Can we make a slightly smaller Fulmar as an improved carrier fighter? (1 Viewer)

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

The problem with the F4F was that they were forced to make due with it in late 1942 and most of 1943. It was fine for early to mid 1942. After that they should have updated it. And probably could have. But that is a good subject for another thread!

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

I'd also add that the USN was on a steep, steep learning curve in 1940 and 41 and benefited from lessons learned and equipment (like radar) acquired from the British during that period.

 

[Admiral Beez]

It would seem for convoy patrol duty you would want almost all fighters, and just a few Swordfish for ASW.

No, you want mostly ASW for convoy work. The British lost far more warships and merchant losses to U-Boat attack than by air attack.

List of Royal Navy losses in World War II - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Merchant Navy Losses WWII

List of all Merchant Navy ships lost due to enemy action during World War II.

www.battleships-cruisers.co.uk

We still need to keep the bombers away. I'd make it 60:40 TSRs to Fighters.

The problem is the CAGs are too small. Click on any carrier to see, Aircraft Carrier database of the Fleet Air Arm Archive 1939-1945 Contents Page

 

[z42]

No, you want mostly ASW for convoy work. The British lost far more warships and merchant losses to U-Boat attack than by air attack.

Kinda depends on which theater we're talking about, doesn't it? North Atlantic, yeah probably a few fighters is enough to chase down the FW200's (and other?) long range recon planes relaying convoy movements to the u-boats. North Cape or the Mediterranean, probably need a lot more fighters.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Kinda depends on which theater we're talking about, doesn't it? North Atlantic, yeah probably a few fighters is enough to chase down the FW200's (and other?) long range recon planes relaying convoy movements to the u-boats. North Cape or the Mediterranean, probably need a lot more fighters.

Indeed. Hermes to the Indian Ocean could have used every folding Martlet then in FAA service. Fulmars are too long, Seafires and Hurricanes too wide for her lifts. Non-folding Buffaloes would work, shown below on HMS Eagle.

But they take a lot of hangar space, see my mock-up here Hawker Hurricane or Brewster Buffalo. I was too generous in this image, as I didn't realize at the time how the hangar narrowed in the below pic, so it's more likely 8-10 Buffaloes for Hermes.

 

[Shortround6]

so it's more likely 8-10 Buffaloes for Hermes

Now how many Buffaloes do you have after 2-3 weeks in service?
The RN lucked out and kept the Buffaloes ashore.
Gladiators that can fly are better than Buffaloes with broken landing gear filling up the hanger deck.

 

[don4331]

Work keep getting in way of arguing discussing with people on internet.

Wild_Bill_Kelso: If you are aware of the tribulation of Blackburn Firebrand, you should be aware that.
1. 2 requirement specifications N.5/38 and N.6/38 were created for follow-on's to the Skua and Roc respectively - note N - Navy (FAA); 5,6 order released; 38 = 1938. I haven't found full details yet, but N.5 is for 2 seat fighter/dive bomber while N.6 is for turret fighter. Speed increased from ~200 kts in Skua to 225 kts (think replace Perseus with Taurus/some aerodynamic clean up). AM quickly realized that spec wasn't going to cut it/it was going to take some time for manufacturer to respond, so released 0.8/38 which is the requirement for the the Fulmar. O - Observation to get around issue of releasing duplicate requirement specifications within months of each other <like USAAF with P - pursuit vs F- Fighter>
2. AM cancels N.5/38 and N.6/38. and replaces them with N.8/39 and N.9/39 at end of June, '39. Blackburn's submission is a Hercules powered, cleaned up Skua with 8 - 0.303 or 4 -20mm; 275 knot (315mph) speed, and equivalent turret fighter (still only 4 - 0.303). AM cancels these as well.
3. AM creates specification N.5/40 for 330kn (380mph) two seat strike fighter we know and love as the Firefly.
4. AM creates specification N.11/40 which becomes the Firebrand. (UK is at war, they no longer care about optics of releasing 2 specs within months)

So, if you want to "fix" things, you need at least release requirement specification N.8/39 as N.5/38 (15 months earlier). Then Blackburn would be rolling out fighter/dive bomber of comparable performance to Wildcat at about same time (1/Oct/'41 being date 1st Wildcat adopted by USN - yes, I'm aware Wildcat was in RN service before that date, but I'm giving Blackburn/RN 6 months from start of production to worked up). Hercules will increase in power from 1.290 hp in Hercules I to 1,735 in XVII, so will keep the fighter competitive with naval opponents until mid war or later. I'm also betting on AM relaxing landing/take off requirements to the new fleet carrier i.e. the 55 kt requirement to land on the 15 kts Argus (20 knt new subtract 20 years age, the added bugles and factor in 6 mos. out of drydock in tropical waters) Increase landing speed by 15 kts for the new 30+ kt fleet carriers and top end performance becomes much easier - Argus, Hermes & Eagle get limited to Skuas/Swordfish.

Joe Smith needs to remain focused on the Spitfire; we can't have him take his eyes off that.

 

[Shortround6]

There were a few advantages that the Fulmar had over the Sea Hurricane or other normal land based fighters of the time.

The 4 hour endurance meant few take-offs and landings per day for the same amount of CAP coverage (fight hours) and this is even better than a simple 4 is twice as good as 2 calculation. The CAP (or recon planes) need to arrive at the carrier around 30 minutes before landing (roughly) to allow for navigation errors, carrier getting turned into the wind and so on, then provide for accidents. If the first plane in the queue crashes while landing how long does it take to clear the deck and the other planes can land without running out of fuel?
You don't get a 2 hour CAP mission out of a land plane that has a 2 hour nominal endurance.

Fulmars could, at times, investigate more contacts or conduct more interceptions before needing to land than shorter endurance planes could. Same for the ammo. The extra ammo capacity allowed for more engagements.

The goal is try to get a plane with more speed/climb than the Fulmar while keeping the endurance (or most of it) and keeping close to same trigger time.
However with the same engines that were available at any given point in time something has to give. Take a Spitfire from 1940, add 100lbs for a folding wing, add 100lbs for more ammo and add even 400lbs of fuel (55Imp Gal) and you are about 10% heavier than a shore based Spit ( haven't added dingy, hook and more radio gear), if you are are OK with that fine. But you are are not going to get land based Spitfire performance.

That may be OK (and the 1941 Version with Merlin 45 does get better)

It just seems that trying to cut down a nearly 10,000lb plane to 7-8,000lbs seems to be a round about way of getting to what is wanted.

 

[SaparotRob]

The Fulmar was a bit of a dog. I would have heartily agreed with an assistant navigator being a good idea when it was designed. It probably was capable of dealing with snoopers and driving off the planes that could reach the fleet in the middle of the North Sea. It came at a time when planes were evolving quickly. It came at a time when navigation was a bit more difficult. It was thought what was needed, not what turned out what was needed.
If they we already at altitude, had they been fully armed, whatever. If Wade McCluskey had turned the other way…..
It would be cool to hot rod it, though.

 

[marathag]

The Vulture had, at that time, a rating of ~1,800hp and was in production.

With cooling problems, high fuel comsumption, engine fires, oiling problems, bearing problems. The Battle Test Mule with the Monarch didn't suffer from those problems. irs planned 3200 RPM top speed was reduced to 2850 to try to keep reliability at an acceptable rate
Monarch was built for long range cruising, due to its split nature. Vulture would not have been a good choice for a single engine type.

Wasn't even good in a twin, with Manchesters having terrible issues with only one engine running, which happened often.
Of the 200 odd Manchesters, 1/3 had crashed or written off from failed engines.

Fairey didn't have the facilities for mass production of the type, agreed. That wasn't a deal breaker. Pass on some of the other sleeve vale follies, and that company build the P.24 instead until the fancy high tech engines are debugged.

Rolls Royce knew that the Vulture was a turkey, and wanted to devote more effort on the Merlin and Griffon.
Air Ministry demanded otherwise in 1939.

 

[RCAFson]

The Fulmar was a bit of a dog. I would have heartily agreed with an assistant navigator being a good idea when it was designed. It probably was capable of dealing with snoopers and driving off the planes that could reach the fleet in the middle of the North Sea. It came at a time when planes were evolving quickly. It came at a time when navigation was a bit more difficult. It was thought what was needed, not what turned out what was needed.
If they we already at altitude, had they been fully armed, whatever. If Wade McCluskey had turned the other way…..
It would be cool to hot rod it, though.

On 8 May 1941 Fulmars from Ark Royal and Formidable engaged both the Luftwaffe and Reggia Aeronautica and soundly thrashed them both:

RA losses:

4 x SM79
2 x CR42

Luftwaffe losses:
1 x Ju-88
4 x He-111
2 x Me-110 (crash landed due to battle damage)
1 x Me110 damaged
(1 x Ju-87 confirmed by Fulmar gun camera but not noted in Luftwaffe records)
1 x Ju87 damaged

FAA:

2 x Fulmar (one from bomber defensive fire)
2 X Fulmar crash landed on CVs
1X Fulmar crashed due to weather (not combat related)
6 x Fulmars damaged

Data from Shores, Mediterranean Air War, 1940-1945: Volume One: North Africa, June 1940-January 1942, p182-185

 

[wuzak]

With cooling problems, high fuel comsumption, engine fires, oiling problems, bearing problems. The Battle Test Mule with the Monarch didn't suffer from those problems. irs planned 3200 RPM top speed was reduced to 2850 to try to keep reliability at an acceptable rate
Monarch was built for long range cruising, due to its split nature. Vulture would not have been a good choice for a single engine type.

The cooling issues were resolved. As were other issues as they arose.

The main issue that needed to be resolved was the bearings. That would require a redesign of the engine, or at least major parts of it.

The Vulture worked well enough in the Tornado.

Wasn't even good in a twin, with Manchesters having terrible issues with only one engine running, which happened often.
Of the 200 odd Manchesters, 1/3 had crashed or written off from failed engines.

The Manchester was really too big an aircraft for twin engines. More powerful engines would have been required than even 2,000hp.

There were also numerous airframe bugs that had to be ironed out.

Fairey didn't have the facilities for mass production of the type, agreed. That wasn't a deal breaker. Pass on some of the other sleeve vale follies, and that company build the P.24 instead until the fancy high tech engines are debugged.

The Fairey Monarch didn't just lack production facilities. It was judged, in late 1940, to not be close to production ready.

It was thought by the MAP that the engine needed significant development before it was ready for production.

The Monarch had also not passed a military type test.. It had only passed a civilian 50h test, and at lower power than is usually ascribed to the Monarch.

The Monarch had less power than the Vulture, even in its detuned state.

Rolls Royce knew that the Vulture was a turkey, and wanted to devote more effort on the Merlin and Griffon.
Air Ministry demanded otherwise in 1939.

Not sure about Rolls-Royce wanting out of the Vulture in 1939.

Certainly in 1940 much of Rolls-Royce's efforts went into developing the Merlin, at the expense of the Griffon, the Vulture, the Exe and Peregrine.

At some point in 1941 it had been determined that all Rolls-Royce projects would be cancelled, except for the Merlin, Griffon and Crecy.

 

[wuzak]

From a memo in December 1940:

Since the engine completed the 50 hours type test at a rating of 1275 b.h.p. with a maximum power of 1490, a number of short individual tests have been made, up to powers of 1750 b.h.p., but there have been no consistently long periods of running at the higher output owing to the series of troubles with the superchargers and main bearings, confirming our view that considerable development would be required to clear the higher power, the firm having inadequate facilities for such development.

Certainly this was too late to "pass on some of the other sleeve vale follies, and that company build the P.24 instead until the fancy high tech engines are debugged".

By December 1940 several Short Stirlings had been delivered and were with squadrons. They would begin operations in early 1941.

The Bristol Beaufighter had already entered service and had scored its first kill months earlier.

The Typhoon began appearing with 2000hp Sabres in 1941, being rushed into service to counter the Fw 190A.

When will production 2000hp Fairey Monarchs appear?

 

[EwenS]

The cooling issues were resolved. As were other issues as they arose.

The main issue that needed to be resolved was the bearings. That would require a redesign of the engine, or at least major parts of it.

The Vulture worked well enough in the Tornado.




The Manchester was really too big an aircraft for twin engines. More powerful engines would have been required than even 2,000hp.

There were also numerous airframe bugs that had to be ironed out.




The Fairey Monarch didn't just lack production facilities. It was judged, in late 1940, to not be close to production ready.

It was thought by the MAP that the engine needed significant development before it was ready for production.

The Monarch had also not passed a military type test.. It had only passed a civilian 50h test, and at lower power than is usually ascribed to the Monarch.

The Monarch had less power than the Vulture, even in its detuned state.




Not sure about Rolls-Royce wanting out of the Vulture in 1939.

Certainly in 1940 much of Rolls-Royce's efforts went into developing the Merlin, at the expense of the Griffon, the Vulture, the Exe and Peregrine.

At some point in 1941 it had been determined that all Rolls-Royce projects would be cancelled, except for the Merlin, Griffon and Crecy.

Work on the Exe was suspended in Sept 1939 and cancelled altogether in 1941. Hence the redesign of the Barracuda to take the Merlin.

Rolls-Royce Exe (Boreas) and Pennine Aircraft Engines

From the late 1930s to the mid-1940s, Rolls-Royce developed two air-cooled X-24 aircraft engines: the 1,200 hp (895 kW) Exe and the 2,800 hp (2,088 kW) Pennine. Neither engine entered production.

oldmachinepress.com

 

[z42]

At some point in 1941 it had been determined that all Rolls-Royce projects would be cancelled, except for the Merlin, Griffon and Crecy.

In retrospect, a correct decision. Or well, with the benefit of hindsight we can say they should have cancelled the Crecy too and focused that manpower on improving the Griffon, but that's relatively minor I suspect.

Perhaps the suggested improved and smaller Fulmar should have been equipped with the Griffon (like the Firefly eventually did), instead of hoping for various long shot engine projects to pan out.

 

[EwenS]

Not sure about Rolls-Royce wanting out of the Vulture in 1939.

Certainly in 1940 much of Rolls-Royce's efforts went into developing the Merlin, at the expense of the Griffon, the Vulture, the Exe and Peregrine.

At some point in 1941 it had been determined that all Rolls-Royce projects would be cancelled, except for the Merlin, Griffon and Crecy.

There is support for RR wanting out of Vulture development from as early as Aug 1939 here.

Rolls-Royce Vulture X-24 Aircraft Engine

Developed in the late 1930s, the Rolls-Royce Vulture X-24 was rushed through development and into service. As a result, the Vulture proved unreliable and was cancelled in favor of other aircraft en…

oldmachinepress.com

But the Air Ministry wanted it to go on. Work finally stopped Oct 1941.

 

[yulzari]

Just for the fun of it. Given that it was determined that the Rolls Royce Crecy produced more power than a test Spitfire could cope with then tweak history so that we get a Crecy powered Fulmar in 1940. 5,000bhp should do the trick in catching bombers and climbing up to them quickly and carry 4x20mm cannon with plenty of ammunition and lift extra fuel off the deck…………

 

[z42]

Just for the fun of it. Given that it was determined that the Rolls Royce Crecy produced more power than a test Spitfire could cope with then tweak history so that we get a Crecy powered Fulmar in 1940. 5,000bhp should do the trick in catching bombers and climbing up to them quickly and carry 4x20mm cannon with plenty of ammunition and lift extra fuel off the deck…………

Almost as fanciful as the 5000 hp Stuka a few days ago: Sten SMG aircraft: productionized aircraft part 2, the what if

 

[wuzak]

Just for the fun of it. Given that it was determined that the Rolls Royce Crecy produced more power than a test Spitfire could cope with then tweak history so that we get a Crecy powered Fulmar in 1940. 5,000bhp should do the trick in catching bombers and climbing up to them quickly and carry 4x20mm cannon with plenty of ammunition and lift extra fuel off the deck…………

That was one of those "sleeve valve follies".

 

[wuzak]

There is support for RR wanting out of Vulture development from as early as Aug 1939 here.

Rolls-Royce Vulture X-24 Aircraft Engine

Developed in the late 1930s, the Rolls-Royce Vulture X-24 was rushed through development and into service. As a result, the Vulture proved unreliable and was cancelled in favor of other aircraft en…

oldmachinepress.com

But the Air Ministry wanted it to go on. Work finally stopped Oct 1941.

From as early as August 1939, Rolls-Royce wanted to cancel Vulture development so that the company could focus its resources on other engines, mainly the Merlin and Griffon.

So they could concentrate on 2 main engines instead of 3.