If no Sea Gladiator, what replaces the Hawker Nimrod?

[nuuumannn]

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.

I don't. By the time you get an interim into service, it's obsolete, and that's even without a war looming. The issue is, as always, timing, it depends on when you initiate the replacement aircraft for the Nimrod. If the FAA wants a high performance fighter for its carriers that can match what was going on aboard, and lets face it, in 1937 there were rumblings within the admiralty about the feasibility of a sea based Hurricane, it has to be done pretty much immediately owing to the time it would take to research a new type and get it into production.

The FAA found itself lumbered with obsolescent types in the beginning of WW2 because of the choices made by the RAF and I reckon the FAA would have preferred to have gone to war with Spitfires and Hurricanes, not Sea Gladiators and Skuas as its fighters. If you wanna avoid that, with the pace of aircraft development as it was at the time, and let's face it, the British were not in a vacuum regarding that, the aircraft has to be a high performance type that is gonna match foreign developments. The Bf 109 has to be the benchmark if a decision is made after it is first known about by the British.

 

[Shortround6]

Trouble is that everybody wants to beat the BF 109E of 1939-40 when what was "known" (darn little actually) in 1937-38 was Jumo 210 powered 109B-C-D with about 700hp and two to four 7.9mm machine guns.

We keep forgetting the Sea Gladiator was NOT what the FAA wanted, it was what they could get while the Fulmar was in development, and the Fulmar wasn't what the FAA really wanted. What they wanted was the plane that would turn into the Firefly.

From wike so corrections are welcome.

"During 1938, by which point British authorities were preparing for the likelihood of a major conflict, the Air Ministry issued a pair of specifications calling for naval fighters, a conventional and a "turret fighter". The performance requirements for both was to be able to attain a speed of 275 knots while flying at 15,000 ft and carrying an armament, for the conventional fighter, of eight 0.303 Browning machine guns or four 20mm Hispano cannon. This aircraft would replace the Fairey Fulmar, which had been viewed as an interim design. These specifications were updated during the following year, while several British manufacturers tendered their ideas. Further changes to the official specification followed, such as the turret fighter specification being eliminated entirely, while a modified specification was issued to cover single and dual-seat fighters capable of 330 and 300 knots respectively."

Now for a variety of reasons, some good, some not so good the first firefly takes to the air 22 December 1941 for the first time.

Working our way backwards,
The Fulmar was also "designed" to a 1938 specification (but talks/plans started in 1937) , but since the it was simply a navalized version of the Fairey P.4/34 dive bomber which was already flying (first flight of the P-4/34 was Jan 13th 1937) so amount of design and development was not that great (?) it still took from mid 1938 when an order for 127 planes was placed until Jan of 1940 for the first production example to fly.

The Sea Gladiator fits in as the FAA (or Admiralty) wants a plane in 1937 to replace the 4 year old Nimrods and with the knowledge that Skua won't do the job required. They are already estimating that the Fulmar won't join the fleet until 1940 so they need something fast. This rather rules out rolling an old prototype, out of hanger, dusting it off and trying to navalize it and put it into production. As it was the first 38 Sea Hurricanes only got an arresting hook and a naval radio and were intended for use on shore bases for training. The next 60 Sea Hurricane IIs got catapult points, a survival dinghy and a few other bits of minor kit. and that was it. No more Sea Gladiators. Coming up with a program to turn one of the old RAF prototypes into a naval fighter runs into the problem of timing (work starts when?) and when would such planes actually become available. 2 or more years after the go ahead is given?

The Gladiator was very much an interim fighter, it was also very much a transitional fighter from the Nimrod, Gauntlet and Fury in that it had an enclosed canopy, it had wheel brakes, it had sprung wheels with better shock absorption than than older biplanes and perhaps even more importantly, it was the first RAF (and FAA) fighter to use landing flaps. Yes it didn't have retracting landing gear but it did have most everything else.

 

[nuuumannn]

We keep forgetting the Sea Gladiator was NOT what the FAA wanted, it was what they could get while the Fulmar was in development, and the Fulmar wasn't what the FAA really wanted. What they wanted was the plane that would turn into the Firefly.

Your post is pretty much what I've said in previous posts. The Fulmar was regarded as an interim until the turret fighter as you've pointed out, but the Firefly was to a reissued spec accepted once the admiralty got hold of things. A separate single-seat requirement was raised at the same time for a single-seat fighter, which was issued to Blackburn.

Regarding the Bf 109, regardless of its limitations, it demonstrated better performance at the time that it was unveiled compared to the biplane fighters and similarly the Hurricane was regarded as a revelation when it first appeared in prototype form. Perspective was very different - 300 mph level speed was considered huge in the mid 1930s - that the earliest Hurricanes could barely, if at all reach that speed is another matter entirely, but publicly the aircraft was considered a speedster because in publicity trumpeted by the RAF it was a 300 mph fighter.

 

[Admiral Beez]

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.

Hmmm.... so we need to find another fighter that is in RAF or Commonwealth service in 1937 that is not a Gladiator. What about the Goblin?

Despite being a twin seater, the Goblin is faster than the single seat Nimrod it would replace, and offers retractable undercarriage, an enclosed canopy and bomb racks.

Though if there was any aircraft I wish CC&F had decided to pursue in the 1930s it's the Curtiss P-36. It could have been useful across the Empire.

 

[Shortround6]

Hmmm.... so we need to find another fighter that is in RAF or Commonwealth service in 1937 that is not a Gladiator. What about the Goblin

I think we have been over this a few times before. The Goblin was NOT in service in the RAF or Commonwealth in 1937, or in 1938 or in 1939.
The Goblin did not enter Commonwealth service until the autumn of 1940 when 15 planes that had been seized as contraband during the Spanish civil war were uncrated (they had been in storage for several years), assembled and used.

Some how using a plane that has 1/2 the guns of a Gladiator and is about 40-50mph slower and doesn't climb as well doesn't strike me as an improvement.

In fact the Nimrod, while slower than the FF-1 climbed much better.

 

[Admiral Beez]

S Shortround6 what's your suggestion for a non-Gladiator replacement for the Nimrod? The Nimrod can't soldier on until the Fulmar and Sea Hurricane enter service in 1940-41.

 

[Shortround6]

S Shortround6 what's your suggestion for a non-Gladiator replacement for the Nimrod? The Nimrod can't soldier on until Fulmar and Sea Hurricane enter service in 1941.

Given your constraints there is no non-Gladiator replacement unless they build more Skua's.

Yes the FAA was in desperate need of a replacement for the Nimrod. But any scheme that involves a prototype aircraft or one not yet in production will not arrive in useful numbers until the Fulmar shows up.

While the Skua prototypes had been ordered in April 1935 the production order for 190 planes was placed July 1936. The first production plane flew Aug of 1938.
The first prototype flew Feb 1937 7-8 months after the production contract was placed.

And the Fulmar is a modified P4/34 bomber which speed up development. The P4/34 prototype flying in Jan 1937
The Fulmar was ordered (127 planes ) in mid 1938, first production plane flies Jan 4th 1940.

You want a replacement for the Nimrod you need to place the production order in 1937 or very early 1938, and be very lucky.

The Gladiator was the only RAF fighter in production at the time in question that could be used on a Carrier pretty much as is (very little development/modification) and was also not urgently required to equipe RAF land squadrons. At the end of 1938 only ten Squadrons had received Hurricanes but only 5 squadrons were considered operational. Only two squadrons had received Spitfires and neither was considered operational. All or just about all of the monoplanes had fixed pitch props.

Maybe they could have stuffed newer Kestrel engines in the old Nimrod airframes?

BTW the Fulmar entered service in 1940, not 1941. !59 had been built buy the end of 1940 and had been issued to seven squadrons (how many were actually operational I don't know).

Another consideration is the impact any alternative programs might have. Like Having Fairey build Kestrel powered Fantomes (forget Peregrine's, they don't exist as production engines in 1938-39) how would that affect the production of Fulmars?

The British were ordering planes off the drawing board during the late 30s, sometimes it worked and sometimes it didn't (Botha, Lerwick) so proposals for fighters than didn't fly until 1938 are a bit suspect. They might have worked or you might have a single engine Botha.

 

[Admiral Beez]

I don't share your pessimism. If the interwar FAA had sufficient attention and funding from the Air Ministry to create the Swordfish, Skua and Albacore I see no reason why the Venom or a new type of single seat fighter couldn't be had to enter service in 1937/8.

 

[Admiral Beez]

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.

Returning its aviation arm back to the RN about the time WWII was starting was lousy timing.

Good points. This makes me wonder what the FAA would have got a fighter had the RN not taken over FAA aircraft specification and procurement. Gladiator? Most certainly, but would its successor still be the Fulmar, or is it Hurricanes and Seafires?

 

[Shortround6]

I don't share your pessimism. If the interwar FAA had sufficient attention and funding from the Air Ministry to create the Swordfish, Skua and Albacore I see no reason why the Venom or a new type of single seat fighter couldn't be had to enter service in 1937/8.

While the Skua prototypes had been ordered in April 1935 the production order for 190 planes was placed July 1936. The first production plane flew Aug of 1938.
The first prototype flew Feb 1937 7-8 months after the production contract was placed.

So when is this new single seat fighter supposed to have been designed and ordered?
The Skua was designed to meet specification O.27/34 to replace both the Hawker Osprey and the Nimrod. If the single seat fighter (a fourth airplane to divide up the RN carrier air groups ) is to make it into service in 1938 it needs to follow pretty much the same timeline or have one or more rather extenuating circumstances to shorten the timeline.

the Skua was a fairly advanced airplane when first proposed and designed, but 3 years and 4 months was just too long a time period to bring it into service. 225mph looked pretty good in 1934-35. The Supermarine 224 monoplane only managed 228mph and it didn't have the drag of a conventional radiator.

Most of the candidates for the single engine fighter come from the F.5/34 RAF fighter specification and some of them took even longer to get to flying hardware. It wasn't until about Dec of 1938 that it really became obvious that the Hurricane and Spitfire were far superior to the planes built to the F.5/34 specification. And since none of them were designed for naval use getting a naval version would have put them well past the needed time line.

It is this extended timeline from specification to service use that meant many of the RAF/FAA aircraft were bordering on obsolescence when they entered service.

Please do not bring up the Grumman FF built in Canada again. There was no production line in Canada in the normal sense. CCF assembled parts kits from the US. Grumman itself was unable to build the complete aircraft and ship the parts to Canada, they had to subcontract out the wings and tails to Brewster who were not occupied with Buffalo production at this time. Coming up with 90-100 parts kits was going to be both difficult and time consuming, having CCF try to build it on their own would be even more time consuming, planes would arrive late.

The RAF was not exactly starved for funds or attention during the mid 30s and they got a somethings right and somethings wrong.
For an aircraft to be delivered in quantity in 1938 there were only two choices, The Merlin II/III or the Bristol Mercury/Pegasus.

 

[ThomasP]

What about the AS Tiger? I do not know that much about its 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?

 

[Admiral Beez]

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 aircraft are you proposing to put it in?

Short's onto something, if there's no Gladiator we likely go straight from Nimrod to Skua. Perhaps having the Skua serve as the sole FAA fighter will discourage proponents of twin seat fighters, putting the kibosh to the Fulmar. Nimrod, Skua to Seafire (or Hurricane) works for me. Unlike the folding model is ready, a non-folding Seafire or Hurricane will fit on all the RN's interwar carriers less Hermes and Ark Royal.

 

[ThomasP]

Not sure what airframe.

Tiger VIII dimensions and specs:

1995 in3 14-cylinder 2-row
6.25:1 CR
51" diameter x 65" long (the same diameter as the Mercury (51"), but 18" longer. Smaller diameter than the Pegasus (55.3") and only 3" longer)
1300 lbs dry (about 300 lbs heavier than the Mercury, and about 200 lbs heavier than the Pegasus)

These ratings are with 87 octane:
780 BHP at 2450 rpm at +0.5lbs at 14,250 ft FS
860 BHP at 2450 rpm at +0.5lbs at _6,750 ft MS
920 BHP at 2375 rpm at +2.5lbs for TO

 

[Shortround6]

The fact that the RAF banned the use of Tiger powered Whitley's from over water flights as soon as Merlin powered ones were being delivered tells us about all we need to know about the Tiger engine.
The sorry tale of the Armstrong Whitworth Ensign tells us a bit more.

The basic design of the 14 cylinder A-S engines may have been fine for the 1920s and the roughly 400hp Jaguar engine. It might have been serviciable in the slightly larger 500-700hp Panthers of 1931 and later. The Tiger was pretty much a flop. It was too light and had no center bearing making both high rpm and high boost in the cylinders major problems.
Needing a new crankcase, crankshaft and much more finning on the cylinders and heads pretty much means a new engine.

 

[ThomasP]

So the Tiger VIII would not be capable of significantly higher ratings using 100 octane? I ask because I am not thinking in terms of making it a world beater, just suitable for an interim fighter engine. Also the FAA already had the single-speed Tiger VI in service on the Shark.

 

[Shortround6]

51" diameter x 65" long (the same diameter as the Mercury (51"), but 18" longer. Smaller diameter than the Pegasus (55.3") and only 3" longer)
1300 lbs dry (about 300 lbs heavier than the Mercury, and about 200 lbs heavier than the Pegasus)

It is a 1996 cu in engine (5.5 in bore and 6 in stroke) compared to the P & W R-1830s 1830 cu in, 5.5 in bore and 5.5 in stroke. Except the P & W weighed 1460lbs (depending on model) with a two speed supercharger, The R-1830 had 48.1 in diameter. Radial engine lengths get a little weird

a lot depends on the arrangement of accessories on the back of the engine. They occupy and much larger percentage of the length than on an inline engine and also the wide power section (one row or two) is only a fraction of the total length of the engine.

The P & W R-2000 (5.75 bore and 5.5 in stroke) went about 1600lbs. and it had a rather poor supercharger.

 

[Shortround6]

So the Tiger VIII would not be capable of significantly higher ratings using 100 octane? I ask because I am not thinking in terms of making it a world beater, just suitable for an interim fighter engine. Also the FAA already had the single-speed Tiger VI in service on the Shark.

If you try upping the boost (much harder on any aircooled engine than on a liquid cooled) you stand a good chance of wrecking the bearings, in part due to higher loads and in part due the crankshaft flexing.
The Mercury seemed to do pretty well with 100 octane and running at higher boost. The Pegasus not so much. I don't think it picked up more than about 2.5lbs of boost using 100 octane fuel over the 87 octane ratings. Being single row engines they had less problems with crankshaft flex.

 

[ThomasP]

re:". . . RAF banned the use of Tiger powered Whitley's from over water flights as soon as Merlin powered ones were being delivered . . ."

I wonder if this was due to being underpowered or reliability (or maybe both). If the Whitley was just underpowered the engine might still work for a fighter.

 

[Shortround6]

The Whitley was underpowered and with two pitch props that would not feather the loss of engine was almost a guarantee of a lost aircraft.
We do have a report in another thread about the Blackburn Sharks in a training squadron shedding spark plugs in flight and leaking oil.

AS you boost power more parts tend to break, if you use more power the engines tend to overheat unless better cooling is provided. The story of the Wright R-1820 is a story of many changes to fin size/depth, fin pitch (closer together ) which resulted in the fin area multiplying several times over from 1930/31 to 1943.

The AS engines in the Ensigns were replaced by R-1820s and not the latest version. They were replaced by G-100s and the G-100 entered production in 1937(?).
Engines that we 91% the displacement of the AS engines but offered better performance and better reliability. BTW these were the same generation engines that British Buffaloes got.
That should tell you something about the suitability of the AS engines for fighters without a LOT of rework.

 

[nuuumannn]

Perhaps having the Skua serve as the sole FAA fighter will discourage proponents of twin seat fighters, putting the kibosh to the Fulmar. Nimrod, Skua to Seafire (or Hurricane) works for me. Unlike the folding model is ready, a non-folding Seafire or Hurricane will fit on all the RN's interwar carriers less Hermes and Ark Royal.

The Fulmar would still be built, no question. It was built to a spec for an interim long range catapult fighter, which would still need to be fulfilled as a point of difference from the Skua. It wasn't just built as a two-seater because the FAA didn't think it needed single-seaters - that's a myth - the Fulmar was an interim to the Roc. The Roc was intended as a two seat turret fighter designed to intercept long range maritime patrol aircraft far out at sea, in the same vein as the Defiant was designed as a bomber destroyer, although the Daffy was intended on being used in conjunction with single-seat fighters to pick off the stragglers.

Remember that when the Turret Fighter specs were drawn up, the British assumed German bombers would not have fast single-seat fighter escorts since they didn't have the range to fly from Germany to Britain. The invasion of France by the Nazis changed everything.

The Hurri as an option would need obligatory modifications, such as metal skinned wings and no wooden prop to be of any use, let alone any mods to make it carrier capable. Nevertheless, it appears to be the only real option as, like SR states, a new production type needs a start date from 1936/37 at the earliest if it is to enter service before 1940.