Was timely Martlet license production possible?

[Admiral Beez]

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.

This thread isn't really about what should be, but what could be done. That aside, licence-built Martlets are firstly not replacing the Fulmar and CC&F produced very few Sea Hurricanes. Secondly, any production of the early Martlets with underpowered engines and non-folding wings will set up the plants for the more powerful, folding wing variants later on.

 

[RCAFson]

This thread isn't really about what should be, but what could be done. That aside, licence-built Martlets are firstly not replacing the Fulmar and CC&F produced very few Sea Hurricanes. Secondly, any production of the early Martlets with underpowered engines and non-folding wings will set up the plants for the more powerful, folding wing variants later on.

Regarding CCF, the first Sea Hurricane 1B prototype was a conversion in the UK of a CCF built Mk1. CCF built Sea Hurricanes upon request, and if requested, their entire production, from Mid 1941, could have been factory built Sea Hurricanes.

 

[Shortround6]

This thread isn't really about what should be, but what could be done

This rather depends on how much we use the good old retrospectoscope doesn't it?

Secondly, any production of the early Martlets with underpowered engines and non-folding wings will set up the plants for the more powerful, folding wing variants later on.

In other words the plan is to tool up a factory and build crap for one to two years until the engines and modifications that will turn the Wildcat (or other plane, we have lot of thread like this) into a really useful plane are developed and implement and then in our hypothetical scenario we are in a really good position?

Go back and look at some of the earlier posts. Do a bit of homework.
The Original short wing XF4F-2 lost the fly off competition to the Brewster Buffalo. Without knowledge from the future why on earth would any British commission or purchasing agency want to purchase the licence for the loosing design?
The 1937/38 XF4F-2 had TWO .50 cal guns in the fuselage, NONE in the wings, pretty standard for American aircraft but hardly impressive to the British.
The 1937/38 XF4F-2 had a top speed of 290mph.
The 1939 XF4F-3 had two .50 cal guns in the fuselage and one .50 cal gun in each wing. Better but still not anything the British were going to get excited about. Especially at 600rpm for the wing guns a lot less for the fuselage guns. Maybe the British can redesign the wings to hold 6-8 .303s?
By the time the "Production" F4F-3 flies in the Feb 1940 (and it stays in testing for months) the Canadians had been working on Hurricane production for 10-11 months and in fact the first Canadian Hurricane flies about month before "production" F4F-3.
Decision to Licence the XF4F-3 would have had to have been made within 2 months of it first flying and it needed a lot of sorting out.
Yes, it could have been done, to meet the letter of your intent. But it requires a scenario far removed from the reality of the time.

 

[pbehn]

The 1939 XF4F-3 had two .50 cal guns in the fuselage and one .50 cal gun in each wing. Better but still not anything the British were going to get excited about. Especially at 600rpm for the wing guns a lot less for the fuselage guns. Maybe the British can redesign the wings to hold 6-8 .303s?
.

Maybe, but that isn't licensed production it is joint development. The British could only undertake to produce the Martlet under license when there was a Martlet to produce not its prototypes or fore runners.

 

[Shortround6]

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.

It may have worked tolerably well in torpedo bombers. Although there may have been an issue with overheating?

However the majority of production Taurus engines made max power (FTH or critical altitude) at 3500ft. Which, however nice for a torpedo bomber, is not what you want in a fighter. No Taurus ever got a two speed supercharger. By the time you get to around 13,500ft power is down to about 940hp? Might work for fighting MC 200s?
The Cyclones in the early Martlets were good for 1000hp at 13,500ft according to one source.

If we really stretch the what if to include improved (but never actually made) Taurus engines then things may change. However in real time the Taurus was hardly a raging success in 1939-40 when this particular scenario is supposed to play out. If they were trying to import 200 R-1830s in 1940 for Beaufort production either the Taurus was screwing up by the numbers or Bristol couldn't make anywhere near enough of them (or a bit of both?)

 

[Shortround6]

Maybe, but that isn't licensed production it is joint development. The British could only undertake to produce the Martlet under license when there was a Martlet to produce not its prototypes or fore runners.

Pretty much my argument.

 

[pbehn]

Pretty much my argument.

Well made, just illustrating that "licensed production" and "joint development" are different things, if the British started putting "stuff" like guns into it Grumman would say "That's your plane not ours".

 

[Admiral Beez]

Did Britain or the CW license build any modern US types for the RAF and CW air forces during WW2? Yes, CC&F made the Curtiss Helldiver, but that was to fulfill USN orders. There is the pre-war Grumman FF (G23 Goblin) made by CC&F that was considered obsolete from the onset.

Other countries certainly license-built US types in the 1930s into WW2, including both Japanese and Soviet copies of the Douglas DC-3, and Argentina with the Curtiss Hawk 75O. The only sort'of example of Britain license building US aircraft during wartime I could find is when the assembly of Curtiss Hawks was moved from China to India.

Certainly post-war Britain and the CW license-built many US types, but during the war years I can't see much of this happening. This makes me think that the US was reluctant to authorize licenses to construct its most modern types in Britain or the CW. So, perhaps Martlet production is a non-starter politically.

EDIT - there was also the late war contract for CAC in Australia to produce the P-51 Mustang as the CA-17 (80 units, made from kits) and CA-18 (120 scratch built).

 

[swampyankee]

Did Britain or the CW license build any US types for the RAF and CW air forces during WW2? Yes, CC&F made the Curtiss Helldiver, but that was to fulfill USN orders.

Other countries certainly license-built US types in the 1930s into WW2, including both Japanese and Soviet copies of the Douglas DC-3, and Argentina with the Curtiss Hawk 75O. The only sort'of example of Britain license building US aircraft I could find is when the assembly of Curtiss Hawks was moved from China to India.

I think one issue was that there had been a long-standing policy in London to discourage industrialization in the Commonwealth, to enrich Great Britain, proper. Canada, since it was right next door to a very large, very industrialized nation was something of an exception.

Certainly post-war Britain and the CW license-built many US types, but during the war years I can't see much of this happening.

Other than Westland, with Sikorsky helicopters and the Apache, I can't think of any US airframe license built in the UK (there may have been others, but only Westland springs to mind). I can think of about the same number that went the other way.

 

[RCAFson]

Did Britain or the CW license build any modern US types for the RAF and CW air forces during WW2? Yes, CC&F made the Curtiss Helldiver, but that was to fulfill USN orders. There is the pre-war Grumman FF (G23 Goblin) made by CC&F that was considered obsolete from the onset.
.

CCF was tapped to supply the Helldiver to the RN if it had proved suitable and if the USN released it in quantity.

 

[Admiral Beez]

CCF was tapped to supply the Helldiver to the RN if it had proved suitable and if the USN released it in quantity.

That would have been interesting, as the FAA hadn't operated a dedicated dive bomber since the Skua was withdrawn in 1941.

If the FAA didn't want them, perhaps the RAF would have liked the A-25A to reinforce its Vengeance squadrons in India. The RAF did try out the earlier Helldiver, known as the Cleveland Mk.I. They were used as trainers.

 

[RCAFson]

That would have been interesting, as the FAA hadn't operated a dedicated dive bomber since the Skua was withdrawn in 1941.

If the FAA didn't want them, perhaps the RAF would have liked the A-25A to reinforce its Vengeance squadrons in India. The RAF did try out the earlier Helldiver, known as the Cleveland Mk.I. They were used as trainers.

View attachment 574584

Until the later variants of the SB2C-3 arrived, the SB2C probably had too many limitations to be readily accepted outside the USN.

The Helldiver (SB2C) wasn't a dedicated divebomber, although it was used as one, because it could be used as a torpedo bomber as well. However, it wasn't until 1944 that a quick conversion kit became available to allow rapid switching to the torpedo bomber role, and when it became available there were calls to remove the TBF/TBM from USN fleet carriers.

 

[Admiral Beez]

The Helldiver (SB2C) wasn't a dedicated divebomber, although it was used as one, because it could be used as a torpedo bomber as well.

I didn't know that. Was the dual role Barracuda better?

 

[RCAFson]

I didn't know that. Was the dual role Barracuda better?

View attachment 574588

The Barracuda had an effective torpedo, which was the other part of the equation that the USN didn't get fixed until late 1944. For the RN, though, the SB2C was too large to fit in most RN hangars anyways.

 

[Admiral Beez]

For the RN, though, the SB2C was too large to fit in most RN hangars anyways.

The aeronautical origami of the folded Barracuda is impressive.

 

[nuuumannn]

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.

Firstly, not true. The FAA had a long history of single-seaters and the Fulmar was a stop gap, not intended as the FAA's primary fighter defence of its carriers - it was designed as a fighter reconnaissance aircraft capable of being catapulted and put into service quickly. Before the war, the Admiralty requested a Sea Spitfire and Supermarine prepared drawings, but no immdiate action was taken because getting the Spitfire into production was number one priority, once war broke out it again requested this and was denied because the RAF was first priority, naturally.

The Firebrand was supposed to be the FAA's single-seat fighter and unfortunately because of delays etc, the FAA had to make do with the Fulmar, then buying the F4F, then converting the Sea Hurricane, then eventually the Seafire - and still the Firebrand was too big and too late. In between times there was significant amounts of work among the manufacturers for a potential single-seat FAA fighter throughout the early years of the war whilst the Firebrand was waited on. The FAA released a spec for an interim fighter that Miles proposed the M.20 to, but it was decided not to take that route due to it being unsuitable as a carrier aircraft. Hawker examined the Sea Typhoon as an altewrnative to the Firebrand, but it was promised on the same time scale as the Firebrand, so the Admiralty wanted something sooner and it was not pursued. Boulton Paul also offered a single-seat Defiant with forward facing armament as a stop gap carrier fighter, but was told to shut up and build the Blackburn Roc.

The theory that the FAA didn't want or need single-seaters on its carriers is misguided as there was plenty of effort made to acquire them; things just didn't work out the way the Admiralty intended.

we'd need license-made Martlets

Nope, for the simple fact that the Martlet was intended as a stop gap only until the Seafire and/or Firebrand was ready. The first Martlets were ordered by the FAA, then the Lend lease programme came in, which meant that Britain could take advantage of the vast production capability the USA offered.

Devoting precious time and resources to an aircraft that was likely to require replacing by the time it rolled off the production line was a waste of resources; by mid war, the FAA had the first Seafires and Lend Lease had kicked in, so it had access to Hellcats, Wildcats and F4Us. Sure, the FAA didn't know that in advance, but by mid/late 1940 the FAA had options and they certainly didn't involve licence production of a foreign type.

it took the Soviets 3 years to reverse engineer, tool and produce the B-29.

When Andrei Tupolev said it would take three years to replicate the B-29, Stalin famously said "you have two years..." And indeed, it took just shy of that period. It was a remarkable achievement for an industry that had never built anything as technically complex or technologically advanced as the B-29.

 

[Admiral Beez]

The Firebrand was supposed to be the FAA's single-seat fighter and unfortunately because of delays etc, the FAA had to make do with the Fulmar,

Considering the operational date of the Centaurus, it seems the FAA were blindly optimistic to the have Firebrand in service before 1944/45. Had they specified a Merlin fighter instead of the Centaurus they would have got something a little smaller, but competitive and able to take a Griffon.

EDIT, I see on Wikipedia that the Sabre engine was originally specified. That makes more sense.

 

[Shortround6]

The Centaurus fell woefully behind schedule, a test engine was first run in 1938. It was a casualty of the whole sleeve valve situation as development had to sidelined to get the Hercules to run right and get into large scale production. however this flew in October of 1941

although this appears to be a bit later version.

 

[swampyankee]

Instead of a license-built Grumman aircraft, how about a decent aircraft instead of, say, the Roc? I'm sorry, but "turret fighter" was basically a dumb idea, and I don't think one needs 20/20 hindsight to figure that out. The turret, its mechanism, and the gunner must have added well over 1,200 lb to the aircraft and probably added 15% to its zero-lift drag.

This should also be a clean-sheet design, but even a monoplane (even fixed-gear!) derivative of the Gladiator would be better than the Roc.

 

[tomo pauk]

This should also be a clean-sheet design, but even a monoplane (even fixed-gear!) derivative of the Gladiator would be better than the Roc.

Basically the 'A5M plus' (Mercury was a more powerful engine than the Kotobuki, even on 87 oct fuel), or, a 'naval Ki-27 plus'?