Was a British Nakajima B5N possible?

Maybe there's the genesis of a British B5N here, but by 1937? Not so sure.

In January 1936 the Bristol Hercules is first run. So, the AM, FAA and the boffins at Fairey, Blackburn, Hawker, etc. know there's a development of the existing Bristol Perseus in the works. These designers could be instructed to develop a B5N-spec TSR to use a lower power Bristol engine in 1937, with the assumption that this will move to the more power engine when available.

One of the challenges our British B5N equivalent presents is the now diversified CAG. This aircraft will be optimized for speed, range and torpedo delivery, with of course a level bombing capability. However this is not a dive bomber capable aircraft, so has no dive brakes or prop-clearing bomb cradle. This is not a dual role DB/TSR like the Albacore, Barracuda or Aichi B7A. This means the FAA must either abandon the DB role, or build CAGs of Skuas, B5Ns and single-seat fighters. The easy fix is the ensure the fighter of 1938 has folding wings from the onset.

Admiral Beez said:

The easy fix is the ensure the fighter of 1938 has folding wings from the onset.

Click to expand...

It did

The Fulmar was ordered in 1938.

The Fulmar, once given the Merlin VIII engine, was supposed to do 265mph at 7500ft.
for the fabric wing folding Hurricane fans a Hurricane I with a two pitch prop was good for a bit under 290mph at 7500ft when running 6 1/4lbs boost.
Hurricane Is were good for around 260-267mph at sea level. They don't get over 300mph until they are above 12,000ft.
They climb better than the Fulmar but don't expect a huge increase in combat capability over the Fulmar based on the 315-320mph speeds which were for around 18,000ft.
The planes the FAA were fighting were not flying that high.

Steal a few dozen Merlin X engines from the the Bomber command Whitley's or Wellington MK IIs and the Fulmar's speed at the higher altitudes might be a lot better

Shortround6 said:

It did. The Fulmar was ordered in 1938.

Click to expand...

Hopefully if the AM and FAA of the mid-1930s are looking to the IJNAF for inspiration they'll sort out their own all-metal, single-seater fighter before the Fulmar hits the drawing board. Not that the RN would want the A5M, but an early Seafire?

The Fairey tactical/dive bomber that the Fulmar was modified from first flew Jan 1937. About 10 months after the Spitfire. but ahead of most other retractable gear Naval fighters. (11 months before the Buffalo prototype)
Granted the idea to fold the wings wasn't there yet.
Fulmar had much longer range/endurance than the Spitfire and carried about 2 1/2 times the amount of ammo for it's guns.
Ability of small number of Fulmars to maintain a CAP without frequent landings was an asset to the RN.

You need more than just the idea for a single seat fighter, you need one that will work for the RN in being able to perform other roles and/or perform some of it's roles for longer periods of time than some other countries fighters.

Try substituting A5Ms for Fulmars on the Mediterranean convoys and imagine the results you might get.

The Fulmar may have been under utilized by the FAA. The MK II could drop a 500lb bomb in a 60 degree dive. Since the plane it was modified from could dive bomb (a pair of 250lbs, one under each wing) the lack of bomb carrying ability on the MK I is a bit of a mystery. Weight of guns or lack of power from the Merlin VIII engine??

If you want Seafires in 1939/40 you need to fix a bunch of things along the way. Increased production of better propellers, earlier adoption of 100 octane fuel, beef up the landing gear (peacetime and wartime standards of acceptance are not the same, peacetime acceptance would not tolerate the accident rate that wartime would.) You need another plane to do the long range reconnaissance/scout role.

Shortround6 said:

The Fairey tactical/dive bomber that the Fulmar was modified from first flew Jan 1937.

Click to expand...

With the Skua and the British Kate (Beckinsale?) both bomb capable, I'd like to think the boffins in the AM and FAA would consider max range, speed and firepower for their fighter rather than bomb capability. Thus there's no need for the Fairey bomber, and instead they can go straight to the fighter concept development. Which with the two-seat inclination likely not going away probably gets us to an early Fulmar anyway.

So, the 48 aircraft CAG on a Courageous class of 1938-39 is a mix of Fulmars, Skuas and Beckinsales.