Ewen is right, modifiying the Fulmar design is going to require a clean sheet design, which, as Shortround said - and I agree with him, may or may not produce the requirements for a naval fighter that the FAA needed. What it needed, what it wanted and what it actually received were not the same thing. The Fulmar was at best a compromise, an interim solution borne of the frustrating period when the Air Ministry specified that FAA aircraft do more than one, often disparate job, with middling results that ended up with the FAA receiving aircraft that were not really what was needed. The Fulmar was a stopgap right from the start, it was designed to get put into service as quickly as possible, so to circumvent the whole idea of conceiving a whole new naval fighter from scratch, which is what we are doing, Lobelle decided on modelling the aircraft of an existing design. The time factor is the essential thing here, not necessarily its capabilities. Let's not forget that once the Admiralty regained control of the FAA in 1939 it made a raft of changes to existing specifications, including for the Fulmar replacement. The takeaway was that the naval fighter the Admiralty wanted turned out to be the Firebrand, whose specification was for a naval fighter interceptor (not a late, overly heavy torpedo fighter as it became). To fulfil the time aspects of the Fulmar's specification, the use of an existing design would have to be considered, therefore there is no harm in using either the Defiant or Hurricane as a basis, but is it what the FAA needs?
It isn't, The FAA needed a modern naval fighter-interceptor that would, like the Spitfire, have good performance to match existing and future enemy fighter performance, and service longevity and yet meet all the criteria for carrier operations. Modifying the Hurricane or the Defiant would not do that because the designs do not have enough shelf life and were not capable of the performance of advanced fighters entering service in mid to late 1940. The Admiralty wanted a naval Spitfire and in 1939 investigated such an option with Joe Smith of Supermarine's help. This was going to be very different to the Seafires that the navy eventually received in 1942 as it was going to be purpose-designed from the ground up as a naval fighter. This was really the only option if the navy wanted an advanced, thoroughly modern fighter by 1940, when the Fulmar starts entering service. Building a modified Fulmar is going to give the FAA another fighter it is going to have to supplement in time with US-built aircraft and which would still lead the navy to continue to pursue the Spitfire option.
It isn't, The FAA needed a modern naval fighter-interceptor that would, like the Spitfire, have good performance to match existing and future enemy fighter performance, and service longevity and yet meet all the criteria for carrier operations. Modifying the Hurricane or the Defiant would not do that because the designs do not have enough shelf life and were not capable of the performance of advanced fighters entering service in mid to late 1940. The Admiralty wanted a naval Spitfire and in 1939 investigated such an option with Joe Smith of Supermarine's help. This was going to be very different to the Seafires that the navy eventually received in 1942 as it was going to be purpose-designed from the ground up as a naval fighter. This was really the only option if the navy wanted an advanced, thoroughly modern fighter by 1940, when the Fulmar starts entering service. Building a modified Fulmar is going to give the FAA another fighter it is going to have to supplement in time with US-built aircraft and which would still lead the navy to continue to pursue the Spitfire option.
Last edited: