What were other options than the Seafire?

[RCAFson]

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

Ark Royal had small (22x45ft) lifts. Of the newer fleet carriers, only Indomitable and the two Implacable class had larger lifts. Victorious used Sea Hurricanes during Pedestal via a permanent deck park.

Hawker had a folding wing design prepared for the Sea Hurricane.

 

[Kevin J]

Ark Royal had small (22x45ft) lifts. Of the newer fleet carriers, only Indomitable and the two Implacable class had larger lifts. Victorious used Sea Hurricanes during Pedestal via a permanent deck park.

Hawker had a folding wing design prepared for the Sea Hurricane.

I've got an old airfix book which shows the internal structure of the Hurricane. A rearward fold looks quite a simple option. Of course, a deck park on outriggers and dismantled Sea Hurricanes below deck gives you just as many fighters as would be feasible with the Wildcat. Moreover, all you need is a conversion kit to turn a Hurricane into a Sea Hurricane, and Hurricanes are available almost everywhere in the British Empire.

 

[Hardrada55]

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.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Ark Royal had small (22x45ft) lifts. Of the newer fleet carriers, only Indomitable and the two Implacable class had larger lifts.

Ark had three rectangular lifts, two of 45ft by 22ft and one of 45ft by 25ft. The forward larger one should be able to fit a non-folded Hurricane.... Had she not sunk beforehand of course.

 

[Clayton Magnet]

How was the view over the nose of the Sea Hurricane? Acceptable enough, I assume, for carrier landings?

 

[RCAFson]

Ark had three rectangular lifts, two of 45ft by 22ft and one of 45ft by 25ft. The forward larger one should be able to fit a non-folded Hurricane.... Had she not sunk beforehand of course.

A Sea Hurricane measures 40 x 31.4ft. I'm not sure how it would fit into a 45 x 25ft lift and during trials aboard Ark Royal it was stated that it would not fit, unless the outer wing panels were removed ( See Jones, FAA in the 2nd WW, V1).

 

[Admiral Beez]

How was the view over the nose of the Sea Hurricane? Acceptable enough, I assume, for carrier landings?

Not great, but better than a Seafire or Corsair.

 

[Kevin J]

A Sea Hurricane measures 40 x 31.4ft. I'm not sure how it would fit into a 45 x 25ft lift and during trials aboard Ark Royal it was stated that it would not fit, unless the outer wing panels were removed ( See Jones, FAA in the 2nd WW, V1).

You should be able to do a rearward fold similar to the Fulmar easily enough, but the money would be better spent putting folding wings on a Spitfire. In the interim, you could put folding wing Martlets on Ark Royal and the Illustrious class and Sea Hurricanes on all the others. Remember too, that it's not before mid 1942 does either the definitive production Corsair or the brand new Hellcat fly. So buy 100 folding wing Martlet II's and 220 Martlet IV's. The production Corsair, brand new Hellcat and folding wing Seafire III all fly first in 1942.

 

[RCAFson]

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.

Your dates are wrong:

"...DAM, Fleet Air Arm, then wrote to Smith on 15 December
asking if it was possible for 50 Spitfires with folding wings and
arrester gear to be produced from scratch in a fairly short
period of time. Supermarine replied in a practical manner by
submitting a drawing of the folding wing aeroplane, the Type
338 with a Griffon engine on 2 January 1940. The fold was
situated just outboard of the main wheel undercarriage well and
the wing swiveled back to lay parallel with the fuselage. The
aircraft illustrated had a full span of 37ft, fuselage length 29ft
lin, folded width 18ft, folded height 13ft Gin. The height
spread was ft 24in. Reduced span flaps were necessary because
of the fold. Supermarine said they were able to produce a fixed
wing prototype with arrester hook in 13 months from date of
order. An alternative was for elimination of the prototype;
development of folding wing and hinge of the existing Spitfire
wing and the full production. Our drawing shows the proposed
arrangement of the swiveling wing. First deliveries of the new
aeroplane 11 months from receipt of production order or...
normal Spitfire complete with folding wing and hook five
months from date of order.

It seemed a reasonable development and production
schedule, but Verney again wrote to Supermarine on 9 January [1940],
Via the Director of Aircraft Production, saying: "Please esti-
mate date of delivering 50 Spitfires with folding wings including.
(1) prototype (2) off drawing board without prototype. If
delivery date too far into future estimate time to deliver 25
Spitfires with hook only. And, would these proposals effect
deliveries of normal Spitfires to Royal Air Force".

Verney then wrote direct to Supermarine on 16 January [1940].
Use port wing of K9895 and send it to Air Service Training at
Hamble for repair and use as a mock-up for folding wing
experiments. The wing arrived at AST on 2 February, and
on the same day Vermey received a memorandum from
Supermarlne concerning his letter of 9 January, which was.
"Folding wing Spitfire -A- (1) prototype delivery five months
after instruction to proceed (ITP); two aircraft after 13 months;
14 after 14 months; 32 after 15 months; 50 after 16 months; (2)
It is estimated that 50 modified Spitfires could be produced
the expense of 75 Spitfires, normal aircraft. -B- Folding wings
without prototype. (1 two aircraft after 11 months; 14 after
12 months, 32 after 13 months and 50 after 14 months) All after
ITP"..." (M&S, Spitfire The History, p.506)

Note the use of a Griffon Engine. The above dates are hopelessly optimistic given that it wasn't until late 1945 that Griffon Spitfires were actually cleared for carrier operations.

 

[RCAFson]

You should be able to do a rearward fold similar to the Fulmar easily enough, but the money would be better spent putting folding wings on a Spitfire. In the interim, you could put folding wing Martlets on Ark Royal and the Illustrious class and Sea Hurricanes on all the others. Remember too, that it's not before mid 1942 does either the definitive production Corsair or the brand new Hellcat fly. So buy 100 folding wing Martlet II's and 220 Martlet IV's. The production Corsair, brand new Hellcat and folding wing Seafire III all fly first in 1942.

Folding wing Martlets don't appear until mid 1941 and they don't meet FAA specs as they have no armour or SS tanks. Grumman had no excess capacity and it wasn't until late 1942 that Martlets were provided in adequate numbers.

 

[Greyman]

How was the view over the nose of the Sea Hurricane? Acceptable enough, I assume, for carrier landings?

Assuming the landing attitude is the same angle (a giant assumption) the Hurricane had a better view over the nose than any other UK/USA naval fighter except for the Fulmar. The Wildcat is close and the Hellcat is vverryy close -- but the Hurrie still edges it out.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Nice vid of a rare catapult launch of a Sea Hurricane.

 

[Freebird]

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

Fairey was not asked for a Sptfire.

The Firefly was always intended as a two seat naval fighter/recon, to replace the Fulmar.

 

[Kevin J]

Fairey was not asked for a Sptfire.

The Firefly was always intended as a two seat naval fighter/recon, to replace the Fulmar.

With a projected top speed IIRC similar to the Seafire they had been asked to build. Yes, to replace the Fulmar.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Fairey was not asked for a Sptfire.

The Firefly was always intended as a two seat naval fighter/recon, to replace the Fulmar.

Did Fairey have any experience in building high performance, monoplane aircraft. That seems more of a Hawker or in the postwar period a Blackburn or deHavilland project.

 

[Kevin J]

Did Fairey have any experience in building high performance, monoplane aircraft. That seems more of a Hawker or in the postwar period a Blackburn or deHavilland project.

They built the Fulmar and the Fantome.

 

[AMCKen]

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?

According to the wikipedia article on the Typhoon: "In 1941, Hawker tendered the Hawker P.1009 "Fleet Fighter" in response to specification N.11/40 for a carrier-based fighter. A new centre section was to be fitted, extending the wingspan to over 45 ft (14 m), and thus increasing the wing area; the wings themselves were to be folding units, which swung and folded parallel to the fuselage, with the leading edges pointing upwards, much like the folding wings on the Grumman F6F Hellcat. The rear fuselage was to be longer and a v-style arrestor hook and associated catapult-launching gear was to be fitted. The design chosen was to result in the postwar Blackburn Firebrand design. "

According to Setright, the main problem with Sabre reliability was the field mechanics mucking about with the automatic engine controls.

 

[RCAFson]

Did Fairey have any experience in building high performance, monoplane aircraft. That seems more of a Hawker or in the postwar period a Blackburn or deHavilland project.

The Battle first flew in March 1936 and the prototype made 257mph. That was pretty amazing performance for such a large airframe, and for several years it was faster than the majority of the world's fighter aircraft.

 

[Freebird]

With a projected top speed IIRC similar to the Seafire they had been asked to build. Yes, to replace the Fulmar.

It's a completely different aircraft with different intended roles.

If the intent had been a single-seat naval fighter/interceptor like the Spitfire, they would have designed a completely different aircraft

 

[Kevin J]

What if, we build the Grumman F5F Skyrocket under licence instead, unit cost maybe double but maybe we don't lose so many of them in landing accidents as we did with the early Seafires.