Was timely Martlet license production possible?

[pinehilljoe]

Does one of our experts know how long it took the Canadian Aircraft Industry to tool up for Helldiver, Lancaster or Mosquito production? One data point, it took the Soviets 3 years to reverse engineer, tool and produce the B-29.

 

[Admiral Beez]

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

Grumman Martlet first flight 2 September 1937, introduced to service Dec 1940.

In summer 1939 the British Air Ministry contracted CC&F to produce the Hurricane, with the first flying in Jan 1940. If in summer 1939 when the Air Ministry asks CC&F for the Martlet, Grumman was already producing the Wildcat.

But if the above timeline is seen as unlikely, we need only get the Martlets by end 1940. In Dec 1940, the Martlet became the first US aircraft since WW1 to shoot down a German aircraft when Squadron 804 shot down a Junkers Ju 88A over Scapa Flow.

 

[yulzari]

Licence production firstly means you do not make something made IOTL. There are only so many resources to go around.

Secondly the Martlet was designed around USA drawing practices, for a very lengthy list of USA sub contract ancillaries and USA metals available off the shelf in the USA. The whole airframe would need redesigning to take UK ancillaries and use UK production metals. Canada can import them at ease. Importing all of these would be risky and subject to losses and delays in transit across the Atlantic.
All in all it is easier to import all the bits put together in a complete Martlet made in a factory using US resources and continue to make UK types in the UK.


One simple example. If the US airframe skin is X" thick is there a UK sheet aluminium of the same thickness? If so is it as strong, ductile, tough, corrosion resistant etc? If not do you have to increase the thickness to get the performance? Now you have heavier skins which impact upon performance and the centre of gravity. The detail design of an aeroplane requires reaching for the material catalogues of suppliers and drawing the design around available parts not just making a pretty and sleek 3D shape. If panel sizes are smaller in UK production then will the wing ribs need different spacing? In it's own way it would be like having Vickers stop making Wellingtons and make Mosquitos. Nothing can be carried over and even the staff are unskilled in the necessary tasks nor have the necessary tools.

Before someone points at Canada they were familiar with UK practices and could import US made kit by rail.

BTW the Tu4 was heavier than a B29. For one thing they had to use thicker skins as Soviet aluminium came in metric as well as different alloys.

If you want more Martlets then buy more Martlets from the USA. If you want more Seafires then make them in the UK.

 

[JAG88]

The problem wasnt one of production availability, it was a doctrinary one, the FAA didnt really see the need for a single seater beyond defending RN bases, and maybe if some were available down the road as carrier point defense as a nice extra, but it wasnt a priority, they wanted Fulmars and Fireflies... until Norway.

And by then the Fulmars were coming out.

If you make them want single seaters earlier they can get Hurricanes and put them in their converted carriers, no immediate need for wing fold due to the large elevators, after Norway they would need wing-fold, still no better alternatives available other than the historical ones and the Hurri was an accidentally fine carrier aircraft, get a wing fold version.

But what would the FAA change its mind? They already knew the USN and IJN operated single-seaters, and the KM was expected to, none of that changed their mind. Even with SH and SF on their decks they pushed forward with the Firefly...

 

[jetcal1]

Does one of our experts know how long it took the Canadian Aircraft Industry to tool up for Helldiver, Lancaster or Mosquito production? One data point, it took the Soviets 3 years to reverse engineer, tool and produce the B-29.

First Contract Dec 1942, 30 were delivered by the end of 1943 with another 706 by the end of 1944 and 398 in 1945.

Maybe we should look at the Canadian Hurricane production?

 

[pbehn]

To be fair, it was actually very impressive what they did, since it was the 1940s and there was a thing called the Battle of the Atlantic going on. Not easy without all the stuff we have today, like the internet and photocopiers fax machines etc.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Secondly the Martlet was designed around USA drawing practices, for a very lengthy list of USA sub contract ancillaries and USA metals available off the shelf in the USA. The whole airframe would need redesigning to take UK ancillaries and use UK production metals.

Canada was already producing the Martlet's predecessor the Wright Cyclone-powered Grumman Goblin. CC&F has the contacts with Wright and Grumman - hopefully that can expedite things.

 

[Shortround6]

They will fit but if you think the Wildcat/Martlet was underpowered with the existing engines then the Taurus or Pegasus would really have been underperformers.
The only reason the Beaufort stayed with the Taurus was a ship with 200 P & W R-1830s got torpedoed and the British concluded that using the Taurus (with it's problems) was better than a rather uncertain supply of engine from the US.

Grumman Martlet first flight 2 September 1937

This falls into the 'be careful what you ask for, you just might get it". The 1937 XF4F-2

Note the rounded fin and rudder, the cowl guns and a few other things? like shorter, smaller wings with round tips.
Most of this stuff got sorted out in 1938-39. The rebuilt XF4F-4 flew on Feb 12th 1939. However all was not sunshine and roses.
Wing dihedral was increased, aileron area was decreased, rudder horn area was increased. A number of modifications were taken to address engine cooling problems. Like a large spinner, propeller blade cuffs, and several configurations of of cowling flaps.
The first two "production" aircraft (nos 1844 and 1845) were not delivered in Aug of 1940 and were NOT up to production standard.

If in summer 1939 when the Air Ministry asks CC&F for the Martlet, Grumman was already producing the Wildcat

see above.
BTW grumman built about 106 Wildcats, Martlets, G-36s in all of 1940 with none being completed in the first six months.

I would note that it took Eastern Aircraft from Jan 28th 1942 until Aug 31st 1942 to go from signing contract to delivering first FM-1 fighter (with some Grumman supplied parts) despite being under 200 miles from the Grumman home plant and sending hundreds of employees to not only Grumman but P & W and other component manufacturers. Eastern Aircraft had to build up it's own subcontractor/supply network. trying to establish licence production across the Atlantic several years earlier (and change all the drawings) does not seem feasible.

For some insight into what it took see. A History of Eastern Aircraft During World War Two
for an online book about Eastern Aircraft (war time publishing date)

 

[Admiral Beez]

This falls into the 'be careful what you ask for, you just might get it". The 1937 XF4F-2
View attachment 574409
Note the rounded fin and rudder, the cowl guns and a few other things? like shorter, smaller wings with round tips.
Most of this stuff got sorted out in 1938-39. The rebuilt XF4F-4 flew on Feb 12th 1939. However all was not sunshine and roses.

If this is where both start, perhaps this is where the British/Canadian variant of the Wildcat diverges from the American.

 

[Shortround6]

If this is where both start, perhaps this is where the British/Canadian variant of the Wildcat diverges from the American.

To what purpose?

You are going to get a crappy, ill handling airplane with poor armament, an underpowered but overheating engine and several other faults.
That is the original XF4F-2.
If you wait for the XF4F-3 of 1939 and quickly negotiate a licence you are probably a year or more from start of production and a year and half from squadron service.
You also need to come up with an engine. The British did not get a Martlet/Wildcat with the two stage engine until Dec of 1942.
Considering that USN and Marines had to accept 65 F4F-3A with two speed engines and not two stage engines in 1941 the chances of the British or Canadians getting any two stage engines are zero.
you have four choices,
1, A purchased P & W R-1830 with either a singe speed or two speed supercharger.
2. A purchased Wright R-1820 Cyclone with two speed supercharger.
3. A Bristol Pegasus with single speed or two speed supercharger.
4. A Bristol Taurus with single speed supercharger.

The last is really too horrible to really think about.
The Pegasus has possibilities but if the RN pilots thought the Martlet was underpowered with the Cyclone engine then 235hp less for take-off and 200hp less at low altitudes and around 100hp less at high altitudes is hardly going to impress anybody. (things a bit better when 100 octane show up but that is not in 1939 for the RN?)
The Cyclone is what powered the majority of early Martlets historically. Just pick the right one and put up with the oil difficulties.
Martlets with two speed P & W engines only showed up in March of 1941, there seems to be period when P & W was offering the two stage engine (offering doesn't really mean in production) with the two speed single stage engines being offered later (but going into production near the same time or a bit before?) making trying to figure out exactiming of purchases/orders a bit difficult as they are different than deliveries.

 

[Admiral Beez]

To what purpose?

None, you would suggest.

 

[Graeme]

Does one of our experts know how long it took the Canadian Aircraft Industry to tool up for Helldiver, Lancaster or Mosquito production? One data point, it took the Soviets 3 years to reverse engineer, tool and produce the B-29.

For the Lancaster, the order was announced in December 1941.
Drawings arrived in January 1942.
First flight of Lancaster X prototype (KB700) was 1st August 1943.

 

[yulzari]

.
4. A Bristol Taurus with single speed supercharger.

The last is really too horrible to really think about.

Why the hatred for the Taurus? It's development was horribly stunted but it saw oceanic service in Albacores and Beauforts and they did not keep on falling out of the sky when the noisy whirly thing stopped. Albacores were still being made with the Taurus in 1943 and Taurus Beauforts in 1944. Handy to have the same engine in your Martlets your Albacore I would think. Maybe not the best choice but not impractical I think.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Handy to have the same engine in your Martlets your Albacore I would think. Maybe not the best choice but not impractical I think.

If we're license producing the Martlet in the UK we can get the Taurus or other Bristol radials. But if in Canada or Australia I'd suggest a Wright or P&W engine would be easier to procure. Note how Canadian Hurricane and Lancaster production switched from RR to Packard Merlins at their earliest opportunity.

Was a Bristol radial ever tested in any US single engined fighter?

 

[Admiral Beez]

First Contract Dec 1942, 30 were delivered by the end of 1943 with another 706 by the end of 1944 and 398 in 1945.

Maybe we should look at the Canadian Hurricane production?

For a pre-war contract, the Canadian Hurricane production moved quickly. The order was placed in March 1939, and the first was flying in January 1940. That's ten months from start to the prototype below to duplicate technical drawings, create production tooling, procure and ship engines, etc.

 

[swampyankee]

The only mass production version of the Wildcat with the Cyclone was the FM-2 plus a few Wildcats ordered by France. The others all used the R-1830.

 

[pbehn]

They will fit but if you think the Wildcat/Martlet was underpowered with the existing engines then the Taurus or Pegasus would really have been underperformers.
The only reason the Beaufort stayed with the Taurus was a ship with 200 P & W R-1830s got torpedoed and the British concluded that using the Taurus (with it's problems) was better than a rather uncertain supply of engine from the US.



This falls into the 'be careful what you ask for, you just might get it". The 1937 XF4F-2
View attachment 574409
Note the rounded fin and rudder, the cowl guns and a few other things? like shorter, smaller wings with round tips.
Most of this stuff got sorted out in 1938-39. The rebuilt XF4F-4 flew on Feb 12th 1939. However all was not sunshine and roses.
Wing dihedral was increased, aileron area was decreased, rudder horn area was increased. A number of modifications were taken to address engine cooling problems. Like a large spinner, propeller blade cuffs, and several configurations of of cowling flaps.
The first two "production" aircraft (nos 1844 and 1845) were not delivered in Aug of 1940 and were NOT up to production standard.




see above.
BTW grumman built about 106 Wildcats, Martlets, G-36s in all of 1940 with none being completed in the first six months.

I would note that it took Eastern Aircraft from Jan 28th 1942 until Aug 31st 1942 to go from signing contract to delivering first FM-1 fighter (with some Grumman supplied parts) despite being under 200 miles from the Grumman home plant and sending hundreds of employees to not only Grumman but P & W and other component manufacturers. Eastern Aircraft had to build up it's own subcontractor/supply network. trying to establish licence production across the Atlantic several years earlier (and change all the drawings) does not seem feasible.

For some insight into what it took see. A History of Eastern Aircraft During World War Two
for an online book about Eastern Aircraft (war time publishing date)

Exactly my point, there is a sort of ceremony with licensed production where some examples are delivered along with the drawings and standards and a statement made that these drawings and standards produce this product. If that product isn't what is wanted who decides on the changes, you would have two parallel R&D efforts either side of the Atlantic.

 

[jetcal1]

For a pre-war contract, the Canadian Hurricane production moved quickly. The order was placed in March 1939, and the first was flying in January 1940. That's ten months from start to the prototype below to duplicate technical drawings, create production tooling, procure and ship engines, etc.

View attachment 574472

While you're correct the contract was pre-war. Please consider the Weir Mission and the Anglo-French commission had been spending money like crazy for about year by then. Aircraft factories were probably really spooled up by then.

 

[Reluctant Poster]

The only mass production version of the Wildcat with the Cyclone was the FM-2 plus a few Wildcats ordered by France. The others all used the R-1830.

The FM-2 accounted for more than 60% of Wildcat production. Otherwise the only Cyclone powered models were the 81 Martlet Is (ex French) and the 220 Marlet IVs.

 

[RCAFson]

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

Grumman didn't design FWs until early 1941 and first prototype by Grumman was April 1941.

Without folding wings the Martlet is worse than the Fulmar, because it can't be stowed in the hangar on the first 3 Illustrious class, and no advantage over a Sea Hurricane.

For less cost, the production of Fulmars could have been increased, and more Sea Hurricanes built sooner.