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

Pic shows the dive brakes extended.
wimpy.

They must have worked or the Skua wouldnt have been able to dive bomb. Skuas sank the cruiser Konigsberg in Bergen, 16 Skuas got either 5 or 6 hits by diving into a Fjord from 11,000ft releasing their bombs between 1,500 and 3,000ft. I dont know the area of Bergen but the first picture on a google image search is this

bergen-colourful-waterfront-winter.jpg


I wouldnt fancy diving a plane too close to those mountains.
 
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

I read once that the position of the Skua's dive breaks meant that it changed angle during the dive as it changed the aircraft trim. I can't recall if it increased the dive from 65 to 70 degrees or the other way around, but apparently it made them very difficult for AA gunners to get a bead on but still kept the accuracy of a dive bomber.
 
I an useless at using these D@# computer thingys but if you search for this clip on you tube "(Southampton (Eastleigh) Airport - 1939 - Major De Seversky of the USAAC evaluates the Spitfire)" I am as sure as I can be that the second aircraft flown is the prototype Bristol 146 fighter. Can anyone confirm that for a fact? If it is the 146 then it gives a good comparison of size with a Mark 1 Spitfire..
 
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
Interesting.

I didn't know if the Skua was incapable of diving vertically and that the Dauntless was. According to Whiltley in German Cruisers of World War II the Skuas that attacked Konigsberg dived at an angle of 60 degrees and released their bombs at about 650m (2,000ft). That seemed to be sufficient, but that was against a stationary ship, which was attacked by surprise and AFAIK did not fire back.

However, what I meant was speed, manoeuvrability and payload. I thought some or all of these would be improved with a more powerful engine, which all marks of the Dauntless had.
 
Been looking for this for 2 days... damn my archives...

An extra on the advantage of folding wings: this image is the best demonstration I've ever seen to show why folded wings are vital...

comparison_of_f4f_wildcats_with_and_without_folded_wings_c1942.jpg
 

Driftless

Donor
I an useless at using these D@# computer thingys but if you search for this clip on you tube "(Southampton (Eastleigh) Airport - 1939 - Major De Seversky of the USAAC evaluates the Spitfire)" I am as sure as I can be that the second aircraft flown is the prototype Bristol 146 fighter. Can anyone confirm that for a fact? If it is the 146 then it gives a good comparison of size with a Mark 1 Spitfire..

Southampton (Eastleigh) Airport - 1939 - Major De Seversky of the USAAC evaluates the Spitfire. I believe the radial engine plane is one variant of the Seversky P-35
 
They must have worked or the Skua wouldnt have been able to dive bomb. Skuas sank the cruiser Konigsberg in Bergen, 16 Skuas got either 5 or 6 hits by diving into a Fjord from 11,000ft releasing their bombs between 1,500 and 3,000ft.


I wouldnt fancy diving a plane too close to those mountains.

With no dive brake at all, the Vought SBU2 Vindicator could do 60 degree dives(by lowering gear), that came off very poor to the Douglas SBD or Aichi Val ability to do vertical. 75 degree is about minimum to be considered as a good dive bomber.

Late mark Corsairs had rudimentary dive brakes(and could lower gear for more drag) were limited to 60 degrees when centerline loads were carried, as had no swing out cradle for the bombs.

Since it had the same bombload as a Curtiss Helldiver, it became the choice for Marine bombing, as the Corsair wasn't the flying Turd that the Helldiver was. Even though it couldn't dive as steep.

So why did most of the successful divebomber be able to do near vertical dives?

Better accuracy (They have ONE Job....)
and the steeper angle made targeting difficult for AAA crews shooting at them

Back to the Skua. once the bomb was dropped, it wasn't armed as well as the SBD, or the range. SBD-2 had 310 US gallons, vs 166 Imp of the Skua
 
Dive bombing in British circles was an issue as the powers that be in the RAF had concluded in the 30s that 'Drop Altitude' bombing (which says all that is needed to know about their attitude to it) was not a good idea was not as accurate as Glide or Level bombing, was danerous and therefore should not be done and was effectively forbidden!

This despite the US Navy, Sweden, German, Japan et all happily dive bombing stuff

Indeed one RAF Officer returned from an exchange visit with the Swedish Air Force in the late 30s tried very hard to convince his superiors that they were wrong and even managed to bring home a dive bomb sight!

It was only in 1939 that the RN now in control of their own FAA again started dive bombing exercises off Malta using Swordfish from HMS Furious vs the radio controlled target ship HMS Centurion where it was found that a steep dive and releasing bombs at about 1000 ft was incredibly accurate (they already knew this having hit the target ship HMS Centurion during training ops in Sept 1933 - getting 19 hits on the ship out of 48 bombs!) and far more accurate than Medium and High altitude level bombing.

So unfortunately by this point the Skua was already in service and its design was constrained by the attitudes of the day.

Some one also forgot to tell RAF units with AGBA formations as they used dive bombing techniques and of course RAF Fighter Command who late war used their Spitfires to dive bomb V1 sites as well as the channel gun positions.

Also in the weeks leading up to 2nd El Alamein the only dive bombers with the DAF (Desert Air Force) were 2 squadrons of FAA Albacore.

But the damage was done and attitudes to dive bombing well entrenched by the time war began.
 
Dive bombing in British circles was an issue as the powers that be in the RAF had concluded in the 30s that 'Drop Altitude' bombing (which says all that is needed to know about their attitude to it) was not a good idea was not as accurate as Glide or Level bombing, was danerous and therefore should not be done and was effectively forbidden!

This despite the US Navy, Sweden, German, Japan et all happily dive bombing stuff

Indeed one RAF Officer returned from an exchange visit with the Swedish Air Force in the late 30s tried very hard to convince his superiors that they were wrong and even managed to bring home a dive bomb sight!

It was only in 1939 that the RN now in control of their own FAA again started dive bombing exercises off Malta using Swordfish from HMS Furious vs the radio controlled target ship HMS Centurion where it was found that a steep dive and releasing bombs at about 1000 ft was incredibly accurate (they already knew this having hit the target ship HMS Centurion during training ops in Sept 1933 - getting 19 hits on the ship out of 48 bombs!) and far more accurate than Medium and High altitude level bombing.

So unfortunately by this point the Skua was already in service and its design was constrained by the attitudes of the day.

Some one also forgot to tell RAF units with AGBA formations as they used dive bombing techniques and of course RAF Fighter Command who late war used their Spitfires to dive bomb V1 sites as well as the channel gun positions.

Also in the weeks leading up to 2nd El Alamein the only dive bombers with the DAF (Desert Air Force) were 2 squadrons of FAA Albacore.

But the damage was done and attitudes to dive bombing well entrenched by the time war began.

The Albacores wins my award for Best WWII Dive Bomber You've Never Heard Of.
 
The introduction of meaningful light and medium AA fire closed the window on both true dive bombing and torpedo attacks by 1944. People have been rude about RN AA fire but it was not only intended to shoot down attackers but equally important, to drive them to bomb from higher altitudes or drop torpedos from further away which reduced the accuracy of their attacks.

The Fleet fighter's task was to engage them before the AA fire range for the same reasons and to drive off or destroy shadowing aeroplanes. The Fulmar's long loiter allowed it to maintain a nominal cover against the latter whilst a Fleet fighter would be sent off on the task once the shadower had been spotted. The RN was not expecting to have carriers within reach of land based fighters in the Atlantic (the French navy was to deal with the Mediterranean) so they would be engaging unescorted bombers. Then France fell..... but it would be an unreasonable design proposal to expect the FAA fighters to engage with massed enemy fighters. The only carrier enemies could be France, our ally and joint war planners, the USA or Japan. The RN placed great emphasis on being able to operate in poor conditions and at night, hence the secret carrier beacons and two man crews except for the Fleet fighters.

I therefore take the OP to refer to the actual defence of the fleet in local distance of the carriers so it is a one man interceptor to operate at lower altitudes than an RAF interceptor. Limited numbers also emphasises ammunition capacity over rate of fire. 4x Vickers 0.5" guns have been proposed but the choice IOTL went to the Browning due to the Vickers history of jams. Easily cleared by hand but not in wing mounted guns. Given a 1938 POD we have to look at mostly OTL kit and the Venom looks more attractive as it needs no wing folding and 6x .303 Brownings would allow for a bit more ammunition. The converse is the need to make sure of a kill on a torpedo bomber which conflicts with a light armament. We need a good OR section to determine which way to jump. 2x 20mm drum fed cannon is also an OTL possibility. I just mention that FN were making 0.5" & 13.2mm Brownings just 100 miles from Britain so we have a pre war source and access to tooling etc. for UK production as well as buying them from the USA. As the RAF determined pre war, the 0.5" Browning pre war not a significant step forward from multiple 0.303" Brownings at the time and a direct step to 20mm cannon gave a very definite improvement. Given assorted service and naval kit which gets added I anticipate that a Perseus Venom would have much the same performance as the Aquila armed prototype but cary all the assorted extra kit deemed necessary. e.g. extra Perseus weight, armour, self sealing tanks, flotation gear, dinghy etc.

The Hurricane and Spitfire production orders took up all the production capacity and were Air Ministry orders and they made it clear in 1938 that they not were going to be released for the FAA let alone be modified for wing folding etc. The Venom was outside this and worked. The quick and dirty option is to tweak the Sea Gladiator with 6x 0.303" Brownings and a Pegasus engine with a CS or at least VP propellor to give a competitive rate of climb and respectable armament. Even replace the fuselage synchronised 0.303" with Vickers 0.5" as the pilot can hand clear any jams. OTL experience showed that a Blenheim engined/propped Gladiator could comfortable out climb a Hurricane so a Pegasus one only suffers by way of maximum speed. Wet finger in the air guess at 285mph.

I still like the Venom and rigid control of weight will keep it competitive. Where a Gladiator can be stowed a Venom can be stowed. You will still need the Fulmar for the other jobs.
 
The introduction of meaningful light and medium AA fire closed the window on both true dive bombing and torpedo attacks by 1944. People have been rude about RN AA fire but it was not only intended to shoot down attackers but equally important, to drive them to bomb from higher altitudes or drop torpedos from further away which reduced the accuracy of their attacks.

The Fleet fighter's task was to engage them before the AA fire range for the same reasons and to drive off or destroy shadowing aeroplanes. The Fulmar's long loiter allowed it to maintain a nominal cover against the latter whilst a Fleet fighter would be sent off on the task once the shadower had been spotted. The RN was not expecting to have carriers within reach of land based fighters in the Atlantic (the French navy was to deal with the Mediterranean) so they would be engaging unescorted bombers. Then France fell..... but it would be an unreasonable design proposal to expect the FAA fighters to engage with massed enemy fighters. The only carrier enemies could be France, our ally and joint war planners, the USA or Japan. The RN placed great emphasis on being able to operate in poor conditions and at night, hence the secret carrier beacons and two man crews except for the Fleet fighters.

I therefore take the OP to refer to the actual defence of the fleet in local distance of the carriers so it is a one man interceptor to operate at lower altitudes than an RAF interceptor. Limited numbers also emphasises ammunition capacity over rate of fire. 4x Vickers 0.5" guns have been proposed but the choice IOTL went to the Browning due to the Vickers history of jams. Easily cleared by hand but not in wing mounted guns. Given a 1938 POD we have to look at mostly OTL kit and the Venom looks more attractive as it needs no wing folding and 6x .303 Brownings would allow for a bit more ammunition. The converse is the need to make sure of a kill on a torpedo bomber which conflicts with a light armament. We need a good OR section to determine which way to jump. 2x 20mm drum fed cannon is also an OTL possibility. I just mention that FN were making 0.5" & 13.2mm Brownings just 100 miles from Britain so we have a pre war source and access to tooling etc. for UK production as well as buying them from the USA. As the RAF determined pre war, the 0.5" Browning pre war not a significant step forward from multiple 0.303" Brownings at the time and a direct step to 20mm cannon gave a very definite improvement. Given assorted service and naval kit which gets added I anticipate that a Perseus Venom would have much the same performance as the Aquila armed prototype but cary all the assorted extra kit deemed necessary. e.g. extra Perseus weight, armour, self sealing tanks, flotation gear, dinghy etc.

The Hurricane and Spitfire production orders took up all the production capacity and were Air Ministry orders and they made it clear in 1938 that they not were going to be released for the FAA let alone be modified for wing folding etc. The Venom was outside this and worked. The quick and dirty option is to tweak the Sea Gladiator with 6x 0.303" Brownings and a Pegasus engine with a CS or at least VP propellor to give a competitive rate of climb and respectable armament. Even replace the fuselage synchronised 0.303" with Vickers 0.5" as the pilot can hand clear any jams. OTL experience showed that a Blenheim engined/propped Gladiator could comfortable out climb a Hurricane so a Pegasus one only suffers by way of maximum speed. Wet finger in the air guess at 285mph.

I still like the Venom and rigid control of weight will keep it competitive. Where a Gladiator can be stowed a Venom can be stowed. You will still need the Fulmar for the other jobs.

I have often observed these debates about the pros and con's of 303 v 0.5 Calibre. My understanding is the British felt that to garentee a hit required putting a lot of lead in the air in a very short space of time. Less MG's with a slower rate of fire reduced the chances of a hit for the benefit of possibly punching a slightly bigger hole in the enemy plane. Only when cannons came along with the power to "kill" an aircraft with one or two hits was there a compelling reason to change armament.

I think that the reason the British used armoured carriers was they expected to have to operate heavy fleet units close to land based air. The areas they expected to operate in where the North Sea, Mediterranean and South China Sea. All where key strategic areas for the British Empire.

As such the RN where expecting to face good quality opposition. OTL the AM was in control of ship based aircraft until too late for the RN to get the right planes and enough pilots in place for the start of WW2. I believe that they would prioritise fighter defence and would demand a quality fighter if they got the FAA back earlier (see Astro's Whale for an excellent alt history based on this POD).

My preference would be for the specs for both the Hurricane and Spitfire to have either a naval variant planned for each aircraft from the get go or to allow each aircraft to be quickly navalised in an emergency. Things like slower stall speeds, strengthened under carriage and fittings for an arrester hock in situ on all aircraft. I think it's easier to increase production of an existing aircraft due to economys of scale than to try to get a new design in the air for similar performance.

And of course as soon as the fleet air arm starts playing with the Luftwaffe the Admiralty starts demanding modern fighters from the AM.
 
I think that the reason the British used armoured carriers was they expected to have to operate heavy fleet units close to land based air. The areas they expected to operate in where the North Sea, Mediterranean and South China Sea. All where key strategic areas for the British Empire.

Exactly this. And don't forget that, when these carriers were being designed, there was no radar; the chances of spoting an incoming air attack, before it was actually over the fleet (and before you could launch as many fighters as possible) were slim to none. Designers felt that the carriers would be hit hard, by heavy bombs...

On the mgs, one issue I remember reading was that of acuracy. With the sighs available in early/mid 30s, acuracy was low, so more guns=more chances to hit.
 
I don't think the Skua would be called a bad dive bomber because its attacks were at 65 degrees, that would be sufficiently steep to get the hits needed.
 
Since we are slightly diverging into Dive-Bombers, and since in any case they produce excellent low speed handling, just about anything fitted with Fairey-Youngman flaps can dive vertically.
The extremely pleasant handling of the Fairey Firefly can be largely attributed to these. They should be fitted to any potential FAA Fighter if possible, or bomber, there should not be any compatibility problems with any air-frame related to the Fairey P.4/34, which started out as a dive-bomber. And was itself the test plane for them.
(The Fulmar and Firefly could have been excellent Dive & Torpedo Bombers. The Fulmar actually was trialled as such)
fairey_barracuda.jpg

(Fairey Barracuda with flaps angled to dive)
 
Top