Build a better Sea Hurricane 1938

A major reason why the Seafire didn't arrive when it could have done.

Supermarine factory bombed
The spitfire factory workers

Morgan and Shacklady devote a couple of chapters of their book to the Seafire and to the Supermarine proposal for a two seat shipboard fighter to N8/39. N8/39 was to similar to the Spitfire in construction but larger, with a tapered wing instead of elliptical in order to simplify construction. It also had a wide undercarriage! The same type of wing folding was proposed for the naval Spitfire. I have attached an image of the proposed Spitfire. It would be interesting to understand why this system was not adopted for the Seafire.

The folding wing Spitfire (Type 338) was submitted to the FAA on 2 Jan 1940. By the way Supermarine had flown a hook fitted Spitfire the preceding October. The Navalized Spitfire was rejected by the 1st Lord of the Admiralty Winston Churchill on 29 March. Churchill apparently favored the Fulmar. In any event after the invasion of France it is doubtful that the naval Spitfire program would have survived.
It seems all in all that the FAA shot itself in the foot by insisting on 2 set fighters.
To quote Admiral of the Fleet C M Forbes. "Our Fleet Air Arm aircraft are hopelessly outclassed by everything that flies and the sooner we get some efficient aircraft the better. We have made a false god of the business of flying on and off a carrier, but now it has been done by four RAF pilots in their first attempt and ten Hurricanes have been flown onto a carrier the matter should be reconsidered."

Rejecting a navalised spitfire in early 1940 was absolutely the right thing to do. The admiralty did not "get it
wrong" and the decision was not made solely by Winston.

It would take 2years minimum to get the navalised spitfire up and running, and any production diverted to meet the needs of the FAA would be one less spitfire available to the RAF. every spitfire produced at that time was needed for FC, which also explains why so few were exported at this time.

Equipping the forces afloat with a single purpose aircraft whilst there was such an acute shortage of pilots was something the FAA simply could not afford to do. they needed aircraft that could do more than one thing at a time. They accepted the penalties this brought with it, but it meant the fleet went to sea with eyes as well as teeth. further, the Spitfire with its short range and endurance (this improved later but in 1940, its combat radius was under 100miles) made it utterly unsuited to what the RN needed. As a fighter, there was no expectation for the carriers, or indeed the fleet, to operate in enemy controlled skies. the navala fighters were thought necessary to bring down enemy strike aircraft. they needed moderate performance, large ammo reserves and maximum endurance. They needed to be available as soon as possible 9in early 1940, the FAA had about 40 fighters in total.....skuas and a few sea gladiators. the Spitfire could not meet any of these requirements, the Fulmar could meet all of them.

Reluctant Poster said:

Morgan and Shacklady devote a couple of chapters of their book to the Seafire and to the Supermarine proposal for a two seat shipboard fighter to N8/39. N8/39 was to similar to the Spitfire in construction but larger, with a tapered wing instead of elliptical in order to simplify construction. It also had a wide undercarriage! The same type of wing folding was proposed for the naval Spitfire. I have attached an image of the proposed Spitfire. It would be interesting to understand why this system was not adopted for the Seafire.

The folding wing Spitfire (Type 338) was submitted to the FAA on 2 Jan 1940. By the way Supermarine had flown a hook fitted Spitfire the preceding October. The Navalized Spitfire was rejected by the 1st Lord of the Admiralty Winston Churchill on 29 March. Churchill apparently favored the Fulmar. In any event after the invasion of France it is doubtful that the naval Spitfire program would have survived.
It seems all in all that the FAA shot itself in the foot by insisting on 2 set fighters.
To quote Admiral of the Fleet C M Forbes. "Our Fleet Air Arm aircraft are hopelessly outclassed by everything that flies and the sooner we get some efficient aircraft the better. We have made a false god of the business of flying on and off a carrier, but now it has been done by four RAF pilots in their first attempt and ten Hurricanes have been flown onto a carrier the matter should be reconsidered."

Click to expand...

The same page states that the Air Ministry states that 50 Seafires = 200 Spitfires... I'll bet the RAF had a few words to say about that proposal, given that this would have severely impacted Spitfire production up to June 1940. The other point is that it would have halted Fulmar development (if Fairey built it) when it was only a few months away from serial production (fairey having delivered it nearly a year in advance of the projected dates) for an aircraft that had never flown and would have severely impacted production of all of Fairey's other naval aircraft.

The folding wing prototype was not expected to fly until Feb-March 1941, assuming an order in Jan 1940.

'm sure that a Seafire built by Fairey based heavily on the Spitfire would have been available earlier than the Firefly.

Click to expand...

In what world is Fairey going to build a competitor's aeroplane instead of its own when it is competing for the same requirements and it has contracts of its own to fulfill? Secondly, to which specification?

After the failure of the manufacturers to produce a satisfactory design to N.8/39, calling for a navalised two-seater, new specs were issued, one of which was NAD.925/39 for a navalised single seater, to which Fairey proposed a Griffon engined 8 machine gunned fighter. Supermarine proposed two Spitfire variants, one with a Griffon and another with a Sabre. Incidentally, Hawker offered a Griffon engined fighter based on the Hurricane to this spec. In June 1940, N.5/40 or 5/40/F had been released for Fairey to produce the Firefly. NAD.925/39 went unfulfilled and instead the Admiralty had N.11/40 released to produce Blackburn's B.37, which evolved into the Firebrand, in September. In July 1941 the Air Ministry also released N.1/41 to Miles for a single seat fighter to meet OR.102 for a wooden (!) navalised single seater, to which a naval version of the M.20 stop gap fighter was proposed.

In February 1940 the Admiralty put forward a proposal to the Air Ministry to acquire 'Sea Spitfires', but the idea was canned at the end of March, owing to the fact that the RAF had a greater need and disruption of the production lines was not acceptable at that time, as mentioned earlier in the thread. As an interim, Grumman Wildcats were ordered for the FAA.

By February 1941, delays with the Firebrand gave the Admiralty cause for concern and Hawker proposed the P.1009 'Sea Typhoon' to N.11/40, with folding wings and strengthened undercarriage and although this was ultimately rejected, possibly owing to the structural issues the Typhoon suffered, a hooked Typhoon and Tempest were examined in 1942.

(Information from various sources, but mainly from the books The British Aircraft Specs File and British Secret Projects, Fighters and Bombers 1935 - 1950)

Bearing all this in mind, it can be seen why the Sea Spitfire was not ordered immediately between 1939 and 1941 as there were sufficient single seat projects underway to which the Admiralty believed it might get something useful. It wasn't until 1941 that the Admiralty got its way with getting Seafires, but even then, with official requirements being fulfilled, they were something of a stop gap - there was expectation that the Firebrand would evolve into something useful and the Sea Typhoon had been proposed in its place if it didn't (little did the Admiralty know.... farting sound). The Sea Hurricane had already been issued for production and the first had entered service that year.

RCAFson said:

The same page states that the Air Ministry states that 50 Seafires = 200 Spitfires... I'll bet the RAF had a few words to say about that proposal, given that this would have severely impacted Spitfire production up to June 1940. The other point is that it would have halted Fulmar development (if Fairey built it) when it was only a few months away from serial production (fairey having delivered it nearly a year in advance of the projected dates) for an aircraft that had never flown and would have severely impacted production of all of Fairey's other naval aircraft.

The folding wing prototype was not expected to fly until Feb-March 1941, assuming an order in Jan 1940.

Click to expand...

Of course, if you go with the conversion kit idea that was the Sea Hurricane, you will, if you like, not only get your cake, but get to eat it too. There's no loss of production.

Just thinking. If a whale is a shark built to admiralty standards then that must mean that a Firefly is a Spitfire built to admiralty standards too. A Helldiver is a Warhawk re-engineered the same way.

Kevin J said:

A Helldiver is a Warhawk re-engineered the same way.

Click to expand...

Aw, c'mon man, you're rendering the Warhawk an undeserved insult! How about re-engineering the Curtiss Shrike?

XBe02Drvr said:

Aw, c'mon man, you're rendering the Warhawk an undeserved insult! How about re-engineering the Curtiss Shrike?

Click to expand...

No, I'm insulting the Helldiver which is okay, the Warhawk was a great plane, probably had more aerial victories that the Spitfire whose victories are still on the secrets list.

Kevin J said:

No, I'm insulting the Helldiver which is okay, the Warhawk was a great plane, probably had more aerial victories that the Spitfire whose victories are still on the secrets list.

Click to expand...

The CO at my first duty station was a WWII Helldiver pilot, and in 1971 a senior Captain on his twilight tour.
When asked about his Helldiver days, his face turned apoplectic, and he snarled: "My career history is none of your business, sailor! The Helldiver was a sorry P.O.S. airplane, and that's all you need to know! Now get out of my sight!"
Cheers,
Wes

XBe02Drvr said:

The CO at my first duty station was a WWII Helldiver pilot, and in 1971 a senior Captain on his twilight tour.
When asked about his Helldiver days, his face turned apoplectic, and he snarled: "My career history is none of your business, sailor! The Helldiver was a sorry P.O.S. airplane, and that's all you need to know! Now get out of my sight!"
Cheers,
Wes

Click to expand...

Its just that the wing plan form of both Warhawk and Helldiver look so similar. The Firefly would have been okay if they had got a decent speed out of the Mk 1 version.

Kevin J said:

the Spitfire whose victories are still on the secrets list

Click to expand...

Hmmm, with good reason! Nah, it's just that the RAF never officially promulgated ace status, so no lists were ever officially compiled. The only real way is to go through combat reports and/or books on the subject and make a tally, with all the errors and overclaims that this introduces. All you need to do to see this is by comparing different authors' interpretations; according to some books, Ginger Lacey is the highest scoring Battle of Britain ace, some say it's Josef Frantizek, some say Eric Lock. All give different scores for different reasons...

fastmongrel said:

Build in lightness and simplificate

A favourite quote of Orville Wright though some claim it was Kelly Johnson or Colin Chapman.

Click to expand...

I've heard it as "Simplicate and add lightness" and coming from Ed Heinmann. OTOH could have become a common phrase in the aeronautical world.

tomo pauk said:

Yay! Long time no what-if here

1. Mk.VIII, as on the Fulmar Mk.I
2. 3 is enough, 4 is not available at any rate in 1939/40
3. 8-10-12 .303s? Though I'd go for Belgian heavy Brownings, they were advertised as firing at 1000+ rpm shortly before ww2.
4. Wing fold probably will be easiest to engineer at the flap/aieron joint area.
5. Whatever was fitted on the Sea Gladiator, until better things can be engineered.
6. I'd go for droppable tanks anyway
7. My favorite tweak would've been going for beard radiator, so in the event of ditching there is no 'speed brake' effect, thus less stress on pilot and aircraft in that emergency. Should also earn a few mph and cut on piping lenght, so there is lower risk for those to be punctured in battle.
8. Hurricane was very light for it's size already. Granted, navalization will increase the weight.
9. If we can kill the Roc, that was produced by Blackburn, then Blackburn can do it.

Click to expand...

The Typhoon had a beard radiator and was a horror for ditching

If we can kill the Roc, that was produced by Blackburn, then Blackburn can do it.

Click to expand...

The Roc was designed by Blackburn, but built by Boulton Paul. Trust me, they didn't want it either; BP had entered its own aircraft into the naval fighter specs and got nowhere!

The Typhoon had a beard radiator and was a horror for ditching.

Click to expand...

Yet bizarrely, Hawker proposed it as an alternative to the Firebrand! Now, if only they fit a radial engine, made the wing a little thinner and strengthened the undercarriage (and rear fuselage!), and maybe even raised the cockpit for improved visibility... Oh wait...

Sea Typhoon descendant

ktank said:

The Typhoon had a beard radiator and was a horror for ditching

Click to expand...

Perhaps it was indeed. On the other hand, I've tried to took a page from Fairey, their RR-engined aircraft were mainly with 'beard' radiator and were okay in ditching.

Regarding the poor (bad !) ditching 'qualities of the Typhoon - the radiator wasn't the problem, it was the wing. The Tempest, with the same radiator arrangement, did not have a problem in ditching.

To some extent the FAA did not view the requirements thru the same glasses as USN. Indeed their mission was envisioned as different, in the Atlantic they were not expected to often engage other fighters, but scouting, patrol, and say interception of bomber types was more likely. From this rose the spec for say the Firefly as a two seater. That said Winkle Brown had quite a soft spot for the arrival of the Martlet when it did.

RCAFson said:

The same page states that the Air Ministry states that 50 Seafires = 200 Spitfires... I'll bet the RAF had a few words to say about that proposal, given that this would have severely impacted Spitfire production up to June 1940. The other point is that it would have halted Fulmar development (if Fairey built it) when it was only a few months away from serial production (fairey having delivered it nearly a year in advance of the projected dates) for an aircraft that had never flown and would have severely impacted production of all of Fairey's other naval aircraft.

The folding wing prototype was not expected to fly until Feb-March 1941, assuming an order in Jan 1940.

Click to expand...

One of the advantages that the western allies had over the Germans was that they understood the war was going to go on for some time and therefore they continued the development of longer term projects. The Admiralty's folly was not at least developing a prototype of the navalized spitfire with a view to producing it at a later date. A proper Seafire would have been available earlier.
The other thing to point out is that the RN was the only navy to have an obsession with 2 seat fighters. Both of their main rivals concentrated on single seaters, in Japan's case with exceptionally long range. The idea that a second crewman was needed for navigation was obviously not true

Reluctant Poster said:

One of the advantages that the western allies had over the Germans was that they understood the war was going to go on for some time and therefore they continued the development of longer term projects. The Admiralty's folly was not at least developing a prototype of the navalized spitfire with a view to producing it at a later date. A proper Seafire would have been available earlier.
The other thing to point out is that the RN was the only navy to have an obsession with 2 seat fighters. Both of their main rivals concentrated on single seaters, in Japan's case with exceptionally long range. The idea that a second crewman was needed for navigation was obviously not true

Click to expand...

The FAA's secure homing system required a 2nd crew member in the aircraft. The USN's system was easier to use in a single seater (but even at Midway operator error resulted in lost F4Fs) but wasn't ready till 1941. Advances in radar also made life easier for single seat fighters but again it wasn't apparent how rapidly radar would develop.

The Firefly was the same weight as an F4U or F6F and with similar power had similar performance. The BofB and the loss of the Firefly prototype set things back almost two years, but in 1941/42 the Firefly would have been a potent naval fighter and fighter bomber. Also the Sea Hurricane was ready by March 1941 and a folding wing version could have been ready very shortly thereafter, but the lure of the Martlet probably truncated it's development.