Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Armoured Aircraft CarriersSpeed
In a clean configuration, the Firefly was rated as achieving 284mph at sea level, 273mph at 3500ft, and 319mph at 17,000ft
Quick sketch on speeds.
Fulmar I - Fulmar II - Sea Hurricane I - A6M2
View attachment 531197
Fulmars are from the A&AEE, Sea Hurricane is from official data points from somewhere ... MAP I believe. A6M2 is from http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/japan/intelsum85-dec42.pdf
Thanks for the clarification!
Thanks for the clarification!
If we were to compare it to the F4F-4 Wildcat and the Seafire (mid '42 to early 1943) how would they compare on your graph?
Are Parsifal's numbers in this post correct?
Fulmar II versus F4F-4 under 10,000 ft.
Also, does your graph in these threads represent Seafire or only the land Spitfire?
Fulmar II versus F4F-4 under 10,000 ft.
P-39 vs P-40
Previous graphs are for Spitfires not Seafires. Though nowadays I think the Spit V Merlin 46 figures I was using were off -- and it should be about 10mph slower.
Orange lines are different figures for Firefly I
Thick red line is my rough +16 boost estimate on the Seafire IIc (Merlin 46) test RCAFson linked
Thin red line is a rough trace of the Seafire IIc (Merlin 32) graph posted
Thick black line is the Seafire III (Merlin 55)
Thin black line is my estimate on a BPF Seafire III (ejector exhausts, no snow guard)
Reading through the Armoured A/C website, it lists the Firefly as especially optimized for low level performance.
But it has a higher Sea Level speed than at 3,500 feet?
Is that possible?
Where did you get the data for the Firefly?
???It is very much possible, since the Firefly was not optimized (whether 'especially' or not) for performance at any altitude.
???
Well let's see, it is faster at low altitude and turns quicker than an A6M or an F4F-4, so I'd be pretty pleased with that performance.
Of course if the Japanese torpedo bombers could drop their fish from 12,000+ feet then the Firefly would be at a disadvantage...
Is the A&AEE test linked online somewhere?A&AEE test (thick line) and MAP data sheet (curve of former placed on the two max speed points given)
I would opine that the performance for the firefly was quite good for a two-seat dayfighter. The problem isn't the performance. The problem is that two-seat dayfighters are a bit mad in the time and role the firefly occupied. I think the conversation will always end up there. The problem is intrinsically the concept and not the execution. Execution could have been quicker off the line certainly, but the aircraft itself was quite good in a lot of ways.It might be as well that it was just a bit faster than F4F-4. Being a 2 year later aircraft, that is not something that we should applaud immediately. Compared with FM-2, that entered service a few moths later than Firelfy, the later was slower. It was also slower than A6M5, the model of same vintage, and barely faster than Zeros of 1942.
Once we take a look at other Allied carrier-borne fighters in service by winter of 1943-44, Firefly has a performance disadvantage vs. Sea Hurricane, Seafire, F6F, F4U. At any altitude.
Why would anyone go into a turning fight if it does not have to do it?
Japanese dive bombers by winter of 1943/44 were faster than Firefly. So were the land-based 2-engined bombers.
I would opine that the performance for the firefly was quite good for a two-seat dayfighter. The problem isn't the performance. The problem is that two-seat dayfighters are a bit mad in the time and role the firefly occupied.
I think the conversation will always end up there. The problem is intrinsically the concept and not the execution. Execution could have been quicker off the line certainly, but the aircraft itself was quite good in a lot of ways.
I would opine that the performance for the firefly was quite good for a two-seat dayfighter. The problem isn't the performance. The problem is that two-seat dayfighters are a bit mad in the time and role the firefly occupied. I think the conversation will always end up there. The problem is intrinsically the concept and not the execution. Execution could have been quicker off the line certainly, but the aircraft itself was quite good in a lot of ways.
This is what I see: