A better FAA twin seat, single engine fighter for 1940?

[Admiral Beez]

The Fulmar was a given, made in a hurry from Fairey’s RAF project. Putting aside the inevitability of the Fulmar, and assuming the single engine, twin seater, long range, eight, fixed forward firing guns (no turret fighters, thanks), fighter requirement is a must, what other British aircraft could have filled this role, entering service in 1940? Remember the man in the rear doesn’t get a gun (a few Fulmars aside), he’s there to navigate and observe.

Perhaps a modified Hawker Henley? Perhaps the Defiant with fixed forward guns with unarmed rear seater?

Thoughts on the Hawker Hotspur without turret?

 

[Shortround6]

If so, what is the up side?
A difference of 10-20mph?
maybe, maybe not?
Once the Henley is fitted with a low altitude engine and flying at 5-10,000ft instead of at 15,000ft any large difference in speed disappears.
Once fitted with armor and self sealing tanks the difference in rate of climb gets much smaller.

 

[Admiral Beez]

What about a tandem seat set up, like a larger BP Balliol?

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

The problem I could see with a side-by-side design is that it would require a wider fuselage, which would add drag, in all likelihood.

 

[Admiral Beez]

The problem I could see with a side-by-side design is that it would require a wider fuselage, which would add drag, in all likelihood.

The Baillol looks pretty sleek to me, certainly more so than the sluggish Fulmar. Remove the dual controls and give the other chap the Fulmar’s navigation radio.

Of course we’re not going with a straight Baillol since it doesn’t exist yet, and we need guns, fuel and armour.

Just make sure it’s Merlin, not radial powered, yikes!

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Yeah, I saw your pic. Looks can be deceiving. Every inch of surface area contributes drag. even if the thing looks pretty trim. Even with an inline engine you're still going to have to fair it into a fuselage a couple of feet wider. That's simply more surface area up front -- meaning more drag.

Put the aircrew in tandem and you avoid that issue. That's why even two-seat fighters from all eras generally adopt tandem seating (the F-111 is labeled a fighter, but is functionally a bomber). The air literally slips by easier.

 

[tomo pauk]

Japanese have had the proportions right with Yokosuka D4Y. A lot of space to juggle around the fuel tanks, guns & ammo since in this job the bomb bay is free.
Fw 190S fuselage, with Merlin power egg in the nose, and more generous wing (hopefully based on Spitfire's) of perhaps 270 sq ft.
TP-51 fuselage with NACA 23016 (root) wing.
2-seat Spitfire with 'chin' radiator and fuel tanks in the wing.
2-seat Zero. 2-seat Ki-61 with a bigger wing.
Backburn Skua with tad a smaller wing, Merlin in the nose, reworked cockpit canopy, wheel well covers.

 

[Shortround6]

the frontal area of a "seated" pilot can be larger than a V-12 engine, depends on if pilot is up right or semi-reclined. Also depends on radiator.
Unless a radial is small you could often fit two people behind the radial side by side.
Using a single Merlin and using side by side seating is a problem no matter how sleek the nose.

 

[fastmongrel]

A two seater Hurricane might work. The Soviets did several conversions.

Not sure if this is a whiffer but it looks good.

 

[fastmongrel]

using side by side seating is a problem no matter how sleek the nose.

Also not much use for rearward vision.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Also not much use for rearward vision.

The second man in the Mosquito or any side By side fighter had the same issue.

I suppose we could give him a rearward or swivel seat like on the Bf 110.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

The second man in the Mosquito or any side By side fighter had the same issue.

So did one-seat fighters, for that matter. The point, though, is that a wider fuselage will add to power requirements. Even without the wider fuselage. the two-sea Battle with a Merlin had mediocre performance. Put the two crew side-by-side, it's draggier.

 

[Admiral Beez]

So did one-seat fighters, for that matter. The point, though, is that a wider fuselage will add to power requirements. Even without the wider fuselage. the two-sea Battle with a Merlin had mediocre performance. Put the two crew side-by-side, it's draggier.

Enough said, I suppose side-by-side is a dead end. What are the other options?

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Enough said, I suppose side-by-side is a dead end. What are the other options?

My own opinion: halving the crew. Outside of nightfighters, I don't see two-seat fighters being very competitive.

 

[Admiral Beez]

My own opinion: halving the crew. Outside of nightfighters, I don't see two-seat fighters being very competitive.

Yes, indeed. And usually saner heads at the FAA or AM prevailed, as outside of the Fulmar, Firefly, Venom and Vixen every operational British-designed carrier fighter (sorry DB Skua, you don’t count) was a single seater. But it’s the late 1930‘s, the Air Ministry is somehow ignorant of the growing performance of both land and sea based single-seat fighters, so we’re stuck with two seats.

How about a dedicated fighter variant of the Skua? Delete the bomb cradle, dive brakes and rear gun, put eight guns in the wings, streamline the canopy. As it was, whilst it was definitely slower, the Skua had a better rate of climb than the Fulmar.

 

[wuzak]

The second man in the Mosquito or any side By side fighter had the same issue.

I suppose we could give him a rearward or swivel seat like on the Bf 110.

The navigator/bomb aimer in B and PR Mosquitoes would sometimes kneel on their seats and look rearwards through the astrodome.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Yes, indeed. And usually saner heads at the FAA or AM prevailed, as outside of the Fulmar, Firefly, Venom and Vixen every operational British-designed carrier fighter (sorry DB Skua, you don’t count) was a single seater. But it’s the late 1930‘s, the Air Ministry is somehow ignorant of the growing performance of both land and sea based single-seat fighters, so we’re stuck with two seats.

How about a dedicated fighter variant of the Skua? Delete the bomb cradle, dive brakes and rear gun, put eight guns in the wings, streamline the canopy. As it was, whilst it was definitely slower, the Skua had a better rate of climb than the Fulmar.

Certainly, specializing on a mission brings benefits to an airplane's performance, ditching multi-mission requirements. But with smaller aircraft complements, could the FAA afford that luxury? They didn't board 70-90 aircraft at a time as we Americans or the Japanese did. Tradeoffs ... tradeoffs ...

 

[Shortround6]

Simple comparison.

Same airplane from the firewall back.
The inline engine version was a few (under 5?) mph faster but the radial climbed a bit better (it was lighter).
4 seat cabin plane. rear seat was 42in wide (my computer chair is 21-22 between the armrests, pull your arms inside the arm rests)
You put two people side by side and you need a fuselage almost two feet wider than a single seater.
Hight of average seated man is about 3 ft from butt to top of head arrange legs as you see fit.
That is a lot of frontal area that is not going to go away.

 

[Admiral Beez]

If so, what is the up side?

One upside of a Henley fighter could be the internal ordnance bay, which could be used for fuel, cameras and of course small bombs.

 

[Shortround6]

You have to carry around the internal ordnance bay all the time.
Heavier airframe, more frontal area.

The Skua is criticized for being a multi role aircraft, the Fulmar is criticized for being a multi role aircraft.
Trying to add even more roles to the Henley might not be an advantage.

If the basic role/s are a combination of interceptor/long range reconnaissance you have two very conflicting roles to begin with. The Interceptor doesn't need or want the large fuel load of the long range plane (or the navigation and radio equipment)
The US combined the roles of dive bomber/strike aircraft and long range reconnaissance. Trade bombs for fuel, plane is still slow but at least it wasn't intended to be a fighter.
Trying to turn a bomber into a fighter doesn't end well most of the time.