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

[tomo pauk]

I have lost the reference but years ago I found a claim that the Alvis Peledes engine was based on the G&N 14P drawings with the third bearing. If this is the case then the potential development of the Alvis engine could be closer to the 14R than the 14N. I hope that some one on this forum can confirm whether the Pelides did in fact have the third bearing and the longer crank case this entailed.

Pelides was turning 2150 rpm (perhaps a typo in the table, since the table lists the same RPM both for international and max power), that puts it into the 14N capabilities. The 14R was turning 2280 rpm at max continuous power setting, 2400 rpm at 30 min setting, and 2500 rpm for take off.
Weight of the Pelides was 670 kg, a bit heavier than the most common 14Ns (~630 kg), but much lighter than the 14R (820 kg for the 4/5). Note also the rated altitude, pretty low for ww2. Again in the ballpark with a lot of 14Ns, while the 14R was tested by Germans at 1600 HP, along with making the very good power at high altitudes due to the much improved supercharger.

table:

 

[Salamander]

Well they ended up making a fighter out of the Battle sooo.....?

They'd have better off making a torpedo bomber out of the Battle than a fighter.

I'd have the Skua as a dedicated dive bomber, although with the more powerful Hercules engine instead of the Perseus.
For a naval fighter, I suggest the P.85 version of the Boulton Paul Defiant, modified into a single seat fighter, also powered by the Hercules, which was one of the engines the air frame was designed to take. Cleaned up and armed with fixed forward facing guns, preferably 20mm cannon, it should do nicely. As for production, just cancel the Roc, since Boulton Paul ended up building those disasters OTL.

 

[mack8]

The Roc was so laughably bad that building anything else instead (except Bothas or something) can't be any worse.

The lowest hanging fruit, built 136 more Skuas instead. At least the Skua is passably useful and actualy did something for the RN war effort.

How much extra performance would a single seat Skua have? Would it get at least close to a Gladiator in speed?

Or take the Perseus engines and put them on 136 Sea Gladiators. Would the Perseus give a bit more performance over the Mercury? At any rate, the Gladiator is a perfectly usable biplane, if outdated. Again, at least it would get to fly and fight from the always short of aircraft RN carriers, or land bases. Which would be a lot more than the Roc ever did.

If enough Merlin engines can be found, building 136 Sea Hurricanes, or Sea Hotspurs, or Sea Henleys, or Sea Defiants or even an early Seafire, and anything inbetween would be the best they could have done.

 

[mack8]

I just had a disturbing thought.
The single seat fighter retains the turret concept, so the pilot is either placed inside a turret, so he can shoot all round [1], or he has some kind of mirror sighting arrangement to aim the turret guns [2] while flying.

I think I have achieved something difficult here, in that I have made the Roc even less use - and probably much more dangerous - than it was OTL. I await my rightful reward!

[1] so the flight controls are a bit tricky to master...
[2] And you thought a French tank commander had too much to do in a one-man turret?

Considering what other "brilliant" ideas came from the RN/RAF folks, i would not be surprised if they seriously considered your idea. Probably have the poor bastard sit back to front and fly the aircraft that way while aiming and firing the turret to the rear!

 

[Cryhavoc101]

They'd have better off making a torpedo bomber out of the Battle than a fighter.

I'd have the Skua as a dedicated dive bomber, although with the more powerful Hercules engine instead of the Perseus.
For a naval fighter, I suggest the P.85 version of the Boulton Paul Defiant, modified into a single seat fighter, also powered by the Hercules, which was one of the engines the air frame was designed to take. Cleaned up and armed with fixed forward facing guns, preferably 20mm cannon, it should do nicely. As for production, just cancel the Roc, since Boulton Paul ended up building those disasters OTL.

I did a take on that here with my proposed 'Sea Battle' (with the Swordfish becoming a footnote in the Fairey-Blackburn Claymore story

The main driver for the Swordfish being a Biplane was as I understand it to have a common design for both carrier aircraft and catapult capable float planes

Drop that requirement and we could 'easily' (perhaps) see a monoplane design instead!

 

[The Wooksta!]

Fairey did design a monoplane for the same spec as Swordfish. Trousered fixed u/c but quite an attractive aircraft, although I’ve only ever seen a side view.

 

[Cryhavoc101]

Fairey did design a monoplane for the same spec as Swordfish. Trousered fixed u/c but quite an attractive aircraft, although I’ve only ever seen a side view.

Possibly a different requirement as well (without the common airframe compromise) leading to a 'better' aircraft

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

Or take the Perseus engines and put them on 136 Sea Gladiators. Would the Perseus give a bit more performance over the Mercury? At any rate, the Gladiator is a perfectly usable biplane, if outdated. Again, at least it would get to fly and fight from the always short of aircraft RN carriers, or land bases. Which would be a lot more than the Roc ever did.

This is in my opinion the most likely option in the immediate pre war period. The RN already knew the Roc was all but useless and didn't really want them so better to use the engines to upgrade the Sea Gladiators they have to be a closer competitor for the CR42 the Italians are introducing and the Mitsubishi A5M Claude the Japanese Navy is using. They won't match the top speed of those but 270ish MPH is better than just topping 250 and it gives them a better chance of catching modern twin engine bombers. Another useful upgrade would be adding two guns to the upper wing as was done in Malta in 1940.

Of course the FAA would have the problem of the RAF in the Middle East seeing what they've done and trying to grab them for themselves.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

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

The flippant answer is that the resulting aircraft would have been a proto-Blackburn Firebrand. Except that it probably would have been.

 

[Giant Man Eating Rabbits]

The flippant answer is that the resulting aircraft would have been a proto-Blackburn Firebrand. Except that it probably would have been.

And it would've been like the Roc . . . a right dog!

This from Wikiposterous

In test pilot and naval aviator Captain Eric Brown's opinion the aircraft was "short of performance, sadly lacking in manoeuvrability, especially in rate of roll". The position of the cockpit even with the trailing edge of the wing gave the pilot a very poor view over the nose, inhibited his ability to view his target and to land his aircraft aboard a carrier, sufficient for Brown to call it "a disaster as a deck-landing aircraft"

Probably better of with developing into the Firecrest instead!

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

The Opening Post dated 18th March 2024.

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?

You asked a similar question three months earlier. This is the opening post of the thread "Blackburn Roc & Skua designed as single seat fighters?" dated 21st December 2023.

What if alongside it's twin crew turreted Roc then Skua fighters, Blackburn also designed single engine versions for the RAF Fighter competition that was ultimately won by both the Hurricane and Spitfire?

Would this be possible?
How effective would this fighter be especially in the BoF, BoB and against the Bf-109?
What design changes would need to be done when removing the turret and what improvements would it need?
Would the engines and their incremental power increase allow continued service like the Hurricane at least?
Could the design be navalised as to serve on RN carriers instead of Fulmars?
What other air forces would possibly use the aircraft?

I think single engine versions was a typo for single seat versions.

 

[Giant Man Eating Rabbits]

You asked a similar question three months earlier. This is the opening post of the thread "Blackburn Roc & Skua designed as single seat fighters?" dated 21st December 2023.

Memory must be failing me, I can't even remember posting that!

 

[Giant Man Eating Rabbits]

I think single engine versions was a typo for single seat versions.

Cheers.

I'll edit it.

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

The question no one has asked yet is would a single seat Roc/Skua actually be better than the single seat fighter the FAA did have, the Sea Gladiator? Even the faster of the two Blackburn stablemates, the Skua could only do 225mph. Now granted removing the weight of the second crewman and his gear will allow it a greater top speed, but enough to match the Sea Gladiator's 250ish mph? It's no better armed, less agile and probably a bit slower than the Sea Gladiator. The only advantage I can see is it would have longer range, but according to FAA practice at the time that's not needed as single seaters were expected to remain close to the carriers. On the other hand give the Sea Gladiators the more powerful Perseus engine and the ability to carry an external fuel tank and it would be a viable carrier fighter into early 1941 when the F4F Wildcat and A6M Zero would replace the F3F and A5M Claude rendering it truly obsolete.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

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

The flippant answer is that the resulting aircraft would have been a proto-Blackburn Firebrand. Except that it probably would have been.

And it would've been like the Roc . . . a right dog!

This from Wikiposterous

In test pilot and naval aviator Captain Eric Brown's opinion the aircraft was "short of performance, sadly lacking in manoeuvrability, especially in rate of roll". The position of the cockpit even with the trailing edge of the wing gave the pilot a very poor view over the nose, inhibited his ability to view his target and to land his aircraft aboard a carrier, sufficient for Brown to call it "a disaster as a deck-landing aircraft"

Probably better of with developing into the Firecrest instead!

The serious answer is you'd have an aircraft that was no better than the Fulmar, because the powers-that-be claimed that the poor performance of the RN's two-seat fighters wasn't due to the second seat. They instead claimed that it was due to the RN's requirements for:

• Long-range, because they weren't designed to be point-defence interceptors, they were designed to be strike escorts and reconnaissance aircraft.
• Limited stall (approach) speeds, partly because its arrester gear provided very limited deceleration (to reduce stress on airframes).
• And (at least until 1940) that aircraft be capable of launch by catapult from battleships and cruisers equated to a very low take-off speed.

The last two points came from Page 202 of Noman Friedman's "British Carrier Aviation". There is a photograph of a Firebrand on Page 205 and the accompanying caption says.

The Firebrand was the single-seater equivalent of the Firefly, and its performance proved to be limited: like the Firefly, it was designed for long endurance and for a low landing speed. As a consequence, it has a very large wing. This gave it a substantial lifting capability, and inspired the development of the Firebrand as a torpedo fighter. A Mark I prototype is shown.

I thought he had also written that the Firebrand was produced to prove that a single-seat fighter wouldn't be better than a two-seat fighter (because the range, take-off and landing requirements wouldn't change) but I couldn't see it when I skimmed through the chapter "Wartime Aircraft Development".

Therefore, I think a single-seat Blackburn Roc wouldn't have been better than a Fulmar and may have been worse, because the second crewman had his uses (as a navigator and observer) which is why he was there in the first place.

If the decision to navalize the Fairey P.4/34 had been taken between 1934 & 1936 instead of 1938 the Fulmar could have been built by Boulton Paul & Fairey instead of the Roc & Skua respectively. That's what I often do in my alternative histories.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

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

You can have more with the same factory space. This is because Boulton Paul would be building Hurricanes instead of Rocs and Defiants. I wrote as much in Post 14.

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.

Or 136 extra Hurricanes could have been ordered in October 1936 (instead of April 1937) so they could have been delivered between February 1938 & August 1939.

And while we're at it . . .

The first 600 Hurricanes were ordered in June 1936 and Hawker delivered between December 1937 & October 1939. The Air Ministry also ordered 389 Hawker Hotspurs (from Avro) in June 1936 but they were cancelled and replaced by the orders for Defiants. ITTL we could "cut out the middle man" and order 389 Hurricanes from Boulton Paul in June 1936. My guess is that the first Boulton Paul built Hurricane would have flown before the end of 1937 and that the 389 aircraft would have been delivered between early 1938 and late 1939.

400 Hawker Henleys were ordered (from Gloster) in June 1936 but the contract was reduced to 200 aircraft which were delivered between November 1938 and September 1940. Gloster received its first contract to build Hurricanes in November 1938 and the 500 aircraft were delivered between November 1939 and June 1940. With hindsight the Air Ministry should have ordered 400 Hurricanes from Gloster in June 1936 instead of the 400 Henleys and I think they could have been delivered between November 1937 and September 1939 due to the Hurricane being ahead of the Henley in development.

Meanwhile, 603 Gloster Gladiators were ordered by the Air Ministry including 98 that were built as or converted to Sea Gladiators. They were built under four contracts that were let in: July 1935 (23 aircraft); September 1935 (186 aircraft plus 16 added as replacements for aircraft diverted to export contracts for a total of 202), don't know other than it was in the 1937-38 financial year (78 aircraft); and June 1938 (300 aircraft). The 225 aircraft ordered in 1935 were delivered between February 1937 & February 1938 and the 378 aircraft ordered in 1937 & 1938 were delivered between September 1938 & April 1940. In fact the last 300 out of the 603 aircraft built to British contracts were delivered between March 1939 & April 1940.

ITTL the 225 aircraft ordered in 1935 would still have been built as Gladiators and delivered between February 1937 and February 1938. However, 378 Hurricanes would have been ordered from Gloster instead of the 378 Gladiators ordered in 1937 & 1938 and they would have been delivered between September 1938 & April 1940. All other things being equal 98 of these 378 extra Hurricanes would have been built as or converted to Sea Hurricanes.

747 Gladiators were built IOTL. That includes the prototype, 603 production aircraft built to British contracts and 143 were built to export contracts.* Some of the exported aircraft would have been Hurricanes instead of Gladiators ITTL too.

* Except that, only 560 were delivered to the RAF & RN and 186 were exported because 43 aircraft ordered for the RAF were "diverted" to fulfil export contracts. That is 22 aircraft from the second order were delivered to Belgium and 21 from the fourth order of which 6 went to Norway & 15 to Portugal. The 186 aircraft doesn't include "second hand" Gladiators i.e. aircraft that were delivered to the RAF and then exported.

 

[JasTysoe]

So at the risk of a thread diversion (but not entirely), may I ask the assembly - instead of the Roc being a deck-landing version of a Defiant (roughly speaking) could there have been a deck-landing Defiant? Pardon me for not checking up landing speeds etc but there seem to be people here like NOMIetc who seem to know a lot more on the subject than my quick research could find out.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Tell that to the RAF squadrons in Britain, France, Norway and the Middle East still flying Gladiators. The Navy will get Hurricanes, or any modern monoplane fighters only when the RAF has all that it thinks it needs, plus a reserve. Realistically the only option the FAA has in 1938/39 is to have more Sea Gladiators built or converted from ex RAF aircraft.

Are you aware that the British Government was exporting Hurricanes (from the first contract for 600 aircraft let in June 1936) by the dozen before the squadrons in Britain, France, Norway and the Middle East had converted from Gladiators to Hurricanes?

All but one of the Fighter Command and BAFF Gladiator squadrons had converted to Hurricanes & Spitfires by May 1940 anyway. IIRC (and I may be wrong) the one Gladiator squadron left in Fighter Command had to use Gladiators because the runway wasn't long enough for Hurricanes & Spitfires and it was a similar situation for the Gladiators that operated in Norway. Admittedly, that still leaves (IIRC) 3 fighter squadrons in Egypt and the half-strength squadron in Aden operating the Gladiator when Italy declared war.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

So at the risk of a thread diversion (but not entirely), may I ask the assembly - instead of the Roc being a deck-landing version of a Defiant (roughly speaking) could there have been a deck-landing Defiant? Pardon me for not checking up landing speeds etc but there seem to be people here like NOMI etc who seem to know a lot more on the subject than my quick research could find out.

Is that with the turret or without the turret and with machine guns in the wings? Sea Defiants have been suggested before. I don't know if they'd have been feasible. I suspect that they'd be slower than the (land) Defiant due to being navalized or at best no faster than the Sea Hurricane.

OTOH it would have had more development potential than the Sea Hurricane. Defiant night fighters with Griffon engines, forward firing guns in the wings and (in some versions) an observer instead of the turret were proposed IOTL, but not produced because the Beaufighter & Mosquito were ahead of them in development. However, a Griffon powered development of the Sea Defiant would only be reinventing the Fairey Firefly.

 

[Cryhavoc101]

Are you aware that the British Government was exporting Hurricanes (from the first contract for 600 aircraft let in June 1936) by the dozen before the squadrons in Britain, France, Norway and the Middle East had converted from Gladiators to Hurricanes?

All but one of the Fighter Command and BAFF Gladiator squadrons had converted to Hurricanes & Spitfires by May 1940 anyway. IIRC (and I may be wrong) the one Gladiator squadron left in Fighter Command had to use Gladiators because the runway wasn't long enough for Hurricanes & Spitfires and it was a similar situation for the Gladiators that operated in Norway. Admittedly, that still leaves (IIRC) 3 fighter squadrons in Egypt and the half-strength squadron in Aden operating the Gladiator when Italy declared war.

I suspect that No 236 Squadron with its Gladiators were first used in Norway due to the conditions and were initially used from an 'ice run way' at Lesjaskogsvatnet

This strip was an area 750-metre (2,460 ft) long and 70-metre (230 ft) wide that was kept clear of snow by the locals

Just a few days after arriving the unit lost 16 of 18 Gladiators to air attack (the remaining 2 destroyed when the unit retreated from this area) when the aircraft engines had frozen over night and after reforming with replacement aircraft they operated from Bardufoss along with Hurricanes of No 46 Squadron - surviving aircraft of both units famously making landings on HMS Furious HMS Glorious and equally famously all lost when that carrier was sunk.