Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Not a bad idea, as Canada was already producing the Grumman Goblin under license as a fighter for the RCAF. I think you just chose our most likely candidate.They could get a license to produce the F3F as the successor
Not a bad idea, as Canada was already producing the Grumman Goblin under license as a fighter for the RCAF. I think you just chose our most likely candidate.
Though lack of folding wings cancels out deployment on the RN's latest carrier HMS Ark Royal and the planned Illustrious class.
A Admiral Beez meant that the F3F could be chosen, like I suggested in my post, at least I think that was the implication. If I'm interpreting correctly, he mentioned the Goblin to say that since Canada was already producing a predecessor to the F3F, the factories would already have most of what they needed to quickly get the F3F into production. Those Canadian produced F3Fs could then be shipped to Britain for service.It is also a sitting duck/target. buying a plane that made it's first flight in 1931 in 1937/38 is hardly a good idea or likely to get you very far in a shooting war.
What is a Sea Gladiator? It doesn't exist, that's why we're chatting today. We're trying to replace the Nimrod without the Gladiator. If you want to stay on topic you need to compare the A5M and F3F with the Nimrod.
If the RN is still operating the Nimrod in January 1940, the answer is plenty. Of course serving alongside the Nimrod is the Skua, so that's something modern at least.
Did Bristol propose a successor to the Bulldog that could be considered?
I suspect that one problem at this time is about the time when the FAA was being placed under RN control, and the staff expertise was still developing. Could the FAA even ask the right questions to develop a Nimrod replacement? I think the answer is "No!" as shown by the Blackburn Roc.
Oh, you asked for it!Given what the FAA ordered in about this timeframe, they would order amonoplaneflying airbrake from Blackburn.
I was waiting for this to turn up! It's a great looking thing. But not a great looking airplane!
"That's the best we could do." -BlackburnThis aircraft was brought to you by the Flying Prevention Society - it's just too ugly to fly. Part of the pilot's personal equipment was a paper bag that he would put over his head to hide his embarrassment at being seen in such an abomination.
I like it, and it gives Hawker a continuance or supplier of fighters to the FAA, giving better odds of an earlier Sea Hurricane.Hawker had built the PV3 as a competitor for the contract won by the Gladiator. It looks like a souped up Hawker Fury though I understand it owes a lot to the Hurricane prototype. It managed 225mph on a 550hp RR Goshawk. Given the latest version of the RR Kestrel or even a Peregrine it should be able to match the Gladiator.
Hawker P.V.3 - Wikipedia
I shall name it the Hawker Oberon
"That's the best we could do." -Blackburn
It takes years of training and practice, and not a small amount of skill, to make something THAT ugly!
Maybe its designer apprenticed at Supermarine.It takes years of training and practice, and not a small amount of skill, to make something THAT ugly!
I do wonder how the field of Gladiator replacements would look if the air Ministry didn't engage in that evaporative cooling romance during the 1930's. The Supermarine F7/30 could have been a similar transitional fighter to the Dewoitine had they been able to give it a more conventional engine. Can't help but suspect designing the airframe as a an airframe, but also a radiator (for all intents and purposes) introduced excessive difficulty.And the last time the Brit military bought a French-built aircraft was...hmmm, NEVER!(ok, they did buy a few SPAD VIIs and Nieuports during WW1...but nothing since).
Joking aside, the opposite throttle on French aircraft would be a nightmare for UK operations...unless, of course, the throttle system was changed (which, of course, increases price and delays operational fielding).