Miles Kestrel Naval Fighter.

[Cryhavoc101]

So what would its no BS performance been with guns/ammo, Radio, armour, dinghy, self sealing fuel tanks etc?

And when could it have been in squadron/fleet service by?

 

[tomo pauk]

With fully supercharged Kestrel (like the Mk 14, 15 or 16; 745 HP at 14500 ft), we'd probably see 280-290 mph. Talk similar to the last fixed-U/C fighters - Ki 27, A5M, or the unrefined 'new' fighters like the Fiat G.50.
Rate of climb is tricky to asume, until we know more or less exact weight of the A/C, and whether it uses fixed pitch prop or constant speed prop. Even the 2-pitch prop is much better than fixed-pitch prop.
As for the service entry, it depends on how much the FAA wants it. The Miles Kestrel in OTL 1st flew in May 1937. So late 1939 is not out of question, the later Miles Master managed it.

 

[fastmongrel]

It has a hugely thick wing section would this cause problems I can see it diving like a feather. Though the thick wing might mean early adoption of the 20mm Hispano.

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

One thing to remember about the quoted top speed is that it was done on prewar octane avgas. By mid 1940 they'd be using 100 octane fuel.

 

[Gannt the chartist]

Ah lets Gimp the RAF Goering style and give the FAA a third rate fighter incapable of doing its designed mission yeehah.

The Kestrel is trainer, very good trainer not a fighter. As said what the RAF needs is crew not uncrewed second rate aircraft. Airspeed are busy making the main trainer for complete aircrews and GA0 are part of the civilian maintenance organisation not building trainers gimps the RAF both at a critical time and then throughout the war, and for what.

Nada.

The Fulmar, oddly enough does what it was built to do, be an Observation and fleet Defence fighter vs perceived threat from long range multi engine types did a creditable job when called on to meet italian fighters, Its other job was as a long range recon aircraft able to navigate over ocean, shadow and report on contacts. Neither it nor the RN of the late 1930s was built to fight a carrier war in the mid pacific.

 

[sonofpegasus]

GA. and Airspeed both designed and built gliders beginning in 1940.The late 1930's wood based industries in the UK were quick to convert aircraft, boat and other war production.
As in the Peerless Air Ministry Time Line having an armed trainer that is basically the same as your advanced two seat trainer makes a good transition to single seat fighter flying without risking your precious front line fighters. The bonus is having a non strategic material second line fighter that can be used in second tier combat environments. In 1939/40 a six gun kestrel is certainly in MVHO a better option than the Gladiator in both RAF and FAA service. Canceling the later Gladiator orders and substituting Kestrels frees up Gloster's to concentrate on Hurricanes earlier another un intended consequence that is a bonus to Fighter Command. Instead of the fulmar take the turret out of the Defiant, give it a second seat under a streamlined hood and you have a much faster and better fighter with your second set of eyes.

 

[fastmongrel]

Instead of the fulmar take the turret out of the Defiant, give it a second seat under a streamlined hood and you have a much faster and better fighter with your second set of eyes.

The Defiant only has 250 sq feet of wing the Fulmar had 342 sq feet, I dont know what the Defiant was like for landing but it might not have been as docile as the Fulmar which was designed to fly in horrible weather.

 

[Crowbar Six]

Ah lets Gimp the RAF Goering style and give the FAA a third rate fighter incapable of doing its designed mission yeehah.

Actually that was sort of traditional for the FAA.

 

[fastmongrel]

Ah lets Gimp the RAF Goering style and give the FAA a third rate fighter incapable of doing its designed mission yeehah.

Actually that was sort of traditional for the FAA.

What properly designed (not cobbled together from 2nd hand RAF cast offs) FAA aircraft was incapable of doing its designed mission.

 

[Cryhavoc101]

I'm going to be contrarian once in the thread and then join in the Miles fun

The only way to get this Mile fighter is for the RN to decide that it needs a first class fighter before Sept 1939

It did decide that it needed one OTL by Nov 39 and was pretty much decided on that cute little Supermarine number and started talks with Vickers but Uncle Winston put his foot down in March 40

So an earlier proper realisation that a proper fighter is required gets the FAA in earlier during the Spitfire (or Hurricane) development and more airframes are ordered earlier as a result

Now the argument against is that during the summer post surrender of France 1940 any FAA production would be switched to RAF needs and quite rightly so but that is a decision for the future and should not impact a decision made in 38/39 to pick the 'Sea Service Spitfire' as its fighter of choice.

Now I have that out of the way - certainly such a Miles fighter could serve a double capacity.

Fleet defense fighter and unarmed 2 seat trainer

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

What properly designed (not cobbled together from 2nd hand RAF cast offs) FAA aircraft was incapable of doing its designed mission.

The Skua & Roc.

 

[tomo pauk]

The Skua & Roc.

What was the problem with Skua?

 

[Driftless]

What was the problem with Skua?

Is it unfair to draw a comparison to the Douglas TBD Devastator? Both were modern aircraft when coming into service in the mid-thirties, but by the time the shooting started, both were too far down the back-end of the technology and performance bell curve. The Devastator, of course, had the misfortune of being remembered for being unescorted and massacred at Midway, a fate that the Skua didn't undergo.

*edit* I know the two planes had different combat roles, I'm comparing their relative life cycles as front line aircraft.

 

[hipper]

The Miles Kestrel trainer first flew in 1938 but was rejected as to advanced. In 1938 the FAA began replacing the Hawker Nimrod with the Gloster Sea Gladiator. The Kestrel could do 295 mph, much faster than the Gladiators 254 mph.

Proposition. That instead of the Sea Gladiator the FAA chooses to order the Kestrel as a six gun single seat carrier fighter. The removal of the instructors cockpit frees up space for extra equipment such as a dingy and naval radios. It could also be used for an extra fuel tank but at that time the single seat fighters were supposed to stay close to the carrier.

I have a maturing AH using this as a theme....it works very well remember that Miles kestrels had folding wings as built (apparently handy for storing light aircraft in hangers)

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

What was the problem with Skua?

As a Dive Bomber, nothing but it was also supposed to be a fighter and it was far too slow for that.

 

[tomo pauk]

As a Dive Bomber, nothing but it was also supposed to be a fighter and it was far too slow for that.

My point exactly - it does not do justice to the type just to say 'it didn't do it's job', since there was a part of the job that it did in decent fashion, to say at least.

 

[sonofpegasus]

I agree that the Defiant has a higher wing loading than the Fulmar but there are always compromises in shipborne fighter design. Did the Fulmar give up to much speed and maneuverability to obtain that range and low landing speed? Having any fighter capable of 290mph plus and carrying at least six Mg's in fleet service by September 1939 would IMVHO have been a plus for the FAA. I was unaware that the original Miles Kestrel had folding wings! Does anyone have a picture or a drawing of this?

 

[Cryhavoc101]

My point exactly - it does not do justice to the type just to say 'it didn't do it's job', since there was a part of the job that it did in decent fashion, to say at least.

Also you have to match like for like

The Skua ranks favorably with the other carrier fighters of the day A5m and the Grumman F2 and F3 fighters - and had a far more effective armament than either with 4 Browning MK2 .303 guns with 600 RPG vs the 2 mgs of the IJN and USN fighters - sadly it was up against land based ME109s in a littoral environment and for that a dedicated first class fighter was required and of the only 3 Aircraft capable of fulfilling that role at the time anywhere in the world - the ME109 was one and the Hurricane and Spitfire the other 2.

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

Lets see, the Skua was 40 mph slower than the Grumman F3F and had much less range despite being a newer design by 2 years. It was 50 mph slower than the Mitsubishi A5M Claude again despite being a much newer design. The Claude also had double the range. As a Dive Bomber the Skua had half the bombload as its contemporaries.

 

[hipper]

Lets see, the Skua was 40 mph slower than the Grumman F3F and had much less range despite being a newer design by 2 years. It was 50 mph slower than the Mitsubishi A5M Claude again despite being a much newer design. The Claude also had double the range. As a Dive Bomber the Skua had half the bombload as its contemporaries.

As a dive bomber the Skua was fine, it had the same bomb load as the Val and the SBD only carried 1000 lb bombs in specific circumstances,
also a little caution must be used in comparing published Ranges of aircraft. often differing assumptions are made,

for example how far could the aircraft fly at crusunf speed if it magically appeared at optimum altitude with full tanks,

compared to what’s the range given fuel for warming up, takeoff, Climb to altitude, 10 minutes max power at target, return to base plus 30 minutes fuel reserve.