Alternatives to the Fairey Firefly?

Shortround6 said:

Well, one of my favorite "what ifs" is putting a Pegasus on the Skua

Click to expand...

Yeah, might have worked... I can't specifically add any technical reasons why not, but get rid of the "fighter" expectation and call it what it is: a purpose built dive bomber.

Shortround6 said:

And has been mentioned by others, Sticking a better Merlin into the Fulmar for a MK version should have been fast and easy.

Click to expand...

I can't see why, to be frank. The intent was that the Fulmar wasn't supposed to have lasted as long in service as it did. It was an interim design until turret fighters entered service. Two things spoiled the pre-war Air Ministry plans for the FAA, the war and the admiralty getting the FAA back and attempting to "undo" the mess that had been made of the FAA in the 1930s. Note how the turret fighter spec disappeared and a single-seater spec appeared from the original replacements (from which eventually came the Firefly and Firebrand) for the specs that produced both the Fulmar and Roc?

Just seems like a waste when what the FAA really needed was a purpose designed single-seat interceptor with the capability and performance of the Hurricane or Spitfire, which is really what the admiralty (but not the Air Ministry) wanted, even before the Skua and Fulmar entered service.

nuuumannn said:

Just seems like a waste when what the FAA really needed was a purpose designed single-seat interceptor with the capability and performance of the Hurricane or Spitfire, which is really what the admiralty (but not the Air Ministry) wanted, even before the Skua and Fulmar entered service.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately what seems to be over looked in some of these requirements was not the 180lb guy in the back (before he gets dressed) and yes there was several hundreds pounds of fuselage around him, but the requirement for about 4 hours of patrol (?) but that may be for the MK II with drop tank. The Firefly was intended for similar endurance.
We are getting back to the long range Hurricane or Spitfire and the loss of interceptor performance or we need both interceptors and recon planes with about 800 miles of range.
When you can rely on drop tanks get critical as to the timing as hanging a 90imp gallon drop tank under a Seafire will give you range at least.

A Hurricane I at 6lbs of boost was only around 25mph faster at 7500ft than the Fulmar I, granted at 12lbs boost it was quite a bit fast but just throwing it out there for timing and contrast.
The only reason to try for a Fulmar III is when they realize the Firefly was running well over a year late.

Shortround6 said:

We are getting back to the long range Hurricane or Spitfire and the loss of interceptor performance or we need both interceptors and recon planes with about 800 miles of range.

Click to expand...

Why put both in the same aircraft? The Admiralty made it clear it wanted an aircraft with "Hurricane" or "Spitfire" type performance, which naturally precludes long range. The FAA had a history of short range single-seaters, the Flycatcher, the Nimrod and I bet it was expecting the same from a modern fighter before the Air Ministry decided it wasn't going to get one. Remember, the long range recon fighter was a combination of two roles crammed into one aircraft, which was specifically envisaged in the Fulmar and carried forward into the Firefly, of which we know the Fulmar was a stop-gap, but was that exactly what the FAA or the Admiralty wanted or needed? They didn't when the Flycatcher or Nimrod were around, although the Osprey was called on for fighter patrols because of its performance, but the carrier air groups had a fast single-seater.

The problem now is one of perception. These things that the FAA standardised on at the beginning of WW2 have manifested into what we believe the FAA intended all along, but were they? My guess is no, not really and there is ample evidence to back this up. How things evolved from the specifications prior to WW2 don't necessarily reflect exactly what the Admiralty wanted from its naval aviation. When it took control, things changed - no turret fighter spec, a new single-seat fighter spec instead, efforts clamouring to regain a useful single-seater beyond the Sea Gladiator, Richard Fairey being asked to build Spitfires under licence even before the Admiralty regains the FAA - all the evidence is there for the taking.

It's just putting the pieces together and dispensing of the long held perception that misconceived notions like fighter/dive bombers, long-range reconnaissance fighters and torpedo/dive bomber/lounge bar are combat aircraft the FAA actually wanted or needed, because they weren't necessarily. I should add that I'm sure there were admirals who saw sense in this policy, but the lack of a decent fighter interceptor developed in the 1930s took its toll in more ways than one on the WW2 FAA. It happened at precisely the worst time because of the pace of development of modern technologies and the great material and performance changes to aircraft taking place.

To add to this, what's telling is that no other country that operated carriers did the same thing. Yes, we know why it happened, but it b@ggered the FAA going into WW2 and put it on a footing behind that of its contemporaries, so it spent the first few years of the war attempting to rectify the situation. As they say in the big countries, "God Bless America (specifically Grumman!)"

I have never been very excited about the dive bomber/fighter despite all the hype about the Dauntless doing it.
That lasted just a few days(?), despite all the times it gets mentioned. I am talking about SBDs actually assigned to perform fighter sweeps or intercepts against incoming raids.

Four .303 Brownings weigh less than two .50 cal Brownings so give the Skua a 1000 hp engine, double the bomb load and let it play dive bomber. If some axis recon plane happens to run in front of a Skua then take shot.
A British SBD in 1940-42 might not be a bad thing to have.

The idea for a Fulmar III is a bit more of the same. Use the Fulmar airframe to lug a 1000lb bomb a fair distance at a higher speed than the Skua could do it.
Fulmar II was being tested with the 60 gal drop tank in Oct 1941. Feb 1942 saw a trial installation of four .50 cal guns, it needed improvements. The trials of using a single 250 or 500lb bomb started in June of 1942.
Let the Seafire defend the carriers. Use the big wing on the Fulmar to get a decent bomb into the air.

Shortround6 said:

I am talking about SBDs actually assigned to perform fighter sweeps or intercepts against incoming raids.

Click to expand...

Yeah, the difference is that SBDs didn't equip fighter squadrons, the US navy had single-seat fighters. In using the SBD in that role it was using the equipment it had judiciously and expeditiously to fulfil tactical requirements - it was not considered a "fighter/dive bomber", unlike the Skua.

Shortround6 said:

The idea for a Fulmar III is a bit more of the same. Use the Fulmar airframe to lug a 1000lb bomb a fair distance at a higher speed than the Skua could do it.

Click to expand...

True, it could have been a useful bomber type and its lifespan is longer than most people realise as night fighter Fulmar Mk.IIs saw service aboard British carriers right until the very end of the war. They weren't large in number, usually a few aboard each carrier, but they were there. The next issue that arises is the one of if you put better Merlins or Griffons in Fulmars, what are you not putting those better Merlins or Griffons into that need them - probably beyond this angle though...

The Skua's tenure in FAA service was brief, necessarily so, the Admiralty and Air Ministry questioning its value even before it entered service in 1937 and its replacement was expected to have been the Barracuda. I still favour the suggestion that the Hawker Henley should have become a naval dive bomber. I still don't value the Fulmar being upgraded - not that I don't believe it needed it or whether it could or couldn't meet performance requirements, but mainly from a materiel perspective - effort upgrading the type should be spent doing better than what's become accepted.

Well, the Pegasus Skua could solve a hardware problem.
Solving the doctrine problem is something else.
The USN also was using multi-role aircraft. They combined the dive bomber with the "scout" recon role. An SBD with self sealing tanks and with no bombs could hold 260 US gallons for scout/recon missions. The two .50s may have been for flak (AA) suppression as much as for Air to Air combat. USN doctrine before the war called for fighters to strafe enemy ships to suppress AA fire for the dive and torpedo bombers. I sure hope nobody thought the Curtiss SB2C was supposed to look for air to air combat.
The SBC2 being another plane that took way too long to develop. They were testing a wind tunnel model in 1939. They didn't get one into combat until 1943 so the SBD was kept well past it's planned retirement. But Douglas didn't halt development, they did fit later model R-1820s and in 1944 were 35% more powerful than the planes at Midway before they stopped production.
The Skua at least had folding wings which the SBD did not.

Better engines for the Fulmar III would be the Merlin from the Barracuda II or just grab some Merlin XXs. shouldn't be that hard to grab some of those. Stuffing in a Griffon is not a minimum change,

The Henley had a few problems for a "ship killer" like a bomb bay that held a pair of 250lbs bombs side by side.
What you want eventually is a single 1000lb bomb for most anything short of a modern 35,000 ton (I know everybody lied) battleship.
According to Wiki so correction welcome
"By this time the Air Ministry had, however, decided that it no longer required a light bomber (probably because it was felt that this role was adequately filled by the Fairey Battle). Accordingly, the Henley, which in line with RAF policy had not been fitted with dive brakes; bomb crutches; or specialised bomb sights and thus limited to attack angles of no greater than 70°"
Well, bomb sights and bomb crutches shouldn't be that hard a fix (leave the bomb doors off too.) but getting dive brakes to work was sometimes easy and sometimes not so easy.

Shortround6 said:

The SBC2 being another plane that took way too long to develop.

Click to expand...

Yeah, that for the "what the hell happened to that one?!" file - no awkward spec nor miss-appropriated doctrine taking the fall for the SonofaBitch 2nd Class. Cool looking machine though; impressive in the flesh.

Shortround6 said:

Well, bomb sights and bomb crutches shouldn't be that hard a fix (leave the bomb doors off too.) but getting dive brakes to work was sometimes easy and sometimes not so easy.

Click to expand...

Yup, converting the Henley as a naval dive bomber shouldn't take too much effort, after all, they turned the Spitfire into a naval fighter . As for its bomb load, the simple expedient is to carry the bomb load externally, which affects performance, but it's powered by a more powerful engine than the Skua - just looked, dimensionally it isn't much different to the Skua, yet it had much better performance. It's a bit embarrassing when your target tug can outrun the fighter attempting to catch it...

don4331 said:

There is major delay in production volumes of the Griffon, I admit there is some hindsight in knowing the Griffon I design will be trashed, and completely redone for the Griffon II. But by Dec./'39, Fairey would be aware of the delay. With war on, it doesn't take 20/20 hindsight to see that it would be mid '40 before a prototype would run, another 6 months until flight ready engines are available and another 6 months to tool up for volume produce the new RR V-12. So, MAP was being...optimistic and RR didn't really even hit Fairey's date. And even those dates get compromised by Spitfire XII requirements.

Click to expand...

The Griffon I was abandoned years before the Griffon II project started. An early delay in the Griffon was its redesign so that it would fit into the Spitfire.

Also, there were reliability issues that led to the firing order being changed (IIRC).

don4331 said:

Actually Fairey wanted to stick a Monarch in the Fulmar.

Click to expand...

Yes, but when would a Fairey Monarch be available?

Fairey had no engine production facilities of its own, and they had not convinced anyone at MAP to allocate them a factory.

don4331 said:

More power than the Griffon for take off, climb and combat. Then shutdown 1/2 the engine for efficient cruise.

Click to expand...

Slow cruise. Not a lot more power than a Griffon, but also more weight and frontal area.

The P.24 may have run to powers equivalent to 2,200hp-2,300hp in a full engine, but it was not type tested at that power.

Best rated power I have seen with a quick search is 1,450hp in 1939. That is a civil 50 hour test, which enabled the engine to be used in flight tests.

don4331 said:

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).

Click to expand...

Fairey didn't have the facilities to run both halves on the dyno, certainly not capable of the target power.

don4331 said:

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.

Click to expand...

But not at all interested in the engine.

don4331 said:

But UK wasn't interested in another engine manufacturer.

Click to expand...

No, they were not.


The Fairey Monarch was based on parts of the Fairey P.12 V12 engine, which was also not put into production.

The P.12 predated the Merlin/PV.12.

nuuumannn said:

Just seems like a waste when what the FAA really needed was a purpose designed single-seat interceptor with the capability and performance of the Hurricane or Spitfire, which is really what the admiralty (but not the Air Ministry) wanted, even before the Skua and Fulmar entered service.

Click to expand...

nuuumannn said:

The problem now is one of perception. These things that the FAA standardised on at the beginning of WW2 have manifested into what we believe the FAA intended all along, but were they? My guess is no, not really and there is ample evidence to back this up. How things evolved from the specifications prior to WW2 don't necessarily reflect exactly what the Admiralty wanted from its naval aviation. When it took control, things changed - no turret fighter spec, a new single-seat fighter spec instead, efforts clamouring to regain a useful single-seater beyond the Sea Gladiator, Richard Fairey being asked to build Spitfires under licence even before the Admiralty regains the FAA - all the evidence is there for the taking.

Click to expand...

Perhaps the alternative to the Firefly could have been a navalised Spitfire with Griffon engine built by Fairey?

don4331 said:

Actually Fairey wanted to stick a Monarch in the Fulmar.

Click to expand...

I haven't read that Fairey wanted to stick a Monarch in the Fulmar.

I have read that they suggested using the Queen/Monarch (it changed names) in the Fulmar replacement (later the Firefly) which makes a lot more sense.
In the original proposals Fairey had come up with two airframes, one powered by the Griffon and one powered by the Napier Sabre. The larger airframe would be a lot easier to stick the 2200-2300lb Monarch into than trying to stick it in the Fulmar with it's 1300-1400lb Merlin.

The Battle test bed was a larger plane than the Fulmar and the Monarch just barely fit in.


note the rather large radiator under the wing/fuselage.

wuzak said:

Perhaps the alternative to the Firefly could have been a navalised Spitfire with Griffon engine built by Fairey?

Click to expand...

Now, we're talking... Joe Smith had already drawn up proposals and they can be seen in Morgan and Shacklady's Great Big Book of Spitfires, which goes into considerable detail as to the tribulations the admiralty went to to get single-seat fighters before the war. A very detailed account of the saga.

The only downside is the availability of the Griffon, but, okay, Merlins might work...

nuuumannn said:

- no awkward spec nor miss-appropriated doctrine taking the fall for the SonofaBitch 2nd Class. Cool looking machine though; impressive in the flesh.

Click to expand...

Aesthetics only, it's one of the ugliest airplanes in aviation. It was modified enough to be acceptable, and yes, was larger, carried a heavier load, etc, than the Dauntless. But ye gods, "pregnant cow" was the perfect moniker for it. That thing was uglier than a dog's ass.