WI: the Grumman FF designed as a monoplane

[tomo pauk]

...therefore pushing the USN into monoplane age a number of years earlier than in OTL. Engine used on the original FF remains the same, the 700 HP Cyclone.
How much it can change the development of USN's and other people's aircraft in late 1930s/early 40s? What can be expected from the ALT F2F or F3F? No Buffalo?

 

[PorkNuggets]

Unless you also intend to move the introduction of the Grumman Sto-Wing design and use of arrestor gear up by a number of years I imagine that the resulting aircraft would be rejected by the Navy in favor of a update to F3B due to the latter being already in service and better able to operate from existing carriers.

 

[tomo pauk]

Unless you also intend to move the introduction of the Grumman Sto-Wing design and use of arrestor gear up by a number of years I imagine that the resulting aircraft would be rejected by the Navy in favor of a update to F3B due to the latter being already in service and better able to operate from existing carriers.

Why do you think the monoplane FF will not be able to operate from existing carriers?
Was the F3B that good so the monoplane FF will not be capable to offer an improvement?

 

[marathag]

Why do you think the monoplane FF will not be able to operate from existing carriers?
Was the F3B that good so the monoplane FF will not be capable to offer an improvement?

It should be faster, less drag, but also less maneuverability. Other thing was better visibility for the pilot, less blind spots

 

[PorkNuggets]

Why do you think the monoplane FF will not be able to operate from existing carriers?

Because a monoplane will require heavier construction and a longer take-off run than a comparable biplane design, and an extra 100 ft of flight deck (or 5 ft of wingspan) is not something the early carriers could readily accommodate.

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

Because a monoplane will require heavier construction and a longer take-off run than a comparable biplane design, and an extra 100 ft of flight deck (or 5 ft of wingspan) is not something the early carriers could readily accommodate.

What concerns me is the available engines being able to provide enough power to safely operate from carriers.

 

[marathag]

Because a monoplane will require heavier construction and a longer take-off run than a comparable biplane design, and an extra 100 ft of flight deck (or 5 ft of wingspan) is not something the early carriers could readily accommodate.

Not a problem, when this slow pig was able to take off from Langley

near 10,000 pounds on two 525HP motors with fixed pitch two blade props. All on 533 foot deck, that later operated the Brewster F2F monoplane with no problems

 

[tomo pauk]

Because a monoplane will require heavier construction and a longer take-off run than a comparable biplane design, and an extra 100 ft of flight deck (or 5 ft of wingspan) is not something the early carriers could readily accommodate.

American early carriers were very big, both Lex and Sara were longer than Argus or Eagle for example.
Wingspan does not to have grow that big, since the now only wing can/will be of broader chord than the OTL low wing.

What concerns me is the available engines being able to provide enough power to safely operate from carriers.

Mitsubishi A5M operated from carriers with a take-off power of 700 HP, same power as what the Grumman FF had.

 

[riggerrob]

Monoplanes can be built with the same wing area as biplanes for the same takeoff performance (e.g. Feisler Storch) The disadvantage is longer wingspan.
While monoplanes are inherently faster and longer ranged than biplanes (less aerodynamic drag from struts and wires), the huge wings needed for STOL still reduce top speed.

The other advantage of monoplanes is that they can be folded a dozen different ways, while biplanes can only be folded by swinging a huge cube of wing parts to lay alongside the aft fuselage.

 

[tomo pauk]

Monoplanes can be built with the same wing area as biplanes for the same takeoff performance (e.g. Feisler Storch) The disadvantage is longer wingspan.
While monoplanes are inherently faster and longer ranged than biplanes (less aerodynamic drag from struts and wires), the huge wings needed for STOL still reduce top speed.

Area of the wing can be also achieved via installing a wing with greater chord - talk Spitfire, P-47, Tempest or Canberra. It will even improve thickness-to-chord ratio, and can be lighter for same strength than it will be a long wing that has chorter chord.
'Our' FF mid-wing monoplane should be still a very maneuverable fighter, with more than acceptable low-speed characteristics if it has a 220-230 sq ft wing area vs. 310 of the biplane (the A5M was with 192 sq ft wing), while being faster and rangier. Plus it 'clears the way' for the ALT F2F and F3F to push boundearies further, perhaps even featuring the high-lift devices and folding wings.

The other advantage of monoplanes is that they can be folded a dozen different ways, while biplanes can only be folded by swinging a huge cube of wing parts to lay alongside the aft fuselage.

True.

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

Mitsubishi A5M operated from carriers with a take-off power of 700 HP, same power as what the Grumman FF had.

The A5M was a later design and very lightly built though. Grumman aircraft had a reputation for being very heavily built.

 

[tomo pauk]

The A5M was a later design and very lightly built though. Grumman aircraft had a reputation for being very heavily built.

Grumman aircraft also have had a reputation of being very pilot-friendly, and excelled at low speeds.
Grumman's biplanes weighted at 2 tons, +- 10%, fully loaded. The Skua went to 2500 kg empty (= no fuel, crew, military load).

 

[marathag]

The A5M was a later design and very lightly built though. Grumman aircraft had a reputation for being very heavily built.

The Grumman GulfHawk II was a star at airshows, doing a great aerobatics show across the country in the late '30s

GulfHawk I started life as a Curtiss Hawk I in 1930, being converted from a D-12 inline to a higher power radial at the Curtiss factory
Gulfhawk II was meant to do more stunts, was faster and higher 'G' load rating and had fully retracting gear

 

[WaterproofPotatoes]

Grumman aircraft also have had a reputation of being very pilot-friendly, and excelled at low speeds.
Grumman's biplanes weighted at 2 tons, +- 10%, fully loaded. The Skua went to 2500 kg empty (= no fuel, crew, military load).

The A5M came in at 1 216 kg empty and 1 671 kg loaded for comparison

 

[tomo pauk]

The A5M came in at 1 216 kg empty and 1 671 kg loaded for comparison

Yes, indeed.
BTW - Blackburn Skua went to over 3700 kg for take off.

 

[PorkNuggets]

I feel like people in this thread are conflating the state of aviation development in the late 20s with the state of development in the late 30s and early 40s . Yes the Lexington class was unusually large but the Navy at this time is looking for aircraft it can operate off the USS Langley.

Yes, the Langley eventually operated the F2A (and the F4F as well) but an extra 500 HP under the hood for a ~20% increase in P/W relative to the FF forgives many sins.

Yes, the A5M was operated from carriers with same power as what the Grumman FF had. It was also 500 lbs lighter than the Grumman FF at a time when that was still a substantial amount. "What would have happened if Leroy Grumman had followed the Japanese example of sacrificing durability and redundancy to minimize weight and drag?" is a very different question from "What if the FF had been a monoplane?"

'Our' FF is unlikely to be any lighter than the one we got in OTL and with the reduction in wing area this does not bode well for it's STOL/low speed performance. Hence my comment about introducing folding wings and arrestor gear earlier if it is to win out over other designs.

 

[tomo pauk]

I feel like people in this thread are conflating the state of aviation development in the late 20s with the state of development in the late 30s and early 40s . Yes the Lexington class was unusually large but the Navy at this time is looking for aircraft it can operate off the USS Langley.

There was not just Lexington, there was also Saratoga, plus Ranger in construction. Designing aircraft to mandatory fit the lesser carrier like Langley is a shot in a foot, so is planing to send a 15 knot carrier in the harm's way. There is abundnace of biplanes for training aboard Langley anyway.

Yes, the Langley eventually operated the F2A (and the F4F as well) but an extra 500 HP under the hood for a ~20% increase in P/W relative to the FF forgives many sins.

Okay then, no monoplanes to be flown from Langley.
The Blackburn Skua operated from British carriers. Power to weight ratio was pathetic, a 900 HP engine for a 8200 lbs aircraft ready for take-off. The wing loading of the Buffalo was 50-100% greater than of the FF, yet it operated from Langley. Funky lot, those USN aviators.

Yes, the A5M was operated from carriers with same power as what the Grumman FF had. It was also 500 lbs lighter than the Grumman FF at a time when that was still a substantial amount. "What would have happened if Leroy Grumman had followed the Japanese example of sacrificing durability and redundancy to minimize weight and drag?" is a very different question from "What if the FF had been a monoplane?"

Nobody said that Leroy needs to do such a thing.

'Our' FF is unlikely to be any lighter than the one we got in OTL and with the reduction in wing area this does not bode well for it's STOL/low speed performance. Hence my comment about introducing folding wings and arrestor gear earlier if it is to win out over other designs.

Seems like the arrestor gear was already there: picture

 

[PorkNuggets]

Okay then, no monoplanes to be flown from Langley.

Don't be silly, as noted above the Langely operated both Buffaloes and Wildcats during WWII. This is exactly the sort of thing I was referring to in my earlier comment about conflating the state of aviation in the lat 20s with its state in the late 30 and early 40s. The Grumman FF is a 1929 design and by all accounts was quite an effective fighter for it's time. Highly maneuverable and durable with respectable speed and armament. The Skua meanwhile is a 1936 design, was not a very good fighter at all, and merely adequate as a dive bomber.

Nobody said that Leroy needs to do such a thing.

Yet a radical change in design philosophy is exactly what must happen in order for our monoplane FF to be "a very maneuverable fighter, with more than acceptable low-speed characteristics" without a new engine.

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

Don't be silly, as noted above the Langely operated both Buffaloes and Wildcats during WWII.

USS Langley CV1 did no such thing. She had half her flight deck removed in 1936 when she was converted to a seaplane tender and never got it replaced. At most she carried them as deck cargo like the P40's she was ferrying to Timor when she was sunk.

 

[tomo pauk]

Don't be silly, as noted above the Langely operated both Buffaloes and Wildcats during WWII.

You don't know me when I'm silly.
Source for Langley operating Buffaloes and Wildcats during ww2?

This is exactly the sort of thing I was referring to in my earlier comment about conflating the state of aviation in the lat 20s with its state in the late 30 and early 40s. The Grumman FF is a 1929 design and by all accounts was quite an effective fighter for it's time. Highly maneuverable and durable with respectable speed and armament. The Skua meanwhile is a 1936 design, was not a very good fighter at all, and merely adequate as a dive bomber.

Whenver Skua is designed has no bearing on this discussion. Skua still has to obey laws of phisycs: wing loading, and power loading, for example. In either of those, Skua was barely adequate, yet it was still operated with success.
All accounts of the FF being quite an effective fighter?? Now that's a joke.

Yet a radical change in design philosophy is exactly what must happen in order for our monoplane FF to be "a very maneuverable fighter, with more than acceptable low-speed characteristics" without a new engine.

New engine can hardly help with improving maneuverability or improving low-speed caharacteristics. I'm after the FF (alnd later F2F and F3F) being faster = dasigned as monoplane from the get go.