Can we make a slightly smaller Fulmar as an improved carrier fighter?

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

The Fulmar, as it was historically, made for a pretty good armed scout. It could defend itself against anything but frontline land based fighters or Zeros, and it had a decent range plus enhanced navigation capability and radios. But as a carrier defense and strike-escort fighter it was a bit lacking.

If you took a Fulmar and ... shrunk it a bit, dropped the enormous 47' wingspan down to around 40', got rid of the second crewman and shortened the fuselage a bit, and maybe smoothed over some of the fuselage... could you then have a faster ~ 300 mph or better naval fighter that could catch / intercept the newer bombers and fight Axis fighters on a more equal basis?

Actual Fulmar

Crude mock-up of my "skinny fulmar" concept

Making it a bit smaller would impact the amount of fuel it could carry, but a marginally thinner, slightly cleaner fuselage, shorter and slightly thinner wings would also make it much more streamlined and probably thus more fuel efficient. I think.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

Maybe reduce the size of that front windscreen slightly as well... put the thing in a wind tunnel and see what you can do.

 

[EwenS]

The oriigins of the Fulmar lie in the P.4/34 light bomber which was already flying when the Spec for "an interim fighter" for quick production was issued in 1938. Relatively minor changes were made to the airframe to get to the Fulmar.

Once you start talking about the kind of more extensive changes you are considering, you start looking more at a clean sheet of paper design, and that will result in a longer development time. So it is not available in the historic timescale. And you then don't have the aircraft that was sought that could act as an escort fighter to protect a strike force andcwith a second seat and Observer to find its way back to the fleet.

Anything is doable. But does it meet the Spec? And can it be built in the same timescale?

 

[don4331]

A better FAA twin seat, single engine fighter for 1940?

The Fulmar was a given, made in a hurry from Fairey’s RAF project. Putting aside the inevitability of the Fulmar, and assuming the single engine, twin seater, long range, eight, fixed forward firing guns (no turret fighters, thanks), fighter requirement is a must, what other British aircraft...

ww2aircraft.net

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

The oriigins of the Fulmar lie in the P.4/34 light bomber which was already flying when the Spec for "an interim fighter" for quick production was issued in 1938. Relatively minor changes were made to the airframe to get to the Fulmar.

Once you start talking about the kind of more extensive changes you are considering, you start looking more at a clean sheet of paper design, and that will result in a longer development time. So it is not available in the historic timescale. And you then don't have the aircraft that was sought that could act as an escort fighter to protect a strike force andcwith a second seat and Observer to find its way back to the fleet.

Anything is doable. But does it meet the Spec? And can it be built in the same timescale?

Well what actually happened was the Firefly development, right? Which did make it in time for the war though it came late, in part because it was waiting for a bigger and better (Griffin, and I think Saber was also considered) engine which could push around all the stuff it was carrying. Which it eventually did though that wasn't really realized until the very last models which were really too late for the war.

What I'm suggesting is an adjusted spec, maybe at the same time as the first one (1938), for a single seat fighter made on the same P.4/34 basis, with basically the same engine (we can talk about supercharger gears later) but with a single crew and a bit less of everything else... which might be ready in the early war, rather than having to go through the long painful period of trying to adapt land based interceptors to naval use and relying on American planes that didn't come nearly fast enough, in the right models, or in enough numbers.

If they ended up by 1941 or 1942 with a Merlin XX powered 'lite' Fulmar with a ~320+ mph speed and good range, they may have something quite useful.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

A better FAA twin seat, single engine fighter for 1940?

The Fulmar was a given, made in a hurry from Fairey’s RAF project. Putting aside the inevitability of the Fulmar, and assuming the single engine, twin seater, long range, eight, fixed forward firing guns (no turret fighters, thanks), fighter requirement is a must, what other British aircraft...

ww2aircraft.net

Like that, but single seat. Put these and a couple of Fulmar on the same carrier, as was done with some other recon types in the 1960s ... or by the Japanese with the excellent C6N

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

Like i said, I still think there is a role for the Fulmar both as a scout and as a pathfinder / navigator type aircraft. They did this with Lockheed Hudsons for land based fighters in the Pacific, so to me it makes sense.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

As an idea from the other thread, if a Defiant could really manage 300 mph with that enormous, heavy, draggy power turret on the back, what if you took that out, put some fuel in it instead where the second crewman was, add a few wing guns, you might have something pretty viable for a naval fighter. If it weighs 6,078 lbs empty, how much is it without the turret?

Apparently they tested something like this idea as Boulton Paul P.94 ... with a 'calculated' speed of 360 mph per Wiki

 

[Shortround6]

As an idea from the other thread, if a Defiant could really manage 300 mph with that enormous, heavy, draggy power turret on the back, what if you took that out, put some fuel in it instead where the second crewman was, add a few wing guns, you might have something pretty viable for a naval fighter. If it weighs 6,078 lbs empty, how much is it without the turret?

A lot of work for little result.
A Hurricane I was about 4670lbs with it's 40ft wing span.

A big problem with the Defiant schemes is that the wing guns go where the existing fuel tanks are so you have to use some of the fuselage to restore fuel capacity.

Basically everybody wants an all metal Hurricane with folding wings with a little more fuel, and is willing to jump through hoops and scale high walls to get it by squeezing/squashing/twisting/stretching a Fulmar or Defiant to get it.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

As an idea from the other thread, if a Defiant could really manage 300 mph with that enormous, heavy, draggy power turret on the back, what if you took that out, put some fuel in it instead where the second crewman was, add a few wing guns, you might have something pretty viable for a naval fighter. If it weighs 6,078 lbs empty, how much is it without the turret?

Apparently they tested something like this idea as Boulton Paul P.94 ... with a 'calculated' speed of 360 mph per Wiki

View attachment 742797

The turret weighed roughly 590 lbs according to this website. Avgas weighs 6 lbs/gallon. You may be able to shorten the fuselage a little, if the aerodynamics/CG factors allow, and still get in 100 gallons?

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

A lot of work for little result.
A Hurricane I was about 4670lbs with it's 40ft wing span.

A big problem with the Defiant schemes is that the wing guns go where the existing fuel tanks are so you have to use some of the fuselage to restore fuel capacity.

Basically everybody wants an all metal Hurricane with folding wings with a little more fuel, and is willing to jump through hoops and scale high walls to get it by squeezing/squashing/twisting/stretching a Fulmar or Defiant to get it.

If you can make a Hurricane with 50% more fuel, and / or a good bit less draggy, then yes. The FAA definitely needed a longer ranged / longer endurance fighter that could tangle with the best Axis fighters. Hurricane wasn't meeting that need (in either capacity) any more by ~1942. The other (later) designs were not based on biplanes or given the super thick wing of the Hurricane so might have more potential.

Fuel (104 Imp gal) in the Defiant was all in the center wing, so you could put guns outboard of that, I think. It was designed as an interceptor but they could certainly fit more fuel in it especially if you took out the turret- there would be space in the fuselage which is what they did in the Hurricane and Spitfire and many US planes. Probably as much as another 40 -50 gallons. Weight of the turret was 620 lbs armed, add another 200 lbs for the gunner, plus his oxygen etc., that gets you to around 850 lbs. So that would be about 5200 lbs empty. I don't know what their estimate of 360 mph was based on, but I think that might be pretty good.

I couldn't figure out how much fuel the Henley carried but it managed an impressive 950 miles range according to Wikipedia. It's slow speed of just under 300 mph is probably attributable to the 47' span / 342 sq ft wing that it also had. If you could shop that down a bit it could be viable.

Fulmar had 155 gallons from what I've read, and could carry a 60 gallon external tank (not sure what type, could be one of those weird ones) which could extend the range including of a stripped down variety.

Hurricane carried 97 Imp gal: 69 in the wings plus 28 gal in the forward fuselage. [Edited per Shortround6's correction]

For comparison, an A6M2 carried 114 Imp gal (plus very often the 72.6 Imp gal drop tank, for 186 total), Spitfire carried 85 Imp gallons, F4F-3 carried 147 US gallons, P-40E carried 157 gallons (with 75 gal drop tanks ubiquitous), Hellcat carried 235 gallons (60 gallons in the fuselage), F4U carried 237 gallons, P-51D 184 gallons (85 in fuselage) + two 75 gal external tanks.

So if you could make a less draggy Hurricane (or Fulmar) that can carry 150-180 gallons of fuel, count me in.

 

[Shortround6]

To follow up Thumpalumpacus's post

"The turret itself weighed in at 361lbs (164kg) and to this can be added 88lb (40kg) for the four guns, 106lb (48kg) for the ammunition and finally 35lb (16kg) for the oxygen equipment and gunsights."

Since you want at least the guns, ammo and gun sights (5lbs?) you are only getting rid of about 390lbs.
Guns, ammo, gunsights and oxygen equipment are not included in empty weight.
For loaded weight you also gain 200lbs by not carrying the extra crewman.

Ammo weight seems to be a bit off. Some sources say 600rpg but 106lbs is only worth about 400rpg.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

Fair point about the weight of the guns. Turret also imposes a huge amount of drag, especially when it isn't pointed strait back with the guns down. Moving the turret around also requires fuel I would think? How was it powered?

 

[Shortround6]

I don't know what their estimate of 360 mph was based on,

wishful thinking.

Hurricane carried 97 Imp gal in the wings plus 28 gal in the forward fuselage for 125 gallons.

The Hurricane carried 97 imp gallons total.

The center wing of the Defiant was not under the fuselage, it extended out to where the wing started to taper.

Fuel tanks are outboard of the landing gear. There were optional long range tanks on the Defiant, unfortunately they are right where you want to move the guns to keep from screwing up the existing tanks. The long range tanks are behind the landing lights.

We are repeating a bunch of stuff form another thread that is only a few days old.

Find the figures for the Defiant II and the Hurricane II.
.
Actual figures and not estimates. The Defiant needs to pick up over 20mph to equal the Hurricane, it needs another 20mph to equal the "estimate".
The Defiant is using a rather thick wing much like the Hurricane.
The Defiant II did not pick up the speed they expected by changing the engine.
The Defiant prototype did not show a big difference in speed (only a few mph) between being flown without the Turret and with the turret, Unknown what changes they made when they fitted the turret? Change in prop, changed exhaust stacks, changed something else?

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

wishful thinking.

The Hurricane carried 97 imp gallons total.

Ah, my bad... I suspected something was off there and should have remembered from previous discussions... rushed that a bit.

The center wing of the Defiant was not under the fuselage, it extended out to where the wing started to taper.
View attachment 742808

Fuel tanks are outboard of the landing gear. There were optional long range tanks on the Defiant, unfortunately they are right where you want to move the guns to keep from screwing up the existing tanks. The long range tanks are behind the landing lights.

How about putting a hub mounted 20mm and a couple of 12.7mm guns in the nose? Like Soviet planes.

We are repeating a bunch of stuff form another thread that is only a few days old.

Find the figures for the Defiant II and the Hurricane II.
.
Actual figures and not estimates. The Defiant needs to pick up over 20mph to equal the Hurricane, it needs another 20mph to equal the "estimate".

Losing a full sized four gun power turret, and a second crewman, if you can't pick up 20mph I think you aren't even trying. Look at the front view of the Defiant, all that drag from the square shaped turret is a big problem. What is the power source for the turret?

The Defiant is using a rather thick wing much like the Hurricane.

Based on the 1/72 models of both sitting right of me, that is partly true, Defiant is just as thick in the center part of the wing, but for the outer wings which get thinner (and both taper in thickness and have some dihedral) on the Defiant.

The Defiant II did not pick up the speed they expected by changing the engine.

I would say because of drag

The Defiant prototype did not show a big difference in speed (only a few mph) between being flown without the Turret and with the turret, Unknown what changes they made when they fitted the turret? Change in prop, changed exhaust stacks, changed something else?

That is a bit confusing, but I doubt their estimate was pure fantasy, they must have been basing that on something. Was the early engine set for lower power?

 

[ThomasP]

Defiant Mk I K8620 A&AEE flight test #720a

7390 lbs flying weight (normal TOGW was ~7700 lbs)
303 mph at 16,500 ft at +6.5 lbs boost
312 mph at 10,000 ft at +12 lbs boost

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

Defiant Mk I K8620 A&AEE flight test #720a

7390 lbs flying weight (normal TOGW was ~7700 lbs)
303 mph at 16,500 ft at +6.5 lbs boost
312 mph at 10,000 ft at +12 lbs boost

is that with turret or without

 

[Shortround6]

How about putting a hub mounted 20mm and a couple of 12.7mm guns in the nose? Like Soviet planes.

Easy, just put Soviet engines in the planes
Merlins didn't room/space for a hub mounted gun. you have to used the right spacing on the reduction gears in addition to not filling up the space between the cylinder banks with stuff like intake manifolds and you need to leave space at the back for the supercharger and any other bits and bobs.

That is a bit confusing, but I doubt their estimate was pure fantasy, they must have been basing that on something. Was the early engine set for lower power?

Early speed testing may have been done without ejector exhausts, not the ones fitted were that great. May have used different prop and other changes.

As a reality check try the P-40F with the same engine. Boscombe Down got 354mph out of one of them, kitted out for service (drop tank fittings and slots for bomb racks,etc) and while a lot heavier it used a a wing about 2 ft shorter, a bit less area, a lot thinner (15% at the root).
The P-40F was only about 25mph faster than a 12 gun Hurricane.

 

[Snautzer01]

only about 25mph

In a time were people shaved their heads to go a bit faster that was a thing. Big thing. Without hair.

 

[Admiral Beez]

The Fulmar, as it was historically, made for a pretty good armed scout. It could defend itself against anything but frontline land based fighters or Zeros, and it had a decent range plus enhanced navigation capability and radios. But as a carrier defense and strike-escort fighter it was a bit lacking.

If you took a Fulmar and ... shrunk it a bit, dropped the enormous 47' wingspan down to around 40', got rid of the second crewman and shortened the fuselage a bit, and maybe smoothed over some of the fuselage... could you then have a faster ~ 300 mph or better naval fighter that could catch / intercept the newer bombers and fight Axis fighters on a more equal basis?

The Air Ministry clearly wanted a twin seater for their carrier fighter. But the Fulmar needn't be the giant two seater it was. But if we must pursue a single seater fighter while still using the Fairey P.4/34 as a starting point rather than a cleansheet design, here's someone's attempt.

Fairey Fulmar also designed as a single seat version alongside the Hurricane & Spitfire?

A spin-off from my earlier post https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/boulton-paul-defiant-also-designed-as-a-single-seat-version-alongside-the-hurricane-spitfire.546195/#post-24519625 What if the Fairey Fulmar was also designed as a single seat version alongside the Hurricane &...

www.alternatehistory.com