- Thread starter
-
- #41
Wild_Bill_Kelso
Senior Master Sergeant
- 3,231
- Mar 18, 2022
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
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.
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.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.
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
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 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.
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!!!!!
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
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.
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.
Here's a single seat Firefly photoshop. Can we do the same for the Fulmar?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
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.Wow that's pretty, and looks tough as hell!
Photoshop doesn't worry about CG and aerodynamic centers of pressure.