WI:FAA gets a single seat Fighter

Tovarich

Banned
I've heard the Gloster Goshawk mentioned before, but my feeble google-fu can only find reference to the aero engine of that name.

You wouldn't know of a link to anything about it, would you?

Thanks in advance, if so.
 
I've heard the Gloster Goshawk mentioned before, but my feeble google-fu can only find reference to the aero engine of that name.

You wouldn't know of a link to anything about it, would you?

Thanks in advance, if so.

It's a hypothetical FAA fighter somewhat similar (but NOT based on) the F5/34 in my AH The Whale Has Wings.
 

Tovarich

Banned
It's a hypothetical FAA fighter somewhat similar (but NOT based on) the F5/34 in my AH The Whale Has Wings.

Ah, right.

Just out of curiosity, who is the manufacturer in your TL?

I've quite often had AH.Com come up near the top of a google search, but this time nothing at all.
Although now I think about it, if you wrote it in a non-public section, it just wouldn't (I think?)
 
Ah, right.

Just out of curiosity, who is the manufacturer in your TL?

I've quite often had AH.Com come up near the top of a google search, but this time nothing at all.
Although now I think about it, if you wrote it in a non-public section, it just wouldn't (I think?)

Er, Gloster... :)
Just look in post 1900 here, sort by views, its at the top. Simples :)
 
What if the FAA gets the gloster gorshawk single seat Fighter as well as the fairey fulmar?

There would be less pressure on the Fulmar to carry the burden of the air defence duties

The Fulmar was a difficult and expensive aircraft to build - in 1940 they each cost £8000 (A top of the line Spitfire cost £6000) and the AM struggled to provide enough airframes to the RN to cover its needs and for example during the battle for Crete - HMS Formidable struggled to form an airgroup that barely reached double figures in Fulmar airframes.

The issue of course is that the Period 1938 - 1941 saw a intense struggle to produce enough fighters for all needs and Fighter commands needs - quite correctly as it turned out - was the priority

So the POD that puts Gloster Goshawks on the deck of an RN carrier in 1940 must include a way of increasing the production of fighter planes over and beyond that of OTL.

My go to POD is to get Castle Bromwich Aircraft Factory's issues addressed at least 6 months earlier and have Spitfire production (nationally) at 60 plus AC a week by Jan 40.

This pretty much reduces the extra burden on the non-Spitfire and Hurricane producing Aircraft firms such as Gloster, Folland, Westlands etc and allows for the necessary production and assembly of the Gloster Goshawk.
 
In the current TL the Peerless Air Ministry the FAA have a near sister of the Gloster F5/34 built by Folland at Hamble and as suggested by Cryhavoc101 that is achieved by having cancelled the Gladiator early so that Glosters build more Hurricanes and getting Castle Bromwich sitting out Spitfires a whole year earlier! Yes it's a Britwank.
 
My go to POD is to get Castle Bromwich Aircraft Factory's issues addressed at least 6 months earlier and have Spitfire production (nationally) at 60 plus AC a week by Jan 40.

This pretty much reduces the extra burden on the non-Spitfire and Hurricane producing Aircraft firms such as Gloster, Folland, Westlands etc and allows for the necessary production and assembly of the Gloster Goshawk.

I have always thought the way to get a FAA fighter is to get a production line for the Hurricane sorted in Canada much earlier. Someone has to make a decision in 1937 to invest in Canada the big problem is the Canadian govt they didnt seem very keen on military spending pre Munich 38.

With the promise of a steady stream of Hurricanes arriving by 1940 (Is three years enough to get say 20 Hurricanes a month roling off the line) this might take enough pressure off to allow an order for a Naval fighter in 1937.
 
You can build the Goshawk by reducing (or even eliminating) the Gladiator and not building the Roc.
The Fulmar likely wouldnt happen in the OTL form.

You dont need a ASB Britwank to supply the Goshawk, just a bit more rational development.

I actually calculated out the airframe builds in TWHW, and in fact they build LESS than OTL, just didnt build some of the turkeys like the Roc. I did simplify the division between manufacturers, but this is an obstacle that is moveable.
 
With you guys watching over my shoulder it takes a lot of thought process. My admiration for the "dragon" and other authors has recently gone skywards like a rocket!
 
You can build the Goshawk by reducing (or even eliminating) the Gladiator and not building the Roc.
The Fulmar likely wouldnt happen in the OTL form.

You dont need a ASB Britwank to supply the Goshawk, just a bit more rational development.

I actually calculated out the airframe builds in TWHW, and in fact they build LESS than OTL, just didnt build some of the turkeys like the Roc. I did simplify the division between manufacturers, but this is an obstacle that is moveable.

Can you add the Defiant to that list as well?
 
fastmongrel has a good point ....
...... in relying on Canadian Car and Foundry to supply the FAA with single-seat fighters.
OTL: CCF built hundreds of (land-based) Hurricanes.
ATL 1: CCF builds Sea Hurricanes for the RCN and Fleet Air Arm.
ATL 2: CCF builds Grumman Wildcats/Martlets under license.

ATL 3: CCF’s Gregor designs a monoplane fighter as detailed in the Panic Fighter 1938 thread.
 
Could you also work with Curtiss to build a P-36 like naval fighter based around the same engine? Won't be a high performer but for the first couple of years of the way it will be pretty solid.
 
Can you add the Defiant to that list as well?

You can, though you dont have to.
My assumption was that the independent FAA could cancel or change naval planes (hence no Roc), but that the AM would still go its own merry way. Since they thought up the Defiant, they aren't going to cancel it just because some jumped-up navy aviators think its a good idea...:p
 
Ah Yes but how about the other way round, the AM cancel the Defiant and the RN then realise that the Roc is probably a dead dog!
 
Ah Yes but how about the other way round, the AM cancel the Defiant and the RN then realise that the Roc is probably a dead dog!

Highly likely, even if the FAA is still depending on the AM for aircraft.
The earlier the FAA gets independence, the more likely they are to look closely at what the AM is offering, and at their own needs, and change things.
 
You can, though you dont have to.
My assumption was that the independent FAA could cancel or change naval planes (hence no Roc), but that the AM would still go its own merry way. Since they thought up the Defiant, they aren't going to cancel it just because some jumped-up navy aviators think its a good idea...:p

I'm thinking that somebody somewhere realizes that turreted fighters are kind of dumb idea and that it is a waste of production space and materials. From there you have more factory space to build some sort of dedicated fighter for the RN without having to cut into Hurricane and Spitfire production.
 
Top