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

[Shortround6]

Whatever one may think of the Defiant it was invaluable as a high speed target tug and these were desperately needed. The Hawker Henley's were falling out of the sky with over stretched engines.

Ok, cancel 2/3 of them.
The savings in aircrew and fuel would also be considerable.

The Botha made up the numbers in twin engined pilot and crew training. No Bothas then you have to find something else to do the task. At this time it is very much an 'either or' situation not an 'as well' one.

A few hundred Avro Ansons?
Keep some Vickers Virginias in service?
Build more DH Dragon Rapides ?
Only 1/2 kidding here, the guys that OKed this thing after the first 2 should have served time (a long time) in Dartmoor.
That is being kind, hanging was more just.
The Botha did more for the German war effort than many German aircraft.

 

[wuzak]

I don't think it would necessarily out perform a Seafire - the goal would be to have close to that performance (probably not comparable on climb rate, but at least close on speed) while having say, twice the range.

I would think that achieving the performance of the Seafire would be bare minimum.

Are Fairey's credentials up to providing a single seat fighter with twice the Seafire's range and be similar in performance?

 

[Shortround6]

There were a lot of fairly useless aircraft being produced before and during the early years of the war, some taking up quite nice engines. Hawker Henley anyone? Blackburn Roc? Boulton-Paul Defiant? Fairey Battles were still being produced in 1940, and they made 2,200 of them. Let's reorient that assembly line for our new bird.

I can understand the Battle. Trouble was there were far too many plane types that turned out to be not suitable for combat use. Many of them go shunted to target towing or to training. Henleys turned out to be not so good at target towing. Low drag radiators for high speed don't work well at near full power at lower speeds.

The unloved Battle

Turns out to have a few advantages as a trainer.
It is pretty sturdy, an advantage to ham fisted pilots.
There is a bomber aimer's station in the belly of the plane for training bomb aimers.
There is adequate space for map tables and navigation training. Or at least better than most of the two seat aircraft.
As a further plus for the low hour trainee pilots, it was possible to land the Battle wheels up with far less damage to the aircraft than the Defiant, Henley, Roc, etc.
It probably killed fewer students than the Botha.

If you want to replace the Battle you probably need at least Ansons or something similar.

 

[Shortround6]

re Fairey's credentials up to providing a single seat fighter with twice the Seafire's range and be similar in performance?

While carrying another 100lbs of ammo and while using the same engine/s?

Everybody wants more fuel, folding wings, more ammo (at least the British did if not Forum members) and sturdier landing gear while using the same engine/s.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

Well you can save some weight by cutting 10 feet of wingspan

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

I can understand the Battle. Trouble was there were far too many plane types that turned out to be not suitable for combat use. Many of them go shunted to target towing or to training. Henleys turned out to be not so good at target towing. Low drag radiators for high speed don't work well at near full power at lower speeds.

The unloved Battle
View attachment 744742
Turns out to have a few advantages as a trainer.
It is pretty sturdy, an advantage to ham fisted pilots.
There is a bomber aimer's station in the belly of the plane for training bomb aimers.
There is adequate space for map tables and navigation training. Or at least better than most of the two seat aircraft.
As a further plus for the low hour trainee pilots, it was possible to land the Battle wheels up with far less damage to the aircraft than the Defiant, Henley, Roc, etc.
It probably killed fewer students than the Botha.

If you want to replace the Battle you probably need at least Ansons or something similar.

I actually like the Battle, though they probably didn't need 2,000 of them. Might make a decent (land based) ASW plane it's got pretty good range.

 

[Shortround6]

I actually like the Battle, though they probably didn't need 2,000 of them. Might make a decent (land based) ASW plane it's got pretty good range.

If you want to keep crews alive you want twin engine ASW planes. Distance from shore sort of depends how far the plane can fly on one engine.
British had the opinion for far too long that twins meant over water safety, while sticking crappy props on the plane that ensured a negative rate of climb with one engine out.

Makes for interesting navigation problem.
If you are flying at 5,000ft when you loose an engine and the plane adopts a decent rate of 100fpm we have 50 minutes of cruising time left before we hit the water.
On the other hand, how may gallons of fuel can you dump to lighten the plane enough to get a zero rate of decent, or were is the cross over?
Decent to 1000 ft burns enough fuel to level out?
Which way is the wind coming from?

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

I would think that achieving the performance of the Seafire would be bare minimum.

Are Fairey's credentials up to providing a single seat fighter with twice the Seafire's range and be similar in performance?

That's a "Fair" question. I suspect they would have had to have been steered a bit by someone. Perhaps borrow somebody from one of the other firms. Fairey's biggest problem to me seems to be a plague of gigantism. They seem to just want to make bigger and bigger planes.

The Spearfish kinda looks cool, nicely streamlined etc., until you realize how tiny that pilot looks in that photo. It had an incredible 60 foot wingspan, and 15,200 lb / 6,895 kg empty weight, which is probably why even with an almost 3,000 hp engine it had a max speed of under 300 mph and a cruise speed of 170 knots. Somebody needs to convey the message to Fairey that bigger isn't always better, particularly for carrier aircraft.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

If you want to keep crews alive you want twin engine ASW planes. Distance from shore sort of depends how far the plane can fly on one engine.
British had the opinion for far too long that twins meant over water safety, while sticking crappy props on the plane that ensured a negative rate of climb with one engine out.

Makes for interesting navigation problem.
If you are flying at 5,000ft when you loose an engine and the plane adopts a decent rate of 100fpm we have 50 minutes of cruising time left before we hit the water.
On the other hand, how may gallons of fuel can you dump to lighten the plane enough to get a zero rate of decent, or were is the cross over?
Decent to 1000 ft burns enough fuel to level out?
Which way is the wind coming from?

But what time did the train leave Chicago?

 

[Shortround6]

That's a "Fair" question. I suspect they would have had to have been steered a bit by someone. Perhaps borrow somebody from one of the other firms. Fairey's biggest problem to me seems to be a plague of gigantism. They seem to just want to make bigger and bigger planes.

View attachment 744746

The Spearfish kinda looks cool, nicely streamlined etc., until you realize how tiny that pilot looks in that photo. It had an incredible 60 foot wingspan, and 15,200 lb / 6,895 kg empty weight, which is probably why even with an almost 3,000 hp engine it had a max speed of under 300 mph and a cruise speed of 170 knots. Somebody needs to convey the message to Fairey that bigger isn't always better, particularly for carrier aircraft.

It may depend on what the original specification looked like.

The USN told Grumman and Chance Vought

they wanted internal storage for the bombs/torpedo.
No internal bomb bay= no contract even for a prototype.

Same for the Helldiver. At least internal stowage for bombs
Wiki says
2,000 lb (907 kg) of bombs or depth charges

A single 2000lb is not a big deal. Trying it fit in four 500lb bombs?
what did the specification say?
Spearfish was not helped by the requirement calling for retractable radar dome and while the prototypes didn't carry it there was supposed to be a remote control power turret behind the cockpit manned by a rear facing gunner.
Again, out of Fairey's control.

 

[Shortround6]

But what time did the train leave Chicago?

Don't know but the Pilots eyes were blue.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Don't know but the Pilots eyes were blue.

How are we supposed to solve an incomplete equation?!

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

It may depend on what the original specification looked like.

The USN told Grumman and Chance Vought
View attachment 744752
they wanted internal storage for the bombs/torpedo.
No internal bomb bay= no contract even for a prototype.

Same for the Helldiver. At least internal stowage for bombs
Wiki says
2,000 lb (907 kg) of bombs or depth charges

A single 2000lb is not a big deal. Trying it fit in four 500lb bombs?
what did the specification say?
Spearfish was not helped by the requirement calling for retractable radar dome and while the prototypes didn't carry it there was supposed to be a remote control power turret behind the cockpit manned by a rear facing gunner.
Again, out of Fairey's control.

yeah I really don't know how much of the problem was the specs and how much was the firm, but other firms seem to have made good planes. It could however very well be that in the case of the FAA in general the problem was the committee(s) in charge of writing the specs. This is one of the things I was hoping to learn in this thread.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

Did Fairey make a really good aircraft during WW2? I guess the best was the Firefly but it really came too late.

 

[EwenS]

I'm for still making a few Fulmars. Make the other one in parallel. Take over the Fairey Battle assembly line. We can take over the Albacore production too, and of the Barracuda, and make a much improved strike aircraft to better specs. Cancel the spec for the "Spearfish" too.

See the production succession in the two Fairey factories. There was some overlap as production of earlier type ran down and later one ramped up.

Heaton Chapel factory from 1935 built the following:-

Fairey Hendon heavy bomber
Fairey Battle from 1937 (Only the first prototype aircraft was built at the Hayes factory)
Fairey Fulmar (1st prod aircraft 1/40 served as prototype. Full production from 5/40 until late 1942 / early 1943)
Fairey Barracuda. (Production started 5/42)

Fairey Hayes factory:-
Fairey Swordfish to 1/40 (production then switched to Blackburn with first aircraft flying in Dec 1940)
Fairey Albacore 9/39 to 12/42
Fairey Firefly production began at slow rate from 9/42.

The second source of Battles was the Austin Motor Company who built them in a shadow factory between 1938 and 1941. As Battle production began to wind down in late 1940, they began to build Hurricanes (first of 300 flew in Oct 1940). It then went on to produce Short Stirling and Avro Lancaster bombers.

The Spec for the Spearfish wasn't even being thought of until 1943. In its final version it was issued in Jan 1944.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

They were building Fulmars until 1943!?

I knew they were making Albacores into 1942 but almost to the end... it's amazing.

 

[EwenS]

That's a "Fair" question. I suspect they would have had to have been steered a bit by someone. Perhaps borrow somebody from one of the other firms. Fairey's biggest problem to me seems to be a plague of gigantism. They seem to just want to make bigger and bigger planes.

View attachment 744746

The Spearfish kinda looks cool, nicely streamlined etc., until you realize how tiny that pilot looks in that photo. It had an incredible 60 foot wingspan, and 15,200 lb / 6,895 kg empty weight, which is probably why even with an almost 3,000 hp engine it had a max speed of under 300 mph and a cruise speed of 170 knots. Somebody needs to convey the message to Fairey that bigger isn't always better, particularly for carrier aircraft.

First thing to know about the various strike/recce aircraft that were being sought in the 1943 and 1944 Operational Requirements and Specs is that they were never intended to operate from the RN carriers that saw service in WW2.

They were a product of forward thinking by the Future Building Committee which from mid-1942 was tasked with looking at the shape of the fleet and the ships and aircraft it would need in the future. So the first carrier class that it was envisaged that these new types was the Audacious class (the postwar Eagle & Ark Royal) which were not expected to enter service before March 1946 on the very earliest and best estimates, followed by the big Malta class and the related 1943 Light Carrier (which emerged postwar as the Centaur class). With bigger ships in prospect some of the previous limiting design factors applied pre-war and already loosened a bit in 1940, could be relaxed even further.

Aircraft like the Spearfish & Sturgeon were just going to be too large and too heavy for the likes of the Illustrious / Implacable classes. With the cancellation / suspension of these larger deck carriers at the end of WW2 these aircraft became ripe for cancellation.

During WW2 the USN had no equivalent to the FBC. Yes they had BuShips & BuAer with their respective duties to design new ships and aircraft, but no one was looking forward to the shape of the fleet as a whole. That is maybe for FDR who refused to authorise some of the ships being proposed.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

Even in the era of the huge Nuclear carriers the US was operating at least some quite small strike aircraft like the A4 Skyhawk. Which was quite successful.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

First thing to know about the various strike/recce aircraft that were being sought in the 1943 and 1944 Operational Requirements and Specs is that they were never intended to operate from the RN carriers that saw service in WW2.

They were a product of forward thinking by the Future Building Committee which from mid-1942 was tasked with looking at the shape of the fleet and the ships and aircraft it would need in the future. So the first carrier class that it was envisaged that these new types was the Audacious class (the postwar Eagle & Ark Royal) which were not expected to enter service before March 1946 on the very earliest and best estimates, followed by the big Malta class and the related 1943 Light Carrier (which emerged postwar as the Centaur class). With bigger ships in prospect some of the previous limiting design factors applied pre-war and already loosened a bit in 1940, could be relaxed even further.

Aircraft like the Spearfish & Sturgeon were just going to be too large and too heavy for the likes of the Illustrious / Implacable classes. With the cancellation / suspension of these larger deck carriers at the end of WW2 these aircraft became ripe for cancellation.

During WW2 the USN had no equivalent to the FBC. Yes they had BuShips & BuAer with their respective duties to design new ships and aircraft, but no one was looking forward to the shape of the fleet as a whole. That is maybe for FDR who refused to authorise some of the ships being proposed.

Ok so Fulmar specced in 1938, Baracuda in 1937 (!!),Spearfish and Sturgeon in 1943... maybe the sweet spot is 1939 -1940

 

[EwenS]

Did Fairey make a really good aircraft during WW2? I guess the best was the Firefly but it really came too late.

Design is one thing where outside forces dictate what is to be produced. Turning that design into successful hardware is another.

There was dissatisfaction, sometimes intense, in the Admiralty with Fairey's performance during 1942 /43 and their apparent inability to get a grip on things, especially with the Barracuda which was much delayed (by over a year). Fairey blamed the Admiralty for changes to the design, new equipment being added etc. In response the Admiralty went through the numerous changes and found most lay in the hands of the company.

This from a Nov 1942 Admiralty document discussing changes to Fairey management.

".......But apart from that I hold the view – and I desire to emphasise it strongly – that nothing short of a firm hand at the helm will even pull the Company together and make it an efficient productive unit. Further I know that a firm hand at the helm would be welcomed by the labour force at Fairey's. In the latter connection you may not be aware of the fact that deputations of workers from both the Hayes and Stockport factories have complained to both the previous Ministers and the First Lord of the inefficiency of the management."

The author of that had previously noted that Fairey had been provided with all the necessary materials, machine tools and labour for the tasks set them.