If no Sea Gladiator, what replaces the Hawker Nimrod?

[Admiral Beez]

I think it would have been better at the CAP role then a Fulmar.

It's noteworthy that the Venom of 1936 is 15% (40 mph) faster and climbs 150% (1,700 ft/m) faster than the Fulmar of 1940.

Though to be fair I'd want see the Venom weighed down with folding wings, arrestor hook, necessary structural reinforcements and (eventually) the RDF radio.

 

[RCAFson]

It's noteworthy that the Venom of 1936 is 15% (40 mph) faster and climbs 150% (1,700 ft/m) faster than the Fulmar of 1940.

Though to be fair I'd want see the Venom weighed down with folding wings, arrestor hook, necessary structural reinforcements and (eventually) the RDF radio.

Yes, and the Fulmar 1/2 carried 750/1000RPG and 155IG of fuel (~5 hrs endurance) with provision for a 60IG DT on the Fulmar 2.

The Venom was designed to Spec F.5/34 which called for 6-8 .303BMGs and 300RPG along with 1.5 hrs endurance.

 

[tomo pauk]

After all this back and forth, I'd still pick the Sea Hurricane.

 

[Admiral Beez]

After all this back and forth, I'd still pick the Sea Hurricane.

Okay, but that means the Nimrod soldiers on as the FAA's fighter until the Sea Hurricane enters service after the Battle of Britain. I'm a huge Nimrod fan, but I wouldn't want to be flying one in WW2.

 

[Shortround6]

I think it would have been better at the CAP role then a Fulmar.

Not sure how?

Take-off, climb to 5000ft, circle the carrier twice, land, refuel, repeat.

Yes it is an exaggeration but you had crap for endurance (one source 50 Imp gallons of fuel) and a mystery engine that was not particularly reliable.
The Gloster F.9/37 was supposed to have some spectacular performance with a set of Taurus engines that disappeared and no production version came close to matching for the rest of the Taurus's lifetime/career which really makes one wonder about the Aquila used in the Venom.

 

[Shortround6]

Okay, but that means the Nimrod soldiers on as the FAA's fighter until the Sea Hurricane enters service after the Battle of Britain. I'm a huge Nimrod fan, but I wouldn't want to be flying one in WW2.

Gets back to the question of why no Sea Gladiator?

FAA doesn't buy it or the Gladiator itself doesn't exist. If the Latter then the RAF is in trouble. While no more than reight squadrons at time were equipped with the Gladiator it was used by over 20 squadrons, helping to transition squadrons (some brand new) from even older biplanes to monoplanes with flaps, wheel brakes, enclosed canopies and other modern features.
No Gladiators then a lower amount of trained pilots in 1939/early 1940.

 

[yulzari]

The Venom has no ned for folding wings as it fits the lifts as it is.

 

[SaparotRob]

Not sure how?

Take-off, climb to 5000ft, circle the carrier twice, land, refuel, repeat.

Yes it is an exaggeration but you had crap for endurance (one source 50 Imp gallons of fuel) and a mystery engine that was not particularly reliable.
The Gloster F.9/37 was supposed to have some spectacular performance with a set of Taurus engines that disappeared and no production version came close to matching for the rest of the Taurus's lifetime/career which really makes one wonder about the Aquila used in the Venom.

Thought solely of the Venom's rate of climb compared to the Fulmar. There was mention of the Seafire in another thread of its CAP/point defense abilities. In this scenario, no Sea Hurricanes or Seafires yet, right? I'm weak on the RAF/FAA. I figured the Venom, of which I wasn't even aware of before this thread, would outperform the as yet unavailable Fulmar.

 

[Admiral Beez]

The Venom has no ned for folding wings as it fits the lifts as it is.

True, and the fair comparison is the naval spec Sea Gladiator, not the Fulmar.

What appeals to me about the Venom is the potential directional change for the FAA. A single-seat, monoplane, retractible undercarriage carrier fighter in 1937 would have been the height of innovation when the USN is flying the F2F/F3F and the IJN the A5M. The latter would still give the Venom a good fight, though its twin .303 won't compare.

 

[tomo pauk]

Okay, but that means the Nimrod soldiers on as the FAA's fighter until the Sea Hurricane enters service after the Battle of Britain. I'm a huge Nimrod fan, but I wouldn't want to be flying one in WW2.

Let's not wait until late 1940. Make them in late 1938 instead.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Let's not wait until late 1940. Make them in late 1938 instead.

I can't imagine how that's realistically possible, but yes if the Sea Hurricane can be made in 1938 it would be the best. With Ark Royal entering service and the Illustrious class now building, both with narrow lifts it will be mandatory to have folding wings on the early Sea Hurricanes.

 

[tomo pauk]

I can't imagine how that's realistically possible, but yes if the Sea Hurricane can be made in 1938 it would be the best. With Ark Royal entering service and the Illustrious class now building, both with narrow lifts it will be mandatory to have folding wings on the early Sea Hurricanes.

1 - RAF does not actually need 200 Henleys
2 - the biplanes (Gladiator included) are well past their sell date in late 1930s - the earlier Gloster switch to making monoplanes (= Hurricanes & it's derivatives) the better
3 - it is mandatory that there are any Sea Gladiators Hurricanes, then we can thinker about folding their wings

 

[Admiral Beez]

3 - it is mandatory that there are any Sea Gladiators, then we can thinker about folding their wings

There are no Sea Gladiators. The FAA is flying Nimrods until we can replace them with something that is not a Gladiator. Maybe the AM and FAA totally screw it up and decide the Skua can be the fleet fighter.

The first Sea Hurricanes, like the first USN Wildcats can enter service without folding wings, since the Outrageous class, Eagle and Argus can fit unfolded Hurricanes. But a folded version must be prioritized if Ark Royal, the Illustrious class and for that matter Hermes want to operated the Hurricane. So, might as well get it right at the beginning and fold those wings on the very first Sea Hurricane.

Critics here often post that the folding-wing Sea Hurricane would be too heavy for its early RR Merlin engine to compete in the early war years. But in this case we're replacing the 195 mph, two gun Hawker Nimrod, so the performance (and armament) jump will be noticeable.

 

[tomo pauk]

There are no Sea Gladiators. The FAA is flying Nimrods until we can replace them with something that is not a Gladiator. Maybe the AM and FAA totally screw it up and decide the Skua can be the fleet fighter.

Whoops, my bad - it should be 'Hurricane', not 'Gladiator'. I'll edit the post.

Critics here often post that the folding-wing Sea Hurricane would be too heavy for its early RR Merlin engine to compete in the early war years. But in this case we're replacing the 195 mph, two gun Hawker Nimrod, so the performance (and armament) jump will be noticeable.

Hurricane was a lightweight aircraft to begin with. Wing fold needs to be in the line between flaps and ailerons, to keep the things as simple & light as possible.

 

[Shortround6]

Critics here often post that the folding-wing Sea Hurricane would be too heavy for its early RR Merlin engine to compete in the early war years

It may not be question of the performance of the early Hurricane once it is in the air. The question may be getting it into the air with the fixed pitch prop and the absolutely pathetic power levels that required at take-off. Both Spitfire and Hurricane were climbing at low level using 2200rpm or less to avoid overspeeding the prop, I doubt they were using any more RPM for take-off for the same reason. at 3000rpm the engine gave 880hp, at 2000-2200rpm it gave ?????????

A fixed pitch prop Hurricane at 6040lbs required a 370yd run for take off with zero wind (and off grass?)
The same plane (same serial number)with two pitch prop at 6363lbs required a 280 yd run for take off with zero wind (off grass?)
different plane with a Rotol Prop at 6316lbs required 240yds at zero wind. (O-G?)
Same plane with Rotol prop at 6750lbs required 280 yds/zero wind. (O-G?)

This is with no flaps, 20 degree flap shortened the take off runs by 15 yds on the 6750lb plane with Rotol prop.

Just for reference American tests showed the following hard surface, zero wind take off distances.

F2A-3............6906lbs...................207yds
F4F-3.............7543lbs..................230yds
F4F-4.............7973lbs..................237yds
F4U-1D......12,289lbs.................280yds

Until you get constant speed props a Sea Hurricane is a non-starter.
Gladiators depending on engine and propeller needed 150-220 yds for a take-off run.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Hurricane was a lightweight aircraft to begin with. Wing fold needs to be in the line between flaps and ailerons, to keep the things as simple & light as possible.

As long as it's less than 22 feet wide to accommodate the lifts on the new carriers.

To me the easiest fold is at the wing roots, with the wings swinging straight up, and allowing the for the existing wing structure to be used. The folded aircraft will be tall, but we needn't worry about hangar height until the 14 ft clearance on the Implacable class.

 

[tomo pauk]

As long as it's less than 22 feet wide to accommodate the lifts on the new carriers.

To me the easiest fold is at the wing roots, with the wings swinging straight up, and allowing the for the existing wing structure to be used. The folded aircraft will be tall, but we needn't worry about hangar height until the 14 ft clearance on the Implacable class.

We are supposed to have an aircraft to be made and accepted instead of the historical choice, the Sea Gladiator. Even without folding wings, the Sea Hurricane can do it, and then some.

 

[Admiral Beez]

We are supposed to have an aircraft to be made and accepted instead of the historical choice, the Sea Gladiator. Even without folding wings, the Sea Hurricane can do it, and then some.

Yes, I agree. Sea Hurricane without folding wings is fine for 5/7 of the RN's pre-war carriers. Just stick a hook and if necessary catapult fittings and you're set. It's amazing this wasn't done - clearly the AM wanted every aircraft for RAF Fighter Command.

 

[tomo pauk]

Yes, I agree. Sea Hurricane without folding wings is fine for 5/7 of the RN's pre-war carriers. Just stick a hook and if necessary catapult fittings and you're set. It's amazing this wasn't done - clearly the AM wanted every aircraft for RAF Fighter Command.

It was not done probably for the same reason why a gun-less bomber was not done earlier, or why an escort fighter was not done - nobody asked for it in a timely manner.
UK was certainly in position to make Sea Hurricanes before ww2.

 

[swampyankee]

If a desire is to keep Gloster in business, I propose Gloster's entry for Specification F5/34. It's not a perfect aircraft -- none were -- but the flight tests indicated that it had good handling and good performance. It would need folding wings, an arresting hook, any other naval necessities, fitments for bombs, rockets, and drop tanks, and, soon enough armor and self-sealing fuel tanks.