Was timely Martlet license production possible?

[Admiral Beez]

By 1942 the British FAA was receiving folding wing Martlets, after first recieiving non-folding versions in 1941. Could Martlets have been avaialble earlier and in greater quantity by Britain license producing them? For example, instead of producing Hawker Hurricanes at CC&F (first rolled off the line in Jan 1940) could this plant have made initially non-folding Martlets? Were engines available? Would Grumman release the technical drawings?

This isn't a what if scenario. I'm interested in what was possible for Britain making Martlets.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

By 1942 the British FAA was receiving folding wing Martlets, after first recieiving non-folding versions in 1941. Could Martlets have been avaialble earlier and in greater quantity by Britain license producing them? For example, instead of producing Hawker Hurricanes at CC&F (first rolled off the line in Jan 1940) could this plant have made initially non-folding Martlets? Were engines available? Would Grumman release the technical drawings?

This isn't a what if scenario. I'm interested in what was possible for Britain making Martlets.

For starters, it won't be up to Grumman to release the "technical drawings. The US War Dept. would have had to make that call. For this to work tooling would have been required. All the technical drawings in the world aren't going to help you unless you have tooling to go along with them. If you were diverting resources from one production line to another, this was possible IMO.

 

[Admiral Beez]

For this to work tooling would have been required. All the technical drawings in the world aren't going to help you unless you have tooling to go along with them. If you were diverting resources from one production line to another, this was possible IMO.

When CC&F produced the Grumman FF G23 Goblin, Hurricane/Sea Hurricane, Curtiss SBF/SBW did the Canadians buy tooling from British/US sources or make them locally? Would license building the Martlet at CC&F stress US tooling capacity?

Certainly engines would need to available, presenting the question of what engine? Early Wildcats were underpowered, so that's an issue.

1) Pratt & Whitney had an operation in Canada, but not an engine plant. Still this may facilitate supply.
2) CC&F had an existing relationship with Curtiss for Cyclone engines for the license-built G23.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

When CC&F produced the Hurricane/Sea Hurricane and Curtiss SBF/SBW did the Canadians buy tooling from British/US sources or make them locally? Would license building the Martlet at CC&F stress US tooling capacity?

They would have either had to acquire already made tooling or build the tooling themselves. "Tooling Capability?" The manufacture of tooling is the first step in the physical production process. Sure, you develop drawings (to include drawings for jigs and fixtures) but most of your larger structures are going to be manufactured in large tooling.

Certainly engines would need to available, presenting the question of what engine? Pratt & Whitney had an operation in Canada, not an engine plant, but it may make it an easier option than Wright Aeronautical. Early Wildcats were underpowered, so that's an issue.

Again, many variables there, that would have been up to the customer. You seem to be under the impression that the manufacturer makes all the decisions.

 

[Admiral Beez]

You seem to be under the impression that the manufacturer makes all the decisions.

IDK, I assume it involves many parties. On engines, will P&W or Wright release the engines, impacting engines they can sell to the USN/USAAC? What prices or terms will they offer?

 

[FLYBOYJ]

IDK, I assume it involves many parties. On engines, will P&W or Wright release the engines, impacting engines they can sell to the USN/USAAC? What prices or terms will they offer?

Many times the customer will dictate to the manufacturer what engine to use. Sometimes a manufacturer will spend their own money to come up with an improvement. At the end of the day, it's going to be about money and what the customer ultimately wants.

Now engine manufacturers may be permitted to sell engines directly to a foreign customer. BTW, in the US during WW2 most engines, turbochargers, radios and electronic equipment was supplied by the government (GFE). As far as prices/ terms? I think that could probably be found through internet sources.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Many times the customer will dictate to the manufacturer what engine to use.

I suppose that could lead to Britain specifying and shipping over Bristol engines, like with Fairchild Canada's Bollingbrook. That would be an interesting comparison of Martlet vs. Wildcat.

 

[tomo pauk]

IIRC both US and foreign customers were making separate contracts with airframe companies and engine companies.

 

[JAG88]

Notes by Fifth Sea Lord1 of meeting held on 4 January 1940 [ADM 1/ 10752] 22 January 1940 Future policy for fighters

...

14. (3) Possible use of Foreign Types. This in practice meant U.S.A. Aircraft. The meeting considered that the types available and the possibilities of obtaining them offered no advantages over the Spitfires or Hurricanes, and that there was nothing to be gained by pursuing this suggestion further.

Armoured Aircraft Carriers

 

[swampyankee]

The only Bristol engine which would seem to fit, reasonably well, would be the Taurus. A year or so before the Martlet gets license built in Canada, let's have them building Bristol engines.

 

[tomo pauk]

Pegasus can fit, too.

 

[swampyankee]

Pegasus can fit, too.

Very true!

Thanks.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I suppose that could lead to Britain specifying and shipping over Bristol engines, like with Fairchild Canada's Bollingbrook. That would be an interesting comparison of Martlet vs. Wildcat.

Notes by Fifth Sea Lord1 of meeting held on 4 January 1940 [ADM 1/ 10752] 22 January 1940 Future policy for fighters

...

14. (3) Possible use of Foreign Types. This in practice meant U.S.A. Aircraft. The meeting considered that the types available and the possibilities of obtaining them offered no advantages over the Spitfires or Hurricanes, and that there was nothing to be gained by pursuing this suggestion further.

Armoured Aircraft Carriers

Amazing what a difference a few years makes (RN Photo)

 

[pbehn]

Amazing what a difference a few years makes (RN Photo)

View attachment 574387

If they were available in Jan 1940 the first sea Lord would have ordered 20,000.

 

[tomo pauk]

In Jan 1940, there was no Spitfires and Hurricanes available to the 1st Sea Lord either.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Amazing what a difference a few years makes

Agreed. That's why I prefaced with "timely" production. Maybe it's not possible, as we'd need license-made Martlets to enter service before Grumman begins volume deliveries to the FAA in 1942. Now, license-built Corsairs! That's something, but same issue as the Lend Lease taps were wide open then.

 

[pbehn]

In Jan 1940, there was no Spitfires and Hurricanes available to the 1st Sea Lord either.

Which is why he didn't get very much.

 

[tomo pauk]

Which is why he didn't get very much.

Certainly not in 1940.

 

[jetcal1]

Why would the British want to open up a new line and deal with that headache when they have access to gobs of factories being built in the US and Canada that aren't at risk of being bombed and are closer to the raw materials like wood and aluminum? (Asking for a friend.)

 

[pbehn]

I cant really see how you can produce under license something that hasn't been made yet.