Worst Possible WW2 single engine carrier fighter.

I've got a metric crescent wrench, and an inch vise-grip. For whitworth, I've got channel locks and pipe wrenches.
 
It pains me to suggest my favourite WW2 aircraft, but I must put forth the Westland Whirlwind Mk.I with Peregrine engines as a candidate for worst possible single-engine carrier fighter?

For starters, it has two engines. Add in its very high stall and take-off speeds, it's very short range, poor HA performance, niche powerplants, inability to transfer or balance fuel between engines/tanks.
 
It pains me to suggest my favourite WW2 aircraft, but I must put forth the Westland Whirlwind Mk.I with Peregrine engines as a candidate for worst possible single-engine carrier fighter?

For starters, it has two engines. Add in its very high stall and take-off speeds, it's very short range, poor HA performance, niche powerplants, inability to transfer or balance fuel between engines/tanks.

Full of problems, as you've pointed out, but it still had decent over the nose visibility and had a smaller wingspan than the Fulmar.
 
Full of problems, as you've pointed out, but it still had decent over the nose visibility and had a smaller wingspan than the Fulmar.
High take off and landing speed could be overcome with updated arrestor systems and greater catapult capabilities. Add in fuel balance valve between tanks/engines, folding wings and drop tanks and you have a better fighter.

In 1938 the Gladiator began replacing the Nimrod. Keep the Nimrod and launch the Sea Whirlwind in 1940. Main benefit is FAA experience with Kestrel engine will carry forward onto its later version, the Peregrine. Also, without the Fulmar we keep the FAA's fighters as single seaters (sorry Skua, you don't count).
 
Last edited:
High take off and landing speed could be overcome with updated arrestor systems and greater catapult capabilities. Add in fuel balance valve between tanks/engines, folding wings and drop tanks and you have a better fighter.

In 1938 the Gladiator began replacing the Nimrod. Keep the Nimrod and launch the Sea Whirlwind in 1940. Main benefit is FAA experience with Kestrel engine will carry forward onto its later version, the Peregrine. Also, without the Fulmar we keep the FAA's fighters as single seaters (sorry Skua, you don't count).

High take-off and landing speed can be and were overcome by adding 111 square feet of wing area, with the same wing span. That's what the FAA's DH Hornets had, along with Merlin 130s. The FAA were so enamored with their Hornets that they dropped them after one tour.

You're right, Skua fighters didn't really count. They just called them that because they didn't want to have "dive bombers."
 
Was there a single engine fighter in World War 2 that would have been less suited to carrier operations than the Bf109T?
I'd have to think the Heinkel He 162, with its poor enginer reliability, poor low speed handing and propensity to break up in flight would be pretty nasty for carrier ops.

heinkel_he_162_by_tr4br-d4hqe0m.jpg
 
I'd have to think the Heinkel He 162, with its poor enginer reliability, poor low speed handing and propensity to break up in flight would be pretty nasty for carrier ops.

heinkel_he_162_by_tr4br-d4hqe0m.jpg

Having stood kext to the 162 at Duxford, I couldn't help be struck by just how small it is and how narrow the main gear is. Maybe there is an interesting challenge there. Use the 162 as a basis for a.successful post war carrier fighter to out perform the Sea Hawk. I'm sure there would be a ceetain comedy value in trying to install a RR Nene or other centrifugal turbo jet above the fuselage.
 
Top