Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
A lot of things happened in 15-20 years.It's odd though that the same man who made the Spitfire made these clunky flying boats. I would have expected RJ Mitchell's seaplane to be more like the postwar Supermarine Seagull, but initially with a Merlin. The Griffon-powered Seagull was good for 260 mph!
Good points. IMO, the Gloster F5/34 suffered in prototype trials due to the Mercury engine they were obliged to use instead of the not ready Perseus. Stick a Kestrel onto the Spitfire prototype and see how it goes.Plenty of designs around the world had to be trashed because hoped for new engines were abject failures under test.
I would have thought so. A Roc with floats. Why not add a drogue 'chute too, to get a more stable platform?.. The Albacore and Roc were tested with floats in 1939/40 (neither successfully)..
Actually while he had experience with planes in Nautical conditions from a corrosion/weather standpoint, He didn't have much experience designing planes for carrier operations. Aside from using the Seagull/Walrus family from carriers.What would a healthy RJ Mitchell have designed if tasked in the late 1930s with making a single-seat monoplane fighter for the FAA? He had good experience in building aircraft that withstood nautical conditions
Mitchell was skilled and could see outside the box. He could not perform magic and he could not see into the future or perform Jedi mind tricks to get the Air Ministry to go along with his ideas. Just a year and especially 2 years could make large changes in what engines were favored by the Air Ministry, and what power could be expected from the engines as they changed from 87 octane to 100 octane let alone the change in 1940-41 to 100/130 fuel. "the late 1930s" covers large changes in engines, armament and lift devices in just a few years.Hopefully his naval fighter has the landing/takeoff characteristics and robust construction needed along with performance competitive with the coming F4F, A6M, Bf 109, Fw 190, Ki-43 and the likes of the Reggiane Re.2000 and 2002.
You have misinterpreted what I wrote. 2 competitions.The Helldiver was not designed to same specification as the Avenger was. The Helldiver specification pre-dates the torpedo bomber specification. Not sure when the ability to carry a torpedo entered the Helldiver's repertoire. Also the Avenger could not dive bomb (no dive brakes) according to USN doctrine, it could "glide" bomb at maybe 30 degree angle.
Then add in the fact that whatever carrier design you choose the numbers of aircraft are limited. Even the inter-war US carriers only had a single VF squadron of 18 aircraft (plus a few spares triced into the hangar roof and not immediately available). Even Ark Royal while designed around an air group of 72 aircraft (48xTB & 24xHawker Nimrod biplane fighters) entered service in 1938/39 with 60 (42xTSR & 18xSkua fighter / dive bombers).For the RN they needed a 1937 (or very, very early 1938) specification for a single seat carrier fighter. And they needed it be done quickly.
For the sake of this argument (why things were designed the way they were) we need to change the RN thinking a bit just to get to the single seat fighter instead of two seat.
Requirements include take-off and landing speeds/handling and that is peace time requirements, not 1941-43 accident rate acceptability.
Intended carrier usage, which carriers in 1940-41. We can write off the 3 old ones, The Furious and sisters maybe more important. Bad luck and stupidity took two of them out but that was unknown in 1937-38. How many of the 5 new carriers would be available in 1941 in 1937-38 planning? and it what configuration. The Illustrious as planned/built(?) had a 620ft flight deck due the round downs. Later increased to 740ft (?), her two sisters had 670 ft to start and later increased.
What was the "new" doctrine for fighter defense? Last minute scramble or orbiting patrols? How long were the orbiting patrols in hours/endurance? How many times per day was the carrier going to have to turn into the wind to launch/land the orbiting fighters? What altitudes were they expecting attacking bombers to be at? Or expected snoopers? Unexpected is harder
Combat endurance, how many attacks can the fighter make with the onboard ammo. gun time.
How does the fighter get "home"? the 'bespoke' biplane fighters rarely operated out of visual range of the carriers. This worked (maybe, never tested in action) against 110mph torpedo planes. Against 200mph monoplanes that may have been to short a time to get to intercept position.
The radios that worked in the BoB (VHF) didn't exist in 1937-38 and even with radar (being worked on in 1937 but nobody really knew what it could and could not do) even using radios from the carrier (and giving up radio silence) was rather iffy given the HF radio problems of the time. Maybe changes in radio equipment would take care of it, but again, the carrier plane needs more equipment than the land planes do.
Anybody want to take a stab at a 1937 carrier fighter requirement ?
endurance
deck performance
armament/ammo.
Engine choice? really tricky. Desired or planned by Air Ministry and the Air ministry often told the manufacturer what to use, or with historical knowledge? We know that the much favored Taurus crashed and burned, The Hercules never made it into a single engine production aircraft and was way behind in deliveries in 1939-40 and the Big engines were also late/in trouble. Kind of leaves the Merlin as the sole choice but that is with hindsight. It also means that any other choice would be doomed anyway so ?
I think you have explained why they went for a two seater with the range/endurance to recce far or keep a CAP over the fleet. The TAG could find the carrier without compromising radio silence of either party nor tying the carrier to a preplanned route and timing. It was not an either/or in RN eyes but as they could not get a single seat fighter for the close protection task they perforce used the Fulmar that they could get to cover the task. Preferred by the RN would have been a Fulmar and a Sea Spitfire. This releasing the Fulmar to cover the strike role too. Just as they had with the previous set of Osprey and Nimrod and would go on to the Seafire and Firefly.For the RN they needed a 1937 (or very, very early 1938) specification for a single seat carrier fighter. And they needed it be done quickly.
For the sake of this argument (why things were designed the way they were) we need to change the RN thinking a bit just to get to the single seat fighter instead of two seat.
Requirements include take-off and landing speeds/handling and that is peace time requirements, not 1941-43 accident rate acceptability.
Intended carrier usage, which carriers in 1940-41. We can write off the 3 old ones, The Furious and sisters maybe more important. Bad luck and stupidity took two of them out but that was unknown in 1937-38. How many of the 5 new carriers would be available in 1941 in 1937-38 planning? and it what configuration. The Illustrious as planned/built(?) had a 620ft flight deck due the round downs. Later increased to 740ft (?), her two sisters had 670 ft to start and later increased.
What was the "new" doctrine for fighter defense? Last minute scramble or orbiting patrols? How long were the orbiting patrols in hours/endurance? How many times per day was the carrier going to have to turn into the wind to launch/land the orbiting fighters? What altitudes were they expecting attacking bombers to be at? Or expected snoopers? Unexpected is harder
Combat endurance, how many attacks can the fighter make with the onboard ammo. gun time.
How does the fighter get "home"? the 'bespoke' biplane fighters rarely operated out of visual range of the carriers. This worked (maybe, never tested in action) against 110mph torpedo planes. Against 200mph monoplanes that may have been to short a time to get to intercept position.
The radios that worked in the BoB (VHF) didn't exist in 1937-38 and even with radar (being worked on in 1937 but nobody really knew what it could and could not do) even using radios from the carrier (and giving up radio silence) was rather iffy given the HF radio problems of the time. Maybe changes in radio equipment would take care of it, but again, the carrier plane needs more equipment than the land planes do.
Anybody want to take a stab at a 1937 carrier fighter requirement ?
endurance
deck performance
armament/ammo.
Engine choice? really tricky. Desired or planned by Air Ministry and the Air ministry often told the manufacturer what to use, or with historical knowledge? We know that the much favored Taurus crashed and burned, The Hercules never made it into a single engine production aircraft and was way behind in deliveries in 1939-40 and the Big engines were also late/in trouble. Kind of leaves the Merlin as the sole choice but that is with hindsight. It also means that any other choice would be doomed anyway so ?
You are right. I misinterpreted what you listed.Dive bomber - SB2C & SB2A (plus 4 other proposals that were discarded very early on).
Torpedo bomber - TBM & TBU/TBY
That is probably an apocryphal story.I recall reading somewhere that one reason for the RN wanting a two seater fighter was that at the time pilots were RAF, whereas the observer was RN. So in a way insisting on a two seater was a way to ensure the RN got their guy up there.