What if the Blackburn Roc was designed as a single seat fighter?

[Giant Man Eating Rabbits]

What if the Blackburn Roc was designed as a single seat fighter to serve aboard aircraft carriers instead of the Fairy Fulmar Series?

How successful would it be in the fleet defense role?
How would the performance improve without the weight of the second man and turret?
Would there be any chance of up grading the engines from the original Bristol Perseus to increase the speed and altitude performance from 223 mph and 18,000 ft altitude?
Would the Roc be able to be used by air forces who haven't got their hands on Spitfires, Hurricanes etc and how well would they perform?
What other air forces would be up for using the Roc?

 

[tomo pauk]

What if the Blackburn Roc was designed as a single seat fighter to serve aboard aircraft carriers instead of the Fairy Fulmar Series?

How successful would it be in the fleet defense role?
How would the performance improve without the weight of the second man and turret?
Would there be any chance of up grading the engines from the original Bristol Perseus to increase the speed and altitude performance from 223 mph and 18,000 ft altitude?
Would the Roc be able to be used by air forces who haven't got their hands on Spitfires, Hurricanes etc and how well would they perform?
What other air forces would be up for using the Roc?

Installing a Merlin in the nose would've helped a lot. With it, and some drop tanks, and with the second crewman presumed (FAA's preference), we'd probably and hopefully see the Fulmar equivalent.
If you can't get Hurricanes, you are probably not on the good terms with the British in late 1930s/early 40s, so there is no British aircraft for you anyway?

 

[sonofpegasus]

You might be better off building a single seat fighter version of the Skua, It's fuselage was not bulged behind the cockpit to take the width of the turret as in the Roc and therefore should be aerodynamical a little cleaner . Giving it a single seat bubble canopy would not hurt either.

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

You might be better off building a single seat fighter version of the Skua, It's fuselage was not bulged behind the cockpit to take the width of the turret as in the Roc and therefore should be aerodynamical a little cleaner .

Not by much, it's essentially the same aircraft and still big, heavy and underpowered. You're going to need to advance the Hercules engine by about a year to make a single seat Roc/Skua somewhat viable and even then I think you'd be better off having Gloster design a set of Monoplane wings for the Sea Gladiator as a stopgap until you can build Sea Hurricanes.

 

[sonofpegasus]

I agree completely, a sway backed nag is still a sway backed nag, but given the choice I will take the one which is lame rather than knackered.
Unfortunately the single seat design by Follond at Gloster is not a practical FAA fighter, the single wing tip to wing tip spar makes taking the wing off impractical, this would have serious effects on the number of fighters that could be carried.
So if you cannot have a proper fighter then your choices are limited to what's on the drawing board. My Choice, Blackburn build sea Hurricanes using a wing fold based on the Skua (already in design and parts will be available) go one step further and get Bolton and Paul to do the same with a single seat Defiant. The Roc is "Rock Bottom" and should never even get onto the drawing board.

 

[DougM]

The Merlin was an engine and a damn good one but contrary to its name it could not perform magic.
Sticking it on every aircraft is not some magical quick fix.
There were enough issues with this design (and many others) that would require a completely different design basically from scratch.

Also you only can build so many Merlin engines so you may be better of to keep them for use on better aircarft.

 

[Hammerbolt]

For a quick & cheap fighter in 1938, early 39?... eliminating the turret and the gunner would save a lot of weight, even after moving the 8 guns to the wings. Would it be better than a 1939 Sea Hurricane? Doubt it. Would it be better for the FAA than the Roc? Oh so much yes.

 

[MKD]

would it not be easier just to chuck it in the bin and build more Hurricanes?

 

[Hammerbolt]

would it not be easier just to chuck it in the bin and build more Hurricanes?

Definetly, but in 39 there is no Sea Hurricane, which means it would have to be developed, built and tested and then take it's place in the assembly line, and Hawker was too busy by then chugging out Hurris for the RAF. If the Sea Hurri was ordered from the start (35-36) sure, but by 39 the RAF would kick and scream at the loss of a single one. And I think they would be right...

By late 1939 is all about "what can you get" rather than "what do you want".

 

[MKD]

By late 1939 is all about "what can you get" rather than "what do you want".

Agreed - but what I can get must SURELY be better than a Roc! I don't want a spitfire ;-)

 

[sonofpegasus]

What options are there in November 1938 instead of the Roc, the obvious one is a single seat Skua (it already has 4 X 303 Browning Mg's with 500 rounds per gun) with a more powerful engine and aerodynamically cleaned up as much as possible. In 1938 my personal go to engine in this situation would be the Alvis Pelides. This has the advantage for the FAA of being an engine not yet used by the RAF and therefore available. I would love to give this fighter four of the Belgium FN 13.2mm Browning HMG's using the Hotchkiss cartridge and explosive bullets. Now that would be a bomber killer.

 

[Hammerbolt]

What options are there in November 1938 instead of the Roc, the obvious one is a single seat Skua (it already has 4 X 303 Browning Mg's with 500 rounds per gun) with a more powerful engine and aerodynamically cleaned up as much as possible. In 1938 my personal go to engine in this situation would be the Alvis Pelides. This has the advantage for the FAA of being an engine not yet used by the RAF and therefore available. I would love to give this fighter four of the Belgium FN 13.2mm Browning HMG's using the Hotchkiss cartridge and explosive bullets. Now that would be a bomber killer.

Up and ready to go? None. For adaptation, depending on available resources? The Hurricane. Or go the french way: order Wildcats. Either way (adapting or buying) I doubt you can get anything before early 1940, if you leave any decision for sure a late date.

Edit: forget the Alvis Pelides. That was still being tested in 1939; no one was going to order a brand new engine.

 

[sonofpegasus]

There were in OTL 139 Roc's built and they started to enter service in April 1939.
In an ATL that makes it plausible to have the Skua/Roc single seat fighter in service at the same time.
As to the Peledes engine, every engine is new at some time, every indication historically in OTL indicates that Alvis were competent and knew how to build reliable and successful engines.
o in Our ATL having the Alvis engine in service will fly (pun intended). In OTL the Alvis engines did not fly because of political/policy reasons, if adopted by the FAA, say in 1937, by 1939 with a full on two years of flight development, plausible.
The old saying is "where there is a will, there is a way" in OTL there was no will but in a different TL that is another story.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Would it not be easier just to chuck it in the bin and build more Hurricanes?

Yes.

Definitely, but in 39 there is no Sea Hurricane, which means it would have to be developed, built and tested and then take it's place in the assembly line, and Hawker was too busy by then chugging out Hurris for the RAF.

No because the extra Hurricanes would have been built by Boulton Paul (who built the Roc IOTL) not Hawker and while we're at it we can order more Hurricanes from Boulton Paul instead of the Defiant.

If the Sea Hurri was ordered from the start (35-36) sure, . . .

I thought that was what @MKD meant.

. . . but by 39 the RAF would kick and scream at the loss of a single one. And I think they would be right...

But the RAF wouldn't be loosing a single one, because they would be extra aircraft.

The specification that produced the Roc was issued in December 1935 and the first production contract was let in April 1937 so there's enough time to have Boulton Paul built Hurricanes enter service with the FAA at the same time as the Roc.

The first production contract for the Defiant was also let in April 1937 so while we're at it 87 Hurricanes should be ordered from Boulton Paul in April 1937 instead of the first 87 Defiants. IOTL the first production Defiant flew in July 1939 and the first 87 production aircraft were delivered between August 1939 & May 1940. However, as the Hurricane was ahead of the Defiant in development it would be reasonable to assume that the first Boulton Paul built Hurricane for the RAF would have flown in July 1938 and that the first 87 aircraft would have been delivered between August 1938 and May 1939 with the next 202 aircraft following between June & October 1939 as the second batch of Defiants (202 aircraft) was delivered between June & October 1940.

The first Boulton Paul built Roc flew in October 1938 and the 136 aircraft were delivered between February 1939 & August 1940. There isn't enough time to fly the first Hurricane built instead of the first Roc in October 1937 and deliver the 136 extra Hurricanes between February 1938 & August 1939 if the contract was still let in April 1937, but advancing the first flight by six months to April 1938 and the deliveries forward by six months to between August 1938 and February 1940 seems reasonable to me.

By late 1939 is all about "what can you get" rather than "what do you want".

True. Fortunately, we don't have to start in late 1939. We can start in late 1935.

 

[MKD]

I thought that was what @MKD meant.

correct!

 

[Hammerbolt]

But the RAF wouldn't be loosing a single one, because there would be extra aircraft.

Only if you have more factories; otherwise you'll have the same floor space building Hurris or Sea Hurris.

True. Fortunately, we don't have to start in late 1939. We can start in late 1935.

In which case I nominate the project Supermarine tried to present to the FAA (which I saddly keept forgeting), but never got anywhere. And convince the FAA that the RAF's idea of a Turret Fighter was bad one.

I can't find the specs for the Roc's turret, but I did find the ones for the Defiant, and apparently it's either the same or a variation. Turret weight is 164kg, guns 40kg, ammo 48kg, 16kg for the oxygen and gunsight. Let's say we add 90kg for the gunner (with flying uniform, would his be ok? Those clothes and parachute do look heavy). I can't estimate the weight of the turret attachements to the fuselage or that spine that runs from the turret to the tail, so let's tally this at a round 360kg (a little over 700 pounds). Fit the 4 guns in the wings (are they thick enough?) would require, let's say, 100kg. So we saved -+260 kg in a aircraft that had an empty weight of 2,776kg (according to wikipedia), plus what we can get from the removed "fittings and dorsal fairing". So we saved weight and improved the aerodynamics... begining to really wonder what this would do to the plane. Still inferior to a Sea Hurricane, but maybe goot enough to survive and keep the FAA longer in the game?

 

[Hammerbolt]

correct!

Yeah... sorry didn't get that, I thought you meant something like "FAA gets angry in 39 and demands Hurris"

 

[MKD]

Yeah... sorry didn't get that, I thought you meant something like "FAA gets angry in 39 and demands Hurris"

oh no - bit late by then! At that point, as you say, you get what you are given!

Can we interest you in this turret fighter.........................

 

[CaptainCalvert]

I can't find the specs for the Roc's turret, but I did find the ones for the Defiant, and apparently it's either the same or a variation. Turret weight is 164kg, guns 40kg, ammo 48kg, 16kg for the oxygen and gunsight. Let's say we add 90kg for the gunner (with flying uniform, would his be ok? Those clothes and parachute do look heavy). I can't estimate the weight of the turret attachements to the fuselage or that spine that runs from the turret to the tail, so let's tally this at a round 360kg (a little over 700 pounds). Fit the 4 guns in the wings (are they thick enough?) would require, let's say, 100kg. So we saved -+260 kg in a aircraft that had an empty weight of 2,776kg (according to wikipedia), plus what we can get from the removed "fittings and dorsal fairing". So we saved weight and improved the aerodynamics... begining to really wonder what this would do to the plane. Still inferior to a Sea Hurricane, but maybe goot enough to survive and keep the FAA longer in the game?

If the main job is to take out or drive off enemy scouts, then a non-turret Roc with better profile will still be faster than the original and do a better job. A Hurricane should be better (though maybe not by so much once navalised) but Roc 2 would still be a useful upgrade.

 

[Cryhavoc101]

Agreed - but what I can get must SURELY be better than a Roc! I don't want a spitfire ;-)

Anyone who flew a Spitfire wanted a spitfire (and I fully appreciate what you are saying)

So what we are asking for is a revised ROC with the same armament and likely wing of the Skua with 4 x MK 2 Browning .303 MGs with 600 RPG - which in 1938 would be better than most fighters in the world.

The Cockpit would need to change which is great because the 'airbrake' windscreen design of the Skua and ROC are awful (again no worse than other contemporary fleet fighters of the day)

Now it cannot be changed on the Skua/ROC due to the positioning of the forward fuel tank but if we can place the pilot seat further back and the fuel tanks placed between the Pilot and Gunner in the Skua/ROC further back then we can probably get a more aerodynamic windshield.

This would also likely help with the centre of Gravity shift that removing the rear seat / gun turret and 2nd human would inflict onto the design

I would like a decent spinner and improved in flight undercarriage stowage and covers, both to improve the aerodynamics etc but I don't think that would be realistic in this time line.

Unlikely to be that much faster than the Skua/ROC it would probably climb faster and have better handling being lighter and while no match for a land based fighter in 1940 it would probably be superior to the other 2 fleet fighters then in service the A5m Claude and F3F in 1939