fastmongrel
1st Sergeant
You asked a question and the answer increased your knowledge. That's the whole point of this forum and why it's so fascinating.
Lancia Delta S4 hillclimbing in Sicily
A better FAA twin seat, single engine fighter for 1940? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Admiral Beez
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
You asked a question and the answer increased your knowledge. That's the whole point of this forum and why it's so fascinating.
Lancia Delta S4 hillclimbing in Sicily
the only thing about the s4 is it ended up being too dangerous as they found out the hard way
- Thread starter
- #63
Admiral Beez
Major
We don't need one twin seat fighter to last throughout the war. The Fulmar only served in front line squadrons for under two years before beginning to be withdrawn.
Rather than the monocoque Spitfire, Typhoon, etc, the Hurricane looks like an Mecano set. If there was any British fighter that we could bolt some expansion onto it's the Hurricane.
ok i get hurricane too small too hard to work with if the hurricane isnt it then what is
- Thread starter
- #65
Admiral Beez
Major
The Henley. A good start there as I describe above.
is there article where i can learn about that plane
- Thread starter
- #67
Admiral Beez
Major
ok thanks
- Thread starter
- #69
Admiral Beez
Major
thank you again
- Thread starter
- #71
Admiral Beez
Major
No worries. I'm glad to help.
And ignore the contrarians, those whose sole joy here is to tell you the trio of why something wouldn't, couldn't or shouldn't have occurred. Of course we must not ignore reality and the technological limitations of the time, but instead I recommend to focus on what's needed to overcome the contrarian's trio.
But this thread is about fighters. There was no room for a chimney on Japanese fighter aircraft, just horns and cymbals. The longer range, the louder.
Shortround6
Lieutenant General
Like reality
Reality being physics ( lift/drag ) actual power at altitude, available fuel at the time in question, available factory space and/or design staff.
and dozens of other trifling details, like
Reality rears it's head in the form of center of gravity. You don't just bolt 4 feet of extra fuselage into an airplane behind the existing center of gravity.
Why was the Skua's nose so long? they screwed up the calculations for the center of gravity and had to move the engine forward by a considerable amount to get the airplane to fly right.
Gravity is one hell of a contrarian.
BTW the book "Hawker Aircraft since 1920" by Francis K. Mason has a few details that seem either at odds with the above sources or raise more questions.
Commonly quote range is 940 miles, while clean. However the fuel capacity is listed as 94 gallons. We either have a misprint in either range or fuel capacity or the Henley was most economical aircraft of it's size and power ever built by anybody. No mention in the text about a bomb bay fuel tank.
Strange coincidence, the Henley, while using a whole new wing center section compared to the Hurricane and thus 7ft 10 in more wing span had exactly the same wing area as the Fulmar.
342 sq ft.
First Henley used fabric covered wings. 2nd got metal covered ones.
Henley's speed advantage over the Fairey P.4/34 bomber (Fulmar parent) may have come, in part, due to a bit marginal radiator setup?
It was a chronic over heater in target tug duties with many more problems than the Defiants used as target tugs.
Book also claims that Henley's career ended in 1942 with under 40 aircraft on charge in June of 1940. Be careful of wording as the claim that "remained in service" could refer to as little as 1-3 aircraft?
The Henley production line at Glosters was shut down in mid 1940 and the space devoted to increased Hurricane production.
- Thread starter
- #74
Admiral Beez
Major
Is the Fulmar really the highest performing single-engined twin-seat combat aircraft of the early war years? If it is, any criticism of the Fulmar is truly unfounded. Does that make the Firefly the best of them all?
Last edited:
wuzak
Captain
The reason for combining supercharging and turbocharging in the Lancia was to overcome turbo lag.
In aircraft, the turbocharger was not typically used provide boost, but rather compensate for altitude, maintaining, in theory, sea level air pressure to the engine's supercharger.
Shortround6
Lieutenant General
"Is the Fulmar really the highest performing single-engined twin-seat combat aircraft of the early war years? "
It may not be, but it may be the highest performing (fastest) at 7,000ft or so that also......
Carries as much armament.
Has the range/endurance.
Has the radios/electronic gear/room to use them
Can land and take off from BRITISH carriers (or most of them)
These are in no particular order of importance although perhaps the last should be first
Perhaps a more specific design could do better but then it wouldn't be completed until later which rather negates the whole thing.
Many/most British programs of the late 30s and early war years ran late.
Plane that is 1/2 way between the Fulmar and Firefly but doesn't show up until the summer or fall of 1941 doesn't get you much (Gladiators defending the fleet and Skuas doing searches?) in 1940.
It may not be, but it may be the highest performing (fastest) at 7,000ft or so that also......
Carries as much armament.
Has the range/endurance.
Has the radios/electronic gear/room to use them
Can land and take off from BRITISH carriers (or most of them)
These are in no particular order of importance although perhaps the last should be first
Perhaps a more specific design could do better but then it wouldn't be completed until later which rather negates the whole thing.
Many/most British programs of the late 30s and early war years ran late.
Plane that is 1/2 way between the Fulmar and Firefly but doesn't show up until the summer or fall of 1941 doesn't get you much (Gladiators defending the fleet and Skuas doing searches?) in 1940.
Last edited:
Shortround6
Lieutenant General
That was the theory to begin with.
Most WEP power levels required "help" from the turbo.
Thumpalumpacus
Colonel
I think the criticism is founded on the second seat being unnecessary. I tend to agree with it myself. I don't think the second crewman was worth the tradeoffs in performance. If we can put turbos in Hurricanes we can chop a few feet off a semi-decent fighter, right? It's not too far from taking the turret out of the Defiant, either. Drop the observer/navigator, lose a lot of weight, and chop the wings a little, and perhaps the Fulmar would've been top-tier? It certainly had the makings for it.
- Thread starter
- #79
Admiral Beez
Major
All good points, and I agree entirely. With the world's carrier and land based air forces developing and/or fielding high performance single-seat fighters it was ridiculous for the FAA to spend 1938-40 developing a slow and heavy twin-seater to counter them. The RN expected their carriers to operate within range of land based air attack, and thus mandated armoured flight decks. If so, it would seem prudent to have a FAA fighter that could deal with land based fighters.
Perhaps a 1938-39 open competition for a twin-seat fighter rather than a fasttracked shoehorning of a Fairey Battle derivative would bring the Air Ministry and FAA to their senses and lead us to a single seat fighter in 1940.
Last edited:
Shortround6
Lieutenant General
The Fulmar was not really a Battle Derivate unless you mean a remote derivative. Yes they were designed by a the same person but the P4/34 was a significantly smaller aircraft than the Battle. No parts were interchangeable a sin no clipped wing or outer wing panels the same with a smaller center section. They didn't just clip a few feet out of the fuselage, an all new, skinnier fuselage was designed.
You keep forgetting the recon part of the requirement. If you want the single seat fighter for carrier defense you need a long range high performance recon plane to put on the carriers. Preferably one with an enclosed cockpit (no planning on using the swordfish for another 7-8 years) so the pilot and observer don't suffer frostbite.
The requirement may very well have been mistaken. But unless you can come up with an alternative way to do the recon mission the get rid of the Fulmar plan falls apart.
As noted above the Fulmar carried twice the fuel and twice the ammo of the Hurricane. We may also need to investigate the radio suite. What was the range of of the standard RAF/FAA
FIGHTER radio when the Fulmar was developed? Unless it was hundreds of miles the recon mission is a goner.
Radios made tremendous advancements during WW II. saying fighter X would have been great in 1940 if only it had a radio that didn't exist until 1943 requires that old time machine.
quick look online says that the British TR 9 radio in use in 1937-39 was good for 35 miles air to ground and 5 miles air to air. They could extend the range by putting relay stations around 30 miles out from the sector airfields.
and since the Fulmar flying prototype was already flying in 1938 and the order for 127 Fulmars was placed in mid 1938.
Design competition for a new airplane might have woken the Air Ministry up but production aircraft would be lucky to see a flight deck until 1942.
There is no way on earth the British could have issued a requirement or competition in 1938 and had squadron service aircraft in 1940.
Last edited:
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
