Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
First question. Which carriers do you want it to operate from?Isn't the Hornet the historical alternative. Check for all of: crew of two, 4 cannons, full carrier-vessel capability (low-speed handling, visibility, folding wings, tailhook, then-current electronics, overall protection from the salt water/air environment), long range & endurance. Just have DH build it instead of Mosquito.
Or add a second seat to the Firebrand. Blackburn's "strike fighter" checks all the boxes except 2 seater.
It is the only one that is viable in hindsight.Griffon II seems like the only possibility in 1939/40 when you are selecting a design as an alternative to Firefly.
In the 1939/40 timeframe I think any twin engined design is out of the window for the FAA. With the RN just having regained complete control of the FAA they would not be so adventurous. Until then only the French had succeeded in operating a twin from a carrier (the Potez 565 transport for trials in Jan 1936) although Grumman was developing the single seat XF5F Skyrocket which first flew on 1 April 1940. Britain didn't deck land the Mosquito until March 1944 and the Hornet until Aug 1945, and the USN the B-25 until Nov 1944. That is even before considering the practical problems I touched on before and of which there is more information below.
The chosen alternative design to the Barracuda was the Supermarine Type 322 "Dumbo". It was much delayed and never went beyond a couple of prototypes. It used a variable incidence wing connected to the operation of the flaps to achieve the required stall speed.I liked your post, EwenS. Fancy flappery got it to "winner".
Agreed.Thinking about speed of introduction rather than outright performance, how about doing a Spitfire job by slotting a Griffon onto the Fulmar as a quick and dirty upgrade?
While the RR Griffon owed its ancestry to the Schnieder trophy R engines, the Griffon that served from WW2 was an entirely different engine. Development of the Griffon II engine wasn't begun until 1939. It ran for the first time in Nov 1939. IIRC it first flew in 1941. Spitfire IV prototype with the Griffon III flew Nov 1941, Firefly I prototype with Griffon II flew Dec 1941. Production Griffon engines became available in 1942. The first production Spitfires with it were Mk.XII from Oct 1942 and production standard Fireflies had started to come off the production line around May 1943.Thinking about speed of introduction rather than outright performance, how about doing a Spitfire job by slotting a Griffon onto the Fulmar as a quick and dirty upgrade?
Given that most FAA action was against enemy aircraft at lower altitudes, I'm not sure just how much of an improvement in real world performance would have been achieved by fitting a Merlin 20 series over the Merlin VIII/30 in the Fulmar I/II.Agreed.
OTOH - even going with a 'proper' Merlin, like something from the 20 series is a boon. vs. the historical Fulmar.
Given that most FAA action was against enemy aircraft at lower altitudes, I'm not sure just how much of an improvement in real world performance would have been achieved by fitting a Merlin 20 series over the Merlin VIII/30 in the Fulmar I/II.
A lot depends on timing.Firefly received the Griffon, that was pretty good between 15000-20000 ft.
Even for the down-low purposes, the Merlin 20s were useful, making 100-250 HP more than the Mk.30 Merlin.
The Merlin 32 offered 1640hp at 2,000ft with 18lbs of boost and since it used the same supercharger gear and impeller in the Hooker designed intake, and two piece engine blocks and modified supercharger drive as the Merlin 24 got it doesn't seem that it should have been any later in timing if they had wanted it. Or offered much difference in power from the cropped impeller Melrin 45s. A little bit higher gear from a slighlty smaller impeller. 1585hp at 2750ft instead of 1640 hp at 2,000ft?