Blackburn Skua was it that bad?

Civettone · Dec 4, 2009

But wasn't the Fulmar designed for long-range/-endurance missions? Something which was new for carrier borne fighters?

Also ... the main advantage the Fulmar had was that it could easily be derived from an existing aircraft, the Fairey Battle. If you start changing more then the main advantage disappears and one could just as well have designed a complete new aircraft. But then you would have it operational months later.

Kris

dunmunro1 · Dec 4, 2009

The Fulmar was much slower than most Axis fighters at higher altitudes but the Fulmar was optimized for low altitude performance:

f4f-4 emergency power, 2000ft = 251 knots
f4f-4 emergency power, 10000ft = 259 knots

F2A-1 emergency power, 2000ft = 232 knots
F2A-1 emergency power, 10000ft = 237 knots

F2A-2 emergency power, 2000ft = 248 knots
F2A-2 emergency power, 10000ft = 256 knots

Hurricane 1, overboost 2000ft = 253 knots
Hurricane 1, overboost 10000ft = 280 knots

Fulmar 2 = 230kn at 2000ft, 231kn at 10000ft. (Full power w/o overboost)
AFAIK, the Merlin XXX in the Fulmar 2 was rated at 9lb boost and ~1280 hp with full power and 1360 hp with 12lb overboost, so we might see at 5 - 10 knot speed increase for the Fulmar 2 with overboost, at 2000 and 10000 ft and an even greater increase for the Fulmar1 with overboost.

Axis aircraft (max speed with emergency power)

G3M2 Model 22, 202 kt at 4,180 m (Nell - much slower at lower altitude maybe 190 knots at 2000ft)
G3M3 Model 23, 224 kt at 5,900 m

G4M1-11, 208kt at 2000ft, (Betty)
G4M1-11, 218kt at 10000ft,

A6M2-21, 2000ft = 240 knots
A6M2-21, 10000ft = 265 knots

Bf109e-4, 2000ft, 262kt
Bf109e-4, 1000ft, 284kt

Ju88 A4 , 2000ft = 216 knots
Ju88 A4 , 10000ft = 227 knots

The Fulmar2 also carried 1000rpg ammo, and had nearly 50sec of firing time. We can see that while the Fulmar was generally outclassed by Axis fighters, the differences at low altitude are not that great, and at low altitude it was generally faster than most early war Axis bombers, which would be slower than the above if loaded.

Glider · Dec 4, 2009

I hate to admit that only the British could take a big, slow, unmanoeverable, vulnerable light bomber and say, hey, lets turn this into a fighter.

Clearly range and ammunition supply are a significant boon to a naval fighter but no one will persuade me that with the right spec to aim for, the designers couldn't have done better than the Fulmar.

Take the Defiant, remove the rear turret and use some of the space for fuel, give it some guns in the wing and that should do. It had a decent low level performance and was designed to take the weight of a turret. No one is expecting a world beater but it would have been an improvement on the Fulmar.

tomo pauk · Dec 4, 2009

+1

Glider said:
On the other hand the USN and the IJN had operated siingle seat carrier fighters for years without any major problems. Indeed the FAA had operated Hawker Nimrod single seat fighters since 1931 (and sold some to the IJN).
So I must disagree with the idea that a second crew member was a requirement for navigation. All the experience showed that single seat fighters operated with success at sea.

+1

Shortround6 · Dec 4, 2009

Glider said:
I hate to admit that only the British could take a big, slow, unmanoeverable, vulnerable light bomber and say, hey, lets turn this into a fighter.

Clearly range and ammunition supply are a significant boon to a naval fighter but no one will persuade me that with the right spec to aim for, the designers couldn't have done better than the Fulmar.

Take the Defiant, remove the rear turret and use some of the space for fuel, give it some guns in the wing and that should do. It had a decent low level performance and was designed to take the weight of a turret. No one is expecting a world beater but it would have been an improvement on the Fulmar.

Maye they could have done better than the Fulmar but unless you do a total redesign on the Defiant the Defiant wasn't going to make it.

1. The wing loading on a Defiant was about 17-18% higher than the Fulmar. A bit of turning ability plus that ever important take-off and landing speed for a carrier aircraft. Defiant's wing had less area than Hurricane.
2. Both the main fuel tanks (104Imp.gal) and the Aux tanks (54IMP Gal) were in the wings. Installing a worthwhile wing armament means cutting way down on the fuel, which isn't that great to begin with.
3. You can't put the fuel were the turret was, too great and change in the CG as the fuel is used. You can move the pilot back a few feet and put the fuel tank were the cockpit used to be but that sure doesn't help the pilots forward veiw.
4. Redesigning the the Defiant for "proper" Naval use means not only the hook and catapult gear but a folding wing and landing gear that can absorb the greater vertical impacts. More weight=less performance advantage.

5. and the biggie for the BRITISH NAVAL fighter. At the time they were concieved the Skua and the Fulmar used a radio beacon finding system to lead the fighter back to the carrier. THe rear seater wasn't a "navagator", he was the guy who operated this electronic equipment. No amount of training the "pilot" to use plotting boards and navagation excerisizes was going to replace this system.

6. Do not confuse short range good weather operations with long range or long duration patrols in less than good weather.

I wonder why, after years of operating single seat fighters with "no trouble" the British devised this radio beacon system?
Heavy lobbing by the electronics industry?

Civettone · Dec 4, 2009

Shortround6 said:
5. and the biggie for the BRITISH NAVAL fighter. At the time they were concieved the Skua and the Fulmar used a radio beacon finding system to lead the fighter back to the carrier. THe rear seater wasn't a "navagator", he was the guy who operated this electronic equipment. No amount of training the "pilot" to use plotting boards and navagation excerisizes was going to replace this system.

Awesome! I didn't know that.
Just shows once again that it is very easy for us to judge aircraft designers or policy makers but without all the information and background they had it is very risk for us to "recommend" improvements.

Kris

tomo pauk · Dec 4, 2009

Yet the Japanese purchased in late 30's the single seater fighter that dwarfed anything in range, the A5M "Claude". And there are no reports that the planes got lost over vast Pacific.

There was really something faulty in FAA purchase policy/politics.

Glider · Dec 4, 2009

Shortround6 said:
Maye they could have done better than the Fulmar but unless you do a total redesign on the Defiant the Defiant wasn't going to make it.

1. The wing loading on a Defiant was about 17-18% higher than the Fulmar. A bit of turning ability plus that ever important take-off and landing speed for a carrier aircraft. Defiant's wing had less area than Hurricane.

The Fulmar's wing loading was lower than almost any single engined fighter but it didn't do it any good in combat.

2. Both the main fuel tanks (104Imp.gal) and the Aux tanks (54IMP Gal) were in the wings. Installing a worthwhile wing armament means cutting way down on the fuel, which isn't that great to begin with.

True but the P94 (max speed 350mph+) had 12 x LMG or 4 x 20mm and 4 x LMG so the guns could be fitted.

3. You can't put the fuel were the turret was, too great and change in the CG as the fuel is used. You can move the pilot back a few feet and put the fuel tank were the cockpit used to be but that sure doesn't help the pilots forward veiw.

You can move the pilot back a little. In the combined space for the pilot and gunner there is a fair amount of area to play with to find the right position. Pilot and fuel could be fitted

4. Redesigning the the Defiant for "proper" Naval use means not only the hook and catapult gear but a folding wing and landing gear that can absorb the greater vertical impacts. More weight=less performance advantage.

True to a point but you are losing the weight of the gunner and turret so any weight gain is likely to be marginal.

5. and the biggie for the BRITISH NAVAL fighter. At the time they were concieved the Skua and the Fulmar used a radio beacon finding system to lead the fighter back to the carrier. THe rear seater wasn't a "navagator", he was the guy who operated this electronic equipment. No amount of training the "pilot" to use plotting boards and navagation excerisizes was going to replace this system.

The UNS and IJN managed so why not the FAA. If its a bit of kit then buy it from the US, if its training then do the training.

6. Do not confuse short range good weather operations with long range or long duration patrols in less than good weather.

I am not

I wonder why, after years of operating single seat fighters with "no trouble" the British devised this radio beacon system?
Heavy lobbing by the electronics industry?

No idea but equally I am not aware of the pre war FAA of the IJN or the USN having any problems, are you?

parsifal · Dec 4, 2009

tomo pauk said:
Yet the Japanese purchased in late 30's the single seater fighter that dwarfed anything in range, the A5M "Claude". And there are no reports that the planes got lost over vast Pacific.

There was really something faulty in FAA purchase policy/politics.

A5Ms were not designed to undertake the Spotting role. They could not find a target, pinpoint its position by navigational fix and then report that position to the carrier.

Fulmars had a multi-role function, so, yet again, replacing it with a single purpose fighter would have the effect of reducing the strike capability by forcing an even greater proportion of the Swordfish and Albacores into that role.

There is every chance that the Bismark might have escaped id not for the spotting and navigational abilities of the Fulmar

tomo pauk · Dec 4, 2009

parsifal said:
A5Ms were not designed to undertake the Spotting role. They could not find a target, pinpoint its position by navigational fix and then report that position to the carrier.

So they couldn't find target?

Fulmars had a multi-role function, so, yet again, replacing it with a single purpose fighter would have the effect of reducing the strike capability by forcing an even greater proportion of the Swordfish and Albacores into that role.

To find a target for their ship-borne strike planes, RN employed radars on ships, strike CV planes subs. They also employed many types of maritime patrol planes form Coastal command. And yet it castrates the main fleet air-defence air-superiority asset by purchasing the bomber-originated fighter, in order to have yet another plane that could spot a target. Is that a viable decision or what?

There is every chance that the Bismark might have escaped id not for the spotting and navigational abilities of the Fulmar

And my opinion is that RN would've find sink it even if they've field something more akin of single-seat fighter.

Again, the FAA purchase policy/politics emerges beyond criticism.

dunmunro1 · Dec 4, 2009

When the Fulmar began carrier service, in the Fall of 1940, its opposite numbers were:

IJN- A5M
USN - F3F and F2A

By July 1941 the FAA was also deploying the Sea Hurricane for carrier defence.

tomo pauk · Dec 4, 2009

dunmunro1 said:
When the Fulmar began carrier service, in the Fall of 1940, its opposite numbers were:

IJN- A5M
USN - F3F and F2A

Are you accidentally or purposely comparing the planes that are being replaced on decks by late '40 (A5M F3F) with the one entering the service (Fulmar)? Not to mention that those were faster, and F2A was way faster...
FYI, A6M scored the 1st victories in fall 1940.

By July 1941 the FAA was also deploying the Sea Hurricane for carrier defence.

Could we agree that was the way FAA was admitting that converted bomber is not suitable for air defense air superiority tasks?

.

dunmunro1 · Dec 4, 2009

The IJN did not complete their conversion to A6Ms until late 1941, and the AFAIK, the A6M did not enter carrier service until mid 1941 and the A5M was still aboard some of the light carriers after Dec 1941. On the whole I think the Fulmar was superior to the F2A, given the Fulmar's low altitude optimization. The FAA realized that they needed a higher performance fighter than the the Fulmar and planned to replace the Fulmar with the Firefly. If the Firefly had entered service in 1942, as planned, we might now have a much different opinion of two seat naval fighters.

I suspect that the Fulmar would have entered service sooner, if not for the dislocation caused by the fall of France and the Battle of Britain.

Civettone · Dec 4, 2009

It seems that other countries also went for two-person fighter aircraft on their carriers (the American FF-1 or French Villiers II) but did replace them with single-person fighters. Britain replaced some of their naval fighters with the two-person Fulmar but replaced that again by a single-person one.
That is indeed a bit odd. I wouldn't say the Fulmar is a real reconaissance aircraft but as a long-endurance patrol aircraft it definitely needed to be able to spot and pinpoint the target. I suppose for that reason the British had the extra guy as a radio beacon operator. I don't think he was merely used to get the fighter back home but also to keep track on the position of the aircraft. So when an enemy fleet or more often enemy bomber aircraft were spotted this guy could pinpoint their position much better. Especially a lone single-person fighter aircraft would be deficient in this. Also coastal aircraft, radar or other carrier aircraft would be of limited use.
So I think that's where the Fulmar came in. In the end, they did see that having a proper defence fighter would be of more use while still being able to detect enemy bombers though perhaps not pinpoint them as accurately.

So I think I can also agree with Tomo. The British in the end did give up the Fulmar concept so perhaps if they had come up with a decent single-engined fighter in the same time frame, the Fulmar would not have been needed.

Kris

Freebird · Dec 4, 2009

tomo pauk said:
Yet the Japanese purchased in late 30's the single seater fighter that dwarfed anything in range, the A5M "Claude". And there are no reports that the planes got lost over vast Pacific.

Glider said:

So I must disagree with the idea that a second crew member was a requirement for navigation. All the experience showed that single seat fighters operated with success at sea.

Click to expand...

On the contrary, there were a lot of problems with Recon/spotting.

IIRC, quite a few Zeros were lost on the Indian Ocean raid as they could not find the carriers and ditched.
The Dauntless became separated from the Wildcats at Midway, and only barely managed to find the Japanese carriers. The US scouts mis-identified the Shoho at Coral sea. The Japanese mis-identified the US carriers at Midway. British aircraft mistook a british cruiser for the Bismarck, and bombed it by mistake.

The point? Naval Recon/spotting was notoriously unreliable in '40 - '42, having the second crewmember to operate radar spot made the job easier.

Glider said:

I hate to admit that only the British could take a big, slow, unmanoeverable, vulnerable light bomber and say, hey, lets turn this into a fighter.

Clearly range and ammunition supply are a significant boon to a naval fighter but no one will persuade me that with the right spec to aim for, the designers couldn't have done better than the Fulmar.

Click to expand...

Yes I agree. The Fulmar was a dud.

tomo pauk said:

There was really something faulty in FAA purchase policy/politics.

Click to expand...

First off, the Fulmar was not authorized by the FAA - it was an RAF project. The FAA only gained control in mid-1939, and considering the situation at the time (1939/1940) the FAA did a pretty good job with what it was given.
Did the RAF do a poor job in planning for aircraft? Yes absolutely, especially for naval aircraft, because they didn't really give a **** about RN needs. In 1938/1939 the British nation was in a critical race against time to bring up Fighter Command to be able to match the Luftwaffe. Naval needs were low priority, because it was thought that the existing aircraft were adequate, as the carriers wouldn't need to operate within range of enemy fighters. There would also be little need for carriers in the western/central Med, as the entire coast between Gibraltar Malta would be covered by French fighters operating from Algeria Tunisia. (anyways, that was the plan... )

dunmunro1 · Dec 4, 2009

AFAIK, the Fulmar was designed to meet an RN specification, and the fact that the FAA was nominally under RAF control had little to do with the design.

Pick another naval fighter in operational service in the Fall of 194O and see if it is superior to the Fulmar.

Glider · Dec 4, 2009

dunmunro1 said:
On the whole I think the Fulmar was superior to the F2A, given the Fulmar's low altitude optimization.

The only FAA unit to be issued with the Buffalo much preferred this to the Fulmar. Quote from Air War for Yugoslavia, Greece and Cyprus page 141.

The Buffalo was a delight to fly, very manoeuvrable compared to the Fulmar. At no time did I request that Buffalos be exchanged for Sea Gladiators, but I do remember in the light of the inadequacy of the Fulmars against the CR42 I requested that the Sea Gladiators if not required for other operations be sent to reinforce 805 squadron.

I think the above says it all. Its only fair to add that all the Buffalos went out of service due to a lack of spares for the interrupter gear.

parsifal · Dec 4, 2009

The Facts are that the Fulmar served the RN quite wll and fulfilled its design specs. By the end of 1940, it had destroyed some thing like 60 aircraft, which I think was more aircraft than were present in the frontline squadrons. Thats a pretty impressive score card for an aircraft being argued as obsolete or misguided.

The Fulmar was adopted because of the need for a multi role aircraft, and because at the time of its inception the RN needed a fighter in a hurry and nothing else seemed available at the time. The FAA had only just been re-established as an independant force and did not have access to the high perfomrance single seaters then in service....nothing like interservice rivalry to put the natiojn in danger. The Fulmar was the best to be had quickly, and it was lucky the RN adopted that expedient or the the Fleet would have fought the crucial battles of 1940-41 without fighter protection.

The relatively long range of the Fulmar meant that many of the operations undertaken by the RN could be undertaken outside the effective fighter ranges of the Axis land based air....forcing the axis to attack the RN without adequate fighter protection on many occasions. If shorter ranged single seat fighters had forced the RN to operate closer to the enemy bases, it would have placed the fleet at greater risk than it already was. As it turned out the Royal Navy suffered loss when it failed to observe that policy in January 1941. The long loiter time and range of the Fulmar meant that distant cover could be flown more effectively than by short ranged single seaters.

Even against single seater fighters, the Fulmar was quite effective. At low altitudes it poor performance was not as marked, and its long endurance meant that it could be positioned and concentrated to a far greater extent than its single seater opponents. Only in those situations where the enemy fighters had the time and endurance to concentrate and position themselves for advantage, was the Fulmar outlclassed....and this just didnt happen in fleet defence situations

The two seat configuration was in some ways mistaken, based on the beleive that over water navigation needed a secennd crew memeber. however, it made sense in the North Atlantic, where weather conditions were often les than optimal. It also made sense to give the Fulmar superior spotting capabilities, which the second crewman did, given the Recon roles the Fulmar was expected to fill

Shortround6 · Dec 4, 2009

AS far as weather goes it was considered that even in the North sea the average visablity was under 20,000yds.

Electronic navagation and procedures changed an awful lot from the beginning of WW II to the end.

dunmunro1 · Dec 4, 2009

Glider said:
The only FAA unit to be issued with the Buffalo much preferred this to the Fulmar. Quote from Air War for Yugoslavia, Greece and Cyprus page 141.

The Buffalo was a delight to fly, very manoeuvrable compared to the Fulmar. At no time did I request that Buffalos be exchanged for Sea Gladiators, but I do remember in the light of the inadequacy of the Fulmars against the CR42 I requested that the Sea Gladiators if not required for other operations be sent to reinforce 805 squadron.

I think the above says it all. Its only fair to add that all the Buffalos went out of service due to a lack of spares for the interrupter gear.

Of course this shore based pilot might have formed a very different impression of the Buffalo if he had to fly it on and off a carrier...and then conduct long range missions over the North Atlantic by himself in poor visibility.

Blackburn Skua was it that bad?

Tech Sergeant

Banned

Major

Creator of Interesting Threads

Lieutenant General

Tech Sergeant

Creator of Interesting Threads

Major

Colonel

Creator of Interesting Threads

Banned

Creator of Interesting Threads

Banned

Tech Sergeant

Master Sergeant

Banned

Major

Colonel

Lieutenant General

Banned

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads