Was timely Martlet license production possible?

[Shortround6]

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.

Even if turret fighter wasn't quite as dumb as you say (and I do agree with you) the idea that you could make a useful terret fighter using an engine barely more powerful than the one used in the Gladiator should have shot up red flags, flares, and warning signs the size of billboards hung from Big Ben.
Dumb doesn't begin to describe it.

 

[swampyankee]

Even if turret fighter wasn't quite as dumb as you say (and I do agree with you) the idea that you could make a useful terret fighter using an engine barely more powerful than the one used in the Gladiator should have shot up red flags, flares, and warning signs the size of billboards hung from Big Ben.
Dumb doesn't begin to describe it.

Agreed. Basing it on the Skua, hardly an example of sterling aerodynamics, didn't help. Even a rank amateur designer would realize that adding weight and drag to an aircraft too slow to be an effective fighter would not make an effective fighter. One wonders what the staffs at both the Fleet Air Arm and Blackburn were thinking. The manufacturer, at least, should have been using their outside voice to tell the government that this was a stupid idea that would not work. If the FAA didn't listen, tell the Cabinet and Parliament that they're getting an absolutely stupid request that has absolutely no chance of producing a fighter that could beat the Gladiator, let alone a Messerschmidt.

 

[Shortround6]

But it could intercept and shoot down a Do 18

He 115 might be a problem. which means the bar is practically underground it is so low.

 

[Admiral Beez]

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.

I'd even take a biplane with retractable gear over the Skua, like the Canadian Car and Foundry FDB-1.

Agreed. Basing it on the Skua, hardly an example of sterling aerodynamics, didn't help. Even a rank amateur designer would realize that adding weight and drag to an aircraft too slow to be an effective fighter would not make an effective fighter.

I imagine removal of the rear seat, dive brakes, bomb racks and fittings, a more streamlined canopy and a little smoothing out of the exterior surfaces would have made the Skua something faster than the Gladiator. I'm surprised that no one at Blackburn thought to give it a try. I mean, here's a Roc without the turret, didn't anyone think, hmm...?

 

[swampyankee]

The British seemed to have had an inordinate fondness for turreted fighters.

 

[swampyankee]

But it could intercept and shoot down a Do 18

He 115 might be a problem. which means the bar is practically underground it is so low.

Could it? I'm not sure a Roc could outmaneuver a moored barrage balloon.

 

[Shortround6]

here's a Roc without the turret, didn't anyone think, hmm...?

And then they thought, man that was some really bad ale at the pub last night.

Rock has a wing bigger than the one on P-47 and thicker, Engine has about 45% of the power.
Trying to turn big wing, small engine load carriers into fighters by changing the canopy is like trying make a race car out of an estate car/station wagon by cutting the roof off.

 

[RCAFson]

And then they thought, man that was some really bad ale at the pub last night.

Rock has a wing bigger than the one on P-47 and thicker, Engine has about 45% of the power.
Trying to turn big wing, small engine load carriers into fighters by changing the canopy is like trying make a race car out of an estate car/station wagon by cutting the roof off.

Compare the Skua and Roc with single seat naval fighters in 1939 but also remember that the Skua/Roc had an engine that was expressly optimized for low altitude performance, so on paper, the SS naval fighters appear faster, but in reality there was little difference under ~8K ft where most of the fighting took place.

IJN = A5M

USN = F3F

UK = GSG

Building the Roc as a turret fighter was a bad idea rather than building more Skuas, but the aircraft was capable of divebombing and it actually had a lot of potential as a strike/Recon aircraft.

 

[Shortround6]

Compare the Skua and Roc with single seat naval fighters in 1939 but also remember that the Skua/Roc had an engine that was expressly optimized for low altitude performance, so on paper, the SS naval fighters appear faster, but in reality there was little difference under ~8K ft where most of the fighting took place.

IJN = A5M

USN = F3F

Things aren't as rosy for the Roc as it appears. The A%M hada wing about 2/3s the size, was around 1/2 the weight and hit is max speed at 3000 meters. Engine in the Skua/Roc hit peak power at 6,500ft, better for low altitude work but the A5M wasn't exactly high altitude either.
The F3Fs with Wright cyclone engines used a two speed supercharger, High gear had a FTL at around 14-15,000ft but low gear peaked at about 6,000ft.

 

[RCAFson]

Things aren't as rosy for the Roc as it appears. The A%M hada wing about 2/3s the size, was around 1/2 the weight and hit is max speed at 3000 meters. Engine in the Skua/Roc hit peak power at 6,500ft, better for low altitude work but the A5M wasn't exactly high altitude either.
The F3Fs with Wright cyclone engines used a two speed supercharger, High gear had a FTL at around 14-15,000ft but low gear peaked at about 6,000ft.

It not a question of things being rosy, but of putting the aircraft into proper perspective.

However, the Skua/Roc was better armed than any of it's contemporaries and, again, the speed differential is not nearly as great any many would assume. We have ~225mph for the Skua (with a 500lb bomb) at 6700ft, and the GSG was about the same, and the other fighters are going to be slower than at their rated altitudes.

Add in folding wings for the Skua/Roc as well.

 

[tomo pauk]

However, the Skua/Roc was better armed than any of it's contemporaries and, again, the speed differential is not nearly as great any many would assume. We have ~225mph for the Skua (with a 500lb bomb) at 6700ft, and the GSG was about the same, and the other fighters are going to be slower than at their rated altitudes.
...

Any sources for the speed figure with bomb?

 

[RCAFson]

Any sources for the speed figure with bomb?

Friedman, British Carrier Aviation, p.370.

196 knots (225.5mph) at 6700ft at 8228lb with a 500lb bomb.

 

[tomo pauk]

Friedman, British Carrier Aviation, p.370.

196 knots (225.5mph) at 6700ft at 8228lb with a 500lb bomb.

Thank you. What was the speed without the bomb?

 

[Freebird]

Agreed. Basing it on the Skua, hardly an example of sterling aerodynamics, didn't help. Even a rank amateur designer would realize that adding weight and drag to an aircraft too slow to be an effective fighter would not make an effective fighter. One wonders what the staffs at both the Fleet Air Arm and Blackburn were thinking.

Keep in mind that it was a mid 30's design that ceased production in 1939, so (IIRC) not even built during WWII.
It was a very early example of a monoplane dive-bomber, the fact that it was almost as fast as a contemporary biplane was a bonus.
As the fighter/observation Fulmar was ready to enter service the FAA clearly wasn't planning to have the Roc/Skua as its primary fighter.

Also, any development prior to June 1940 would assume that British carriers wouldn't face modern land based fighters, or that escort missions would be needed - as without radar it was assumed that no defending fighters could react fast enough to intercept.

British carriers wouldn't see much action in the Med - that's a French problem.

 

[tomo pauk]

Keep in mind that it was a mid 30's design that ceaced production in 1939, so (IIRC) not even built during WWII.
It was a very early example of a monoplane dive-bomber, the fact that it was almost as fast as a contemporary biplane was a bonus.
As the fighter/observation Fulmar was ready to enter service the FAA clearly wasn't planning to have the Roc/Skua as its primary fighter.

Also, any development prior to June 1940 would assume that British carriers wouldn't face modern land based fighters, or that escort missions would be needed - as without radar it was assumed that no defending fighters could react fast enough to intercept.
...

(my bold)
What about the modern bombers that might target the RN?

 

[RCAFson]

Thank you. What was the speed without the bomb?

It's not stated. The SBD-3 lost 6 mph when fitted with a 500lb bomb.

 

[RCAFson]

(my bold)
What about the modern bombers that might target the RN?

The Skua was reasonably successful against Luftwaffe bombers and racked up a fair number of kills off Norway and a few more in the Med. Again, remember that it had twice the firepower of the A5M and somewhat more than the F3F.

 

[swampyankee]

Compare the Skua and Roc with single seat naval fighters in 1939 but also remember that the Skua/Roc had an engine that was expressly optimized for low altitude performance, so on paper, the SS naval fighters appear faster, but in reality there was little difference under ~8K ft where most of the fighting took place.

IJN = A5M

USN = F3F

UK = GSG

Building the Roc as a turret fighter was a bad idea rather than building more Skuas, but the aircraft was capable of divebombing and it actually had a lot of potential as a strike/Recon aircraft.

The reported top speed of the F3F was 264 mph, that of the Roc, 228 mph. The Skua is listed (Blackburn B-24 Skua | BAE Systems | International) as 225 mph in fighter configuration. The Roc is listed at 223 mph from Blackburn B-25 Roc | BAE Systems | International. Since it heavier than the Skua, with the same engine, I would expect it to be slower than the Skua.

It compares rather badly with the F3F and the Sea Gladiator.

 

[Freebird]

(my bold)
What about the modern bombers that might target the RN?

From where?
Before 1940 Carriers were assumed to operate beyond "reasonable" range of land based air power, which is perhaps a hundred or so miles* at best.
*Even assuming that a land based force could locate the carrier, then assemble and launch a strike.

With British airbases at Gibraltar, Malta, Alexandria, Aden, Singapore, Ceylon etc, there are very few places where a British fleet would be in range of enemies, but beyond range of friendly air cover.

The Fulmar was planned as a step forward in fighter defence, capable of catching 1939 attackers, Do17, He111, B5N etc.

Obviously the doctrine was before everything changed radically in 1940

 

[Freebird]

The reported top speed of the F3F was 264 mph, that of the Roc, 228 mph. The Skua is listed (Blackburn B-24 Skua | BAE Systems | International) as 225 mph in fighter configuration. The Roc is listed at 223 mph from Blackburn B-25 Roc | BAE Systems | International. Since it heavier than the Skua, with the same engine, I would expect it to be slower than the Skua.

It compares rather badly with the F3F and the Sea Gladiator.

The F3F compares fairly closely with the 253mph Gloster Gladiator which entered service in 1937.
The Skua was designed to be able to dive bomb, not as a pure fighter.