Design the best FAA fighter to be in service by Jan 1940

Jack1971

Banned
Wasn't the Spitfire a bad candidate for Navalisation because of the narrow undercarriage made it a bad candidate for Carrier Landings?
Yes, a terrible but sole option for a folding wing fighter. With modified wings and wide undercarriage like the Seafang things could have been better.
 
Meanwhile over on the “Panic Fighter 1938” thread, Canadian Car and Foundry has been test-flying a light-weight interceptor for the Ruralia Air Force.
The Gregor Monoplane is powered by an R-1820 radial engine with a 20mm cannon protruding between cylinders. It also has a Browning .50 caliber machine gun in each wing.
CCF’s Gregor monoplane is a low wing with unusually short tricycle undercarriage legs. Since Ruralia has some short airstrips, CCF has been experimenting with an arrester hook.
Designer Gregor also has a few sketches of a version for the RCN with wing tips that fold to fit in the elevators on RN carriers. He has done preliminary weight and balance calculations to install a Bristol Pegasus engine, almost the same model as installed on Fairey Swordfish.
 

Zachariah

Banned
How about the Gloster F.5/34, also known as the "Unnamed Fighter"? IOTL, Hawker effectively forced its subsidiary, Gloster, to abandon any further development of this fighter aircraft as soon as the Hawker Hurricane entered service with the RAF. However, compared to its contemporaries, test pilots found the F.5/34 prototypes had a shorter takeoff, better initial climb, and were more responsive and maneuverable due to ailerons that did not become excessively heavy at high speed. Handling was considered very good, and the all-round cockpit visibility was far better than either the Spitfire's or the Hurricane's. Many believe that the F.5/34 provided the inspiration for the Japanese Zero, probably stemming from a superficial similarity between the two fighter aircraft and Gloster's past links with the Japanese, which leads to its other nickname, the "British Zero". So, what if the Gloster F.5/34 had continued to be developed for the Fleet Air Arm, eliminating the conflict of interests with its parent company Hawker and their Hurricane fighter, and delivered to them in the Sea Gladiator's stead? Given its flight characteristics, and both Henry Folland's and Gloster's exemplary track record in designing and producing fighter aircraft for the FAA beforehand, couldn't it be the ideal candidate?

10-5.jpg


EDIT: Whoops, sorry, missed that bit on tenet 4. But if this version were designed specifically for the FAA, in the place of the development of OTL's Sea Gladiator, wouldn't it be safe to assume that its undercarriage would undergo a redesign, and be strengthened for this role, in the same manner that the Gloster Sea Gladiator's was?
 
How about the Gloster F.5/34,
It may be better than a Hawker Hurricane but its going to be much harder to build and it starts much later as the flight trials of the first prototype was December 1937 coincidently the same month the Hurricane started squadron service for RAF....
The other advantage is that production of Hurricanes is good, so more chance of it getting released to the FAA.
Note that the Hawker Hurricane was so easy to make that more where built than RAF wanted so they where sold for export....
 
Yes, a terrible but sole option for a folding wing fighter. With modified wings and wide undercarriage like the Seafang things could have been better.

So with development from Mid 38 instead of late 41 might actually get the Seafang analogous fighter Mid to late war?

The Seafire gets a bad rep mainly from a single op (technically its first) when it operated from slow escort carriers with no wind conditions covering the Salerno landings coupled with a large number of pilots who were relatively inexperienced in the type that resulted in a large number of prangs - but there was no other Aircraft capable of taking off and landing from a deck that could match the latest then Axis fighters and twin Engined bombers the only other options were Sea Hurricane and F4 Wildcat whose performance was woeful by comparison. IIRC both were slower than the latest German Bomber.

Ideally I would want a Navalised MB-5 in 1940 - but that's highly improbable
 

Jack1971

Banned
What are the constraints on our program? When can we start diverging from OTL and if we can have a clean sheet and anything we want what limits us?
Clean sheet. Your only constraints are the availability of components and production capacity.

For example, license -build P&W, Wright and Curtiss engines if you deem it both feasible and useful.
How about the Gloster F.5/34, also known as the "Unnamed Fighter"?
Given this clear Specification we can expect Henry Folland to make it better, I’d say. Something like the SAAB J-19 would likely result.

tumblr_inline_nz7c3q1j3P1t90ue7_1280.png


How about we expand beyond Sir Sidney Camm and Reginald Mitchell? We know what Folland would make, but what would W.E.W. Petter of Whirlwind, Canberra and Lightning fame give the FAA? How about Martin-Baker or Fairey’s H.E. Chaplin?

Given the advanced streamlining of the Whirlwind, I bet Petter could make a fantastic single-engine FAA fighter. OTOH, Mitchell’s replacement at Supermarine, Joseph Smith is best avoided. Whatever happened to Walter G. Capley, the designer of the Miles M.20 fighter?

With his experience at both Heinkel and Mitsubishi, surely better use could have been made of CAC’s Fred David? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_David
 
Last edited:
A version of the MB-2 could be viable using a Merlin in place of the boat anchor Napier Dagger it originally flew with, James Martin was a master at making simple easy to maintain aircraft so fitting folding wings outboard of the undercarriage should be easily achievable. The MK1 can have a fixed undercarriage and 303s, Mk 2 folding year and heavier guns.
 
A version of the MB-2 could be viable using a Merlin in place of the boat anchor Napier Dagger it originally flew with, James Martin was a master at making simple easy to maintain aircraft so fitting folding wings outboard of the undercarriage should be easily achievable. The MK1 can have a fixed undercarriage and 303s, Mk 2 folding year and heavier guns.

I am a banner waving advocate of the MB designs - all PODs of this type do eventually end up at MB-5 after all ;)

The problem is that in order to have something worthwhile we would need something like an Analogeous MB-3 flying in Aug 1938 and not Aug 1942

Damn it but every time I think of the MB-3 I lament Captain Baker's loss - it was keenly felt - now there is a POD......
 
Best answer. The prototype that had less fuel and cowl guns

An excelent choice, but it's first flight was in May 1940. I was thinking of the earlier Wildcat, but it's production model only came out in February 1940...

I'd vote for the Hurricane. The Spit's narrow landing gear was a massive source of grief.
 
An excelent choice, but it's first flight was in May 1940. I was thinking of the earlier Wildcat, but it's production model only came out in February 1940...

I'd vote for the Hurricane. The Spit's narrow landing gear was a massive source of grief.

So was the Corsairs but the RN got that to work - if 'Seafire' was developed from 1938 rather than rushed into service in 1942 then it would greatly benefit from 3 or 4 years of operational development over OTL while at the same time able to leverage the massive amount of effort that went into the Spitfire, Merlin, Griffon and HS 404 20mm cannon.

Eventually it would start evolving from the Spitfire into its own distinct design with perhaps a Spiteful type aircraft with a different wing and undercarriage - but that is for the future.

Granted the Hurricane is low hanging fruit by comparison but I think had the RN been able to choose in 1938 they would have picked Spitfire!
 
Compare the track of the Martlet and Seafire. It was not the narrowness of the Seafire's undercarriage that was the issue but it's geometry and spring/damper/stroke. Wider would be nice yes, but not critical. Later Seafire Marks went some way to address this and fit a better hook system. A Sea Hurricane would be the easiest choice but will need replacement by 1941/2. A Sea Spitfire would be incrementally updated throughout the war. In 1940 though you do come back to an either/or situation leaving the RAF with fewer Spitfires unless you can make Sea Spitfires instead of something otherwise in service.
 
In threads like this the Gloster F.5/34 always comes up and I always write "Nice but Folland designed this aircraft with a single structural wing spar that went from wing tip to wing tip." that would probably require a Major redesign structurally to permit a wing fold.
My personnel pennies worth is go for the Sea Hurricane if long range/endurance is a must on internal fuel then a single seat Hawker Hotspur, with chin radiator (foe improved ditching characteristics) and the cockpit move aft for a larger fuel tank on the CoG.
 
The French Navy was working on a navalised D520 (D790)
The French Air Force tested a Merlin powered D520 (D521)
Put this two together and have a D791 (Merlin powered D790) being built in Britain (The French were unable to build enough for their Air Force needs) in 1939.
 
Compare the track of the Martlet and Seafire. It was not the narrowness of the Seafire's undercarriage that was the issue but it's geometry and spring/damper/stroke. Wider would be nice yes, but not critical. Later Seafire Marks went some way to address this and fit a better hook system. A Sea Hurricane would be the easiest choice but will need replacement by 1941/2. A Sea Spitfire would be incrementally updated throughout the war. In 1940 though you do come back to an either/or situation leaving the RAF with fewer Spitfires unless you can make Sea Spitfires instead of something otherwise in service.

Absolutely - on the subject of the RAF I could only sea an Earlier Seafire if Spitfire Production is sufficient to equip Fighter command needs (OTL Week ending April 6 1940 35 Hurricanes were built with just 14 Spitfires and 5 defiants) - which means tripling (or more)the OTL production and the only way I see that happening is if Castle Bromwich and associated production is advanced by at least 6 months - it was supposed to be building 60 per week by May 1940 - actual number was Zero!

So better management earlier ie Vickers takes over the running of the plant in mid 1939 from Nuffield and we could see Total production reach and exceed those numbers far earlier with overall national production sufficient to cover all of Fighter commands needs allowing the RN to 'syphon off' enough Spitfire airframes and engines for their needs.

Its a question of better management and a better 'grip' earlier than OTL

One of my PODs for this is that Winston is not made First Sea Lord but instead as Minister for War production at the outbreak of war and he brings Lord Beverbrook in as Minister of Aircraft Production - and he is able to act as he did in OTL May 17 1940 in late 1939 and take over control of the CBA as well as generally shaking up the Aircraft Industry earlier.

Also with an earlier 'Seafire' Fairey's production might be leveraged and instead of them producing Fulmar. Thius aircraft was chosen because there was no other option. So given the option for an earleir Seafire we might instead see them producing Seafire instead of the 600 or so Fulmars and do so earlier given the basic Spitfire design was ready for mass production while the Fulmar was being rushed from drawing board to Production.

From Sept 1939 Fariey was producing MK1 Fulmars at an intial rate of 8 a month - the Fulmar was a more expensive aircraft than Spitfire - £8000 per unit verses £6000 for Spitfire and was a very complicated aircraft to make.

Also Fairey knows a thing or to about landing on.....

And of course with 4 or more Frontline Squadrons and a similair number of Training/OCU/Reserve squardons operational in June 1940 equipped with Seafires - they would be able to replace RAF fighter command units with little or no loss of effectiveness paticularly in the north during the Battle of Britain.

Do note that the entire post could equally put the Sea Hurricane into service earlier instead with additional Spitfire production going directly to RAF FC but I am championing the Seafire in this thread. And Im not even sorry.
 
It is worth noting that the Fulmar was not intended to take on the entire fighter role but to act as a strike/reconnaissance aircraft which could act as a long range/loiter fighter and protect itself but the absence of the preferred Sea Spitfire meant that the Sea Gladiator filled the close defence role. With Sea Spitfires in the Sea Gladiator role then the Fulmar is released to act in a strike/reconnaissance role.
 
It is worth noting that the Fulmar was not intended to take on the entire fighter role but to act as a strike/reconnaissance aircraft which could act as a long range/loiter fighter and protect itself but the absence of the preferred Sea Spitfire meant that the Sea Gladiator filled the close defence role. With Sea Spitfires in the Sea Gladiator role then the Fulmar is released to act in a strike/reconnaissance role.

Indeed but it ended up being pressed into the role of Interceptor and the principle aircraft providing CAP in the Med during the earlier part of that campaign as none else were available - with just a handful being available to help cover the Crete action.

I am convinced that had it been replaced by an earlier Seafire (or a proper Sea Hurricane) then things would be better with the British aircraft industry far better able to support production of the single seat aircraft and the spares required over the Fulmar.
 

Jack1971

Banned
Indeed but (Fulmar) ended up being pressed into the role of Interceptor and the principle aircraft providing CAP in the Med during the earlier part of that campaign as none else were available - with just a handful being available to help cover the Crete action.
As the highest scoring FAA fighter of all time, noteworthy given its relatively short two year period as the FAA’s frontline fighter, the Fulmar did okay. Of course a fighter as I’ve specified at top would have done even better, as would the Hurricane. But still, nothing has matched the Fulmar in FAA aerial kills before or since.
 
Top