Blackburn Skua was it that bad?

[tomo pauk]

Fireflies were actually more useful than their limited peformance might suggest. For a start they were a very effective carrier borne night fighter, and because they carried two crew could operate in conditions of poor weather far more effectively than single man aircraft.....compared to the RN, USN night and poor weather operating abilities were very limited, and this could be decisive in the poor conditions of the far northern atlantic (not a single American carrier operation ever took place on the northern route to Russia whereas the RN provided carrier based air cover on a regular basis to the Murmansk convoys).

Could you please post some facts about
a) night kills of Fulmars Fireflies
b) succesful poor weather attacks conducted by same two planes

They also had a very useful strike capability, and were far more survivable than any other strike aircraft.

Corsair's and Hellcat's pilots would disagree with such asumption, along with 10 other type's pilots.

With a crew of two, they were able to find targets very accurately in these poor visibility conditions.

Fair enough. But if their targets were planes, their low performance would handycap them, and crews of ships AAA would have less trouble with them, than with aforementoned US planes, among other.

Now, with regard to your theory about Sea Hurricanes in place of Fulmars, Hurricanes only became availble to the FAA after they were obsolete in the RAF. Ther was absolutely zero chance of even a single Hurricane being available for carrier operations until well into 1941.

Says who?
With Blackburn, Fairey, Boulton Paul Gloster NOT making Roc, Sea Gladiator and Fulmar, but instead Hurricanes/Sea Hurricanes, FAA suddenly has more planes than it could actually use. Not to mention that Yougoslavia Belgium received Hurricanes in 1939/40.
Moreover the ability to operate such high performance aircraft on and off carriers was not realized as possible until after the emrgency landings and takeoffs during the Norwegian campaign and also during the Malta re-supply operations. Even then it took some time to realize that SE fighters could operate and navigate effectively.

Who was to blame? Brass or planes?

Until well into 1941 normal procedure required the Hurricanes being flown to Malta being guided to the destination by the two seat Fulmars (if at all possible). Britain was slow to realize that in normal weather conditions single seat types could operate over water.

So we should again blame brass, not hi-performance planes.

Although I hasten to add that the Brits still found their two man aircraft useful in the often soupy conditions they were forced to operate in...RN aircraft demonstrated many times their superior ability to operate in poor weather conditions and at night, something facilitated by the two crew configuration....
It was only after the RN started to "americanise" its carrier doctrines that single seat aircraft became useful. This meant that night operations and poor weather operation capability was abandone in favour of the massed daylight strike approach being used to great effect in the Pacific. However it also meant a loss of flexibility and capability, as the ability to operate at night and in poor weather, such as the RN demonstrated in its great victories at Taranto and against the Bismarck was greatly reduced after 1942, after the RN started to adopt the "mass production" pilot training techniques of the USN

Now what Swordfish achievements have to do with FAA purchasing hi-performance fighters early enough?

.

 

[parsifal]

Could you please post some facts about
a) night kills of Fulmars Fireflies
b) succesful poor weather attacks conducted by same two planes

Certainly

Fireflies were in a totally different class of aircraft to either the hellcat or the Corsair. They had the capacity to carry up to 2000 lbs of offensive stores to a range of 1300 miles, which is more than 3 times the effective range of either US aircraft. As standard they were fitted with ASH air to surface radar that allowed strikes to be undertaken whilst flying "blind" and this indeed was the way these aircraft were flown in their strikes against the Tirpitz and against the Carolines and off the Japanese Home Islands

The Firefly NF MksI and II installed AI MkX airborne radar for night fighting. A total of 177 were built for this purpose, with a further 37 converted to the purpose. . I have no records for the numbers of enemy night time intruders shot down by these aircraft, but the RN relied on them completely for their night time defences. They were used to shoot down night launched V-1s in the blitz


The Firefly's notable feats include the part it played in the attacks against the German battleship Tirpitz, and on Japanese oil refineries in Sumatra. Fleet Air Arm Fireflies also saw action during the Korean War, operating from carriers against Communist ground targets.


The first operational sortie of the Fairey Firefly was in July 1944, when 1770 squadron flew from HMS Indefatigable and took part in the Barracuda led dive bombing attacks against the German battleship Tirpitz lying at anchor in Kaa Fjord, Northern Norway. In January 1945, the same squadron was involved in the first major action by the Fleet Air Arm against the Japanese, when the oil refineries in Sumatra were set ablaze with rockets.


Night-fighter Fireflies were first issued to 746 Squadron, Night Fighter Interception Unit, in May 1943. Based at Ford, the NFIU flew alongside the RAF's FIU, developing night-fighter tactics. Flying from RAF Coltishall during late 1944, NFIU Fireflies undertook night patrols to counter V1 flying bombs air-launched over the North Sea by Luftwaffe He111s.

In June 1945 Fireflies of 1771 Squadron, operating from HMS Implacable, took part in attacks in the Carolinas, while in July 1772 squadron aircraft, from HMS Indefatigable, were flying strikes against shipping and ground targets in the Japanese home islands, becoming the first FAA aircraft to fly over the Japanese mainland. On 24 July, 1945 aircraft from 1772 Squadron became the first British aircraft to fly over Tokyo. undertaken in the night hours.

Corsair's and Hellcat's pilots would disagree with such asumption, along with 10 other type's pilots.

Im sure they would, however Corsairs and Hellcat pilots were not night trained to the same degree as the RN, were not fitted with ASH radar, and lacked the range to be effective in the strike role, except perhaps for direct strikes in Ground support and the like

Says who?
With Blackburn, Fairey, Boulton Paul Gloster NOT making Roc, Sea Gladiator and Fulmar, but instead Hurricanes/Sea Hurricanes, FAA suddenly has more planes than it could actually use. Not to mention that Yougoslavia Belgium received Hurricanes in 1939/40.


There were any number of reasons as to why the hurricane could not enter naval service before it did. These included:

1) a refusal of the RAF to relase the type whilst it was still needed for front line fighter duties. To an extent this was justified, as hiving off land based fighters for fleet defence when other types were in production and fulfiling the task adequately anyway, would reduce the available numbers to the land based forces for no real benefit except an increease in the performance of the fighters that was uneccessary.
2) A failure to appreciate by the RN that single seter aircraft could operate from carriers (to an extent this was justified given the early war doctrines of the FAA up to 1942
in the
3) Additional developmental work would be needed to strengthen the airframe, and navalise the basic airframe of the Hurricane, as the british found out when they rushed the Spitfire into service some time later, with inadequate development work done on the type


Now what Swordfish achievements have to do with FAA purchasing hi-performance fighters early enough?

None really, except that the total domination of the central basin up to 1941 would not have been achieved, because the carriers carying the stringbags would not have been able to enter those waters when they did (due to a lack of fighter cover) . they would have been stuck in port, waiting for the high performance fighters that you mentioned, which in any case would have been strictly day fighters only, and unable to strafe enemy airfields in the same way as Fulmars because of a lack of night capability and range basically.

 

[Shortround6]

Actually, the MK II Fulmar was as fast or faster than a MK I Hurricane at sea level. Couldn't climb for crap though

Had 80% more range and carried almost 50% more ammo.

For a good expanation of the Skua's history (good and bad) see. It aslo describes the duties of the second crewman.

Blackburn Skua

Please note the Skua was basicly out of production by the start of 1940.

The Skua was a high performance aircraft when it was purchased (the order for 150 being placed in July of 1936). Even if you changed the factroy to make Hurricanes in 1938 you would still need the Merlins to fit in them.

 

[tomo pauk]

Parsifal,
I've asked you to provide some data about succeses of Fulmar/Firefly during poor weather, yet you provided none of that. Of course, the most interesting part is how many V-1s were shoot down by Firefly.

Now even if we agree that Fulmar with radar was a great thing, it falls behind contemporaries when we talk about plain simple tasks Corsair Hellcat performed daily. Even as night fighters they could compere with Fulmar NF. And if Corsair's range is not enough, then just how enough is enough?

As for (Sea) Hurricanes (for the n-th time): RAF, we don't your Hurricanes. We would build our own instead, since Fairey will not build Fulmars. They use the same engines and MGs after all.

(about conection between Swordfishes h-perf fighters)
None really, except that the total domination of the central basin up to 1941 would not have been achieved, because the carriers carying the stringbags would not have been able to enter those waters when they did (due to a lack of fighter cover) . they would have been stuck in port, waiting for the high performance fighters that you mentioned, which in any case would have been strictly day fighters only, and unable to strafe enemy airfields in the same way as Fulmars because of a lack of night capability and range basically.

Okay.
For the 1st part, Sea Hurricanes would be available since Fairey would build them. So everything would be the same.
For the 2nd part, we still lack hard data about real successes Fulmars made, and it proves nothing about Fulmars day-fighting apabilities.

And please, could you verify this:

They [Fireflies] had the capacity to carry up to 2000 lbs of offensive stores to a range of 1300 miles, which is more than 3 times the effective range of either US aircraft.

 

[tomo pauk]

...

Please note the Skua was basicly out of production by the start of 1940.

The Skua was a high performance aircraft when it was purchased (the order for 150 being placed in July of 1936). Even if you changed the factroy to make Hurricanes in 1938 you would still need the Merlins to fit in them.

I have no problem with Skua dive bomber, as one might find out in my 1st post in this thread. Actually, I'd build them even more, until something better is not available.
However, I see no point in Roc, Sea Gladiator, Fulmar, Firefly. That's why I've proposed Hercules-engined, no-rear-MGs Skua to be fleet fighter. Also, Fairey would build Sea Hurricanes instead of Fulmars in my scenario.

 

[Freebird]

Fireflies were actually more useful than their limited peformance might suggest.

In fact, far from having "limited performance", the Firefly was in most every category better than the Helldiver.

Freebird,
And then: why on earth would you want Fireflies, and what those had to offer when compared to Martlets, Sea Hurries, Seafires or Corsairs?

Well, do you consider the Helldiver to be a failure? Because the US built more than 7,000 of them, and the Firefly's performance was similar or better than the Helldiver.

Why not a:

Corsair? Was not available for carrier operations until mid-44 at the earliest, while the Firefly came out in 1943. The Corsair could not fit in the newer (Implacable class) carriers.

Martlet? - The Marlet carried no bombs, and had only MG vs 4 x 20mm for the Firefly, very effective shooting down bombers.

Sea Hurricane? The Sea Hurri was 20 mph faster, but had only half the bomb load, and 1/3 the range

Seafire? Only half the range and 1/4 the bomb load of a Firefly


And ALL of the above lacked the second crewman needed to operate early radar sets, and photo recon equip - both important missions that the Firefly carried out.


See my poll here: http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/polls/best-1943-carrier-bomber-non-tb-21612.html
For Firefly vs. Helldiver vs. Judy

 

[Freebird]

.

Now even if we agree that Fulmar with radar was a great thing, it falls behind contemporaries when we talk about plain simple tasks Corsair Hellcat performed daily.

And please, could you verify this:

Tomo, the Fulmar, Corsair Hellcat are nowhere near contempories - The Fulmar came out in 1940, the Hellcat in 1943 and the Corsair in 1944. it's hardly a surprise that a 1944 fighter is far better than a 1940 one.

They [Fireflies] had the capacity to carry up to 2000 lbs of offensive stores to a range of 1300 miles, which is more than 3 times the effective range of either US aircraft.

Yes, that is correct.

The Firefly is a contempory though, but not of the HellCat but of the HellDiver
Should the USN have scrapped the 7,000 Helldivers as they were useless? "I see no point in Firefly"

Here is the comparison of the Firefly Helldiver

1.) Firefly (Fairey Firefly mk.1)

Speed: 319 mph @ 17,000 ft
Ceiling: 29,000 ft.
Range: 1,364
Bomb load: 2,000 lb.
Armament: 4 x 20 mm cannon

2.) Helldiver (Curtiss-Wright SB2C-1)

Speed: 280 mph @ 17,000 ft
Ceiling: 25,000 ft.
Range: 1,100
Bomb load: 2,000 lb.
Armament: 2 x 20 mm cannon, 2 x Machine Guns

 

[tomo pauk]

In fact, far from having "limited performance", the Firefly was in most every category better than the Helldiver.

Well, do you consider the Helldiver to be a failure? Because the US built more than 7,000 of them, and the Firefly's performance was similar or better than the Helldiver.

Who ever said anything about Helldiver?? I was questioning capabilities of Fulmar/Firefly as a fighter.

Why not a:

Corsair? Was not available for carrier operations until mid-44 at the earliest, while the Firefly came out in 1943. The Corsair could not fit in the newer (Implacable class) carriers.

On the contrary. RN received Corsairs in early 1943, flying against Tirpitz in april 1944. Fireflies were operational in June '44. Clipped-wing Corsair fit in nicely.

Martlet? - The Marlet carried no bombs, and had only MG vs 4 x 20mm for the Firefly, very effective shooting down bombers.

Nice. A 1943 fighter that's only as fast as 1939. It's able to down Axis 4/6/8 engined behemots. Cool.

Sea Hurricane? The Sea Hurri was 20 mph faster, but had only half the bomb load, and 1/3 the range

Sea Hurricane was phased out a full year before Firefly was operational.

Seafire? Only half the range and 1/4 the bomb load of a Firefly

Seafire was operational 2 years before, and would eat Firefly for breakfast. Same for Zero. Hell, Me-109E would tear it apart.
The Hellcat need to be added for comparison, a much better fighter then Firefly.

And ALL of the above lacked the second crewman needed to operate early radar sets, and photo recon equip - both important missions that the Firefly carried out.

Radar-equipped Corsairs and Hellcats were doing just fine with one crew member.

See my poll here: http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/polls/best-1943-carrier-bomber-non-tb-21612.html
For Firefly vs. Helldiver vs. Judy

Again, the Firefly as a bomber is another ball game.

.

 

[tomo pauk]

Tomo, the Fulmar, Corsair Hellcat are nowhere near contempories - The Fulmar came out in 1940, the Hellcat in 1943 and the Corsair in 1944. it's hardly a surprise that a 1944 fighter is far better than a 1940 one.

Typo, it should be Firefly.

(about Firefly having triple range then Corsair Hellcat)
Yes, that is correct.

Firebird, the way you post the facts/numbers could serve as example for all members of the board. Great job.

The Firefly is a contempory though, but not of the HellCat but of the HellDiver

Yep, Hellcat managed to kill something almost a year before Firefly could brag about the same. And just how Helldiver got into fighter comparison escapes me.

Should the USN have scrapped the 7,000 Helldivers as they were useless? "I see no point in Firefly"

.

 

[Shortround6]

I have no problem with Skua dive bomber, as one might find out in my 1st post in this thread. Actually, I'd build them even more, until something better is not available.
However, I see no point in Roc, Sea Gladiator, Fulmar, Firefly. That's why I've proposed Hercules-engined, no-rear-MGs Skua to be fleet fighter. Also, Fairey would build Sea Hurricanes instead of Fulmars in my scenario.

Again, it depends on requirements and how much you know about the future.

The Roc was a definite turkey and since it was later in timing than the Skua, couldn't dive bomb and may not have had the navagation equipment of the Skua one doesn't even have to decry the turret fighter concept to see the last of it. But since none were actually used on carriers it doesn't change anything in RN capability if they are replaced.

With only 98 Sea Gladiators built (and 38 of them an interm model) they achieved fame beyond their numbers. With a fair number of deliveries in 1938 and final deliveries in early 1939 there doesn't seem to be much scope for changing Gloster to Hurricane production much earlier than was done in WW II. Gloster delivering their first MK I Hurricane in November of 1939 out of a contract of 500. This production block was finished in April of 1940. All with metal wing.

While a Hercules-engined, no-rear-MGs Skua might be a better aircraft than the existing one it still would have been a target for 109s. The Empty weight of the Skua was just a few hundred pounds less than a loaded 109. Adding about 500lbs worth of Hurcules and the much larger propeller is going to do strange things to the balance/CG. pulling the rear gunner and radio equipment from behind the CG isn't going to help things. With a wing bigger than the wing on P-47 the resulting aircraft is never going to be competive with a 109 even with 1300-1400hp. By the time you are done you might as well have started with a new airframe.

The Fulmar is a bit more questionable. Does a carrier fighter need 450 miles of range or 750 miles of range?
Did the navagational aids (radio direction finder) the rear seat man operated justify the weight and bulk? Or as some of them were used in the Indian Ocean does the longer range radios they were re-equiped with for patrol work ( see range) help justify their existance?

I think I will stay out of the Firefly arguement.

 

[parsifal]

Parsifal,
I've asked you to provide some data about succeses of Fulmar/Firefly during poor weather, yet you provided none of that. Of course, the most interesting part is how many V-1s were shoot down by Firefly.

So, the fact that the FAA adopted it a their principal night fighter defence, using the latest irborne interception radar is not relevant. Interesting rebuttal........basically your saying that you know better than the Royal Navy's procurement machine


Now even if we agree that Fulmar with radar was a great thing, it falls behind contemporaries when we talk about plain simple tasks Corsair Hellcat performed daily. Even as night fighters they could compere with Fulmar NF. And if Corsair's range is not enough, then just how enough is enough?

ah yes, and the hellcat and Corsair were ready when????? By the time these types were entering large scale service, the Fulmar was leaving service. At the time the Fulmar was earning its place in history, your Hellcats and Corsairs were just someones daydream...

With regard to the to range, the Hellcats and Corsairs did not have the range to allow a carrier to remain out of range during the approach and retreat from the launch position. Fireflies did have the range, as well as the target location capability to hit the target at night or in poor weather

As for (Sea) Hurricanes (for the n-th time): RAF, we don't your Hurricanes. We would build our own instead, since Fairey will not build Fulmars. They use the same engines and MGs after all.



And for the nth time, you cannot build them, the RAF, who held the contracts would not release them until they no longer needed them , moreover the jigs and dies that are needed to build these aircraft would need to be fabricated and installed at the Fairey plant whilst in the meantime the FAA goes without fighter aircraft. The earliest that you could expect to obtain Sea Hurricanes, if they were entering production from say June 1940, would Septmeber 1941, taking into account all the development that would be needed to make the type operational as a carrier based fighter, and to set up the shadow factory that you talk about.

As an example of what I am talking about, DAP first decided to construct Beafighters in Australia in early 1942.....but it was early 1944 before the first DAP built Beau entered service. And Australia had been producing beaforts (on which the Beafighter was based) since 1941....just because there is some commonality in a design does not mean that a type can be replicated easily in another factory....Setting up a shadow factory in the manner you talk about is not easy or quick. If it had started in say 1938, it might have been ready by the end of 1940....if lucky



Okay.
For the 1st part, Sea Hurricanes would be available since Fairey would build them. So everything would be the same.

No, it wouldnt....the Fulmar has more than twice the range of the Sea Hurricane, and from the start was night capable, which the Hurricane was not. And as outlined above, getting the hurricane into service would have suffered inevitable delays, just to get a higher performance aircraft into service that was not absolutley necessary. What was necessary in 1940 was a dedicated fleet defence fighter....ready ASAP, withy good turn of range and the ability to operate in a wide range of conditions. the Fulmar fulfilled that role, the Hurricane does not. It would have been a mistake to do what you want to do,

For the 2nd part, we still lack hard data about real successes Fulmars made, and it proves nothing about Fulmars day-fighting apabilities.
According to the FAA website, the lowly Fulmar, air am site is credited with 2/3 of the total kills by the FAA . The FAAS top scoring ace, Lcdr Sewall, is credited with five stukas in just one mission. It was an effective bomber destroyer, and evidence of its success is the fact that no less than 36 of its pilots had by early 1941 reached ace status

 

[Freebird]

.

Who ever said anything about Helldiver?? I was questioning capabilities of Fulmar/Firefly as a fighter.

Because it is not a fighter!~!!!! It is a Fighter-bomber, and you ALWAYS lose perfomance as a fighter to be able to carry ordinance. The Firefly was as capable (or better) than a Helldiver, yet also capable as a fighter vs every Italian or Japanese twin engine bomber, or B6N, Stuka, He-111 etc. You just can't compare a fighter-bomber's performance to a single engine fighter, as it wasn't intended to go up against it.

On the contrary. RN received Corsairs in early 1943,

?? Please provide some data as to when the orsair was operational on a RN arrier in early 1943. The 1833, 1834 sqd embarked in Dec 1943 on British carriers, departing Jan 1944 for the far east. These were the first operational corsairs on RN carriers

In December 1943 the squadron embarked on HMS Illustrious as part of the 15th Naval Fighter Wing, sailing in January 1944 to Ceylon for the Eastern Fleet.

Fleet Air Arm 1833 squadron profile. Squadron Database of the Fleet Air Arm Archive 1939-1945

Fireflies were operational in June '44.

First squadron operational in the UK sept 1943

1770 squadron. The squadron formed at Yeovilton as a 2-seater fighter squadron with 12 Firefly Is in September 1943. The first operational Firefly squadron.

Clipped-wing Corsair fit in nicely.

No, it didn't

Implacable: the height of the lower hangar was lowered by 2 feet so that both hangars had an overhead clearance of only 14 feet. The result was very cramped accommodation spaces, and a restriction on the type of aircraft that could be operated - the hangars were too low for Corsairs, and due to the unavailability of Hellcats the ships were compelled to carry short-range Seafires.

HMS IMPLACABLE aircraft carrier profile. Aircraft Carrier Database of the Fleet Air Arm Archive 1939-1945

Martlet? - The Marlet carried no bombs, and had only MG vs 4 x 20mm for the Firefly, very effective shooting down bombers.

Nice. A 1943 fighter that's only as fast as 1939.

It is not a fighter!!!

Seafire was operational 2 years before, and would eat Firefly for breakfast. Same for Zero. Hell, Me-109E would tear it apart.
The Hellcat need to be added for comparison, a much better fighter then Firefly.

I don't know how else I can try to explain The Firefly is not a fighter!! It is a Fighter Bomber. It is not designed to best single seat fighters, it was designed as a 2 seat bomber/recon with some capability as a fighter.

Again, the Firefly as a bomber is another ball game.

Can you please explain then why the US would build 7,000 Helldivers, which had the same or inferior performance as a bomber to a Firefly?

 

[parsifal]

Parsifal,
I've asked you to provide some data about succeses of Fulmar/Firefly during poor weather, yet you provided none of that. Of course, the most interesting part is how many V-1s were shoot down by Firefly.

So, the fact that the FAA adopted it a their principal night fighter defence, using the latest irborne interception radar is not relevant. Interesting rebuttal........basically your saying that you know better than the Royal Navy's procurement machine


Now even if we agree that Fulmar with radar was a great thing, it falls behind contemporaries when we talk about plain simple tasks Corsair Hellcat performed daily. Even as night fighters they could compere with Fulmar NF. And if Corsair's range is not enough, then just how enough is enough?

ah yes, and the hellcat and Corsair were ready when????? By the time these types were entering large scale service, the Fulmar was leaving service. At the time the Fulmar was earning its place in history, your Hellcats and Corsairs were just someones daydream...

With regard to the to range, the Hellcats and Corsairs did not have the range to allow a carrier to remain out of range during the approach and retreat from the launch position. Fireflies did have the range, as well as the target location capability to hit the target at night or in poor weather

As for (Sea) Hurricanes (for the n-th time): RAF, we don't your Hurricanes. We would build our own instead, since Fairey will not build Fulmars. They use the same engines and MGs after all.



And for the nth time, you cannot build them, the RAF, who held the contracts would not release them until they no longer needed them , moreover the jigs and dies that are needed to build these aircraft would need to be fabricated and installed at the Fairey plant whilst in the meantime the FAA goes without fighter aircraft. The earliest that you could expect to obtain Sea Hurricanes, if they were entering production from say June 1940, would Septmeber 1941, taking into account all the development that would be needed to make the type operational as a carrier based fighter, and to set up the shadow factory that you talk about.

As an example of what I am talking about, DAP first decided to construct Beafighters in Australia in early 1942.....but it was early 1944 before the first DAP built Beau entered service. And Australia had been producing beaforts (on which the Beafighter was based) since 1941....just because there is some commonality in a design does not mean that a type can be replicated easily in another factory....Setting up a shadow factory in the manner you talk about is not easy or quick. If it had started in say 1938, it might have been ready by the end of 1940....if lucky



Okay.
For the 1st part, Sea Hurricanes would be available since Fairey would build them. So everything would be the same.

No, it wouldnt....the Fulmar has more than twice the range of the Sea Hurricane, and from the start was night capable, which the Hurricane was not. And as outlined above, getting the hurricane into service would have suffered inevitable delays, just to get a higher performance aircraft into service that was not absolutley necessary. What was necessary in 1940 was a dedicated fleet defence fighter....ready ASAP, withy good turn of range and the ability to operate in a wide range of conditions. the Fulmar fulfilled that role, the Hurricane does not. It would have been a mistake to do what you want to do,

For the 2nd part, we still lack hard data about real successes Fulmars made, and it proves nothing about Fulmars day-fighting apabilities.
According to the FAA website, the lowly Fulmar, air am site is credited with 2/3 of the total kills by the FAA . The FAAS top scoring ace, Lcdr Sewall, is credited with five stukas in just one mission. It was an effective bomber destroyer, and evidence of its success is the fact that no less than 36 of its pilots had by early 1941 reached ace status

 

[Freebird]

I see no point in Sea Gladiator, Fulmar,

So what exactly would the FAA be using in 1938, 1939 1940???

Remember, that building Hurricanes was not the only problem, it is that the testing of Hurris aboard RN carriers was not complete until the end of 1940, until that time they did not even know if a Hurricane was feasable of board carriers. In the meantime they badly needed fighters.


You cannot use the standard that "a Fighter bomber is not as capable as a fighter", because it is a trade off - you lose some performance for the ability to do multiple jobs with one aircraft.

Suppose you were to consider the pickup truck

1.) A pickup truck is slower than a Corvette
2.) A pickup truck carries less than a Dump Truck

3.) Therefore nobody would ever buy a pickup truck, because it it is slower than a sports car, and can't carry 20 tons of cargo.

But if fact people do buy pickups. It will never be as fast as a Ferrari, but it can carry a few hundred kilos of cargo, yet still small enough for driving around the city

 

[tomo pauk]

As stated above, it was typo to said Fulmar instead Firefly in the post #44.

Next, since FAA made so many mistakes in deciding what planes should and should'nt be in their carriers, why should choosing some of them for NF role be regarded as holy grail? We still lack the hard info about what exactly Fulmars/Fireflies killed during night bad weather. And I don't know if more hillarious is statement about Hurri pilots being guided to Malta by Fulmars (how would they be able to found something smalled then island, in a sea bigger then Med?) or that Fireflies were tasked to kill V1s (since they made zero kills at He-111 missile-carriers anyway).

And was this a mistake on your behalf:

According to the FAA website, the lowly Fulmar, air am site is credited with 2/3 of the total kills by the FAA .

..since the FAA website says:

The Fulmar played important roles in the early defense of Malta and the defense of Ceylon, and went on to account for nearly 1/3 of the aircraft shot down by the FAA in WWII

Almost forgot: you've provided zero facts/numbers about combat range of Fulmar, Firefly, Corsair Hellcat...

 

[tomo pauk]

So what exactly would the FAA be using in 1938, 1939 1940???

Perhaps you will note in my previous posts that I have no objections for the top-performing plane for 1938 to mid 39 (=Skua) and that I recomend upgrading the skua until something better is at disposal.

Remember, that building Hurricanes was not the only problem, it is that the testing of Hurris aboard RN carriers was not complete until the end of 1940, until that time they did not even know if a Hurricane was feasable of board carriers. In the meantime they badly needed fighters.

Again, it was FAA that tought Hurris are not welcome aboard, not the planes themselves.

You cannot use the standard that "a Fighter bomber is not as capable as a fighter", because it is a trade off - you lose some performance for the ability to do multiple jobs with one aircraft.

Since it was true that fighter is better then fighter-bomber in killing enemy plane, I prefer to stick to it. And adding bomb racks to Hurri is no brain surgery.

Suppose you were to consider the pickup truck

1.) A pickup truck is slower than a Corvette
2.) A pickup truck carries less than a Dump Truck

3.) Therefore nobody would ever buy a pickup truck, because it it is slower than a sports car, and can't carry 20 tons of cargo.

But if fact people do buy pickups. It will never be as fast as a Ferrari, but it can carry a few hundred kilos of cargo, yet still small enough for driving around the city

False.
People buy Corvettes AND pick-ups AND dump-trucks.
FAA also was buying all 3 of them, since somebody got to carry torpedoes to Taranto, for example.

.

 

[Shortround6]

And I don't know if more hillarious is statement about Hurri pilots being guided to Malta by Fulmars (how would they be able to found something smalled then island, in a sea bigger then Med?)

How about if the Fulmars, even if the back seater wasn't a trained navigator had a longer ranged radio than the Hurricanes and probalby had a radio direction finder that could home in on radio beacon?

Not so hillarious.

For carrier use the fact that after a 4 hour flight the carrier could be 60-80 miles (slow carrier)from where the pilot took off ment that some sort of radio navigation aid was needed to get the planes back on board. Just like electronic of all sorts, these navagation aids may have gotton smaller, lighter and aiser to use as the war went on so that what a single seat fighter could be fitted with in 1943-44 was not the same as what could be fitted in 1940.

 

[Shortround6]

And adding bomb racks to Hurri is no brain surgery.

No it is not but expecting a bomb equiped Hurricane to be able to perform carrier bomb strikes is evidence of a temporary brain fart.

1. We seem to be talking about the MK I Hurricane here, 880hp for take-off using 87 octane fuel. Lets strap a couple of 250lb bombs to this puppy and see how well it gets off the carrier deck.
2. THe Hurricane had a range of about 425miles when clean. Not at all great for a carrier plane. Straping a pair of 250lb bombs to the plane is going to give you a really short ranged strike fighter.
A Strike plane that cannot reach the enemy carrier while the enemy strike planes can reach your carrier doesn't sound like a good deal. Or having to come that much more into the range of land based air in order to launch a shore strike.

Switching to 100 octane does help the take-off but does zilch for range.

the MK II Hurricane (which is the one that actualy carried bombs) with it's MK XX engine doesn't start to show up until the late summer/fall of 1940 and the bomb racks don't show up until 1941. While the bomb racks might not be a big problem getting the 2 speed supercharger engines with their higher take-off power to lift the heavier load from the carreir decks might be. And you still have the range problem.

You still might have a bit of a problem fitting the 1939-40 nav-aids in the Hurricane.

US Navy still had Grumman F3F-23 biplanes on board at least one carrier in the summer of 1941

As to the Brain fart thing, I have hade more than a few of my own

 

[Freebird]

Almost forgot: you've provided zero facts/numbers about combat range of Fulmar, Firefly, Corsair Hellcat...

The numbers quoted earlier were from my book "Complete WWII Aircraft" Military Press, NY

So what exactly would the FAA be using in 1938, 1939 1940???

Perhaps you will note in my previous posts that I have no objections for the top-performing plane for 1938 to mid 39 (=Skua) and that I recomend upgrading the skua until something better is at disposal.

Wrong - The Sea Gladiator out-performed the Skua as a fighter in 38 39, the Fulmar out-performed the Skua in 1940, and had a better range than the Sea Glad.

 

[parsifal]

So it is obvious that we have reached an impasse about the issue. On the one hand we have the historical situation that saw the Gladiator, Skua, Fulmar and later the Firefly introduced. On the other hand we have the assertion that the RN would have been better off if it had waited until the Hurricane was available for service. In the case of the Firefly, the argument is slightly different, basically it runs that the Fleet air marm made a mistake to order and construct the Firefly, and would have been better off just sitting back and relying on the hellcat and corsair production.