A better FAA twin seat, single engine fighter for 1940?

[Thumpalumpacus]

The RN expected their carriers to operate within range of land based air attack, and thus mandated armoured flight decks.

Exactly, the entire premise of operations was that these were carriers operating against land-based air. They were expected to operate in close waters. It follows, then, that the aircraft should be able to do so.

It looks like a disjoint in RN/FAA thinking to me.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Exactly, the entire premise of operations was that these were carriers operating against land-based air. They were expected to operate in close waters. It follows, then, that the aircraft should be able to do so.

It looks like a disjoint in RN/FAA thinking to me.

It was likely a result of the RN designing the ships and the RAF-focused Air Ministry specifying and procuring the aircraft. The Air Ministry returned aviation decisions to the FAA in only May 1939, but which time the damage was done. In 1939 the FAA was saddled with obsolete Gladiator fighters and obsolete Swordfish TSRs. And considering that the RN had seven carriers in service, a direly insufficient quantity of both aircraft, for example by Sept 1939 only fifty-four Sea Gladiators were procured. Assuming spares, maintenance and shore based aircraft, that leaves about three to six fighters per each of the seven carriers. I suppose the Skua was intended to fill the fighter gap. When the Air Ministry decided that the Gladiator and Skua would replace the Nimrod (itself kept on strength to 1938! Way past obsolescence) what fighter were they intended to counter? The likely enemies were flying or testing the likes of the Bf 109, Ki 43, A5M and Macchi C.200. Neither the Gladiator or Skua stood a chance. Meanwhile the same Air Ministry that saddled the FAA with these dogs was procuring Spitfires, Hurricanes and Whirlwinds for the RAF.

Assuming that the Air Ministry maintains control of the FAA to May 1939, we need someone in the AM to show some care for the RN's needs and awareness of what's happening elsewhere in the world of aviation.

It's April 1937, and our AM man asks the RN: "why are you building your new Illustrious class carriers with such armour protection?"

The RN man calls in his FAA lead, who says "well, old chap it's that we expect them to operate within range of first rate, fighter-escorted, land-based strike aircraft."

AM "Interesting, as we're responsible for ensuring you have the right aircraft for the job, what do you need from the AM?"

FAA "Thanks for asking, as we're still relying on the Hawker Nimrods the AM so, [cough], graciously procured for us in the early 1930s, we need a fighter that is equal in performance to anything the Europeans, Soviets, Americans or Japanese are currently flying, plus whatever we know about what they're designing for tomorrow. This fighter must also be robust, easily maintained, with easy-to-fold wings (no origami please), with good landing characteristics and forward visibility for carrier ops. We must have long endurance and a heavy armament to kill the strike aircraft and their escorts well away from our carriers. And with seven current carriers and six of the new armoured deck carriers under construction or planned, with likely two or three of the smaller, older carriers removed from service, we'll need at least two hundred to two hundred and fifty of these fighters, plus trainers and spares.

FAA "Oh, and we appreciate the upcoming addition of the Skua, and it's a testament to the AM and British aviation that the RN and FAA will have the world's first all-metal, folding wing, monoplane, retractable undercarriage, carrier-based dive bomber. But the Skua is no fighter, no matter how many guns we put in the wings. We need a fighter as described above."

AM "I see, thanks for stating your points so clearly. Well how about this? The RAF will be switching over to the new Hurricane and Spitfire, so why don't you take their obsolete Gladiators? Plus [snark], how about a twin-seat bomber-derived design that doesn't meet any of your requirements for close shore combat; here's our idea (presents sketch of the failed Fairey P.4/34 that first flew in Jan 1937)."

A heated debate ensues and our AM man is metaphorically thrown overboard. The following month May 1937, the AM sends a smarter man who listens, and in July 1937 the following specification is issued by the Air Ministry: "X.37... single seat, single engine fleet fighter with folding wings, eight gun armament, >320 mph at 10,000 feet (this mid attitude speed will be tough with the engines, props and superchargers of the day), an initial rate of climb of >2,000 ft/min, >800 mile range on internal fuel, forward visibility and good low speed handling characteristics."

In Jan 1938 the AM visits again. FAA "Thank you for listening. Now, how about we toss the Albacore idea and replace the Swordfish with an all metal, monoplane TSR? Why don't we take another look at your P.4/34 idea, but this time as torpedo strike platform?"

AM "That will help us keep Mr. Fairey happy. Where did we put that sketch?"

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

It sounds like you've worked in a bureaucracy before

Add to your points, the RN's carriers were of different sizes (thinking mainly hangar and elevator capabilities), and someone in the AM trying to economize on outlay may well have decided that the specs should keep the smaller flattops in mind as well, resulting in a variation on "a convoy is only as fast as its slowest ship" thinking.

I don't know that that's the case, it's just a guess on my part, but I've worked in a bureaucratic system too, and that sort of thing happens often enough.

 

[Admiral Beez]

It sounds like you've worked in a bureaucracy before

Add to your points, the RN's carriers were of different sizes (thinking mainly hangar and elevator capabilities), and someone in the AM trying to economize on outlay may well have decided that the specs should keep the smaller flattops in mind as well, resulting in a variation on "a convoy is only as fast as its slowest ship" thinking.

I don't know that that's the case, it's just a guess on my part, but I've worked in a bureaucratic system too, and that sort of thing happens often enough.

That HMS Hermes, one of the RN's most active carriers had lifts that would not fit any of the FAA's monoplane fighters until the Seafire Mk.III does demonstrate such thinking.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

That HMS Hermes, one of the RN's most active carriers had lifts that would not fit any of the FAA's monoplane fighters until the Seafire Mk.III does demonstrate such thinking.

It baffles me why a navy would not standardize its elevators and hangar spaces to their expected complement. Granted that airplane design moves faster than ship design, but I can't see why larger elevators at the very least would not be a design feature, expecting that larger planes would be in the pipeline.

I get that designing larger hangar spaces is a trickier thing in naval architecture, but certainly the size of the hole cut into the deck, and the power of the hydraulics operating the lifts, should be forward-looking.

 

[Shortround6]

Hermes was ordered in 1917, laid down in 1919 and commissioned in 1924. Expecting a ship that was built when the Sopwith Pup was the hot ticket in naval aircraft to be sized to fit aircraft of 15-20 years in the future is asking a bit much.

Other problem with British carrier architecture was that flight deck was part of the ships structure, many American carriers were more of a build a hull and stick hanger/flight deck on top.

We can argue quite a bit over which was better but one of the drawbacks to the British approach was that cutting large holes in the flight deck for big elevators weakened the whole structure.
The American approach had drawbacks of it's own. I am not trying to bash the British, just point out that most ships were a series of compromises and sticking in big elevators was not a simple as it may seem at first glance.

In the early 20s nobody knew what kind of aircraft were coming, they also didn't know maintenance requirements, or fuel requirements, or how many planes could be operated at one time, or how to fly any distance from the moving carrier and find their way back in less than close to ideal conditions.

Up until the Armored carriers show up (Illustrious laid down in April 1937) the British carrier fleet was a collection of odds, sods and samples. Including the Ark Royal (completed in 1938) the British had 7 carriers with only two being close to identical. The Furious differed somewhat in her conversion compared to her two sisters.
Considering that 5 of them were on hulls converted from other types of ships there was a definite limit as to laying them out to fit an theoretical ideal.
The British were blessed/cursed with oldest carrier "fleet" in the world which gave them a lot of experience in the 1920 and early 30s. For the US the Lexington (CV-2) was commissioned until Dec 1927. However the curse part comes in with them being stuck with this collection of early hardware that had been passed by. There is only so much you can do in refits without cutting into the budget for new ships.

 

[Admiral Beez]

It baffles me why a navy would not standardize its elevators....

British elevators got smaller as the aircraft got larger. The Courageous class had 46ft wide lifts, Ark Royal's widest lift was 25ft wide, and the Illustrious lifts were 22ft wide before the Brits came to their senses and widened the lifts on the Implacable, Majestics/Colossus, Centaurs and Audacious classes.

Mind you, Ark Royal's single 25ft wide lifts can take every single-engined propeller aircraft right up to the A1 Skyraider, Spearfish and Gannet. So kudos to her designers in the 1930s.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

British elevators got smaller as the aircraft got larger. The Courageous class had 46ft wide lifts, Ark Royal's widest lift was 25ft wide, and the Illustrious lifts were 22ft wide before the Brits came to their senses and widened the lifts on the Implacable, Majestics/Colossus, Centaurs and Audacious classes.

Mind you, Ark Royal's single 25ft wide lifts can take every single-engined propeller aircraft right up to the A1 Skyraider, Spearfish and Gannet. So kudos to her designers in the 1930s.

View attachment 619605

I just find that odd, shrinking elevators when you know that size and weight will be increasing.

 

[ThomasP]

There were basically 4 reasons why the RN designed their elevators to the 22'x45' dimensions.

1. Starting around 1932 the RN required all future carrier aircraft to have folding wings.

2. Starting with the design stage of Ark Royal the RN required that the width of the aircraft (with wings folded) would allow stowing 3 abreast in the 62'-64' wide hangars of the armoured carriers. Ideally this meant that the folded dimension would be no more than 18'6", but upto 21' would be allowed if necessary.

3. Since the aircraft folded dimension could not be any wider than 21', there was no reason to make the elevators wider than required to allow the folded aircraft to fit on them. A bit optimistic perhaps, but since the intended aircraft compliment was to be some mix of Swordfish, Skua, Albacore, Fulmar, Firefly, Barracuda, . . .

4. Keeping the elevator to smaller dimensions allowed (in part) much heavier elevator deck plating on the armoured carriers than on other types. Although the elevators were not high quality armour, they were of 1.5" D steel, similar to US STS (a form of high strength structural steel, equal to about half the value of the contemporary homogeneous armour). The 1.5" D steel plate was deemed to offer worthwhile protection against HE bombs. Also, the smaller elevator dimensions allowed a heavier construction of the operating mechanism and support structure, which allowed the elevators to continue to function even if damaged (to a degree). In comparison, the contemporary US carrier designs (ie Yorktown class and Wasp) had flight decks of .3125"-.5" shipbuilding (structural) plate with thick wood beams on top of the plate.

In reference to #1 above, beginning with the Shark and Swordfish, all aircraft specifically designed for use on the British carriers had folding wings. It was only when the RN had to use modified land based aircraft that the elevator size became a problem.

 

[Admiral Beez]

In reference to #1 above, beginning with the Shark and Swordfish, all aircraft specifically designed for use on the British carriers had folding wings. It was only when the RN had to use modified land based aircraft that the elevator size became a problem.

The specifically designed British carrier aircraft is a rare thing. For fighters you have the Flycatcher, Fulmar, Firefly, Attacker, Sea Hawk, Scimitar and Vixen. Everything else, from the Nightjar, Nimrod, Sea Hurricane, Seafire, Sea Fury, Sea Harrier, etc. etc. was either a rehash of a RAF design or like the Martlet, Hellcat, Corsair, Phantom II and F-35, procured from the US.

 

[Shortround6]

It's April 1937, and our AM man asks the RN

The RN man calls in his FAA lead, who says "well, old chap it's that we expect them to operate within range of first rate, fighter-escorted, land-based strike aircraft."

In April of 1937 who had long range fighter escorted strike aircraft?
Who had any prospects of long range escorted strike aircraft?
Even in April of 1938 who had such aircraft?
In fact who had such aircraft in April of 1939?

Did they expect to operate them within range of land based air (single or twin engine bombers)? yes
Did they expect these bombers to have escorts at the distance from land the Carriers were operating?

For the Germans in April of 1937 you had the 109B with the Jumo 210 engine and two machine guns.
In April of 1938 you had the 109C with the fuel injected Jumo 210 and four machine guns.
Range was about 400 miles or practical radius of about 120-130 miles.

For the Italians the Fiat CR 32 was the standard fighter.
While programs had been started and prototypes had been flown the C.200 Saetta, the Fiat CR 42, the Fiat G.50 Production planes don't show up until the spring or summer of 1939.
The prototype Re 2000 doesn't fly until May of 1939.

For the Japanese it is somewhat the same. Programs and prototypes are in the works but the Kawasaki Ki-10 biplane doesn't stop production until late 1938.
What is known in the west is sketchy. In the 1938 Janes the Japanese section is 8 pages. Czechoslovakia has 10 1/2 pages. Italy has 27 pages.
There is a picture of an A5M but according to the text the manufacturer is unknown. Perhaps British intelligence knew but the British aviation magazines did not.

Looking back we KNOW the capabilities of the different aircraft and when they were produced and in what numbers. This was something that military staffs at the time did not know and had to make guesses at. Fighters capable of escorting strike aircraft more than 120-150 miles from shore and retaining first rate performance simply didn't exist in 1937 or 38 or even most of 1939 and into 1940.

In the west the P-35 might be the exception.

BTW the specification that lead to the Firefly was first put out in 1938, it was modified in 1939, and again.
The Gladiator and Fulmar were just supposed to tide the FAA over until this new plane showed up. Unfortunately it showed up in 1943 and was underperforming then.

 

[tomo pauk]

In April of 1937 who had long range fighter escorted strike aircraft?
Who had any prospects of long range escorted strike aircraft?
Even in April of 1938 who had such aircraft?
In fact who had such aircraft in April of 1939?

Japanese and Germans have had such aircraft in 1939.

Looking back we KNOW the capabilities of the different aircraft and when they were produced and in what numbers. This was something that military staffs at the time did not know and had to make guesses at. Fighters capable of escorting strike aircraft more than 120-150 miles from shore and retaining first rate performance simply didn't exist in 1937 or 38 or even most of 1939 and into 1940.

Aircraft capable of escorting the strike aircraft more than 150 miles from shore while retaining 1st rate performance certainly existed in 1937-40. That European militaries didn't install drop tanks on their fighters, like I-16*, Hurricane, Bf 109, He 112 or Spitfire until late 1940 and on is all another ball game.
Bf 110C was making 330 mph in 1939 and 600+ mile range (= at least 200+ mile radius) without drop tanks - 1st class performance and more than 150 mile radius?

*Soviets thinkered with two fixed underwing tanks on I-16

 

[Shortround6]

1/4 or 1/3 of the 110a used in Poland had Jump 210 engines.

British didn't believe long range single engine escorts were possible, since nobody had really demonstrated such a capability at the time means too much blame is hard to support.

Some accounts claim the Admiralty requested a 4 hour endurance for the Fulmar in 1937/38. If so then simple conversions of existing single engine single seat fighters isn't going to work.

 

[tomo pauk]

1/4 or 1/3 of the 110a used in Poland had Jump 210 engines.

Does that mean that we are supposed to exclude Bf 110C in 1939 from discussion?

British didn't believe long range single engine escorts were possible, since nobody had really demonstrated such a capability at the time means too much blame is hard to support.

I'm flabbergasted that the AM made a judgement mistake.

Some accounts claim the Admiralty requested a 4 hour endurance for the Fulmar in 1937/38. If so then simple conversions of existing single engine single seat fighters isn't going to work.

Earlier investment in drop tanks would've been prudent. Hopefully we should not wait for a foreign precedent for that idea.

 

[Shortround6]

Does that mean that we are supposed to exclude Bf 110C in 1939 from discussion?

It is debatable. My quote

In fact who had such aircraft in April of 1939

From website ; Messerschmitt Bf 110
Ten C-0 pre-production aircraft were delivered for evaluation in January 1939 with Bf110C-1 production aircraft following soon after. As production ramped up, both Focke-Wulf and Gotha joined the programme and by the end of August 1939 some 159 models had been delivered with a production rate of thirty per month. By the end of the year, 315 aircraft had been produced.

Now is that just 110C production or did the August total include the 45 100Bs? In any case how many 110Cs were available in April and who England knew what about them?
Accounts and book are all over the place, one old book claims there were 10 Grouppes of 110s used in Poland.
Wiki says that 102 Bf 110s were used at the start of Poland?
Weed out prototypes and trainers?
So further research may be needed?
While the 110 first flew in may of 1936 (almost a year before the hypothetical conversation in post #82) there was no photo of it available to the British in early 1938, The 1938 Janes has a two sentence description and no photo or drawing.
So when did the British have any real idea of it's capabilities?

I'm flabbergasted that the AM made a judgement mistake.

As we both know, they made a bunch of them

This decision might not have been one of them. The failure to push for the promised replacement aircraft for the Fulmar was probably a bigger one. Remember the Fulmar was just supposed to fill in (even in 1937 planning) for the plane/s the FAA really wanted.

Earlier investment in drop tanks would've been prudent. Hopefully we should not wait for a foreign precedent for that idea.

Drop tanks in peacetime may not have been a good idea. The idea of landing aircraft on carriers with partially filled detachable tanks wasn't likely to find favor
For the aircraft operating from shore looking for carriers using drop tanks, a bit safer. But where in the mission does the engagement take place?
And can the fighter with drop tank keep up with the bombers without them?
The last certainly depends on which aircraft and what year.
Views on drop tanks certainly changed and the hardware (racks, fittings, mechanisms) undoubtedly got better.

For hypotheticals, the Luftwaffe could have been a much more effective force if the supply of DB 601 engines had been much greater in 1939/40.
The Do 17V-8 flew with DB 600 engines.

Post #82 also had

we need a fighter that is equal in performance to anything the Europeans, Soviets, Americans or Japanese are currently flying, plus whatever we know about what they're designing for tomorrow. This fighter must also be robust, easily maintained, with easy-to-fold wings (no origami please), with good landing characteristics and forward visibility for carrier ops. We must have long endurance and a heavy armament to kill the strike aircraft and their escorts well away from our carriers. And with seven current carriers and six of the new armoured deck carriers under construction or planned, with likely two or three of the smaller, older carriers removed from service, we'll need at least two hundred to two hundred and fifty of these fighters, plus trainers and spares.

"I see, thanks for stating your points so clearly. Well how about this? The RAF will be switching over to the new Hurricane and Spitfire, so why don't you take their obsolete Gladiators? Plus [snark], how about a twin-seat bomber-derived design that doesn't meet any of your requirements for close shore combat; here's our idea (presents sketch of the failed Fairey P.4/34 that first flew in Jan 1937).

Bolded parts seem to be in disagreement.
The "failed Fairey P.4/34" suggestion had 4 hours of endurance (or about twice the range of a Hurricane or Spitfire) and twice the ammo of either the Hurricane or Spitfire at the time.

Part in Italics is what is in question.

For the Americans they had ordered 77 P-35s in June of 1936 but the first was not delivered until mid 1937 (after this hypothetical discussion) and the last of the 77 is delivered in August of 1938. While they have a range of 1000-1150 miles on internal fuel they have a top speed of 282mph and are armed with one .50 cal gun and one .30 cal gun.
The sealants used on the "wet wing" that gave such range also tended to dry out and cause leaks. I have no idea if the British knew of this.
In July of 1937 the US Army ordered 210 Curtiss P-36s. The first P-36 is delivered to the US army in April of 1938.

 

[tomo pauk]

While the 110 first flew in may of 1936 (almost a year before the hypothetical conversation in post #82) there was no photo of it available to the British in early 1938, The 1938 Janes has a two sentence description and no photo or drawing.
So when did the British have any real idea of it's capabilities?

You are right wrt. meagre numbers of Bf 110Cs in early 1939, Vajda gives only 8 of those delivered by the end of April of that year. Only 47 of Bf 110Bs (Jumo 210 engines) were delivered by that date.

Thinking about fighters that have long range required that those fighters are supposed to escort bombers. An 'escorted bomber' was not a thing per RAF. In other words: enemy will not possibly doing what is not covered by our doctrine -> idea of a long range fighter does not happen ->there is no expectancy that enemy will field such a machine.

Drop tanks in peacetime may not have been a good idea. The idea of landing aircraft on carriers with partially filled detachable tanks wasn't likely to find favor
For the aircraft operating from shore looking for carriers using drop tanks, a bit safer. But where in the mission does the engagement take place?
And can the fighter with drop tank keep up with the bombers without them?
The last certainly depends on which aircraft and what year.
Views on drop tanks certainly changed and the hardware (racks, fittings, mechanisms) undoubtedly got better.

Military aircraft are designed for war. Landing with a fuel tank is far less of a concern than landing with a torpedo; drop tank can be emptied and/or discarded or filled with exhaust gasses far easier and cheaper than it was the case with a torpedo. Unless one does not start experimenting with drop tanks, he will never be good at that - same as for any other mechanical device.
Escort mission under 200 miles for a Hurricane/Bf 109/Spitfire outfitted with reasonable drop tank is easy, and it is far cry from the stipulated 120-150 mile escort mission.
Nobody was fielding bombers that cruised above 220 mph before 1940.

For hypotheticals, the Luftwaffe could have been a much more effective force if the supply of DB 601 engines had been much greater in 1939/40.
The Do 17V-8 flew with DB 600 engines.

Up to June 30th 1940, there was ~750 of DB-powered Bf 110s delivered. This is 1500 engines invested, along with other material, devices, bits & pieces. In the same period, around 2450 of Bf 109Es was delivered. Without 110C, German aero industry have had enough of material and time to deliver almost 4000 of Bf 109Es. Yes, it will need a drop tank facility to have reasonable range, and probably and extra pair of MG 17s installed.

Bolded parts seem to be in disagreement.
The "failed Fairey P.4/34" suggestion had 4 hours of endurance (or about twice the range of a Hurricane or Spitfire) and twice the ammo of either the Hurricane or Spitfire at the time.

Part in Italics is what is in question.

Not sure there is a bolded part?
Hurricane or Spitfire with 90 gal in drop tank(s) have had double the duration of a 'simple' Hurricane or Spitfire; granted, those don't easily solve the FAA needs (2-seater with a big radio, folding wings & other navalization, double the ammo count), even if they can offer the much better performance. Starting with what is a 'slightly big Spitfire' (fuselage some 3 feet longer, thin wing of 280-300 sq ft) might help here, in order for all those extras to fit.

 

[nuuumannn]

And ignore the contrarians, those whose sole joy here is to tell you the trio of why something wouldn't, couldn't or shouldn't have occurred.

Oh Admiral, you're such a killjoy...

With the world's carrier and land based air forces developing and/or fielding high performance single-seat fighters it was ridiculous for the FAA to spend 1938-40 developing a slow and heavy twin-seater to counter them. The RN expected their carriers to operate within range of land based air attack, and thus mandated armoured flight decks. If so, it would seem prudent to have a FAA fighter that could deal with land based fighters.

Things worth remembering about the Fulmar; it was ordered by the Air Ministry, not the navy, it was designed as a long-range two-seat fighter reconnaissance aircraft to fly on long-range patrols looking for enemy fleets, which was able to be catapulted from a conventional warship. It might encounter enemy bombers intent on attacking British carriers, so it was equipped to do so and it was intended as a stop-gap to fulfil the role until the navy's bomber-destroyer turret fighter the Roc entered service (the turret fighter was a thing in British 1930s fighter thinking).

I think the criticism is founded on the second seat being unnecessary. I tend to agree with it myself. I don't think the second crewman was worth the tradeoffs in performance.

It's also worth remembering that at the time, the Germans and the Italians, the perceived enemy in the 1930s didn't have long-range modern single-seat fighters that could tackle even the Fulmar. There was no way the Bf 109 had the range to reach a British carrier at sea from Germany, except from the likes of the island of Sylt if the carrier was in the Channel and very lower reaches of the North Sea, and even then the carrier would have been in range of British land-based fighters. In the mid to late 1930s the frontline Italian fighter was this:

CR.32

...to be replaced by this in 1939 - 1940.

CR.42

Thinking was never so prescient back then as we like to imagine, with our access to oodles of hindsight.

That the Air Ministry didn't instigate a single-seater is always blamed on the navy, but it wanted them. There was definitely a disconnect between operational experience and what was being decided in the Air Ministry for the FAA in the 1930s, but there was a reason for it. Carrier deck space was limited and in the early 30s, fearing a size and weight increase in modern aircraft decisions were made that meant that dual role aircraft were gonna be incorporated on carriers, so the likes of the Skua and Fulmar were ordered. The other issue was cost versus predicting where the next threat might come from, the former being an ever-present issue in peacetime and the latter in that the British didn't anticipate the Germans would invade Europe again so soon after the Great War. Even before the Skua entered service it was criticised by senior admirals as being inadequate for their needs. The Hurricane was of interest and by the mid-1930s was being discussed as a future carrier single-seat fighter.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

It's also worth remembering that at the time, the Germans and the Italians, the perceived enemy in the 1930s didn't have long-range modern single-seat fighters that could tackle even the Fulmar. There was no way the Bf 109 had the range to reach a British carrier at sea from Germany, except from the likes of the island of Sylt if the carrier was in the Channel and very lower reaches of the North Sea, and even then the carrier would have been in range of British land-based fighters. In the mid to late 1930s the frontline Italian fighter was this:

View attachment 620338CR.32

...to be replaced by this in 1939 - 1940.

View attachment 620339CR.42

Thinking was never so prescient back then as we like to imagine, with our access to oodles of hindsight.

I get that, and you're absolutely right that I've got the, whaddya callit here, retrospectroscope in full function in the post you quoted.

Having said that, I do think that a single-seater would likely do a better job on intercepts of higher-altitude Condors or Ju-88s than the Fulmar could have. That too has more than a whiff of hindsight; I plead guilty. I do wonder why such didn't seem to garner much consideration.

That the Air Ministry didn't instigate a single-seater is always blamed on the navy, but it wanted them. There was definitely a disconnect between operational experience and what was being decided in the Air Ministry for the FAA in the 1930s, but there was a reason for it. Carrier deck space was limited and in the early 30s, fearing a size and weight increase in modern aircraft decisions were made that meant that dual role aircraft were gonna be incorporated on carriers, so the likes of the Skua and Fulmar were ordered. The other issue was cost versus predicting where the next threat might come from, the former being an ever-present issue in peacetime and the latter in that the British didn't anticipate the Germans would invade Europe again so soon after the Great War. Even before the Skua entered service it was criticised by senior admirals as being inadequate for their needs. The Hurricane was of interest and by the mid-1930s was being discussed as a future carrier single-seat fighter.

Agreed that cost was a big concern in the 30s, but wouldn't a single-seat fighter be lighter; and if specifically designed for carrier stowage be smaller, which might allow a few more to be carried?

Forgive what might seem dumb questions.

 

[Shortround6]

Forgive what might seem dumb questions.

Not dumb if you don't know the answer.

The single seat fighter would be lighter and cheaper.

However the problem goes back to the desired 4 hours of endurance. SO you need twice the fuel of a the Hurricane or Spitfire (as they were in 1936/37)
You also need a radio with a range of several hundred miles and not the 30-35miles of the standard RAF single seat fighter radio of the late 30s.
Then you run into the size/speed of the British carriers problem. Can you operate the resulting single seat fighter from the existing British carriers?

The US Navy tested this aircraft in late 1937.

P-35 with a Cyclone engine, bigger cowl and tail hook.
It had range, 975-1000 miles but the Navy didn't like the low speed speed handling and the stall speed. At the time the US Navy had two of the largest carriers in the world and even the smallest carrier (aside from the Langley) had over 700ft flight decks and could make 29 kts. The British had a lot of decks that were small AND slow.

It also wasn't much faster than the Grumman F3F biplane.

Some accounts say that it was the Admiralty that requested the recon mission and endurance and it was not foisted onto the Admiralty by the Air Ministry.

Not that the Fulmar was perfect. Fitting the Merlin X might have gone some way in improving the performance once the plane was over 10,000ft. But Bomber Command sucked up all the Merlin X engines.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Thanks for taking the time, SR6. That does lay out the problem more clearly for me. Much appreciated.