RAF BoB Fighters OTL ATL v Me-109

[The Basket]

"Based on" can mean a slightly modified air-frame or it can mean taking what was learned form one air-frame and applying to a new air-frame by scaling up or down but keeping NO parts the same and this is pretty much the story with the Battle and the P4/34/Fulmar.

The P4/34 had 6ft 7 1/2 in less wig span and was 2ft 4 1/2 shorter in the fuselage than the Battle. The fuselage was also thinner with no provision for a prone position for a bomb aimer under the pilot.

The Fulmar cut about 1 ft from the wing of the P4/34 and actually the 2nd P4/34 was used as the prototype of the Fulmar. Fulmar had a 342sq ft wing compared to the Battles 422sq ft wing. The P4/34 got rid of the bomb cells in the wing of the Battle and carried it's bombs under wing and also used inward retracting landing gear that fit flush instead of the Battle's rearward retracting semi-exposed landing gear.

Thank you for your reply.
I am fully aware of the aircraft of my country which I consider my birthright.
I wont lecture you on budweiser and coca cola so do me the honour of not lecturing me.

 

[Shortround6]

Your post # 34

"Single seat Battle?
Techinically meets timeframes and available. Fulmar is basically a Battle."

Unless that is understated British humor or sarcasm? A bit like saying a F8F Bearcat is basically a F6F Hellcat.

Both monoplanes, both use P&W R-2800 engines. Both single seaters from the same company.

 

[parsifal]

and built in the same war i guess. Thats an exampe of british understated humour incidentally

 

[The Basket]

and built in the same war i guess. Thats an exampe of british humour incidentally

P4/34 is a two seat based on the Battle. Or lessons learnt from the Battle.
however you want to twist it. The same design team in the same time period come up with similair aircraft. Funny that.

I have to advise you that the Hellcat and Bearcat are different generation fighters. I am surprised you didnt know that.

 

[parsifal]

I did know that. Wasnt trying to be sarcastic at all, sorry if it came across that way, more trying to be funny. guess I failed there as well.

There were technical similarities bertween the two designs, yet they were also quite different
Battle
wingspan 16.46 meters 54 feet
wing area 39.2 sq_meters 422 sq_feet
length 12.9 meters 42 feet 4 inches
height 4.72 meters 15 feet 6 inches

empty weight 3,015 kilograms 6,650 pounds
MTO weight 4,895 kilograms 10,790 pounds

max speed at altitude 415 KPH 255 MPH / 225 KT
service ceiling 7,620 meters 25,000 feet
range 1,600 KM 1,000 MI / 870 NMI
Fulmar

wingspan 14.15 meters 46 feet 5 inches
wing area 31.77 sq_meters 342 sq_feet
length 12.24 meters 40 feet 1 inch
height 4.27 meters 14 feet

empty weight 3,955 kilograms 8,720 pounds
MTO weight 4,855 kilograms 10,700 pounds

max speed at altitude 400 KPH 250 MPH / 215 KT
service ceiling 6,255 meters 21,500 feet
endurance 4 hours
As can be seen the Fulmar was considerably smaller, and was much heavier in empty condition, a product of its strengthened airframe, armamaent and armour mostly. Pilots were indifferent to the Battles handling capabilities, but found the Fulmar to be very manouverable....enough to take on single seat fighters with some chance of survival. not so the Battle.

The Battle had greater range, and carried bombs, whereas, in the early marks of the Fulmar, bomb handling was not provided. in the later marks the Fulmar could carry about half the load of a battle, but were also rated to divebomb, which the battle could not do

So, even though they were similarin general outline, there were significant differences in the design of the two airframes

 

[parsifal]

One suggestion leading on from that, is the possibility of a twin engined Fulmar. How would it have performed with either two twin wasps or two Merlin engines fitted. the RN did really well with the fulmar, despite its obvious performance limitations. training, armament, manouverability (yes, the Fulmar was moderately manouverable, the later Firefly was exceptionally so) how would it have fared with twice the power. I think it would have shifted from a fighter able to nearly survive in a hostile air environment, to being able to dominate it.

 

[Old Wizard]

The biggest problem the RAF had was abandoning their peace time fighter tactics. They learned that the hard way.

 

[Shortround6]

I am not sure what the intent of the original post was.

A fighter or fighters to supplement the Hurricane and Spitfire?

A fighter to replace the Hurricane and/or Spitfire?

To replace the Hurricane means you need to build 2000 of them by Aug of 1940.

Most anything can supplement to some some extent but obviously most (all) of the choices would be lucky to reach the Hurricanes performance (Whirlwind excepted) without major tweaking or unhistorical engines.

 

[Juha]

Hello SR6
I took it as to supplement, otherwise UK would have been in dire straits. There would not have been enough Hawks to replace Hurricanes and Spitfires were clearly better. But with a good and reliable engine Venom might have potential, if it would have been possible to self-seal its fuel tanks and to give protection to pilot without too much performance loss, probably a big IF to so low-powered and small plane. And if only FC would have been so clever as to sent some fighter pilots to Finland to study proper fighter tactics in 1938/39.

Juha

 

[nuuumannn]

The Hawk 75 and possibly the Wildcat are probably the best pre-war options and possibly available in numbers, but who doesn't get their Hawks if Britain gets them? The Venom, I'm afraid is a non starter because of the lack of potential for development; adding bits to make it combat worthy would seriously degrade its performance; its maximum speed was only 312 mph; it really needed another engine. It's advantage was that it was small and light; once its weight goes up it loses its rate of climb and speed. I guess if it was all there was it would have had to do.

Like I said with the Fulmar earlier, Parsifal; not even worth contemplating. Yes, the Fulmar did well in the FAA's hands in the Med, but how would a couple of squadrons of them fare over Britain in the summer of 1940 up against 40 to 60 Bf 109s at a time? To put it into perspective, that other much maligned two seater, the Defiant I had a higher maximum speed by nearly 20 miles an hour, greater rate of climb and better ceiling than the Fulmar, it was also smaller and lighter and it was considered slow and sluggish. I don't rate the Fulmar's chances at all and based on the RAF's experiences with the Defiant by day, I suspect the Fulmar would not be much different.

 

[parsifal]

The Hawk 75 and possibly the Wildcat are probably the best pre-war options and possibly available in numbers, but who doesn't get their Hawks if Britain gets them? The Venom, I'm afraid is a non starter because of the lack of potential for development; adding bits to make it combat worthy would seriously degrade its performance; its maximum speed was only 312 mph; it really needed another engine. It's advantage was that it was small and light; once its weight goes up it loses its rate of climb and speed. I guess if it was all there was it would have had to do.

Like I said with the Fulmar earlier, Parsifal; not even worth contemplating. Yes, the Fulmar did well in the FAA's hands in the Med, but how would a couple of squadrons of them fare over Britain in the summer of 1940 up against 40 to 60 Bf 109s at a time? To put it into perspective, that other much maligned two seater, the Defiant I had a higher maximum speed by nearly 20 miles an hour, greater rate of climb and better ceiling than the Fulmar, it was also smaller and lighter and it was considered slow and sluggish. I don't rate the Fulmar's chances at all and based on the RAF's experiences with the Defiant by day, I suspect the Fulmar would not be much different.

The Hawk 75 was not one single type, it was a series of subtypes. The performance figures quoted are for the earlier marks, the A-4 subtype had about 10mph extra speed, armour and better armament and the later ones still (subtypes 5 and 6 ) quite possibly even higher. The later marks of Hawk were very competitive to the hurricane. Biggest problem was the unit price....the Americans were charging a bomb for them, and wanted the french to fund a new factory for them. I can see scenarios where Hawks were built inAustralia (but Britain actively sought to stifle the emerging Australian aero industry because they wanted a cornered market basically), so if Hawk production was decentralised to the dominions, there might have been some augmentation of the main types. Two thigs were needed, however. money, and a willingness or approval by the foreign office to allow US penetration of Commonwealth nations.

With regard to the Fulmar, it would not have been possible to replace either the hurricane or the Spit, but the Fulmar was a very effective bomber destroyer, and was capable of survivibg in a hostile air environment, as its experiences over Malta and the desert clearly show. surviving and winning are two very different things. Rather like the gladiator, or the CR42 over malta, these aircraft could survive, but they could not win air superiority, whatever the numbers. what was needed with the fulmar was better performance, so we do basically agree. Was the Fulmar capable of that. maybe, but the obvious need was for a two engine configuration

Defiant is a much maligned aircraft, but I do think its basic concept as a turretted fighter was the problem more than its mediocre performance. Getting the gunner and the pilot to work together was difficult. It was harder than a bomber with turrets. in a bomber the aircraft is flying straight and level, with the main defences derived from flying in formation (except at night when this defensive technique was not possible). For Definats they were expected to aerobat, and use turret tactics at the same time.

So, I disagree that the defiant was on a par with the Fulmar. Not even close despite the similarity in performance. In the first six months of its service, the Fulmar shot down something like 120 enemy...more than had entered service up to that time. air victories included vicotories over fighters including Me 109s. I dont know the score of the Definat, but its deployment was more extensive, and earlier yet I doubt it enjoyed anywhere near the same success as the Fulmar

Wildcat in 1940 was a non-starter. it was basically an unserviceable aircraft. it is not a contemporary of the Fulmar , it was 1941 before it really could be considered an operational type. Maybe fixable before it actually was, but then its performance and armament was less. The early martlets were found to be most unsatisfactory, at least from an FAA perspective. There were reasons why they were generally not used operationally in fleet defence in the Med until 1941. Martlet basically sucked until the technical issues had been solved

 

[nuuumannn]

So, I disagree that the defiant was on a par with the Fulmar. Not even close despite the similarity in performance. In the first six months of its service, the Fulmar shot down something like 120 enemy...more than had entered service up to that time. air victories included vicotories over fighters including Me 109s. I dont know the score of the Definat, but its deployment was more extensive, and earlier yet I doubt it enjoyed anywhere near the same success as the Fulmar.

Well, good to see that we can agree on some points, but disagree on others. Yes, Parsifal, you are right regarding the Wildcat; like I said in my earlier post, it was not available in numbers, but in terms of what was available, it was probably more suitable than other suggestions here, including the Fulmar. The Fulmar is where we are going to have to agree to disagree. Firstly, it was not a first rate fighter regardless of its performance in the Med. The Royal Navy has a habit of getting the very best out of the meagre equipment it has, but that doesn't make the Fulmar an excellent fighter. It was a well designed and built aeroplane that was pleasant to handle and fly according to its pilots, but it would not have survived in the skies over Britain in 1940. The RAF needed first rate fighters against a well trained and well equipped Luftwaffe in the numbers the Germans were appearing in. It would have been slaughtered.

As for its performance compared to the Defiant, the Fulmar was 20 mph slower, that's a big margin in 1940 terms. Remember that the Spitfire prototype's speed of 340 mph was considered less than what was expected of it in 1936 and four years later the production Fulmar was only capable of 280 mph - the Lancaster had a higher maximum speed! Not good enough and there's no way that Dowding would find the Fulmar's sluggish performance acceptable. Even at just over 300 mph, there was doubts about the Defiant's speed and survivability by the end of 1939 when it entered service. How would a 280 mph fighter fare?

The fate of the Defiant was not determined by its turret doctrine; you're mistaken in that assumption. The failing was in its use as a fighter against fighters; against bombers, the Defiant's unique armament proved itself adequate to the task and its successful use as a night fighter for two years on the front line confirms this. 264 Sqn's commanding officer trained his men in the best way to exploit his aircraft's advantages. In almost every combat the Defiant entered into it was supremely outnumbered by German single-seaters; when 151 Squadron lost 6 of its number in one action, the 9 aircraft were pounced on by 30 Bf 109s. This is a big factor in the losses suffered by the Defiant squadrons and I doubt the Fulmar would do any better.

Also, the Defiant as a day fighter did not have a more extensive deployment than the Fulmar. In total, the number of available Defiants on the front line at the start of August 1940 was 35. Only two squadrons operated as day fighter units and of those, the largest number of Defiants in one single action was 12. The highest number lost in one day's combat was 6. Not high figures, but clearly as a percentage of losses, this is unsustainable. Counter that with as many as 80 to 100 German fighters escorting bombers during one raid alone and the Defiant and its losses compared to the number operating in theatre gets put into perspective; I'm pretty certain that a big two-seat 280 mph fighter would fare no better, forward firing guns or not.

 

[Shortround6]

The Fulmar would be too little, too late. First Fulmar (not converted P4/34) flies in Jan 1940 and makes 230mph with a slightly up rated Merlin III engine in a rather "untidy" installation. Merlin VIII and a better installation gets the speed up to 255mph at 9000ft. It is not until the Merlin 30 engine shows up in the MK II that the Fulmar hits 270mph although with a bit more drag and equipment than the MK I.

I will grant that these figures are for "normal" ratings and not using higher boost levels but it looks like the Fulmar would be 30-35mph slower than a Hurricane at 9-10,000ft. using similar ( but not identical power the Fulmar I would have more) power.

The Fulmar MK II had 1360hp available at 6000ft ( or higher with ram?) at 12lbs. But Hurricanes using 12lbs of boost could do 320mph or more at 9,000ft.

Trials with the MK 30 don't start until the Spring of 1941 but even using MK III (or MK XII) with 12lbs of boost is going to leave the Fulmar way to slow and too low an altitude.

 

[parsifal]

as i said, not competitive but survivable. theres a difference. we can talk all day about the technical deficiancies of the type, but these are the basic, irefutable facts. Over the most heavily bombed target in the world to date, they survived. they didnt win, they couldnt win with those performce values. the best they could hope for was to hope or find a straggler bomber and pick him off. They certainly could catch a He111 when fully loaded, but had difficulty catching a faster ju88. Ju87 was not in the hunt against a Fulmar being competently flown. Against an Me 109, they were hard pressed, but they proved again and again during their careers that they could survive.

These are the facts. not conjecture or summation, or extrapolation. the facts.

 

[Greyman]

I don't think the Fulmar in any way belongs in the air at 15 to 20,000 feet attacking German formations.

In order of speed: Spitfire, Hurricane, Defiant, Fulmar. Climb performance is even more sobering. Not a good interceptor at all for the Battle of Britain. Even the Blenheim fighters were a better choice.

First three are running full +12 boost and the Fulmar is running full +9½ boost.

A&AEE figures.

 

[nuuumannn]

Against an Me 109, they were hard pressed, but they proved again and again during their careers that they could survive.

Against the numbers of German fighters ranging over Britain in the Summer of 1940? Again, I don't agree. You are ignoring the simple fact that the RAF needed good first rate fighters, not aircraft that could just survive. It had those already in the Defiant, Gladiator and Blenheim. If there were no Hurricanes, the Fulmar would be yet another failed fighter. It's unlikely that the Fulmar would even survive against the kinds of numbers of fighters the Germans were fielding; losses would be as proportionally heavy as Defiants were, if not worse and it too, would have been removed from active day fighter duties. It had too poor ceiling, poor rate of climb and poor turn of speed for a front line modern fighter in 1940 - that's a fact you haven't countered into your argument, Parsifal.

 

[RCAFson]

I don't think the Fulmar in any way belongs in the air at 15 to 20,000 feet attacking German formations.

View attachment 254047
In order of speed: Spitfire, Hurricane, Defiant, Fulmar. Climb performance is even more sobering. Not a good interceptor at all for the Battle of Britain. Even the Blenheim fighters were a better choice.

First three are running full +12 boost and the Fulmar is running full +9½ boost.

A&AEE figures.

But we're not talking about a Fulmar I. We're talking about a P.4/34 developed into a single seat (why twin?) RAF heavy fighter and such a fighter would be ~1000 lbs lighter than a Fulmar I. The P.4/34 made 284 mph at ~16000ft with a Merlin II engine. (at 2850rpm and 4lb boost according to David Brown ). Pop a Merlin XII into it and it should be quite a bit faster than the P.4/34 and with 8 x mgs and 750rpg it has a lot more firepower than the Hurricane, for example.

In any event, if the RAF didn't order the Hurricane or Spitfire, they would pretty much have had to order something else in volume, such as an Gladiator with uprated engines and a CS prop, but if not that then what?

 

[parsifal]

Against the numbers of German fighters ranging over Britain in the Summer of 1940? Again, I don't agree. You are ignoring the simple fact that the RAF needed good first rate fighters, not aircraft that could just survive. It had those already in the Defiant, Gladiator and Blenheim. If there were no Hurricanes, the Fulmar would be yet another failed fighter. It's unlikely that the Fulmar would even survive against the kinds of numbers of fighters the Germans were fielding; losses would be as proportionally heavy as Defiants were, if not worse and it too, would have been removed from active day fighter duties. It had too poor ceiling, poor rate of climb and poor turn of speed for a front line modern fighter in 1940 - that's a fact you haven't countered into your argument, Parsifal.

This simply is not supported by the experiences over Malta, where both hurricanes and Fulmars fought side by side in a situation heavily dominated by the enemy. Fulmar here was at least as challenged as it would have been had it been used over SE England, and whilst I freely agree it had no chance of affecting the air state, claiming it would be shot out of the sky over SE England because of the superior performance of the 109 is just a fallacy not in any way supported by its experiences over Malta. And it is also a fallacy to claim that LW densities would in some way be greater over SE England than was confronted over Malta. Over Malta the initial force structure for the LW was about 40 109s, but this rapidly ramped up in a short space of time. if anything, one could probably argue that the density of fighters over Malta was greater than anywhere else at that time

What is irrefutable, is that the Fulmar was simply not capable of wresting air superiority from the 109, given the numbers available. But then, neither was the hurricane able to achieve that.

The air war began in Malta with token strength of six antiquated Gladiator fighters. A force of Hurricane's was flown in and this constituted No.412 Flight. In late-1940 RAF Wellingtons (five squadrons) were based on the island and were the only offensive capability Malta possessed. In January 1941, however, all these were destroyed on the ground in a series of intense air attacks. Meantime, Hurricane fighters were constantly ferried to the island to replace losses and to increase the number fighters on Malta. In all, 361 Hurricanes were ferried towards Malta since August 1940 of which 303 reached the island, and of which 150 went on to North Africa. May 1941 brought the total force of Hurricanes to 50 aircraft.

LW strength varied greatly, but at the beginning was about 230 a/c, of which 40 were 109s, and about 50 were 110s. The Germans were supported by about 190 Italians. German committment to the siege waxed and waned through 1941, but at its peak was about 850 a/c (including the italians). British defences never exceeded 50 a/c at any time, though losses were quite heavy.

Another source I have gives the following strength figures for FKX as at the end of March

Fleigerkorps X
Lt-General Hans Geissler in Sicily
(22 March 1941)
7./Jagdgeschwader 26
Me109E7
14
I/Jagdgeschwader 27
Me109E-7
39
I/Nachtjagdgeschwader 3
Me110E-3
III/Zestörergeschwader 26
Me110D-3; 33
9./Zestörergeschwader 26
Me110D-3 15
Lehrgeschwader 1
Ju88A-4
II/LG1
26
III/LG1
40
He111H-3
12
II/Kampfgeschwader 26
He111H-3
36
III/Kampfgeschwader 30
Ju88A-4
27
Stukageschwader 1
Ju87B-2
I/StG1
30
II/StG1
42
III/StG1
37
I/Stukageschwader 2
Ju87B-2
38
Stab/Stukageschwader 3
Ju87B-2
5
+ The strength of Fliegerkorps X on 22 March 1941 was: normal strength of 520 of which an average of around 350 were serviceable at any given time. . Not shown are other non-combat units, which accounted for 77 Ju52/3m transports and two reconnaissance units having a total of 29 Ju88D-1s.

From June 1940 to the beginning of 1942, the defending fighters had claimed 199 confirmed enemy aircraft kills and 78 probables, while the AA guns accounted for another 50 aircraft. All this had been achieved for the loss of 20 Hurricanes, and just 3 Fulmars, as well as 1 Gladiator plus another 10 Hurricanes 2 Fulmars were lost in accidents; these figures exclude losses on the ground.

I dont have a lot of detail on the italian contribution. it was generally smaller than the Germans but amounted to several hundred aircraft

Fighter Squadrons:
261 Squadron: Hurricane Mk I – August 1940 to May 1941
806 Royal Navy Squadron (Detachment): Fulmar Mk I – January 1941 to March 1942
185 Squadron: Hurricane Mk I, IIA, B, C – May 1941 to February 1942
249 Squadron: Hurricane Mk I, IIA, B – May 1941 to February 1942
46 Squadron (renamed to 126 Squadron): Hurricane Mk IIB, C – June 1941 to February 1942
1435 Flight: Hurricane Mk IIB, C – December 1941 to February 1942

In any estimation, the fulmars were not "hacked out of the sky" as is so often claimed. and in fact there is good evidence they made good stable gun platforms for shooting down axis bombers. as a percentage of the force structure, their losses were higher than the hurricanes, but not greatly so. It is just another of those urban myths that the quality of the aircraft automatically dictates its loss rate. its what it does in the air that changes that. how high, and how hard a target. Speed is basically irrelevant to survivability. Speed leads to whether you can gain the upper hand, it counts for virtually nothing when you are fighting slow moving bombers. it was because their speed advantage, along with their numbers and the skill of their pilots that the 109s dominated the sky over Malta for so long as they did.

Over Malta, the Fulmar was being asked to do a lot. But it did it, in the face of the most frightful odds and the most terrible of conditions. So too did the hurricane, with little evidence of any measurable diffierence in their respective loss rates


Saying or claiming that the war over Malta was in some easier or safer than SE England in some way is just patently untrue. it was THE most dangerous place on earth for an Allied pilot to fly at that time. And the fulmar managed to survive in that situation, and even do some good. Replacement or alteranative for the hurriacan (much less the spit), it certainly was not. im not responding to that. im responding to the claim that somehow Malta (and battles leading to it) was in some way safer than over England. that is just not the case. And that the Fulmar could not survive ina hostile and hot enemy environment. its experiences over Malta clearly, and conclusively disprove that that, and no amount of jiving can alter that basic truth

Over Malta itself, the lions share of fighting was done by Hurricanes, but they were supported by about a squadron or so of fulmars. In the various supply runs to the beleagured island, there were no other types used until september 1941, other than

 

[nuuumannn]

Parsifal, that information, whilst interesting and painting a good overview of ops over the Mediterranean does not do anything to support your point. You are steadfastly ignoring the fact that Bf 109s did not appear in anywhere near the numbers in the Med that they did over Britain in 1940

If you examine Fulmar kills and losses you will see that Fulmars largely shot down bombers, Ju 87s, Ju 88s, He 111s, Italian S.79s, Cant Z.501s (the Fulmar's first kill on 2 September 1940) and Z.1007s, with a few Fiat CR-42s for good measure. The number of combats with Bf 109s were few and far between and even then when Fulmars did encounter them it was in small numbers, nothing like those that the Germans hurled at the RAF in 1940. Lt Robert Henley claimed that in mid January 1941 whilst on CAP he saw "...an aircraft identified as a Messerschmitt Me 109 attempted to join the formation but did not attack. When it broke away the Fulmars proved too slow to pursue it." During the raid against Kirkenes, two (also reported as 3 Fulmars) were lost for the loss of 1 Bf 109 and two Bf 110s (and a Ju 87). One source I've read claims four Bf 109s were lost, but this has been refuted.

The only time Fulmars encountered enemy fighters and bombers in anything like the numbers that the RAF was meeting in 1940 was over Ceylon when on 5 April 1942 125 Japanese carrier aircraft attacked Colombo, which included Zeroes. Two Fulmars were quickly shot down for one Zero to Lt Mike Hordern of 806 Sqn.

I entirely agree that the FAA pilots that fought in paltry few numbers against a numerically superior enemy were courageous and clever in their employment of the Fulmar, but that does not change the fact that Fulmars did not encounter Bf 109s in the same numbers as the RAF in 1940 - how many times do I have to state this? You are saying that there were between 40 Bf 109s and 50 Bf 110s in the Med? The RAF was frequently meeting these numbers of these fighters on a daily basis in every air raid almost every day. The scale was completely different and you know it. Any suggestion that the Fulmar would do as well as it did in the Med against the creme of the Luftwaffe in the Summer of 1940 is a fallacy, Parsifal; the Fulmar just could not perform and its losses would have been heavy by comparison to the numbers involved, just like the Defiant.

 

[Greyman]

parsifal if you can get your hands on it, I highly recommend 'Hurricanes Over Malta' by Brian Cull and Frederick Galea. It is packed to the brim with information and anecdotes on the struggle over Malta from June 1940 to April 1942. It doesn't paint a very rosy picture of the Fulmar's capabilities, numerous examples of bravery and determination notwithstanding.

A choice quote from a quick skimming to sum up the situation:

'Despite the rapidly deteriorating availability of the Hurricanes, the few remaining Fulmars were considered too vulnerable to fighter attack and unsuitable as interceptors, and the policy was for them to remain around the fringes of a raid and pick off stragglers.'