Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
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.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?
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.
I like it, but did Britain have any history of license building other country's aircraft? I see no examples in the below list.What about a license built and navalized Fokker D.XXI?
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?First, find and fire the people who thought the Roc was a good idea.
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.Then, take the Hurricane spec and add carrier requirements.
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.In 1938, which HM carriers were able to operate fixed wing Hurricanes?
What I meant was, which carrier's lifts could handle a fixed wing Hurricane.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.
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.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.
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.This early sea hurricane has got to be a better performer than anything over mid-Mediterranean skies.
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.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.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.