Can we make a faster better performing Wildcat in 1942?

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

On the theme of floatplanes, found this.

Secret Files :The Spitfire floatplanes

The German invasion of Norway in April 1940, and the now seemingly unstoppable advance of her armies across Europe began, it seemed likely that any confrontation in the north of Europe would, in all likeliness, be a sea one. The current British naval fighters in service in 1940 were either...

www.solentsky.org

Didn't realized the Floatfire was so fast. Certainly i always found the CAM idea hairbrained, wasting the aircraft and endangering the pilot like that. By 1941 when the danger of invasion faded surely they could have found a dozen or two Spitfires to convert to floatfighters.
But we digress.

I never understood why it wasn't further developed, it certainly would have been perfect for this role, assuming it was seaworthy enough for landing and recovery (and it's hard to imagine it could be worse than ditching a Hurricane in the North Sea).

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

I wonder how slow the Roc floatplane was.

View attachment 745843

If it's fast enough to catch an FW 200 it might have been a viable idea... I kind of doubt it though.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

In my the notes I have the Vmax for the Roc floatplane as ~190 mph.

yeah that's not gonna cut it

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

The 1939/40 variants (-1, -2) of the AR196 were likely slower. The 1941 -3 variant was approximately the same speed at 194mph.

Blackburn Aircraft since 1909 states the Roc Floatplane max speed as 193mph at 10K ft vs 194mph for the AR196-3 at 3300ft (Warplanes of the Luftwaffe).

The AR-196 was pretty slow (Wiki shows 206 mph) but it did have the advantage of being armed with two forward firing 20mm cannon, which makes it a good bit deadlier in a fighter role (or for strafing a submarine etc.)

The Mitsubishi F1M biplane / seaplane was good for 230 mph though armed with only two forward-firing (.30 cal) guns. They were effective against US scout types like OS2U, though not fighters.

The A6M2-N of course was quite robust, apparently remaining highly maneuverable in spite of the floats, they could do loops etc., and did 270 mph plus had the two 20mm and two LMGs. I don't think they operated them from ships though.

The French Dewoitine 780 which someone already mentioned upthread also made ~ 270 mph and had a 20mm gun, of course it was never developed.

The Northrop N-3PB which I had mentioned was allegedly capable of 257 mph and had a pretty good armament of four 12.7mm guns and 2 x 7.62mm defensive guns. They operated a few of these off of Iceland and they did see off some FW 200s with them though they never shot any down. I think they only had like a half dozen of them operating there though and probably few of those actually in flying shape at any given time. It might also be too big for catapult possibly...

Seafire floatplane would certainly seem to be the best option if it was viable (can it land in semi-rough seas?)

 

[Admiral Beez]

The AR-196 was pretty slow (Wiki shows 206 mph) but it did have the advantage of being armed with two forward firing 20mm cannon, which makes it a good bit deadlier in a fighter role (or for strafing a submarine etc.)

I wonder if Bismarck had managed to launch a pair of Ar-196 if they'd be able to break up the 2nd, most critical Swordfish strike. Did they had Fulmars along?

 

[RCAFson]

I wonder if Bismarck had managed to launch a pair of Ar-196 if they'd be able to break up the 2nd, most critical Swordfish strike. Did they had Fulmars along?

Bismarck's catapult was disabled by a splinter hit during her engagement in the Denmark Straits on 24 May 1941; this wasn't realized until they tried to launch an AR-196 to carry Bismarck's War Diary to France on 26May, IIRC. The first strike by Victorious on 24/25 May was given a Fulmar escort. The weather during the 2nd strike from Ark Royal would have prevented Fulmar sorties, IIRC.

 

[Shortround6]

Late war or post war

Cannot get picture to show up.

Note the towed sled/skid/raft.
Also note the curved track of the ships wake to use the wake and bulk of the ship to reduce the wave height during recovery.
also note the, from the camera perspective at long range, relative calmness of the seas.

You can only operate float planes in certain sea states, which are often not good in the NA. If the sea state is too high the pilot may as well ditch.

"The biggest criticism of seaplanes amongst WWII battleship captains was their inability to be recovered in rough weather. To address this, the Seahawk was rated to land in 25 kts surface winds and 5′ waves."


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nzjT_EEk5eI

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

Late war or post war

Note the towed sled/skid/raft.
Also note the curved track of the ships wake to use the wake and bulk of the ship to reduce the wave height during recovery.
also note the, from the camera perspective at long range, relative calmness of the seas.

You can only operate float planes in certain sea states, which are often not good in the NA. If the sea state is too high the pilot may as well ditch.

"The biggest criticism of seaplanes amongst WWII battleship captains was their inability to be recovered in rough weather. To address this, the Seahawk was rated to land in 25 kts surface winds and 5′ waves."


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nzjT_EEk5eI

Yeah I didn't mention the Seahawk just because it came so late. it was probably the best Allied seaplane fighter of the war (that actually went into production), technically. Only the A6M2-N and N1K1 Kyofu version were clearly superior as fighters.

The Curtiss SC Seahawk by the way had a Wright R-1820-62 producing 1,300 hp

The Aichi E16A was a pretty good late-war competitor to the Seahawk as well, with a top speed of 273 mph, armament including two 20mm cannon, and dive bombing capability.


I agree seaplane operations in the north Atlantic (especially taking off from the water) would probably be hard due to the common weather and sea state, but landing one in the sea is probably still a much better prospect for pilot survival than ditching a Hurricane was.

As for the commerce destroying Fw 200s (and He 111s, He 115s, B&V 138 and other types) the requirement was not necessarily to shoot them down so much as to drive them off, though shooting down was a good secondary goal.


The Fw 200s did the most damage by diving down quite low to bomb merchant ships with as much accuracy as possible, which would not be possible against anything in the ballpark on speed and with decent armament (Fw 200s were fairly well armed so you did want something that could cause a fair amount of damage pretty quickly)

 

[Shortround6]

but landing one in the sea is probably still a much better prospect for pilot survival than ditching a Hurricane was.

Pilots may have been instructed to bail out vrs ditching, or at least told to consider it as they had figured out the ditching qualities (or lack of) Hurricane well before they came up with the CAM scheme. Digging a float in wave at speed still means a cartwheeling aircraft and very poor survival.

Fw 200s were fairly well armed so you did want something that could cause a fair amount of damage pretty quickly)

Armament varied a lot and got better as time went on.
The armament listed by Wiki didn't show up until late 1941.
In 1940 they built 26 FW 200C-1s
By the end of 1941 they had built 58 planes and were on the C-3/U4 version.
Feb 1942 saw the first C-4 version and that became the most built version of the series.


Early 200C-0/C-1s had two 7.9mm MG 15 guns out the top, one forward and one aft, a single 7.9mm MG 15 gun out the back of gondola and a single 20mm MG FF (with a small magazine) out the front of the gondola and no waist guns.

 

[tomo pauk]

Yeah I didn't mention the Seahawk just because it came so late. it was probably the best Allied seaplane fighter of the war (that actually went into production), technically. Only the A6M2-N and N1K1 Kyofu version were clearly superior as fighters.

The Curtiss SC Seahawk by the way had a Wright R-1820-62 producing 1,300 hp

Seahawk was also helped by the turbo, and a particular one. Made by Wright, it featured air-cooled hollow turbine blades and thus was able to be installed next to the engine. About 1000 of these turboes were manufactured, but unfortunately there is no single Seahawk today aloive to show off it's turbo.
That turbo was also mooted for the P-63, but nothing came out of it.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Was there ever any consideration of making the Wildcat in Canada or otherwise licensing production in Britain or Australia?

Canadian Warplanes 1: Canadian Car & Foundry (Grumman) Goblin

Harold writes articles on Canadian military history, including Military Parachuting, Warplanes, Armour and Artillery, Castles, Fortifications, Sieges and Battles, Warships, The Cold War, Women in the Canadian Forces, First Nations and Black Canadian Military Service. Each article is supported by...

www.silverhawkauthor.com

If we can produce Helldivers, we can make Martlets.

Canadian Warplanes 3: Curtiss SB2C Helldivers made in Canada

Harold writes articles on Canadian military history, including Military Parachuting, Warplanes, Armour and Artillery, Castles, Fortifications, Sieges and Battles, Warships, The Cold War, Women in the Canadian Forces, First Nations and Black Canadian Military Service. Each article is supported by...

www.silverhawkauthor.com

 

[RCAFson]

Was there ever any consideration of making the Wildcat in Canada or otherwise licensing production in Britain or Australia?

Canadian Warplanes 1: Canadian Car & Foundry (Grumman) Goblin

Harold writes articles on Canadian military history, including Military Parachuting, Warplanes, Armour and Artillery, Castles, Fortifications, Sieges and Battles, Warships, The Cold War, Women in the Canadian Forces, First Nations and Black Canadian Military Service. Each article is supported by...

www.silverhawkauthor.com

If we can produce Helldivers, we can make Martlets.

Canadian Warplanes 3: Curtiss SB2C Helldivers made in Canada

Harold writes articles on Canadian military history, including Military Parachuting, Warplanes, Armour and Artillery, Castles, Fortifications, Sieges and Battles, Warships, The Cold War, Women in the Canadian Forces, First Nations and Black Canadian Military Service. Each article is supported by...

www.silverhawkauthor.com

It takes a couple of years to get an assembly plant online and up to speed, and the only F4F variant worth building would be the FM2, so no gain over the historical timeline. Even if the decision was made to build the folding wing F4F-4A (Martlet II) it wouldn't be in production until mid 1943 at the earliest.

 

[EwenS]

Was there ever any consideration of making the Wildcat in Canada or otherwise licensing production in Britain or Australia?

Canadian Warplanes 1: Canadian Car & Foundry (Grumman) Goblin

Harold writes articles on Canadian military history, including Military Parachuting, Warplanes, Armour and Artillery, Castles, Fortifications, Sieges and Battles, Warships, The Cold War, Women in the Canadian Forces, First Nations and Black Canadian Military Service. Each article is supported by...

www.silverhawkauthor.com

If we can produce Helldivers, we can make Martlets.

Canadian Warplanes 3: Curtiss SB2C Helldivers made in Canada

Harold writes articles on Canadian military history, including Military Parachuting, Warplanes, Armour and Artillery, Castles, Fortifications, Sieges and Battles, Warships, The Cold War, Women in the Canadian Forces, First Nations and Black Canadian Military Service. Each article is supported by...

www.silverhawkauthor.com

From early 1939 CC&F were busy gearing up to produce Hurricanes. The first of 1,451 rolled off the production line in Jan 1940 and the last in 1943.

In the early war period Canadian companies were very busy producing a variety of aircraft including trainers for the BCATP, Hampdens, Bolingbrokes (Blenheim derivative) etc

https://www.bombercommandmuseumarchives.ca/s,canadawaraircraftmanufacture.pdf

Edit:- the first Martlets for the FAA came from a French order taken over in June 1940 (71 delivered & 10 lost at sea in late 1940 becoming Martlet I). These were IIRC the first batch of production aircraft. Britain also exercised an option in that contract for another 100 around Aug-Oct 1940. 10 of those with fixed wings were delivered in the first half of 1941 with the other 90 delayed while Grumman sorted out the folding wing.

In the first half of 1940 the specs for the Firefly & Firebrand were being finalised.

So even if production space could be found in Canada, none are going to be in service until 1942, by which time more modern designs were already available.

 

[Geoffrey Sinclair]

The British and French 1939/1940 priorities for US naval aircraft types was low compared with firstly filling gaps, like the Hudsons did, increasing the training system and having land based types for a war in Europe. The French gave naval types a higher priority than Britain but a number of the Vought dive bombers were destroyed in Northern France on 10 May 1940. A number of Buffalo orders were about fighters, not naval fighters.

According to AVIA 10/126 the contract for 100 G-36A plus 20% spares with P&W R-1830 engines was signed 9 July 1940 on behalf of the Ministry of Aircraft production, delivery schedule 9 in November then 20 per month until the final 11 in April 1941. July 1940 to October 1940 F4F/G-36 production was 81 Martlet I, 2 F4F-3, 2 XF4F-5, November added 1 F4F-3, 1 XF4F-6. Apart from the usual time to set up a production line Grumman managed 430 F4F/G-36 in the 18 months July 1940 to December 1941, or under 24 a month, that does not sound like there would be much help available to set up another line, Grumman essentially shipped the F4F production line to Eastern.

The initial contract for CCF Hurricanes was signed in 1938, same for the Hampdens and Lysanders. The Bolingbroke airframe design went through various permutations from 19 October 1937 onwards, thanks to changes by Bristol.

References tend to disagree about early war Canadian production totals, the Canadian Year Books say military and civil production by year 1934 to 1939 was 18, 58, 109, 110, 160, 252. It would appear military aircraft production was 46 in 1938 and 40 in 1939.

Output for 1940 was 852, 17 Bolingbroke, 348 Finch 16, 15 G-23/FF-1, 9 Hampden, 76 Hurricane, 20 Lysander (15 more had been built in 1939), 18 Norseman, 8 Shark III, 2 Stranraer and 332 Tiger Moth. So 127 Combat, 18 Transport, 27 Communications, 680 Trainers.

1941 output was 1,723 including 708 combat types.

The contract with CCF for SBW-1 was signed 23 May 1942, production started in Septmber 1943, 30 built by end year, the contract with Fairchild for SBF-1 was signed 21 December 1942, 1 acceptance in October 1943, then production from March 1944.

 

[Admiral Beez]

If it's fast enough to catch an FW 200 it might have been a viable idea... I kind of doubt it though.

It's rate of climb that's most important, and mostly lacking.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

Finally read through the Spitfire on floats article that mack8 uploaded upthread. Wow what a s***t show. I think they must have put some second or third tier guys in charge of this little side project.

The interesting thing is that even the earliest attempts seemed to result with very good performance, well over 300 mph, with apparently good handling (in the air).

The litany of problems start with the apparently clapped out or just badly made specimen they started experimenting with had a variety of mechanical issues which contributed to several delays. Then there were more long delays before they finally brought some of the later versions to the Mediterranean for some operational testing, where they ran into several problems.

They apparently did a very slipshod job on the floats, which kept leaking and weren't strongly made enough. They evidently failed to do sufficient (or any) corrosion resistance prep for the salt water, which quickly ate up three airframes. All of that could probably be avoided.

They also found some other maybe more tricky problems with water handling, especially during take off - With torque, requiring the addition of a tail fin, some issues with water handling (waffling from side to side) and most problematic, the bottom of the cowl air intake for the Merlin tended to suck up some water sometimes which definitely isn't good.

So it's somewhat "up in the air" as to whether this could have really been a viable seaplane, and I didn't see any mention as to whether they ever tried to launch it from a catapult. I suspect it could have been with a little work but it was obviously a fairly low priority due to other serious concerns (like saving Britain itself and then saving the Suez Canal etc.) and due to time wasted on other projects that ended up going nowhere (which is where hindsight comes into play).

However,

As a CAM fighter even the earliest experimental version of this, assuming the catapult is strong enough to launch it, seems like it would perform beautifully as a fighter, I think more than sufficient to intercept and shoot down an FW 200 Condor. Then, arguably, the landing (on floats) should work out much better (for the pilot and probably for the aircraft too) than ditching a Hurricane. So it does seem like it might have been a good candidate for CAM.

 

[PAT303]

Finally read through the Spitfire on floats article that mack8 uploaded upthread. Wow what a s***t show. I think they must have put some second or third tier guys in charge of this little side project.

The interesting thing is that even the earliest attempts seemed to result with very good performance, well over 300 mph, with apparently good handling (in the air).

The litany of problems start with the apparently clapped out or just badly made specimen they started experimenting with had a variety of mechanical issues which contributed to several delays. Then there were more long delays before they finally brought some of the later versions to the Mediterranean for some operational testing, where they ran into several problems.

They apparently did a very slipshod job on the floats, which kept leaking and weren't strongly made enough. They evidently failed to do sufficient (or any) corrosion resistance prep for the salt water, which quickly ate up three airframes. All of that could probably be avoided.

They also found some other maybe more tricky problems with water handling, especially during take off - With torque, requiring the addition of a tail fin, some issues with water handling (waffling from side to side) and most problematic, the bottom of the cowl air intake for the Merlin tended to suck up some water sometimes which definitely isn't good.

So it's somewhat "up in the air" as to whether this could have really been a viable seaplane, and I didn't see any mention as to whether they ever tried to launch it from a catapult. I suspect it could have been with a little work but it was obviously a fairly low priority due to other serious concerns (like saving Britain itself and then saving the Suez Canal etc.) and due to time wasted on other projects that ended up going nowhere (which is where hindsight comes into play).

However,

As a CAM fighter even the earliest experimental version of this, assuming the catapult is strong enough to launch it, seems like it would perform beautifully as a fighter, I think more than sufficient to intercept and shoot down an FW 200 Condor. Then, arguably, the landing (on floats) should work out much better (for the pilot and probably for the aircraft too) than ditching a Hurricane. So it does seem like it might have been a good candidate for CAM.

And yet supermarine made the Schneider cup floatplanes, sounds to me like a classic case of too many chiefs and not enough indians

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

Yeah I'm sure they had the people involved in those early triumphs working on better versions of (land based) Spitfires

 

[Admiral Beez]

Okay, here's the fastest I can think of for an armed and armoured Wildcat.

 

[ThomasP]

A long time ago (early- to mid-1990s?) I ran across a mention and photos of tests done on a Wildcat with RATO. IIRC it was the British or Canadians doing the testing.