- Thread starter
-
- #41
Admiral Beez
Major
Seafang. Wasn't that considered a failure? Though perhaps not if it arrived in 1942-1943.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Seafang. Wasn't that considered a failure? Though perhaps not if it arrived in 1942-1943.If you want a single seat Griffon carrier fighter, why not base it on the Spitfire? New folding wings with stronger undercarriage better suited to carrier use.
The laminar flow wing was good for speed but not manoeuvrability.Seafang. Wasn't that considered a failure? Though perhaps not if it arrived in 1942-1943.
Seafang. Wasn't that considered a failure? Though perhaps not if it arrived in 1942-1943.
It's the threadjacking I could do without.I just love posters like this - NOT.
I understand, but isn't the Seafang what you describe, a Spitfire with a new wing and wider track undercarriage?I didn't say Seafang. I said Spitfire with new wings,
If you want a single seat long range fighter then you need the carriers to operate it a la USN.It's the threadjacking I could do without.
You lack imagination. You want a single seat long range fighter like the Corsair and Hellcat then you need the carriers to operate them.It appears that Kevin J wants the UL to build its fleet purely around fighting Japan - ignoring Germany (the much more immediate threat) completely.
And then he wants the UK to ignore the existing IJN battlefleet, which was already known to be faster than the RN's, and trust on old slow aging ships - even though Japan was known to be building modern battleships that (even if kept to 35,000 tons & 16" guns) would outclass anything that the RN had.
I just love posters like this - NOT.
You lack imagination. You want a single seat long range fighter like the Corsair and Hellcat then you need the carriers to operate them.
I'm sure that after the Japanese seizure of Manchuria and Japan walking out of the League of Nations then it was clear to all that war with Japan was inevitable. My idea does two things. It provides upgrades for 4 battleships and 1 battle cruiser built in 1914 by 1937 so providing a deterrent against Japan in China, and 3 new deck edge lift Ark Royal carriers by 1940/41 for the Indian Ocean and for 2 more in 1942 for use in the Pacific. Surely that is not only a sufficient deterrent but eminently plausible. All we need is a longer ranged fighter for it, but certainly not the single seat Firefly as it would arrive too late. Perhaps the Miles M20?Imagination will only take you so far before physics and real life sea conditions come and bite you. The Royal Navys single job is to defend Britain and fancy designs that might in ten years fight Japan in the Pacific dont go down well with the British taxpayer.
First you go for your carrier expansion program, it could even be a Wasp look a like, then you issue your long range carrier fighter requirement, bet you still come up with the M20. Will look at your battleships link before I respond further.as to the single seat Firefly we are back to why?????
Adding a 2nd seat to a 6000lb gross airplane (extended fuselage, equipment and crew man) is going to have a significant impact on performance. adding the same amount of weight and volume to a 12,000lb gross airplane is going to have a much less significant impact, therefore taking the 2nd crewman out (and trying to cut the fuselage?) isn't going to change the performance all that much.
It may look cool in a photoshopped picture but actual speed climb and turn are not going ot change much if you keep the same wing, engine, tail and most of the fuselage.
as for keeping the old Pre WW I battleships; see feasibility of keeping WW I battleships around for WW II.
I will have a new post up shortly
as for the Miles M.20, you are going to plan a major carrier construction program in 1935/36 and cancel a major battleship construction program of the same years based on a plane that won't exist (evenon paper) until 1940????
Great use of the Tardis
Let's agree to disagree. My main aim is to deter Japanese expansionism even if like the USN we lose 5 carriers and 5 battleships / cruisers, and to do it ASAP.First you go for your carrier expansion program, it could even be a Wasp look a like, then you issue your long range carrier fighter requirement, bet you still come up with the M20. Will look at your battleships link before I respond further.
I understand, but isn't the Seafang what you describe, a Spitfire with a new wing and wider track undercarriage?
The Seafang had the laminar flow wing.
A new wing could have been based on the existing wing with structural modifications for folding and longer undercarriage legs with wider track.
A smaller version of the Firefly wing could have been used, for example.
Supermarines started work on the laminar flow wing early enough, but with all their commitments to improving various Spitfire marks and getting the historical Seafire into production it wasn't until 1944 that the Spiteful flew.
Giving the job to another manufacturer, such as Fairey - as was proposed pre-war, would have taken the Seafire burden off Supermarine.
In any case, basing a single-seat fighter on a small single-seat fighter would seem a better bet than basing one on a heavy two seat fighter.
Royal Navy specification NAD925/39A called for a single seat shipboard fighter with a top speed of 380mph. A thin wing and a Rolls Royce Griffon engine with a two speed supercharger were selected by H.E. Chaplin, one of Fairey Aviations chief designers. There are pictures of it in both editions of Tony Buttler's British Secret Projects: Fighters 1935 to 45. NAD925/39A is unmistakably a thin wing, single seat Firefly. The wing planform is very similar to OTL Firefly. The thickness of the wing is the critical issue for a 1940s fighter. The OTL Firefly had a thick wing which was handy for low speed approaches and lifting a heavy load. A thick wing doomed the Hurricane to run out of steam as a design by 1941. The thin wing Spitfire, Me 109 etc went on to further development. You can take a seat out of the firefly and rearrange it a bit no problem. But the wing is going to kill you unless you go back to 1939 and select NAD925/39A instead of OTL Firefly.
What kind of thickness are we talking for the single-seat design? I don't know the thickness of the Firefly's actual airfoil, so I have no point of comparison.Royal Navy specification NAD925/39A called for a single seat shipboard fighter with a top speed of 380mph. A thin wing and a Rolls Royce Griffon engine with a two speed supercharger were selected by H.E. Chaplin, one of Fairey Aviations chief designers. There are pictures of it in both editions of Tony Buttler's British Secret Projects: Fighters 1935 to 45. NAD925/39A is unmistakably a thin wing, single seat Firefly. The wing planform is very similar to OTL Firefly. The thickness of the wing is the critical issue for a 1940s fighter.
FascinatingThe Firefly retained the basic wing design through each variant, AFAIK and speed rose to over 380mph in the final models with two stage Griffons but wing mounted radiators. AIUI, the chin radiator was the drawback for higher speeds, but also the limited output of the single stage, two speed Griffons and the early two stage engines. The MkIII which featured a circular chin radiator and a Griffon 71 made 347mph at 18.3k ft, (~1400hp) even though the radiator introduced aerodynamic instability.