Theoretically most powerful Royal Navy Fleet Air Arm in 1939

These are potential problems that would have been found in testing and modifications made. The eventual aircraft that emerged would not have been the same as the initial prototypes, but Fairey were highly experienced in designing carrier aircraft. While by no means perfect a Sea Battle would still have been a huge improvement on what the FAA were really lumbered with. Of course if you could er aquire a Kate, but that takes us rapidly into asb territory.
 
The final factor that I believe the RN would have to overcome was the performance advantage American (and Japanese) aircraft had by using high performance radial engines compared to the liquid cooled inline engines that came to be preferred by British designers. While the Merlin (and later Griffin) were excellent engines I believe Radials offered a more compact design that worked well in the limited space on a ship (as well as negating the need to carry glycol or other coolants on board)

Lend-lease could have taken care of that.
 
These are potential problems that would have been found in testing and modifications made. The eventual aircraft that emerged would not have been the same as the initial prototypes, but Fairey were highly experienced in designing carrier aircraft. While by no means perfect a Sea Battle would still have been a huge improvement on what the FAA were really lumbered with. Of course if you could er aquire a Kate, but that takes us rapidly into asb territory.

The choice of Fulmar is based on requirements. The Battle wing spans over 54 feet with 420 square feet of area and internal stowage space for bombs. The Fulmar spans 46 feet, 341 square feet of area, suitable for the task and has OTL wing fold. Internal weapons stowage is a two-edged sword. If the aircraft performs only the task for which it was designed, it's the bee's knees. The Avenger got away with it, being a glide bomber and torpedo bomber plus. The Blackburn Buccaneer was designed to carry bombs internally, and ended up carrying Martels on the wing, negating the purpose with a performance disadvantage. And tailplane turbulence plagued the OTL Barracuda, a problem which I would rather not face on AH aircraft. Better safe than sorry.
 
These are potential problems that would have been found in testing and modifications made. The eventual aircraft that emerged would not have been the same as the initial prototypes, but Fairey were highly experienced in designing carrier aircraft. While by no means perfect a Sea Battle would still have been a huge improvement on what the FAA were really lumbered with. Of course if you could er aquire a Kate, but that takes us rapidly into asb territory.

Is there any reason Britain couldn't have produced a plane in the same league as the Kate in the same time frame? I am mainly going off Wikipedia here but surely if the Japanese aviation industry was capable building such a plane the British aviation industry could build something at least comprable.

So how about this?

1936: The B4Y enters service with the IJN and the OTL Fairey Swordfish enters service with the RN.

1939: The B5N is in service with the IJN and a new Fairey monoplane torpedo bomber powered by the Twin-Perseus enters service with the RN.

1942: The B6N is being tested by the IJN and a new Fairey monoplane torpedo bomber powered by the Centaurus enters service with the RN.
 
In 1942, Martin-Baker Blackburn produced a multi-role naval aircraft, powered by the twin-Perseus, capable of performing the roles of fighter, bomber, torpedo carrier and scout/patrol, employing a centerline stores station for 18" torpedo, up to 2000 lb bomb, or 90 gal fuel tank, along with alternate or combined wing mount loads rated for 1000 lb bombs or additional fuel, or 8 anti-ship rockets. Built in armament is 4 20mm cannon with up to 200 rpg. depending on mission. Nobody made an aircraft more easily maintained, serviced, and repaired than James Martin, and yes, the ammunition bay doors were upholstered so that armorers could be comfortable while they re-armed the cannons. The reliability and low maintenance requirements of the Bristol engine was another factor in it's favor. The radio was of American manufacture, and had a built in homing function, good range, and superior reliability. The cockpit was roomy and comfortable, particularly by British standards, and visibility was rated good. The powered wing-fold mechanism worked flawlessly. Eric Brown rated take-off and landing characteristics as well above average, easily accomplished with median skill levels. Contracting the Martin-Baker company to design Blackburn aircraft, and employing the aerodynamicist, Ben Shenstone, resulted in a multi-mission weapon unequalled, at the time, in performance and versatility. It remained for the Ministry to make a recommendation regarding it's production and use.

MBB6smaller.png
 
Nice. Looks rather like an earlier Sea Fury or a British Sky Raider. MS Paint is the only thing you use to make these isn't it?
 
now that engines and torpedo bombers seem to covered I'd like to discuss dive bombers, fighters and naval bombs and torpedos.

In Astrodragon's thread he chooses the Hawker Henley, possibley re-engined with a radial, as the FAA's dive bomber. The Henley's always seemed like a lost chance but could it really work as a radial engined carrier based bomber?

Second is the fighter requirement. The Gloster G.38 is certainly popular but what about the Vickers Venom? Could they be fitted with the theoretical Twin-Perseus and how would it affect performance and would Vickers be able to build the Venom without taking resources from the Spitfire?

Third what about things to drop from planes. I've heard quite a bit of criticism of the torpedos of the day but could an RN more focused on air warfare improve the quality of their torpedos? I'm thinking that given how much fuss the Admiralty has made to regain control of it's own air arm they would want to make damn sure that it gets the most effective weapons it can.

Finally and a bit off topic there's land based aircraft. I'm thinking here that the RN not only gets carrier aviation back but also land based anti-submarine and anti-shipping aviation back too. Could the Gloster Reaper find a role as the RN's land based torpedo bomber until the Beaufighter comes along?
 
now that engines and torpedo bombers seem to covered I'd like to discuss dive bombers, fighters and naval bombs and torpedos.

In Astrodragon's thread he chooses the Hawker Henley, possibley re-engined with a radial, as the FAA's dive bomber. The Henley's always seemed like a lost chance but could it really work as a radial engined carrier based bomber?

Second is the fighter requirement. The Gloster G.38 is certainly popular but what about the Vickers Venom? Could they be fitted with the theoretical Twin-Perseus and how would it affect performance and would Vickers be able to build the Venom without taking resources from the Spitfire?

Third what about things to drop from planes. I've heard quite a bit of criticism of the torpedos of the day but could an RN more focused on air warfare improve the quality of their torpedos? I'm thinking that given how much fuss the Admiralty has made to regain control of it's own air arm they would want to make damn sure that it gets the most effective weapons it can.

Finally and a bit off topic there's land based aircraft. I'm thinking here that the RN not only gets carrier aviation back but also land based anti-submarine and anti-shipping aviation back too. Could the Gloster Reaper find a role as the RN's land based torpedo bomber until the Beaufighter comes along?

I presented a visualization of a radial Henley on Astrodragon's thread. The Venom's wing is a constant chord staight wing, suitable for homebuilt lightplanes, but unbecoming an advanced fighter aircraft. The OTL Bristol Beaufort with 1050 hp Taurus, or upgraded with Hercules or twin-Perseus, proved a viable torpedo bomber, albeit with a severe loss ratio. The Mk XII torpedo requires torpex for a bigger bang, and revised fins (perhaps a ring) and stronger body to improve delivery parameters.
 
So how early could Torpex be developed?

They did actually try and develop it earlier, but they made a mistake and screwd it up. IIRC, they didnt realise this till someone wondered why German bombs were a lot better, and reevaluated it.
So all you need is for them not to make the mistake, or for someone to realise it.
Again from memory, I think it was something to do with the Aluminium mix or ratios, but this could be wrong...
 
I presented a visualization of a radial Henley on Astrodragon's thread. The Venom's wing is a constant chord staight wing, suitable for homebuilt lightplanes, but unbecoming an advanced fighter aircraft. The OTL Bristol Beaufort with 1050 hp Taurus, or upgraded with Hercules or twin-Perseus, proved a viable torpedo bomber, albeit with a severe loss ratio. The Mk XII torpedo requires torpex for a bigger bang, and revised fins (perhaps a ring) and stronger body to improve delivery parameters.

Torbeau earlier, maybe?
 
Torbeau earlier, maybe?

The development of land-based torpedo bombers is not within the scope of this thread unless the RN assumes the resonsibilities of Coastal Command, as did the USN. The Torbeau was only developed to replace used up Beauforts. The Beaufighter was essentially just an up-engined Beaufort not designed originally to deliver torpedoes. Whether or not to up-engine and revise the Beaufort or not was just a production decision.

There is no reason not to alter the date of Torpex development and use, other than the fact that it's development was expensive, messy and dangerous. It was something you wouldn't choose to do without need. There is no lack of will to order others to do messy and dangerous stuff, but the expensive part oft gives cause.
 
In that case, the Beaumark has no centerline station, but can carry two Mk XII on pylons between fuselage and nacelle, or one torpedo and one long-range fuel tank. Handed twin-Perseus, tri-gear, refined wing,and 2 .50's in the multi-purpose turret are the highlights of this latest offspring from the Barnwell stable.

Beaumarksmall.png
 
In that case, the Beaumark has no centerline station, but can carry two Mk XII on pylons between fuselage and nacelle, or one torpedo and one long-range fuel tank. Handed twin-Perseus, tri-gear, refined wing,and 2 .50's in the multi-purpose turret are the highlights of this latest offspring from the Barnwell stable.

Now there's something that could ruin your leisurely cruise up the Channel in your battleship.

So when would this bad boy be available and are those four 20mm cannon I see under the nose?
 
Top