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

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

The proposal for a folding wing Seafire was made in ~mid 1939, (Morgan and Shacklady p506, and Buttler p169), when the Fulmar was only months away from production vs two years for the proposed Seafire. The best way to boost Fulmar speed and climb performance would be giving it a Merlin X/XX.

And remove a crew, and shorten the wings. I mean, keep the Fulmar for as long as you need it. It's Ok for 1940 or even 41. But move quickly, in parallel, to make a single seat naval fighter so you have it by 1942.

 

[Admiral Beez]

One great alternative timeline what-if is that Bristol does not pursue troublesome and complicated sleeve valves and concentrate its knowledge and experience on producing a 2,000 hp four-poppet valve-headed twin-row radial for British aircraft that's ready for service for 1940. A missed opportunity as the firm had the know-how and experience.

This opens up so many opportunities. If Bristol won't do it, throw money and talent at Armstrong-Siddeley. Their Tiger is the only operational British fourteen cylinder ohv radial in a sea of sleeve valve diversions at Bristol. Any follow on to the Tiger needs proper bearings and a lot more, but at least Armstong-Siddeley's engineers are not blindly chasing a technological and money/time-wasting dead-end.

Another twin row, 14 cylinder ohv radial is the Alvis Pelides. It was never operational, but it's good to see at least one other radial engine firm staying on the ohv path. So, an enlarged Tiger or Pelides goes into a naval fighter.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

I think they could make plenty of R-1820s if you wanted to put one of those in, probably 1,200 hp right away, up to 1,500 hp form those eventually. I think that Gloster would be booking

 

[Shortround6]

This opens up so many opportunities. If Bristol won't do it, throw money and talent at Armstrong-Siddeley. Their Tiger is the only operational British fourteen cylinder ohv radial in a sea of sleeve valve diversions at Bristol. Any follow on to the Tiger needs proper bearings and a lot more, but at least Armstong-Siddeley's engineers are not blindly chasing a technological and money/time-wasting dead-end.

Another twin row, 14 cylinder ohv radial is the Alvis Pelides. It was never operational, but it's good to see at least one other radial engine firm staying on the ohv path. So, an enlarged Tiger or Pelides goes into a naval fighter.

Oh. Crap. Stick with sleeve valves, for gods sake and all that you hold dear, Stick with Bristol and the Sleeve valves !!!!!!!

The RAF didn't want to fly any twin aricraft with Tigers over water. The Blackburn Shark did fly over water but they had floats and floatation compartments build into the fuselage that could keep the plane afloat even if upside down.

As far as Armstrong-Siddeley's engineers not chasing a technological and money wasting dead end......................

A 2259 cu in engine using 21 cylinders because.........................hey, it's Armstrong Siddeley ! Anybody can make 14 cylinder 2250 cu in engine, It takes true genius (or madness) to make a 3 row radial and line up the cylinders for poor airflow and then use 7 (yes seven) overhead cams so you can block some of the airflow to the cylinder heads. Then try to use reverse airflow. to help solve the cooling problem. Then after THREE tries, enlarge the engine to 41 liters and start sketching out a 28 cylinder engine (4 banks of 7 cylinders) and then...............
Bring back the sleeve valves.....................PLEASE!

Alvis Pelides, A Gnome Rhone 14N engine built under license with a two bearing crankshaft. You have no engineer staff, or much of a production facility.
If France doesn't fall or lasts for a few more months maybe you can get the blueprints for the G-R 14 R engine? Which does not do you any good in 1940-41.

 

[Shortround6]

I think they could make plenty of R-1820s if you wanted to put one of those in, probably 1,200 hp right away, up to 1,500 hp form those eventually. I think that Gloster would be booking

I know this is a "what if" but I would prefer to keep time travel out of it.
First we set the machine to 1946 and we buy up a bunch of 1500hp R-1820 engines and a bunch of 115/145 fuel and then we go back to 1940 and sell the engines Gloster and the fuel to British and then we repeat several times until we have enough gold to retire and live where ever we want, when ever we want!!!!!

 

[Shortround6]

If you have long range fighters and bombers, you aren't only relying on the 'special' recon / pathfinder planes obviously because they can fly recon too. The Japanese had their C6, the US navy in the 60s and 70s had the Vigilante and a variety of recon types. It's not like I invented the concept.

The British had small carriers, with limited fuel, short flight decks.

The Ark Royal planned carried up to 60 planes. after that it was under 50 aircraft planned. Their deck park ideas were limited by lousy weather conditions in many areas. In some areas they could squeeze in more fighters.

You can't be fooling around with things like the Japanese C6 or the US jet fighter types. They take up too much space. The British don't have any long range single seat carrier fighters, their idea of a long range bomber/recon plane is either a Swordfish with a fuel tank taking up one seat in the cockpit or an Albacore with drop tank where the torpedo goes.

You have to figure out planes the RN can use, or you have to redo the entire RN carrier fleet to be more inline with US/Japanese thinking starting in the early 20s.

 

[nuuumannn]

The proposal for a folding wing Seafire was made in ~mid 1939, (Morgan and Shacklady p506, and Buttler p169), when the Fulmar was only months away from production vs two years for the proposed Seafire. The best way to boost Fulmar speed and climb performance would be giving it a Merlin X/XX.

Yes indeed, forgetfulness affects us all. The folding wing aircraft proposed in 1939 was going to be very different from the interim measure of modifying Spitfires into the Seafire that took place during the war. The intent was that the Firebrand was to be the naval fighter interceptor from 1940 onwards. The Admiralty was always interested in the Spitfire airframe, remember that the Admiralty asked Fairey to build Spitfires under licence in a meeting in May 1938. The continuation of the Spitfire as a naval aircraft following the issuing of the Firebrand specification was because it became apparent that the Firebrand was going to be late, which was an understatement.

 

[ThomasP]

Hey Wild_Bill_Kelso,

re "is that with turret or without" for the flight test speeds I listed

Defiant Mk I K8620 was the 2nd prototype and supposedly was completed with the turret installed for flight tests beginning in Jul'39. The graph for the flight tests I reference above is dated Mar'1940, so presumably the turret was fitted.

 

[z42]

I think nuuumannn hits the nail on the head; By the time the Admiralty gained control of the FAA it was too late to start from a clean sheet of paper, and whatever they did was inevitably going to be a disappointment compared to contemporary USN or IJN fighters.

(Of course, one could argue this was for the best in the end, that Britain concentrated its resources on good land based fighters to survive the critical early war years. But that's perhaps the topic of a separate thread..)

Maybe license F4F airframe production, and stick a Hercules on the chubby end? Though the Hercules was quite a bit heavier than the R-1830..

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

View attachment 742918
I know this is a "what if" but I would prefer to keep time travel out of it.
First we set the machine to 1946 and we buy up a bunch of 1500hp R-1820 engines and a bunch of 115/145 fuel and then we go back to 1940 and sell the engines Gloster and the fuel to British and then we repeat several times until we have enough gold to retire and live where ever we want, when ever we want!!!!!

I said 'eventually', meaning that was the potential. If that plane could do ~ 300 mph with an 850 hp Hercules, I suspect if you put one of the engines that were used in a Hawk 75 (P&W Twin Wasp R-1830 or Wright Cyclone R-1820) of 1,000 to 1,200 hp in 1940 or 1941, without need for a time machine. I know production was still ramping up production but they made a ton of these engines during the war.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

The Air Ministry clearly wanted a twin seater for their carrier fighter. But the Fulmar needn't be the giant two seater it was. But if we must pursue a single seater fighter while still using the Fairey P.4/34 as a starting point rather than a cleansheet design, here's someone's attempt.

View attachment 742848

Fairey Fulmar also designed as a single seat version alongside the Hurricane & Spitfire?

A spin-off from my earlier post https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/boulton-paul-defiant-also-designed-as-a-single-seat-version-alongside-the-hurricane-spitfire.546195/#post-24519625 What if the Fairey Fulmar was also designed as a single seat version alongside the Hurricane &...

www.alternatehistory.com

I like this. I think it's a very good start. Now we just reduce the wing span a bit, maybe a bit more tapered

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

Hey Wild_Bill_Kelso,

re "is that with turret or without" for the flight test speeds I listed

Defiant Mk I K8620 was the 2nd prototype and supposedly was completed with the turret installed for flight tests beginning in Jul'39. The graph for the flight tests I reference above is dated Mar'1940, so presumably the turret was fitted.

312 mph with a turret and an early low rated Merlin is quite good. Put a Merlin XX and no turret that thing will definitely surpass a Hurricane, IMO.

 

[ThomasP]

Some basic info on the Hurricane Mk I & IIC and Defiant Mk I. Unfortunately, I do not have any A&AEE performance data on the Defiant Mk II.

_____________Hurricane Mk I_________ Defiant Mk I__________ Hurricane Mk IIC
A&AEE tests__Aug'41________________Mar'40_______________Dec'41
Vmax________322 mph +6.25 lbs______303 mph +6.5 lbs_____ 335 mph +9 lbs
Altitude______17,750 ft_______________16,500 ft_____________ 22,000 ft
Vmax________326 mph +12 lbs_______ 312mph +12 lbs_______306 mph +9 lbs
Altitude______12,000 ft_______________10,000 ft_____________ 13,500 ft
Test Weight__ 6450 lbs_______________7390 lbs______________7260 lbs
Max Fuel____ 112 USgal_____________ 124 USgal____________112 USgal
Vstall(FU)____ 78 mph________________91 mph______________ 82 mph
Vstall(FD)____ 66 mph________________77 mph______________ 70 mph
TOGW_______6700 lbs_______________7700 lbs______________7500 lbs

NOTE 1. Hurricane Mk I and Mk II Vmax are with Rotol propeller and ejector exhausts
______2. Defiant Vmax is with DH propeller
______3. Hurricane Mk I normal TOGW was 6740 lbs w/112 USgal fuel
______4. Defiant Mk I TOGW is listed as 7700 lbs - I think this is without armour or SSFT but do not know for sure, not sure about ejector exhausts either
______5. Defiant Mk II normal TOGW was 8700 lbs w/190 USgal max fuel
______6. Hurricane Mk II normal TOGW was 7500 lbs w/112 USgal fuel
______7. Vstall (FU & FD) are at normal TOGW
______8. Vmax for Hurricane Mk IIC was 305 mph +12 lbs at 9,000 ft (~same Vmax as at +9 lbs at 13,500 ft)

 

[yulzari]

Looking at this the other way around. The Fulmar was designed to be able to do reconnaissance, strike and fighter protection. It was at least adequate at the time in all three although not really used for the strike/dive bomber task but stressed and trialled for it.

So, quick and dirty and AH, I go back to stuffing a bigger engine in the front and an actually using it as a multi role aeroplane only leaving the torpedo/ ASW/mining to the Albacore. The trick is arranging AH to get a bigger engine Monarch/Vulture/Sabre/Griffon/Centaurus and do so in time for the Fulmar Mk1 to have it. If Rolls Royce had ditched the Peregrine amd Exe early and thrown the resources into maintaining momentum on the Vulture one might not totally implausibly get a Vulture Fulmar in time but that means a 1940 Vulture production date. The butterfly would inevitably go and flap it's wings elsewhere with implications across the board for the RAF of course.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

Looking at this the other way around. The Fulmar was designed to be able to do reconnaissance, strike and fighter protection. It was at least adequate at the time in all three although not really used for the strike/dive bomber task but stressed and trialled for it.

So, quick and dirty and AH, I go back to stuffing a bigger engine in the front and an actually using it as a multi role aeroplane only leaving the torpedo/ ASW/mining to the Albacore. The trick is arranging AH to get a bigger engine Monarch/Vulture/Sabre/Griffon/Centaurus and do so in time for the Fulmar Mk1 to have it. If Rolls Royce had ditched the Peregrine amd Exe early and thrown the resources into maintaining momentum on the Vulture one might not totally implausibly get a Vulture Fulmar in time but that means a 1940 Vulture production date. The butterfly would inevitably go and flap it's wings elsewhere with implications across the board for the RAF of course.

I totally disagree. First, the Fulmar, though fine as an armed scout, and probably ok for light bombing, is not adequate as a fighter if it has to face A6M or Ki-43. It is maybe slightly less threatened by Bf 109 (and later MC.202) simply because those are so short legged, but I believe Fulmars would have some trouble with Bf 110, Ki-45 or even Ju-88C type heavy fighters (I wonder if anyone knows of any operational history of this?). Fulmar is a fighter that can intercept and destroy most enemy scouts and seaplanes, and strike aircraft such as B5N, G3M, and probably He 111. Maybe it can catch D3A bombers... some of the time. But more modern types are going to leave it in the dust even in 1941. Ju-88 for example, or most Japanese Army bombers, and I think SM 79 and CANT 1007 gave them some trouble too.

Second, you also need a long (or at least medium) ranged strike aircraft as well as a long ranged (actual) fighter.

Third, to improve (or replace) the Fulmar, a bigger engine is not really going to cut it. Even the Firefly originally debuted with a not very impressive 330 mph speed around 1943. You can have a naval fighter using a Merlin or one of the earlier radial engines in 1941 or 1942. You just have to make it a bit smaller. The Fulmar as-is was bigger than a Stuka. It's very nearly as big as a Ki-45 or an Me 110, only with half as many engines.

Even an F4U Corsair or F6F Hellcat look small next to a Fulmar. You don't need a 47' wingspan for the fighter role. Or a second crewman.

 

[Admiral Beez]

I like this. I think it's a very good start. Now we just reduce the wing span a bit, maybe a bit more tapered

Here's a single seat Firefly photoshop. Can we do the same for the Fulmar?

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

Here's a single seat Firefly photoshop. Can we do the same for the Fulmar?

View attachment 743045

Wow that's pretty, and looks tough as hell! Probably don't need the giant paddle ruddder / tail fin though who knows. This looks something like a Sea Fury, which they could have had (something in the ballpark) 2 years before they did.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Wow that's pretty, and looks tough as hell!

Agreed. But that's a 2,000 hp Griffon pulling the Firefly. If we're in the late 1930s, we need to settle for an approx 1,100 hp Merlin.

 

[SaparotRob]

I am still having my first morning cup. My groggy mind came up with license built Vindicators. If we're looking for suboptimal planes for carrier use, why not?

 

[Shortround6]

Here's a single seat Firefly photoshop. Can we do the same for the Fulmar?

View attachment 743045

Photoshop doesn't worry about CG and aerodynamic centers of pressure.
You know, the stuff that actually allows planes to fly pointy end first