Earlier Sea Hurricane?

[BlueTrousers]

Never should have formed the RAF. The current Joint command is yet another patch to try to work around the rabid territory grabbing of the RAF. Does it really have a finest hour? The pilots could have done the same as RFC.

But they'd probably have had to do it in Gladiators and Lysanders, without the benefit of radar. The Smuts Report came out of the RFC's dismal failure at the air defence of Great Britain. A continued RFC is going to be of similar stature to the Royal Tank Corps, also formed in WW1 to handle newfangled machines, and we know how good their equipment and doctrine was in 1940-1941.

All of a sudden, I fear that Gladiators and Lysanders might be optimistic...

 

[PMN1]

2) The RAF decides that the Wellingtons built by Blackburn should replace the Anson in the General Reconnaissance role instead of the Botha and Hudson.

.

Did Blackburn make Wellingtons?

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Did Blackburn make Wellingtons?

No Blackburn made a aeroplane called the Botha IOTL, which was a failure. That is why with hindsight I think it should have built another aircraft. At present I think it should be a GR version of the Wellington. Another possible candidate is the Short Sunderland as Blackburn built Sunderlands later on IOTL. Though instead of 1:1 sawp it would be a 2 Bothas for one Sunderland swap.

IOTL the Air Ministry did consider placing an order for 64 Wellingtons with Gloster.

 

[yulzari]

The old 2 seater FAA fighter subject has reared it's head again I see.

The Admiralty wanted fighters for fleet defence and had always used single seaters for the role. They wanted 'sea' Spitfires since 1938 but could not get them.

The role of Skuas and Swordfish was for attacking enemy at sea in all weathers of the North Atlantic. For this they developed a secure homing system that required an operator to allow Skuas to operate in weather that would ground enemy aircraft. Whilst he was there anyway they gave him a gun. Hence his title Telegraphist Air Gunner.

When the only option open to the Admiralty was Fairey's offer to adapt their light bomber they made use of the existing second seat to allow the Fulmar to also benefit from the homing system. In the overall weight of the Fulmar the weight of the second crewman was very little and gave it a better chance of effective use in the recce role and a pair of rearward facing eyes.

Thus we can see that the FAA did not want a 2 seat fighter and had no policy to prefer one. However circumstances forced them to have a 2 seater and the second crew member did make a contribution to the usefulness of the Fulmar. The Firefly was, in it's role, a Skua replacement.

Clearly to get an early Sea Hurricane you need extra Hurricane production. The reality was that extra production would have been given to the RAF.

How about changing the direction of the question. Which is about a more effective FAA with some early POD. Now if you put a large proper anti warship AP bomb or two instead as a dive bomber, and ramp up Fulmar production (already late IOTL) using Battle engines, then you could equip the fleet carriers with an all Fulmar force that could both strike the enemy at sea and defend itself from air cover. Not perfect for either but the best is often the enemy of the good. IOTL the Fulmar could dive bomb with 500lb bomb.

Traditionally on this subject someone soon brings up a Sea Defiant.

 

[PMN1]

No Blackburn made a aeroplane called the Botha IOTL, which was a failure. That is why with hindsight I think it should have built another aircraft. At present I think it should be a GR version of the Wellington. Another possible candidate is the Short Sunderland as Blackburn built Sunderlands later on IOTL. Though instead of 1:1 sawp it would be a 2 Bothas for one Sunderland swap.

IOTL the Air Ministry did consider placing an order for 64 Wellingtons with Gloster.

Its the way you wrote it suggests that Blackburn did make Wellingtons.

WRT other companies making Wellingtons


In Wilfred Freeman:The Genius Behind Allied Survival and Air Supremacy 1939 to 1945 by Anthony Furze, it says on Page 87

'The obvious quality of the Wellington led to a firm decision to expand production, and a Wellington production group comprising Gloster, Austin and Armstrong Whitworth was planned. By May 1938, however, Vickers was still unable to release completed production drawings to the other firms, and Freeman realised that long delays could be expected before production could start on a large scale. Having accepted that substantial numbers of Wellingtons could not be expected form makers other than Vickers, the Air Ministry revised the Wellington group idea: Gloster was directed to join Hawker in producing Hurricanes, and Armstrong Whitworth and Austin had to go on making the Whitley and Battle bombers until one of more of the new heavy bombers could be brought into production'.

 

[marathag]

Beautiful compilation. Another context is that only the Royal Navy was at war in Sept 1939.

The A6M never had folding wings. Only the tips folded, until they clipped them.

The Grumman way is the best way

 

[marathag]

Thus we can see that the FAA did not want a 2 seat fighter and had no policy to prefer one. However circumstances forced them to have a 2 seater and the second crew member did make a contribution to the usefulness of the Fulmar. The Firefly was, in it's role, a Skua replacement.

Clearly to get an early Sea Hurricane you need extra Hurricane production. The reality was that extra production would have been given to the RAF.

Or do what the Soviet did, for a two seater

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Its the way you wrote it suggests that Blackburn did make Wellingtons.

Sorry I've altered the sentence to make it clearer.

 

[plenka]

Snip

So, no matter what we do, there is no chance that we will have earlier Sea Hurricanes? A shame, Hurricane always looked far better then the Spitfire, at least to me.

But you raise a valid point about Fulmar, which was not the best, but it still gave good service and had a rather good descendant in form of Firefly. If it was upgraded constantly and produced in greater numbers it could have been even better. But when you see the time elapsed from the first flight to introduction to service (4 Jan 40-10 May 40) , it could have been a much worse aircraft. But it only started production in Jan 41.

Also, it could be used as a dive bomber, but I do not know that it was ever used in such a way. I would like to make another thread on different FAA but, Astrodragon already did it.

 

[Cryhavoc101]

The Grumman way is the best way

Very useful if WW2 starts in June 1942 (ref: F4F-4)

 

[sonofpegasus]

You asked for it! so i will oblige

Boulton and Pauls plans for the single seat Defiant variant show that moving the wing mounted fuel tanks to fit guns was a practical proposition. A wing fold at either the outer panel joint or on the line of the undercarriage girder would seem practical as well. Folding on the line of the undercarriage girder possibly being the better choice, in being narrower and possible easier to arrange for a wing fold along the fuselage like the Skua. The Wildcat first flew in September 1937 and entered US Services in December 1940 and was designed from scratch as a naval fighter. The Fairey Fulmar, Using the existing P4/34 air craft as a starting point first flew on 13 January 1937 at Fairey Aviation's Great West Aerodrome. Specification O.8/38 for the Fulmar fighter was issued and an order for 127 production aircraft was placed in mid-1938. Fairey were able to have the first example flying from Ringway near Manchester on 4 January 1940. It entered squadron service with the FAA in September 1940. By using an existing airframe, the P4/34, the development of the Fulmar was much quicker than the norm. The P4/34 was no more or less of a carrier aircraft design than the Defiant. The Boulton and Paul Defiant P.82 prototype (K8310) was rolled out in August 1937 without its turret. The prototype first flew on 11 August 1937. If You take the same time line as the Fulmar and apply it to the Defiant then it is not an unreasonable supposition to suggest that a Naval single seat Defiant could have been available by September 1940, especially as Boulton and Paul had already completed the design study for the P85 naval turret fighter as an alternative to the Blackburn Roc. This adaption is also helped by the design studies already made for the two prototypes of the Bolton and Paul F37/35 to contract no; 556966/36 but this was later cancelled. There were two designs prepared for F37/35, the P88A being a radial engine version and the P88B being a Vulture engined version. With so much preliminary work completed on both a naval version of the Defiant and a four cannon fighter then an amalgamation on the lines used to produce both the Beufighter (Specification F.11/37, First flight 17 July 1939, Introduction 27 July 1940) by Bristols and the Fulmar by Fairey is not an impossible what if time line. As shown in the drawing the radial engine turret fighter was intended to carry bombs on the wings. So as not to compete with the RAF for the Hercules engines our what if FAA Defiant based radial engine cannon fighter/bomber would use the Alvis engines series, starting with the Pelides then moving onto the Aclides with later marks (just as the Spitfire moved from Merlin to Griffon ). Comparison of dimensions and weights show that these engine substitutions are probably within the bounds of possibility. The increased frontal area off the radial over the inline Merlin would result in a loss of top speed but the removal of the turret and it’s associated drag should go a long way to compensating for this. Top speed for the in service Defiant 1 was given as 305mph at 15000ft (Hurricane 1 was 316mph and Spitfire 1 being 336mph at the same altitude)so if our cannon armed naval fighter bomber in 1940 is matching the Defiant 1 then that would be world class at the time. With the removal of the turret and the gunner the all up weight with the wing armament and FAA equipment should not rise much over the Defiant 1 weight.

Alvis Pelides 38 litre 2 row 14 cylinders, dry weight 1250lb, diameter 52inches. designed in 1936 passes 50 hour type test at 1065hp in 1937. Comparable to Merlin one on power and slightly lighter. Pelides Major with different supercharger to be more power at altitude. Alcides, 52.4 Litres 2 row 18 cylnders. Rated 1650 hp. Weight 1570lb dry, diameter 55 inches
Bristol Taurus engine first run in November 1936, Testing in 1937. 14 cylinder 2 row sleeve valve radial , 25.4 litre, 1050hp (actually 950 in service) weight dry 1300lb, diameter 46inches.
Bristol Hercules engine first run January 1936, 14 cylinder 2 row sleeve valve radial38.7 litre, 1270hp (1350 at altitude) weight dry 1929lb, diameter 55inches.
RR Merlin II weight 1400lb. Merlin 61 1640lb. Griffon 1980lb.

 

[marathag]

Very useful if WW2 starts in June 1942 (ref: F4F-4)

No reason somebody couldn't have been playing with erasers and paperclips in 1936, than in 1942

Roy Grumman, the intuitive engineer, found the steps. He saw, in all probability, that it revolved around a pivot. So he took a soap eraser, such as those used in drafting, and use that to represent the fuselage of the plan. Then he took two paper clips for the wings and bent out the short end of each of the clips so that it was normal or perpendicular to the body of the clip. Then he began sticking the short ends into the eraser until he found the proper angle and position at which the clip, when twisted to a vertical position, would also fold back snugly against the eraser. ...
The principle upon which the Grumman folding wing depended was what engineers call a skewed axis. This axis, in essence, was a pivot set in the wing root that projected outward and backward at a certain angle into the movable portion of the wing. It is difficult to describe, but any reader with an eraser, paperclips, ingenuity, and patience can duplicate the mechanism. ...
Once the principle of the Sto-Wing (as it came to be called) was established, all that remained was some hard, nutcracking engineering to make the mechanism strong and fail-safe.

 

[marathag]

RR Merlin II weight 1400lb. Merlin 61 1640lb. Griffon 1980lb.

Including radiator and Glycol weight for the Merlins? Can't fly without that.

 

[sonofpegasus]

quite right on the weights, I only gave the dry weights for KISS reasons.

 

[Just Leo]

Including radiator and Glycol weight for the Merlins? Can't fly without that.

He added 25 lb to the Merlin III to allow for the rad and juice. He also added 3" to the Hercules diameter. Never rely on forums for data.

 

[mack8]

Getting back to the Fulmar, ok i understand they would want more range, but how about a single-seat Fulmar? Range and armament are same. Presumably the performance will be at least equal to the Hurricane? Further down the line you can have a single seat Firefly, which could approach the performance of the F6F at least.

 

[phx1138]

there are 4 Hurricane Mk IIC squadrons defending Singapore instead of 4 Buffalo squadrons.

Which are promptly shot to pieces when the Brits try to dogfight A6Ms...

I like the rest of it. Except for the fact, as you doubtless realize, it requires the Air Ministry to be actually smart.

 

[plenka]

Getting back to the Fulmar, ok i understand they would want more range, but how about a single-seat Fulmar? Range and armament are same. Presumably the performance will be at least equal to the Hurricane? Further down the line you can have a single seat Firefly, which could approach the performance of the F6F at least.

I think it has been mentioned before that a second person would not influence aircraft performance by much. But could they put a more powerful engine in the Fulmar? Also from the wiki I see that Fulmar MK3 was used as a night fighter, equiped with radar. Only problem is that the British are the only ones wh have trained in carrier night operations, so they would not be of much use onboard carrier.

 

[Cryhavoc101]

No reason somebody couldn't have been playing with erasers and paperclips in 1936, than in 1942

Roy Grumman, the intuitive engineer, found the steps. He saw, in all probability, that it revolved around a pivot. So he took a soap eraser, such as those used in drafting, and use that to represent the fuselage of the plan. Then he took two paper clips for the wings and bent out the short end of each of the clips so that it was normal or perpendicular to the body of the clip. Then he began sticking the short ends into the eraser until he found the proper angle and position at which the clip, when twisted to a vertical position, would also fold back snugly against the eraser. ...
The principle upon which the Grumman folding wing depended was what engineers call a skewed axis. This axis, in essence, was a pivot set in the wing root that projected outward and backward at a certain angle into the movable portion of the wing. It is difficult to describe, but any reader with an eraser, paperclips, ingenuity, and patience can duplicate the mechanism. ...
Once the principle of the Sto-Wing (as it came to be called) was established, all that remained was some hard, nutcracking engineering to make the mechanism strong and fail-safe.

I do wonder though why they did not attempt a single point folding wing earlier?

IE

Might have taken up a fraction more space than the eventual folding wing of the F4F-4 but had Lexington and Yorktown been operating folding wing Wild Cats at Coral Sea - an extra 15 - 20 Fighters between them might have been decisive!

 

[DaveB]

Only problem is that the British are the only ones wh have trained in carrier night operations, so they would not be of much use onboard carrier.

Except that in the Northeast Atlantic and the Mediterranean it won't be carrier-based aircraft that are attacking you.