". The Barracuda was a better warplane than the Helldiver (which was also designed to carry a torpedo), a poorer airplane than the Avenger, but certainly not the worst warplane flown by the FAA during the war.
aub, e-mail, 25.10.2011 07:24
If you see the article in.the Newcatle Journal - A company in North Shieldds is renovating parts salvaged from far & wide so as the build a specimen for RNAS Yeovil
deaftom, e-mail, 25.03.2011 04:02
There is an anecdote--true or not, I don't know--that during the war, an recently-arrived American pilot happened to see a Barracuda parked on the apron of the airfield. He walked up to and around it, examining it silently. Finally he said, "Well, it's very interesting, but it'll never replace the airplane!"
Klaatu83, e-mail, 05.03.2011 16:11
By the time these aircraft became operational with the Royal Navy, the infinitely better Grumman Avenger had already been in combat for over a year, while Japanese Navy crews were receiving the far-superior Nakajima B6N Tenzan ("Jill"). Under the circumstances, one cannot help but feel sorry for the unfortunate FAA crews delegated to fly these slow and clumsy monsters!
John Beavin, e-mail, 21.02.2011 10:30
It amazes me that 2500 of these horrible abortions were built, where were they all used?
Michael F. Shull, e-mail, 13.10.2010 22:30
I am building a model of the Barracuda prototype and need to know if the shape ( planform ) of the horizontal tail was the same on the prototypeas the raised tail used later.
Stephen Gash, e-mail, 14.02.2010 13:29
Fairey had designed an engine called the Monarch which was very powerful, but didn't go into production. The Rolls Royce Exe never went into production either, even though it was apprently reliable. If either of these engines had been installed in the Barracuda or the Battle, then their stories might have been more favourable. The most lamentable thing in British aviation is procurement. Those making the decisions wore blinkers.
Des Fforde, e-mail, 13.10.2009 19:13
I'm just reading 'Barracuda Pilot, by Dunstan Hadley. He flew the Barracuda and speaks well of it. A lot harder to fly than a Swordfish! but rewarding.
Leo Rudnicki, e-mail, 27.05.2009 22:59
During the war there was considerable secrecy regarding FAA equipment, to prevent embarassment over the total lack of effort or priority. the Barracuda's Tirpitz attack was the first reported use, one of many successful attacks on the Tirpitz. It's operational debut was delayed somewhat by 5 aircraft flipping into the ocean during practise torpedo attacks. Winkle Brown was called in, tried the procedure at altitude, recovered, and reported. This was on PRODUCTION Barracudas. Yes, the Barracuda was as good as it looked. Congrats, Mr. Ward on your survival. Apparently, the FAA Museum has wreckage of two examples. How apt!
Eddy Taylor, e-mail, 27.05.2009 20:27
The Barracuda was first used operationally in September 1941 in raids from HMS Victorious on Kirkenes in northern Norway and on Petsamo in Finland.
Sorry, the raids in question above were on 30th/31st July and Albacores and Fulmars were involved
andy denney, e-mail, 09.06.2008 12:31
I have an old cockpit canopy for sale. Please contact me for further details
LEONA, e-mail, 18.12.2007 03:08
THIS IS OBVIOUSLY THE PLANE EVERYONE LOVES TO HATE...
Lee M Ward, e-mail, 26.04.2007 13:16
I forgot to mention the speed figures quoted. Although I am unfamiliar with km/h and only understand mph and knots, I can say that the figures quoted are quite wrong. If the Barra had been as fast as quoted it might have been something, but in fact it was overloaded and under-powered, and slow, slow, slow, among its other many faults.
Lee M Ward, e-mail, 26.04.2007 12:54
Our cruising speed in the Mk.III was 135knots. Take-off with full boost and rockets, unloaded, from the escort carrier Smiter, was only just achievable. As a replacement for the Swordfish it was a failure. The dive brakes when released were positively dangerous. Altogether, a dead- loss; perhaps that's why the navy do not have a single complete specimen in their museum - no thanks for the memory!
