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

[EwenS]

You raise another interesting point, but one which points up a paradox. Later in the war, for a variety of reasons, the US was certainly using fighters as their main strike aircraft. Corsairs in particular were well suited for the job, Hellcats did Ok as well. Both were better in the long run than Helldivers or TBFs, at least given the reduced threat of IJN carriers and carrier aircraft... i.e. they were being used mainly to attack ground targets or poorly defended ships. Helldivers, TBFs, and Barracudas were slower and often also larger, didn't necessarily carry a lot more ordinance and were much more vulnerable to (now mostly land based) enemy fighters.

The problem is the mix of bombs / drop tanks on the Corsair to give it the same range and payload as the Helldiver.

As we have discussed before on other threads, the USN concluded in 1945 that the move to fighters in the mix of aircraft in CV carrier groups had gone too far. Had the war gone on it would have been less fighters and more Helldivers with the TBM being phased out beginning in 1946. The Midways were scheduled to get a 50/50 airgroup of fighters and Helldivers.

BY 1943 the RN was planning a new generation of larger torpedo / dive bombers for use on the next generation of carriers.

The RN eventually used Fireflys in the same or similar role, again for a variety of reasons (I think strike was not really the main role intended for the Firefly, but rather one of several, though it ended up being it's main role).

By mid-1943, when it was finally reaching squadron service, the RN definitely saw the Firefly as an escort fighter along with the Corsair & Hellcat entering service at the same time. Its secondary role was then seen as a strike / recce fighter, at that point with cannon only. They only received rockets in Oct/Nov 1944 to increase their punch in the latter role. Bombs were not used on them in WW2 as there were difficulties clearing them for operational use.

The other fighter type they saw the need for was the interceptor, a role to be filled by the Seafire XV planned for 1944.

 

[EwenS]

It's too bad a single engined fighter aircraft was not prepared in advance for the introduction of the Hercules. Aircraft were designed for the dead end RR Exe and Vulture engines, but no one thought to build a single engined fighter to run the Hercules?

As I've noted, the initial Blackburn proposal in Jan 1940 for a single seat front gun fighter was based on the Hercules engine, and was considered worthy of development. But as the requirement and resultant spec was finalised during 1940 culminating in N.11/40 issued on 1 Sept, the engine was then specified as the Napier Sabre seen as necessary to produce the required 400mph speed. I've not seen any drawings of that early design.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Can you expand on that a little? What are the specs, basic traits. Size etc.

Well, the Bristol Hercules first runs in 1936 as one of three 14-cylinder two row radials for the RAF, the other two being the Tiger from 1932 and the Pelides that also runs in 1936. We need someone to design a single seat, monoplane fighter to take one of these radials, with a emphasis on the Hercules as the best of the three. Something like the hypothetical Bristol 153, or a proposal from Fairey instead of the Fulmar.

Bistol Type 153 wins the F.37/35, no W. Whirlwind

Pretty conventional Type 153 was to be powered by a Bristol Hercules, armed with 4 cannons (per spec), and was among the 1st designes supposed to have the bubble canopy. Let's say Bristol's design wins instead of Westland's. Will the RAF be better off, or not? Possible repercussions on future...

ww2aircraft.net

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

The problem is the mix of bombs / drop tanks on the Corsair to give it the same range and payload as the Helldiver.

Well... sort of. On paper it looks like Helldiver has the best range, but in actual practice I would say Corsair actually had a considerably better range though that depended on the specific load. But even if it was exactly the same, the Corsair was both 100 mph + faster, and more reliable, and much better against enemy fighters. For shorter strikes it also carried a larger bomb load. And it had a faster cruising speed, even with heavy loads. But for example you could send a Corsair armed with rockets much further out than you could the Helldiver armed with bombs, which gives you a bit more flexibility.

The main issue was Corsairs don't need an escort.

Helldiver was eventually improved to the point that it was somewhat viable but it never became a 'high availability' aircraft. Though it had a rough start on carriers, Corsair also ended up having a better accident rate. Helldivers were tricky to land on carriers.

Corsair was also a bit smaller and only carried one pilot rather than two crew. Smaller + faster was helpful against AAA defenses.

As we have discussed before on other threads, the USN concluded in 1945 that the move to fighters in the mix of aircraft in CV carrier groups had gone too far. Had the war gone on it would have been less fighters and more Helldivers with the TBM being phased out beginning in 1946. The Midways were scheduled to get a 50/50 airgroup of fighters and Helldivers.

That may have been the plan, or one plan, but this of course always depends on the actual conditions on the battlefield, at least when there is a war on. During peacetime the less realistic plans often hold sway.

BY 1943 the RN was planning a new generation of larger torpedo / dive bombers for use on the next generation of carriers.

Yes I mentioned several of these upthread. None of them worked out, at least not the carrier based ones. The USN tried it too, with mediocre success.

By mid-1943, when it was finally reaching squadron service, the RN definitely saw the Firefly as an escort fighter along with the Corsair & Hellcat entering service at the same time. Its secondary role was then seen as a strike / recce fighter, at that point with cannon only. They only received rockets in Oct/Nov 1944 to increase their punch in the latter role. Bombs were not used on them in WW2 as there were difficulties clearing them for operational use.

My understanding is that they were used a lot with rockets, and didn't run into enemy fighters very often.

The other fighter type they saw the need for was the interceptor, a role to be filled by the Seafire XV planned for 1944.

I would attribute that to Kamikazes.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

Well, the Bristol Hercules first runs in 1936 as one of three 14-cylinder two row radials for the RAF, the other two being the Tiger from 1932 and the Pelides that also runs in 1936. We need someone to design a single seat, monoplane fighter to take one of these radials, with a emphasis on the Hercules as the best of the three. Something like the hypothetical Bristol 153, or a proposal from Fairey instead of the Fulmar.

Bistol Type 153 wins the F.37/35, no W. Whirlwind

Pretty conventional Type 153 was to be powered by a Bristol Hercules, armed with 4 cannons (per spec), and was among the 1st designes supposed to have the bubble canopy. Let's say Bristol's design wins instead of Westland's. Will the RAF be better off, or not? Possible repercussions on future...

ww2aircraft.net

Very interesting. Will it fit on a Gloster F5/34? Let's try that. A 1,356 hp Bristol Hercules has a diameter of 55" and weighs 1929 lbs. Mercury has the same diameter but is half the weight. Hmmmm.... well maybe you can lengthen the plane a bit it's rather short at 32'.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

The thing about strike aircraft is that it was quite hard to make a purpose-built strike aircraft that worked well, particularly in the era before guided munitions. In WW2 the challenge was in making dive bombers. The D3A and SBD were very lethal, though early war and simple. The Ju 87, an earlier design, was also extremely lethal. Other light bombers were nowhere near as effective.

For the US, the colossal blunder of having a non functioning torpedo for, incredibly, almost the entire duration (at least of the heaviest fighting) the Pacific War, meant that their 'decent' torpedo bomber, the TBF, basically became an ASW and light bomber aircraft. It was pretty good in the ASW role but for light bombers, fighters are actually better.

Other countries tried to make a purpose built strike aircraft later in the war, mostly failing. The Barracuda was a failure. The Helldiver was a marginal success, eventually. It would have mattered more if there has still been enemy aircraft carriers when it arrived.

I'd say only the Aichi B7N was a strike aircraft which ticked all the boxes and was probably more effective in the strike role (both as a dive bomber and as a torpedo bomber) than an average fighter. But of course it came much too late.

In the modern era, 3rd to 5th generation aircraft, most tactical bombers are actually fighters. The main US types are the F-16 and F/A-18. The specialized armored CAS plane A-10 is now finally retired I think. Europeans use their air superiority fighters - Typhoon, Tornado, Rafale, Gripen etc. The Russians have the Su-24 ... which seems a mixed success, the Tu-22 which is mainly a stand-off missile platform now, and they have the Su 34 which looks good on paper. But I'd say it looks like it's still pretty hard to make a purpose built strike aircraft that is better than a fighter bomber.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Very interesting. Will it fit on a Gloster F5/34?

No. It won't. Too big, too heavy than the Gloster's intended Perseus. It would be akin to putting the Hercules onto the Skua - not possible. The aircraft needs to be designed around the engine.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

No. It won't. Too big, too heavy than the Gloster's intended Perseus. The aircraft needs to be designed around the engine.

I mean, they put a merlin 60 into a Mustang, though that is not too much heavier (300 lbs) than the V-1710 the mustang was originally made for.

Anyway, i guess I'll reluctantly take your word for it. Lets put a Hercules in a Fulmar then.

 

[EwenS]

My understanding is that they were used a lot with rockets, and didn't run into enemy fighters very often.

Define "a lot"?

In WW2 only 3 Firefly F.I/FR.I squadrons each with 12 aircraft reached operational status with RN carriers.

1770 - formed Sept 1943 and went aboard Indefatigable in summer 1944 seeing action off Norway including raids on Tirpitz, in the Indian Ocean in Jan 1945 and off the Sakishima Gunto Mar-May 1945.

1771 - formed Feb 1944 and went aboard Implacable in Aug for operations off Norway Sept-Dec. It's next operations were over Truk in June 1945 and then Japan in July-Aug.

1772 - formed March 1944. Did not see any action until July-Aug 1945 off Japan when it went aboard Indefatigable as a replacement for 1770.

As I noted rockets were only added to their armament from Oct/Nov 1944. Given the time they became operational, there was little opportunity for them to engage enemy aircraft but they did achieve a number of kills against Japanese aircraft. The next squadron didn't get Fireflies until July 1945.

The only others to become operational were a couple of night fighter flights from 746 squadron in Europe, with 3 NF squadrons working up when the war ended having formed in 1945.

 

[yulzari]

No. It won't. Too big, too heavy than the Gloster's intended Perseus. It would be akin to putting the Hercules onto the Skua - not possible. The aircraft needs to be designed around the engine.

IIRC they looked at putting the Hercules onto the Albacore and decided it was possible but pointless to pursue it as the Barracuda was coming along soon. Of course the Taurus was heavier than the Perseus. Taurus instead of Perseus in the Gloster would be more plausible and Hercules developments could translate across to the Taurus pushing its power a bit further in time. So from a 900bhp Perseus to an 1,100ish Taurus. Possibly going on to 1,300 odd bhp.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

IIRC they looked at putting the Hercules onto the Albacore and decided it was possible but pointless to pursue it as the Barracuda was coming along soon. Of course the Taurus was heavier than the Perseus. Taurus instead of Perseus in the Gloster would be more plausible and Hercules developments could translate across to the Taurus pushing its power a bit further in time. So from a 900bhp Perseus to an 1,100ish Taurus. Possibly going on to 1,300 odd bhp.

Now we are talking. What kind of superchargers were available for the Taurus? Low alt only? They were used in the (British) Beauforts too. As some of those were re-engined for the Aussies with P&W R-1830, I would assume that also might be an option for the Gloster, which would bump it up to ~1200 hp, plus the possibility of a two speed or even two stage supercharger.

How fast does the F.5/34 go with an extra 260 - 360 hp? It starts at 316 mph with 840 hp. I bet if you had a two speed supercharger and a higher critical altitude that alone would boost the speed by 20 mph or so. But an extra hp ought to boost it into the 340-350 mph range I would guess.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

Define "a lot"?

In WW2 only 3 Firefly F.I/FR.I squadrons each with 12 aircraft reached operational status with RN carriers.

1770 - formed Sept 1943 and went aboard Indefatigable in summer 1944 seeing action off Norway including raids on Tirpitz, in the Indian Ocean in Jan 1945 and off the Sakishima Gunto Mar-May 1945.

1771 - formed Feb 1944 and went aboard Implacable in Aug for operations off Norway Sept-Dec. It's next operations were over Truk in June 1945 and then Japan in July-Aug.

1772 - formed March 1944. Did not see any action until July-Aug 1945 off Japan when it went aboard Indefatigable as a replacement for 1770.

As I noted rockets were only added to their armament from Oct/Nov 1944. Given the time they became operational, there was little opportunity for them to engage enemy aircraft but they did achieve a number of kills against Japanese aircraft. The next squadron didn't get Fireflies until July 1945.

The only others to become operational were a couple of night fighter flights from 746 squadron in Europe, with 3 NF squadrons working up when the war ended having formed in 1945.

So just three Firefly squadrons in the whole war? That's less than I realized... do you know how many air to air victories they claimed?

 

[Admiral Beez]

Anyway, i guess I'll reluctantly take your word for it. Lets put a Hercules in a Fulmar then.

Here's a Hercules Battle. A Hercules Fulmar should be about the same. Not the prettiest. I'm sure Fairey or Bristol could do better with a bespoke design that starts with the engine and goes from there.

 

[yulzari]

That's a very nice drawing there. What aircraft is that?

That is one of two monoplane offerings by Fairey for the torpedo bomber role but the Swordfish we know was chosen.

 

[yulzari]

Here's a Hercules Battle. A Hercules Fulmar should be about the same. Not the prettiest. I'm sure Fairey or Bristol could do better with a bespoke design that starts with the engine and goes from there.

View attachment 744419

View attachment 744420
View attachment 744425

Would a Hercules Fulmar offer anything that a Merlin one could not? Crudely put the Hercules and Merlin ran close on power through their developments both ending up at @2,000bhp.

 

[Admiral Beez]

That is one of two monoplane offerings by Fairey for the torpedo bomber role but the Swordfish we know was chosen.

Still a lame, fixed undercarriage, linen-covered attempt when the IJN has been operating this 230 mph all-metal, retractable undercarriage bird in the torpedo role since 1938.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Would a Hercules Fulmar offer anything that a Merlin one could not?

No, not at all. In fact it would be more of a slug. That's my point really, any Hercules fighter needs to be designed as such from the start. I think the best Bristol powered single engined, single seat fighter was the Fokker D.XXI, though I would have liked to have seen the PZL.50 Jastrząb, shown here in model form.

 

[Shortround6]

The D3A and SBD were very lethal, though early war and simple. The Ju 87, an earlier design, was also extremely lethal.

A good part of their lethality was the fact that early war Air Defenses ranged from "merely" bad to out right pathetic/nonexistent. This is both defending fighters and AA.
The Ju 87 in particular made a lot of it's reputation over two years before the SBD got into combat.

Here's a Hercules Battle. A Hercules Fulmar should be about the same. Not the prettiest.

The Hercules Battle was NEVER intended to be a combat airplane. It was intended as a way to get a Hercules engine into the air for tests that were harder to conduct in a ground test cell/building. Reliable running to complete test hours was more important than a few mph gain from better streamlining.

Still a lame, fixed undercarriage, linen-covered attempt when the IJN has been operating this 230 mph all-metal, retractable undercarriage bird in the torpedo role since 1938.

Well, the 1938 B5M2 didn't look quite so streamline.

The B5N1 had some very good numbers, which the Japanese were not sharing with the Foreign press. The Japanese were also using a single highly advanced defensive machine gun.
The .303 Lewis with a different name.
The engine used in the B5N1 suffered somewhat from Reliability, a fact also unknown to the western Press.

 

[Shortround6]

In books devoted to British experimental aircraft and proposed types the Taurus and Hercules figure prominently. Most of these came to nothing. Supermarine at one time was proposing using either Merlins or Taurus engines interchangeably on a high performance twin which shows how deep the Sleeve Valve Kool-aid was flowing through the British aero industry at time. Chances of the Taurus actually beating the Merlin in performance depends on somebody putting a couple of bullet holes in the Merlin engine/s.


Something to take into consideration from all of the mid 1930s trials and fleet exercises was the much lower state of the art radios and the more primitive aircraft.
The Skua only went into service in RN in late 1938. The Sea Gladatior didn't show up until 1939(?).

Any exercises had been done with Nimrods at best. Just under 200mph and a range of just over 300 miles.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

A good part of their lethality was the fact that early war Air Defenses ranged from "merely" bad to out right pathetic/nonexistent. This is both defending fighters and AA.

Bad according to what standard? That is an absurd statement. First, you seem to be evaluating 1930s and early 1940s aircraft by some kind of notion of ideal 1944 or 1945 or post-war anti-aircraft defense (and fighters). Which makes no sense. That's like saying a Sopwith Camel sucked because an F-16 can outrun it. Second, you are assuming that these aircraft stopped being effective as soon as there were 'good' fighters and AAA around, which just isn't true.

The key difference between success and failure with the SBD was very clearly training, as you can see the marked difference in outcomes between US Navy SBD units vs. Marine and Army units.

But SBD were still sinking ships in the Battle of the Philippine Sea in 1944, by which time yes even the IJN certainly had good air defenses. Meanwhile, in the same Theaters at the same times, multiple other aircraft, some which much heavier bomb loads, had far less impressive or significant impacts on enemy forces. This was also measured in Navy testing and post-engagement evaluations, in which they determined that the SBD has a far greater accuracy than their fighter bombers, and was needless to say lightyears ahead of the heavy bombers and other level-bombers, unless used with mast-head height bombing etc..

It did, however, become vulnerable to enemy fighters by the mid-war. The problem was the replacement (SB2C) was barely functional, and the British equivalent (Barracuda) even worse. So they continued to operate SBDs. At the Philippines sea they sent 26 of them on that infamous strike in which so many aircrews ended up in the drink. All the SBDs made it back.

The Ju 87 in particular made a lot of it's reputation over two years before the SBD got into combat.

That's a gross exaggeration. Yes the Stuka became somewhat (in)famous during the Spanish Civil War and the Battle of France, but the Ju 87 continued having major successes in Russia and North Africa. It inally began to be phased out in the West and Med in 1943. It was devastating during Operation Pedestal and was used at Salerno, and quite tellingly at Kasserine pass (in Feb 1943). The British destroyer Panther was sunk by Ju-87s on 9 October 1943.

They continued to use the Ju 87 successfully in Russia into 1945, they were used during the defense of Berlin.

In fact I'd say, the incorrect use of the Ju 87 at an (attempted) strategic bomber in the Battle of Britain gave it a kind of premature bad reputation, which it more than redeemed to the dismay of the British years later in North Africa.