Opportunities Missed

[nuuumannn]

If I'm not mistaken, they'd have to redesign the Hurricane's wing in order to have the ability to fold.
The early Hurricanes may have been able to overcome the weight penalty of the reinforced wing and hinging assembly, but the real question is how long would that take to transition from proof of concept to production?

Of course they would. Supermarine did the same with the Spitfire. The initial diagrams for the pre-war "Sea Spitfire" as opposed to the later Seafire had the wing fold and lie flat against the fuselage like the Grumman method of wing fold, but of course the actual Seafire wing fold was simpler. I'm sure Hawker could have gotten it to work in a reasonable timeframe, one way or another. The Sea Hurricane as it appeared was only intended as an expediency measure until the Firebrand was ready, which was promised in 1942, so changes to the basic airframe were minimal. It's well known and discussions on the subject can be found on this forum what impact that had on the type in service as a carrier aircraft.

This is of course all hypothetical, which I'll reinforce again, is what the thread is about since at the time the admirals who favoured a Hurricane naval fighter in the mid-1930s were constrained by the fact that the Air Ministry was in charge of aircraft procurement and the Skua was already in production but not in service. By that time of course, the Fulmar specification was being drawn up, which cemented the FAA's lack of a suitable single-seater at the outbreak of the war, which is why Admiral (the forum one) suggested that Fairey build Sea Spitfires, as Fairey was asked to do so by admiralty representatives, but he refused, then I made the suggestion that navalised Hurricanes could be introduced, and to stop Blackburn from designing the Firebrand, which is probably the big takeaway from my post - gotta stop Blackburn wasting taxpayer monies on dead-end designs!

 

[Admiral Beez]

If I'm not mistaken, they'd have to redesign the Hurricane's wing in order to have the ability to fold.
The early Hurricanes may have been able to overcome the weight penalty of the reinforced wing and hinging assembly, but the real question is how long would that take to transition from proof of concept to production?

Some time ago I asked why the Sea Hurricane never got folding wings. There's some good info in the thread Sea Hurricane and the prohibitive weight of folding wings

My thinking is if the Sea Spitfire the RN asked for was developed properly (folding wing, wide, Seafang-like undercarriage) and earlier on then we don't need to mod the Hurricane. But either the folding Sea Hurricane or Sea Spitfire would be better than the Fulmar or the weak-kneed, short ranged and fragile Seafire we got in actuality.

Put this wing on a Spitfire and we're off to the races. Though a tighter fold would be needed for Ark Royal and the Illustrious class - I assume there's fuel in wings outside of the undercarriage.

 

[Admiral Beez]

For me, one of the biggest opportunities for impacting aviation is with how the RN used and needlessly lost (or crippled) their carriers.

HMS Courageous should not have been used on ASW patrols, or if she was the dedicated escort should have been more than two destroyers (it was four, but two DDs were sent off to help a merchant ship). Courageous should have been running at 25+ knots in evasive patterns with a dozen destroyers. HMS Glorious would have survived if she'd just put a trio of her Sea Gladiators aloft on CAP. HMS Ark Royal's crew might have saved their ship if they'd stayed onboard. Apparently her captain was distressed over the lost of HMS Courageous (with 519 of her crew, including her captain) and quickly ordered an abandon ship.

As for needless damage; proper navigation and situational awareness might have prevented: HMS Hermes from colliding with HMS Corfu in July 1940 (forcing repairs until Nov 1940); the newly repaired HMS Illustrious and Formidable from colliding off the US coast in Dec 1941 (delaying entry in service to March 1942); and HMS Indomitable from hitting ground off Jamaica a month earlier in Nov 1941 (forcing repairs at Norfolk, VA until Dec. 1941).

If we can prevent the above losses and navigationally-challenged damage, think of the opportunities for the RN and FAA:

1) April 1940, Scharnhorst and Gneisenau likely crippled or sunk when Glorious' CAP reports their location to the larger CAG on HMS Ark Royal. Also the surviving HMS Courageous likely plays a role.

2) July 1940, the potential attack on Mers-el-Kébir is much stronger with three CVs. Either the French see the light or the entire fleet is sunk.

3) Nov 1940, the attack on Taranto is not only the 21 Swordfish from HMS Illustrious (incl. those transferred from the broken Eagle), but also Glorious and Courageous. The Italy navy is wrecked. There is no battle of Matapan in March 1941, and the Italian surface fleet plays little part in the North Africa campaign.

4) Mar-Apr 1941, Illustrious and Formidable are badly damaged, per history and sail to the USA for repairs. I'd keep the unarmoured Glorious and Courageous out of the MTO.

5) May 1941, Glorious and Courageous join Ark Royal and Victorious in the hunt for Bismarck and Prinz Eugen. Likely Denmark Strait doesn't happen. Bismarck, rather than HMS Prince of Wales will be the first battleship sunk at sea by air power alone. Unless the FAA's scores earlier with a French BB at Mers-el-Kébir.

6) June 1941, both Glorious and Courageous sail to Singapore for deep refit, testing the abilities of the new RN shipyard. Their combined CAGs operate out of RNAS Sembawang training with the RAF.

7) October 1941, with Japan seizing FIC in Sept, Glorious and Courageous embark their CAGs and sail for Ceylon to meet up with HMS Prince of Wales and Repulse. The force remains at Ceylon to monitor Japan from a safe distance.

8) Nov 1941, HMS Ark Royal, listing heavily is successfully towed into Gibraltar. She's made seaworthy and sails for Norfolk, VA for repairs and updates.

9) Dec 1941, HMS Illustrious, Formidable and Indomitable re-enter service, embark their CAGS, no collisions. All three sail around Africa for Ceylon.

10) Jan 1942, carriers Illustrious, Formidable, Indomitable, Courageous, Glorious and Hermes operate as a group from Ceylon under Admiral Sommerville. Admiral Phillips is beached for administrative duties. With more carriers additional Hurricanes are flown off to Malaya, but it still falls in Feb 1942.

11) Feb-Mar 1942, Sommerville's six carriers busily train for the expected offensive of the IJN's Kido Butai.

12) March 1942, Nagumo's six carriers engage Sommerville's six carriers. Sommerville doesn't run this time, but focused on night strikes. Both sides suffer losses, likely impacting the Kido Butai's ops in Coral Sea the following month.

13) April 1942, Sommerville's surviving carriers sail for Darwin in prep for IJN offensives in the Coral Sea and PNG.

14) May 1942, HMS Ark Royal re-enters service.

Just imagine how combat experienced the FAA will be by summer 1942.

 

[stona]

Reading this thread and seeing the debate about naval types (for the FAA) made me think of another possible missed opportunity.

On 28 April 1937, when Hawker Aircraft received an order for 389 of their turret fighter, which would be named Hotspur, and Boulton Paul a smaller order for just eighty-seven P.82s, which would be named Defiant, Blackburn received an order for their turret fighter, to be named the Roc, and to be equipped with the Boulton Paul four-gun turret (based on the French SAMM turret). The Roc was obviously chosen because the Fleet Air Arm would be able to operate mixed squadrons of Rocs and Skuas, which had very similar designs. This probably explains the ignoring of the Boulton Paul P.85 design, which was 100 mph faster, but that's not the missed opportunity.

I don't much like 'what ifs?', however...

Nobody seems to have asked why Boulton Paul could not simply put an arrester hook and folding wings on the Defiant, something which was investigated late in the war for different reasons, and found to be perfectly possible*. This would have produced not just a turret fighter 80 mph faster than the Roc, but one faster than any other Fleet Air Arm fighter.
With an observer in place of the turret and eight forward guns, it would have produced a fighter better than the Fairey Fulmar.

It didn't happen.

*Edit. DR895 was used as part of the development programme for the P.103 which was Boulton Paul's proposed design to N.7/43. Both Eric Brown (who else?) and Boulton Paul test pilot Robin Lindsay Neale, who qualified for carrier landings at about this time, flew the aircraft. It was Brown who cleared it for carrier landings.

 

[Howard Gibson]

I did a side by side comparison between the Fokker G-1 and the Bf-110c; speeds at comparable altitudes, rates of climb, weights, ranges and so on. initially they looked pretty evenly matched and I thought typical performance for twin engine fighters designed in that time period. Then I happened to look at the engines. The 110 had two v-12s rated at 1100 initial hp each while the G-1 had two radials rated at 830 initial each. Assuming these figures are close to reality, someone in Fokker design was doing something very right or someone at Bf design was doing something very wrong.

Check out the Bf109E and the Bf109F. With approximately the same engine, the F was significantly faster. The Spitfire_I was heavier and less powerful than a Bf109E, and faster, once they fitted the constant speed prop. Aerodynamically, the Bf109E was a brick.

I wonder how good the aerodynamics were on the Bf110.

 

[SaparotRob]

Brick with an additional engine?

 

[tomo pauk]

Check out the Bf109E and the Bf109F. With approximately the same engine, the F was significantly faster. The Spitfire_I was heavier and less powerful than a Bf109E, and faster, once they fitted the constant speed prop. Aerodynamically, the Bf109E was a brick.

I wonder how good the aerodynamics were on the Bf110.

Bf 109E was certainly a brick with regard to the coefficient of drag. Saving grace was that it was erstwhile designed around a small engine, small fuel tank and for carrying just 2 LMGs, so it ended up as a small aircraft. Small size = lower total drag. We can also take a look at the MC.202, that have had about the same engine as the 109E and was of the same size, was ~50 km/h faster.
Spitfire I in service have had more engine power than 109E, not less.

Bf 110 have had a big wing, that was also thick: 18% t-t-c at root. We can again take a look in Italy, where the considerably smaller IMAM Ro.58 was much faster (~60 km/h) on same engines.

 

[BarnOwlLover]

I know that at least one of these has been mentioned previously and elsewhere. But if the Spitfire III didn't get the ax, the RAF might have had a genuine 400+mph capable fighter and recon plane before the Typhoon, Spitfire Mks IX, VII and VIII, and the early Mustangs. That said, it didn't go to waste as they were eventually used as Merlin 60 series test beds that paved the way for the two stage Merlin Spitfires.

And the XP-51F/G models. A P-51 with decent range (even with somewhat reduced fuel tankage) that weighed little more than a Spitfire IX or VIII. It did pave way for the P-51H, which as a productionized version that in concept was a hybrid of the P-51D/K and the lightweight Mustangs. A P-51F or G especially with 6x.50s or 4x20mm cannons would've ruined the Luftwaffe's day even worse than the D model did.

 

[Conslaw]

My vote for missed opportunities is for a US mainstream single-engined fighter powered by the Wright R-2600 engine. The R-2600 was amazingly close to the BMW-801 that powered the "A" versions of the FW-190. In 1941-1942, the FW-190 was (arguably anyway) the best all-around fighter plane in the world . That was the period of time the US could have really used something in the same class. The missed opportunity is for a radial engine to fill the gap in competitiveness between the R-1830 and the R-2800, where there was no real practical way that any R-2800 fighter could be deployed overseas much before it was when the first F4Us started action in February 1942 and the P-47s a couple months later.

Yes, there are reasons the US didn't have an R-2600 fighter. In terms of frontal area, the engine was a bit chubby, but so was the BMW-801, ditto the Ha-41 engine in the Ki-44. (I'm leaving out the ASH-82 powered LA-5 because it didn't begin serial production until the latter part of 1942, which makes it a contemporary of the R-2800-powered F4U and P-47.) The R-2600 aslo did not take well to turbocharging, but the BMW-801, ASH-82 and Ha-41 were no great shakes at high altitude either.

The XF6F powered by an R-2600 first flew in July 1942 and was rightfully deemed underpowered, but our imaginary fighter does not have to be a naval fighter or nearly as heavy.

 

[GrauGeist]

The problem with the R-2600 lies more with weight than size.
The R-1820 weighed less than 1,200 pounds with a width of about 54 inches. The R-2600's width was only 55 inches and just over a foot longer, but weighed 800 pounds more.

It's possible that an R-2600 could have been shoe-horned into a P-36, which would be a close match to the Fw190, but the 2600's weight would still be an issue (even the V-1710 weighed 600 pounds less).

 

[tomo pauk]

The missed opportunity is for a radial engine to fill the gap in competitiveness between the R-1830 and the R-2800, where there was no real practical way that any R-2800 fighter could be deployed overseas much before it was when the first F4Us started action in February 1942 and the P-47s a couple months later.

That would be 1943 for these fighters deployed overseas.
The 1850 HP R-2800s were made probably concurrently with 1700 HP R-2600s, ie. early 1941. The R-2800 would've been a fine improvement for a fighter that is designed around a R-2600.

Yes, there are reasons the US didn't have an R-2600 fighter. In terms of frontal area, the engine was a bit chubby, but so was the BMW-801, ditto the Ha-41 engine in the Ki-44. (I'm leaving out the ASH-82 powered LA-5 because it didn't begin serial production until the latter part of 1942, which makes it a contemporary of the R-2800-powered F4U and P-47.) The R-2600 aslo did not take well to turbocharging, but the BMW-801, ASH-82 and Ha-41 were no great shakes at high altitude either.

Ha-41 was much lighter than the R-2600 - 600 lbs difference. It was also less bulky at 50 in diameter vs. 55 in. Additional 10% of diameter nets a 21% increase of frontal area.
BMW 801 early on was a troublesome machine, so the R-2600 gets a nod here; R-2600 was also lighter. Where the 801 was better was it's smaller diameter (50.8 in), layout of exhaust stacks for better thrust, and the armored oil system (less susceptible to the return fire, less drag than a 'classic' oil radiator - Americans started armoring the oil coolers with F7F, F8F and AU-1). 801 was a bit more powerful than the R-2600 at higher altitudes, especially the 801D. The 1600 HP R-2600s were hopeless above ~13000 ft. Both engines were gas guzzlers.

The XF6F powered by an R-2600 first flew in July 1942 and was rightfully deemed underpowered, but our imaginary fighter does not have to be a naval fighter or nearly as heavy.

R-2600 version that powered the XF6F was a 2-stage supercharged engine, difference in timing vs. a 2-stage S/Ced R-2800 (on XF4U-1 from 1940) is about 20 months? But yes, a land-based fighter of a smaller size and weight than it was the F6F with a 2-stage R-2600 would've been quite useful.

 

[Shortround6]

Tomo has covered a number of points quite well.

The 1700hp R-2600 (BA series) ) didn't really add that much to altitude performance. It also didn't show up all that early,
They built 443 of them in 1941, but 206 of them were built in December.
Early 1942 doesn't look that good. 5981 of the BA s were built in 1942 but only 978 were built in the first 6 months. Every two fighters built is one B-25 you don't get. TBF-s were also powered by the BA series. The BA series was built in the Cincinnati plant and not Patterson NJ where the A series engines were built. The As used an aluminum crankcase and the BA used a steel crankcase for starters so no, you can't swap production back and forth very easily. The Cincinnati plant had been built to make the BA series of R-2600s.

The BA series engines used in the TBF were good for 1450hp at 12,000ft. The engines going into the FW 190A-3 were good for 1440hp at 18,700ft according to one source. The earlier BMW 801s were good for 1380hp at 15,100ft (?).

Unless the Americans can sort out the cooling and the exhaust thrust a bit earlier than they did you are not going to get an American Fw 190.
The Packard V-1650-1 in the P-40F was good for 1240hp at 11800ft in low gear and 1120hp at 18,500ft. which is around 30-40hp less than the R-2600 BA is going to give at the same height.
The engine in the F4F was good for 1000hp at 19,000ft.

Now if you can guarantee that your opponents won't fight above about 6,500ft (point at which the BA engine drops below 1500hp) maybe you have something.
BTW the R-2600s were never rated for WER. or at least not for very long.

 

[tomo pauk]

The engines going into the FW 190A-3 were good for 1440hp at 18,700ft according to one source. The earlier BMW 801s were good for 1380hp at 15,100ft (?).

BMW 801C table is here. Once you're there, scroll down for the 801D table.
At 2550 rpm it was 1380 PS at 4600 m (15090 ft - close enough) for the 801C. At 2700 rpm, (per the PDF that can be loaded there) it made a bit more at a bit higher altitude.
Indeed 1440 PS at 18700 ft for the 801D when it was fully rated (from Oct 1942 on); earlier it was a bit down-rated.

 

[Shortround6]

Thank you.
Unless the production schedule can be changed I don't see very many R-2600 BA powered fighters showing up over seas before the fall of 1942 anyway.
Now for the US you also need a propeller that will go with it. Something over 11ft if you have to use 3 blades.

 

[tomo pauk]

R-2600 might've been an optimal engine for an US fighter-bomber between 1940 and 42.

 

[Shortround6]

More bomber than fighter.
And in 1940-41 and 1st 1/2 of 42 you have the 1600 hp engine for actual production, unless you want to reduce the number of B-25s,

 

[tomo pauk]

More bomber than fighter.

Not, if the size is kept reasonable.

And in 1940-41 and 1st 1/2 of 42 you have the 1600 hp engine for actual production, unless you want to reduce the number of B-25s

1600 HP engines work for the fighter-bomber.

 

[Shortround6]

Not, if the size is kept reasonable.



1600 HP engines work for the fighter-bomber.

You are going to be hard pressed to keep it smaller than a P-40.

1939-40 air cooling and lack of exhaust thrust (design perspective)
1900lb engine.
The US is going to want at least 200 US gallons of fuel (P-36 has around 160gal without drop tank and without self sealing. P-39 was supposed to have 200gal before self sealing)
As you have said, it is a thirsty engine (I agree, 150 US gal/hr at 1275hp at 12,000ft, more at full power)

Just for context

XSB2C-1 photo may date from Aug 1941 as several features in the photo series date from then.
Brewster Buccaneer prototype, summer of 1941

Just the state of the art in cowling, exhaust in 1940-41 in the US.

You need every bit of the 1400hp to to overcome the drag compared to the V-1710 in the P-40.
Granted you can make the Fuselage considerably smaller and no cowl guns) but you can't stick this thing on a P-36/40 without longer landing gear legs.

 

[nuuumannn]

Nobody seems to have asked why Boulton Paul could not simply put an arrester hook and folding wings on the Defiant, something which was investigated late in the war for different reasons, and found to be perfectly possible*. This would have produced not just a turret fighter 80 mph faster than the Roc, but one faster than any other Fleet Air Arm fighter.
With an observer in place of the turret and eight forward guns, it would have produced a fighter better than the Fairey Fulmar.

It didn't happen.

It didn't happen because the Air Ministry told North (BP's designer) no and that he was to build the Roc under licence. North offered navalised Defiant derivatives and fresh designs to a number of Air Ministry and Admiralty issued specifications but did not succeed in any of them. That doesn't mean the ideas weren't there. A turretless Defiant armed with 12 machine guns in the wings was offered as a stop gap fighter during the Battle of Britain and as a concept demonstrator the turret was removed from the prototype Defiant and faired over, although the production variant would have had changes that enabled fuel tanks to be moved to the fuselage to accommodate the guns in the wings, so it would not have been a simple turret removal from the airframe. This was offered as an alternative to the Miles M.20, which was also offered as a potential carrier-based fighter on the suggestion of Beaverbrook when admirals pressed him for fighter production in 1940. The M.20 had lousy low speed handling, which, Eric Brown discovered would have made it a badly behaved naval fighter.

 

[Shortround6]

Early A-20 with the cooling vents in the cowl, they were dropped fairly soon (around 100 aircraft ?)

Later A-20s got ejector exhausts