Twin engine fighter for Ark Royal and Illustrious class?

[Admiral Beez]

The Illustrious class had two 22 x 45 ft lifts, same as two of Ark Royal's three lifts. Jan 1939, having heard of the USN's interest in a twin engined fighter, the British Air Ministry and Fleet Air Arm asks for options for a twin engined, twin prop fighter that can fit on these 22 x 45 ft lifts.

The Grumman XF5F-1 Skyrocket was 21 ft wide when folded, so it can be done.

Now, with the Fulmar, etc. in the works, this would be more a theoretical exercise. So, what do we propose? To keep things interesting, the AM and FAA reject the Westland Whirlwind (it's likely too wide anyway). Maybe something like the Fokker D.XXIII? Though pity the deckhands who have to unhook around the rear prop.

 

[Kevin J]

The Illustrious class had two 22 x 45 ft lifts, same as two of Ark Royal's three lifts. Jan 1939, having heard of the USN's interest in a twin engined fighter, the British Air Ministry and Fleet Air Arm asks for options for a twin engined, twin prop fighter that can fit on these 22 x 45 ft lifts.

The Grumman XF5F-1 Skyrocket was 21 ft wide when folded, so it can be done.

View attachment 582656

Now, with the Fulmar, etc. in the works, this would be more a theoretical exercise. So, what do we propose? To keep things interesting, the AM and FAA reject the Westland Whirlwind (it's likely too wide anyway). Maybe something like the Fokker D.XXIII? Though pity the deckhands who have to unhook around the rear prop.

So assuming the Dutch manage to evacuate all the personnel, prototypes, machine tools and drawings to England, how long is it going to take to redesign everything from metric to imperial, fit some DH engines, propellors, folding wings, arrestor hook, catapult spools, then fly the new prototype? Sounds like a new plane to me. You'd be better off re-engineering the MB 2 as a navy fighter, or better still the Hurricane as its in production and all you'd need is a conversion kit and some outriggers on your carriers and deck park to operate a non folding wing version. Maybe the MB 2 as a float plane fighter, built instead of the Roc by Boulton Paul. You'd get better use out of that too. So no, wouldn't work.

Okay, the F5F. Add armour glass / plating, self sealing fuel tanks, rear view mirror etc. It's top speed falls from 383 to 357 mph but then you ask yourself if it wouldn't be quicker and cheaper and just as effective to build the Seafire, just as good, half the price, maybe less. So no.

Meanwhile, THE USMC whip out their crystal ball and realise they're going to be conducting an island hopping campaign against the Japanese in the Pacific. So they tell Bell to add enough bits to the Airacobra to enable it to operate off escort carriers as a grunt support fighter. The Russians get none so we lose the war in Europe.

Of course for my MB 2 to come to fruition the FAA need a crystal ball too. LOL.

 

[The Basket]

You would have to give time frames and mission profile. When would this aircraft first fly and which carrier would it be designed for.

Single or 2 seat that kind of stuff.

Space on a carrier is a premium so filling it with big twins means them twins will have to be very multirole.

 

[Glider]

It should be remembered that space also includes space for spares, and two engines are clearly going to more of an investment than one engine

 

[Admiral Beez]

So assuming the Dutch manage to evacuate all the personnel, prototypes, machine tools and drawings to England

Why would the Dutch so that? I suggested a British designer may come up with something similar to the Fokker, not that they'd use the exact aircraft. The Brits are more than capable.

Sounds like a new plane to me.

Yes, I thought that was clear. The AM and FAA have expressed their interest to British aeronautical firms in twin engined fighters that could fold to <22ft wide. They want a feasibility study and report.

You'd be better off re-engineering the MB 2...., Maybe the MB 2 as a float plane fighter.

Jes#s, the MB2 float plane again - why the obsession about this airplane? Let it go, no one GAF about your MB2 float plane fighter. And your MB2 is entirely irrelevant to this discussion, unless you're adding an engine and a prop whilst keeping folded width to under 22ft. Forget the MB2 floatplane fighter, or at least limit yourself to inserting it in relevant discussions. shm.

 

[Admiral Beez]

You would have to give time frames and mission profile. When would this aircraft first fly and which carrier would it be designed for.

Single or 2 seat that kind of stuff.

Space on a carrier is a premium so filling it with big twins means them twins will have to be very multirole.

Illustrious class, lift limitations 22x45. The role would be similar to the Grumman Skyrocket, a high speed fighter optimized for rapid ascent. Both single and twin seat would be looked at.

It should be remembered that space also includes space for spares, and two engines are clearly going to more of an investment than one engine

I expect the AM, FAA or the design firms themselves to ultimately reject the idea once it's clear that single engine fighters are sufficient and as you mention, take less hangar resources and space, same as the USN's rejection of the Skyrocket. But it would be interesting to see what's conceived on the napkins of the design firms.

 

[Shortround6]

A big damper on the idea is the limited fuel capacity of British carriers. Sucking up 50-100% more fuel per hour of CAP or search patrol is not a good idea for the British no matter what you can get to fit on the lifts.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Perhaps something from the Air Ministry's ultimately rejected Specification F.18/37 would be a place to start?

For example, a reduced scale development of the the Supermarine Type 324 - Wikipedia

 

[The Basket]

Sea Hornet?

Can't see any twin in any time frame other than the Sea Hornet.

A long range fighter would be a great idea in the Pacific but before Radar it wouldn't be useful. And what performance would it have?

Gloster F9/37? Here is a twin with time frame.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Sea Hornet?

Too wide I think. If we start with the Hornet's 45 ft wingspan, it looks a lot wider than 22 ft when folded. More like 35-30ft wide I'd say.

How about we stick a second engine and prop on Gloster's proposal, the Gloster F.18/37.

 

[Zipper730]

The Illustrious class had two 22 x 45 ft lifts, same as two of Ark Royal's three lifts. Jan 1939, having heard of the USN's interest in a twin engined fighter, the British Air Ministry and Fleet Air Arm asks for options for a twin engined, twin prop fighter that can fit on these 22 x 45 ft lifts.

There isn't much room for error in landing on a carrier deck, so engine out performance would be an issue, but I figure you could take care of that with counter-rotating propellers.

Now, with the Fulmar, etc. in the works, this would be more a theoretical exercise

That would be interesting: It would definitely be better than the Firefly. Not sure what you'd power it with, though the RR Merlin seems like a good candidate.

To keep things interesting, the AM and FAA reject the Westland Whirlwind (it's likely too wide anyway).

Actually, the wingspan of the Whirlwind is 45'0" exactly -- it'd fit. It probably wouldn't be carrier suitable though, and it couldn't fit Merlins to it.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Actually, the wingspan of the Whirlwind is 45'0" exactly -- it'd fit. It probably wouldn't be carrier suitable though, and it couldn't fit Merlins to it.

Lol, the 45 ft is the length of the lifts. It's the 22 ft width we need to worry about. But we always talk about the naval Whirlwind, so I thought we'd preclude it.

 

[Shortround6]

A pure Whirlwind would be useless on a carrier, the take-off and landing speed are too high.
Doesn't matter if it fits on the lift or if you make the outer wings fold.

 

[wuzak]

Perhaps something from the Air Ministry's ultimately rejected Specification F.18/37 would be a place to start?

For example, a reduced scale development of the the Supermarine Type 324 - Wikipedia

View attachment 582690

Why scaled down?

The Type 324 and 327 were about the same size as the Typhoon.

The wing span was 40 feet, but it is doubtful they could get it to the size required to fit in the lift with wings folded.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Why scaled down? The Type 324 and 327 were about the same size as the Typhoon. The wing span was 40 feet, but it is doubtful they could get it to the size required to fit in the lift with wings folded.

It's the twin engines that limit the fold that require us to scale down the Type 324 and 327.

 

[Shortround6]

How about we stick a second engine and prop on Gloster's proposal, the Gloster F.18/37.

Why???
it is already using almost two engines
Engine of choice was the Napier Sabre
Alternative was the RR Vulture.
46ft wing span
39ft length
290 sq ft of wing
10,375lbs Max gross

Yep, it needs another Sabre in the nose

 

[Admiral Beez]

Why???
it is already using almost two engines
Engine of choice was the Napier Sabre
Alternative was the RR Vulture.
46ft wing span
39ft length
290 sq ft of wing
10,375lbs Max gross

Yep, it needs another Sabre in the nose

No, Napier should never the see the deck of a British carrier. So, toss the Sabre into the bin, and the Vulture is a dead end. Two Merlins, two props.

 

[Shortround6]

No, Napier should never the see the deck of a British carrier. So, toss the Sabre into the bin, and the Vulture is a dead end. Two Merlins, two props.

Great, another 400lbs or so engine, a couple hundred more pounds of prop, a bigger more complicated cooling system, Guns pushed out into the wings ( I wonder where the fuel was?)
Wing loading was already about 50% higher than an early Hurricane.

and we add a few feet to the length.

 

[wuzak]

It's the twin engines that limit the fold that require us to scale down the Type 324 and 327.

You can't scale the Merlins and their props, and you can't put them too much closer together.

 

[Admiral Beez]

You can't scale the Merlins and their props, and you can't put them too much closer together.

IDK how accurate these googled sketches are, but if this can be relied upon I'd say there's space to have the props nearly touching in front of the nose, provided armament interruption of course.