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

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

It helps to try to figure what could have done differently with Knowledge (mostly) available at the time in question, and with the resources available at the time (engines, fuel, electronics, etc). Telling us how wonderful the F6F was (and it was wonderful) in mid 1943 doesn't help with the RNs problems in 1939-early 1943.

This was in answer to a specific line of questioning / comments which you are here ignoring, as if it was still you and I discussing the Fulmar, which is a bit disingenuous.

As for what they could have known, as someone (I think Admiral Beez?) noted already just upthread a little, all they had to do is look at what the Japanese and US were doing and realize that a two seat fighter wasn't a great idea. Maybe they didn't see that clearly in 1938, but certainly by the time the Firefly was being designed it should have been clear.

If you don't have a 1600-2000hp engine available in 1939-42 then you have to figure out what the limits are (fewer guns, less speed, less range).

I've been arguing, throughout this thread, in post after post, that they didn't need to wait for a 2,000 hp engine and that waiting for one or planning an aircraft around it was one of the key mistakes they actually made.

Gloster F.4/34 should be taken out to sea, shot, stabbed, chained to a big anchor and filled with cement.

To the contrary, it's a beautiful design. Go shoot, stab, and chain to an anchor the Blackburn Roc, the Skua, the Sea Hurricane, and the Albacore while you are at it. And take the (Brewster) Buccaneer and the Vindicator with them.

It's performance was about as believable as the XP-77 being a "tri-four fighter" 400 horsepower / 400 miles per hour / 4000 pound weight targets for the design.

You should perhaps see someone about the stress that WW2 historical documents about aircraft performance cause you.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

Here's a question:

How many aircraft designs were derailed or ruined because they were waiting for an engine in development which either didn't pan out our took years to finally become functional,

vs

how many aircraft designs were inadequate or failed because they were built around an engine which wasn't big or powerful enough and they were overweight etc.

Both things happened as we know. Which happened more often? Which problem was more consequential in general? For the US? For the UK? For Japan and Germany?

 

[nuuumannn]

I also know that answering these questions will fail to make the lightbulb over your head flash on, but I have a lot in common with sysiphus. I knew this thread would devolve into yet another "battle of the Atlantic" for some people, becauuse it implies that some British people, somewhere, at some time, may have made an error in judgement. At least it was a bit productive for a minute.

So why the appearance that you don't know these things with the comments you make? Posting stuff like this for example doesn't help you one single bit. Don't waste people's time. When you say stuff like this your discussion isn't reasoned, it's just you taking cheap shots. Grow up.

Yes, the British made mistakes when it came to naval fighter development, that much is true. (again, if you'd read what I wrote earlier), I even asked why the Seafire III did not have a two-speed two-stage Merlin fitted instead of a Merlin 55, to which no one has seen fit to provide a definitive answer. British naval aviation in the years before the war is a fascinating tale of missed opportunities and time wasted, and it took US know-how and equipment to fill the gaps, for which the British were grateful. Everyone learned lessons, including the Americans, apparently, after all, the US was behind Europe in many technical areas before they entered the war, so at least there was some return on British knowledge being sent across the Atlantic.

 

[Admiral Beez]

AIUI, we're seeking to make a smaller, single-seat Fulmar not a better Seafire or Sea Hurricane. But most of the thread seems to want to debate the latter two aircraft. But what of the Fulmar?

 

[Shortround6]

As for what they could have known, as someone (I think Admiral Beez?) noted already just upthread a little, all they had to do is look at what the Japanese and US were doing and realize that a two seat fighter wasn't a great idea. Maybe they didn't see that clearly in 1938, but certainly by the time the Firefly was being designed it should have been clear.

No internet in 1938-39
In 1939 the US was fooling around with 12 F2A-1s starting in June. In Aug 1939 the British Purchasing commission is looking an export model of the F2A-2 and final comes up with the cash in Jan 1940.
It took until Dec of 1939 for Brewster to deliver 11 of the F2A-1s and put 9 of them aboard the Saratoga to operate with F3F-1s

So maybe looking at what the US was doing, unless invited to go behind scenes may not give the best results?
Looking at what the Japanese were doing could be hazardous to one's health. Again timing is everything. Getting an intelligence report from China in 1940 when you already have the Fulmar in production and it is going to take several years to replace it with a totally new plane doesn't do the British a whole lot of good.

I've been arguing, throughout this thread, in post after post, that they didn't need to wait for a 2,000 hp engine and that waiting for one or planning an aircraft around it was one of the key mistakes they actually made.

Ok, in 1939 what are your options for a British engine?
The Vulture, Sabre and Centaurus are off the table.
The Hercules is also getting real fuzzy looking. Bristol is having production problems and Bristol and Vickers are looking at using Merlins to make up for expected Hercules production shortages, in fact Vickers is looking at buying P&W R-1830s for the Wellington and Bristol is looking at buying R-1830s for the Beaufort.
In 1939-40 you are looking at some form of Merlin ( or a 9 cylinder Pegasus).

Now what kind of plane are you going to make in 1940-early 41 starting in 1938-39 with the versions of Merlin that you KNOW will be available in 1940-41? You may know or expect certain models of Merlins to show up a number of months before they actually arrive maybe even a year. What you don't know is what the actual boost limits will be as the fuel is changing through late 1939 through 1941.

Now the British critics blow off the homing beacon operator in the back seat because the US didn't need one. The question here is didn't need one when? and what were the US fliers doing to compensate? Using the SBDs or TPDs as navigators? Also radar was just coming into use, Sometimes a carrier could give radio direction to lost fighter, sometimes not.
The US used SBDs or their predecessors as scout aircraft, the whole Scout Bomber thing as you know.
The radio gear (lumping the homing beacon in here) changed during the war, sometimes more than once.

British carriers had shorter flight decks, They had less hanger space and they also had way less fuel. They could not put up short duration patrols and change aircraft at frequent intervals even if there was no (or especially if there was no) contact. The British needed to find things that worked for them, not copy what worked for the US.
Sometimes what worked for the US could be used, sometimes not.
The British did screw up a lot of things. But so did the US.

 

[MIflyer]

Why bother improving the Fulmar when it would be so much faster, easier, and cheaper to build a fighter version of the Albacore?

 

[Shortround6]

AIUI, we're seeking to make a smaller, single-seat Fulmar not a better Seafire or Sea Hurricane. But most of the thread seems to want to debate the latter two aircraft. But what of the Fulmar?

If you want a single seat fighter with a 3 hour endurance then trying to figure out a way to extend a 2 hour single seat fighter to 3 hours (or a bit more?) may very well be a better alternative than trying to shrink down a large, heavy plane.

From "Armored Carriers"
It was, however, agreed that the provision for the second member of the Fighter's crew should be kept to a minimum of essentials. It appeared feasible to keep the additional structural weight down to 400 lbs., making, with the Observer (200 lbs.), a total additional weight of some 600 lbs.

Trouble was that Fairey Fulmar II weighed empty about 7000lbs (?) or over 1500lbs more than an empty weight Hurricane or Spitfire.

Some is the bigger wing, some is the bigger fuel tanks if self sealing. and so on. But somehow they are off on the weight estimate. Taking 600lbs out of Fulmar is not going to give you an 8000lb aircraft, even allowing for the extra fuel.
I don't know what went wrong but trying to stretch the Hurricane may be easer than trying to shrink the Fulmar.

 

[ThomasP]

Hey Wild_Bill_Kelso,

re "You think I never heard of slipper tanks? Buahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Those heavy, cumbersome things are dragged out every single time someone points out that the Spitfire, Hurricane, Seafire or the Sea Hurricane had poor range and endurance. Try tangling with a Bf 109, MC 202, A6M, or Ki-43 with a slipper tank aboard."

??

The Seafire would not have fought the enemy aircraft with slipper tank aboard. The 30 Impgal thru 90 Impgal slipper tanks were used as range/endurance increasing drop tanks, and would be released at/before combat just like under-wing and/or under-fuselage drop tanks on the SeaHurricane, F4F/F6F,F4U, Bf109, and MC.202, etc (not sure if the Ki-43 carried theirs into the dogfight like the A6M did).

The one ferry version of the 90 Impgal DT for the Hurricane and the 170 Impgal slipper that was used with the 29 Impgal tank behind the pilot in the Spitfire, they were not intended to be dropped, though both the 90 Impgal and 170 Impgal ferry tanks could be dropped in emergencies.

As far as I know the SeaHurricane only used the 45 Impgal under-wing DTs for combat missions, while the Seafire only used the 30 & 45 Impgal slipper DTs for combat missions.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

So why the appearance that you don't know these things with the comments you make? Posting stuff like this for example doesn't help you one single bit. Don't waste people's time. When you say stuff like this your discussion isn't reasoned, it's just you taking cheap shots. Grow up.

I just call it like I see it. From you, and a few others here, I see a fairly low signal to noise ratio especially with this particular range of subjects. You can call it a 'cheap shot', to me it's the reality of the words you are typing on the screen. I really don't give a rats ass if you like what I post.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

Hey Wild_Bill_Kelso,

re "You think I never heard of slipper tanks? Buahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Those heavy, cumbersome things are dragged out every single time someone points out that the Spitfire, Hurricane, Seafire or the Sea Hurricane had poor range and endurance. Try tangling with a Bf 109, MC 202, A6M, or Ki-43 with a slipper tank aboard."

??

The Seafire would not have fought the enemy aircraft with slipper tank aboard. The 30 Impgal thru 90 Impgal slipper tanks were used as range/endurance increasing drop tanks, and would be released at/before combat just like under-wing and/or under-fuselage drop tanks on the SeaHurricane, F4F/F6F,F4U, Bf109, and MC.202, etc (not sure if the Ki-43 carried theirs into the dogfight like the A6M did).

The one ferry version of the 90 Impgal DT for the Hurricane and the 170 Impgal slipper that was used with the 29 Impgal tank behind the pilot in the Spitfire, that were not intended to be dropped, though both the 90 Impgal and 170 Impgal ferry tanks could be dropped in emergencies.

As far as I know the SeaHurricane only used the 45 Impgal under-wing DTs for combat missions, while the Seafire only used the 30 & 45 Impgal slipper DTs for combat missions.

I've been over every version of 'slipper' tanks in other threads. Even the jettisonable ones were problematic, for a variety of reasons (drag being pretty prominent). But the key point is, they did not compensate for the lack of internal fuel. No external tank can. For a fighter to have adequate range and endurance, i.e. beyond that of an interceptor, they must be able to carry enough fuel internally, AND be able to carry external tanks.

Even if your external tanks carries a lot of gas, if you are intercepted early in a mission and have to eject it, then you are back to your internal fuel, and if that is very limited (based on your normal rate of fuel consumption) then your mission will be aborted or else you'll be fighting with the tank on which for some of these would be a major impediment. External tanks alone, even good streamlined ones such as the ones they eventually used (old P-40 75 gal tanks etc.) are not enough by themselves to solve this problem.

The reason this discussion keeps looping around back to Sea Hurricanes and Seafires is because certain individuals can't let go of the notion that these were just fine, ideal carrier fighters for the FAA. Which they definitely were not. But I agree with the notion of focusing on the OP, i.e. the conversation I tried to start, building a better (smaller, single seat) Fulmar, or a replacement for the Fulmar.

 

[ThomasP]

re "certain individuals can't let go of the notion that these were just fine, ideal carrier fighters for the FAA."

I may have missed something up-thread, but I do not remember anyone having said or implied that the SeaHurricane or Seafire were ideal fighters for the FAA.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

re "certain individuals can't let go of the notion that these were just fine, ideal carrier fighters for the FAA."

I may have missed something up-thread, but I do not remember anyone having said or implied that the SeaHurricane or Seafire were ideal fighters for the FAA.

I wasn't referring to you or your posts.

 

[ThomasP]

Understood, but I do not recall anyone else saying or implying it - ie the SeaHurricane or Seafire were ideal fighters for the FAA - either.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

I'd say read through the thread again. It's not that hard to find. I'm a little bored with this endless digression though so if you'd prefer to write something interesting about plausible alternatives to a 2 man, 45' wing span naval fighter, OR the (I'm glad we can now freely admit) far less than idea Sea Hurricane and Seafire, then please roll with that.

 

[marathag]

If you don't have a 1600-2000hp engine available in 1939-42

Fairey Monarch

 

[Admiral Beez]

The Seafire would not have fought the enemy aircraft with slipper tank aboard.

The Sea Hurricane only used the 45 Impgal under-wing DTs for combat missions,

Interesting points about other aircraft. But what's any of that got to do with a smaller, single seat Fulmar?

It's a rare occurrence, such as with Fairey's Flycatcher where the Brits field a single-seat naval fighter that is not a modified RAF fighter. The Firebrand is one example of a failure of such. Let's give Fairey another shot at repeating this rare example of design and procurement. So, the AM decides it needs a single-seat naval fighter to match up against the A5M (first flown 1935) and F4F (first flown 1937) and similar types. This requires the AM, FAA and RN to join the USN and IJN in the rejection the notion of a 2nd crewman for naval fighter navigation. The AM approaches the FAA's top supplier, Fairey, where they look at the P.4/34 and say no thanks, too big. Fairey replies, we'll make a smaller version, single seat, made specifically for FAA needs.

 

[Shortround6]

But what's any of that got to do with a smaller, single seat Fulmar

What are the "specs" for the smaller, single seat Fulmar?

As in what is the desired
Speed/altitude?
Range/Endurance?
Armament/firing duration?

What is the mission?
Or what mission/s are you willing to give up?

Just asking for a better over the carrier dog-fighter might not increase your carrier's mission capabilities very much and might even decrease them.

 

[Shortround6]

Fairey Monarch
View attachment 743790

Date, May 1940.
Dear Mr Fairey:
I have seen your engine, the Monarch, being test run and I am most impressed. I would like to order 200 of them with deliveries starting in Nov 1940 with 2-3 engines and increasing to 15 a month by March of 1941. Please contact me with details as to price and delivery Schedule.

Your's respectively
Anyaero Planemaker

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

I also know that answering these questions will fail to make the lightbulb over your head flash on, but I have a lot in common with sysiphus. I knew this thread would devolve into yet another "battle of the Atlantic" for some people, becauuse it implies that some British people, somewhere, at some time, may have made an error in judgement. At least it was a bit productive for a minute.

You dared to criticize the Spitfire.

 

[SaparotRob]

You dared to criticize the Spitfire.

Burn him! He's a witch!