Would the early introduction of a single seat, robust, monoplane fighter for the FAA have made any difference?

[Admiral Beez]

Would it have made any difference if had Britain's FAA entered WW2 with a unform fighter force made of Merlin-powered, single-seat monoplane fighters with robust construction, folding wings, wide track undercarriage, credible low speed/landing characteristics, and good ditching ability (mostly determined by radiator location and buoyancy)? When folded our fighter would be less than 14 ft tall and 20 ft wide to fit the lifts and hangar heights of HMS Ark Royal the coming armoured fleet carriers. Since the hangars are about 62 ft wide, the ideal width when folded would allow three aircraft abreast - while still allowing for wide track undercarriage.

For starters, when considering the weight of our fighter, we must look at the engine available in the late 1930s, which would be the same 1,030 hp Merlin Mk II used in the Spitfire Mk 1, though hopefully with a different supercharger setup for lower altitude naval ops. This will limit range, rate of climb, speed, armour and armament we can get into the air. Next we need to think about navigation - can our single crewman in 1938-39 find his carrier?

If the FAA has gone this route, we should also expect that the Skua is either a dedicated divebomber, or does not exist. Perhaps Blackburn can instead work on a monoplane TSR. But that's a topic for another thread.

 

[yulzari]

Would it have made any difference if had Britain's FAA entered WW2 with a unform fighter force made of Merlin-powered, single-seat monoplane fighters with robust construction, folding wings, wide track undercarriage, credible low speed/landing characteristics, and good ditching ability (mostly determined by radiator location and buoyancy)? When folded our fighter would be less than 14 ft tall and 20 ft wide to fit the lifts and hangar heights of HMS Ark Royal the coming armoured fleet carriers. Since the hangars are about 62 ft wide, the ideal width when folded would allow three aircraft abreast - while still allowing for wide track undercarriage.

For starters, when considering the weight of our fighter, we must look at the engine available in the late 1930s, which would be the same 1,030 hp Merlin Mk II used in the Spitfire Mk 1, though hopefully with a different supercharger setup for lower altitude naval ops. This will limit range, rate of climb, speed, armour and armament we can get into the air. Next we need to think about navigation - can our single crewman in 1938-39 find his carrier?

If the FAA has gone this route, we should also expect that the Skua is either a dedicated divebomber, or does not exist. Perhaps Blackburn can instead work on a monoplane TSR. But that's a topic for another thread.

Blackburn had long taken down the Skua production line to make Bothas so the Skua was going out of service when the war began. To be replaced by the Albacore as a dive bomber.
Their Lordships desired a Sea Spitfire complete with folding wings and there was no production reason why it could not have happened but the Air Defence of Great Britain took precedence and the RAF clung to all Spitfire production.
In the long range reconnaissance role there remained a role which the Fulmar could have filled.

Thus the Royal Navy Fleet Air Arm could have had local, low level air defence at peer level from Sea Spitfires, long range reconnaissance and CAP loiter from Fulmars (which could dive bomb). This is the predecessor to the Pacific Fleet doctrine in 1945 of low level Seafires combined with high level Fireflies which did Sterling work to deal with the Kamikaze threat combining with ship board anti aircraft fire to give a triple layer defence in depth. Of course to make it work well we need efficient fighter direction even with early radar. Really the Skua replacement being the Fulmar and the Sea Gladiators replacement the Sea Spitfire.

The Sea Spitfires will be operating at a comparatively short distance from the carrier so do not need a TAG nor Navigator but the Fulmars will range much further and the second crewman is a real benefit.

Essentially there is no need for magic new type to create do the task. Only the OTL existing options optimised for the task. Follow one being replacing the Fulmars with Fireflies and maintaining a continuous updating of the Sea Spitfire airframe as we saw IOTL. It was the lack of production priorities that reduced the Royal Navy to search for US alternatives in the interim. Later there was a strategic need to maintain a domestic naval aviation industry. They were well aware of the terms of lend-lease and, without a domestic naval aviation industry or tank industry by October 1945 the Royal Navy would have carriers but no aeroplanes to fly off them and armoured divisions with no tanks.

We will not speak of the Firebrand.

 

[Admiral Beez]

In the long range reconnaissance role there remained a role which the Fulmar could have filled.

There are no Fulmars - I'm proposing an all single-seat, monoplane fighter force for the FAA to be in place by 1939-40.

Unless the undercarriage is changed to outward pivots (like the Fulmar and Hurricane) and low speed handling is improved, I'm not sure if the Sea Spitfire would have done the job. I think an entirely bespoke type for the FAA is best rather than bodging a RAF crate into the role.

 

[Shortround6]

We have been over this many times.

A single seat mono-plane fighter for the FAA for 1939-40 in large numbers was certainly technical possible.
But the problems are many.
Most of the RN carriers of 1939-40 were small in capacity. Most of the carriers could not carry 3 squadrons (assuming 12 aircraft per squadron) which forced the adoption of multi role aircraft.
The Treasury was not buying aircraft for the RN even the quantities needed to fill the available spaces on the exiting carriers and the Illustrious class was a) intended to replace 2-3 of the existing carriers and b) only designed for 33 aircraft each.
A "bespoke" single seat naval fighter was a low production item (high unit cost) and since it was only good for one role it was very expensive.
The Air Ministry (and admiralty) were interested in single seat naval fighter single seat naval fighters and solicited design proposals but they got hung up in time.

If you want 100-200 planes on board carriers and in training squadrons and in shore squadrons ready to deploy in 1939/early 1940 you needed to be working on the design in 1936-37.
If you wait until the 1938 you get caught up in the Sabre/Vulture/Hercules/Centaurus "design" family which turned out to be a nearly 100% waste of time and money.
Now what does your 1936 Merlin powered carrier fighter look like given the use of the Merlin C engine (not even the Merlin III) and given the Air Ministry's aversion to variable pitch propellers and given the state of the art in flap design during the 30s? You don't know that radios are going to get better, you think they are but you don't know by how much and exactly when. The RN had operated single seat biplane fighters during the 1920s and 30s. But as standard procedure they rarely flew out of visual sight of the carrier.

Using an adapted RAF fighter had often been done during the 20s and 30s. It saved on design/development costs and timeline.

Now what single seat monoplane naval fighters turned into in 1942-43 with more powerful engines, better electronics, better bombs and other weapons is a different story.

As a guide line Mitsubishi started working on the Zero at the end of 1937. They built 2 in 1939 and 98 in 1940 but 61 of those were in the last 3 months. During 1941 ALL of the already manufactured Zeros got modifications to the wings and ailerons after they lost 2 planes to structural failures in dive tests. This was after they had deployed a small number to China.
The Idea that the Zero was really combat ready in 1940 is something of a myth.

 

[SaparotRob]

We have been over this many times.

A single seat mono-plane fighter for the FAA for 1939-40 in large numbers was certainly technical possible.
But the problems are many.
Most of the RN carriers of 1939-40 were small in capacity. Most of the carriers could not carry 3 squadrons (assuming 12 aircraft per squadron) which forced the adoption of multi role aircraft.
The Treasury was not buying aircraft for the RN even the quantities needed to fill the available spaces on the exiting carriers and the Illustrious class was a) intended to replace 2-3 of the existing carriers and b) only designed for 33 aircraft each.
A "bespoke" single seat naval fighter was a low production item (high unit cost) and since it was only good for one role it was very expensive.
The Air Ministry (and admiralty) were interested in single seat naval fighter single seat naval fighters and solicited design proposals but they got hung up in time.

If you want 100-200 planes on board carriers and in training squadrons and in shore squadrons ready to deploy in 1939/early 1940 you needed to be working on the design in 1936-37.
If you wait until the 1938 you get caught up in the Sabre/Vulture/Hercules/Centaurus "design" family which turned out to be a nearly 100% waste of time and money.
Now what does your 1936 Merlin powered carrier fighter look like given the use of the Merlin C engine (not even the Merlin III) and given the Air Ministry's aversion to variable pitch propellers and given the state of the art in flap design during the 30s? You don't know that radios are going to get better, you think they are but you don't know by how much and exactly when. The RN had operated single seat biplane fighters during the 1920s and 30s. But as standard procedure they rarely flew out of visual sight of the carrier.

Using an adapted RAF fighter had often been done during the 20s and 30s. It saved on design/development costs and timeline.

Now what single seat monoplane naval fighters turned into in 1942-43 with more powerful engines, better electronics, better bombs and other weapons is a different story.

As a guide line Mitsubishi started working on the Zero at the end of 1937. They built 2 in 1939 and 98 in 1940 but 61 of those were in the last 3 months. During 1941 ALL of the already manufactured Zeros got modifications to the wings and ailerons after they lost 2 planes to structural failures in dive tests. This was after they had deployed a small number to China.
The Idea that the Zero was really combat ready in 1940 is something of a myth.

Couldn't the FAA acquire F8F Bearcats thru Lend-Lease?
I was just leaving.

 

[don4331]

I was going to come at this from the other direction:

Would having single seat fighters in the hanger of Courageous have saved her from the torpedoes which sunk her?
Would having single seat fighters in the hanger of Glorious have saved her from the shells which sunk her?
Would having single seat fighters in the hanger of Eagle have saved her from the torpedoes which sunk her?
Would having single seat fighters in the hanger of Ark Royal have saved her from the torpedoes which sunk her?
Would having ?10? single seat fighters of Hermes saved her from the torpedoes/bombs which sunk her?

Would having single seat fighters have changed the results of attack on Taranto?
Would having single seat fighters have changed the results of Victorious torpedoing Bismarck?
Would having single seat fighters have changed the results of Ark Royal torpedoing Bismarck?
Would having single seat fighters have changed the results of Formidable torpedoing Vittorio Veneto and Pola?

There are couple that single seat fighters might have made a difference:
Having single seat fighter would have made difference against single seat fighters when attacking the Twins at Trondheim (I assuming the single seat fighter could carry 500lb SAP bomb as Seafire F.III could)
Having single seat fighter would have made difference against the ~30 ± 6 Ju.87s which attacked Illustrious. (But there is a caveat - the Fulmars with double the ammunition ran out of rounds. How many make it off the deck before it is damaged beyond what flight operations allow?)

 

[MIflyer]

Would the Miles M20 have been a better carrier fighter than the Sea Hurricane? Especially if they had used catapults?

 

[PFVA63]

I was going to come at this from the other direction:

...

Hi,
You make some very good points. I guess another corollary thing that likely may also need to be considered is whether having a single seat fighter onboard at the time resulted in any of those ships being used differently operationally, as well.

 

[Howard Gibson]

Would it have made any difference if had Britain's FAA entered WW2 with a unform fighter force made of Merlin-powered, single-seat monoplane fighters with robust construction, folding wings, wide track undercarriage, credible low speed/landing characteristics, and good ditching ability (mostly determined by radiator location and buoyancy)? When folded our fighter would be less than 14 ft tall and 20 ft wide to fit the lifts and hangar heights of HMS Ark Royal the coming armoured fleet carriers. Since the hangars are about 62 ft wide, the ideal width when folded would allow three aircraft abreast - while still allowing for wide track undercarriage.

For starters, when considering the weight of our fighter, we must look at the engine available in the late 1930s, which would be the same 1,030 hp Merlin Mk II used in the Spitfire Mk 1, though hopefully with a different supercharger setup for lower altitude naval ops. This will limit range, rate of climb, speed, armour and armament we can get into the air. Next we need to think about navigation - can our single crewman in 1938-39 find his carrier?

If the FAA has gone this route, we should also expect that the Skua is either a dedicated divebomber, or does not exist. Perhaps Blackburn can instead work on a monoplane TSR. But that's a topic for another thread.

The Seafire was a horrible compromise. For that matter, the Spitfire_V it was based on was a horrible compromise. They did not have time to install two-speed supercharged Merlin_XXs, so they put Stanley Hooker's new impeller into the old single-speed supercharger. The Seafire_LII and LIII's performance was achieved only at very low altitude. Could a Seafire_LII catch a Ju88 at any kind of altitude? The low altitude Merlin 32s and 55Ms were an ugly compromise to get high performance out of those Spitfires under at least some conditions. The low altitude Seafires were effective because Hellcats and Corsairs were available to fly top cover. This is all in addition to the delicate landing gear.

The Hurricane's airframe was way better for carrier operations. According to my Profile, the Sea Hurricane did 318mph with a Merlin_III. This is almost as good as a Wildcat or Zero. I have a bad feeling 100 octane fuel was involved.

I like my proposal of the Vickers Heracles with the Bristol Hercules engine. This does not fly before 1941, so it does not meet your timeline.

How about the Bolton Paul Defiant without the stupid turret, and with wing guns? The wide landing gear would be a huge improvement over the Seafire. If you replace the turret with carrier equipment, the top speed might go up.

 

[SaparotRob]

There's been a number of posts on rehabbing the Defiant. I know I contributed my NOledge on it. It's a beautiful plane that looks like it could've been easily designed as something useful. Hindsight and all. The few photos I've seen of museum planes shows a seemingly well made aircraft.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Would the Miles M20 have been a better carrier fighter than the Sea Hurricane? Especially if they had used catapults?

View attachment 826804

Maybe with a Miles Master's undercarriage.

 

[Dimlee]

Sorry for the naive question.
Was Whirlwind ever considered for the FAA?
Wings folded as on F7F to meet the limit that the topic starter mentioned.
Is the landing speed too high for the existing carriers? Are there other serious issues? (Beyond the Peregrine).

 

[MIflyer]

No, I think the fixed MLG would have been better for carrier use. Out and out performance was not a big factor for RN carriers, which usually only had to worry about bombers out at sea.

 

[Shortround6]

Sorry for the naive question.
Was Whirlwind ever considered for the FAA?
Wings folded as on F7F to meet the limit that the topic starter mentioned.
Is the landing speed too high for the existing carriers? Are there other serious issues? (Beyond the Peregrine).

Yes, the Whirlwind landed at a bit over 100mph. It wasn't as bad as it was sometimes claimed (neither were the Peregrines, the hydraulic throttle linkage was a problem). There was a real problem with the tail wheel strut and attachment which lead to a number of accidents and several modifications/rebuilds. The Whirlwind was noted for the pilots surviving landing accidents (Nose was not pushed into the cockpit and the plane slid on the engine nacelles further spacing the cockpit from crumpling.
But landing 20-30mph faster was going to be a real problem, even if they figured out where to hang the tail hook.

 

[Clayton Magnet]

Couldn't the FAA acquire F8F Bearcats thru Lend-Lease?

No need for lend-lease Bearcats, just start building Sea Fury's in 1939.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

How about the Bolton Paul Defiant without the stupid turret, and with wing guns? The wide landing gear would be a huge improvement over the Seafire. If you replace the turret with carrier equipment, the top speed might go up.

I'm not an engineer, but if you lost hundreds of pounds by not lugging around a turret and a man to stuff into it, couldn't you shrink the wing a little and come out more maneuverable or faster on the same power?

 

[SaparotRob]

If it's for carrier ops, you might not want to reduce the low speed handling by much.

 

[Howard Gibson]

I'm not an engineer, but if you lost hundreds of pounds by not lugging around a turret and a man to stuff into it, couldn't you shrink the wing a little and come out more maneuverable or faster on the same power?

You are adding carrier equipment, but yes, you should wind up with a faster airplane.

 

[Shortround6]

problem with most of the Defiant "Mods" is that you keep pretty much the same external shape and then change just about everything underneath the skin.
Due to the weight of the turret and crewman the plane was considerably heavier than a Hurricane. This was so the plane could pull nearly the same Gs at the greater weight.
Simply pulling the turret and crewman out an plating over the hole leaves you with a plane that is several hundred pounds heavier than it needs to be for the job/s you are trying to do.
You can go back and change the size of a lot of the structural components to get the weight down but it is not fast or easy.

Not sure what the Defiant brings to the table over the Hurricane. Same ventral radiator, same simple flaps, similar landing gear that meets in the middle of the plane preventing the carriage of a center line bomb or fuel tank.

 

[Howard Gibson]

problem with most of the Defiant "Mods" is that you keep pretty much the same external shape and then change just about everything underneath the skin.
Due to the weight of the turret and crewman the plane was considerably heavier than a Hurricane. This was so the plane could pull nearly the same Gs at the greater weight.
Simply pulling the turret and crewman out an plating over the hole leaves you with a plane that is several hundred pounds heavier than it needs to be for the job/s you are trying to do.
You can go back and change the size of a lot of the structural components to get the weight down but it is not fast or easy.

Not sure what the Defiant brings to the table over the Hurricane. Same ventral radiator, same simple flaps, similar landing gear that meets in the middle of the plane preventing the carriage of a center line bomb or fuel tank.

Thinner wings. The Defiant was almost as fast as the Hurricane, with the turret.