If no Sea Gladiator, what replaces the Hawker Nimrod? (1 Viewer)

[yulzari]

To be fair to the Sea Gladiator it was an immediately available interim which was still in service as a front line RAF fighter which entered service only in 1937 (they took them to France in 1939) and was still a front line Mediterranean fighter into 1941. What it lacked was the speed to intercept modern bombers. Rudely ignoring the OP, could the Sea Gladiator replacement be a better Sea Gladiator? Looking at Maltese improvisations a constant speed propellor (or at least 2 position) 100 octane using Mercury (or Perseus) and the full 6 gun armament fitted. Perhaps using the Pegasus longer stroke engine? Tweak it up with a different name to sound better; the Gloster Gladius? 900/1,100 bhp and x6 Browning 0.303" is not a bad base in 1940. Not a huge engineering job on an existing airframe that uses the same base crankcase and fits the lifts. A change to the Pegasus gearing for lower altitude use perhaps.

 

[ThomasP]

Hey nuuumannn,

re:". . . the fastest they could get the aircraft to go was around 280 mph IAS . . ."

Do you mean 250 mph IAS? 280 mph IAS would be around 350 mph TAS at 16,000 ft, unless I am doing my math wrong (it is 0550 here and the middle of my usual sleep period).

 

[Admiral Beez]

Hawker liked to reuse names.

Hawker Aircraft - Wikipedia

Two Hawker Furies, two Harts, two Harriers, and two Hawks.

 

[nuuumannn]

280 mph IAS would be around 350 mph TAS at 16,000 ft,

It does depend on various things, BUT I misquoted the original source, it should be 280 mph level speed. I was working from memory at the time.

 

[ThomasP]

So 280 mph TAS? Wow, that is underperforming.

 

[nuuumannn]

Here is the original quote now I have it to hand. Sqn Ldr D.H. Clarke, who was a junior officer with 85 Sqn at the time:

"Believe me, at the time they were brutes to fly. The two-bladed airscrew wasted power, and made the take off a soggy affair; the fabric covered fuselage and wings disliked 'high' speed (280 mph was about the limit in level flight); the retractable tailwheel frequently failed to come down, which is why they very soon fixed it in the down position forever! Far worse than thiswas the Merlin engine, which used to cut outfor no reason at all - generally at the worst possible moment. We lost lives because of this."

 

[ThomasP]

Wow, again. Thanks for the info. The Hurricane is one of my favorite aircraft, and although I had heard of some performance problems in the early aircraft I did not realize they were so severe.

 

[nuuumannn]

Its interesting stuff alright. Apparently there was a high rate of accidents in the first two Hurri squadrons, some due to young pilots dealing with an increase in power and performance over what they had flown before, but the unreliability of the Merlin caused a few crashes and losses of life.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Its interesting stuff alright. Apparently there was a high rate of accidents in the first two Hurri squadrons, some due to young pilots dealing with an increase in power and performance over what they had flown before, but the unreliability of the Merlin caused a few crashes and losses of life.

I bet you some forgot to put their wheels down.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Here is the original quote now I have it to hand. Sqn Ldr D.H. Clarke, who was a junior officer with 85 Sqn at the time:

"Believe me, at the time they were brutes to fly. The two-bladed airscrew wasted power, and made the take off a soggy affair; the fabric covered fuselage and wings disliked 'high' speed (280 mph was about the limit in level flight); the retractable tailwheel frequently failed to come down, which is why they very soon fixed it in the down position forever! Far worse than thiswas the Merlin engine, which used to cut outfor no reason at all - generally at the worst possible moment. We lost lives because of this."

I think it's too much of a leap to go from Nimrod to Hurricane. We need something in-between that's not a Gladiator. The Vickers Venom looks like a contender.

 

[tomo pauk]

I think it's too much of a leap to go from Nimrod to Hurricane. We need something in-between that's not a Gladiator. The Vickers Venom looks like a contender.

If Nimrod is on it's way out (it certainly is), and Hurricane is a too much of a leap (IMO, it was not), then what are the actual requirements for something that is not Sea Gladiator? Like what speed/RoC/armament/handling etc. are we looking for?

 

[RCAFson]

If Nimrod is on it's way out (it certainly is), and Hurricane is a too much of a leap (IMO, it was not), then what are the actual requirements for something that is not Sea Gladiator? Like what speed/RoC/armament/handling etc. are we looking for?

Drop the Roc and build a Skua III with a more powerful engine with CS prop, with the Roc's slightly better handling characteristics. Alternatively, on Malta, they modded a Sea Gladiator with a Blenheim engine and a CS prop and the reports on it were quite favourable, IIRC.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Drop the Roc and build a Skua III with a more powerful engine with CS prop, with the Roc's slightly better handling characteristics.

But keep the Nimrod until that's ready?

How about the time, talent and treasure that went into the Skua twin seat divebomber/fighter go instead to a Blackburn Skua single seat fighter to enter service in 1938 to replace the Nimrod? Per Wikipedia, the empty weight of the Skua was 5,496 lb. which is a lot for its 890 hp Perseus to drag around. Single-seat radial-powered fighters of the time were a lot lighter, the Curtiss P-36 was 4,567 lb. empty, FIAT G.50 was 4,328 lb. (empty) and the Bloch Mb.150 was 4,758 lb. empty. Strip off the back seat and a 1,000 lbs. of bomber girth and kit and Blackburn may have a winner. It was a dumb move to combine fighter and dive bomber into the Skua, especially since the Swordfish and Albacore were already dive bombers, and good ones it would turn out. It was a fighter that the FAA needed, not another bomber.

Of course, Blackburn's last attempt at a single seat fighter before the late/post war Firebrand wasn't what we can call pretty... Blackburn F3 (F.7/30) | BAE Systems | International

Would this cockpit visibility be good for carrier landings or terrible? Looks pretty blinding from the front.

 

[tomo pauk]

This is still relevant:

If Nimrod is on it's way out (it certainly is), and Hurricane is a too much of a leap (IMO, it was not), then what are the actual requirements for something that is not Sea Gladiator? Like what speed/RoC/armament/handling etc. are we looking for?

 

[Admiral Beez]

If Nimrod is on it's way out (it certainly is), and Hurricane is a too much of a leap (IMO, it was not), then what are the actual requirements for something that is not Sea Gladiator? Like what speed/RoC/armament/handling etc. are we looking for?

Until the Skua and Fulmar, the FAA's fighters were the equal to the RAF and land based air forces. The RAF had their Hawker Fury, the FAA their Hawker Nimrod.

The Nimrod replacement thus needs to be as good as what the RAF has in 1937-38, plus whatever the Americans, Germans, Italians, Russians, French and Japanese have for land or naval fighters. This puts our Nimrod replacement against the likes of the Mitsubishi A5M and Messerschmitt Bf 109.

 

[tomo pauk]

Until the Skua and Fulmar, the FAA's fighters were the equal to the RAF and land based air forces. The RAF had their Hawker Fury, the FAA their Hawker Nimrod.

The Nimrod replacement thus needs to be as good as what the RAF has in 1937-38, plus whatever the Americans, Germans, Italians, Russians, French and Japanese have for land or naval fighters. This puts our Nimrod replacement against the likes of the Mitsubishi A5M and Messerschmitt Bf 109.

Sea Hurricane again. Shooting for moon (Seafire in 1938) might get us nowhere.

 

[yulzari]

IIRC the modified Maltese Gladiators had both Blenheim engines and Blenheim VP propellors. i.e. 2 position propellors. The main gain was in ROC.

 

[swampyankee]

But keep the Nimrod until that's ready?

How about the time, talent and treasure that went into the Skua twin seat divebomber/fighter go instead to a Blackburn Skua single seat fighter to enter service in 1938 to replace the Nimrod? Per Wikipedia, the empty weight of the Skua was 5,496 lb. which is a lot for its 890 hp Perseus to drag around. Single-seat radial-powered fighters of the time were a lot lighter, the Curtiss P-36 was 4,567 lb. empty, FIAT G.50 was 4,328 lb. (empty) and the Bloch Mb.150 was 4,758 lb. empty. Strip off the back seat and a 1,000 lbs. of bomber girth and kit and Blackburn may have a winner. It was a dumb move to combine fighter and dive bomber into the Skua, especially since the Swordfish and Albacore were already dive bombers, and good ones it would turn out. It was a fighter that the FAA needed, not another bomber.

Of course, Blackburn's last attempt at a single seat fighter before the late/post war Firebrand wasn't what we can call pretty... Blackburn F3 (F.7/30) | BAE Systems | International

View attachment 600641

View attachment 600642

Would this cockpit visibility be good for carrier landings or terrible? Looks pretty blinding from the front.

View attachment 600643

This is aircraft responsible for the creation of the line "if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out!"

 

[Admiral Beez]

How about the Supermarine Type 224 of 1934? The timing is right, and with its open cockpit, all metal construction and wheel spats, the aircraft would be equal to the Mitsubishi A5M.

The experimental RR Goshawk and its evaporative cooling needs to be replaced by either the Nimrod's Kestrel or when available the Peregrine or Merlin.

 

[tomo pauk]

How about the Supermarine Type 224 of 1934? The timing is right, and with its open cockpit, all metal construction and wheel spats, the aircraft would be equal to the Mitsubishi A5M.
The experimental RR Goshawk and its evaporative cooling needs to be replaced by either the Nimrod's Kestrel or when available the Peregrine or Merlin.

The Type 224 with proper engine and a 2-pitch prop is surely a material for a what if of it's own. I'd try to tuck a torpedo under it, and it looks like a good candidate for RAF's dive bomber for mid-1930s; the wing area is generous (almost as that f the P-47, greater than what Hurricane had), and the wing is thick (18% at root).
These properties, along with fixed U/C and open canopy (that can be fixed) will also mean that, with same engine, it will be lower performing than (Sea) Hurricane.