RN Fulmar alternative.

[NOMISYRRUC]

A few weeks ago I wrote a spreadsheet comparing the performance, weights, dimensions and first flight dates of the aircraft used by the FAA in the early part of WWII. However, I deleted it a few days ago because I thought that I wouldn't need it.

I'll have to start a thread called, WI NOMISYRRUC saved more spreadsheets?

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

An interesting article on the Henley.

http://www.dingeraviation.net/henley/hawker_henley.htm

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

The best website for Hurricane projects that I know of is this one.
http://www.k5083.mistral.co.uk/PROJECTS.HTM

Unfortunately, it doesn't mention a Hurricane with folding wings.

My guess of what the folded wingspan of a Sea Henley would be is 17ft 2in. That is the line drawing of the Henley Mk III from Aircraft of the Royal Air Force since 1918.

British Naval Aircraft since 1912 Owen Thetford Fifth Revised Edition. Page 235

"Although a scheme was prepared for a Hurricane with folding wings, this modification was never incorporated, and all Sea Hurricanes had fixed wings".

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

British Naval Aircraft since 1912 Owen Thetford Fifth Revised Edition. Page 235

"Although a scheme was prepared for a Hurricane with folding wings, this modification was never incorporated, and all Sea Hurricanes had fixed wings".

It says that in my copy too. Which, is not surprising, as my copy is also the fifth edition.

It's about eight lines down from the sentence, which says that some Sea Hurricanes were converted back to land-based fighter standard as Hurricane Mk IICs.

I didn't see that before. Sorry.

 

[yulzari]

The Fulmar was meant to do more roles than the de facto fleet fighter one IOTL. Possibly the Hurricane/Henley could be complementary? The Sea Hurricane performing the Fleet Fighter role in lieu of the Sea Gladiator and the Sea Henley the Fulmar's strike and reconnoissance tasks.

It is undeniable that this would reduce OTL Hurricane production for the RAF in the early war years. On other hand Fairey would be free to do more Spitfire work.

Who knows? Maybe it would lead to a completely separate FAA development history of the Hurricane. Hawker offered Griffon versions and a thin wing Hurricane. The 1945 Sea Hurricane and Sea Henley could end up as thin wing 2,000 bhp Griffon types.

 

[tomo pauk]

Henley + Merlin X (later XX) + 8x.303s (later with cannons) = 280-300 mph LR 2-seat fighter.

Or, go risky way - stretch the Spitfire for extra crewman, big electronics bay and fuel tank(s).
Another approach: Hercules in the nose, side-a-side crew, small-ish wing (~250 sq ft) with Fowler flaps.

 

[jsb]

What about simply have RR keep working on the Buzzard/R/Griffon and then the Fulmar would have sufficient power?

 

[tomo pauk]

What about simply have RR keep working on the Buzzard/R/Griffon and then the Fulmar would have sufficient power?

I can only agree with that. Not just for purposes of this thread.
Just can the Exe and Goshawk 1st, so there is enough of human & monetary resources to have that engine in production before ww2.

 

[edgeworthy]

I've done a crude calculation using the line drawing of the Sea Hurricane Mk IC in British Naval Aircraft Since 1912.

The best place for the wings to fold seems to at the place illustrated in @jsb's photographs. This is inside the propeller disc.

That would reduce the width of a Sea Hurricane Mk IC from exactly 40ft to 12ft 6in.

However, each of the outer wing panels was 15 feet long. Therefore, they would have to fold backwards, instead of upwards, or they would be too tall to fit inside the hangars of the Royal Navy's aircraft carriers.

The extra weight of the folding mechanism will probably degrade the performance of the Sea Hurricane. However, it will still be faster than the Fulmar, Roc, Skua, Sea Gladiator and the Martlet Mks I and II.

I did the same crude calculation on the line drawing of the Fulmar Mk II. That produced a folded wingspan of just under 16ft. I can't remember where I read it, but I think 16 feet was the folded wingspan of the Fulmar.

I think the best POD is around 1936.

• Order 600 Hurricanes from Hawker in 1936 as OTL
• Order 400 Hurricanes from Gloster in 1936 instead of 400 Henleys (sources differ as to whether it was 350 to 400) and don't reduce it to 200.
• Order 389 Hurricanes from Avro in 1936 instead of 389 Hotspurs and don't cancel it in favour of the Defiant.
• Order 378 Hurricanes from Gloster in 1937-38 instead of the last 378 Gladiators ordered by the Air Ministry. The first 225 were ordered in 1935 and I think it won't be possible to build Hurricanes instead of them. Unfortunately most of the 165 Gladiators built to direct export contracts IOTL can't be built as Hurricanes ITTL. However, the last 6 Norwegian Gladiators and the 15 Portuguese Gladiators were diverted from the last Air Ministry contract so they could be built as Hurricanes ITTL.
• The first Sea Gladiators were ordered in June 1938 and were diverted from an Air Ministry contract for 300 Gladiator Mk IIs. All other things being equal ITTL 98 Sea Hurricanes would be ordered in June 1938 and be diverted from a contract for 300 Hurricanes ordered from Gloster. I think that this is not enough time for the Sea Hurricanes built instead of the Sea Gladiator to be completed with folding wings. However, it might be possible to complete Sea Hurricanes built to follow up contracts folding wings.
• Specification O.8/38 for the navalised Fairey P.4/37 was issued on 24th April 1938 IOTL. ITTL it will be necessary to bring it forward one or two years.
• This is to allow for 190 Fulmars to be ordered from Blackburn in July 1936 instead of the 190 Skuas ordered IOTL and for 136 Fulmars to be ordered from Boulton Paul in April 1937 instead of the Roc.

However, this would make it an alternative Sea Gladiator timeline and not an alternative Fulmar timeline.

If you want the latter what you really need to do is not stop the development of what became the RR Griffon so that Fairey can put an equivalent of the Firefly Mk I into service in the middle of 1940 instead of the Fulmar.

AIUI development of what became the Griffon was begun at the same time as the Merlin. However, its development programme had to be suspended at least once so that RR could concentrate on the Merlin. A possible POD is that Rolls Royce stops development of the Peregrine and Vulture so that it can concentrate on the Griffon. Perhaps the POD for that could be that the Air Ministry decides to give the Manchester, Warwick and the predecessor to the Halifax two Griffons instead of 2 Vultures.

Hmmm ... for a hypothetical Mk1 Sea-Hurricane perhaps we could start with a simple wing-tip fold like the A6M.

Then if greater reduction is required a double-fold wing.

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

Or

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Or

It would have to be like that on the Sea Hurricane and Sea Henley to fit in the hangars of the Royal Navy's aircraft carriers.

The wings for the Fulmar and Firefly folded in a similar fashion.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

What about simply have RR keep working on the Buzzard/R/Griffon and then the Fulmar would have sufficient power?

I can only agree with that. Not just for purposes of this thread.
Just can the Exe and Goshawk 1st, so there is enough of human & monetary resources to have that engine in production before ww2.

That's the Firefly Mk I brought forward 3 years.

A very good idea if it could be done without the aid of ASBs and I think that it could. This is what I suggested in Post 17.

AIUI development of what became the Griffon was begun at the same time as the Merlin. However, its development programme had to be suspended at least once so that RR could concentrate on the Merlin. A possible POD is that Rolls Royce stops development of the Peregrine and Vulture so that it can concentrate on the Griffon. Perhaps the POD for that could be that the Air Ministry decides to give the Manchester, Warwick and the predecessor to the Halifax two Griffons instead of 2 Vultures.

However, if @Justleo was still around, no chance whatsoever.

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

AIUI development of what became the Griffon was begun at the same time as the Merlin. However, its development programme had to be suspended at least once so that RR could concentrate on the Merlin. A possible POD is that Rolls Royce stops development of the Peregrine and Vulture so that it can concentrate on the Griffon. Perhaps the POD for that could be that the Air Ministry decides to give the Manchester, Warwick and the predecessor to the Halifax two Griffons instead of 2 Vultures.

How about after the abject failure of the RR Goshawk engine it is decided to end all further development of engines that like the Goshawk are based on the RR Kestrel?

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Henley + Merlin X (later XX) + 8x.303s (later with cannons) = 280-300 mph LR 2-seat fighter.

Or, go risky way - stretch the Spitfire for extra crewman, big electronics bay and fuel tank(s).
Another approach: Hercules in the nose, side-a-side crew, small-ish wing (~250 sq ft) with Fowler flaps.

AIUI putting a more powerful engine into the Hurricane didn't make the Hurricane Mk II much faster than the Mk I, but IIRC it was heavier as well. Again, AIUI plans to put the Griffon in to the Hurricane were abandoned because it wouldn't make the aircraft that much faster.

I suspect that that the same would have applied to the Henley and for that matter the Hawker Hotspur.

I haven't checked but IIRC putting more powerful engines into the Fulmar didn't make it significantly faster. However, I have also been arguing for years that the main problem with the Fairey Battle was that it was underpowered and that had it been given an engine in the Griffon class (which AIUI was the plan, but the engine was cancelled forcing the Merlin to be substituted) it would have been a half-decent aircraft by 1939-40 standards. I've also suggested a Twin Battle with two Merlins, which I think would have been a worthwhile improvement over the Blenheim Mk IV in 1940-40 in the light bomber role and also as a night fighter in the Blitz.

So I may be wrong.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

How about after the abject failure of the RR Goshawk engine it is decided to end all further development of engines that like the Goshawk are based on the RR Kestrel?

I.e. the Peregrine and Vulture.

That works for me. However, I'm not sure that it would have worked for @JustLeo as he disagreed with nearly everything that I wrote on aviation matters.

 

[Cryhavoc101]

That's the Firefly Mk I brought forward 3 years.

A very good idea if it could be done without the aid of ASBs and I think that it could. This is what I suggested in Post 17.However, if @Justleo was still around, no chance whatsoever.

Only because he would have beaten us half to death with sarcasm enriched factual reasons for it not to work.

I miss him.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Only because he would have beaten us half to death with sarcasm enriched factual reasons for it not to work.

That's what I meant.

However, I found that his sarcasm degraded his arguments instead of enriching them.

I miss him.

So do I.

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

He is missed. I may not always have agreed with him, but where's the debate if we all agree?

 

[yulzari]

Before we run away with ourselves in designing whizzo new airframes and engines; let us remind ourselves that decisions had to be made in the light of late 1930's plausibility. This determined the design of the Fulmar.

At the time there was little expectation that the carriers would be operating within the reach of enemy fighters. France was not imagined to fall so enemy fighters would have no Atlantic coast bases. The naval war in the Mediterranean, bar the eastern end, was a French responsibility. Elsewhere there was little fighter threat. In principle from the USA or Japan but the core task was in the Atlantic and also the Indian Oceans. Thus the air threat was long range bombers and flying boats with their tasks of bombing and reconnaissance.

Torpedos were heavy and could only be launched at slow speeds. With the power available you could only drag this sort of weight off a deck with a large wing area. Thus the Swordfish and Albacore. However there could be uses for lesser loads for less than capital ships and land targets. Hence the Skua as a light strike aeroplane.

Immediate close defence of the fleet was the province of the small single seat interceptor for which the Sea Gladiator was the interim answer.

What the OTL Fulmar did was to roll all of these up bar the heavy lifting of a large bomb/torpedo/mine load which was addressed with the Swordfish/Albacore.

So our Fulmar alternative must be able to carry out the Fulmar tasks, with a second seat for the TAG DF task, fit into the hangers across the fleet and get off the decks fully loaded. As a compromise the Fulmar was excellent and coped with being pushed into the interceptor role when the Sea Gladiator was beyond the task and there was no alternative to hand. Improving the interceptor capability must not be at the expense of the OTL tasks if the Admiralty is to take it on before the fall of France. The key interceptor weaknesses of the Fulmar were rate of climb, maximum speed and acceleration. All of these can be addressed by a more powerful engine. This will also improve the possible war load generally. There was a good reason why the Admiralty was interested in the Griffon.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Before we run away with ourselves in designing whizzo new airframes and engines; let us remind ourselves that decisions had to be made in the light of late 1930's plausibility. This determined the design of the Fulmar.

At the time there was little expectation that the carriers would be operating within the reach of enemy fighters. France was not imagined to fall so enemy fighters would have no Atlantic coast bases. The naval war in the Mediterranean, bar the eastern end, was a French responsibility. Elsewhere there was little fighter threat. In principle from the USA or Japan but the core task was in the Atlantic and also the Indian Oceans. Thus the air threat was long range bombers and flying boats with their tasks of bombing and reconnaissance.

Torpedos were heavy and could only be launched at sow speeds. With the power available you could only drag this sort of weight off a deck with a large wing area. Thus the Swordfish and Albacore. However there could be uses for lesser loads for less than capital ships and land targets. Hence the Skua as a light strike aeroplane.

Immediate close defence of the fleet was the province of the small single seat interceptor for which the Sea Gladiator was the interim answer.

What the OTL Fulmar did was to roll all of these up bar the heavy lifting of a large bomb/torpedo/mine load which was addressed with the Swordfish/Albacore.

So our Fulmar alternative must be able to carry out the Fulmar tasks, with a second seat for the TAG DF task, fit into the hangers across the fleet and get off the decks fully loaded. As a compromise the Fulmar was excellent and coped with being pushed into the interceptor role when the Sea Gladiator was beyond the task and there was no alternative to hand. Improving the interceptor capability must not be at the expense of the OTL tasks if the Admiralty is to take it on before the fall of France. The key interceptor weaknesses of the Fulmar were rate of climb, maximum speed and acceleration. All of these can be addressed by a more powerful engine. This will also improve the possible war load generally. There was a good reason why the Admiralty was interested in the Griffon.

What he said.

Plus, had the Air Ministry and Admiralty play their hands better from 1936 we could get the Fulmar into service 2 years earlier and 98 Sea Hurricanes in place of the 98 Sea Gladiators of OTL.