What were other options than the Seafire?

[Admiral Beez]

Did Britain consider other options than the Spitfire for the FAA? The RN needs a new fighter, eventually one introduced in April 1943 with folding wings. If the Air Ministry or WC prevented a navalized Spitfire would this simply be greater and earlier deployment of the Firefly? What happens to the Sea Hurricane? Was the Typhoon and its unreliable Sabre considered?

 

[wuzak]

Did Britain consider other options than the Spitfire for the FAA? The RN needs a new fighter, eventually one introduced in April 1943 with folding wings. Would this simply be greater and earlier deployment of the Firefly?

Earlier deployment of the Firefly was not going to happen, given when development started and the production timeline of its engine, the Griffon.

Other options were considered - such as the Sea Hurricane. The RN would have preferred the Seafire, but they would have to wait a year or two for that.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Other options were considered - such as the Sea Hurricane.

The Sea Hurricane was already in service when the Spitfire was being considered. Sea Hurricane entered fleet service in Jan 1941, compared to the Seafire's fleet introduction in June 1942.

Are you suggesting extending and expanding the Sea Hurricane's service was considered? Was a folding wing version in the works? All three Illustrious and Ark Royal would not be able to stow it otherwise. Was the Sea Hurricane competitive into 1943?

To be clear folks, I'm not seeking a What'If thread, this is the wrong place. I'm curious about what was considered along with the Spitfire, not what should or could have been.

 

[nuuumannn]

To answer your question, Admiral, yes, the admiralty did consider other options for an FAA single-seater, although it should be noted that the navy did want a 'Sea-Spitfire' from before the war. There is a misconception that the admiralty was not interested in single-seat carrier fighters around the late 30s, but there was much activity in this field among British manufacturers. The principal single-seater was to be the Blackburn Firebrand, with Hawker proposing a Sea Typhoon as a back up. Miles was working on a navalised M.20 stop-gap fighter and what became the Firefly was originally two separate specifications, one of which stipulated a turret fighter. Of course the Roc became the navy's turret fighter and that was a disaster, but Boulton Paul was investigating a naval Defiant single seater, but was forced to build the Roc, which it didn't want to do.

The Sea Hurricane was meant to be a stop-gap only until the Firebrand was ready, but that was a long conviluted story that never satisfactorily came to a suitable conclusion, and so the Seafire became the FAA's fighter du jour, as well as aircraft supplied from the USA. Grumman Martlets were ordered by the FAA to carry over until the Firebrand was ready, and later models were supplied under Lend lease, as well as Hellcats and Corsairs.

 

[wuzak]

The Sea Hurricane was already in service when the Spitfire was being considered. Sea Hurricane entered fleet service in Jan 1941, compared to the Seafire's fleet introduction in June 1942.

Are you suggesting extending and expanding the Sea Hurricane's service was considered? Was a folding wing version in the works? All three Illustrious and Ark Royal would not be able to stow it otherwise. Was the Sea Hurricane competitive into 1943?

To be clear folks, I'm not seeking a What'If thread, this is the wrong place. I'm curious about what was considered along with the Spitfire, not what should or could have been.

Yes, a navalised Spitfire was considered by the Admiralty pre-WW2. The discussion were in 1939, or even 1938. The discussions also involved the Hurricane, which the Admiralty considered of marginal use because it would struggle to intercept the Ju 88.

Supermarine prepared several navalised Spitfire proposals, including ones with folding wings and one with a completely new wing.

It was calculated that each Seafire would cost 2 Spitfires in production, which was not acceptable for the RAF.

Eventually the FAA got the Sea Hurricane and later the Seafire.

 

[Kevin J]

IIRC Fairey was asked to build a naval Spitfire. Fairey responded withe the Firefly which got a contract.

 

[nuuumannn]

IIRC Fairey was asked to build a naval Spitfire. Fairey responded withe the Firefly which got a contract.

Sort of, in a roundabout way. It came about from the merging of two separate specs, both of which for two-seaters, one of which was a turret fighter - a popular concept to which the British launched a number of specs for in the late 30s, even altering a night fighter one in late 1940 to include a turret. These specs were N.8/39 for a two-seat fighter and N.9/39 for a turret fighter. Both were pretty much identical apart from armament disposition.

Supermarine, Gloster, Hawker and Fairey submitted entries to N.8/39 and N.9/39 received entries from Blackburn, Fairey, Gloster, Hawker and Westland, but despite interesting proposals, the admiralty cancelled the turret fighter and changed to a single-seat fighter, to which the Firebrand was ordered. Fairey's did look like a Spitfire, a lot, with its elliptical wing, but powered alternatively by a Griffon or a Sabre. The Firefly however came from N.8/39 being replaced by N.5/40 or 5/40/F as is often written, as a replacement for the Fulmar, which was intended as an interim until N.8/39 and N.9/39 was fulfilled.

 

[Navalwarrior]

Did Britain consider other options than the Spitfire for the FAA? The RN needs a new fighter, eventually one introduced in April 1943 with folding wings. If the Air Ministry or WC prevented a navalized Spitfire would this simply be greater and earlier deployment of the Firefly? What happens to the Sea Hurricane? Was the Typhoon and its unreliable Sabre considered?

Resp:
Years ago I read where the Air Ministry (?) decided against creating separate air panels for the RAF and FAA. Prefering to have one panel for the two separate air forces. The result is that the FAA suffered from not having a Naval fighter designed/built from the ground up. Hence, the FAA's dependence upon USA's Corsair/Hellcat.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Resp:
Years ago I read where the Air Ministry (?) decided against creating separate air panels for the RAF and FAA. Prefering to have one panel for the two separate air forces. The result is that the FAA suffered from not having a Naval fighter designed/built from the ground up. Hence, the FAA's dependence upon USA's Corsair/Hellcat.

Same as today, with the RAF controlling the FAA's fighter aircraft. Lessons forgotten I think.

 

[RCAFson]

The Sea Hurricane was already in service when the Spitfire was being considered. Sea Hurricane entered fleet service in Jan 1941, compared to the Seafire's fleet introduction in June 1942.

Are you suggesting extending and expanding the Sea Hurricane's service was considered? Was a folding wing version in the works? All three Illustrious and Ark Royal would not be able to stow it otherwise. Was the Sea Hurricane competitive into 1943?

To be clear folks, I'm not seeking a What'If thread, this is the wrong place. I'm curious about what was considered along with the Spitfire, not what should or could have been.

Hawker designed a folding wing for the Sea Hurricane, but I've never seen additional details. The Sea Hurricane II was considerably superior to the Martlet/F4F-4 and was the highest performing Allied naval fighter, after the Seafire, until the F6F shows up in mid 1943.

It was, most probably, the promise of US naval fighters that limited the development of UK aircraft, especially the Sea Hurricane.

 

[Kevin J]

Hawker designed a folding wing for the Sea Hurricane, but I've never seen additional details. The Sea Hurricane II was considerably superior to the Martlet/F4F-4 and was the highest performing Allied naval fighter, after the Seafire, until the F6F shows up in mid 1943.

It was, most probably, the promise of US naval fighters that limited the development of UK aircraft, especially the Sea Hurricane.

I'd dispute the Sea Hurricane is better than the Wildcat bit. It was a readily available alternative.

 

[Admiral Beez]

I'd dispute the Sea Hurricane is better than the Wildcat bit. It was a readily available alternative.

I was going to post the Winkle Brown report after he'd flown both, but suffice to say, both the Wildcat and Sea Hurricane were about equal to the point that pilot skill decides the day. Neither of them can turn with a Zeke.

 

[RCAFson]

I was going to post the Winkle Brown report after he'd flown both, but suffice to say, both the Wildcat and Sea Hurricane were about equal to the point that pilot skill decides the day. Neither of them can turn with a Zeke.

Absolute nonsense. How does an ~8000lb aircraft with 1200hp and the same wing area compete with a ~7500lb aircraft with ~1500hp?

The Sea Hurricane II was lighter and had ~20% more power, and 4 x 20mm cannon. The F4F-4 was a slug in comparison and it's only advantage was folding wings.

 

[RCAFson]

I'd dispute the Sea Hurricane is better than the Wildcat bit. It was a readily available alternative.

The Sea Hurricane 1B was ~7000lb and developed ~1300 (12lb) to 1440hp (16lb boost). The F4F-4 was 7975lb, had 1200hp and the same wing area. Do the math.

 

[Navalwarrior]

Same as today, with the RAF controlling the FAA's fighter aircraft. Lessons forgotten I think.

Resp:
It was a shame, as the British had some very advanced Aircraft Carriers as the war advanced.

 

[Kevin J]

The Sea Hurricane 1B was ~7000lb and developed ~1300 (12lb) to 1440hp (16lb boost). The F4F-4 was 7975lb, had 1200hp and the same wing area. Do the math.

The Wildcat was the better aircraft for carrier ops, was rugged, and had a decent dive performance. Later variants had 1350 HP. Against the Zero, I'd choose the Wildcat. Against an Me 110, I'd choose a Sea Hurricane.

 

[RCAFson]

The Wildcat was the better aircraft for carrier ops, was rugged, and had a decent dive performance. Later variants had 1350 HP. Against the Zero, I'd choose the Wildcat. Against an Me 110, I'd choose a Sea Hurricane.

According to Brown, the Sea Hurricane could out roll, out turn, and out dive the F4F-4/Martlet. We know, from it's power to weight ratio and wing loading that the Sea Hurricane has a greatly superior climb rate as well. The Sea Hurricane had a lower operational loss rate in FAA service than the Martlet.

The FM2 Wildcat with a lightened airframe and uprated engine didn't show up till 1944.

 

[Admiral Beez]

The Wildcat was the better aircraft for carrier ops, was rugged....

Of course the Martlet was the better aircraft for RN carrier ops over the Hurricane because the former has folding wings. The latter was thus unable to operate from all three Illustrious class or Hermes. Only the wider forward lift on HMS Ark Royal (had she survived long enough) and Indomitable could accommodate the Sea Hurricane, at a 45' angle. All three Outrageous class, both Implacables, Eagle and Argus could also fit the Sea Hurricane.

But for ruggedness, I'd argue the Sea Hurricane has the Wildcat matched. Looking at vids of the Sea Hurricane, my impression was it was also sufficiently rugged for carrier ops. Of course they're both better than the Seafire.

Hawker Sea Hurricane carrier take off and landings

 

[Kevin J]

Of course the Martlet was the better aircraft for RN carrier ops over the Hurricane because the former has folding wings. The latter was thus unable to operate from all three Illustrious class or Hermes. Only the wider forward lift on HMS Ark Royal (had she survived long enough) and Indomitable could accommodate the Sea Hurricane, at a 45' angle. All three Outrageous class, both Implacables, Eagle and Argus could also fit the Sea Hurricane.

But for ruggedness, I'd argue the Sea Hurricane has the Wildcat matched. Looking at vids of the Sea Hurricane, my impression was it was also sufficiently rugged for carrier ops. Of course they're both better than the Seafire.

Hawker Sea Hurricane carrier take off and landings

Damned spellchecker, but Outrageous not Courageous class, cool. Almost as good as when we left the EU, the words, good riddance, not goodbye was used, but being Brits we laughed.'Thank you, goodbye & good riddance!' EU delivers comical parting shot to UK, as final message gets lost in translation – media

 

[Admiral Beez]

Damned spellchecker, but Outrageous not Courageous class, cool.

I can't claim the name, but I use it intentionally. Furious, Courageous and Glorious, as originally built as cruisers are indeed referred to as the Outrageous class.