Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
A. Steal Merlin X engines from bomber command;Given sufficient funding and attention but limited to the engines and tech available to designers in 1937-38 what's the best we can acheive for FAA strike and single seat fighter aircraft by 1939-40?
By 1938 the USN had introduced the Douglas TBD Devastator and the IJN the Nakajima B5N
Decide what you want to do. The Devastator used a 850-900hp engine. That is easily achievable.If the Merlin is years and several octane ratings away from giving sufficient power, what of the Rolls-Royce Exe for both strike and fighter applications
Pull the machine guns out of a Fulmar, fit longer tail wheel, figure out where to put the radiator and away you goHi,
My thoughts would be to try and navalize either the Fairey Battle or the P.4/34. Either plane appears to be relatively similar in size to the Devastator and/or Kate and the naval attack mission may not be all that different from the base Battle and P.4/34 requirments.
Pat
The Barracuda's Merlin had a chin rad, but not one that protruded so far past the lower surface. So, stick a Barracuda nose onto a Fulmar?Pull the machine guns out of a Fulmar, fit longer tail wheel, figure out where to put the radiator and away you go
View attachment 693398
But the Barracuda had a deeper fuselage than the Fulmar that allowed the radiators to be faired into the fuselage better.The Barracuda's Merlin had a chin rad, but not one that protruded so far past the lower surface. So, stick a Barracuda nose onto a Fulmar?
View attachment 693400
View attachment 693401
Understood. We're not limited to existing aircraft designs, just to existing British engines and tech of the time. So, we start with an aircraft optimized to carry a torpedo and then sort out the fuselage shape and radiator location. A chin radiator, like the Hawker Henley and later Barracuda might be ideal. There's also the underwing option of the Spitfire. There are very few single-engined, liquid cooled torpedo bombers to guide us. The Germans trialed some Stukas but canceled the project.But the Barracuda had a deeper fuselage than the Fulmar that allowed the radiators to be faired into the fuselage better.
That's the gist of the thread. Change the doctrine. Now what's possible?The FAA's issue wasn't technical per se, it was politics and doctrine.
That's the gist of the thread. Change the doctrine. Now what's possible?
Uncompetitive aircraft like the Swordfish aren't a result of interwar RAF control of the FAA. I think the FAA got the aircraft they wanted. Had the FAA of 1937 said we want a monoplane bomber and single seat, monoplane fighter they would have got it. We first need to shake up the doctrine.
There is hope. Before the A5M, D3A and B5N entered service between 1937-1940 the IJN's aircraft were little better than what the FAA was operating. For example, below is the Nakajima A4N, introduced to IJN service in 1936, little better than the FAA's Hawker Nimrod that entered service in 1933.Theres the problem though, how do you shake up a doctrine that is carved in stone as Gods Holy Writ?
ETS: Herbet Smith while almost unknown now in the UK, is known to every Japanese and highly revered.
There is hope. Before the A5M, D3A and B5N entered service between 1937-1940 the IJN's aircraft were little better than what the FAA was operating. For example, below is the Nakajima A4N, introduced to IJN service in 1936, little better than the FAA's Hawker Nimrod that entered service in 1933.
View attachment 693630
We need someone in Britain's Air Ministry and FAA to see the revolution happening in the IJNAS and follow suit.
Agreed, and that needs to change. We need a revolutionary figure in the Air Ministry and FAA to see opportunities for improvement. And it's not impossible. For example, look at the Blackburn Skua, the first ever all metal, folding wing, retractable undercarriage divebomber. When it entered service in 1937 the IJN's dive bomber was the Aichi D1A and the USN's the SBC. The USN and IJN wouldn't match the Skua's spec until the SB2C Helldiver and Yokosuka D4Y both entered service in 1942, a year after the Skua retired and five years after its first flight. Even the French beat them to a Skua-like spec with the ultimately terrible, but innovative Loire-Nieuport LN.401 dive bomber.Indeed, but the whole culture was utterly toxic to naval aviation.
For the US that rather skips over the Vindicator, the Northrop BT-1 (not the best idea) and the SBD.The USN and IJN wouldn't match the Skua's spec until the SB2C Helldiver and Yokosuka D4Y both entered service in 1942, a year after the Skua retired.