RAF BoB Fighters OTL ATL v Me-109

[Aozora]

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.... 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.

You're contradicting yourself; in one sentence you say speed was not essential, yet you also state the reason the 109s dominated over Malta was because of their speed advantage and their numbers and pilot skill?

These are exactly the advantages the far larger numbers of 109s the Fulmars would have encountered over SE England would have enjoyed. 265 mph (Fulmar Mk I) v 354 mph? That isn't just a "speed advantage" - the 109 could cruise faster than a Fulmar's top speed! Apart from that, the Fulmars in the Mediterranean, or over and around Malta, rarely, if ever encountered Bf 109s, nor can I find references to Fulmars shooting down 109s - but, I'll keep looking.

Not to mention the Fulmar's very slow rate of climb cf Spitfires and Hurricanes. The British fighters were at their most vulnerable when they were climbing for altitude where they could be - and often were - bounced by 109s which were already flying at higher altitudes. Fulmars trying to climb to altitude after a scramble would have been far more vulnerable. The slow ROC also meant that Fulmar units would have needed to be scrambled far earlier than the Spitfire and Hurricane units, or Fighter Command would have been forced to fly standing patrols in the hope that they could intercept Luftwaffe formations.

Unfortunately, had Fulmars been employed in large numbers during the B of B, they would have been shot down in large numbers before they could close with the Luftwaffe bombers.

 

[Shortround6]

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.

Some sources say the Fulmar I could do 255mph at 9000ft, not 4500-5,000. I don't have the A&AEE figures so you may very well be correct but even giving the Fulmar the benefit of the doubt only increases it's speed about 10mph at the higher ? (17,000ft ?) altitudes. Changing the engine to a MK XII (which rather assumes a scenario of NO Spitfires instead of the Fulmars being a supplement) isn't going to change things a whole lot.

Assuming that the Merlin VIII gave 1060hp at 7500ft as in Lumsden and assuming it was down to 900-915hp at 15,000ft for the Fulmar to do 240mph at that altitude the cube law says you need 1382hp just to do 276mph (a 15% increase) and 1382hp at 15,000 ft is beyond the capability of the MK XII, the MK XX and 45.

Adjust as needed for differences but 260 or 285mph at 15,000 leaves the plane way to slow. Bristol Blenheim could do 260mph without over boosting engines.

 

[Greyman]

Some sources say the Fulmar I could do 255mph at 9000ft ...

Looking at the graph it isn't unreasonable that a fast Fulmar - perhaps lighter than the one tested - could be 8ish mph faster at 9,000 feet (full throttle height of the Merlin VIII without emergency boost)

 

[Shortround6]

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?

If you are going to build a single seater just build a new airplane. Leaving out the rear seat and fairing over the cockpit doesn't gain much. To save 1000lbs you are going to need to do more than just leave the rear seater home and rip out the radio gear. Not to mention that most of the weight you want to remove is behind the center of gravity. Having twice the ammo doesn't really give you twice the firepower, it allows to shoot with the SAME firepower twice as long which is not quite the same thing. BTW 400rpg for 8 guns is 192lbs not including the weight of the ammo boxes. Or about the weight of a second crew man.

Gladiator with "uprated" engine and CS speed prop should see a lot better climb at low altitude but improvement at higher altitudes would be minimal, as would speed increases. That is unless you uprate the Mercury waaaay beyond what was done historically.

The did run them on occasion at 9lbs of boost with 100 octane fuel but just like the Merlin III, this only affected power below the FTH of 13-14,000ft. To "uprate" more than that you need more/thinner/longer cooling fins which may or may not require different manufacturing techniques. You may need a new (bigger) supercharger and drive. Just changing the gear ratio isn't going to get you much. Getting 840hp at 13-14,000ft from a 25 liter air cooled engine was doing pretty good as it was. The Wright R-1820GR205A that gave 1200hp for take-off on 91 octane was only good for 1000hp at 14,000ft from it's 30 liters and it weighed 300lb more than Mercury.

 

[Shortround6]

Looking at the graph it isn't unreasonable that a fast Fulmar - perhaps lighter than the one tested - could be 8ish mph faster at 9,000 feet (full throttle height of the Merlin VIII without emergency boost)

Could be

Sometimes in the "what ifs" I like to give best case for the proposal so we can eliminate minor quibbles. If you are 50mph too slow then an extra 10mph doesn't really make much difference.

 

[nuuumannn]

I agree with SR, might as well start with a clean sheet; even then at the rate the British got prototypes ready for production, there'd be no way that there would have been any in squadron service in time for the Battle of Britain.

Lobelle actually draughted a single-seat fighter to the naval spec N.9/39, but it bore little resemblance to the P.4/34 or the Fulmar. It bore a superficial resemblance to the Firefly and was to be powered by a Griffon. To my knowledge he never concocted a single-seat fighter from either the P.4/34 or Fulmar, certainly not officially anyway. A lightened Firefly with four cannon was proposed to a twin engined cannon armed fighter spec - odd that it was single engined and to a Defiant replacement Lobelle also proposed a Hercules engined fighter.

 

[parsifal]

You're contradicting yourself; in one sentence you say speed was not essential, yet you also state the reason the 109s dominated over Malta was because of their speed advantage and their numbers and pilot skill?

These are exactly the advantages the far larger numbers of 109s the Fulmars would have encountered over SE England would have enjoyed. 265 mph (Fulmar Mk I) v 354 mph? That isn't just a "speed advantage" - the 109 could cruise faster than a Fulmar's top speed! Apart from that, the Fulmars in the Mediterranean, or over and around Malta, rarely, if ever encountered Bf 109s, nor can I find references to Fulmars shooting down 109s - but, I'll keep looking.

Not to mention the Fulmar's very slow rate of climb cf Spitfires and Hurricanes. The British fighters were at their most vulnerable when they were climbing for altitude where they could be - and often were - bounced by 109s which were already flying at higher altitudes. Fulmars trying to climb to altitude after a scramble would have been far more vulnerable. The slow ROC also meant that Fulmar units would have needed to be scrambled far earlier than the Spitfire and Hurricane units, or Fighter Command would have been forced to fly standing patrols in the hope that they could intercept Luftwaffe formations.

Unfortunately, had Fulmars been employed in large numbers during the B of B, they would have been shot down in large numbers before they could close with the Luftwaffe bombers.

Without speed, you cannot really win air superiority, but also without sppeed, you can survive. there is a world of difference between the two issues, and ther is no contradiction. i dont know how many times Ive had this sort of discussion, basically because most people dont understand the difference between air superiority, air supremacy and being able to challenge the air state.

Without speed Fulmars, or any other fighter cannot control the air state. the best they hope to do is sneak up and pick off an odd bomber or two.. thats exactly what the air garrison managed to do over Malta, with just 3 losses in air combat in over a year of fighting (ther were other losses, but not to fightres). And because Malta was a point target, and SE England is not, the concentration of 109s over Malta was always going to be larger than the tendency of small scale raids that charaterised the battles over England in 1940, despite the greater numbers of enemy fighters. That is the nature of point defence.

We can talk about the theoretical disadavatages of the Fulmar, or the Gladiator, or the CR42 all day, but that just conveniently ignores the basic facts......these types of aircraft did not suffer an especially high rate of attrition (except when other factors were also in the mix....and that could happen....anybody who fields inferior fighters is usually cockeyed in other areas as well), either when fighting with or against better types, or fighting on their own. What they could not do, was prevent superior types from dictating, or controlling the air state surrounding their own operations. Obsolete fighters are essentially an attritional weapon, they really cannot prevent an enemy from dominating the sky and being able to fly operations as required. however, if the cost of those opperations becomes too high, it becomes uneconomic to continue operations, and the side flying the dumbass fighters, in a blunt instrument kind of way can sometimes deny air air superiority to an opponent.

I tell you what, show me the evidence that Fulmars suffered an especially high rate of attrition, and I will look at the scenario differently, re-examine the factors affecting loss rates, and get back to you. but I can tell you one thing, top rated fighters dont reduce your own losses, at least not by much. What they can do is increase enemy losses,and permit your strike elements to hit with decreased vulnerability.

As to numbers, well, we will never know, so that much of your argument is sheer opinion and conjecture based on preconceived ideas and biases. what we do know is that the Fulmar, even when outnumbered 4 or 5:1 it didnt seem to bother them in the least. It just prevented them from doing their job (destroy enemy bombers) effectively, because they were too busy trying to just not get shot down. Ther is no evidence 9infront of us) for you to claim they would be shot out of the sky. There is evidence that they could survive in a hostile environment, just that it doesnt fit your conception of how air warfare is supposed to work. its a common misunderstanding

 

[parsifal]

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.'

Ive read the book, though i seem to have lost my copy of late....Im not claiming they were acting or capable as interceptors. They needed more speed, alot of it, to do that and their performance at altiude was failry poor. but they could (and did) undertake the role of bomber destroyer very effectively in their time. They were an aircraft designed to operate below 15000 feet, high altitude was another thing they were not really built for.

just so we are clear. i am not claiming the Fulmar was a possible alternative or replacement for either the hurricane or the spitfire. it might work as a supplement at best. What i am going nuts over are these unsubstantiated claims that it would be shot out of the sky. There is no evidence that i am aware of of that ever happening. Provided the pilot was competent of course. Neither am i claiming the Fulmar was anything really special. It was just an aircraft, that happened to be too slow to be suited to the role of air superiority fighter, but it did possess certain qualities that made it good at what it was built for...... heavy armament, good loiter time, stability and reasoable manouverability made it ideal as a bomber killer, and thats reflected in its kill scores.

Why do i know this...well in part because ive seen other aircraft from another age do exactly the same thing in excercise.....our usage of A4s were modelled on exactly the fulmar experience, I know the theory, and i know that it works...it worked then, and it worked in the 70s. Maybe things have changed now....who knows

 

[RCAFson]

If you are going to build a single seater just build a new airplane. Leaving out the rear seat and fairing over the cockpit doesn't gain much. To save 1000lbs you are going to need to do more than just leave the rear seater home and rip out the radio gear. Not to mention that most of the weight you want to remove is behind the center of gravity. Having twice the ammo doesn't really give you twice the firepower, it allows to shoot with the SAME firepower twice as long which is not quite the same thing. BTW 400rpg for 8 guns is 192lbs not including the weight of the ammo boxes. Or about the weight of a second crew man.

Gladiator with "uprated" engine and CS speed prop should see a lot better climb at low altitude but improvement at higher altitudes would be minimal, as would speed increases. That is unless you uprate the Mercury waaaay beyond what was done historically.

The did run them on occasion at 9lbs of boost with 100 octane fuel but just like the Merlin III, this only affected power below the FTH of 13-14,000ft. To "uprate" more than that you need more/thinner/longer cooling fins which may or may not require different manufacturing techniques. You may need a new (bigger) supercharger and drive. Just changing the gear ratio isn't going to get you much. Getting 840hp at 13-14,000ft from a 25 liter air cooled engine was doing pretty good as it was. The Wright R-1820GR205A that gave 1200hp for take-off on 91 octane was only good for 1000hp at 14,000ft from it's 30 liters and it weighed 300lb more than Mercury.

The Fulmar I included folding wings, arrestor gear, catapult points, observer, 2 full oxygen systems, full naval radio and radio homing equipment, none of which is needed for an RAF heavy fighter. Again, look at the P.4/34 performance specs and then uprate them with a more powerful engine. I don't know why people are fixating on the Fulmar I with a Merlin VIII engine as being even remotely similar to what an RAF heavy fighter would perform like.

My understanding was that the malta field mod consisted of fitting a Mercury XV engine and CS prop to the Gladiator.

BTW, another alternate candidate for RAF FC was the Gloster F.9/37:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gloster_F.9/37

 

[Shortround6]

The P4/34 had an extra 80-100 sq ft of wing area, an extra 7-8ft of fuselage length compared to a single seat fighter Weighed as much empty as a Hurricane did loaded, and that is without guns, armor or self sealing tanks. There is no way, given the same engine, that it could perform anywhere close to even a Hurricane.
Just how much operational equipment was in the P4/34 when it was tested?

And the cube rule says that if the Hurricane did 313mph with 1030hp and the P4/34 did 283mph with same 1030hp it needs 1393 hp to get the same 313mph. Merlins with 1393hp at 16,000ft were a bit scarce in 1940. They were a bit scarce for most of 1941.

As far as the Mercury goes, They managed to get a Blenheim up to about 290 something mph by fairing the nose, clipping the wings, taking out the turret, polishing the paint and sanding rivets, AND running 100 octane gas, over reving the engine and running 9lb boost. The Mercury XV engine had the SAME ratings as the MK VIII used in the Gladiator. Differences were it was capable of taking the controllable pitch prop (Different shaft? and oil pump for the pitch mechanism.)

All the Gloster F.9/37 needed was an engine that actually worked more than occasionally. The 2nd prototype when powered with a different model Taurus engine saw the speed drop to 330mph and most production Taurus engines were rated for an altitude of 3500ft and had cooling and reliability troubles at that altitude. Throw that in with Bristol NOT solving the sleeve valve production problem until the summer of 1940 ( they could make limited numbers of decent sleeve valves but not large numbers) and you would have production starting in Aug/Sept. a little late.

 

[tomo pauk]

FWIW, the chart with Merlins (1st half of war, VIII included), plus table for VIII and Mk.30. Seems like Merlin III and XII have circa 300 HP more at 10000 ft than the Mk.VIII.

 

[fastmongrel]

Only use I can see for a Fulmar in the BoB is as a patrol plane. If the LW had managed to knock holes in the Chain Home system the Fulmars endurance could have been handy for flying above the Channel to provide early warning of raids and possibly shadow the raid providing tracking info as long as they kept well out of the way of the 109s.

 

[Aozora]

Without speed, you cannot really win air superiority, but also without sppeed, you can survive. there is a world of difference between the two issues, and ther is no contradiction. i dont know how many times Ive had this sort of discussion, basically because most people dont understand the difference between air superiority, air supremacy and being able to challenge the air state.

Thanks for being condescending, that really helps your argument.

Without speed Fulmars, or any other fighter cannot control the air state. the best they hope to do is sneak up and pick off an odd bomber or two.. thats exactly what the air garrison managed to do over Malta, with just 3 losses in air combat in over a year of fighting (ther were other losses, but not to fightres). And because Malta was a point target, and SE England is not, the concentration of 109s over Malta was always going to be larger than the tendency of small scale raids that charaterised the battles over England in 1940, despite the greater numbers of enemy fighters. That is the nature of point defence.

I cannot find one single instance where Fulmars were even likely to encounter Bf 109s over Malta, so, from that perspective, you have no basis for your claims that they could survive for long enough to pick off one or two bombers when faced with modern, high speed fighters flown by competent pilots.

I tell you what, show me the evidence that Fulmars suffered an especially high rate of attrition, and I will look at the scenario differently, re-examine the factors affecting loss rates, and get back to you. but I can tell you one thing, top rated fighters dont reduce your own losses, at least not by much. What they can do is increase enemy losses,and permit your strike elements to hit with decreased vulnerability.

You know ful-mar well that Fulmars did not encounter modern, high speed fighters such as the Bf 109 so there are no such attrition statistics to point to.

As to numbers, well, we will never know, so that much of your argument is sheer opinion and conjecture based on preconceived ideas and biases. what we do know is that the Fulmar, even when outnumbered 4 or 5:1 it didnt seem to bother them in the least. It just prevented them from doing their job (destroy enemy bombers) effectively, because they were too busy trying to just not get shot down. Ther is no evidence 9infront of us) for you to claim they would be shot out of the sky. There is evidence that they could survive in a hostile environment, just that it doesnt fit your conception of how air warfare is supposed to work. its a common misunderstanding

Nor is your hypothesis proven and, once again, thanks for your condescending remarks about my inferior understanding of how air combat works.

 

[Shortround6]

FWIW, the chart with Merlins (1st half of war, VIII included), plus table for VIII and Mk.30. Seems like Merlin III and XII have circa 300 HP more at 10000 ft than the Mk.VIII.

The problem isn't 300 more hp at 10,000ft. it's the 3-400 hp needed at 16,000ft and up to drag the larger, heavier airframe around to equal even the Hurricane. We are not talking about the Spitfire, if you want a viable alternative fighter for the BOB it had better equal the Hurricane on average and planes with more weight and drag won't do it and planes with the Mercury radial won't do it. The Taurus and Hercules by historical standards weren't built in enough numbers in the summer/early fall of 1940 to be viable power-plants.
As an example even the British were going to power early Beauforts with P&W R-1830s but the ship carrying the first 200 or so engines was torpedoed (also points out a problem with depending on US engines) so production went forward with the Taurus engines.

 

[tomo pauk]

I'm not championing the Fulmar as a suitable replacement for the Spit Hurri. Even with Merlin 30, it was managing only 245 mph at 15000 ft (259 mph at 9000 ft). The Merlin III XII were making between 50 and 100 HP more than Mk.30, so we might just top 250 mph at 15000 ft with either Mk.III or Mk.XII. A loosing proposal vs. 100 mph faster LW opposition. Even with Merlin XX onboard, achieving 280 mph at 18-20000 ft might be Fulmar's best shot. Again, not enough. Further, it wouldn't have any climb advantage at any altitudes vs. LW fighters. Then we have another thing: the UK was't awash with Merlin XXs in 1940.
One might wonder an 250-280 mph fighter will be of any use as a bomber destroyer, since it will be ill able to catch something faster than a Stuka.

For a plane that would really do as good as BoB RAF duo (or better), UK need to produce a small fighter with Merlin, not something bigger than even Spitfire or Huricane.

 

[merlin]

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.

Yes to supplement. Moreover, if we're going to play WI with aircraft then some of the 'engine problems' can be solved earlier rather than late!!

I tried to make my little list 'reasonably plausible' options, though I'm surprised at some of the aircraft mentioned ..... !!

Whilst a single-seat 'Defiant' could've happened earlier e.g. as a result of the encounter over Holland, a moot point about it's speed without a Merlin XX to power it.

And yes, the use of the Defiant in the BoB seems strange, e.g. should've been used against the Newcastle raid, meanwhile down South, rather than scrabble to meet raids, might have been better to have them go for departing raids - coup de grace to the damaged and stragglers.

The Gloster F.5/34 - it would need to fly earlier, Gloster build it because Hurricane production is handled by the Austin Shadow factory (better option then Battles - IMHO). It's also possible that it could have got export orders - other countries that I believe licence produce the Mercury - Sweden, Finland Poland!

The Boulton-Paul P.88A B - given that OTL the Vulture was pulled, but the Hercules came good, I included the 'A' - again feasible that it was built flew and ordered - granted it needed the expected 1500 hp !

Interesting the comments on the Martlet, again the FAA could've had a Squadron or two in time, though they would've needed to have ordered it rather than taken over the French order.

 

[parsifal]

hanks for being condescending, that really helps your argument.

im not being condescending, sorry if you took it that way. Rather than me getting into a distasteful argument about what i think and what you think about your knowledge of air control, why dont you just tell me what you think and then we can take it from there. The generally accepted theories on air control is about the measure of freedom of manouvre a force can exercise in a given theatre or battle. air supremacy generally means a force can act with virtual impunity. perhaps only attritional losses due to unavoidable non combat losses. No real restriction on operational freedom. Air superiority means that there are some losses, but operations can be undertaken with a fair amount of freedom and and choice, losses tolerable, and operations able to be undertaken on a sustained basis. Air parity means restricted air operations, limited freedom of manouvre, some operations ok, but some with heavy losses, air activity intermittent. There is one other term, not really relating to air control, but simply what a defender can sometimes achieve....air denial, which means that every now and then they can intervene and inflict attrition on an opponent, so as to increase the costs and losses and reduce accuracy for the bombers. Obsolete fighter, no matter the numbers, cannot effectively claim either of the first two air states under any circumstances (except if ther are no opposing forces at all, or perhaps only with sustained attrition over a fairly long period), but they can do quite a bit towards the last two. Which is precisely where the fulmar slots in in 1940-41.

Over SE englands the Germans, despite massive efforts, never achieved air superiority, much less supremacy. they were aiming for the latter. Because of that, clashes between opposing fighters were numerous, because the RAF simply would not concede air superiority to the germans. However, they did not achieve their victory because they necesarily possessed a superior fighter. We still argue incessantly about whether the 109 or the spit was superior, but forget that the lions share of the fighting for the british was done by an aircraft decidely inferior to the 109....the Hurricane. The Germans lost 250 fighters, give or take, during the main phase of the BoB , whilst the Brits lost , what, say 700 fighters. To those 250 German fighters, you can add at least 1200 other german aircraft, and thats where their defeat lies. Losses were so heavy, that the germans were unable to sustain operations, but the Brits did not win that victory by superior types, or a clear technological advantage (in the air i mean). They used attrition to wear the germans down, concentrating on the destruction of the bombers, because, you guessed it, their main fighter was outclassed by the Germans.

over Malta, despite the relatively modest 109 numbers committed, the Germans did achieve air superiority, tending to air supremacy. They could operate with virtual impunity over Malta in the finish, and could underttake whatever air operation they cared for. because Malta was a point defence target, they could achieve fighter concentrations way above what the modest numbers would otherwise suggest. the losses they suffered were attritional, inflicted in the main by Hurricanes, but also by the half squadron of Fulmars also based there. In the face of overwhelming German superiority, RAF and FAA tactics were not to engage head on, but pick off stragglers and wounded aircraft.....an effective response but one that took time to achieve any measurable or significant effect. If forced to do so, they could have also used that tactic over SE England for Fulmar operations.

I cannot find one single instance where Fulmars were even likely to encounter Bf 109s over Malta, so, from that perspective, you have no basis for your claims that they could survive for long enough to pick off one or two bombers when faced with modern, high speed fighters flown by competent pilots.

Where and how thoroughly did you look. Encounters between 109s and fulmars, or Hurricaners for that matter, during the worst parts oif the air battle over Malta were indeed rare, though not non-existent. It was an appropriate and effective response to an enemy conceded as having total air superiority over the island. I disagree that they were non-existent however. I suggest you look again, particulalry just after January 10 1941, and goes to the heart of what im arguing. But in the main fighter to fighter encounters were rare, which to that extent is consistent with your claim. They were actively avoided by the defenders, thats why, and really, when you think about it, is the main point Im making. fighting 109s in an aircraft like the Fulmar is not something really good for your long term health, but it does not follow that because the 109 outclassed the Fulmar, that the Fulmar was going to be shot down as a matter of course or that the fulmar was unable of achieving some effective results. over malta, the Fulmar managed both...to survive and shoot down enemy aircraft,whilst avoiding clashes with an enemy that could clearly fly rings around it if it had caught the fulmar. Or that it (the Fulmar) could not operate with some effect on the battle. It proved itself very suvivable over Malta, and had quite a bit of effect. Remember, i conceded that obsolete fighters cannot win air superiority in the face of a better quality opponent, except by attritional means, but they can survive, and they can use "air guerilla tactics" to pick off the vulnerable strike aircraft here and there, gradually wearing down an opponent until the problem was more manageable. this is precisely what the defenders over Malta were forced to do, but it was effective in the end. far from disproving that the fulmar was a survivable asset in such an enbvironment, or that there were no 109s over Malta, it 9ther was no combat with 109s) proves that Fulmars could survive in a hostile environment, with minimal losses, and some effect (albeit a supplementary one, which is all I ever claimed).

Thats why having the biggest, meanest fighter on the block will get you air auperiority, but not necessarily victory, and why having a force of Fulmars (if they had been available at all in any meanigful numbers in August 1940) over England in 1940, was not necessarily a liability. They were never available, and in any event the RAF had oodles of spare Hurricanes and Spits to use instead. they were short of pilots. But if they had had oodles of pilots, but were short of airframes, but a relative large supply of Fulmars, i would not have hesitated to use them to try and get at stragglers and damaged bombers where the opportunity arose....and it arose often, because the germans had insufficient numbers of fighters to be everywhere in strength when needed.

You know ful-mar well that Fulmars did not encounter modern, high speed fighters such as the Bf 109 so there are no such attrition statistics to point to.

This is incorrect, but it is true that they were uncommon. Thats the very point Im making. they could operate in skies dominated by superior fighters (even a 110 was a handful for a fulmar), both in numbers and quality, and yet, still get effective and important work done

Nor is your hypothesis proven and, once again, thanks for your condescending remarks about my inferior understanding of how air combat works.

Its not my theory, its theories that Ive learnt, taught and applied for a living stretching over a period of years. Not being condescending, have a great deal of respect for your knowledge actually, but on the the application of air power, the achievement of air state, why having the most modern fighter wont necessarily win a campaign, you dont understand the theory. There is no other way of putting it. I have to ask, do you have any practical experience in air operations or air defence problem solving. i will hazard a gues and expect that you have none, but have read extensively on the technical aspects of flying. Doesnt mean you are wrong in the wider sense, but its obvious to me, someone who is trained in this field professionally, that you dont understand these concepts at all. I genuinely dont want to offend you in that regard, but it is what it is

 

[RCAFson]

The P4/34 had an extra 80-100 sq ft of wing area, an extra 7-8ft of fuselage length compared to a single seat fighter Weighed as much empty as a Hurricane did loaded, and that is without guns, armor or self sealing tanks. There is no way, given the same engine, that it could perform anywhere close to even a Hurricane.
Just how much operational equipment was in the P4/34 when it was tested?

And the cube rule says that if the Hurricane did 313mph with 1030hp and the P4/34 did 283mph with same 1030hp it needs 1393 hp to get the same 313mph. Merlins with 1393hp at 16,000ft were a bit scarce in 1940. They were a bit scarce for most of 1941.

As far as the Mercury goes, They managed to get a Blenheim up to about 290 something mph by fairing the nose, clipping the wings, taking out the turret, polishing the paint and sanding rivets, AND running 100 octane gas, over reving the engine and running 9lb boost. The Mercury XV engine had the SAME ratings as the MK VIII used in the Gladiator. Differences were it was capable of taking the controllable pitch prop (Different shaft? and oil pump for the pitch mechanism.)

All the Gloster F.9/37 needed was an engine that actually worked more than occasionally. The 2nd prototype when powered with a different model Taurus engine saw the speed drop to 330mph and most production Taurus engines were rated for an altitude of 3500ft and had cooling and reliability troubles at that altitude. Throw that in with Bristol NOT solving the sleeve valve production problem until the summer of 1940 ( they could make limited numbers of decent sleeve valves but not large numbers) and you would have production starting in Aug/Sept. a little late.

and the proto-Fulmar had ~40 sqft less wing area than the P.4/34. The P.4/34 was flight tested at full operational weight regardless of the equipment on-board.


Mercury XV 100 octane:

Powerplant: (100 Octane Fuel) Two Bristol Mercury XV 9-cylinder poppet-valve air-cooled radial engines developing 905 hp (675 kW) at take-off, a maximum output of 995 hp (742 kW) for level flight (5 minute usage) and a maximum ecomical cruising power output of 590 hp (440 kW) at 16,000 ft (4877 m) at 2400 rpm. (87 Octane Fuel) Two Bristol Mercury XV 9-cylinder poppet-valve air-cooled radial engines developing 725 hp (541 kW) at take-off, a maximum output of 840 hp (627 kW) for level flight (5 minute usage) and a maximum ecomical cruising power output of 590 hp (440 kW) at 16,000 ft (4877 m) at 2400 rpm.
Bristol Blenheim

 

[Shortround6]

and the proto-Fulmar had ~40 sqft less wing area than the P.4/34. The P.4/34 was flight tested at full operational weight regardless of the equipment on-board.

Hmmmm, the full operational weight of the P.4/34 in 1937 included armor, self sealing tanks, 1940 radio gear? it included eight .303 guns in the wings (with cartridge slots) instead of one?

Mercury XV 100 octane

Very nice an true as far as it goes, but it doesn't go quite far enough. It does NOT give the altitudes at which the maximum power for level flight (5min usage) were obtained does it?
on 87 octane it is 840hp at 14,000ft and with 100 octane it is 995hp at 9,250ft. At 14,000ft it will be back to 840hp because the supercharger will simply not supply any more air.

Also the "normal" climb was 825hp at 2650 rpm at 13,000ft with both fuels, just as the max economical cruising power was identical.

I Believe I have stated that the use of 100 octane fuel would improve the performance of a Mercury powered fighter at LOW altitudes but would do nothing for performance without major changes at higher altitudes. Much like the Merlin, 100 octane did nothing above 16-17,000ft. and the Mercury starts 200hp less than the Merlin 2,250 ft lower. Mercury will be at 800hp or below at the Merlins FTH.

 

[fastmongrel]

All the Mercury needed was another 5 to 10 liters of capacity, completely new cooling fins with more area and a decent supercharger. Apart from that it was a decent engine just no fighter engine in 1940.