Alternatives to the Fairey Firefly?

[MIflyer]

Sea Mossie!

 

[EwenS]

Merlin 32 was still an one-altitude-band engine, unlike the Merlin 20s or the Griffon.
Having the over-boosted Merlin 20 series for the Fulmar in whole of 1943 is a boon wrt. the crucial operations in the MTO that unfolded.

1943?
The last Fulmar II day fighter squadrons were off the carriers by the end of 1942. The carriers in the Med in 1943 were using Martlet IV and Seafire IIc both of which far outperformed the Fulmar II. Putting a Merlin 20 series in it is not IMHO going to make enough of a difference to its speed and climb to change that decision.

The only advantage with the Fulmar in 1943 is endurance. But with improved radars, and many more of them in the fleet, and better fighter direction facilities, the best in the world at the time, short endurance is not so much of a problem. And the carriers were carrying many more of these higher performing aircraft.

For Operation Husky
Formidable - 28 Martlet IV + 5 Seafire Ilc + 12 Albacore
Indomitable - 28 Seafire IIc + 12 Seafire LIIc + 15 Albacore

For Operation Avalanche
Formidable - 32 Martlet IV + 5 Seafire IIc + 12 Albacore
Illustrious - 28 Martlet IV + 10 Seafire IIc

Ultimately when the first Firefly squadron formed in Oct 1943 and entered combat in July 1944 it was mainly in the flak suppression / strike fighter role, leaving the pure fighter role to Seafires, Corsairs and Hellcats. (Note I said mainly. I am aware that they were used for CAP at times in the Pacific in 1945).

Edit:- note these Seafires still didn't have folding wings. That is why Illustrious and Formidable have so few. They had to be held as deck park or on outriggers over the starboard side of the flight deck. Indomitable with her larger forward lift could fill her hangars with them.

 

[EwenS]

Sea Mossie!

Same applies to this as Sea Hornet as I noted above as to deck/hangar limitations. It is also no where near manoeuvrable enough to compete with single engined fighter opposition.

 

[Shortround6]

Merlin 32 was still an one-altitude-band engine, unlike the Merlin 20s or the Griffon.
Having the over-boosted Merlin 20 series for the Fulmar in whole of 1943 is a boon wrt. the crucial operations in the MTO that unfolded.

That is true but in 1942-43 the Fulmar doesn't have much business trying to fly high. Even with a Merlin XX (under the 24) it is going to be around 30mph slower than Hurricane II.
The Firefly I was only good for around 316mph with a Griffon II. A Fulmar X with with a Merlin XX is smaller and lighter but is down how many horsepower at 12-20,000ft?
If The Sea Hurricane with Merlin XX won't do the job in air to air combat the Fulmar won't do it either.

 

[tomo pauk]

That is true but in 1942-43 the Fulmar doesn't have much business trying to fly high. Even with a Merlin XX (under the 24) it is going to be around 30mph slower than Hurricane II.
The Firefly I was only good for around 316mph with a Griffon II. A Fulmar X with with a Merlin XX is smaller and lighter but is down how many horsepower at 12-20,000ft?
If The Sea Hurricane with Merlin XX won't do the job in air to air combat the Fulmar won't do it either.

As an "alternative Firefly" the appeal is that it can be had from 1942 and well into 1943, unlike the Firefly. By mid-1943, have it outfitted with Griffon?
Merlin 20s were making 1400 HP at 14000 ft, no ram.
German dive bombers were very much flying at around 15000 ft, the altitude band where Fulmar was worse than ww2 biplanes.

 

[tomo pauk]

1943?
The last Fulmar II day fighter squadrons were off the carriers by the end of 1942. The carriers in the Med in 1943 were using Martlet IV and Seafire IIc both of which far outperformed the Fulmar II. Putting a Merlin 20 series in it is not IMHO going to make enough of a difference to its speed and climb to change that decision.

A bombed-up 'Fulmar III' could've been useful for 1943. Fireflies were mostly carrying ground-attack weapons after all.

 

[EwenS]

A bombed-up 'Fulmar III' could've been useful for 1943. Fireflies were mostly carrying ground-attack weapons after all.

Not really. Look at what the carriers were doing in the Med in 1943. Force H with the fleet carriers was cover in case the Italian fleet came out to play. So it was defensive fighter protection of the fleet and landing forces especially around dawn and dusk before land based air power could reach station. There were plenty of bases on Malta and in North Africa on which to base fighter bombers, light, medium and heavy bombers for the support role. The Albacores and Barracudas spent their time on AS patrol and flying searches for that "missing" Italian fleet. Force V at Salerno with Unicorn and 4 escort carriers was providing fighter cover over the beaches not flying fighter bomber operations.

It was in 1944 that the RN went on the offensive by which time more carriers were being used simultaneously. Operation Tungsten, Operation Goodwood against Tirpitz. Operation Dragoon and Operation Outlook in the Med. Various operations from mid-year in the Indian Ocean.

There are two problems with the Firefly. Firstly the whole concept of the two seat fighter. Even the FAA was having its doubts about it in late 1939/early 1940. Secondly, the length of time it took to get it into production and service. Had it made the frontline in 1942 it might have had a role as a fighter. But it wasn't.

 

[don4331]

There are two problems with the Firefly. Firstly the whole concept of the two seat fighter. Even the FAA was having its doubts about it in late 1939/early 1940. Secondly, the length of time it took to get it into production and service. Had it made the frontline in 1942 it might have had a role as a fighter. But it wasn't.

I think there are more than 2 issues with the Firefly.

For the Fulmar, I can understand a lot of the decisions:
By basing it off the P.4/34, Marcel Lobelle saved months of design work - it might just be a sister to the Battle, but Fairey has a trained workforce ready to build it, so in 5 months, enough can be built to be in service. (About 6 months before the F4F Wildcat)
RN needs fighter to be able to operate off the Light/Slow Carriers (Hermes/Argus/Eagle), so slow speed take off/landing performance is required.
I think we are also influenced by USN success; but again we need to remember in '39, the Lexington arrester gear designed for 8k lb aircraft landing at 52kn, and the uprated Yorktown was for 10k lb aircraft at 61kn. It's only when you get USS Hornet, CV-8 in late '41 that you get arrester gear for 16k lbs @ 74kn (of course, retrofitted to those ships still afloat in '42 and all new builds). I don't have the numbers on how RN upgraded their arrestor gear over course of the war.
The RAF has not demonstrated/refined its RADAR guided interception, so ability to maintain standing air patrol/enough ammunition for multiple engagements seems reasonable. And given the state of electronic (radio/IFF) in '39, having 2nd seater seems reasonable. Same reasons Germans wanted their long range Zerstorer to have navigator/radio operator.

I do agree with tomo pauk - there is no need for the Merlin VIII; the Merlin X would have allowed the Fulmar I more take off power and better altitude performance. (OK, one must change the electric starting to Coffman for naval service). And a follow on Fulmar II should have 2 speed single stage Merlin 2? engine rather than Merlin 30, but some of that might be hindsight.

But for the Firefly, I no longer see the need for two seats - RADAR and IFF have improved to point where a single seater works. And Griffon won't be available in production quantities until late '42 - plan for upgrade, but build around Merlin.

Aside: Much to my surprise, it is physically possible to build a twin with pair of Peregrines (maybe even Merlins) with 9.5' diameter contra-rotating 2 blade (4 blades total) e.g. Kawanishi E15KShiun, timed so that they line up vertical to fit a 13'6" width. Wings would need to fold right at edge of the engine cowls in manner somewhat similar to Grumman Tracer/Trader.

It would be very radical but RN was occasionally known for outside the box thinking.

 

[Admiral Beez]

What might be the alternatives? Requirement is still the crew of two, 4 cannons, full carrier-vessel capability (low-speed handling, visibility, folding wings, tailhook, then-current electronics, overall protection from the salt water/air environment), long range & endurance. In service by late 1943/early 1944, Made in UK.

Stick a Griffon and cannons on the Fulmar along with aerodynamic tweaks. If we can run the Spitfire from the 1930s to late 40s through continued updates we can do the same with the Fulmar. With the latter it's still lipstick on a pig, but that's what we're asking for here.

But looking at the spec, can't we make this a cannon-armed Sea Hornet?

 

[EwenS]

I think we are also influenced by USN success; but again we need to remember in '39, the Lexington arrester gear designed for 8k lb aircraft landing at 52kn, and the uprated Yorktown was for 10k lb aircraft at 61kn. It's only when you get USS Hornet, CV-8 in late '41 that you get arrester gear for 16k lbs @ 74kn (of course, retrofitted to those ships still afloat in '42 and all new builds). I don't have the numbers on how RN upgraded their arrestor gear over course of the war.

Firstly, Eagle, Hermes and Furious were not fitted with accelerators/catapults. Argus only received hers in her 1936-38 refit. None of those four, nor C & G, was fitted with a barrier. The only British built escort carrier with an accelerator was Pretoria Castle (see below).

Following information is from "Farnborough and the Fleet Air Arm" Appendix 6 by Geoffrey Cooper who worked there and Hobbs "British Aircraft Carriers".

The BH.I was fitted in Glorious, Courageous, Argus & Ark Royal
1935 prototype - 8,000lb at 56 knots
Upgraded to 10,000lb at 52 knots
Upgraded 1938 to 12,000lb at 56 knots (probably Ark Royal only).

Hobbs British Carrier Aviation credits Argus in 1939 with 12,000lb at 66 knots. All required the use of a trolley to launch the aircraft.

BH.III was fitted to Illustrious, Colossus and early Majestic classes.
Prototype 1940 - 11,000lb at 66 knots using trolley
Upgraded to 12,500lb at 66 knots using trolley or 14,000lb at 66 knots using a bridle
Upgraded to 16,000lb at 66 knots using trolley or 20,000lb at 56 knots using a bridle (Implacables & Colossus from 1943)
Upgraded to 20,000lb at 66 knots using a bridle in 1949.

The above were hydraulic catapults, hence the H in the name. Pretoria Castle was fitted with a cordite powered catapult the BC.II
14,000lb at 66 knots trolley
16,000lb at 66knots bridle.

The figures given for the US catapults fitted to the escort carriers are:-

AH.II in Archer and Avenger and Attacker classes.
Prototype 1941 - 7,000lb at 61 knots
Upgraded 1941 - 7,000lb at 70 knots

AH.IV in Ruler class
11,000lb at 74knots
Upgraded 1943/44 to 16,000lb at 74 knots.

The US catapults did not use the British trolley system.

RN experiments with tail down launching using the bridle began around 1942 following receipt of US built escort carrier and lend lease aircraft. The British BH.III was subsequently modified to accept it for those aircraft designed for tail down launch. That had happened by mid-1944. The first British aircraft built for tail down launch was the Seafire XV in prototype form from 9/44 and squadron service from 5/45. There are stories and photos of Barracudas and Fireflies being trolley launched right to the end of the war and into the early post war years. It was clumsy and slowed launch rates but in the Pacific in mid-1945 was still being used on Implacable to launch the first Fireflies in a mixed strike package.

As for arrester gear the WW2 Systems were:-
Mk.3 in Courageous class 8,000lb at 60 knots with max G of 1.0 and a pull out of 140ft.
Mk.3* In Ark Royal 8,000lb at 60 knots 1.0-1.5G 140ft pullout (Hobbs puts it at 11,000lb at 55knots down to 45 knots with pullouts from 155ft down to 90ft depending on which wire was caught)
Mk.4 in Illustrious, Formidable and Victorious. 7,000lb to 20,000lb at 60 knots, 2.0 G, 150ft pullout (Hobbs 1940 11,000lb at 55knots)
Mk.6 in Indomitable, Implacable and Indefatigable as above (Hobbs has Indomitable in 1941 as Illustrious above with 150ft pullout. The Implacables in 1944 were rated at 20,000lb at 60 knots. Only the latter pair could handle the Mosquito).

Hobbs rates the Colossus class at 15,000lb at 60 knots on completion.

So in 1945 probably 15,000lb at 60 knots for the 3 Illustrious class and Indomitable, and the Implacables with their higher ratings.

Hope this helps.

 

[don4331]

Stick a Griffon and cannons on the Fulmar along with aerodynamic tweaks. If we can run the Spitfire from the 1930s to late 40s through continued updates we can do the same with the Fulmar. With the latter it's still lipstick on a pig, but that's what we're asking for here.

But looking at the spec, can't we make this a cannon-armed Sea Hornet?

Actually Fairey wanted to stick a Monarch in the Fulmar. More power than the Griffon for take off, climb and combat. Then shutdown 1/2 the engine for efficient cruise.
Monarch reached rated power on each 1/2 of the engine, and ran on both (I don't know if it ever was run full power on both). USA as very interested in Fairey's contra rotating propellers. Ability to feather either (to support shutting down the one set of banks) being an interesting feature. But UK wasn't interested in another engine manufacturer.

Sea Hornet at 27'6"(folded) doesn't fit in the 13'6" parking spot.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Sea Hornet at 27'6"(folded) doesn't fit in the 13'6" parking spot.

Looking at the spec in post #1 I don't see that requirement. If we're entering service in 1943/44 the Sea Hornet should be good for all but three of the RN's fleet carriers. Indomitable, the Implacables, Furious and the Colossus/Majestics, the first of which commissioned in autumn 1944 will be fine.

 

[EwenS]

Question.
What would you rather have in the upper hangar on the first 3 ships (remembering that you can't put a Sea Hornet down the aft lift) and remembering that you have to leave some space around them (The RN worked to about 1.5-2ft minimum around each aircraft)

Indomitable upper hangar 416x62ft = 52 Seafire III OR 20 Sea Hornet OR 40 Firefly F.I
Implacable upper hangar 456x62ft = 56 Seafire III OR 22 Sea Hornet OR 44 Firefly F.I
Colossus class hangar 375x52ft + 57x52ft = 36 Seafire III OR ? Sea Hornet OR 30 Firefly F.I (maybe manage a few more Seafires or Fireflies.

I don't know how many Sea Hornets will fit in a Colosus but you can't get them neatly two abreast as the hangar isn't wide enough. They were rated for 42 aircraft but by the time they entered service the RN had moved away from just looking at hangar capacity. 1945 air group was 21-24 Corsairs and 12-18 Barracudas.

So what mix of fighters do you actually want on your carrier in 1943/44. And none of the above takes account the need to provide Barracudas or Avengers for strike purposes. But of course Indom & Implac have lower hangars for those.

There is quite a number of factors to be thought about, not just lift size.

Edit:- with a deck park in 1945 Implacable operated more aircraft than any other British carrier in WW2, 81 aircraft. 48 Seafires, 12 Firefly I and 21 Avengers.

Edit 2:- Photos here of Implacable post war operating Sea Hornets (span 45ft), Firebrand TF5 (span 51ft) and Barracuda (span 49ft). These large fighters take up a lot of (limited) hangar and flight deck space.

warships, submarines, uboats, passenger liners, sailing ships, fishing vessels, cargo ships, merchant ships, ship database

Website with searchable ship database about warships, passenger liners, merchant ships, photo galleries, technical details, stories, news and much more.

www.maritimequest.com

 

[Admiral Beez]

Question. What would you rather have in the upper hangar on the first 3 ships

Presumably Hellcats, Corsairs and if needs must, Seafires. The posted entry date for this hypothetical aircraft is 1943-44, by which time lend lease is readily available.

 

[Shortround6]

Stick a Griffon and cannons on the Fulmar along with aerodynamic tweaks. If we can run the Spitfire from the 1930s to late 40s through continued updates we can do the same with the Fulmar. With the latter it's still lipstick on a pig, but that's what we're asking for here.

But looking at the spec, can't we make this a cannon-armed Sea Hornet?

We tend to write short discriptions in "what ifs".
From Post #1

Requirement is still the crew of two, 4 cannons, full carrier-vessel capability (low-speed handling, visibility, folding wings, tailhook, then-current electronics, overall protection from the salt water/air environment), long range & endurance. In service by late 1943/early 1944, Made in UK.

Now there were standards or at least ideals in regardes to low speed handling, visbility (and not just over the nose), current electronics and the long range endurance.
These standards did change as can be seen by the changing catapult specifications. What was acceptable in 1944 was not what was wanted in 1941/42 at times.
Trying to use twins aboard ship not only runs into hanger/storage space but runs into logistics. How many times can you refuel the twin engined aircraft and how much ordnance can you deleiver? The Hornet didn't carry twice the bomb load or rocket load that the Firefly did.

The Firefly was first flown in time but developemt was flawed,it took a lot of "fixes" to get the plane sorted out.

From Wiki;
"On 22 December 1941, the first prototype of the Firefly performed its maiden flight."

So the Firefly fist flew about 6 months before the Grumman F6F did and the F6F went into action 10 months before the Firefly did.
The Firefly took about 2 1/2 years to go from first flight to first combat use.
If you want to get something into British service use quicker we have to understand why the delay and either fix it and/or come up with a simpler solution, not try to figure out how to use twin engine aircraft instead.

Again from Wiki so corrections welcome.

"Although the aircraft was 4,000 lb (1,800 kg) heavier than the preceding Fulmar (largely due to the adoption of the heavier Griffon engine and the armament of two 20 mm (0.79 in) Hispano cannon in each wing), the Firefly was 40 mph (64 km/h) faster due to improved aerodynamics, as well as the increased power of the Griffon IIB engine"

Now obviouly there is a bit of simplification in there. The Spitfire XII only gained about 600lbs empty over a Spitfire V (both planes with single stage superchargers) and the four 20mm guns were heavier they didn't account for even close to 1000lbs let alone 3000lbs, assuming the Firefly engine installation took several hundred more pounds than the Spit XII installation (Tropical radiators? more oil? Engine mount that will stay on with catapult launch or deck landing? )

Very few planes updated as well/easly as the Spitfire did.
Grumman had looked at trying to put a Wright R-2600 into the F4F Wildcat 3 different times. Each time they decided that they would either need a new plane or have to change so much they might as well build a new plane for example.
ME 209 II was supposed to use a lot of the Bf 109 parts, by the time they got through they had somewhere between 30-40% of the parts left.
Now maybe that was left of a Spitfire by the time you get to the MK 21, I don't know.

 

[EwenS]

A few bits and pieces from Harrison's Fairey Firefly.

MAP in March 1941 saw production starting in Dec 1941 at low levels. Fairey thought June 1942. Production figures and schedules varied changed continually until the last Mk.7 were built.

Although it resembled the Fulmar it was "much more robust, had heavier armament..". Suggesting greater weight borne out in the figures.

Flight testing to March 1942 revealed need for changes of a mostly minor nature but which affected handling. Things got delayed when the second prototype crashed in June killing the chief test pilot. But the mods all took time to implement.

There was then an investigation into the delays in production which reported in Dec 1942:-
"Failure to achieve the original programme [66 by the end of 1942], or even the revised programme [20 by the end of the year] can be ascribed to unjustifiable optimism on the part of the management, to delay in the supply of certain drawings for tools and to delays by sub-contractors. The aircraft is not yet acceptable for operational use and development work has not yet been completed."

And another enquiry by the Air Supply Board that same month said:-
"It has been found, however, that owing to inadequate planning by Fairey in the first instance, the quantity of machine tools included in grants was insufficient. The result of this is now being felt in the shortage of machined wing root-end fittings which in turn is one of the major reasons for the slow build up of the Firefly. An additional 150 workforce will be required."

A new co-ordination office was put in place to improve matters.

At the beginning of 1943 the mix of F.I and NF.II was being changed by the Admiralty which affected both development and production. And A&AEE was still unhappy with the elevator and ailerons. Service release finally came on 17 July 1943. The first squadron formed in Sept. The mix of orders was again changed in Oct.

A lot of effort seems to have gone into the NF.II which required an extended fuselage. It had all sorts of handling problems that took time to resolve. These were being built on the same production line as the F.1 which complicated production as the changes were much more extensive than originally anticipated. This project was finally dropped in mid1944 when the US ASH set became available.

Fairey also began work on an improved version with a Griffon 61 starting in Oct 1941. When proposed to the Admiralty in early 1942, they came back and said they wanted it produced from Jan 1944 much to Fairey's surprise! That was to be the Mk.III and a prototype was flying by July 1943. But again it encountered handling problems. By Aug 1944 It was fitted with a Griffon 72 as the prototype Mk.4. But more changes were required before it eventually entered service in 1946.

So lots of problems from many different directions which needs to be set against a background of war shortages of machine tools and trained workers. Not easily fixed unfortunately.

 

[Shortround6]

This is what Tomo (I think) wants to replace.

Short pilot

Perhaps a Fulmar III would have made it into production much sooner. It perhaps the Fulmar III would have delayed the Firefly even more?

 

[tomo pauk]

Perhaps a Fulmar III would have made it into production much sooner.

It certainly would.

It perhaps the Fulmar III would have delayed the Firefly even more?

Not a loss for the FAA.

 

[Admiral Beez]

What might be the alternatives? Requirement is still the crew of two, 4 cannons, full carrier-vessel capability (low-speed handling, visibility, folding wings, tailhook, then-current electronics, overall protection from the salt water/air environment), long range & endurance. In service by late 1943/early 1944, Made in UK.
"Clean sheet of papers" A/C encouraged, but not mandatory

The spec doesn't say fighter. Can we focus on an earlier launch of the Baraccuda? Put four cannons into the wings and we have a much better use of the Fireflies deck and personnel needs.

 

[EwenS]

The spec doesn't say fighter. Can we focus on an earlier launch of the Baraccuda? Put four cannons into the wings and we have a much better use of the Fireflies deck and personnel needs.

ROFL!

Given that the Firefly was conceived as a fighter in 1939/40, it is kind of implicit that we are looking for a fighter.

But if you insist on pursuing the Barracuda take a look at the Mk.V, 30 of which were built in 1945/47. They replaced the 1,640hp Merlin 32 with an 1,890hp Griffon VIII or 2,020hp Griffon 37, tried (unsuccessfully) to reduce its weight, cleaned up the airframe a bit, and gave it some more wing and eventually a larger fin and rudder. Doing this they managed to raise its max speed from 228mph to the dizzying height of 243mph, a figure less than what they had set out to achieve in the original design!

It would have potentially remained the main British produced strike aircraft had the war gone on into 1946. But in 1943, Fairey began work on the next generation, the Spearfish, which flew in July 1945. It however was intended for the next generation of carrier.

Edit:- Barracuda Mk.V in its final form

Aviation photographs of Fairey Barracuda TF.V :

Aviation photographs categorised as Fairey Barracuda TF.V

abpic.co.uk