Fulmar in 1941/42/43: feasible and/or plausible upgrades?

Aozora · Jun 25, 2013

RCAFson said:
In fact in a pre-radar scenario it is the twin seat fighter with long endurance, to mount standing patrols, and an extra pair of eyes that will have the best probability of visually spotting an approaching aircraft,

An aircraft does not have to be a two-seater to have good endurance; the fuel supply of the Firefly, for example, was no better than many single-seat fighters. The main contributor to longer endurance is how the engine performs at low revs with lean mixture, plus pilot training. Naturally an aircraft with a bigger fuel supply has greater endurance, but that endurance is reduced by having to haul around extra weight.

As for requiring two sets of eyes to visually spot an approaching aircraft? - maybe, but there's also the option of devising and using decent formations of single seat fighters, which can accelerate and climb more quickly and intercept the approaching aircraft faster than a couple of two-seaters. The FAA exacted a heavy price to pay for those extra eyes, particularly when the observer had no weapon with which to assist the pilot.
(NB: to get an idea of how the Griffon in the Firefly performed: Lean Mixture for Spitfire XII at 2,000 rpm and -4 lb boost = 42 gal/hour. P&W R-2800-10 of Corsair, Lean Mixture at 2,000 rpm, 22" Hg = 37 gal/hr.)

RCAFson said:
Again, the IJN had lots of SS fighters at Midway yet the SBD's made their drops undetected...leading to the slaughter of their non-armoured flight deck carriers. In April 1942 9 RAF Blenheims attacked the IJN CVs off Ceylon, and they were undetected until the bombs hit the water.

And how would two-seat fighters have improved matters in these circumstances? The reasons the SBDs got drop on the JNAF at Midway had a great deal more to do with the relatively small fighter cover that was set (the majority of the JNAF's fighters were engaged on escort duties) having to ward off several low-altitude torpedo attacks from different directions over a relatively compressed time period; as well as this the JNAF carriers were well out of their normal formation. What you are overlooking is the fact that the JNAF's single-seat fighter cover was in fact highly effective, and was able to totally destroy formations of TBDs, SB2Us and TBMs, as well as shooting down several B-26s and F4Fs. That was without radar...

RCAFson said:
It was the USN's use of radar that allowed the SS fighter to be truly viable.

This just shows an ignorance of how the USN, and Carriers in general operated. The USN set fighter cover in the form of standing patrols, regardless of the use of radar, simply because it was far easier to have fighters already in the air, ready to intercept, rather than waiting until radar spotted incoming aircraft. It was also highly inconvenient not to have standing patrols operating while a carrier or carrier group was launching its own attack aircraft.

RCAFson · Jun 25, 2013

Aozora said:
The following are your words, not mine:

As I pointed out, quite correctly, the P-51 carried much the same fuel load in a much smaller airframe: the required fuel load did not dictate the size of the Firefly, nor did the need to carry bombs because this "requirement" was not in the specifications! Sure, the Firefly was adapted to carry bombs but this did not dictate the size of the aircraft. The Typhoon was adapted to carry bombs but the dimensions stayed exactly the same as when it was used as a fighter.

So, to avoid any further misunderstanding or need to repeat myself The extra size and weight of the Firefly was dictated primarily by the need to carry an extra crewman making the Firefly bigger than it could have been had it been designed from the outset as a single seater. As a two seater it was an okay fighter - as a smaller, lighter single seater in 1942 it could have been exactly what the FAA needed in the Med.

Aircraft, Fuel load, nominal bomb load,weight (no bombs full fuel), TO HP, combat HP.
F6F-5, 250usg, 2000lb, 12500lb, 2000hp, 2135hp @ 15000ft
F4U-1C, 237usg, 2000lb, 12,095lb, 2000hp, 2135hp @ 15000ft
Firefly, 226usg, 2000lb, 11685lb, 1720hp, 1490hp @ 14000ft
P-51, 184usg, ?????, 9500lb, 1495hp, 1595hp @ 17000ft
XF8F, 150usg, ?????, 8810lb, 2100hp, 1600hp @ 1600lb (attempt to build lightweight naval fighter - not CV capable.)
F8F-2, 170usg, 2000lb, 10,337lb, 2250hp, 1800hp @ 23250ft (SAC data actual weight after mod for carrier capability - note the weight growth)
P-51D 270usg, 1000lb, 10,100lb, 1490hp, 1630hp @ 13600ft (Tac planning chart 26 May 1944)
(weight, HP and fuel data for first 5 from Report of the JFC). It is pretty obvious that the Firefly's performance is crippled not by the 2nd crew member but by the low HP rating of it's engine.

Why did the USN need to build such heavy SS fighters?

Seriously? Eric Brown said the Firefly could turn with its contemporary single-seaters with the FY flaps deployed - where does anyone say it could out-turn the Zero and where is the evidence?

Toward the end of 1943, Firefly F.1 Z1883 was sent to the Naval Air Fighting Development Unit, then based at RAF Wittering, for tactical trials. These revealed that, although the Firefly F. I had good handling characteristics, it would be more suited for long-range close-escort duties and/or as a naval night fighter, rather than as a straight day combat fighter. The trials also showed that in mock combat with contemporary single seat fighters, the Firefly's turning circle was outstanding when the pilot lowered the flaps to the mid-position. In fact, Firefly F.1 Z1908 was sent to the US for such trials at a Joint Fighter Conference, where it was flown against various British and American fighters, including a captured Japanese Mitsubishi A6M2 Type O 'Zero.' When its flaps were lowered to the mid-position the Firefly conld out turn the Zero.
Fairey Firefly in Action, page 5.

Yes, seriously. The F-Y flaps gave the Firefly a distinct advantage in a turning fight.

RCAFson · Jun 25, 2013

wuzak said:
Didn't the RN have radar before the war?

And the IJN never did?

The RN had a few experimental sets at Sea from 1936 (Type 79):
Type 79 radar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The IJN CVs had AW radar in late 1942 but it was probably not very reliable.

Aozora · Jun 25, 2013

RCAFson said:
Aircraft, Fuel load, nominal bomb load,weight (no bombs full fuel), TO HP, combat HP.
F6F-5, 250usg, 2000lb, 12500lb, 2000hp, 2135hp @ 15000ft
F4U-1C, 237usg, 2000lb, 12,095lb, 2000hp, 2135hp @ 15000ft
Firefly, 226usg, 2000lb, 11685lb, 1720hp, 1490hp @ 14000ft
P-51, 184usg, ?????, 9500lb, 1495hp, 1595hp @ 17000ft
XF8F, 150usg, ?????, 8810lb, 2100hp, 1600hp @ 1600lb (attempt to build lightweight naval fighter - not CV capable.)
F8F-2, 170usg, 2000lb, 10,337lb, 2250hp, 1800hp @ 23250ft (SAC data actual weight after mod for carrier capability - note the weight growth)
P-51D 270usg, 1000lb, 10,100lb, 1490hp, 1630hp @ 13600ft (Tac planning chart 26 May 1944)
(weight, HP and fuel data for first 5 from Report of the JFC). It is pretty obvious that the Firefly's performance is crippled not by the 2nd crew member but by the low HP rating of it's engine.

You have just proved the Firefly did not have to be a two-seater to carry a good fuel load. Plus you have overlooked all of my main points, once again, so I will not bother to repeat myself.

RCAFson · Jun 25, 2013

Aozora said:
An aircraft does not have to be a two-seater to have good endurance; the fuel supply of the Firefly, for example, was no better than many single-seat fighters. The main contributor to longer endurance is how the engine performs at low revs with lean mixture, plus pilot training. Naturally an aircraft with a bigger fuel supply has greater endurance, but that endurance is reduced by having to haul around extra weight.

As for requiring two sets of eyes to visually spot an approaching aircraft? - maybe, but there's also the option of devising and using decent formations of single seat fighters, which can accelerate and climb more quickly and intercept the approaching aircraft faster than a couple of two-seaters. The FAA exacted a heavy price to pay for those extra eyes, particularly when the observer had no weapon with which to assist the pilot.
(NB: to get an idea of how the Griffon in the Firefly performed: Lean Mixture for Spitfire XII at 2,000 rpm and -4 lb boost = 42 gal/hour. P&W R-2800-10 of Corsair, Lean Mixture at 2,000 rpm, 22" Hg = 37 gal/hr.)

The extra pair of eyes was there for a reason, namely a higher probability of sighting the enemy.

The F-Y flaps gave the Firefly more lift for a enhanced low speed cruise and in all probability it's Griffon could operate at lower RPM for enhanced fuel economy.

And how would two-seat fighters have improved matters in these circumstances? The reasons the SBDs got drop on the JNAF at Midway had a great deal more to do with the relatively small fighter cover that was set (the majority of the JNAF's fighters were engaged on escort duties) having to ward off several low-altitude torpedo attacks from different directions over a relatively compressed time period; as well as this the JNAF carriers were well out of their normal formation. What you are overlooking is the fact that the JNAF's single-seat fighter cover was in fact highly effective, and was able to totally destroy formations of TBDs, SB2Us and TBMs, as well as shooting down several B-26s and F4Fs. That was without radar...

Simple, there would be a lot more Mk 1 eyeballs looking for the dreaded SBDs and shooting down the low and slow USN TBs doesn't justify losing 4 CVs, does it? You still haven't explained how the Blenheims got through the IJN CAP.

This just shows an ignorance of how the USN, and Carriers in general operated. The USN set fighter cover in the form of standing patrols, regardless of the use of radar, simply because it was far easier to have fighters already in the air, ready to intercept, rather than waiting until radar spotted incoming aircraft. It was also highly inconvenient not to have standing patrols operating while a carrier or carrier group was launching its own attack aircraft.

Why would USN fighter pilots have more luck with the Mk 1 eyeball than their IJN counterparts? Simple fact is that the USN relied on radar GCI for every carrier battle that they ever fought, starting with Coral Sea.

wuzak · Jun 25, 2013

RCAFson said:
The F-Y flaps gave the Firefly more lift for a enhanced low speed cruise and in all probability it's Griffon could operate at lower RPM for enhanced fuel economy.

Flaps deployed = more drag.

Aozora · Jun 25, 2013

RCAFson said:
Simple, there would be a lot more Mk 1 eyeballs looking for the dreaded SBDs and shooting down the low and slow USN TBs doesn't justify losing 4 CVs, does it?

Okay, all you have to do is provide evidence that a two-seat fighter CAP would have spotted and stopped the SBDs in time while the A6Ms couldn't. Should be easy enough with this type of reasoning.

RCAFson · Jun 25, 2013

Aozora said:
Okay, all you have to do is provide evidence that a two-seat fighter CAP would have spotted and stopped the SBDs in time while the A6Ms couldn't. Should be easy enough with this type of reasoning.

No I don't. It is self evident that having a dedicated observer would improve the chances of detection, and that's all anyone can say. The RN thought the odds of stopping an attack via air defence, pre-radar, was very low (and it was) and so they devoted a lot of resources to improving their AA defenses and they designed AFD carriers. Luckily the IJN didn't follow the RN lead inn these areas.

RCAFson · Jun 25, 2013

wuzak said:
Flaps deployed = more drag.

Drag is minimized when the flap is in the cruising position. The F-Y flap was a kind of variable incidence wing and it increased wing area and lift in the cruise position by keeping the leading edge of the flap parallel with the wing leading edge, so the aircraft could maintain altitude with less power.

RCAFson · Jun 25, 2013

Aozora said:
You have just proved the Firefly did not have to be a two-seater to carry a good fuel load. Plus you have overlooked all of my main points, once again, so I will not bother to repeat myself.

What I have showed is that naval fighters inevitably weigh more than their land based counterparts and that the Firefly is in the middle of the range, weight wise. Even the P-51, by the time it is carrier ready, would have ended up with almost the same weight as a Firefly and it would have a lower bomb load and probably would need an accelerator to TO from a CV due to it's small wing area. The F8F-2 could reduce weight by using a very powerful engine to generate lots of thrust for CV TO, but even this extreme example of a fighter designed to the lowest possible weight would have weighed about 10,600lb when carring a 230usg fuel load.

wuzak · Jun 25, 2013

RCAFson said:
Drag is minimized when the flap is in the cruising position. The F-Y flap was a kind of variable incidence wing and it increased wing area and lift in the cruise position by keeping the leading edge of the flap parallel with the wing leading edge, so the aircraft could maintain altitude with less power.

Drag is less than when the flap is deployed - but is it any better than a conventional wing? Doubtful.

btw, is this the flap in its "cruising" position?

Juha · Jun 25, 2013

RCAFson said:
The extra pair of eyes was there for a reason, namely a higher probability of sighting the enemy.

The F-Y flaps gave the Firefly more lift for a enhanced low speed cruise and in all probability it's Griffon could operate at lower RPM for enhanced fuel economy.

Simple, there would be a lot more Mk 1 eyeballs looking for the dreaded SBDs and shooting down the low and slow USN TBs doesn't justify losing 4 CVs, does it? You still haven't explained how the Blenheims got through the IJN CAP.

Why would USN fighter pilots have more luck with the Mk 1 eyeball than their IJN counterparts? Simple fact is that the USN relied on radar GCI for every carrier battle that they ever fought, starting with Coral Sea.

My God, and what happened to HMS Illustrious on 10 Jan 41, CAP chasing TBs at low level when Ju 87s suddenly arrived above their carrier? How that could happened with observers aboard Fulmars? And the just launched Fulmars had no chance to achieve interception because burdened with their observers they had poor roc.

RCAFson · Jun 25, 2013

wuzak said:
Drag is less than when the flap is deployed - but is it any better than a conventional wing? Doubtful.

btw, is this the flap in its "cruising" position?

Here's a research article on the F-Y flaps, as installed on a P.4/34:

A Fairey P.4/34 was fitted with Youngman flaps by Messrs. Fairey Aviation
Ltd. These flaps are of the external aerofoil type, and by an ingenious link system can be used
in two positions, one giving medium lift and low drag for take-off, the other higher lift and high
drag for landing. When not in use the flaps are housed in the wing.
http://naca.central.cranfield.ac.uk/reports/arc/rm/2547.pdf

Click to expand...

On the Firefly tha flaps could be set to four positions: retracted fully, extended for maximum lift and low drag, extended for minimum turning radius and finally for maximum lift and drag for landing.

RCAFson · Jun 25, 2013

Juha said:
My God, and what happened to HMS Illustrious on 10 Jan 41, CAP chasing TBs at low level when Ju 87s suddenly arrived above their carrier? How that could happened with observers aboard Fulmars? And the just launched Fulmars had no chance to achieve interception because burdened with their observers they had poor roc.

Illustrious was badly damaged but saved by her AFD, so this is an example of the RN's insistence on passive defence paying off. $hit happens - thank god for AFDs! Also, the Luftwaffe threw almost as many DBs, armed with 1100lb bombs against Illustrious, as the USN flew against 4 carriers at Midway. Apparently the Fulmars were able to break up the last part of the first attack and probably prevented more hits and they intervened again (now based in Malta) during a 2nd attack by 15 Stukas, escorted by 5 Me-110s several hours later, and this along with a concentrated AA screen keep the Stukas to only one 1100 lb bomb hit.

It is also an example of how even radar GCI could still fail as the detection ability was still inadequate at that time (aircraft were not detected soon enough but this is still a bit of mystery to me) and However as we've seen the Martlet ( the only other Allied folding wing fighter but not yet available) had a climb rate little better than the Fulmar (and probably worse using military/combat power), and as I stated earlier the design of Illustrious' lifts prevented her from operating fixed wing fighters and there's no way that folding wing Seafires could have been ready by then. Probably the only way the attack could have been thwarted was by having a standing patrol that had the good fortune to sight the attack and/or by the GCI guessing that the carrier was the primary target.

FAA air defence and fleet AA defence was also hampered due to the fact that the Luftwaffe and RA had multiple targets (the nearby Malta bound convoy) which were strategically more important than the carrier, and so the RN AA escort for Illustrious was very minimal. In the Pacific, the carriers were the always the central target and the fleet was arraigned around them and not a bunch of 15 knot merchantmen.

Juha · Jun 25, 2013

RCAFson said:
...FAA air defence and fleet AA defence was also hampered due to the fact that the Luftwaffe and RA had multiple targets (the nearby Malta bound convoy) which were strategically more important than the carrier, and so the RN AA escort for Illustrious was very minimal. In the Pacific, the carriers were the always the central target and the fleet was arraigned around them and not a bunch of 15 knot merchantmen.

My God, minimal AA defence! 2 reconstructed BBs, of which Valiant had the best AA RN had (with Renown and QE) 2 Tribals (Your wonder AA defence DDs, can't you remember) one J (another wonder DD) and 3 older DDs. Saying nothing onIllustrious own AA, 16 x 4.5" + 48 x 2pdr.

Juha

Aozora · Jun 25, 2013

RCAFson said:
Simple, there would be a lot more Mk 1 eyeballs looking for the dreaded SBDs and shooting down the low and slow USN TBs doesn't justify losing 4 CVs, does it?

You have made an assertion to the effect that because the JNAF did not use two seat fighters for the CAP it lost four carriers. There were plenty of mk 1 eyeballs on board the ships that were on the lookout. Please explain exactly how the Japanese would have been able to foil the SBDs because they were using two-seaters for their cap rather than single seaters.

RCAFson said:
No I don't. It is self evident that having a dedicated observer would improve the chances of detection, and that's all anyone can say.

If you want to make an assertion be prepared to prove it. It is also self evident that the Japanese should have had radar and should have used F4 Phantoms to protect the fleet, but they had neither of them, nor did they do the British thing and use two-seat fighters - but then, as you've pointed out s***t happens in wartime, and not even two seaters with four Mk 1 eyeballs can guarantee total protection.

wuzak · Jun 25, 2013

RCAFson said:
and as I stated earlier the design of Illustrious' lifts prevented her from operating fixed wing fighters and there's no way that folding wing Seafires could have been ready by then.

That all kinda depends on when they started.

btw, how big were the lifts?

RCAFson · Jun 25, 2013

Juha said:
My God, minimal AA defence! 2 reconstructed BBs, of which Valiant had the best AA RN had (with Renown and QE) 2 Tribals (Your wonder AA defence DDs, can't you remember) one J (another wonder DD) and 3 older DDs. Saying nothing onIllustrious own AA, 16 x 4.5" + 48 x 2pdr.

Juha

The Luftwaffe attacked both battleships to split their fire (both received minor damage) and the RN force around the carrier was reduced to only the two BBs, WARSPITE, VALIANT, ILLUSTRIOUS, and destroyers NUBIAN, DAINTY and GREYHOUND and JAGUAR and only Jaguar andd Nubian had an AA FC system. The other RN forces in the area were screening the Malta Convoy. The radar system did not detect the attack and there was only 3 minutes warning from sighting the Lufwaffe force to first bomb hits. When Illustrious turned into the wind to launch her remaining Fulmars she also moved away from the slower BBs. Edit: AFAIK only Jaguar formed a close escort to Illustrious

In later attacks against Illustrious the fleet formed a more concentrated formation, but not during the initial attack.

RCAFson · Jun 25, 2013

wuzak said:
That all kinda depends on when they started.

btw, how big were the lifts?

.

IIRC, 22ft x 45ft

RCAFson · Jun 25, 2013

Aozora said:
Wrong! You have made an assertion to the effect that because the JNAF did not use two seat fighters for the CAP it lost four carriers. There were plenty of mk 1 eyeballs on board the ships that were on the lookout. Please explain exactly how the Japanese would have been able to foil the SBDs because they were using two-seaters for their cap rather than single seaters.

LoL, no. I stated that two seat fighters would have a greater probability of sighting an incoming attack; I have emphasized this time and again. see: http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/av...-plausible-upgrades-37498-12.html#post1030554

Only when radar came into play could interceptions reach a high level of success.

Fulmar in 1941/42/43: feasible and/or plausible upgrades?

Staff Sergeant

Master Sergeant

Master Sergeant

Staff Sergeant

Master Sergeant

Captain

Staff Sergeant

Master Sergeant

Master Sergeant

Master Sergeant

Captain

Senior Master Sergeant

Master Sergeant

Master Sergeant

Senior Master Sergeant

Staff Sergeant

Captain

Master Sergeant

Master Sergeant

Master Sergeant

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads