Was Vickers Jockey a credible replacement for the Fairey Flycatcher?

[Admiral Beez]

The Fairey Flycatcher served as the FAA's frontline carrier fighter from about 1924 until 1934 when it was replaced by the 194 mph Hawker Nimrod.

In the early 1930s the 218 mph Vickers Jockey was undergoing carrier trials. Could it have replaced the Flycatcher and thus become one of the first monoplane carrier fighters? Perhaps followed by the Venom.



With a wingspan of 23 ft 6 in the Jockey could fit down the lifts on all three Courageous/Furious class plus Hermes, Eagle and Argus.

 

[Kevin J]

The Fairey Flycatcher served as the FAA's frontline carrier fighter from about 1924 until 1934 when it was replaced by the 194 mph Hawker Nimrod.

In the early 1930s the 218 mph Vickers Jockey was undergoing carrier trials. Could it have replaced the Flycatcher and thus become one of the first monoplane carrier fighters? Perhaps followed by the Venom.



With a wingspan of 23 ft 6 in the Jockey could fit down the lifts on all three Courageous/Furious class plus Hermes, Eagle and Argus.

View attachment 570470

I think you'll find that 23 feet is a wiki misprint. Look at the bird view of it. It's 32 feet.

 

[Admiral Beez]

I think you'll find that 23 feet is a wiki misprint. Look at the bird view of it. It's 32 feet.

Noted. It is said that information is often worth what you paid for it, and Wikipedia, well that's free.

32 feet will still clear the 46-by-48-foot lifts on the Courageous class and the 36-by-36-foot lifts on Hermes. Eagle and Furious should be fine too. Vickers, of course owned Supermarine, so the FAA adopting the Jockey might have led to more interest/support in Mitchell designing something in the late 1930s dedicated for the FAA that was equal to the Spitfire (rather than a navalized Seafire - designed after Mitchell's death).

 

[Graeme]

The film clip is also titled wrong. It's not the Vickers Jockey landing, it's the Vickers 125 Vireo.

Vickers Vireo - Wikipedia

 

[glennasher]

It sure looks like a Peashooter (Boeing P-26), doesn't it?

 

[nuuumannn]

It sure looks like a Peashooter (Boeing P-26), doesn't it?

You mean the P-26 looks like the Vickers Jockey, the former came out two years after the latter.

The Vireo and Jockey were two quite different types - the former was built to Spec 17/25 for a single-seat ship plane and incorporated design influence by French designer Michel Wibault and was all metal, first flying in March 1928. In the clip its seen landing on Furious on 12 July 1929. It was not proceeded with due to being underpowered and it was found in trials to be no faster than the Fairey IIIF observation biplane in service with the FAA at the time - sheesh.

The Jockey was built to Specification F.20/27 for a 'High Performance Single-Seat Day Fighter' and was plagued with niggling issues, like the Vireo, but managed to impress, although it went through a few engine type changes. First flying in April 1930, it was destroyed in a flat spin in June 1932, which was a shame as it had real potential as a fighter. The Jockey II went on to be built to F.5/34 and was renamed Venom, which also had potential for the time, possessing excellent performance.

I'd have to admit that the Jockey with its promise would have served as a good interceptor, but structurally it needed strengthening, as this was one of its weaknesses. As a carrier fighter, it would need beefing up considerably, which might have nullified any advantages it had over existing types by the time it was brought into service.

 

[glennasher]

"You mean the P-26 looks like the Vickers Jockey, the former came out two years after the latter. "


Potato, po-tah-to, the resemblance is very strong.

 

[nuuumannn]

Potato, po-tah-to, the resemblance is very strong.

Just makin' sure glennasher, there's no suggestion the Jockey was a copy of the P-26, you know how things can be misconstrued round here. Gotta keep ya on yer toes.

 

[glennasher]

Just makin' sure glennasher, there's no suggestion the Jockey was a copy of the P-26, you know how things can be misconstrued round here. Gotta keep ya on yer toes.

IIRC, the Japanese Claude was also very similar in appearance, and it was quite a bit later than those two. I guess if the layout worked, everyone did their own interpretation or approximation of the original.
Why not? The US used the Mauser as a basis for their Springfields, as did the Brits with their 1914s.

 

[nuuumannn]

Why not?

Because not even the British could base an aircraft on a design that was two years into the future! I'm pulling your leg, Glennasher.