A single seat fighter for the Fleet Air Arm?

[thezerech]

It's say, 1935 or 1936, and someone at the top of the British defense establishment realized that if Britain were to fight Japan in the Pacific, Italy in the Mediterranean, or the United States anywhere, the FAA would probably need a modern single seat, single engine fighter.

If you're a British aviation company, what are you designing? How do you think the use of single seaters would change the course of the war for the FAA, if at all?

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

It's say, 1935 or 1936, and someone at the top of the British defense establishment realized that if Britain were to fight Japan in the Pacific, Italy in the Mediterranean, or the United States anywhere, the FAA would probably need a modern single seat, single engine fighter.

If you're a British aviation company, what are you designing? How do you think the use of single seaters would change the course of the war for the FAA, if at all?

In 1936 the single seat fighter for the FAA was the Hawker Nimrod which would be replaced by 1939 with the Gloster Sea Gladiator. Both were versions of frontline RAF fighters at the time. The Sea Gladiator was a fair match for the USN Grumman F3F and competitive with the Japanese A5M monoplane fighter in combat if not range and speed.

If the choice is made in 1935 the the Sea Gladiator would enter service in early 1937 alongside it's RAF brother while a fully navalised Sea Hurricane or other monoplane would be coming into service in mid 1939.

 

[sdgottsch]

Honestly they would still take the Gloster Gladiator. The Gladiator started in 1934 and went into the Fleet in early 1937 (little less than 3 years).

USN = F3F (biplane)
IJN = A5M (monoplane but seemed to fly like a bi-plane with an open cockpit)
French = Levasseur PL.10

 

[njslim]

It's say, 1935 or 1936, and someone at the top of the British defense establishment realized that if Britain were to fight Japan in the Pacific, Italy in the Mediterranean, or the United States anywhere, the FAA would probably need a modern single seat, single engine fighter.

If you're a British aviation company, what are you designing? How do you think the use of single seaters would change the course of the war for the FAA, if at all?

Britian had a single seat fighter - Gloster Gladiator m unfortunately it was a fixed undercarriage biplane, which were rapidly becoming obsolete Much of the RAF/FAA were still stuck in the past and not imaginative

Even US Navy at this time was still using biplane fighter like Grumman FF series

Design requirements would be single engine monoplane, retracting undercarriage, radial air cooled engine as carriers lack room to handle the complexities of liquid cooled engines , corrosion resistant to avoid problems caused by salt water environment

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

IJN = A5M (monoplane but seemed to fly like a bi-plane with an open cockpit)

The best comparison for the A5M would be the Italian Fiat CR 42 biplane which had similar performance, better armament but only a little over half the range, that to be fair was all it needed.

 

[jlckansas]

Like the F3F became the Wildcat, could the Sea Gladiator become some type of monoplane with retractable gear? Would you need too much of a redesign that you would need to start over?

 

[sonofpegasus]

OK, Here we go again!
At the time the Gloster Gladiator was designed as a private venture due to the failure of any manufacturer to provide a design to adequately fulfil the requirements of specification F.7/30.
Gloster subsequently built the SS.37 which first flew on September 12th 1934. This aircraft was submitted for Air Ministry evaluation in early 1935.
in June 1935 Specification F14/35 was written based on the SS.37 and 23 aircraft ordered. On 830hp the production aircraft now called the Gladiator had a top speed of 257mph and carried 4 x .303 calibre machine guns.
Concurrently Gloster's had received specification F5/34 and Follond had produced an intimal monoplane design based on that of the Ss.37(Gladiator), this was later modified to conform to the requirements of Specification F35/35 for a high speed monoplane. Although originally designed for the Bristol Perseus engine it was modified to take the same Mercury engine as the Gladiator to avoid undue delay in building the prototypes.
Due to the pressure on Gloster Aircraft to get the Gladiator into service the first F5/34 K5604 did not fly until december 1936. With 8 x.303 Browning mg's and a top speed of 316 this aircraft handily out performed the Gladiator. Also it's handling characteristic's were such by all accounts it would have made a good carrier aircraft.
So if the Fleet Air Arm insist on the F5/34 as a fleet fighter in late 1935/early 36 perhaps the first flight of K5604 can be brought forward by several months and the second prototype K8089 to a full FAA specification could be flying in early 1937 with production already ordered (from the new Follond aircraft company).
As the first Sea Gladiators were made from a batch of 300 Aircraft ordered in 1938 this demonstrates that with different decisions in AATL the FAA could have started the war in 1939 with the worlds best naval single seat fighter, though the Grumman Wildcat would be vying for that title as well!

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

Like the F3F became the Wildcat, could the Sea Gladiator become some type of monoplane with retractable gear? Would you need too much of a redesign that you would need to start over?

Arguably that's how the Gloster F.5/34 began. The simplist and in my opinion the most likely way for the FAA to have a modern monoplane fighter in service at the start of WWII is for Gloster to build a Sea Hurricane with folding wings instead of the Hawker Henley target tug. I just don't see the British dedicating the production facilities to a unique naval fighter pre war given the low numbers required. It's a lot easer to build an extra 1 to 200 Hurricanes with a modified wing than set up an entire production line and chain of supply for an entirely new design. Simpler still to just pull the aircraft out of the reserve stocks and add a hook and catapult points for an interim naval fighter.

 

[tomo pauk]

Making the Seafire early on would've been a boon. It was within the scope of British aeronautics by mid-1930s.

As a plan B, the Sea Hurricane.

 

[yulzari1]

Making the Seafire early on would've been a boon. It was within the scope of British aeronautics by mid-1930s.

As a plan B, the Sea Hurricane.

And a Sea Spitfire is exactly what Their Lordships asked for pre war and were refused.

 

[Sekhmet_D]

Making the Seafire early on would've been a boon. It was within the scope of British aeronautics by mid-1930s.

As a plan B, the Sea Hurricane.

The Seafire's only problem is its puny range.

Does anybody know the Gloster F5/34's intended combat radius?

 

[Astrodragon]

Arguably that's how the Gloster F.5/34 began. The simplist and in my opinion the most likely way for the FAA to have a modern monoplane fighter in service at the start of WWII is for Gloster to build a Sea Hurricane with folding wings instead of the Hawker Henley target tug. I just don't see the British dedicating the production facilities to a unique naval fighter pre war given the low numbers required. It's a lot easer to build an extra 1 to 200 Hurricanes with a modified wing than set up an entire production line and chain of supply for an entirely new design. Simpler still to just pull the aircraft out of the reserve stocks and add a hook and catapult points for an interim naval fighter.

But the plane was originally intended to be a radial engine fighter for hot environments. 'de-navalising' a plane is a lot easier then the reverse, so it wouldnt just be a nice FAA aircraft - and even then, it would have been a reasonable number of planes by pre-war standards. Given that a naval version would be geared to hard landings and longer range, adapted it would have made an ideal hot-climate fighter

 

[sonofpegasus]

In a different time line arguing for a Naval Seafire on Sea Hurricane is fairly easy, however in the conditions extant in OTL there are problems with this.
The RAF/ Air Ministry is not going to give the FAA anything that might in the smallest way impact delivery of either Spitfires ore Hurricanes to their own squadrons.
In OTL in 1837/8/9 all the engines for the RAF new fighters from a single RR factory, point that fact out to the RAF and promote the Gloster F5/35 as a radial engine alternative.
Also point out that the F5/35 is a much better fighter than the Gladiator, built in the same factory so build F5/35's using engines already ordered for the Gladiator.
One further problem in OTL is that Hawker as owners of Gloster Aircraft had a vested interest in not promoting the F5/35 in competition to their own Hurricane fighter.
Hence my earlier suggestion of getting Follond to work up a Naval version of his own design and build it.
As Astrodragon points out a de-navalised version would also make a very useful 'Empire' fighter.

 

[The Wooksta!]

F5/34 was offered to the FAA, with a Perseus and additional fuel behind the pilot.

 

[sonofpegasus]

Please do you have a source for post 14,

 

[Driftless]

Just for fun:

View attachment 743278

View attachment 743291 View attachment 743292

On another thread, Peg Leg Pom had searched and found a Just Leo "doodle" that filled the bill for a single seat Fulmar.

 

[tomo pauk]

The Seafire's only problem is its puny range.

IMO - the main problem was institutional myopia
Range/radius problem is solved by a good deal via installation of drop tank facility.

In a different time line arguing for a Naval Seafire on Sea Hurricane is fairly easy, however in the conditions extant in OTL there are problems with this.
The RAF/ Air Ministry is not going to give the FAA anything that might in the smallest way impact delivery of either Spitfires ore Hurricanes to their own squadrons.
In OTL in 1837/8/9 all the engines for the RAF new fighters from a single RR factory, point that fact out to the RAF and promote the Gloster F5/35 as a radial engine alternative.

Still, Fulmar was to be powered by Merlin engine (and was from the get go). RAF themselves was precuding the even greater introduction of Spitfires and Hurricanes by opting for a lot of designs that were missing the point.

RAF can have their Spitfires and Hurricanes, FAA needs to opt for other sources making Seafires or Sea Hurricanes.

 

[Sekhmet_D]

IMO - the main problem was institutional myopia
Range/radius problem is solved by a good deal via installation of drop tank facility.

RAF can have their Spitfires and Hurricanes, FAA needs to opt for other sources making Seafires or Sea Hurricanes.

Hypothetically... is a navalised Mustang possible for the FAA given that the P-51 was originally designed to meet British specifications?

 

[sdgottsch]

The Naval Mustangs

On 15 November 1944, naval aviator (and later test pilot) Lieutenant Bob Elder, in a P-51D-5-NA 44-14017, started flight tests from the deck of the carrier Shangri-La. This Mustang had been fitted with an arrestor hook, which was attached to a reinforced bulkhead behind the tail wheel opening;

warbirdsnews.com

 

[PMN1]

Hypothetically... is a navalised Mustang possible for the FAA given that the P-51 was originally designed to meet British specifications?

Well there are photos that show Mustangs being tested on a carrier, late 44 I think.