de Havilland DH.77 instead of Hawker Nimrod for FAA

[Admiral Beez]

The FAA introduced the Hawker Fury-derived Nimrod to replace its Fairey Flycatcher. The Napier Rapier-powered de Havilland DH.77 was a competitor for the Air Ministry specification that launched the Fury. Let's have de Havilland have more luck with a Kestrel-powered version for the FAA and the RN replaces its Flycatchers with the world's first monoplane carrier fighter, the DH.77, beating the monoplane Dewoitine D.376, Mitsubishi A5M and Brewster F2A into service by many years.

With a monoplane, single seat fighter the RN and FAA of 1931 now have a taste of the future of fleet air defence. Can they find the realization, willpower and means to prevent the Air Ministry from pushing the Skua, Sea Gladiator or Fulmar as the DH.77's successor? Instead perhaps de Havilland, new to the fighter game gets another nod and a single-seat Merlin or Peregrine-powered fighter developed from the DH.93 Don is proposed?

 

[special ed]

The D.H.77 will need something better than the sparrow suspension it shows here for carrier duty. Something on the order of the A5M or P-26.

 

[Shortround6]

Captain R.C. (Resident Contrarian) here.

DH 77
Wingspan 32ft 2 in
wing area 162 sq ft.
empty weight 1665lbs
Loaded weight 2,279 lb

This rather limits the options of modifying the DH 77 at it existed.
The Napier Rapier I weighing about 640lbs dry and no propeller.

The P-26
Wingspan 28ft
Wing area 150 sq ft
empty weight 2197 lbs
Gross weight 2955lbs.

P&W R-1340 engine as used in the P-26A was 715lbs dry and no propeller.
The P-26 had a "landing speed" of 82.5mph before flaps were fitted and 72mph after flaps were fitted. Landing speed may be several MPH above stalling speed?
Yes the DH 77 is lighter, enough lighter?

A Hawker Nimrod had 300sq ft of wing for a plane that weighed 3,110lbs empty and 4050lbs gross.
The Kestrel engine used in the Nimrod was about 900lbs dry (no radiator or water), Trying to stick a Kestrel in the nose of DH 77 is going to be quite a trick.

Can you actually operate the DH 77 (as is or tricked out) off of British carriers without a rather high accident rate, setting the monoplane back years in British service?

Any attempt to use the DH 93 as a fighter should have perpetrator taken out and shot for treason.

It was a large airplane with 304sq ft wing, larger than a Vought F4U, as it needed to be to seat 3 people in the cockpit/s. Two of the crew were side by side in the front. Great for training. Not so good for turning into a single seater. landing gear

was that well beloved (by the British) apron faired, semi retractable (or semi exposed when retracted) arrangement that saves the plane from major damage if the pilot forgot to lower the landing gear when landing. Not so good for getting high performance.

without a major change in drag the cube law says that you are going to need a Peregrine engine just to get about the same speed as a Skua.
Just stick a Pegasus in the Skua. Solves several problems.

 

[Admiral Beez]

The D.H.77 will need something better than the sparrow suspension it shows here for carrier duty. Something on the order of the A5M or P-26.

Agreed. Something like the de Havilland DH.94 Moth Minor's more aerodynamically clean single leg undercarriage, suitably ungraded for carrier ops. Its folding wing also intrigues me.

 

[Graeme]

Captain R.C. (Resident Contrarian) here.

DH 77
wing area 162 sq ft.

Hi Captain!

Is the situation even worse?

Martleslham Heath has the wing area at 156 sq ft.

Heavy ailerons.
Excessive petrol fumes.
Long take off distance.
Left hand spin took 7,000 ft to recover.

 

[Shortround6]

Hi Captain!

Is the situation even worse?

Martleslham Heath has the wing area at 156 sq ft.

Heavy ailerons.
Excessive petrol fumes.
Long take off distance.
Left hand spin took 7,000 ft to recover.

Could be

I went by Wiki.
Which had, at the time I looked, the P-26 with 250sq ft wing
What is says now I don't know.

The DH 77, as it existed, didn't seem to have any performance advantage to speak of over the Hawker Nimrod.

Adopting a strut braced monoplane with fixed gear (and those were some serious struts)

doesn't get you as far down the evolutionary road as you might think.

Bristol was building these in 1916.