Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
interesting. Tell us moreFor 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.
Goodness, this is 1938, not 1945. You've made a Super Firefly, not a better 1938-tech twin seater.
I know, but all the tech in the campaign was historically available prior to 1 July 1941, even the Rotol contra-rotating prop, except the developed 'R' engine. The rules of the campaign were that planning for the coming war would begin 1 January 1936, with anything on the table as long as the basic system (hull, airframe, engine, gun, etc) was available and that it would be feasible to modify or adapt in the succeeding time frames. We decided that turning the'R' into a usable engine would have been practical within ~4 years of serious effort, maybe not to the point of the Griffon in size and arrangement, but at least to a reliable engine at high power. Historically because of production/rearmament and financial/manpower issues it might not have been practical, but in the campaign the war that would begin 1 January 1942 was similar to the proxy wars of the Cold War period.I know, but.... we need to design this in 1938.
I had to trade a significant amount of fuel oil stowage on the armoured carriers I used for RN standards of protection for the 'Special'. I had to trade 500 tons of fuel oil stowage space for 160 tons (50,000 Impgal) of 'Special' fuel stowage. So 40% of the Aviation fuel stowage was dedicated to the Super Fulmar, with the rest (75,000 Impgal) normal 130 grade for the Albacores and Hurricanes.
Back to the OP, my money would be on a Defiant conversion. It has wide track undercarriage for starters - which would be a massive advantage for carrier operation - and the removal of the hefty turret with drag reduction would offset the retained weight of the extra crewman. It should also provide space for kit The P.94 derivative proposal with 12 .303s had a reasonably predicted top speed of circa 360mph. Lets chop a good lump off of that because of the FAAs obsession with filling airframes with equipment (with the obvious necessities like an arrestor hook, long range radio, decent dingy etc) - but a 330 mph aircraft is surely still a reasonable proposition? ... its also an aircraft in production - and the proposed P85 turreted naval variant of the Defiant may have already covered off some of the other required design mods for arrestor hook installation etc.
However, its still a Merlin engine - and regardless of rating, as others have said, its going to deliver its best performance at higher altitude, not low down as per the Fulmar spec. However, even a Defiant *with* its turret looks to have had a better climb rate than the Fulmar, so perhaps a faster climbing P.94 would have the advantage of being able to convert altitude into speed. Its mentioned in several passages I've read that Fulmars on interception often only had a chance to attack head on in a single pass or by diving onto things like JU88s if they had an altitude advantage.
And please give the poor old Nav Op a decent weapon to defend the tail. Perhaps a good fast firing gun like a VGO in a double Hampden style mounting?
I like it, but goodness how long is this thing? Will it fit down a 45ft long lift? Why not keep it simple with the below?
Agree.
