Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
The problem is the mix of bombs / drop tanks on the Corsair to give it the same range and payload as the Helldiver.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.
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 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).
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.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?
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.Can you expand on that a little? What are the specs, basic traits. Size etc.
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.
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.
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
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.Very interesting. Will it fit on a Gloster F5/34?
No. It won't. Too big, too heavy than the Gloster's intended Perseus. The aircraft needs to be designed around the engine.
Define "a lot"?My understanding is that they were used a lot with rockets, and didn't run into enemy fighters very often.
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.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.
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.
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.Anyway, i guess I'll reluctantly take your word for it. Lets put a Hercules in a Fulmar then.
That is one of two monoplane offerings by Fairey for the torpedo bomber role but the Swordfish we know was chosen.That's a very nice drawing there. What aircraft is that?
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.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
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.That is one of two monoplane offerings by Fairey for the torpedo bomber role but the Swordfish we know was chosen.
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.Would a Hercules Fulmar offer anything that a Merlin one could not?
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 D3A and SBD were very lethal, though early war and simple. The Ju 87, an earlier design, was also extremely lethal.
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.Here's a Hercules Battle. A Hercules Fulmar should be about the same. Not the prettiest.
Well, the 1938 B5M2 didn't look quite so streamline.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.
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.