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

[Admiral Beez]

Trying to turn a bomber into a fighter doesn't end well most of the time.

True, good points. What we want is a clean sheet design, unrelated to any bomber type that covers the FAA's dual seat fighter requirement. Only that gets us an improvement over the Fulmar.

 

[swampyankee]

Wetted area is far more important than frontal area for subsonic aircraft. That said, a side-by-side aircraft may have significantly more frontal area, and, depending on fineness ratio (roughly, length over square root of cross-sectional area) and avoidance of separation, may have more wetted area.

That said, I think that it's more likely that tactical considerations (including getting out of a damaged aircraft) likely make tandems more attractive for military aircraft, regardless of minor differences in drag. Given the limits on engines available in the Fulmar's time frame, I'm not sure how much better a two-seater that fits all the specifications could be.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Given the limits on engines available in the Fulmar's time frame, I'm not sure how much better a two-seater that fits all the specifications could be.

How about something like this?

Let's remember the man in the back is there to observe, radio operate and navigate. He doesn't need a ton of internal space like a Bf 110.

 

[swampyankee]

But how much space is needed for the radio?

As a question, where did the Fulmar put its fuel?

 

[Admiral Beez]

But how much space is needed for the radio?

As a question, where did the Fulmar put its fuel?

It appears to be in the wings.

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/e5/60/b1/e560b1660f0b84a1667689728609112a.gif

 

[swampyankee]

It appears to be in the wings.

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/e5/60/b1/e560b1660f0b84a1667689728609112a.gif

Thanks.

 

[Greyman]

155 gallon tank behind the pilot.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Thanks.

With so much apparent space between pilot and observer it's a wonder they didn't put fuel between them, like with the Skua.

 

[Shortround6]

Cut away drawing is for a Fairey Battle, not Fulmar.

 

[Greyman]

Swampyankee accidently posted a Fairey Battle cutaway.

Link to a Fulmar cutaway: (very large image -- and in french)
http://www.airwar.ru/image/idop/fww2/fulmar/fulmar-2.gif

 

[Admiral Beez]

Swampyankee accidently posted a Fairey Battle cutaway.

Link to a Fulmar cutaway: (very large image -- and in french)
http://www.airwar.ru/image/idop/fww2/fulmar/fulmar-2.gif

My bad, I'd googled for the Fulmar cutaway and the result was the Battle.

 

[Greyman]

Whoops and I went and named the wrong poster.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

lol, who's on first?

BTW, I wouldn't want to be sitting on top of a fuel tank. Here's hoping they were SS.

 

[Greyman]

It was, the 60-gallon auxiliary tank (under fuselage) was too.

 

[SaparotRob]

lol, who's on first?

BTW, I wouldn't want to be sitting on top of a fuel tank. Here's hoping they were SS.

Who's on second. What's on first.

 

[Dimlee]

Can we "cheat" and offer 2 engines foreign design?
Let's cooperate with Fokker.
Twin boom with large rear canopy for the observer... let him observe with comfort.
Fokker G.1.
Range/speed/climb rate - all is better. Larger wingspan but the wing can be made folded?

 

[Admiral Beez]

Can we "cheat" and offer 2 engines foreign design?
Let's cooperate with Fokker.

I'm game. But my favourite Fokker for the FAA has to be the D.XXIII.

A two seat variant with two Merlins should do the trick. But we must prevent the rear prop striking the deck or eviscerating those tasked with releasing the hook.

 

[Shortround6]

How about something like this?


View attachment 618988

Let's remember the man in the back is there to observe, radio operate and navigate. He doesn't need a ton of internal space like a Bf 110.

From Wiki
"The Bf 109 G-12 was a two-seat trainer version of the Bf 109. This was a conversion of "war-weary" or rebuilt G-4 and G-6 airframes;[85][89] the space needed for the second cockpit was gained by reducing the internal fuel capacity to only 240 L (60 US gal) meaning that the 300 L (80 US gal) drop tank was employed as standard equipment. This version was rarely armed with anything more than one or two cowling machine guns.[90] The rear cockpit canopy was bowed out to give the instructor, who sat behind the student pilot in an armoured seat, a clearer view. The rear cockpit was also equipped with a basic instrument panel and all flight controls.[91]

Bolding by me.
Two seat conversion trainers are not two seat fighters and are certainly not reconnaissance aircraft.

 

[ThomasP]

re the D.XXIII

I think the lines between the main gear wheels and the skids under the aft end of the booms would prevent the prop from striking the deck. Designing a reliable arrestor hook arrangement that would not be struck by the prop might be a problem though.

 

[Admiral Beez]

re the D.XXIII

I think the lines between the main gear wheels and the skids under the aft end of the booms would prevent the prop from striking the deck. Designing a reliable arrestor hook arrangement that would not be struck by the prop might be a problem though.

The pilot's view of the deck during landing would be superlative.

 

[Admiral Beez]

To fit our second man we'll need to remove the fuel tank behind the pilot, shown below. In truth I assume that's a fuel tank, but maybe it's a radiator fan cowl?