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

[Thumpalumpacus]

Burn him! He's a witch!

'Tis blasphemy, I assert.

 

[Geoffrey Sinclair]

All Sea Hurricanes were produced by conversion from ex-RAF Hurricanes, some of which were already well worn when they passed to the RN. In addition to those converted numbers of ordinary Hurricanes were made available for training fighter pilots in Britain or to equip shore based fighter squadrons in the Middle East working alongside RAF and other nations units in that theatre (for example 803 & 806 from Fomidable & Illustrious during 1941 before they re-equiped with Fulmars and left for Ceylon in early 1942).

The RAF says 378 Hurricane I ended up as Sea I but it looks like that is more along the lines of saw RN service, most of which were Sea versions plus Sea versions that served in the Merchant Ship Fighter Unit which was RAF. This excludes theatre transfers to the RN fighter squadrons operatind in the Western Desert. Transfers continued in bulk until late 1942.

Canada built 50 Sea I meant to be the MSFU pool in North America, 3 crossed the Atlantic, 1 went back, 1 to Hawkers in September 1942, A&AEE October then the RN in 1943, the other is reported with the RN in July 1943. The rest were either lost as Sea I or converted to mark XIIA.

Hawker built 36 Sea IIC November/December 1942 and another 24 April to June 1943.

So far traced 45 Canadian built Hurricane IIB transferred to the RN in September 1942 and mostly given C wings, none had seen RAF service, arriving in Britain May to July 1942. The RAF Form 78 cards note 23 conversions to C wings before transfer, others were done after transfer, 44 went via Hawker, most then to 13 MU Henlow then to RN, 13 MU was usually where Canadian built Hurricanes arrived at when first imported.

The Canadian Hurricanes arrived as incomplete airframes, probably making it easier to convert to Sea standard.

 

[RCAFson]

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.

Seafire Slipper tanks:

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/seafirel2cads.jpg

30IG and 45IG tanks are self-sealing and combat rated. No need to drop them unless max performance is needed.

The 30IG tank weighs about 75lb empty and ~290lb full. The 45IG tank weighs about 85lb empty and ~400lbs full.

Range goes from 493 / 682 / 755 miles (with allowance for warmup, TO and climb to 5K ft) and loiter after combat allowance goes from .95 / 2.05 / 2.5 hrs.

 

[RCAFson]

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.

Late war the Seafire III was using both the 90IG slipper tank and or a ~90IG DT (borrowed from RAAF P-40s) during combat missions.

 

[Shortround6]

Late war the Seafire III was using both the 90IG slipper tank and a ~90IG DT (borrowed from RAAF P-40s) during combat missions.

Do you mean and/or ?

I would ask our long range escort fans to check the climb rates of a Spitfire carrying a 500lb bomb vs a clean plane.
I believe there are some tests with some of these drop tanks?
Inside fuel won't affect speed like external loads will but the change in weight will be close.

 

[EwenS]

Do you mean and/or ?

I would ask our long range escort fans to check the climb rates of a Spitfire carrying a 500lb bomb vs a clean plane.
I believe there are some tests with some of these drop tanks?
Inside fuel won't affect speed like external loads will but the change in weight will be close.

887 & 894 squadrons on Indefatigable used the 90 imp gal slipper tank in July/Aug ops off Japan.

801 & 880 on Implacable used the ex-Kittyhawk tanks.

 

[RCAFson]

Do you mean and/or ?

I would ask our long range escort fans to check the climb rates of a Spitfire carrying a 500lb bomb vs a clean plane.
I believe there are some tests with some of these drop tanks?
Inside fuel won't affect speed like external loads will but the change in weight will be close.

Or.

 

[yulzari]

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.

However the second crewman and the RN homing system was seen as a positive advantage by the RN. Being before later radar systems and allowing the Fulmar to range far away and at night or poor weather and still find the carrier even if the carrier had changed course from the expected heading. Other navies relied upon either or both dead reckoning and/or planned rendezvous with the alternative of a radio beacon that could be tracked to the carrier by the enemy. There was also the idea of the aeroplane broadcasting a signal for the carrier to identify and send directions. Also a security risk. The RN system was a signal sent from the carrier to the aeroplane in a manner which prevented the carrier or the aeroplane having the signal intercepted and positions given away. The same was fitted to the strike aeroplanes. Hence the second crewman was normally a Telegraphist Air Gunner rating and not a navigator officer.There was a good reasoned basis for the decision.

 

[Admiral Beez]

However the second crewman and the RN homing system was seen as a positive advantage by the RN.

Yes, this notion would need to be considered and rejected. Or the tech modified so that the pilot can do it himself.

Other navies relied upon either or both dead reckoning and/or planned rendezvous with the alternative of a radio beacon that could be tracked to the carrier by the enemy.

If it's good enough for the USN and IJN, it should be fine for the RN. The RN's Corsair, Hellcat, Seafire and Sea Hurricane pilots managed to return to their carriers.

 

[RCAFson]

Yes, this notion would need to be considered and rejected. Or the tech modified so that the pilot can do it himself.

If it's good enough for the USN and IJN, it should be fine for the RN. The RN's Corsair, Hellcat, Seafire and Sea Hurricane pilots managed to return to their carriers.

The USN YE/ZB system was pilot operable, but to be fair it was not fully implemented until 1942 and even then pilots were often unfamiliar with it.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

However the second crewman and the RN homing system was seen as a positive advantage by the RN. Being before later radar systems and allowing the Fulmar to range far away and at night or poor weather and still find the carrier even if the carrier had changed course from the expected heading. Other navies relied upon either or both dead reckoning and/or planned rendezvous with the alternative of a radio beacon that could be tracked to the carrier by the enemy. There was also the idea of the aeroplane broadcasting a signal for the carrier to identify and send directions. Also a security risk. The RN system was a signal sent from the carrier to the aeroplane in a manner which prevented the carrier or the aeroplane having the signal intercepted and positions given away. The same was fitted to the strike aeroplanes. Hence the second crewman was normally a Telegraphist Air Gunner rating and not a navigator officer.There was a good reasoned basis for the decision.

See this is the thing for me. I think the Fulmar was quite useful in this particular role. And the RN / FAA saw this as a major role for British carriers, basically scouting / surveilling large tracts of ocean, and neutralizing enemy scouts and long range aircraft. And they were not entirely wrong. In this role Fulmar was good. It was also potentially good as a pathfinder / navigator for the single seat fighters. I think they were also used for ASW...?

The issue with the RF antenna and signals is also real. We discussed this in some other threads.

Finding ones way back to base - even for land based fighters, was a serious issue particularly in the Pacific. Land based planes used to rely on Venturas and B-17s as navigation / pathfinder planes. I think the British used Sunderlands and Beaufighters in some cases. I remember a famous incident where Clive Caldwell was flying to an island and they hit some weather, 3/4 of the way through the trip he learned that the Beaufighter that had been flying with his Spitfire had not been navigating and they didn't know where they were. He almost shot them down, to the point of charging his guns and flying behind them. I imagine it was a little tense.

The USN used Dauntlesses and then Avengers as navigation / pathfinding planes fairly often, though the single seat aircraft pilots learned to navigate by landmarks and they installed those RF antennas. This was also a significant issue in India and China / Burma.

A lot of fighter planes also got lost and some pilots ended up in the sea or deep in some jungle and did not make it, or got captured.

Anyway, this is all a reason why I've been saying - keep the Fulmar, just also develop a smaller single seat fighter.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

887 & 894 squadrons on Indefatigable used the 90 imp gal slipper tank in July/Aug ops off Japan.

801 & 880 on Implacable used the ex-Kittyhawk tanks.

Weren't the kittyhawk tanks 75 gal?

 

[ThomasP]

re the navigation problem

These are a couple of reposts from me in a previous thread "Build a better Sea Hurricane 1938" started in November 2017.

"Build a better Sea Hurricane 1938"

and

"Build a better Sea Hurricane 1938"

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

you know you can link an individual post

 

[ThomasP]

I know it can be done but I have never taken the time to figure it out

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

Actually I think you did it on at least one of those links, the first one was just to the thread

 

[ThomasP]

Yah, the first one was intended for the start of the thread - I figure anyone interested in the current topic might like to read that thread (if they have not already done so) as a lot of the info presented there bears on the idea of a smaller single-engine fighter. And although it is primarily concerned with the single-seat Hurricane, a lot of the info still applies to a small(ish) 2-seat aircraft also.

 

[Admiral Beez]

See this is the thing for me. I think the Fulmar was quite useful in this particular role. And the RN / FAA saw this as a major role for British carriers, basically scouting / surveilling large tracts of ocean,

That's why other navies used their torpedo or dive bombers for the recon and pathfinder roles. For the Royal Navy, the twin seat, monoplane, retractable undercarriage aircraft for distant scout work should have been the TSR or dive bomber not the fighter.

 

[Shortround6]

Finding ones way back to base - even for land based fighters, was a serious issue particularly in the Pacific.

The British also seemed to think this was a issue in the North Atlantic too,

Anyway, this is all a reason why I've been saying - keep the Fulmar, just also develop a smaller single seat fighter.

The British have a few problems in the 1930s.
They had single seat fighters , with crappy radios (everybody did) in the early/mid 30s, those Nimrods and Fireflies, but they had short range/little endurance and could not get as far away from the carriers. In peace time you take less chances than in war time= don't fly in bad weather. And the radio beacon didn't exist in the early 30s.
The Skua may have been the first "fighter" with the homing system, welcome correction on this
British may have used two fighter system as suggested, "Leaders" and the actual combat element.

Problem here is the size of the British carriers.
Until you get to the Implacable class the British only had ONE carrier that was planned to have more than 48 planes, The Ark Royal.
For the US, no carrier after the Langley, was planned for less than 63 aircraft. Even the Ranger and Wasp were supposed to carry 76.
We may or may not be counting spares here?
However the British could not afford to carry very many 'special' aircraft, without cutting into their limited air group.
Planning and reality were often different things and many times the British didn't even have full compliments of aircraft.
4 aircraft seems to be about the minimum for specialty aircraft if you want 1-2 available at all times for several days/weeks at a time due to maintenance and even accidental loss.

I am not saying if the Leader/pathfinder idea is good or bad, just pointing out possible impact on numbers of of "combat" aircraft deployed.
The US did, at times, use SBDs or TBDs as leaders if they sending out a large fighter formation that was not escorting a strike group.

The RN was ill served by the Air Ministry for much of the 1930s and WW II.
They were handing out Hurricanes to just about any country can came, hat in hand, to ask for a handful. (exaggeration)
But countries that were at least asking for them were South Africa, Canada, Poland, Yugoslavia, Belgium, Finland, Romania, Persia and Turkey,
This does not include countries that got them from 1941 and on.
But no attempt to even investigate the Hurricane as even, yet again, other interim carrier fighter, while handing out a contract for 136 Blackburn Rocs, which was sub-contracted to Boulton Paul.
At some point in early 1940 it should have been fairly obvious that the Firebrand was at least a year and half from even flying (really turned out close to 2 years) let alone go into service even if things went well. The Interim Gladiators were pretty much hopeless in 1940 something needed to done to help the Fulmars, just trickling into production.
Britain does have the order for the Buffalo in place, but there is some dispute even when ordering them about how useful they would be and they were ordered as land planes in any case. Britain does not inherited Grumman fighters from France until after France surrenders. Paper work completed at the end of July, And they have to make it across the Atlantic.

Things are not looking good for the FAA.

 

[Shortround6]

That's why other navies used their torpedo bombers for this role and pathfinder. The twin seat, monoplane, retractable undercarriage aircraft for distant scout work should have been the TSR, not the fighter.

It pretty much was a TSR, the fighter roll was somewhat secondary.

It was agreed that Fleet Air Arm Fighters were required for the following duties:–
(1) To destroy enemy shadowers.
(2) To intercept enemy striking forces.
(3) To destroy enemy spotters and to protect our own.
(4) To escort our own striking forces to their objectives.

The idea was that most of the time this was to be done outside the range/influence of land based air?
I have no idea what they thought the range of Italian aircraft were at the time

And in the mid 30s you had a school in the RN that thought that the carriers should just button up their aircraft below their armored decks and let the guns shoot down the enemy planes. No actual "fighters" needed. So item #2 on the list can be discounted.

Edit, Just went through an old thread.
British mid 30s assumption that against Italy Malta would fall, problem fighting the Italian air force SOLVED.
France would not fall, German land based air would be confined to the North Sea.

Kind of leaves Japan hanging out there but in the 1930s any Englishman can take out a Japanese aircraft using a Webley Revolver and a large kite.