Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Spec S.28/43 that resulted in a Firebrand development with a thin wing, the Firecrest
Oh, and as an aside, a recent defence of Blackburn and the Firebrand.
Well, with the Sea Fury, and probably the Firefly, you are going to have to splice some extra into the wing centre section to allow carriage of a torpedo, otherwise it interferes with undercarriage retraction. Firebrand wingspan grew by 15.5" and weight by 1,400-1,500 between the F.I and TF.II for just this reason. See below
And with that comes added weight to beef up the centre section to take a centreline pylon to carry the 1,801lb and 17ft long (plus weight and length of the Monoplane Air Tail) of the then standard Mk.XV torpedo. And watch the space under the fuselage. Firebrand had to be fitted with a special pylon to change the angle at which the torpedo was carried on the ground and in the air.
As for the Firefly, are you comparing like with like? Remember it was designed as a two seater with much tighter deck landing limits and in WW2 Mk.I form had an engine rated at 1,735hp (single stage supercharged, Griffon IIB giving 316mph at 14,000 feet) compared to the Hellcat's 2,000hp and more with water injection. Postwar versions of the Firefly got the much more powerful (2,250hp) two stage Griffon 74 which lifted the top speed to 386mph at 14,000 ft.
Most sources give the Hellcat a max speed around 376mph, boosted to c390mph with water injection.
If we must combine fighters and torpedoes, just stick the short torps from your Tarpons onto the FAA's Hellcats.How should the British carrier-borne 'torpedo-fighter' looked like for post-1945, so it is an actually useful aircraft?
For shipping strike the RAF/FAA concluded in 1943 that the solid 25lb AP head was better than the 60lb HE head and used it in that role to the end of the war. It proved far better at letting the water in!If we must combine fighters and torpedoes, just stick the short torps from your Tarpons onto the FAA's Hellcats.
View attachment 695301
View attachment 695302
But post-1945, fighters are increasingly jet powered, and we soon move to PGM ordnance rather than torpedoes for anti ship work, such as guided glide bombs. Postwar the fighter-torpedo concept was obsolete and resources should have instead gone to getting the Attacker, Vampire and Sea Hawk into earlier FAA service.
This is what early postwar FAA anti ship strike should have looked like.
View attachment 695307
View attachment 695303
Assuming these are RP-3 rockets, if armed with a 60 lb warhead they have a speed of 750 ft/s (511 mph). Assuming the launching Attacker or Sea Hawk is approaching from above at something like 450 mph, firing eight to twelve 60 lb rocket at close to 1,000 mph, no WW2 surplus cruiser or thin skinned postwar warship will do well.
Combined with a fast jet launch aircraft, the much faster speed of 1200 fps (818 mph) the 25 lb. RP-3 would do some serious damage. If we're flying a strike of Supermarine Attrackers, each armed with twelve 25 lb. RP-3 rockets against a large warship bereft of air cover, such as a Kirov class light cruiser, how would you run the strike? I assume the 590 mph Attacker is significantly slower at lower altitude and carrying the rockets. Plus, in this era of visual targeting, if we approach too quickly would the pilot be able to locate and accurately close on the target?For shipping strike the RAF/FAA concluded in 1943 that the solid 25lb AP head was better than the 60lb HE head and used it in that role to the end of the war. It proved far better at letting the water in!
Staying on topic, that's no fighter. Let's see a torpedo on any of the USN's postwar fighters. Maybe non-operational trials with the F7F Tigercat, but torpedoes on the F9F Panther?
In name only - it fits the bill...Staying on topic, that's no fighter.
Martin MaulerStaying on topic, that's no fighter. Let's see a torpedo on any of the USN's postwar fighters. Maybe non-operational trials with the F7F Tigercat, but torpedoes on the F9F Panther?
Should have said, the object of a rocket attack was not to hit the ship but the water about 25 yards from the ship's side, so that the rockets arced upwards after hitting the water and punched holes beneath the waterline so letting the water in and sinking the ship. In training, Coastal Command pilots (flying Mosquitos & Beaufighters with 8 RP) were taught to launch pairs at 1,200, 1,000, 800, & 600 yards. Didn't always work as planned though. Any hit above the waterline simply punches a 3" hole. It has no explosive effect. So the only internal damage is to what it then physically comes into contact with, and then only if it retains sufficient force after entering or leaves through the other side.Combined with a fast jet launch aircraft, the much faster speed of 1200 fps (818 mph) the 25 lb. RP-3 would do some serious damage. If we're flying a strike of Supermarine Attrackers, each armed with twelve 25 lb. RP-3 rockets against a large warship bereft of air cover, such as a Kirov class light cruiser, how would you run the strike? I assume the 590 mph Attacker is significantly slower at lower altitude and carrying the rockets. Plus, in this era of visual targeting, if we approach too quickly would the pilot be able to locate and accurately close on the target?
Tell that to these guys...Spad is all good and well, it does not cover the 'fighter' part of the 'torpedo-fighter' designation.
Just by name - compare this aircraft to Firebrand. It was a bit slower but it outperformed it in almost every category and I don't think you're going to find an other aircraft in the post war period that can carry a torpedo and then double as a fighter...Still, it was not a fighter.
Just by name - compare this aircraft to Firebrand. It was a bit slower but it outperformed it in almost every category and I don't think you're going to find an other aircraft in the post war period that can carry a torpedo and then double as a fighter...