If no Sea Gladiator, what replaces the Hawker Nimrod?

[tomo pauk]

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.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder Fitments for bombs and rockets on fighters were pretty low in the FAA in late 1930s, though.
Their monoplane offered a substantial jump in performance over the biplanes, so it looks as a good candidate. Timing is not bad, the 1st flight was in December 1936. 100 fuel oct will add power under ~14000 ft once available.

 

[SaparotRob]

Looks like a Zero.

 

[ThomasP]

re adding folding wings to the Hurricane

Some weights of wing fold mechanisms:

F4F-4 (4-gun wing) STO wing fold 225 lbs for 38' wing span & 260 ft2 area
Seafire Mk III twin break-wing fold 126-130 lbs for 36' wing span & 242 ft2 area
SeaHornet single break-wing fold 280 lbs (including hydraulics) for 45' wing span & 361 ft2 area

SeaHurricane (notional) single break-wing fold 180-190 lbs for 40' wing span & 258 ft2 area??

 

[Admiral Beez]

re adding folding wings to the SeaHurricane (notional) single break-wing fold 180-190 lbs for 40' wing span & 258 ft2 area??

Should still be faster than the Nimrod it's replacing, as well as the Skua or Fulmar.

 

[ThomasP]

I agree, though I was addressing the question of whether it would be able to take off OK or not. The added weight of the wing fold mechanism would only raise the wing loading about .7 lb/ft2. In the Weight and Balance sheets it says the hook assembly itself only adds 25 lbs. I am not sure how much weight any fuselage structural bits for mounting the hook and general strengthening actually added in the real aircraft, but I doubt it would be more than 100 lbs for the Mk I.

 

[Admiral Beez]

I agree, though I was addressing the question of whether it would be able to take off OK or not. The added weight of the wing fold mechanism would only raise the wing loading about .7 lb/ft2. In the Weight and Balance sheets it says the hook assembly itself only adds 25 lbs. I am not sure how much weight any fuselage structural bits for mounting the hook and general strengthening actually added in the real aircraft, but I doubt it would be more than 100 lbs for the Mk I.

My first thought was that the weight might be an issue for the slower, shorter carriers like HMS Eagle, and maybe on the catapults on the larger carriers. However the standard non-folding Sea Hurricane was able to operate from the dead slow and tiny HMS Argus and CVEs like HMS Archer below. Thus I think the slightly heavier, and less powerful early folding Hurricane will be fine on the other carriers.

Looking at Argus' hangar we can clearly see a folding Hurricane would be useful.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Looks like a Zero.

If we can get the Gloster into service, then the Zero will look like the Gloster. It is a sweet looking aircraft.

It's noteworthy that Britain did not field any single-seat, single-engine radial-powered fighters between the prewar Gladiator and postwar Centaurus-powered Tempest and Fury. Outside of the UK, British radials found their way into single-seat fighters, such as the Fokker D.XXI and PZL P.11. Clearly the lads at Rolls Royce had the ear of the Air Ministry. Maybe they threw in a couple of Silver Ghosts to sweeten the deal.

 

[tomo pauk]

If we can get the Gloster into service, then the Zero will look like the Gloster. It is a sweet looking aircraft.

It's noteworthy that Britain did not field any single-seat, single-engine radial-powered fighters between the prewar Gladiator and postwar Centaurus-powered Tempest and Fury. Outside of the UK, British radials found their way into single-seat fighters, such as the Fokker D.XXI and PZL P.11. Clearly the lads at Rolls Royce had the ear of the Air Ministry. Maybe they threw in a couple of Silver Ghosts to sweeten the deal.

Clearly the Merlin was a superior engine - at least for fighters - than any of Bristol products when it mattered the most.

 

[fastmongrel]

I think the Taurus might have been expected to be the engine to take on the Merlin. Thank the gods no fighter ever got lumbered with it. If Bristol had sorted out the reliability problems early enough and built it with a bigger capacity it might have found some use. A 30 litre 14 cylinder engine putting out 1200hp might have been useful.

 

[Shortround6]

Carrier operations are not as easy as they seem,
from WIki so subject to correction.

"The Fleet Air Arm preferred the lighter de Havilland propellers over the Rotol types; it was found during tests that the Rotol unit could lead to the nose dipping during arrested landings, causing the propeller blades to "peck" the carrier deck. The lighter de Havilland units avoided this problem. "

First Sea Hurricane Ibs operate off the Furious in July of 1941, about one year after the frantic scramble to convert the 2 pitch props to constant speed just before the BoB.

Some of the parts for a successful Sea Hurricane certainly existed in 1940, but who was getting priority?

In 1938 and early 39 the parts existed, just not in Great Britain

Because you could operate a constant speed prop, 100 octane Hurricane off a short-slow carrier in 1941 doesn't mean you could operate a a fixed pitch (or two pitch?), 87 octane Hurricane off a carrier in 1938-39.

If those are Sea Hurricane IIC's on the Archers flight deck they have 1280hp for take-off and not the 880hp of a standard Merlin III.

 

[Admiral Beez]

I think the Taurus might have been expected to be the engine to take on the Merlin.

The only monoplane FAA "fighter" to be radial-powered before the postwar Sea Fury was the Skua, and got the Perseus. This engine eventually got to 1,200 hp, perhaps it could have been developed earlier to this level of power for the Gloster?

 

[Shortround6]

This engine eventually got to 1,200 hp, perhaps it could have been developed earlier to this level of power for the Gloster?

Not a chance. This is one of the minor myths of WW II engines. I believe you are talking about the Perseus 100.

There was no photo available of the engine in Feb 1946. Date of first announcement was???? While Bristol was cataloguing it or offering it for sale/development there is some question as to if it actually existed or at least was ever flown even in a test bed aircraft.

The power figures are based of a 9 cylinder engine using Centaurus cylinders (longer stroke than the Perseus/Hercules.
Displacement was 1635 cu in/26.8 liters vrs 1520 cu in/ 24.9liters in a production Perseus. 7.5% increase.
Engine "ran" at 2700rpm instead of the 2750rpm of the standard Perseus. but piston speed was 3150fpm instead of 2979fpm due to the longer stroke.
Engine was announced as having 1175hp at take off using 2700rpm and 9.5lbs boost. using 100/130 fuel.
Max power 1220hp at 2700rpm/4250ft.
weight was given as 1325lbs over 200lbs heavier than a normal Perseus.This is just to show the amount of rework/development needed.

One story (true?or not?) has the Skua getting the Perseus because the Blenheim program had priority on the Mercury engines.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Here's another angle. The RR Peregrine was developed from the Nimrod's Kestrel. How about a Super Nimrod with RR Peregrine and enclosed canopy as a follow-on to the Nimrod until the Sea Hurricane or Fulmar is ready? Something akin to the Avia B.534.

 

[ThomasP]

It just so happens that I have been waiting for someone to bring up the idea of a Super Nimrod. Did you know that a modified Fury (aka land based version of the Nimrod) was used as one of the testbeds for the Merlin? The airframe K3586 was something of a hybrid of other variants, using the standard upper wing with the forward tapered lower wing and some of the improved streamlining of the Mk II. It had the familiar updraft froward facing air intake that you see on the Hurricane and a significantly larger radiator with an extended shroud. Although it was mainly used for static and low speed tests of the cooling system, it was also used for preliminary cooling tests at the expected climb speeds of the Hurricane. And as would be expected, the test pilots wanted to find out what it could do in terms of speed. The max speed reached was 265 mph at 17,000 ft. The added weight of the Merlin and cooling system required the addition of ballast in the rear of the fuselage, and the pilots found the airplane to be significantly less responsive in pitch, but still quite agile in normal flight. They were not allowed to engage in acrobatics. The best climb angle was reported as uncomfortably steep. Unfortunately, I have not been able to find any info on the all-up weights or climb rate, but ROC should have been somewhere in the upper 2000s in ft/min.

 

[Glider]

Going back to the original question - If no sea gladiator what replaces the Hawker Nimrod

My personal if optimistic hope, it that it would force the RN to sit down with a manufacturer, and design something from scratch for the job. Conversions are never as good as a tailored approach.

We have debates as to the advantages of the Wildcat for instance vs the Hurricane. But given the choice for equipping the RN you would take the Wildcat every time. I believe the Victorious once operated 60 wildcats, good luck trying to anywhere close to that number of Hurricanes on board

 

[Admiral Beez]

My personal if optimistic hope, it that it would force the RN to sit down with a manufacturer, and design something from scratch for the job. Conversions are never as good as a tailored approach.

I agree, but a bespoke single-seat FAA fighter is a rare bird. You have the Gloster Nightjar, Fairey Flycatcher and postwar Hawker Sea Hawk, Attacker and Scimitar. That's it, every other single-seat FAA fighter was a modified RAF fighter or bought-in USN type, including the Sea Harrier and today's Lightning.

But there is hope, since the spec that called for the twin seat Fulmar could have easily have been for a single seat fighter. Fairey just made what it was asked to make. However can the FAA fly Nimrods to 1940? No, so the spec and resources that called for the FAA's first bespoke fighter since the Flycatcher need to be advanced to 1936, for introduction in 1938. I suspect that's why the Gladiator was chosen during the Depression period, as it was cheap and readily available.

 

[swampyankee]

I agree, but a bespoke single-seat FAA fighter is a rare bird. You have the Gloster Nightjar, Fairey Flycatcher and postwar Supermarine Attacker and Scimitar. That's it, every other single-seat FAA fighter was a modified RAF fighter or bought-in USN type, including the Sea Harrier and today's Lightning.

The Harrier has an interesting history: it's a British designed and built aircraft that was, initially, bought from its British manufacturer, then license-built by McD/D, with significant McD/D modifications being fed back to the British (first, Hawker-Siddeley, then BAe). It was originally designed for the RAF. During the Falklands Campaign, the RAF was operating ground-attack Harriers from RN carriers while the RN/FAA was operating air-combat capable Sea Harriers in the counter-air war.

But there is hope, since the spec that called for the twin seat Fulmar could have easily have been for a single seat fighter. Fairey just made what it was asked to make. However can the FAA fly Nimrods to 1940? No, so the spec and resources that called for the FAA's first bespoke fighter since the Flycatcher need to be advanced to 1936, for introduction in 1938. I suspect that's why the Gladiator was chosen during the Depression period, as it was cheap and readily available.

One thing I've always wondered is how much of the disorganization of the RN/FAA's procurement policies in the late 1930s, which resulted such winning aircraft as the Blackburn Roc, was due to the transfer of operations to the RN, with a resulting loss of expertise in specifying aircraft.

 

[Admiral Beez]

One thing I've always wondered is how much of the disorganization of the RN/FAA's procurement policies in the late 1930s... was due to the transfer of operations to the RN...

It's a good question, though I believe the Fulmar and Roc were both specified before the Air Ministry transferred control of aviation to the Royal Navy.

What we need is for the AM and RN to get an interwar shock from what the competition is doing.

Japanese aircraft carrier Kaga at 1937 Spithead Review

 

[Glider]

The Harrier has an interesting history: it's a British designed and built aircraft that was, initially, bought from its British manufacturer, then license-built by McD/D, with significant McD/D modifications being fed back to the British (first, Hawker-Siddeley, then BAe). It was originally designed for the RAF. During the Falklands Campaign, the RAF was operating ground-attack Harriers from RN carriers while the RN/FAA was operating air-combat capable Sea Harriers in the counter-air war.

It's a bit more interesting that that in some ways. Before the Harrier there was the P1127 which was operated in a trial squadron with the USA and Germany. Six of these were built/allocated to the USA and operated by the USAF and NASA. So the US had every opportunity to understand the capability of the Harrier

 

[nuuumannn]

A few things to cover...

UK was certainly in position to make Sea Hurricanes before ww2.

It was and senior admirals were discussing an FAA Hurricane in 1937, but at that stage it was just talk, although Camm, like Joe Smith at Supermarine when approached about a navalised Spitfire was keen to oblige.

Some of the parts for a successful Sea Hurricane certainly existed in 1940, but who was getting priority?

This is the reason why these things never eventuated at that time. It is worth stating at this stage the point about the fabric winged, wooden propped Hurricanes were not well liked when they entered service, not because they were modern monoplanes or such like, but they could never reach their stated high speeds owing to the fabric wings and the wooden prop. One pilot from Treble One Sqn, the first squadron to receive the Hurri complained that the fastest they could get the aircraft to go was around 280 mph IAS and that was at a stretch. The fabric used to vibrate and ripple at high speed and that prop was just drag inducing.

In reality, if the admiralty wants a useful navalised Hurricane, it has to wait for constant speed props and metal covered wings.

But there is hope, since the spec that called for the twin seat Fulmar could have easily have been for a single seat fighter.

Well, that is in a sense what happened, the Fulmar was to a spec drawn up as an interim catapult fighter to the turret fighter specification drawn up when the FAA was under RAF control, leading to the Fulmar and Roc, but once the admiralty got control, the spec for a replacement turret fighter was refined, then dropped altogether, and the two seat fighter spec was refined and became the Fulmar's replacement, the Firefly, BUT, another spec for a purpose built single-seat naval fighter was issued, and it became the Firebrand (but we know how that worked out :rollseyes), and despite its problems, was a definite effort by the admiralty to get a single-seat fighter. Of course, what had been done couldn't so easily be undone either, so it had to go with what it had already in place.

One thing I've always wondered is how much of the disorganization of the RN/FAA's procurement policies in the late 1930s, which resulted such winning aircraft as the Blackburn Roc, was due to the transfer of operations to the RN, with a resulting loss of expertise in specifying aircraft.

Well, the disorganisation came from the timing of doing so and the flux of what was expected of modern aircraft, not to mention the dawning realisation once the shooting started that the aircraft it was lumbered with were a bit below par. The admiralty gaining control of the FAA was definitely a good thing but it came at a bad time. The generation of aircraft that it went to war with were definitely RAF spec, the Sea Gladiator, the Skua/Roc and Fulmar, Swordfish and Albacore, with the Barracuda following closely. The admiralty controlled FAA went into damage control and actually had a good idea of what it desperately needed. This included launching the Firebrand requirement and securing the Sea Hurricane and eventually the Seafire, via the Martlet as an interim as its first modern single-seat fighter. Again, as I've said before, thankfully the USA could overcome a desperate shortage of capable aircraft.

On the subject of the Sea Hurricane, the first navalised Hurricanes were in fact ex-RAF examples that had seen action in the Battle of Britain and were supplied as catapult fighters in the aircraft carrying merchantman role. The specialised aircraft carrier based Sea Hurricane quickly followed suit, but training to fly FAA pilots on the catapult fighters was also still carried out by the RAF.

It's a bit more interesting that that in some ways. Before the Harrier there was the P1127 which was operated in a trial squadron with the USA and Germany. Six of these were built/allocated to the USA and operated by the USAF and NASA. So the US had every opportunity to understand the capability of the Harrier

Yes, and it is worth noting that the USA saw the Harrier specifically as a sea based weapon system, ordering the basic GR.1 airframe as the AV-8A, then modifying the design through McDD. The British however went down a more specialised path for its sea based aircraft in that the Sea Harrier was an entirely British invention, with no US intervention. The Sea Harrier FRS.1 had its limitations in its radar and short range missile system, but was a very capable airframe if flown well. The upgraded Sea Harrier FA.2 benefitted from US weapons, being fitted with AMRAAMs to give it a greater sting and advanced avionics, which made it a formidable fighter, and in its early incarnation was in fact the fastest of the Harrier family. The Sea Harrier can bear the distinction of being the last all-British built single-seat fighter operated by Her Majesty's armed forces.