What were other options than the Seafire?

[wuzak]

Since there was only one XF5F and it wasn't selected for production the British would have to engineer the production version, equipment and tooling. It wouldn't be licence production, more like production.

Not sure that could happen before the Seafire is in service, and there is no guarantee that the F5F would be less accident prone than the Seafire.

 

[Kevin J]

Since there was only one XF5F and it wasn't selected for production the British would have to engineer the production version, equipment and tooling. It wouldn't be licence production, more like production.

Not sure that could happen before the Seafire is in service, and there is no guarantee that the F5F would be less accident prone than the Seafire.

Twin engine safety, better view forwards, and unlike Seafire IIc fast enough to intercept Ju 88's.

 

[wuzak]

In prototype form.

 

[Kevin J]

In prototype form.

All required mods completed by January 1942, maybe with no P-50 prototype, all this could have been completed earlier, and of course a production order raised.

 

[nuuumannn]

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.

This was a derivative of a single-seat requirement out of the ashes of N.8/39, which was a two-seat fighter spec, to which the Firefly was built. The Firebrand was ordered to the single-seater spec, but Supermarine was one of the firms that put in a submission. In the firm's paperwork it was described as "A Spitfire with a Griffon engine", and a second submission was to be a Spitfire with a Napier Sabre. The two projects were to have folding wings, and a new centre section, but were to share with the Spitfire its rear fuselage and tail and wing shape, of course.

Supermarine had also submitted a design to N.8/39 for a two-seater, but it was an entirely new design and shared nothing with the Spitfire.

I bet after the Firebrand debacle the navy had wished it had chosen the Supermarine Griffon Spitfire option from the outset!

 

[nuuumannn]

The Sea Hurricane was intended as a stop gap, as well as the Wildcat/Martlet until the Firebrand was ready. This is how Brown summed up the Sea Hurricane;

"short on range, with the ditching propensities of a submarine, harsh stalling characteristics, a very mediocre view for deck landing and an undercarriage that was likely as not to bounce it over the arrestor wires."

Sea Hurricane-3

 

[RCAFson]

The Sea Hurricane was intended as a stop gap, as well as the Wildcat/Martlet until the Firebrand was ready. This is how Brown summed up the Sea Hurricane;

"short on range, with the ditching propensities of a submarine, harsh stalling characteristics, a very mediocre view for deck landing and an undercarriage that was likely as not to bounce it over the arrestor wires."

View attachment 569244Sea Hurricane-3

Pilots that flew the Sea Hurricane on combat ops disagreed with Brown. As we've discussed earlier it had a good view over the nose and a lower operational loss rate than the Martlet.

Crossley, They Gave me a Seafire:

"In 1940 the Hurricane was believed by the 'test pilots' to be "too tricky by far"
to be decklanded on board a carrier, even on the vast 800 foot decks of the
Illustrious Class. Now, this same feat was being performed regularly by
wartime-trained pilots with only 200 hours in their log books, and an decks half
the length and with windspeeds 50 per cent slower.
The Sea Hurricane's main deck landing advantage was its good view over the
nose, an exceptional asset for any Naval single-engined fighter, It also had a
crisp response to small control movements during the approach to land and
good stall warning characteristics. However, it was not given folding wings like
the Seafire, so that it took up too much room in the aircraft carriers' hangars
and was unpopular with the gunners if stowed on deck,
Furthermore there were very few left for the FAA after Russia had been given
20 per cent of production during 1943-44, and they were in very short supply."
(pages 215-216)

 

[PAT303]

Armoured Aircraft Carriers They were developing not just the Seafire itself but training and tactics all at the same time during operations, more time is what they needed.

 

[tomo pauk]

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

Ah, yes, Setright. Anybody up for a 5000 HP Sabre that RR was burning the data sheets and test reports in the very Air Ministry furnaces?

 

[Kevin J]

Any takers for a carrier capable Westland Whirlwind?

 

[wuzak]

Any takers for a carrier capable Westland Whirlwind?

Nope.

 

[nuuumannn]

What they needed was more aeroplanes and for the Firebrand to not have been a failure. As being discussed on another thread, getting the Seafire into servivce could have happened earlier had Supermarine's option been chosen over the Firebrand, but in the interim there was a requirement for stopgaps. The Martlet and Sea Hurricane were ordered with this in mind. (arguing which is better is a bit moot since they were both doing the same job)

 

[Kevin J]

Nope.

It does get the FAA the speed and altitude it needs for a fighter in the required timeframe.

 

[Kevin J]

Nope.

What about a Fulmar with a RR Vulture?

 

[RCAFson]

Some more from Crossley:

Early Fixed Wing Martlets (no armour or SS tanks) compared to the Sea Hurricane:

"One day a beautiful American single-seat radial-engined fighter arrived. It
was dark blue and, as it had an arrester hook, we were interested to find out
what it was. It was a Martlet - the Royal Navy's name for a Wildcat - the
Grumman F4F -1. Forty of them were leftovers from a French Naval order and
we now had them for our own use, However, this early version had Wright
Cyclone engines which were always overheating, seizing up or just stopping if
hard pressed, for they were designed for civil aircraft. So only experienced pilots
were allowed to fly them. They seemed to chuff around the circuit very fast
indeed and the squadron pilots thought they were wonderful and far faster than
a Hurricane. They were proud that they had been chosen to fly such a difficult
aircraft, with its mass of mixture-control levers, its two-speed supercharger, its
throttle which, someone said, opened the wrong way, its narrow, manually-
raised undercarriage and its impressively large cockpit covered in dials, levers
and switches.
My first flight at Yeovilton, my first ever in a high performance single-seater,
was an unforgettable experience. The Hurricane Mark Ib had been through the
Battle of Britain and was, therefore, a highly developed machine. Everything in
it was made as easy as possible for the pilot so that he could concentrate on
finding, fixing and killing his opponent. It had automatic boost control and
mixture control, a fully constant-speed propeller and, best of all, a modern
blind-flying instrument panel with an artificial horizon and a 'geared' altimeter,
(The altimeter had two hands, the 'minute' hand going round once for each 1000
feet.) The only control the pilot had to make a conscious effort to remember -
besides the radiator flap -- was to change-over the fuel cock from the small
'gravity' feed tank of 15 gallons, to the main tank. This had to be done after
take-off otherwise the engine would stop 20 minutes later. "(p.43)


"As Bully was a Midshipman, I had the privilege of going first. Apart from an
instinctive tendency to keep high when coming over the round-down and
consistently disobeying the batsman, I managed to do about six landings before
the ship had to turn round to avoid Ailsa Craig. When Bully's turn came,
*goofers' was empty and most of the interest had gone. It must have looked easy.
It certainty seemed easy to us. The Hurricane was a lovely decklanding aircraft
and we wondered what all the fuss was about."(p.56)

 

[wuzak]

It does get the FAA the speed and altitude it needs for a fighter in the required timeframe.

The taking-off and landing on carriers is also a requirement for the FAA.

From what I understand, the Whirlwind didn't have short take-off and landing runs.

 

[wuzak]

What about a Fulmar with a RR Vulture?

Sure, if you can convince Hives (Rolls-Royce) and the Air Ministry to keep the Vulture in production and under development.

 

[Admiral Beez]

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.

If the Brits or CW are buying any fighter from the USN under license it's going to be the Martlet.

I wonder if Britain took one of the Helldivers produced at CC&F for trials.

 

[RCAFson]

If the Brits or CW are being any fighter from the USN under license it's going to be the Martlet.

I wonder if Britain took one of the Helldivers produced at CC&F for trials.

They took quite a few and trained a squadron to fly them. However, they were deemed inoperable from escort carriers, and they were too large, even with wings folded to fit into RN fleet carriers.

 

[Kevin J]

If only we built all our carriers out of pykrete, minor little things like take off and landing runs, aircraft size wouldn't have mattered any more.
Pykrete - Wikipedia