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

[Thumpalumpacus]

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.

I was thinking, and am welcoming corrections, that aside from reducing weight from removing the turret and ancillary equipment, you'd also lose weight from shrinking the wing and perhaps the fuselage? Wouldn't that add something -- speed, climb-rate, or turning?

 

[don4331]

I was thinking, and am welcoming corrections, that aside from reducing weight from removing the turret and ancillary equipment, you'd also lose weight from shrinking the wing and perhaps the fuselage? Wouldn't that add something -- speed, climb-rate, or turning?

Isn't that S Shortround6 's point - at that point, you're lifting out the pilot's seat and replacing everything underneath?

And at what point of building your single-seat-robust-monoplane-fighter have you built an airplane that the RAF commandeers while thanking you for spending FAA £'s to produce them.

Churchill didn't necessarily cancel the FAA's order for Seafires because it was a bad airplane. He cancelled it because he knew FAA would never see the aircraft.​

​

That might be the biggest advantage of the Wildcat - it was on the CV, so really challenging for RAF to board a RN ship and "appropriate" the fighters. It also helps that the F4F is a rather poor airplane to operate off a grass field - it is designed to operate off a hard surface with arrested stop.​

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Isn't that S Shortround6 's point - at that point, you're lifting out the pilot's seat and replacing everything underneath?

I wasn't thinking that far ahead, so yeah, there's probably a fuselage redesign going to happen, which implies to me that you're getting close to clean-sheet territory. Am I understanding you right about this?

And at what point of building your single-seat-robust-monoplane-fighter have you built an airplane that the RAF commandeers while thanking you for spending FAA £'s to produce them.

Churchill didn't necessarily cancel the FAA's order for Seafires because it was a bad airplane. He cancelled it because he knew FAA would never see the aircraft.​

I am not sure I understand your point here. I mean, I get cancelling an airplane that won't see war before it's over (though I'm pretty sure Seafires went into service after WWII) seems reasonable, your first sentence is incomplete. "While thanking you for spending FAA £'s", what? The sentence has a subject but no object, so I can't see where your point is going.

I'm not trying to grammatik you, I honestly don't understand where you were going with that.

That might be the biggest advantage of the Wildcat - it was on the CV, so really challenging for RAF to board a RN ship and "appropriate" the fighters. It also helps that the F4F is a rather poor airplane to operate off a grass field - it is designed to operate off a hard surface with arrested stop.​

In 1942, there were the two best carrier fighters -- in order (imo), the Zero and the F4F -- and then there was everything else. And yes, operating off of grass for the F4F was squiggly, what with narrow-track gear and stubby frame that only accentuated that problem with its shorter wheelbase. The Zero was handier in that regard.

Eric Brown liked the Grumman, and iirc shot down one (or was it two?) FW-200s with it, even as he noted the deck-handling issues.

 

[SaparotRob]

Eric Brown liked the Grumman, and iirc shot down one (or was it two?) FW-200s with it, even as he noted the deck-handling issues.

Attending some function with his wife, he saw a Martlet/Wildcat and said: "Ahh. My first love"... or something pretty close to that. I'm sure she was a good sport, in public.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Attending some function with his wife, he saw a Martlet/Wildcat and said: "Ahh. My first love"... or something pretty close to that. I'm sure she was a good sport, in public.

Heh, I had a girlfriend for a couple of years from the west end of London, Ealing, not too far from where Deep Purple rehearsed, as it happened. Whenever I got "cheeky", as she'd say, she'd ask me, "D'ya want a slap?"

Winkle probably heard that on this occasion you mention.

 

[don4331]

I wasn't thinking that far ahead, so yeah, there's probably a fuselage redesign going to happen, which implies to me that you're getting close to clean-sheet territory. Am I understanding you right about this?

Yes, after you redesign the fuselage shorter - as it no longer needs to house the turret, and you redesign the wing - as it can be smaller as the plane is lighter without turret/second crew member, you're getting close to clean-sheet territory.

I am not sure I understand your point here. I mean, I get cancelling an airplane that won't see war before it's over (though I'm pretty sure Seafires went into service after WWII) seems reasonable, your first sentence is incomplete. "While thanking you for spending FAA £'s", what? The sentence has a subject but no object, so I can't see where your point is going.

I'm not trying to grammatik you, I honestly don't understand where you were going with that.

Churchill canceled the FAA's late '39/early '40 request for Seafires. At the time, the RAF was wanting every single engine single seat monoplane fighter they could lay their hands on. If the RN had paid Supermarine (or Fairey under subcontract) to build Seafires, at the end of the production line, the RAF would have claimed the airplanes for 'homeland defense'. While I know Clayton Magnet was being small aleck about the Sea Fury, had Hawker (or Miles, etc) produced a radial engined single seat monoplane competitive with the Hurricane/Spitfire, the RAF would have commandeered them as well. Stopping the Germans at the Channel was more important than putting a state of the art fighter on a RN carrier.

So, if FAA had been allowed to order Seafires in late '39/early '40 for all the £'s from the RN budget spent, they would have nothing to show for it. In fact they would be worse than IOT, as they wouldn't even have Fulmars. The "advantage" of the Fulmar for the FAA - the RAF doesn't want them...

And it doesn't change until Spring '42 - the Soviets hadn't collapsed over winter '41/USA is now into the war.

So, the challenge is really - to design/build a plane which is competitive, but has some trait (e.g. second crew member) that makes it undesirable to the RAF.

In 1942, there were the two best carrier fighters -- in order (imo), the Zero and the F4F -- and then there was everything else. And yes, operating off of grass for the F4F was squiggly, what with narrow-track gear and stubby frame that only accentuated that problem with its shorter wheelbase. The Zero was handier in that regard.

Eric Brown liked the Grumman, and iirc shot down one (or was it two?) FW-200s with it, even as he noted the deck-handling issues.

'42 is 3 years too late for the RN...the war starts in '39.

Was that clearer?

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

It is, thanks.

 

[NevadaK]

Been on vacation for a while. The answer is a Merlin powered F4F.

Thread closed.

 

[SaparotRob]

Been on vacation for a while. The answer is a Merlin powered F4F.

Thread closed.

We have a winner.

 

[Big Jake]

What about a navelized Beaufighter? Get rid of the observer/gunner, add folding wings, lighten up by removing the wing guns, etc.