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

Shortround6 said:

Some accounts say that it was the Admiralty that requested the recon mission and endurance and it was not foisted onto the Admiralty by the Air Ministry.

Click to expand...

The recon mission seems ideal for the existing Skua and Swordfish. Why compromise on your fleet fighter by adding a recon/observer role, when from 1938 on you have the Skua? The Skua already has competitive cruise speed and range - the Fulmar doesn't add much to the recon/observer role, and certainly not enough to justify the reduced fighter capability.

Blackburn Skua - Wikipedia

• Cruise speed: 187 mph (301 km/h, 162 kn)
• Range: 760 mi (1,220 km, 660 nmi)

Fairey Fulmar - Wikipedia

• Cruise speed: 235 mph (378 km/h, 204 kn)
• Range: 780 mi (1,260 km, 680 nmi)

Of course neither of these matched the range of the IJN's primary reconnaissance aircraft, the Aichi E13A Jake.

• Cruise speed: 138 mph (222 km/h, 120 kn)
• Range: 1,298 mi, (2,089 km, 1,128 nmi)

But replace the Skua's 500 lb. bomb with a 70 imp. gallon slipper tank and/or enlarge the internal tanks and you've got a long range recon bird. Then the FAA's first monoplane fighter can be a single-seater designed to meet the likes of the Bf 109, A5M and Re.2000.

Existing British carriers had a real problem with gasoline capacity.

Their ability to operate even medium numbers of aircraft is rather suspect and their ability to maintain CAP patrols is very suspect.

From Conway's so correction welcome.
Furious...........................20,800 gal
Courageous
& Glorious...................34,500 gal
Ark Royal...................100,000 gal
ILLustrious...................54,540 gal

We already know the Hermes was under 10,000 gal
The Eagle has a number of capacities in different sources but it is doubtful she ever had 20,000 gal,
Her 1941/42 refit is supposed to have added 3000 imp gallons. Av gas supply in 1937????

The Saratoga had 137,450 gal in 1942.
The Ranger had 135,840 gal as built
The Yorktown had 177,950 gal
The Wasp had 162,00 gal
The Essex class was designed with 240,000 gal
The Independence class had 120,000 gal

The Fulmar had some hope of getting away from enemy fighters (or fighting them?)
The Skua couldn't run and it's ability to fight was less than the Fulmars.


The Fulmar was intended to operate against unescorted bombers and Maritime reconnaissance aircraft.
And any contemplated escort fighters would probably look like this.

with or without the 3rd crewman.

It wasn't just the British who thought that single engine, single seat escort fighters were not practical.

Shortround6 said:

The Fulmar was intended to operate against unescorted bombers. It wasn't just the British who thought that single engine, single seat escort fighters were not practical.

Click to expand...

Was any airforce operating unescorted day bombers over land or sea by summer 1940 when the Fulmar entered service? The RAF themselves had for the most part abandoned unescorted day bomber strikes after their disastrous Sept 1939 Willhelmshaven raids.

I say make a removable bomb displacement crutch for the Fulmar. It was already ~stressed for dive bombing, and was described as 'stable in a 450 mph dive with no tendency to hunt' so I would think it would be controllable enough for dive bombing at 250-300 mph. The bomb would still be limited to ~500 lbs, but against the unarmoured decks of the Japanese carriers it would still cause serious damage.

Admiral Beez said:

Was any airforce operating unescorted day bombers over land or sea by summer 1940 when the Fulmar entered service? The RAF themselves had abandoned unescorted day bomber strikes.

Click to expand...

You had planes ordered and parts ordered and in the supply chain. Saying "oops" in 1940 and canceling the contracts leaves you with a huge amount of very expensive scrap and no airplanes.

And yes, the Germans were operating unescorted bombers over the sea in the summer of 1940. Not in large numbers but they were doing it.

You are also confusing short range escorted missions and long range escorted mission.
Obviously the bombers could fly much further in daylight unescorted than if tied to escorts. They did it at night.
The limited range of the over land day light strikes was due to the short range of the fighters. Many bombers were restricted to night attacks only and they didn't use them for day strikes even if escorted.

In 1940 many nations hadn't worked out efficient escorting yet. Sounds stupid but just telling fighter squadron XX to escort bomber squadron YY tomorrow doesn't cut it. You need compatible radios, you need a rendezvous point (and procedure as to what happens if one squadron gets to the rendezvous point ahead of the "partner" squadron). You need escort tactics, just flying a bit higher and off to one side or behind the bombers doesn't work very well.
Germans didn't believe the single engine escort was possible which is why they built the 110.
The Japanese didn't think it was possible either and issued the specification that led to the Ki-45 Nick in 1937 which lead to a prototype in 1939 which lead to production planes in late 1941 and combat in 1942, at which they failed. The Ki-43 and Zero had been developed to the point where they could assume most of the long range duties.
However long range was not part of the original specification for the Ki-43, at least according to Wiki.
"The Ki-43 prototype was produced in response to a December 1937 specification for a successor to the popular fixed-gear Nakajima Ki-27 Nate. The specification called for a top speed of 500 km/h (311 mph), a climb rate of 5,000 m (16,400 ft) in five minutes and a range of 800 km (500 mi). Maneuverability was to be at least as good as that of Ki-27. "

Bolding by me. Ki-43 didn't go into service until the summer of 1941.
Specifications/requirements changed, engines changed, propellers changed, radios changed. Aerodynamics didn't change but what was known did.

ThomasP said:

I say make a removable bomb displacement crutch for the Fulmar.

Click to expand...

We're trying to make a better two seat fighter, not a better two seat bomber. So, I suggest we drop the bomb crutch and do whatever we can to lighten, streamline and increase power on the Fulmar or an alternative. Though we don't want an unprotected, lightweight Zero-like proposal.

What else is out there to look at. At 272 mph, was the 9,672 lb. Fulmar the fastest two-seat, single-engine ~1,300 hp aircraft? I return to the 340 mph, 9,370 lb. Yokosuka D4Y with a 1,400 hp engine, as one example. The Sukhoi Su-2 was also capable of more than 300 mph.

Hey Admiral Beez,

re:"We're trying to make a better two seat fighter, not a better two seat bomber."

et:"The Skua already has competitive cruise speed and range - the Fulmar doesn't add much to the recon/observer role, and certainly not enough to justify the reduced fighter capability."

The increased multi-role capability of the Fulmar FDBR would address the second quote above, by allowing the deletion of the Skua, thereby increasing the possible fighter complement.

But it sounds like what you mean to say is produce a higher performance two-seat single-engine carrier fighter?

Have Rolls Royce produce about 800-1000(?) of a 'derated' version of the 'R'. The Fulmar has a large enough airframe that it could handle the weight and size of the engine, despite the added length of the 'R' engine over the Merlin - CG and w&l could be dealt with fairly easily. On 100 grade fuel it would have a continuous power rating (2850 rpm at +9 lbs) of ~1900 BHP at 9,000 ft. Military (3000 rpm at +9 lbs) would be ~2000 BHP at 10,000 ft. Note that this is for the 'R' with a 7.47 SC gear ratio.

Overall weight increase would be ~600-700 lbs including going to a 1940 4-blade Rotol prop.

Vsustained would be about 305 mph at 9,000 ft, and Vmax would would increase to ~315 mph at 10,000 ft, both speeds with no RAM. Incorporate some detail drag reduction mods and you could probably increase these speeds by 5-10 mph.

ROCsustained would be ~2700 ft/min from SL to 9,000 ft, TTH of 15,000 ft would be ~6 min. Service ceiling would be over 30,000 ft.

Range would decrease on the standard internal fuel load, but the lifting capacity is so greatly increased that including a 45 Impgal DT on each wing hardpoint would not be a problem. TO roll would actually decrease despite the increase in TOGW.

Admiral Beez said:

What else is out there to look at. At 272 mph, was the 9,672 lb. Fulmar the fastest two-seat, single-engine ~1,300 hp aircraft? I return to the 340 mph, 9,370 lb. Yokosuka D4Y with a 1,400 hp engine, as one example. The Sukhoi Su-2 was also capable of more than 300 mph.

Click to expand...

Did the Yokosuka D4Y do 340mph at 7,000ft?
A Spit MK V with a Merlin 50 engine running 15.6lbs of boost just misses 350mph at 8,000ft.
A Spitfire MK V with a Merlin 45 running 16lbs of boost gains 20mph between 8,000ft and 13,000ft due to the thinner air=less drag.

The Fulmar had about the same wing loading as an early Hurricane or Spitfire, a bit over 24lb per sq/ft.
Your super Fulmar has to able to operate off the majority of British carriers in existence before the war with an acceptable accident rate.
The D4Y had a wing loading of 37lb sq/ft. with bomb/s. it will be at least 32lb sq ft without bombs or increase gun armament.

ThomasP said:

But it sounds like what you mean to say is produce a higher performance two-seat single-engine carrier fighter?

Click to expand...

Well, yes. I thought that was clear from the title of the thread and the OP. If we're hellbent on having a twin seat fighter, what's the best we can do?

ThomasP said:

Have Rolls Royce produce about 800-1000(?) of a 'derated' version of the 'R'. The Fulmar has a large enough airframe that it could handle the weight and size of the engine, despite the added length of the 'R' engine over the Merlin - CG and w&l could be dealt with fairly easily. On 100 grade fuel it would have a continuous power rating (2850 rpm at +9 lbs) of ~1900 BHP at 9,000 ft. Military (3000 rpm at +9 lbs) would be ~2000 BHP at 10,000 ft. Note that this is for the 'R' with a 7.47 SC gear ratio.

Overall weight increase would be ~600-700 lbs including going to a 1940 4-blade Rotol prop.

Vsustained would be about 305 mph at 9,000 ft, and Vmax would would increase to ~315 mph at 10,000 ft, both speeds with no RAM. Incorporate some detail drag reduction mods and you could probably increase these speeds by 5-10 mph.

ROCsustained would be ~2700 ft/min from SL to 9,000 ft, TTH of 15,000 ft would be ~6 min. Service ceiling would be over 30,000 ft.

Note that this is for the 'R' with a 7.47 SC gear ratio.

Range would decrease on the standard internal fuel load, but the lifting capacity is so greatly increased that including a 45 Impgal DT on each wing hardpoint would not be a problem. TO roll would actually decrease despite the increase in TOGW.

Click to expand...

Nice idea. I was not aware of this engine Rolls-Royce R - Wikipedia

Just throwing this out there, without researching it, how about ditching the Fulmar and going with the SBD as a carrier borne fighter? I believe an SBD did take out a Zero. They were used as CAP (out of desperation).

SaparotRob said:

Just throwing this out there, without researching it, how about ditching the Fulmar and going with the SBD as a carrier borne fighter? I believe an SBD did take out a Zero. They were used as CAP (out of desperation).

Click to expand...

Not much use to the 1940 Fleet Air Arm the SBD didn't fly till mid 1940 and it was not till mid 1941 the USN started to receive the SBD-3 with 4 guns, armour and self sealing tanks. The SBD-5 with the 1200hp Cyclone didn't get into service till 1942 iirc.

Until the 1200hp engine the SBD was give or take a few knots the same performance as a Skua in 1939.

then the xsba-1? First flew April 1936 and was supposedly a two-seat fighter (paper?) design modified to meet the US navy 34 scout spec.

SaparotRob said:

Just throwing this out there, without researching it, how about ditching the Fulmar and going with the SBD as a carrier borne fighter? I believe an SBD did take out a Zero. They were used as CAP (out of desperation).

Click to expand...

We'd need folding wings, but otherwise there's some potential. The challenge is that up to now Britain has no history of license building foreign aircraft, nor operating them on their carriers. This needs to be a British design, though inspiration from US or other countries is definitely in the cards.

ssnider said:

then the xsba-1? First flew April 1936 and was supposedly a two-seat fighter (paper?) design modified to meet the US navy 34 scout spec.

Click to expand...

A thousand lashes for Mr. Fairey if his Fulmar isn't faster than this fat slug.

Frankly I don't think you can make a better two seat fighter. The Merlin engines was amongst the best available at the time and if you add anything, you add weight, resulting in the performance taking a further hit.

I am no fan of the Fulmar but if you have to have a two seat fighter early in the war then it probably as good as it was going to get. It's the whole concept of a two seat single engine fighter that's at fault

Glider said:

Frankly I don't think you can make a better two seat fighter. I am no fan of the Fulmar but if you have to have a two seat fighter early in the war then it probably as good as it was going to get.

Click to expand...

You might have it there. If the Brits had a radial in 1938 equal to the Merlin they could have omitted the weight of the cooling system, but they didn't.

Not that I'm suggesting sticking a radial on a Fulmar, like this ugly Hercules-powered Battle below. No, instead if there was a radial with the Merlin's power in 1938-39, such as an earlier Hercules, I'd start with a clean sheet design, leading to something like a (much) longer range La-7UTI less fortunately an enlarged Bristol 148. But again, there wasn't, so we can't.



Some ugly ducklings here Twin seat conversions

Admiral Beez said:

The specifically designed British carrier aircraft is a rare thing. For fighters you have the Flycatcher, Fulmar, Firefly, Attacker, Sea Hawk, Scimitar and Vixen. Everything else, from the Nightjar, Nimrod, Sea Hurricane, Seafire, Sea Fury, Sea Harrier, etc. etc. was either a rehash of a RAF design or like the Martlet, Hellcat, Corsair, Phantom II and F-35, procured from the US.

Click to expand...

Yup. And I think if IIRC you can probably also subtract the (Sea) Hawk from that line up too... The Hawk was designed as a generic jet fighter - there was nothing specific about the original design to meet naval requirements. It was only after the RAF rejected the P1040 that Hawkers concentrated the sales effort on the FAA and tweaked the prototypes accordingly. Even the DH110 was designed with both FAA and RAF in mind - which given the ever diminishing numbers of post war carriers and aircraft makes sense - production runs for the FAA were always going to be relatively small on their own.

There appears to have been a long history of the FAA receiving 'second bests', hand-me-downs or designs compromised by unrealistic or quickly outdated specifications. The contrast with American naval aircraft is pretty marked - with many of those quite capable of fighting against land based aircraft on more than equal terms. Post war, the superlative Buccaneer and Sea Harrier proved what the UK aviation industry was capable of when it wasn't working against the odds.

Shortround6 said:

Did the Yokosuka D4Y do 340mph at 7,000ft?
A Spit MK V with a Merlin 50 engine running 15.6lbs of boost just misses 350mph at 8,000ft.
A Spitfire MK V with a Merlin 45 running 16lbs of boost gains 20mph between 8,000ft and 13,000ft due to the thinner air=less drag.

Click to expand...

FWIW, for 7000 ft the US data from March 1945 gives 320 mph for the D4Y1 (engine was a bit worse than the DB 601A there) and 345+ mph for the D4Y2 (engine was comparable with DB 601E or early Merlin XX in power).
Earlier data - from Nov 1944 - gives 310 mph for the D4Y1.

How much the Spitfire lost of it's streamlining between 1939 and 1942 is beyond belief.

tomo pauk said:

FWIW, for 7000 ft the US data from March 1945 gives 320 mph for the D4Y1 (engine was a bit worse than the DB 601A there) and 345+ mph for the D4Y2 (engine was comparable with DB 601E or early Merlin XX in power).
Earlier data - from Nov 1944 - gives 310 mph for the D4Y1.

Click to expand...

Thanks. With its lack of armour and guns I wasn't really suggesting the D4Y, but it's hard to find a streamlined, 300 mph single engined twin seater flying by 1940, and the Japanese managed to sort it out (only just, first flight Dec 1940). Maybe there's some lessons there we can apply for the FAA twin seat fighter.

Admiral Beez said:

Maybe there's some lessons there we can apply for the FAA twin seat fighter.

Click to expand...

Make a list of the British carriers.

Include speed and flight deck length, if you can find it list catapult capacities (weight/speed) and arresting system capacities (weight and speed)

Toss out the Argus and Hermes, Eagle is a maybe.

If your hypothetical fighter cannot operate from the Eagle(?), Furious, Courageous and Glorious it is a "not wanted."
We can assume it will operate from the Ark Royal and the Indomitables. But that i s only 1/2 of your carrier fleet (?) or 1/3 in 1940 (planned?)

FAA to Air Ministry in 1938-39 " great whiz bang, super two seat fighter you have for us. Thanks a bunch, Now could we have something that will operate from more than 2-4 carriers out of the 6-8 we plan to have in 1940?"
(assumes Hermes is reduced to training or aircraft ferry)

For wargame purposes, I have spent way too much time on this particular question. The only solution I was able to find was the Super Fulmar (I called it the Fulmar FBR Mk IIIE ). The increase in wing loading was a little under 2 lb/ft2, and the stall & landing speeds only increased by ~1.5 mph.