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

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

So it sounds like at least part of the problem was also at Fairey itself.

I think I've decided. Let's make them build a Gloster F.5/34 with a merlin engine. As a carrier fighter. Start with strait wings then develop folding wings.

Put a Gloster executive on the board to help supervise, in the guise of managing the technology transfer but also holding Fairey's feet to the fire. Sir Charles was getting a bit long in the teeth and was having trouble holding it all together. Also, at least some, if not all of the guys in the commission(s) that created the specs for the Barracuda need to be put into a Crusader tank crew and sent to fight in Second El Alamein.

So let it be written. So let it be done.

 

[RCAFson]

That's what the R in the Albacore and Swordfish's TSR designation stands for. Fighters are primarily for protecting the carrier and fleet air defence, not for reconnaissance. I suggest you focus on what you gain through fielding a fast, single seat fighter rather than what you lose. Without good fighter cover the RN's carriers were at greater risk, one of the reasons their carriers had to avoid the Indo-Pacific. Kudos to the Fulmar as the FAA's all time top scorer, but HMS Illustrious and Formidable were crippled and almost sunk by unescorted bomber strikes in the MTO - strikes that a fast single seater might have countered.

Illustrious and Formidable were operating in a lean aircraft and aircrew environment.

Illustrious was only given 5-10 mins warning of the incoming attack (at that point less than 100nm from the Luftwaffe airbases), and this was too late for her to launch all her fighters and vector them onto the attack and no amount of embarked fighters would change that. IMHO, Cunningham sacrificed Illustrious, to save the convoy (which arrived unscathed!) which was being escorted into Malta. Illustrious should have stood off from the convoy, in company with Ark Royal so that she would have had adequate warning of an attack and increased naval AA screening, but then the convoy might have become the primary focus of the attack.

When Formidable was bombed off Crete she was operating with 27 aircraft including 12 Fulmars, and these represented the entire inventory of serviceable FAA aircraft in the Eastern MTO. If more Fulmars had been available Formidable could have embarked another 6 (hangar stowed) and 4 to 6 more (deck parked). Again, the problem was late warning and not really an issue with Fulmar performance. Even another embarked ~12 Skuas would have given Formidable a better chance of a successful defense, if the attack could have been spotted in time.

However during Operation Tiger , Ark Royal and Formidable's Fulmars were successful in defeating attacks with their Fulmars, when they had adequate warning, but even Ark Royal was down to 12 operational Fulmars during Tiger, when she should have had ~24.

Supermarine had severe production problems and they could barely get the Spitfire into volume production and there no way that a folding wing Spitfire variant could be produced in numbers by Jan or May 1941. OTOH, a fixed wing Sea Hurricane could have been available, in small numbers by that time, and embarked as a permanent deck park, as Illustrious had done with Sea Gladiators for the Taranto attack, but the RAF would have had to agree to part with the needed aircraft...

One of the issues with Fulmar production was that it was seen as an interim type and the initial production order was too small for Fairey to invest in mass production facilities, and Fulmar production was limited to ~25/month.

 

[Admiral Beez]

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

The Swordfish and Albacore were good, and ideal for the North Atlantic. I expect the Swordfish sank more submarines than any other single engined aircraft. What the RN needed was more of them. Imagine the Taranto raid not with twenty Swordfish, but sixty. Or Matapan, where a single Swordfish temporarily crippled the battleship Veneto, but with a dozen or more Swordfish. Or, the hunt for Bismarck, with dozens instead of small numbers of aircraft sent to attack her.

But the RN did well with the numbers of TSRs they had. What the FAA desperately needed was a competitive single seat fighter in larger numbers. HMS Illustrious and Formidable were crippled and almost lost when unescorted Italian and German bombers flew through the few and slow Fulmars to bomb the crap out of two two British carriers. It's a testament to their design that the armoured carriers survived at all, Illustrious alone in Jan 1941 was hit by eight 250-or-500-kilogram (550 or 1,100 lb) bombs, plus several critically-damaging near misses, all from unescorted Ju-87 and Ju-88 bombers. Per the record, the Fulmars were too slow and too few to stop these attacks. An argument could be made that the Fulmars might have done the CAP job well enough if available in greater number, and maybe so.

But a Seafire type fighter takes up less hangar space, and has the high rate of climb and top speed needed to better react to the carrier's FDO radar alert and scramble call. One of the raids that first hit Illustrious consisted of up to thirty-six unescorted Stukas. Can you imagine the glee during the Battle of Britain if a dozen RAF Spitfires found themselves facing a formation of thirty-six unescorted Stukas? It would be a turkey shoot of epic scale. So, give Illustrious a smaller Fulmar (with the Seafire's performance) or an earlier folding Seafire in sufficient numbers and those Jan 1941 Stukas are not getting through.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

The Swordfish and Albacore were good, and ideal for the North Atlantic. I expect the Swordfish sank more submarines than any other single engined aircraft. What the RN needed was more of them. Imagine the Taranto raid not with twenty Swordfish, but sixty. Or Matapan, where a single Swordfish temporarily crippled the battleship Veneto, but with a dozen or more Swordfish. Or, the hunt for Bismarck, with dozens instead of small numbers of aircraft sent to attack her.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I respect your position, and I would agree Swordfish was a very good aircraft - for 1936 when it was introduced. Albacore never should have been built. The pilots crews and unit commanders made the most of these planes and accomplished some amazing things with them. But the fact this is all they had is a crime. It's the same kind of problem that led to the fighter situation.

But let me pitch you on this - what if the RN had a dive bomber or torpedo bomber with a 1,000 mile range, 275 -300 mph top speed, 200 mph cruising speed, armor and guns sufficient for some protection, that could fly to targets twice as far away, get there twice as fast, and survive encounters with carrier or land based fighters. And then add to that carrying radar like Swordfish did so you could attack in bad weather and at night. Wouldn't that have been helpful to the cause?

But the RN did well with the numbers of TSRs they had. What the FAA desperately needed was a competitive single seat fighter in larger numbers. HMS Illustrious and Formidable were crippled and almost lost when unescorted Italian and German bombers flew through the few and slow Fulmars to bomb the crap out of two two British carriers. It's a testament to their design that the armoured carriers survived at all, Illustrious alone in Jan 1941 was hit by eight 250-or-500-kilogram (550 or 1,100 lb) bombs, plus several critically-damaging near misses, all from unescorted Ju-87 and Ju-88 bombers. Per the record, the Fulmars were too slow and too few to stop these attacks. An argument could be made that the Fulmars might have done the CAP job well enough if available in greater number, and maybe so.

But a Seafire type fighter takes up less hangar space, and has the high rate of climb and top speed needed to better react to the carrier's FDO radar alert and scramble call.

See, I'm having a little trouble understanding why most of the planes had to be scrambled. I've read detailed accounts of some of the convoy fights and the CAP seemed very small. If you have an aircraft with say a 4-5 hour endurance, you can fly CAP, with half of your fighters already up at any one time. Assuming fighter direction is pretty good they ought to be able to intercept these raids and you don't need a 4,000 fpm climb rate to scramble them up. Launching fighters when you detect a raid only 50 miles out or so seems like an act of desperation rather than a plan. No matter how fast they climb it takes a while to launch them.

One of the raids that first hit Illustrious consisted of up to thirty-six unescorted Stukas. Can you imagine the glee during the Battle of Britain if a dozen RAF Spitfires found themselves facing a formation of thirty-six unescorted Stukas? It would be a turkey shoot of epic scale. So, give Illustrious a smaller Fulmar (with the Seafire's performance) or an earlier folding Seafire in sufficient numbers and those Jan 1941 Stukas are not getting through.

View attachment 744826
View attachment 744829

You are probably right, though it's worth noting that Stukas survived surprisingly well in encounters with Spitfires and other Allied fighters in North Africa, compared to the Battle of Britain. At the very least however, the attack(s) would have been disrupted and they would have had to eject their bombs in order to survive.

 

[tomo pauk]

Whatever one may think of the Defiant it was invaluable as a high speed target tug and these were desperately needed.

When was Defiant employed in the high speed target tug role? Desperate times were before 1941, anything past 1940 was not needed desperately.

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.

We want the new pilots and crewmen to be alive. Botha was not good in that. Even the Anson is better, while also being cheaper.
Once can only cringe after reading that in the dark days of July 1940, 58 Bothas were produced, and in two factories.

 

[tomo pauk]

I think I've decided. Let's make them build a Gloster F.5/34 with a merlin engine. As a carrier fighter. Start with strait wings then develop folding wings.

Excellent idea.

 

[Shortround6]

Can you imagine the glee during the Battle of Britain if a dozen RAF Spitfires found themselves facing a formation of unescorted Stukas? It would be a turkey shoot of epic scale.

I think they called them Stuka parties.

 

[Shortround6]

But let me pitch you on this - what if the RN had a dive bomber or torpedo bomber with a 1,000 mile range, 275 -300 mph top speed, 200 mph cruising speed, armor and guns sufficient for some protection, that could fly to targets twice as far away, get there twice as fast, and survive encounters with carrier or land based fighters. And then add to that carrying radar like Swordfish did so you could attack in bad weather and at night. Wouldn't that have been helpful to the cause?

It would have been an excellent aircraft.

Now do it with 1300hp engine ;

 

[Shortround6]

Excellent idea.

OK it's Hurricane, that was not landing on a pitching, heaving deck.

 

[Admiral Beez]

But let me pitch you on this - what if the RN had a dive bomber or torpedo bomber with a 1,000 mile range, 275 -300 mph top speed, 200 mph cruising speed, armor and guns sufficient for some protection…Wouldn't that have been helpful to the cause?

Well of course, just as a better fighter will give better results, so would a better bomber. Is this not obvious?

But this (your) thread is about using a smaller Fulmar to provide a better fighter. And I would argue it is in the fighter category where the 1939-42 FAA was most deficient. That doesn't mean that better bombers would not also be welcome and beneficial.

 

[Shortround6]

We want the new pilots and crewmen to be alive. Botha was not good in that. Even the Anson is better, while also being cheaper.
Once can only cringe after reading that in the dark days of July 1940, 58 Bothas were produced, and in two factories.

58 had been Delivered by the end of June 1940, Only one/two squadrons had even 1/2 their complement for operations.
4 had crashed with at least one or more fatalities in either factory flights or RAF maintenance unit flights (pre delivery?).
This is sometimes glossed over by trying to link the number of crashes to a "high production run" but the total number crashed over about 5 years was over well over 100 aircraft (?)

Trying to do more research.

1st 10 units to use it (not in chronological order) lost 45 planes due to crashes/accidents. Several more pages to go.
I am not counting any that are "simply" struck off charge.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

It would have been an excellent aircraft.

Now do it with 1300hp engine ;

I think a bomber with those specs is definitely doable with a 1,300 hp engine. Hard, yes. But doable.

SBD Dauntlesses was pretty close to these numbers (1,115 mile range, 255 mph top speed, 185 mph cruise speed) with a 1,000 - 1,200 hp engine. I think you could get the speed up a bit with the same aircraft and just a bit better streamlining and maybe slightly smaller wings. A Merlin engine instead of a radial ought to be worth 20 mph alone, for the same horsepower.

The SB2U-3 Vindicator made 1,120 mile range with 243 mph top speed, with an 825 hp R-1535 engine. I know it wasn't the best design but it is a proof of concept for this! Similar sized plane with a ~1,300 hp Merlin should do a lot better on speed, for the loss of some range.

The D3A1 had a 915 mile range and 270 mph top speed, with a 1,300 hp engine. Granted, with no armor or self sealing tanks.

The D4Y had a 900 mile range, 340 mph top speed (inline engine version D4Y-C), all with a 1,300-1,400 hp engine. Production delays with that type were mainly due to unreliable engines, but that would not necessarily be a problem for the British. Armor would reduce the speed and range but it would still be in the ball park.

And of course if you had a fighter with that kind of range, like equivalent to a Wildcat or a P-40, but a bit better, you could put bombs on that too.

 

[Shortround6]

SBD Dauntlesses was pretty close to these numbers (1,115 mile range, 255 mph top speed, 185 mph cruise speed) with a 1,000 - 1,200 hp engine.

Cube root law says you need a 1115hp engine (at 16,000ft)to hit 285mph if your SBD did 255mph with an 800hp engine at 16,000ft.
Take off power does not count.
BTW that is for a clean aircraft, 1000lb slows the airplane down by 11kts (12.5mph) of the SBD-3
Before Pearl Harbor the SBD-3 with a 1000lb bomb held 100 US gallons of fuel with protected tanks and armor. This was increased later with a small loss in speed.

The SB2U-3 Vindicator made 1,120 mile range with 243 mph top speed, with an 825 hp R-1535 engine

Some of the same cautions. If you are getting info From Wiki max ranges on many off these aircraft are both without bombs and with aux internal tanks filled.

The D3A1 had a 915 mile range and 270 mph top speed, with a 1,300 hp engine. Granted, with no armor or self sealing tanks.

I am betting no bombs either
The range is right for the D3A1 but the speed was only 240mph from it's 1000hp engine.
You want the 267-270mph speed you need the D3A2 with it's Kinsei 54 engine. 1300hp for take-off and 1100hp at 6,200 meters. the high speed was at 6,200 meters also.

The D4Y had a 900 mile range, 340 mph top speed (inline engine version D4Y-C), all with a 1,300-1,400 hp engine. Production delays with that type were mainly due to unreliable engines,

The D4Y-1 had another problem besides the engine.
It couldn't dive
Or at least it couldn't dive often without cracking the wing spars. Since even the IJN had limited space for a dedicated recon aircraft they didn't put them into full production until March 1943 when they had fixed the wing spars and modified the dive brakes.
Range was actually just under 1000 miles but since it could not dive bomb one wonders it it was carrying a bomb for that range figure. It could carry drop tanks for fenominal range but that is obviously without bombs.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

Plus the Fulmar itself managed 780 mile range and 270 mph, I think both of those would be improved if you made it about 10% smaller (even if that cost you some fuel)

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

Cube root law says you need a 1115hp engine (at 16,000ft)to hit 285mph if your SBD did 255mph with an 800hp engine at 16,000ft.
Take off power does not count.
BTW that is for a clean aircraft, 1000lb slows the airplane down by 11kts (12.5mph) of the SBD-3
Before Pearl Harbor the SBD-3 with a 1000lb bomb held 100 US gallons of fuel with protected tanks and armor. This was increased later with a small loss in speed.

I believe that is range with a bomb but under the usual optimal conditions that these oft quoted ranges in just about every aircraft book (and Wikipedia) always are. Which is fine so long as you are comparing like withe like.

I've seen estimates for the SBD-3 as much as 1,345 miles range. Actual strike range is always much less, but the numbers I see for SBD are about 250 miles with a 1,000 lb bomb or 325 miles with a 500 lb bomb. I think that is what Lundstrom said IIRC.

Speed would obviously increase with a two stage or two speed engine, and as I already noted, with an inline engine.

Some of the same cautions. If you are getting info From Wiki max ranges on many off these aircraft are both without bombs and with aux internal tanks filled.

Why wouldn't you fill internal aux tanks for a long range strike?

I am betting no bombs either
The range is right for the D3A1 but the speed was only 240mph from it's 1000hp engine.
You want the 267-270mph speed you need the D3A2 with it's Kinsei 54 engine. 1300hp for take-off and 1100hp at 6,200 meters. the high speed was at 6,200 meters also.

Well we know that the D3A out-ranged the SBD so that gives us a pretty good baseline. Both have a lot more range than a Swordfish.

The D4Y-1 had another problem besides the engine.
It couldn't dive
Or at least it couldn't dive often without cracking the wing spars. Since even the IJN had limited space for a dedicated recon aircraft they didn't put them into full production until March 1943 when they had fixed the wing spars and modified the dive brakes.
Range was actually just under 1000 miles but since it could not dive bomb one wonders it it was carrying a bomb for that range figure. It could carry drop tanks for fenominal range but that is obviously without bombs.

Design problems with the structure of the D4Y aren't really relevant to the point being made there, except for the fact that it highlights the reality that making dive bombers that could really do the job was very hard. And that got harder the heavier you made them.

There is a good reason for dive bombers of course, but the other option (Torpedo bomber) is still there. You might not get 270 mph carrying a torpedo but I think you can make something faster and longer ranged than a Swordfish. And given that the Germans and Italians don't have that many big warships in action, fighters doing lower angle dive bombers and using rockets are probably pretty good too.

 

[RCAFson]

The Swordfish and Albacore were good, and ideal for the North Atlantic. I expect the Swordfish sank more submarines than any other single engined aircraft. What the RN needed was more of them. Imagine the Taranto raid not with twenty Swordfish, but sixty. Or Matapan, where a single Swordfish temporarily crippled the battleship Veneto, but with a dozen or more Swordfish. Or, the hunt for Bismarck, with dozens instead of small numbers of aircraft sent to attack her.

But the RN did well with the numbers of TSRs they had. What the FAA desperately needed was a competitive single seat fighter in larger numbers. HMS Illustrious and Formidable were crippled and almost lost when unescorted Italian and German bombers flew through the few and slow Fulmars to bomb the crap out of two two British carriers. It's a testament to their design that the armoured carriers survived at all, Illustrious alone in Jan 1941 was hit by eight 250-or-500-kilogram (550 or 1,100 lb) bombs, plus several critically-damaging near misses, all from unescorted Ju-87 and Ju-88 bombers. Per the record, the Fulmars were too slow and too few to stop these attacks. An argument could be made that the Fulmars might have done the CAP job well enough if available in greater number, and maybe so.

But a Seafire type fighter takes up less hangar space, and has the high rate of climb and top speed needed to better react to the carrier's FDO radar alert and scramble call. One of the raids that first hit Illustrious consisted of up to thirty-six unescorted Stukas. Can you imagine the glee during the Battle of Britain if a dozen RAF Spitfires found themselves facing a formation of thirty-six unescorted Stukas? It would be a turkey shoot of epic scale. So, give Illustrious a smaller Fulmar (with the Seafire's performance) or an earlier folding Seafire in sufficient numbers and those Jan 1941 Stukas are not getting through.

At Midway the IJN lost 4 carriers to unescorted SBDs.

You've misrepresented the raids that damaged Illustrious and Formidable in the MTO. The issue in both cases was the small numbers of Fulmars and a lack of warning. Illustrious was less than 100nm from the Luftwaffe bases.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

Man I hope you have a job in PR, because you are good.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

At Midway the IJN lost 4 carriers to unescorted SBDs.

You've misrepresented the raids that damaged Illustrious and Formidable in the MTO. The issue in both cases was the small numbers of Fulmars and a lack of warning. Illustrious was less than 100nm from the Luftwaffe bases.

I'd argue that having a minimal CAP when that close to enemy bases might not be the best deployment of resources.

 

[RCAFson]

I'd argue that having a minimal CAP when that close to enemy bases might not be the best deployment of resources.

See post 262.

 

[RCAFson]

First time I've read the Luftwaffe Fliegerkorps X report on the attack against Illustrious and Southhampton:

Armoured Aircraft Carriers

X Flieger Korps Attack on HMS Illustrious, January 10, 1941

www.armouredcarriers.com

It confirms 1000kg bomb hits on Illustrious and fighter escort!