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

I seem to recall that the trails that the RAF conducted pre-war found (rightly or wrongly) that the jump to .50 over .303 was not worth the weight and ROF drop penalty (the .303 Browning Mk2 fired at 1150 RPM x 8 - 9600 RPM or about 150 RPS - while the AN2 .50 cal fired at 750-850 RPM x 4 = 3,400 RPM or about 55 RPS) - and only a jump to 20mm cannon was worth it.

That being said the last batch of the Fulmar MK2 did swap the 8 x Browning .303s for 4 x Browning .50s so perhaps the RN thought differently - it's also worth noting that the Wildcat F4F-4 had 6 x 50 cals at the insistence of the RN - the USN flyers at the time thought that it was unnecessary and only served to make the aircraft heavier - I guess this reflects their foes - the RN had to contend with 2 and 3 engined bombers and 4 engined Condors most of which had armour and self sealing fuel tanks while the Japanese aircraft had no armour or Self sealing tanks!

Weight wise - an AN2 weighs 27 KGs while the Browning .303 MK2 weighs 10.7 KGs

My google fu has failed and I cannot find .50 cal ammo and link weights

British Browning .303 MG: 7.7 x 56R
Complete Round + Link: 1.06 Ounces

Which is 30 grams

I wonder about the destructive power at the other end, the useful life of the .303 was very short whereas the .50 cal Browning was useful right up to 1945. I imagine the Vickers with its 81mm cartridge might run out of life a bit before 1945, but would be a holy terror throughout Britain's darkest years.
 
Ok, then lets see (he says, blatantly cribbing from his pet Whale).

(1) The Gloster F34/5 is a start, but it needs a number of changes. It needs a good robust undercart, more petrol stowage, and additional naval equipment as well asfolding wings. It was a lihgt aircraft, it will end up in the 7k - 8k lbs range, as with other aircraft with similar specs.But I see no reason why we cant design a similar if bigger aircraft.Some of the Fairey designs would also work, if made single-seat and possibly a bigger engine.
So we end up with something looking like the F34/5, but bigger. Look for a bit longer range than the Hurricane, able to carry big drop tanks.

(2) The F34/5 used the fairly small Mercury. We can use the Perseus (upgraded early to 100 octane). The Taurus isn't going to be ready early enough for an aircraft needed on theproduction line in 38/9. The P&W would work, but would need dollars. The Hercules is going to be rather heavy. Given the time, an enlarged Perseus would be a good bet, giving the extra power to give the plane proper fighterperformance. We dont need a supercharger as we are looking at optimal performance under 20,000ft.

(3)Armament. For a naval fighter, 0.5" is better than 0.303 as we have to bring down some large aircraft in a short time. Cannon would be even better. I would go for 6x0.5", with a change to 2x20mm, 2x0.5" as the cannon come on line. With the FAA needing them, then the stupid RL 12+month delay can easily be avoided.

(4) Production - If we go with Gloster, drop the Gladiator, it wont be ready much earlier anyway. Go straight to the new fighter, and set up a shadown factory ready for it.

(5) It wont use a merlin, so less chance the AM will try and poach it. Given the need for navalisation, it wont be as good as the Spitfire, but should be able to holdits own up till the Zero.Even the Zero is handleable, the Wildcat did well given decent tactics. Although by then, the replacement should be coming off the production line.

So we end up with something like the Wildcat, but prettier and at least as good performance.We should be looking at as least as good as the RAF Hurricane, but not as good as the Spitfire. But the other qualities mean its better in actual use than a Seafire (at least in 1938).

There, sorted. We could call it something like the Gloster Goshawk...:):)
The main concern I have with this is money: it's a very nice option, but sticking folding wings and maybe some cannon on a Hurricane is going to be a lot cheaper as developing and industrialising aircraft gets seriously expensive. What else could the RN have done with the money?
 
I wonder about the destructive power at the other end, the useful life of the .303 was very short whereas the .50 cal Browning was useful right up to 1945.

Still did good work in Korea with Ground support.
And on the Ground, it's with us today
 
Silly question but how would it be if someone had smuggled (ie stolen) a ShKAS 7.62 mm aircraft machinegun and ammunition from Spain in 1937 .

The advantages of the feed mechanism are discovered and trials show that if did not matter how long the belt was or how heavy it still managed to feed properly . This is compared to the 20 mm Hispano with it's 60 round drum and the advantageous of the feed mechanism become apparent . The RN is looking for a larger calibre and need more then a 60 round drum magazine for fleet defence . The new feed system is copied and a 20 mm version of the ShKAS is made . A new rimmed round is designed and added to the requirements of the service . A ship mounting was trialled by replacing the quad 50 Vickers with a quad 20 mm each having 125 rounds in a box magazine . The resulting improvement in firepower was easily apparent . In 1939 an attempt was made to mount the 20 mm in a Hurricane wing and it is again found easy to place 200 round belts in the wings . A twin 20 mm mounting in each wing is a simple fix and less then a month from trials is fitted to the factory builds . The Spitfire takes a little longer to change . however by 1940 the Spitfire has two 20 mm and 4 0.303 . The Battle of Britain is significantly different as a 1 second burst from a Hurricane will nearly always take down a bomber .

The RN has not been sitting still over the development and quickly announces new requirements . The Hurricane with 20 mm is quickly trialled and put into service while wing folding is worked on . By 1940 the RN has a new version of the Hurricane being built by Fairey that has an aft folding wing and better landing characteristics . (Think Fairey Firefly wings) .
 
The main concern I have with this is money: it's a very nice option, but sticking folding wings and maybe some cannon on a Hurricane is going to be a lot cheaper as developing and industrialising aircraft gets seriously expensive. What else could the RN have done with the money?

I actually costed the aircraft out in Whale, and they spent LESS than OTL pre-war.
Dont develop and build the Gladiator (the Goshawk is built instead). Don't build the Roc, which was a stupid idea, especially at sea.
An enlarged engine wil cost a bit, but not a lot compared with the development spend on sleeve valves.

I agree a folding-wing Hurricane is probably the most cost-effective solution, but we were asked for the best.
At least within reason, in THEORY all the bits were there to allow a Sea Fury in 1939, starting in 1933, but way too many butterflies to get in a row (do butterflies line up in rows?).

Actually developing an aircraft isnt horrendoulsy expensive in the time period, you dont start spending seriously until mass production. Hence all the designs the AM funded.
Actually they dont even need a modified Hurricane,simply stack standard types on deck - the RN were quite familiar with the idea of a deck park.
 
We have enjoyed exploring some fine ideas but let us look at the OP. To be in service in January 1940 I take this to mean it is the usual fighter on a RN carrier by then.

Being optimistic production will have to be a year earlier with working up of squadrons over the year as fighters are delivered. So we have to track back from January 1939 as the date actual deliveries begin. Two years would be a good time to go from proposal via prototype and trials to production beginning.

Now we have a proposal date of January 1937. The Fairey Fulmar was a 1938 proposal (albeit upon an existing design base) entering service in late 1940 and the Fairey Barracuda was a new 1937 proposal not entering service until 1943 so my two years is indeed an optimistic expectation.. In January 1937 even the Hurricane has yet to make a first flight. The Vickers Venom has flown. The Gloster F5/34 has not and will not until December. Using OTL kit the Venom begins to look a good bet for the fleet fighter role. The question mark is over the Aquila engine. We know it was judged suitable for deck landing.
 
If The FAA approach Follond in Mid 1936 he could start work on a naval version of his F5/35 then. If he leaves Glosters six months early, then so be it. If in early in 1936 the RN approach Glosters/Hawkers and tell them that they want either a naval Hurricane or naval F5/35 asap the AM will be pissed off and Inskip might poke his oar in.
However such action just might get the F5/35 higher priority and hence an earlier first flight than December.
Some 96 hurricanes from the Hawker batch 1 production were diverted for export. Of those 20 went to the RCAF and therefore are probably sacrosanct but the other 76 go a long way to fulfilling your FAA requirement prior to 1940.
 
Needs a more powerful engine, does one exist that will fit and not be too heavy? The Venom is a fairly small aircraft?

The thing has half the MTOW as a spitfire.
 
The Aquila weighed 352kg for an output of 493hm, using 73octane.
The Pegasus weighed 504kg, output of 960hp using 100 octane
The Perseus weighed 465kg, output of 905hp using 87 octane.

The Perseus is probably the best option, use 100 octane and you have nearly twice the power for an extra 100kg or so.

remember, ALL the F5/34 aircraft were too lightly built for a naval aircraft. You WILL need to add robustness, more fuel and a foldng wing (ie more weight)
 
Using Data from Flight magazine published in 1937 the Alvis Pelides was rated for 1,000hp. on 87 octane (1,135Hp max) and weighed 1250lb (567KG) the main drawback other than it's lack of OTL production is the 52inch diameter.
 
I just want to talk at the idea of not using Merlin due to it being required for fighter command and bomber command etc

This line of thought has always troubled me in that no aircraft engine had as many rescoures and man hours thrown at it as the Merlin and its bigger brother the Griffon

The result of all this treasure and quadrillion man hours expended upon it allowed it and its bigger brother to remain competitive with 'newer' engines throughout the war

So in 1940 the Merlin is probably, almost certainly the engine of choice for any 'Best FAA Fighter of 1940'

With regards to production capacity - this boils down to planning and management. ie whatever alternative Engine you are going to use - use that factory capacity to instead build Merlin engines!

This is the same reasoning that I picked Seafire as the Spitfire design had so much resources thrown at it which the Seafire could leverage - no need for an unproven or foriegn design - its already there - the development having been done from 1934 and by 1938 it was more or less ready for mass production.

I also picked it because Spitfire units - sortie for sortie suffered less attrition - less pilot loss and a higher kill ratio than Hurricane equipped units - and far less of those pilots surviving a shot down Spitfire ended up in the guinea pig club unlike many of the Hurricane pilots (this mainly due to the unfortunate decision not to fit Self sealing baffels to the Hurricanes forward fuel tank (between the Engine and Cockpit).
 
But there is a major problem choosing the Merlin in 1938
It wasnt working, thanks to the Ramphead fiasco. In fact, the 'Merlin' engine in 1938 was a bigger Kestrel - the 'real' Merlin couldnt pass the flight tests. The Merlin issues werent really fixed until 1940/41. So at the point we have to make a decision, it actually looks a bad bet.
Sorting out a different engine has two advantages. First, its a backup in case the merlin problems get worse. Second, its not currently assigned to RAF aircraft, so its more difficult for them to get theit greedylittle paws on it.
 
Silly question but how would it be if someone had smuggled (ie stolen) a ShKAS 7.62 mm aircraft machinegun and ammunition from Spain in 1937 .

The advantages of the feed mechanism are discovered and trials show that if did not matter how long the belt was or how heavy it still managed to feed properly
They didn't invent it.
The revolver setup was in the early model Maxim Machine gun, that eventually became a delinker.
Delinker were inspired back to the production Gatlings
 
That video is awesome thankyou .
Understanding the rotary revolver principle is from the maxim the ShKAS is more understandable . However it is the only gun I feel could be converted to 20 mm , placed in the wing of a fighter with a belt feed without turning it on it's side etc in 1939 . It solves the RN's need for a good calibre to kill bombers . it also makes sense as a ship based 20 mm defence gun with 250 round belts for example .
 
But there is a major problem choosing the Merlin in 1938
It wasnt working, thanks to the Ramphead fiasco. In fact, the 'Merlin' engine in 1938 was a bigger Kestrel - the 'real' Merlin couldnt pass the flight tests. The Merlin issues werent really fixed until 1940/41. So at the point we have to make a decision, it actually looks a bad bet.
Sorting out a different engine has two advantages. First, its a backup in case the merlin problems get worse. Second, its not currently assigned to RAF aircraft, so its more difficult for them to get theit greedylittle paws on it.

But it appeared to be good enough to equip most of Fighter commands Fighter planes in 1939 - 41 - namely the Hurricane, Spitfire and Defiant.

So despite those issues it was obviously good enough for them at the time so why would it not be good enough for our "Design the best FAA fighter to be in service by Jan 1940"
 
With as clean sheet why would the RN FAA go for the 8 x .303 MGs? Surely 4 or 6 .50 cal HMGs would be better?

EDIT: The Vickers .50 cal used .50x81mm ammo, not the .50x99mm ammo of the more famous Browning, so maybe it's not very good. Does anyone know what the practical difference is?

Perhaps saves 400lb and Fairey did not think it significant and they had a purpose.

This is the same cartridge as used in the Italian Breda SAFAT and Japanese Ho 103 and both did a sound job.

I seem to recall that the trails that the RAF conducted pre-war found (rightly or wrongly) that the jump to .50 over .303 was not worth the weight and ROF drop penalty (the .303 Browning Mk2 fired at 1150 RPM x 8 - 9600 RPM or about 150 RPS - while the AN2 .50 cal fired at 750-850 RPM x 4 = 3,400 RPM or about 55 RPS) - and only a jump to 20mm cannon was worth it.

That being said the last batch of the Fulmar MK2 did swap the 8 x Browning .303s for 4 x Browning .50s so perhaps the RN thought differently - it's also worth noting that the Wildcat F4F-4 had 6 x 50 cals at the insistence of the RN - the USN flyers at the time thought that it was unnecessary and only served to make the aircraft heavier - I guess this reflects their foes - the RN had to contend with 2 and 3 engined bombers and 4 engined Condors most of which had armour and self sealing fuel tanks while the Japanese aircraft had no armour or Self sealing tanks!

Weight wise - an AN2 weighs 27 KGs while the Browning .303 MK2 weighs 10.7 KGs

My google fu has failed and I cannot find .50 cal ammo and link weights

British Browning .303 MG: 7.7 x 56R
Complete Round + Link: 1.06 Ounces

Which is 30 grams
The biggest obstacle to using the Vickers .50 might well have been its fabric belt feed. No one ever developed a metal-link belt for it, which given its extensive naval use has always come across as a bit odd?
Canvas reacts very poorly when wet! Edgeworthy senior would often tell the tale of one of the guns in a multiple mount jamming, and the mount swinging wildly out of control, sawing the bow off a corvette.
Its especially puzzling since the Breda and Ho-103 using the same cartridge could use metal belts, now admittedly they were both based on Brownings.
(NB: The water cooled M1921 Browning was considerably heavier, 79lb without water, than the .05 Vickers, 63lb with water. The AN/M2 is 61lb, the Ho-103 is 50lb)
 
But it appeared to be good enough to equip most of Fighter commands Fighter planes in 1939 - 41 - namely the Hurricane, Spitfire and Defiant.

So despite those issues it was obviously good enough for them at the time so why would it not be good enough for our "Design the best FAA fighter to be in service by Jan 1940"

They HAD to make something work, because the AM had rather foolishly not backed another engine 'just in case'.
They had done things, iirc, like do flight trials with a non-certified engine.

R-R engineers 'fixed' the problem with the 'bigger, better, Kestrel' masquerading as a Merlin, but it wasnt a real fix, just a stopgap.
In service in Jan 1940 means in production early 1938, so finishing trials late 37, at the latest.

The production of merlins actually delayed the squadron deployment of the Hurricane, as the early models went to bombers. Can you really see the AM agreeing to let the NAVY have a few hundred? Really?
 

Anderman

Donor
The biggest obstacle to using the Vickers .50 might well have been its fabric belt feed. No one ever developed a metal-link belt for it, which given its extensive naval use has always come across as a bit odd?
Canvas reacts very poorly when wet! Edgeworthy senior would often tell the tale of one of the guns in a multiple mount jamming, and the mount swinging wildly out of control, sawing the bow off a corvette.
Its especially puzzling since the Breda and Ho-103 using the same cartridge could use metal belts, now admittedly they were both based on Brownings.
(NB: The water cooled M1921 Browning was considerably heavier, 79lb without water, than the .05 Vickers, 63lb with water. The AN/M2 is 61lb, the Ho-103 is 50lb)

AFAIK metal links/belt were already used in WW1.

https://vickersmg.blog/in-use/accessories/ammunition-boxes-belts-and-loading-accessories/

way down
 
With the Air Ministry spec. for the cannon armed fighter (that OTL culminated in the Whirlwind), Boulton-Paul was to build two prototypes P.88a Hercules, and P.88b Vulture. Performance estimates with the former were based on the estimated power of 1500 hp., Hence, when the prototype took to the air with an engine of only 1375 hp., the RAF weren't too impressed. The off-the-board order was reduced pending an engine with better power, the initial order was to be used for trials with the for 20mm cannon armament.
Yet, all was not lost for Boulton-Paul - the RAF's cooling of interest was noticed by the RN - who welcomed the opportunity to steal a march on the light blue. So, it was that the FAA ordered one with RN equipment. Blackburn were invited to participate - while the early versions weren't as fast as land based fighters of the time, they packed a big punch.
Besides, it wasn't long before both assembly lines - Boulton-Paul and Blackburn were flowing when improved Hercules engines became available.
 
Top