single 9 cyl radial engine
With a British 9 cylinder engine to two options are not compatible.
1-engined fast-ish bomber
Uhm, that is why Bristol was making twins.
If they could have done it with a single they would have.
....................................................................................................................................................Fairey Battle
9 cyl radial engine with 4 x 250 lb bombs (internal stowage),........................... no/yes
in RAF's service from 1937. 2-3 crew members...........................................................yes
Looks like the
SBN, or a slightly smaller
SBD. ............................................................bigger-50%
Fuel carried is about 170 imp gals for the starters; ...................................................more fuel-25%
guns are two .303s udner cowling and one-two trainable.......................................less guns
Getting rid of fuel and wing area is not going to increase the speed all that much, guns are not that big a deal.
Stall speed goes up, field length goes up. speed gain from smaller wing canceled by radial engine.
as well as if FAA can get interested in these.
Sure, if they can get new, bigger, faster carriers to operate them. There is a reason the Avenger used a 490 sq ft wing.
Whatever the FAA wants to buy up until June of 1940, it has to be to operate off the Courageous and Glorious. OK, you can forget the Hermes and the Eagle.
cutting the wing a bunch and some fuel does not make up for cutting the power by 50%.
And unless you "fix" the Taurus engine in 1939/40 you have no combat capable aircraft (or more than a 3-6 at a time) for most of 1940.
Same with the Beaufighter. cutting the wing and depending on cutting the drag from the engine nacelles to make up for cutting the power by 50% is not going to end well.