If no Sea Gladiator, what replaces the Hawker Nimrod?

[Admiral Beez]

What about the AS Tiger? I do not know that much about it's history in terms of successful development. Could it have been at least marginally successful if it had gotten more attention? It already had a 2-speed supercharger, what if it had been adapted for 100 octane to the same extent as the Kestrel and early Merlin?

Given that the Tiger was an interwar design first run in 1932 I'd like to see what AS would have developed it into come 1939-40. Hopefully something traditionally configured rather than their failed experiment with inline radials.

 

[Shortround6]

Armstrong Siddeley didn't have a lot of design "talent" and what there was may have been suppressed by Sir John. at least until it was too late.

AS got their real start in the aircraft engine business when they inherited the RAF 8 14 cylinder air cooled radial from the Royal Aircraft Factory. They also got Sam D. Heron but he and John Siddeley did not get along and Heron soon left.
In any case the RAF 8 got an additional 0.5 in of stroke and became the AS Jaguar or Jaguar II with 5.0 x 5.5 cylinders. keep track of the cylinder dimensions.
The Jaguar sustained the company through the 1920s with the aid of the Lynx (1/2 a Jaguar, 7 cylinder one row radial), the small Genet and the 5 cylinder (5.0 x 5.5 ) Mongoose.
In the late 20s they did try the Leopard, a 14 cylinder two row radial of 2,970 cu in ( 48.6 liters) and 6.0 x 7.5 cylinders, with both 4 valve and 2 valve heads. It saw little use.

Next engine/s are the 14 cylinder Panther (improved Jaguar) with 5.25 x 5.5 cylinders, the Cheetah (1/2 a Panther) and the 10 cylinder (two rows of 5 cylinders) Serval (using Mongoose cylinders).

In 1932 the Tiger shows up with 5.5 X 6.00 cylinders and still no center bearing.

In Lumsdens book he says "Throughout it's long and useful military and commercial service, the Jaguar suffered from the lack of a centre bearing and from torsional vibration".

I don't know about the torsional vibration but no 2 row radial by AS got a centre bearing. Any really useful engine by AS would have to be rather sharply separated from the early engines and not developed from them.


AS did show a fair amount of ingenuity in adapting existing bits and pieces into new engines for niche markets but they had fallen out of the front ranks of engine makers by the 30s and only fell further behind as the 30s went on. They did get into jets later but their biggest success (and after Sir John left) was when they picked up the Metrovick program in 1948 and developed it into the Sapphire.

 

[ThomasP]

What about a license built and navalized Fokker D.XXI? Several land plane variants were produced. The basic models used a Mercury VIII engine and were considered to be rugged aircraft. Standard land plane Vmax was ~290 mph at 14,000 ft, IROC was over 2700 ft/min, VNE was over 400 mph, and wing loading was low at ~25 lbs ft2. Armament variations included:

2x RCMG in the nose, and 2x RCMG in the wings
or
4x RCMG in the wings

2x RCMG in the nose and 2x 20mm in the wings were planned on but never implemented.

The Mercury VIII (87 octane) put out 840 BHP at +5 lbs at 14,000 ft, but upgrading to the Mercury XV (improved Mercury VIII rated on 100 octane) giving 995 BHP at +9 lbs at 9,250 ft would have been no problem.

 

[tomo pauk]

What about a license built and navalized Fokker D.XXI? Several land plane variants were produced. The basic models used a Mercury VIII engine and were considered to be rugged aircraft. Standard land plane Vmax was ~290 mph at 14,000 ft, IROC was over 2700 ft/min, VNE was over 400 mph, and wing loading was low at ~25 lbs ft2. Armament variations included:
<>
The Mercury VIII (87 octane) put out 840 BHP at +5 lbs at 14,000 ft, but upgrading to the Mercury XV (improved Mercury VIII rated on 100 octane) giving 995 BHP at +9 lbs at 9,250 ft would have been no problem.

Makes a lot of sense - basically the European A5M/Ki-27. Unlike the Sea Hurricane, it does not raise eyebrows at RAF.
Mercury VIII was also rated for higher boost with 100 oct fuel.

The Gladiator with wings from MB.2 as all-british thing? Also - Miles Kestrel monoplane with at least 4 MGs, either whole or in combination with Gladiator's fuselage?

 

[Admiral Beez]

What about a license built and navalized Fokker D.XXI?

I like it, but did Britain have any history of license building other country's aircraft? I see no examples in the below list.

List of aircraft of the United Kingdom in World War II - Wikipedia

If license building was an option you'd think the British would make their own Hawks and Martlets, and later their own Dakotas.

Mind you, Britain's colonies and Dominions did license-build non-British aircraft for their own needs, such as Australia's CAC producing the P-51 Mustang late in the war. Interwar and earlier war examples include the Fokker Super Universal and the Consolidated PBY Catalina/Canso made by Canadian Vickers. So, maybe that's our route to getting the Fokker D.XXI into British service.

 

[swampyankee]

First, find and fire the people who thought the Roc was a good idea. If they cannot be fired, transfer them to consular duty in South Georgia or as military/naval/air attaches in Bolivia.

Then, take the Hurricane spec and add carrier requirements.

 

[Admiral Beez]

First, find and fire the people who thought the Roc was a good idea.

I have to wonder if anyone at the Air Ministry asked experienced fighter pilots if the turret fighter concept had merit. I can only imagine that the first pilots to see the Roc and Defiant on the ground thought what is this POS the idiots upstairs have conceived of?

Then, take the Hurricane spec and add carrier requirements.

This! Yes, the Sea Hurricane of 1938 will need innovations, some cutting edge in 1937 that were lacking in the RAF version: three blade variable pitch prop (Rotol began production of theirs in 1937), and all metal wings for starters. But we're not asking for the impossible. Add in folding wings from the onset. Later versions can have drop tanks and bomb capability.

 

[SaparotRob]

In 1938, which HM carriers were able to operate fixed wing Hurricanes?

 

[Admiral Beez]

In 1938, which HM carriers were able to operate fixed wing Hurricanes?

None, because carrier capable Hurricanes do not yet exist. Obviously if the AM had ordered Hurricanes to replace the Nimrod on HM carriers the aircraft would be modified to operate from the ships, mods would include those I describe above.

You're just being contrarian for its own sake. This sub-forum is intended for discussing hypothetical ideas. There nothing a Sea Hurricane needs in 1938 that's not available. A more powerful engine would be welcome, but the Merlin of 1938-39 will suffice.

 

[SaparotRob]

None, because carrier capable Hurricanes do not yet exist. Obviously if the AM had ordered Hurricanes to replace the Nimrod on HM carriers the aircraft would be modified to operate from the ships, mods would include those I describe above.

You're just being contrarian for its own sake. This sub-forum is intended for discussing hypothetical ideas. There nothing a Sea Hurricane needs in 1938 that's not available. A more powerful engine would be welcome, but the Merlin of 1938-39 will suffice.

What I meant was, which carrier's lifts could handle a fixed wing Hurricane.
I thought you had mentioned that there were carriers that could handle the dimensions of a fixed wing Hurricane. I don't remember which thread. I was then going to Wikipedia when improved propellers started appearing. Just trying to follow along.

 

[Admiral Beez]

What I meant was, which carrier's lifts could handle a fixed wing Hurricane.
I thought you had mentioned that there were carriers that could handle the dimensions of a fixed wing Hurricane. I don't remember which thread. I was then going to Wikipedia when improved propellers started appearing. Just trying to follow along.

I expect that Glorious, Furious, Courageous, Eagle and Argue could operate fixed wing Hurricanes, leaving out only Hermes. Of course the carriers then building, Ark Royal and the three Illustrious class have narrow lifts, and that's what the future looks like for the FAA. But I don't think it's necessary to start with a fixed wing Hurricanes. If the Air Ministry, knowing that the new carriers have narrow lifts specifies the Hurricane in 1937 to replace the Nimrod there should be sufficient time to make a folding version.

Interestingly, this Sea Hurricane would be the world's second only folding-wing, single-seat monoplane fighter after the Dewoitine D.373.

 

[SaparotRob]

Understood. I was thinking (to myself) of what would most expeditiously get a competent fighter on to an RN flight deck. That would leave modifications (and weight) to be added to the airframe. If no folding wings, then the weight penalty for naval modifications are for the tail hook requirements. Would corrosion protection add more too? I think it would outperform the Skua and Roc, especially with a 2 speed prop as opposed to the fixed wooden one.
This early sea hurricane has got to be a better performer than anything over mid-Mediterranean skies. Plus RN and FAA leadership get accustomed to non ridiculous looking airplanes.

 

[SaparotRob]

This short cut approach to my thinking is heavily influenced by the F4F-3 which was preferred by USN pilots over the F4F-4.

 

[tomo pauk]

Any love for the 'Skua lite'?
One crew member, either Mercury (840 HP at altitude) or Perseus X (880 HP at 15500 ft) installed closer to CoG for less weight and to counter-ballance the now lacking other crew member & it's gear, clip the wing, another pair of MGs? A more streamlined front part of canopy for less drag.
Not quite a Cyclone Martlet, but certainly better than historical Skua. Can also fold the wings.

 

[swampyankee]

for

The Hurricane had its first flight in 1935 and entered squadron service in 1938. A carrier aircraft with a similar performance spec (we're copying the spec for the Hurricane, F.7/30, but adding the features needed for a single-seat carrier fighter, i.e, an arresting hook and folding wings), with a start date in 1934 or 1935 should be able to enter squadron service by 1939 or 1940, which would put its service entry into the same time frame as the Brewster F2A and Grumman F4F. The one real innovation needed would be for the Air Ministry to accept constant speed propellers. One minor problem was the British didn't have a serviceable equivalent to the R-1820 or R-1830, so they'd need to design the aircraft around a liquid-cooled engine, placing even more dependence on Rolls-Royce, or, of course, Dehavilland could have bought a license for the R-1820 or R-1830.

 

[Admiral Beez]

This early sea hurricane has got to be a better performer than anything over mid-Mediterranean skies.

If our early Sea Hurricane is faster (by 1940) than the Fulmar and can carry the latter's bomb it's already a winner. I predict FAA air supremacy in the Mediterranean as waves of Stukas and multi-engine Italian and German bombers are dashed into the sea. The early Sea Hurricane will need to sort out single aircrew radio beacon ops.

 

[SaparotRob]

Any love for the 'Skua lite'?
One crew member, either Mercury (840 HP at altitude) or Perseus X (880 HP at 15500 ft) installed closer to CoG for less weight and to counter-ballance the now lacking other crew member & it's gear, clip the wing, another pair of MGs? A more streamlined front part of canopy for less drag.
Not quite a Cyclone Martlet, but certainly better than historical Skua. Can also fold the wings.

I liked the idea of a "Skua-lite". That was shot down by the grownups of this forum (with the Boulton-Paul-lite) in threads lost to the mists of time. Essentially, you'd have to redesign a new airplane. I was thinking "we already got this fighter, we have these empty aircraft carriers, why waste time time and effort?". Unless wasting time and effort is part of government procurement.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Any love for the 'Skua lite'?
One crew member, either Mercury (840 HP at altitude) or Perseus X (880 HP at 15500 ft) installed closer to CoG for less weight and to counter-ballance the now lacking other crew member & it's gear, clip the wing, another pair of MGs? A more streamlined front part of canopy for less drag.
Not quite a Cyclone Martlet, but certainly better than historical Skua. Can also fold the wings.

Much as a I like the idea, the Skua is just too big to be a fighter. Look at the size of this thing, you'd need a Centaurus before the Skua can present both competitive heavy armament and performance. Better to tell Blackburn to start fresh, though they never made a good fighter, their Blackburn F.3 was so bad even Wikipedia doesn't show a pic.

Better to start with a fighter that was conceived as such than to try to force a fat foot into a glass slipper. The early Hawker Sea Hurricane would knock the Mitsubishi A5M off its pedestal as the best carrier fighter of the 1930s.

 

[SaparotRob]

Blows the doors of shooting 'em off a freighter on a one way mission. But then I'm aviationally challenged.

 

[fastmongrel]

Hawkers are I think going to be too busy to build a Sea Hurricane pre-war. Blackburn certainly knew how to design a folding wing and the Hurricane could have its wings swapped in a matter of hours. Answer Hawker carries on building Hurricanes with no interuption, Blackburn designs and builds the folding wings plus a kit to convert the Hurricane into a naval fighter. Take some Hurricane MkIs from RAF stocks post BoB and it shouldnt take long to have a 100 or so Sea Hurricanes ready for Jan 41.