Fulmar II versus F4F-4 under 10,000 ft.

[Greyman]

It's hard to find performance curves for the Ju-88

For sure. But I do have a brief trial done by the British:

Main Curve
Ju 88 A-6, 19 870 lb, 1.35 ata, gills closed, 2400 rpm (no external bombs, bomb racks removed, inner wing tanks half full)

Partial Curve
Ju 88 A-6, 24 350 lb, 1.35 ata, gills closed, 2400 rpm (external bombs fitted, inner wing tanks full)

The A-6 in the tests had all of the balloon fenders removed, so they're essentially A-5s.

Jumo 211Gs fitted

 

[renrich]

The Firefly would have decimated the IJN in 1942? I have now heard it all. With a Vmax of 300 mph? Where are the smelling salts?

Remarks from 1944 Fighter Conference;
"Do not see a spot for it in Pacific or elsewhere." " Japs could out fight it and Firefly could not run away."
"Do not consider it adaptable as a night fighter."
"Very similar in all respects to the Fairey Battle although many improvements add to it's suitablity."
"Performance believed too low for modern warfare." "Too slow and clumsy"
"Would make a fair dive bomber if fitted with dive brakes."
"Vision aft is not good enough, performance not good enough. Too much changing of lateral and directional trim required."

Oh well, maybe it could be used to tow targets.

 

[RCAFson]

For sure. But I do have a brief trial done by the British:

Main Curve
Ju 88 A-6, 19 870 lb, 1.35 ata, gills closed, 2400 rpm (no external bombs, bomb racks removed, inner wing tanks half full)

Partial Curve
Ju 88 A-6, 24 350 lb, 1.35 ata, gills closed, 2400 rpm (external bombs fitted, inner wing tanks full)

The A-6 in the tests had all of the balloon fenders removed, so they're essentially A-5s.

Jumo 211Gs fitted

Thanks, so it seems that a loaded Ju-88 would be in some trouble at low altitude versus the Fulmar II, but with bombs gone it might escape at SL or over 8000ft.

 

[RCAFson]

The Firefly would have decimated the IJN in 1942? I have now heard it all. With a Vmax of 300 mph? Where are the smelling salts?

The Vmax is 315mph, as I posted earlier. But compare the Firefly I to the F4F-4. It is probably faster, climbs better, dives better, can outturn a Zero and has a 4 x 20mm cannon armament and better range. The Griffon IIb produced 1720hp at low altitude. If the F4F-4 could hold its own against a Zero the Firefly would do considerably better.

 

[renrich]

A RN Commander says the Vmax is 300 MPH at the fighter conference. Apparently you either did not read the comments or don't believe them. The F4F4 had a Vmax of 320 mph and a service ceiling of 37500 where as the Firefly could only get to 28000 feet. Turning is no way to win a fight and there is more to maneuverabilty than turning. Besides that the IJN pilots in the A6M did not use dogfighting tactics. They used what you might call boom and zoom tactics. They would get in a high astern position and make a gunnery run. With the poor visibility astern in the Firefly or Fulmar, they would have a tough time avoiding. The A6M would then use the speed gained in the diving attack to zoom and then get to another firing position. The A6M would be faster than either the Firefly, Fulmar or F4F4. The Fulmar and Firefly with either eight 303s or four 20 mms would have plenty of fire power against a Japanese fighter but they would have a hard time getting there guns to bear. Most of the advantage would be with the A6M. Just as Eric Brown says; " In Fulmar versus Zeke 22, this would be a totally one sided combat, the initiative always lying with the Zeke and the outcome a foregone conclusion." The Firefly was too clumsy and slow to fight and too slow to run away.

 

[slaterat]

I have to agree with Renrich on this one. To me the Firefly reflected the sheer stubbornness of the FAA to give up on the two seat fighter concept. The Firefly is a waste of a good Griffon engine. The Sea Hurricane, which is the equivalent of an F4F-3/4, was brought to the table because the Fulmar wasn't up to snuff when facing land based fighters.

Slaterat

 

[RCAFson]

A RN Commander says the Vmax is 300 MPH at the fighter conference. Apparently you either did not read the comments or don't believe them. The F4F4 had a Vmax of 320 mph and a service ceiling of 37500 where as the Firefly could only get to 28000 feet. Turning is no way to win a fight and there is more to maneuverabilty than turning. Besides that the IJN pilots in the A6M did not use dogfighting tactics. They used what you might call boom and zoom tactics. They would get in a high astern position and make a gunnery run. With the poor visibility astern in the Firefly or Fulmar, they would have a tough time avoiding. The A6M would then use the speed gained in the diving attack to zoom and then get to another firing position. The A6M would be faster than either the Firefly, Fulmar or F4F4. The Fulmar and Firefly with either eight 303s or four 20 mms would have plenty of fire power against a Japanese fighter but they would have a hard time getting there guns to bear. Most of the advantage would be with the A6M. Just as Eric Brown says; " In Fulmar versus Zeke 22, this would be a totally one sided combat, the initiative always lying with the Zeke and the outcome a foregone conclusion." The Firefly was too clumsy and slow to fight and too slow to run away.

According to Mason and The Secret years:
RAE Flight tests of the F4F-4 (R1830-86) @ 7350lb = 298mph @ 14600ft, 14.6min to 20000 ft, max climb rate = 1580fpm @ 6200 ft, 30100ft ceiling.
The Firefly I @ 11830lbs had a max speed of 315 mph at 16800 ft, a max climb of 2140 fpm at 3800ft, and could climb to 20000ft in 12.4 min, 30100 ceiling. It seem likely that combat climb figures would be somewhat better and I would estimate about 2450fpm and 10 min to 20000ft.
Brown gives his assessment of the Firefly on pages 158-160 of Duels in the sky, and it is quite favourable. He states 317mph at 17000ft with a 2000fpm climb rate and he repeatedly praises the manoeuvrability, he also states that any aircraft that got into a turning fight with the Firefly would soon end up on the wrong end of its 4 x 20mm cannon.

I'm not sure how you can claim that a two seat fighter has poorer rear visibility than a single seat fighter.

Brown says this about the F4F-4 versus the Zeke 22, after acknowledging the completely superior performance of the Zeke: "In single combat the Wildcat was outclassed by the Zeke but could handle it by assiduously avoiding dogfights and sticking to tactical two-plane formations." But of course the Fulmar could have done the same, and if a Fulmar could out turn a CR-42 it should be able to out turn the Zeke.

The F4F-4 did not achieve a Vmax of 320 mph in any actual test of an aircraft, that I have seen, and its service ceiling was far below 37500ft. If we use a 200fpm climb rate as the ceiling, the service ceiling of two actual aircraft was about 33000ft here:
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4f/f4f-4-4058-performance.jpg at 7370lb
and about 32000ft here:
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4f/f4f-4-4058-performance.jpg
at 7970lb and military power. The effective ceiling (500fpm) was about 30000 and 26000ft, respectively.

 

[fastmongrel]

The F4F4 had a Vmax of 320 mph and a service ceiling of 37500

Even that fountain of impeccable truth wikipedia only claims a ceiling of 34,000 feet for the F4F-4. Maybe a stripped and prepped recon version could get up that high but no way would a normal carrier squadron version.

I am not in any way denigrating the guys who flew at the pointy end in WWII but I wouldnt believe what a fighter pilot told me about his aircraft performance unless it was backed up by a professional and strictly neutral test pilot meaning any figures from the company brochure also need to be viewed with caution. Pilot claims about performance are like fishermans stories My plane goes this fast (holds arms wide open) his plane only goes this fast (holds up thumb and forefinger)

 

[renrich]

I stand corrected. On the Williams site, the F4F4 tests show a service ceiling of only 35000 feet. The Vmax of all the tests are around 319 and 318 mph. Individual aircraft are going to have different results. Two identically loaded F4F4s had a critical altitude difference of around 1000 feet. The Firefly had a service ceiling of 28000 feet, some 7000 feet less than the F4F4. Obviously the Fulmar and the Firefly, if deployed against the IJN would have to adopt the same tactics as the US pilots did with the Wildcat. From memory I can only recall one occasion when Fulmars fought Zekes. That was in the Indian Ocean? If they did I seem to remember they had little success.

As far as turning goes the FM2 was ranked the best of all late war US fighters in turning without flaps. So what? No one would claim that the FM2 in 1944 was the best US fighter. Turning does not win fights. USN and Marine pilots were told to never get into a turning fight with a Zeke in any plane. Just because a Firefly with those monster flaps could "outturn" some Italian airplane does not prove anything. The FM2 in turning without flaps was ranked best of all US fighters. The F4U1D was ranked worst(8th) Guess which one, with equal pilot skill is most likely to win in ACM.

I am not claiming anything about visibility in the Firefly. I am reporting what the pilots said who flew the Firefly at the fighter meet . Many of those pilots were combat experienced.

As far as the 4-20mm cannon are concerned, the SB2C had a VMax of 294 mph @ 16700 feet, a service ceiling of 29300 feet, carried a crew of two, had two forward firing 20 mm cannon AND a 50 cal in the rear cockpit. Reportedly, if flown aggressively it was equal or better than a P47 in a dogfight, ( a turning fight) The SB2C ( Look it up) was remarkedly similar in size and configuration and performance to the Firefly and it had a higher loss rate than the elderly SBD. By no stretch of the imagination was the SB2C or Firefly going to have an equal chance with a Zeke in ACM.

 

[parsifal]

Firefly was an extension of the two seat multi role aircraft that had led to the Fulmar. It was conceived and developed in the late '30s, with amuch wider mission capability than the Fulmar.

Tactical trials were carried out by the Naval Air Fighting Development Unit, at RAF Wittering, late in 1943. These revealed that the Firefly would not be a great daytime naval interceptor in the same way as the Seafire could. its speed and rate of climb were in the same class as the Martlets, and this was just too slow to react to fast moving strike aircraft. However its high dive speed and manouverability suggested it had considerable potential as an offensive strike fighter. With a range of 1300nm it had excellent range and endurance. It carried a very heavy fixed armamanert, and could carry nearly 2000lb bombload with maximum fuel. The patented Fairey Youngman flaps meant that it could opt for high speed as a fighters, controlled dives with a divespeed of less than 200mph. Though not designed as a divebomber, it turned out to be the most effective divebomber the RN produced during the war. Replacing the youngman Flaps was a totally unneccessary requirement, these flaps could and were used very effectively as dive brakes when so needed. There was nothing quite comparable in the US inventory to these pieces of equipment, and they are a big part of the key to understanding why the Firefly was a remarkable multi role aircraft. It could undertake attacks at angles of up to 80 degrees, but the flaps that it caried meant it could do so very controllably. Further trials undertaken in 1943 suggested ordinance delivery within 50 feet of the aiming point for well over 70% of attacks. By any stretch that is accurate bombing. Its great weight meant that it could fly with a high degree of stability, which explains why postwar it was adopted as the RNs and CW chief ASW aircraft afloat.

In 1945, a number of aircraft were taken in hand for conversion to a NF configuration. Again the conversion was completely successful, so i am at a loss as to why it would be described as unsuccessful or unsuitable for this role. They remained the RNs chief night fighter asircraft until 1954 as i understand it. Guess the RN was happy to keep flying them in a role they were allegedly unsuited to.... The capacious cockpit allowed a proper outfit for the detection gear, 42 were so converted, and provided vital interception capabilitiies over the North Sea in 1945, where I believe a number of German intruders were intercepted and shot down, along with some scores of V-1 bombs. Not bad for an aircraft that is now being alleged as a failure as a fighter, indeed, as an aircraft.

The first front line squadron to receive the Firefly was No.1770 Squadron at RNAS Yeovilton, which received its first aircraft on 27 September 1943; it's second on 5 October and built up to a strength of sixteen aircraft and fourteen crews over the next two months. The squadron deployed to HMS Indefatigable for its combat debut, taking part in the 17 July 1944 attack on the Tirpitz. The main attack was to be made by a force of Fairey Barracudas, supported by Fireflies, Hellcats, Corsairs and Seafires. The Fireflies opened the entire attack, diving in to attack anti-aircraft guns around the Tirpitz, but the overall attack was foiled by German smoke.

No.1770 Squadron began a second tour off Norway on 7 August, using its Fireflies to fighter escorts and minelayers: they were also tasked for hazardous flak suppression. Evidently they didnt get the memo they were flying a failure, bwecause the crews were enthusiastic about the types performance... The squadron returned to the Tirpitz on 22 August, taking part in two attacks, again on 24 August and a fourth time of 29 August. The Tirpitz was hit, but survived these attacks, eventually being sunk by RAF 12,000lb Tallboy bombs on 12 November 1944.

No.1770 Squadron's last mission off Norway came on 19 September 1944. The Indefatigable then departed for the Pacific, and her role off Norway was taken on by No.1771 Squadron and HMS Implacable. No.1771 Squadron's first mission came on 18 October and was a reconnaissance flight that discovered the Tirpitz off Haakoy Island. This first tour ended on 7 November and was followed by a second tour, which started on 22 November, and by a third (5-9 December). The squadron then spent three months on shore before going to join the Pacific Fleet.

No.1770 Squadron was the first Firefly squadron to reach the Far East, arriving in Ceylon in December, and rejoined the Indefatigable on 24 December. Once there she joined the fleet carriers Victorious and Indomitable for the attacks on oil refineries on Sumatra on 4 January 1945, where the Fireflies were used to attack anti-aircraft batteries, although they also claimed two Ki-42 Hayabusas, not a bad effort for a proven failure as a fighter......guess they didnt get the memo either. The Illustrious then joined the fleet, and all four carriers took part in a series of attacks on south-east Sumatra, beginning with an attack on Palembang on 24 January 1945. This saw the fighter escort of Corsairs and Hellcats become separated from the strike force, forcing the Fireflies to act as fighters in a dogfight with Ki-43 Hayabusas (Oscar) and Ki-44 Shokis (Tojo). More successes as a fighter came during the 29 January attack on Soengi Gerong, when one Ki-44 and one Ki-43 were claimed. In the attacks against Palembang, the FAA demonstrated a high degre of accuracy, with the Fireflies demonstrating their adaptability and effectiveness in both the fighter and the divebomber role in spades.

In mid-March 1945 the British Pacific Fleet joined the American 5th Fleet as Task Force 57. The British carriers were used to attack the Sakashima Gunto islands to prevent the Japanese from using their airfields to ferry aircraft to Okinawa. The Fireflies were again selected for the most hazardous part of the mission, that of flak suppression. Why would they be selected for the hardest mission if they were not considered a successful type??????? Meanwhile other aircraft attacked the airfields. These attacks began on 26 March and ran through to 7 April.

On 18 March No.1772 Squadron reached Australia with its Fireflies. These would be used to reinforce the existing squadron, with one flight joining No.1770 on the Indefatigable, arriving in time to take part in an attack on Kiirun harbour on Formosa on 12 April. The fleet then returned to the Sakashima Gunto islands, carrying out raids between 16 April and 25 May, before returning to Australia for replenishment.

This also saw No.1770 Squadron's war come to an end. It was replaced by No.1771 Squadron and a section from No.1772 Squadron, both on HMS Implacable. Their first mission was a rocket attack on Truk in the Carolines on 14 June. The British Pacific Fleet then moved to the American base at Manus, where it joined the US 3rd Fleet as Task Force 37, to take part in the final attacks on the Japanese homeland. These began on 17 July with a series of rocket attacks on Japanese airfields, and continued on to 15 August, when six Avengers, eight Seafires and four Fireflies attacked Kizarazu airfield in the last British combat sortie of the Second World War.

After the end of the fighting the Fireflies were used to locate POW camps and to drop supplies, but by mid-September they were all back in Australia. The three Firefly squadrons were soon disbanded - No.1770 on 30 September, No. 1771 on 16 October and No.1772 on 10 March 1946 on its return to Britain.

The Fireflies continued in RN Canadian, Dutch and quite a few others service until 1954, in Australia they were not retired until 1957. Again, begs the question if they were so unsuccessful as a type, why did they remain in frontline service with so many for so long.

 

[tomo pauk]

Don't think that anyone can dispute that Firefly was an useful combat plane, but, stating out the fact that it claimed one of the most obsolete slow planes in 1945 is hardly a proof of it's capability in fighter role. And this thread is about fighter vs. fighter, IIRC. Post-war Fireflies were all but fighters anyway, and FAA itself fielded other planes as fighters.

It would've been cool if someone has good data about Firefly I scoring hits on V-1.

 

[Readie]

[QUOTE
It would've been cool if someone has good data about Firefly I scoring hits on V-1.[/QUOTE]

Could the Firefly catch a buzzbomb?
Cheers
John

 

[parsifal]

It was from a single source, and I am doubtful myself. However, it is possible, since whilst ther maximum speed of the V-1 was over 400mph, launched at range it could travel as slow as 160 mph.

Perhaps more likley the missiles were lost before they could be launched. However the results of the north sea interceptions were mixed, the launch aircraft proving highly evasive, and most interceptions relying on guidance from the worlds first AEW aircraft, specially modified Wellingtons.

A minor correction, most sources quotye the top speed of the type as 315 or 316mph. In fact the Firefly could reach 319mph at a slightly higher altitude.

As an interceptor, the Firefly was too slow, but in most other roles it was either adequate (as an offensive fighter) or excellent (as a strike aircraft). This was because in fully loaded condition, there was not a large loss of performance.

 

[Greyman]

Firefly I Z1828 - 10,800 pounds
Griffon IIb engine
Rotol propeller
individual ejector exhausts
ice guards removed
Hispano cannons unfaired, muzzles sealed, ejection chutes unsealed
standard type arrestor hook
gun camera fitted
IFF and VHF aerials fitted
larger type tail wheel oleo housing bulge
radiator flap in closed position

+12.2 lb sq in boost, 2750 rpm ('MS' gear) - 304 mph at 3,600 feet
+11.8 lb sq in boost, 2750 rpm ('FS' gear) - 315 mph at 16,800 feet

A&AEE Report from Boscombe Down

I don't do the Biff's Big Book of WWII Aircraft thing anymore when looking for plane particulars.

 

[RCAFson]

Very interesting. Is that with the 5min rating of the Griffon engine? Any info on climb rate?

This would have been a deadly naval fighter for mid 1942.

 

[Greyman]

I assume it's the 5 minute combat limit setting. I don't know for sure but the Spitfire XII says +12 boost.
I have climb information but as usual in A&AEE trials, it's the one hour climbing limit (+9 boost, 2600 rpm) and not really a good indicator of what the Firefly could probably do in combat.

 

[parsifal]

I found a little quirk of history on the net today. An article that says the Fireflies of the ethiopian air force were only just recently retired from frontline service.

Has got to be the last WWII fighter in frontline service, surely.....a 68 year old fighter.....

 

[Readie]

It was from a single source, and I am doubtful myself. However, it is possible, since whilst ther maximum speed of the V-1 was over 400mph, launched at range it could travel as slow as 160 mph.

Perhaps more likley the missiles were lost before they could be launched. However the results of the north sea interceptions were mixed, the launch aircraft proving highly evasive, and most interceptions relying on guidance from the worlds first AEW aircraft, specially modified Wellingtons.

A minor correction, most sources quotye the top speed of the type as 315 or 316mph. In fact the Firefly could reach 319mph at a slightly higher altitude.

As an interceptor, the Firefly was too slow, but in most other roles it was either adequate (as an offensive fighter) or excellent (as a strike aircraft). This was because in fully loaded condition, there was not a large loss of performance.

Maybe if we had reached the stage of quiet desperation where anything that could reasonably catch a V1 would be ordered to attack we would have used the Firefly. Thankfully that was not the case so, we'll never know.
Cheers
John

 

[Readie]

I found a little quirk of history on the net today. An article that says the Fireflies of the ethiopian air force were only just recently retired from frontline service.

Has got to be the last WWII fighter in frontline service, surely.....a 68 year old fighter.....

Ummm.. I caught with my trousers down over the RAF Liberators still flying in 1968. There were ex RAF flown by the Indian airforce.

Fireflies are a rare sight. So, if that article is true there may be some serviceable / re-storable planes available.

Cheers
John

 

[Glider]

I am not claiming anything about visibility in the Firefly. I am reporting what the pilots said who flew the Firefly at the fighter meet . Many of those pilots were combat experienced.

.

I have received the book on the fighter meet and its very interesting, but I admit some of the statements made me raise my eyebrows. If should be remembered that the other aircraft in the discussion were new and a lot of them had bubble cockpits so almost anything without a bubble would be considered second best. At least the Firefly had a second pair of eyes which must count for something. Also the Firefly they had was admitted to be well worn after nine months of intensive flying in the USA (this was mentioned in the part on the brakes).