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

TruthfulPanda

Gone Fishin'
How good would a modified "pure fighter" Skua be?
With 2nd crewman and rear gun axed, a shorter cabin (extra tank?), no centerline bomb cradle, Perseus 100 engine
 
That’s one tiny plane, 3ft shorter than a Spitfire. How did they fit eight mgs, fuel and armour in there?

bristol146-1.jpg

It probably won't have much growth potential and would have to be replaced by 1943 at the latest, but for an early war fighter, it's good enough for the task at hand.
 
My two pennies' worth?

Either they build another Vickers Jockey after the first one crashes in 1932, or the prototype never crashes at all.
Either way tests with the Mecury engine proceed more or less as planned, and the Vickers Venom enters service
with a Mercury and later Perseus engine, with some if not most of the production going to Blackburn.
 
In the hangar.

world-war-ii-england-hms-indomitable-aircraft-carrier-seafire-are-picture-id78961212


AIUI, outriggers weren’t for permanent storage, but just to clear the flight deck during ops.

Which carrier is that on?
Because the later war carriers were fitted with wider lifts, the early one couldnt put an unfolded Spitfire below.
Oddly the Glorious class could take a Hurricane.
 
Again, some of the lightweight fighter designs will not work as a carrier plane without considerable weight gain.
Just look at the undercart, I wouldnt like to try and land that on a carrier in a rough sea. At least not twice :)
 
That’s one tiny plane, 3ft shorter than a Spitfire. How did they fit eight mgs, fuel and armour in there?

bristol146-1.jpg
Aren't we going for 6 .50 Vickers, and has anyone suggested modifying the K-Gun yet?
Its light, reliable, apparently moreso than the .303 Browning, with a high rate of fire, and if you can adapt a 20mm cannon from drum to belt-feed why not?
(There was a conversion of the Bren Gun into the Belt fed Taden Gun)

And if the undercarriage of a Mosquito can be re-built to make it carrier compatible then a lightweight fighter should not be impossible.
 

Jack1971

Banned
Which carrier is that on?
Because the later war carriers were fitted with wider lifts, the early one couldnt put an unfolded Spitfire below.
Oddly the Glorious class could take a Hurricane.
HMS Indomitable, begun in 1937. Hardly a later war carrier like the Colossus, Majestics and Centaurs.

As for Hurricanes on Glorious. Nothing odd there. Even little Argus could operate them.

hurricanes-on-hms-argus.jpg


As for Indomitable and the Seafire, just turn it sideways on the forward lift and the Seafire fits. Unlike Glorious, Courageous and Furious with their T-shaped lifts, only the forward lift on the Illustrious/Indomitable class was wide enough for the Seafire. IIRC, the T lifts on Hermes did not fit the Seafire, IDK about Eagle.

world-war-iiaircraft-carriers-20th-march-1943-hms-indomitable-on-duty-picture-id79660467


But anyway, this is a moot point, as we’re required to fit in Ark Royal’s lift, so folding is a must.
 
That’s one tiny plane, 3ft shorter than a Spitfire. How did they fit eight mgs, fuel and armour in there?

bristol146-1.jpg

I don't know but the wings were quite wide front to back and if it fits in a Spitfire wing it'll fit anything. I think it's short because the front is short I don't know if the fuselage aft the wings is short. Contemporary reports say it was sturdy and manouverable and Bristol never knowingly built anything flimsy so the undercarriage is probably sturdy as well
 
HMS Indomitable, begun in 1937. Hardly a later war carrier like the Colossus, Majestics and Centaurs.

As for Hurricanes on Glorious. Nothing odd there. Even little Argus could operate them.

hurricanes-on-hms-argus.jpg


As for Indomitable and the Seafire, just turn it sideways on the forward lift and the Seafire fits. Unlike Glorious, Courageous and Furious with their T-shaped lifts, only the forward lift on the Illustrious/Indomitable class was wide enough for the Seafire. IIRC, the T lifts on Hermes did not fit the Seafire, IDK about Eagle.

world-war-iiaircraft-carriers-20th-march-1943-hms-indomitable-on-duty-picture-id79660467


But anyway, this is a moot point, as we’re required to fit in Ark Royal’s lift, so folding is a must.

Indomitable did have her elevators made larger during construction - she wasnt ready until the end of 1941.
What was and what wasnt done to the RN carriers during construction is interesting...
 
How tall were Arks hangers?

Ark's double hangers had 16 foot clearance (somewhat more between supports).
Her elevator size was 45' x 22', not only could she not strike down current RAF aircraft, she couldnt take the existing FAA fighter (the Nimrod)!
Illustrious was the same, but Indom had 45x33 feet lifts, just able to take a Spit or Hurricane
 
Jeffrey Quill the Vickers/Supermarine test pilot flew the Venom on trials and gave it a very good write up. Particular remarking on the fact that he thought that its flight characteristics would make it a very good candidate for an FAA fighter especially if it could be found an engine with a bit more power. All test flights were done with eight guns and the ammo tanks (as quill called them) installed. as far as he was concerned it was a match for the Hurricane but lost out to the Spitfire and all this on the Bristol Aquila engines paltry 500hp.
 
HMS Nabob had two elevators 43’ x 34’ a single catapult and 9 arrester cables. Her hangar measured 260’ x 62’.
 
Last edited:

Jack1971

Banned
Ark's double hangers had 16 foot clearance. Her elevator size was 45' x 22', not only could she not strike down current RAF aircraft, she couldnt take the existing FAA fighter (the Nimrod)!
That’s why the OP Specification calls for Ark Royal compatibility from the onset of aircraft design.
 
Jeffrey Quill the Vickers/Supermarine test pilot flew the Venom on trials and gave it a very good write up. Particular remarking on the fact that he thought that its flight characteristics would make it a very good candidate for an FAA fighter especially if it could be found an engine with a bit more power. All test flights were done with eight guns and the ammo tanks (as quill called them) installed. as far as he was concerned it was a match for the Hurricane but lost out to the Spitfire and all this on the Bristol Aquila engines paltry 500hp.
and an extra 150lb of Perseus power would nicely balance a 'sting' arrestor hook out of the back. How would the 10 metre wingspan fit in lifts? Is only a gnat's more than a Gladiator. Maybe a folding wing is not needed at all?
 
The first production example of the much maligned Blackburn Skua Fighter Dive Bomber (F.D.B.) flew on 28th August 1938. AFAIK the nearest to an equivalent in the USN was the Northrop BT-1 which was first delivered to VB-5 in April 1938.

How good (or bad) was the Skua in comparison to the BT-1?

The refined XBT-2 was ordered into production as the Douglas SBD Dauntless on 8th April 1939.

BT-1's engine produced 825hp. However, the SBD-1 to 4 had an engines producing 1,000hp, the SDB-5 which was delivered from February 1943 had a 1,200hp engine and the SDB-6 had an 1,350hp engine.

In comparison the Skua had an engine producing 890hp. If a 1,000hp engine had been available for it in 1940 would that have made it as good as the early marks of SDB?
 
from the photographs I have seen the Skua was not a very aerodynamically clean aircraft. give it a 1000hp engine and an aerodynamic tidy up and it might be Ok. However the Bristol 148 with the Taurus engine would probably been as good and with a top speed of about 300MPH faster than either a skua or a Fulmar.
 
If a 1,000hp engine had been available for it in 1940 would that have made it as good as the early marks of SDB?

No
image.php

510.++SBD+COVER.jpg


Two Words, Dive Brakes.

SBD could do a vertical dive, and still be able to pull out without building up too much speed.

When not dive bombing, was agile enough that A6M Zeros could be shot down with the front twin .50s, or the twin .30s in back, vs four .303 and one .303 in back for the Skua
 
No
image.php
510.++SBD+COVER.jpg


Two Words, Dive Brakes.

SBD could do a vertical dive, and still be able to pull out without building up too much speed.

When not dive bombing, was agile enough that A6M Zeros could be shot down with the front twin .50s, or the twin .30s in back, vs four .303 and one .303 in back for the Skua

The Skua also has Dive Brakes I dont know its maximum dive angle but no one did vertical dives against ships when they were under way
 
Top