Light Weight, pilot-only, Fulmar Thread?

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Comparing the Fulmar to land-based aircraft is, quite frankly, ludicrous, and I suspect none of you have read the specification to which it was produced. Airfields don't move, but carriers do; land has recognisable features, but the sea doesn't, hence the need for an observer.
The order was issued on 24-4-38, and the aircraft had to be delivered in September 1939.
It had to be able to operate from catapult ships and aircraft carriers (could the P-40?)
It had to have a wheel undercarriage, but be capable of conversion to floats (did the P-40?)
It had to be capable of folding quickly, on carrier or catapult, in wind speeds up to 30 knots (did the P-40?)
Operational height was 10,000', so rate of climb above that was immaterial, since attacks on ships were expected to be at low level.
It had to be capable of operating for 6 hours (did the P-40?)
It had to be fully equipped for night flying (was the P-40?)
 
I suspect you misunderstood the intention of my post.
People are speculating on the performance improvement of leaving the rearseater out of the Fulmar.
I used the P-40 to show the actual difference a 600lb weight change made in the climb performance of a smaller/lighter aircraft with a similar engine.
NOT to try to say the P-40 could, in any way,shape or form perform the carrier roles that the Fulmar did.
 
And to be fair, I suggested 600 lbs as a starting point for Fulmar weight reduction that would be handled at the factory. cutting fuel load, ammo and armament were options that could conceivably be instituted at the squadron level to achieve a weight reduction approaching 1,000 lbs. I'd expect the improvement in climb rate and ceiling if not speed for the aircraft's use as a point defense interceptor should be enough to at least warrant consideration. There were instances when defense of the carrier was arguably facilitated by merely a minute's advantage in time to climb or an additional 1,000 foot in altitude.
If, as SR6 suggested, climb performance would be improved by a weight reduction of 600 lbs from "dismal to pathetic," then 1,000 lbs should buy you from pathetic to almost mediocre. Seems to me, bottom line for the Fulmar I II, virtually any (relatively easy) improvement would be helpful in better fulfilling its CAP role. (strictly considering aircraft performance here and not the efficacy or potential advantage of the second pair of eyes.)
 
Last edited:
wuzak said:
The Seafire was to be built by Fairey, and it was to be Fairey who developed it for service use..
Click to expand...
No, it wasn't, since Supermarine didn't want to play ball, and were backed by senior figures in the Air Ministry. There was never a chance that Fairey would build the Seafire, it was all a plan dreamed up by those who wanted to see Supermarine discredited and hopefully dismantled.
It got dumped due to war priorities, I guess. And when they finally got around to the wing folding version it was done as simply as possible.
Click to expand...
The "folding wing Spitfire" was cancelled, by the Admiralty, in February 1940, since Supermarine had estimated that it would be 1941 before it would be ready, due to the volume of work in the drawing-office. They'd also been given some over-optimistic figures, for the Fulmar, which helped sway their decision.
The Spitfire V had a lower wing loading than the Fulmar. Surely that's more important than wing area?
Click to expand...
Most important was the V's cannon armament, which could deal with the Condor and German bombers' armour.
What the FAA wanted was performance - and they didn't get it with the Sea Hurricane or the Fulmar. Not even a single set Fulmar would have been in the same class.
Click to expand...
What the Admiralty wanted was what was included in the specification, and the Fulmar was ordered in 1938 for the expected needs of 1939, before the defeat of France and the entry of Italy.
Because the people who would have been charged with making the Seafire were stuffing around with the Fulmar.
Click to expand...
See above; no they weren't.
Dead horses = Fulmar and Hurricane
Click to expand...
Check on how many fleet attackers were shot down, and driven away, by the two aircraft, before making a statement like that.
 
Shortround6 said:
I suspect you misunderstood the intention of my post.
People are speculating on the performance improvement of leaving the rearseater out of the Fulmar.
Click to expand...
To what purpose? You're seeking speculation on an airframe set-up which the Admiralty didn't want, hadn't asked for, and, most certainly, would have rejected out of hand. What you're advocating would have cost Fairey a lot of money, possibly bankrupted them and forced them out of business; "what if" is all very well, but only if you're prepared to look at all the possible ramifications, which is why I find actual history far more interesting and informative.
 
The Fulmar was a big airplane.



It appears to weigh tare (no guns, radio etc) within a few hundred pounds of what a Hurricane IIB weighed loaded and clean. Empty weights vary by over 1000lbs according to source on the Fulmar. Confusion between tare weight and empty equipped?

Hurricane could be 1300-1500lbs lighter tare weight and that is not weight you can get back by leaving "stuff" (ammo, a pair of guns, special radio gear or even fuel) on the ground next to the plane after it is built.

A Hurricane IIB (land version) could be at 27,000-28,000ft in the time it took a Fulmar to get to 15,000ft. Or it could have been circling for 9 minutes at 15,000 waiting for the Fulmar. To get a Fulmar to "play" with land based fighters that is the kind of difference that has to be made up. It wasn't even going to come close no matter what got left on the hanger floor or which early Merlin you switched to.

The Fulmar did a surprising good job as it was due to a combination of things, but changinf it's climb to 15,000ft by one or 1 1/2 minutes wasn't going to change tactics or combat results by much, if anything. The Italains wern't coming in that high most of the time anyway and the Fulmars tended to use ONE diving pass (the Fulmar dived pretty good) per attack.
 

Please go back and re-read the posts. In just which post am I advocating changing the Fulmar? I am pretty much arguing the opposite.
I try to be clear but perhaps I am not, but I am not responsible for your misunderstanding what I have written.
 
So then tell me, what was Specification O.8/38?
 

Reading M&S carefully along with McKinstry (Spitfire, portrait of a Legend), it becomes apparent that Supermarine didn't submit a proposal for a folding wing Seafire until Jan 1940, and that the earlier attempts were to get Fairey to build the Spitfire and NOT the Seafire.
Fairey turned down the proposal to build the Spitfire stating:

"...that to produce the 500 Spitfires required by the Admiralty production of most of his current aircraft would have to be abandoned, and the completion date of the Fulmar prototype would be much later than scheduled... M&S p.506"

There's no mention anywhere of Fairey designing a folding wing Seafire but McKinstry makes mention that Fairey was asked to augment Supermarine production of Spitfires.
 
GrauGeist said:
So then tell me, what was Specification O.8/38?
Click to expand...
Interim Two Seat Fighter for the FAA,
dated 2/4/38
Fulmar
File no. S.43490/RDA3
Issued on 24/4/38 to Fairey.
Requirements
In response to Operational Requirement OR.56, an interim two-seater front-gun fighter is required (for quick production) for the FAA, capable of operating from catapult ships and from the deck of a carrier. The first aircraft are required for delivery in September 1939 and, in order to facilitate design and production, certain concessions on normal requirements for FAA aircraft have been made. It is to be designed as a fighter with a wheel undercarriage but must be capable of conversion to floats when a reduced performance can be accepted. The AUW is not to exceed 8,750 lb as a ship-plane. As a floatplane the aircraft will not normally operate at an AUW exceeding 9,000 lb. As a ship-plane it is to be designed and equipped for arresting, accelerating and catapulting. It is to be capable of folding quickly while on the deck of a carrier, or on a catapult, in wind speeds up to 30 knots, and is to be capable of being hoisted when folded. The following dimensions shall not be exceeded, Height - 14 ft 9 ins, Length 40 ft or 44 ft as a floatplane, Span 46 ft spread, 18 ft folded. It is required for air fighting, mainly in the vicinity of the fleet, and shallow dive bombing.
Performance
The maximum speed is to be not less than 230 knots for an operational height of 10,000 ft. The highest manoeuvrability at this speed is required. The stalling speed is not to exceed 56 knots with engine off at full load. Take-off is to be possible in a distance of 225 ft against a 20 knot wind speed. The aircraft is to be capable of operating for six hours at operational height at not less than 120 knots + 15 minutes at maximum power at sea level, or at least 2.75 hours at maximum economical cruising speed at 10,000 ft. + 15 minutes at maximum power at sea level.
The aircraft shall be fully equipped for night flying. The instrument board is to be arranged to take the standard flying instrument panel, with operation by an engine-driven suction pump.
If the undercarriage is made to retract, precautions shall be taken to ensure that there is no change in the compass deviation with the undercarriage in the up or down position.
Engine
A Merlin "H" moderately supercharged engine is to be fitted. The "Graviner" or other approved type of extinguisher shall be fitted.
Crew: Pilot and Observer
Armament 8 Browning guns, with 4,000 rounds of ammunition.
Signals: TR.9, R.1110
 

By mid 1943, the Fulmar was actually a lightweight naval fighter, as both the F6F and F4U weighed considerably more. What the Fulmar needed was more power; the two speed Merlin X/XX would have helped considerably in terms of climb rate and maximum speed at medium altitudes. A Merlin X would have provided the same power at low altitude and about 300hp more at it's FS FTH of about 18000ft, while the Merlin XX could have provided 400hp more at roughly the same altitude.

Time to 20K ft for the Fulmar I/II using continuous climb power was 26.6/20.3 minutes. I would guesstimate that switching to a Merlin X/XX would reduced these times by ~25/20% to about 20/16 minutes, while raising the service ceiling to about 30K ft from 22.4/24.2k ft.
 

OK. Seems I have to re-read M&S about the Seafire.

Would be surprised that the Fulmar would have had a great effect on the Seafire, as the Seafire would have a slightly different role. Certainly the Seafire would not have the loiter time required by the Fulmar's specification.


Edgar Brooks said:
Most important was the V's cannon armament, which could deal with the Condor and German bombers' armour.
Click to expand...

Was talking about landing and taking off from carrier decks. The sugestion was made that the Seafire's "small" ing area would have made for difficult carrier handling. I was saying that I think that wing loading was a more important factor for carrier handling than simple wing area, as weight has an affect as well.


Edgar Brooks said:
Check on how many fleet attackers were shot down, and driven away, by the two aircraft, before making a statement like that.
Click to expand...

I took RCAFson's barb of the Seafire being a "dead horse" as being a dead end development. The Fulmar and Sea Hurricane really weren't developed past midwar. The Seafire, on the other hand, contuned through the later war years and beyond.

Case in point - you mantion the Spitfire V's cannon armament as being important for fighting aircraft such as the Condor. The Fulmar never got cannonas development had stopped.

While the Fulmar and Seafire had different roles, the single seat Fulmar suggested in the OP would have a role more along the lines of the Seafire.
 
My comment:
GrauGeist said:
So then tell me, what was Specification O.8/38?
Click to expand...

In response to:

Is pretty well covered by your reply:

Nice of you to post that, even though I already knew what Specification O.8/38 was, your comment: "on an airframe set-up which the Admiralty didn't want, hadn't asked for, and, most certainly, would have rejected out of hand." seems to contradict your earlier comment: "Comparing the Fulmar to land-based aircraft is, quite frankly, ludicrous, and I suspect none of you have read the specification to which it was produced."
 
By mid 1943 the Fulmar was out of service.

"The last Fulmar fighter squadron was withdrawn in March 1943"

Both the F6F and F4U may have weighed more but they were slightly smaller in wing area and 3-4ft less wing span and their fuselages were about 6ft shorter. Their R-2800 engines gave around 18-20% more power at 22-23,000ft than even an early two stage Merlin, and around 40% more power than a single stage Merlin at 16-17,000ft.

The Fulmar did what was asked of it and more. Small increases in performance (all you are going to get without major changes) are not going to change the combat situation in a large majority of the combats it participated in.

For a bit more perspective the Fulmar had more wingspan and wing area and a longer fuselage than a Dauntless dive bomber and they weighed within a few hundred pounds of each other.

Does anybody really think you could take a Dauntless, leave the rear gunner, radios and rear guns home, get an engine with another 100-150hp and turn it into a fighter plane able to take on land based fighters?
 

If we gave the Fulmar a two stage Griffon, it wouldn't have matched the F6F/F4U in speed, but it would have been close, and it would probably have outclimbed them . However, getting back to 1940 I think that added the Merlin X/XX would have substantially increased performance and would have allowed it to catch most Luftwaffe/IAF recon aircraft.

Actually the Fulmar soldiered on, in small numbers, until 1945 in escort carrier based NF flights. Of course it was also used in large numbers in OTUs and other training squadrons.

If you modded the Dauntless as suggested, it would probably have outperformed the F4F-4...
 
RCAFson said:
If we gave the Fulmar a two stage Griffon, it wouldn't have matched the F6F/F4U in speed, but it would have been close, and it would probably have outclimbed them .
Click to expand...

Did the Fairey Firfly achieve that?


RCAFson said:
However, getting back to 1940 I think that added the Merlin X/XX would have substantially increased performance and would have allowed it to catch most Luftwaffe/IAF recon aircraft.
Click to expand...

I think "substantially" is an exaggeration.
 
It never entered my mind that the modified Fulmar would be endowed with anything like the performance necessary to combat other fighter aircraft. I repeatedly stated that the notion of a lighter weight Fulmar was strictly for the purpose of improving its CAP performance so that it might better defend its home plate. It also never occurred to me that the Admiralty would actually order the building or adoption of the aircraft. It's a notional concept. A "what if…"

To quote SR6: "Small increases in performance (all you are going to get without major changes) are not going to change the combat situation in a large majority of the combats it participated in."

I am sure you are correct but sometimes the odd or most unlikely occasion can be the most important ... or not…


From: HMS Illustrious: Excess, January 10, 1941 â€" Armoured Aircraft Carriers in World War II

Here is one historic example that spurred the thinking. It's January 10, 1941. The only aircraft embarked on the RN carrier Illustrious providing CAP are its 15 Fulmar I. It's escorting the Operation Excess convoy. The Illustrious is about to be hammered by Fliegerkorps X. It's about noon. 5 Fulmar's have been providing CAP and been active (as well as effective) in driving off a number of unescorted Regia Aeronautica raiders. As recounted by Ian Cameron in Wings of the Morning, one of the Fulmar's is damaged and RTB, and two are out of ammo while the remaining two are down to 50% ammo and at low altitude having chased off a pair of SM.79s.

RADAR detects raiders raiders at high altitude at 12:25 PM. The raid apparently consists of 18 He 111s, 43 Ju87s escorted by 10 Bf-110s. Of the total, 30 Ju-87s targeted Illustrious.

Clearly, a shorter legged Fulmar with less ammo would require a different launch and recovery cycle and probably a different command protocol for launch and recovery of aircraft. As it was there was a 4 minute delay in launch of the relief Cap. Routine CAP altitude was apparently at 14,000 ft. so that may indicate the threat altitude. (I've read that typical Stuka dive bombing altitude began at ~13,000 ft but its final dive on its target was made from 7,000 ft. Admittedly, there are lot's of unknowns here.

The FDO immediately alerts the Airborne Fulmars with orders to climb and defend their carrier. The first of the four spotted relief CAP (Fulmars and also Swordfish for relief ASW patrol)is launched at 1234.5 and the last 12:36. The attack is reported to have begun at either 12:37 or 12:38.

Roughly 13 minutes to climb and take a defensive position against the incoming raid. The Fulmar I is reported to have required 15 minuets to reach 15,000 ft. The timing suggests to me that a lightened Fulmar might just have been able to make a more effective defense. As it turned out, the airborne CAP, even the ones without ammo, did manage to do some disruption but unfortunately for Illustrious, not enough to substantially mitigate the Stuka attack.
 
Last edited:
wuzak said:
Did the Fairey Firfly achieve that?


I think "substantially" is an exaggeration.
Click to expand...

The Firefly F1 had a low altitude rated, 1750hp at TO, 1450hp at ~15000 ft single stage Griffon IIB. The two stage Griffon Fireflys did much better with the FR Mk 4 Vmax at 367mph at 14000ft with a Griffon 74 while the ASMk5/6 vmax was 386mph at 14000ft with the same engine. The Griffon 74 was a very low altitude rated two stage engine but it's easy to see that a high altitude Griffon would have provided similar performance in respect to the F6F and F4U at higher altitudes.

At low altitude there would be little change in Fulmar peformance with a Merlin X/XX but adding another 40% power at 18000ft would have made a considerable improvement at altitude.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

Curtiss SC-1 development
Replies
5
Views
555
pinehilljoe
A locked thread "Wellington Registrations"
Replies
5
Views
588
Wurger
A Thread for Data Files
2
Replies
35
Views
4K
GregP
When did Erich Hartmann lose his only wingman Günther Capito?
Replies
9
Views
1K
CHen10
Can we make a slightly smaller Fulmar as an improved carrier fighter?
18 19 20
Replies
391
Views
20K
z42
Z
Menu
Log in
Register