Fairey Gannet

[Mossie]

Assuming the "WHAT IF" leap of faith that the Royal Navy was allowed to keep proper  fixed wing carriers, how much development  stretch was  still possible with the Fairly Grommet?

The Aeroplane Monthly article on the last page mentions a Tyne added to the AEW airframe.  That would be good for another 2,000hp & you could also reduce drag with a slimmer intake, so you could carry a heavier load & get where you were going a bit quicker.  I'd like to see a drawing of that one if it exists.

[rickshaw]

..........and in an act of thread drifting.......anyone for a Short Skyvan as a C O D aircraft?  The five ton budgie wouldn't even need a catapult and probably not a hook either.

It would need a LOT of wing folding though. The Skyvan has very high aspect ratio wings, from its Hurel-Dubois concept roots, and to be really usefull it'd have to fit on a RN carrier lifts still.

That's getting back to the 'PR Gannets' multi-wing fold again. 

Not necessarily.  You could go for a fold and turn, so that it lies flat alongside the fuselage.  Doesn't the E-2 do that?

[famvburg]

     It wouldn't necessarily HAVE TO have wing folding. The proposed McDonnel Douglas C-9 COD & Fokker F-28 COD for the USN weren't to have wing folding, IIRC. I don't think they'd fit on a lift folded wings or not anyway.

..........and in an act of thread drifting.......anyone for a Short Skyvan as a C O D aircraft?  The five ton budgie wouldn't even need a catapult and probably not a hook either.

It would need a LOT of wing folding though. The Skyvan has very high aspect ratio wings, from its Hurel-Dubois concept roots, and to be really usefull it'd have to fit on a RN carrier lifts still.

That's getting back to the 'PR Gannets' multi-wing fold again. 

[PR19_Kit]

Whoa, hold on, halt, stop etc.

The whole idea is to make this look like Fairey, Shorts and the FAA would have done it. If the FAA wanted it parked below deck it would be, and just because Grumman decided to fold their wings alongside the fuselage would that be any reason for Fairey or Shorts to follow suit?

Remember that Fairey produced such masterpieces of wing folding as the Barracuda and all marks of Gannet, just imagine how wonderful a Shed would look with it's wings folded like a Gannet but with another 'Z' stage on top!!!

[jcf]

... masterpieces of wing folding ...

... and we mustn't forget the Blackburn B48.  





Rule Britannia.  

[PR19_Kit]

... masterpieces of wing folding ...

... and we mustn't forget the Blackburn B48.  

Must have had an ex-Fairey designer on their crew I reckon. 

[rickshaw]

Whoa, hold on, halt, stop etc.

The whole idea is to make this look like Fairey, Shorts and the FAA would have done it. If the FAA wanted it parked below deck it would be, and just because Grumman decided to fold their wings alongside the fuselage would that be any reason for Fairey or Shorts to follow suit?

Remember that Fairey produced such masterpieces of wing folding as the Barracuda and all marks of Gannet, just imagine how wonderful a Shed would look with it's wings folded like a Gannet but with another 'Z' stage on top!!!

I'd have suggested that the E-2 copied the British.  Afterall, the Fulmar, the Barracuda and the Firefly all folded their wings along the fuselage.   It would be simpler to do the same with a Skyvan.   Dare I suggest a Shorts C-23 Sherpa as an alternative? 

[jcf]

I'd have suggested that the E-2 copied the British.  Afterall, the Fulmar, the Barracuda and the Firefly all folded their wings along the fuselage. 

Uh, really? Grumman Wildcat, Avenger and Hellcat don't come to mind?

Anyhow on Fulmar and Barracuda the main-planes pivoted aft but did not rotate, only the Firefly had
them rotate in similar fashion to the Grumman types.

[pyro-manic]

Swordfish.

[kitnut617]

British Navy aircraft have always been hampered by the lift size fitted to the RN carriers.  Why these couldn't be made bigger has always baffled me.

[rickshaw]

I'd have suggested that the E-2 copied the British.  Afterall, the Fulmar, the Barracuda and the Firefly all folded their wings along the fuselage. 

Uh, really? Grumman Wildcat, Avenger and Hellcat don't come to mind?

Anyhow on Fulmar and Barracuda the main-planes pivoted aft but did not rotate, only the Firefly had
them rotate in similar fashion to the Grumman types.

It was meant in jest.  I'm aware that Grumman - like most naval aircraft manufacturers of the period - used folding/rotating wings to fit their planes into confined spaces.

[rickshaw]

Swordfish.

Not as silly as it might appear on the surface.  Biplanes allow shorter wings.  How about a AN-2 COD?   A Skyvan Biplane would work quite well, as well, I think. 

[pyro-manic]

What about a tandem-wing design?

British Navy aircraft have always been hampered by the lift size fitted to the RN carriers.  Why these couldn't be made bigger has always baffled me.

I don't know about lift size, but hangar deck height was a big issue (e.g. Corsairs having their wings clipped). The carriers themselves weren't as roomy as their US counterparts, that's the problem. Up until the war, British carriers all had armoured flight decks and small, fully-enclosed hangars, whereas the Americans went for open hangars and unprotected decks, giving more space. The tradeoff there was that USN carriers could carry many more aircraft and run them up in the hangar, but took heavy damage from kamikazes, whereas they bounced off the RN's decks. The properly big carriers (ie Malta-class) got cancelled. Post-war it wasn't really an issue, as the ships in service all had sufficient hangar clearance, having been designed during the war with lessons learned.

[jcf]

While not a Gannet or development, the EE P7 shows that the A-S Double Mamba was considered capable of lugging around a largish airframe.

[Weaver]

Great minds Jon - I was just looking at the P7 in Stuck On The Drawing Board and wondering what it would take to make one.  


The lift size issue on RN carriers is related to the armoured deck. The deck wasn't just armoured, it was also the longitudinal strength member of the ship's hull, which mean it couldn't be too bendy or twisty. Essentially, US carriers' hulls went up to the hangar deck, and the hanger and flight deck were unstressed superstructure. In RN carriers, the hull went up to the flight deck. Using the flight deck in this way saved structural weight because it made the hull, as seen from the side, a deeper "beam" which would resist bending with less material, and weight saving was imperitive given the huge expanse of area that needed to be armoured. The downside was that you couldn't cut big holes in the deck: if you look at Ark Royal, her lifts were narrow rectangles either side of the centreline (thus preserving the "beam") while those on Illustrious et al are far narrower than the deck, thus preserving two "beams".

Interestingly, both camps saw some merit in the other's ideas by war's end: the Malta and Midway designs both had armoured decks to withstand kamakazis and open hangers for more capacity and better flight ops tempo (engines could be warmed up on the hangar deck).