Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
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.
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?
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.
The idea that the Fulmar could have been effective in any shape or form in the BOB I find difficult to understand. It was barely faster than the Blenheim and while in theory I can see the case for picking off the stragglers or damaged aircraft there are some problems:-
a) It wasn't fast enough to catch the stragglers. Max speed approx. 270 mph. He111 approx. 270mph, Ju88 315mph, Do17 255mph (I give you that one).
b) What are the German fighters doing while you wait for the Stragglers and damaged aircraft?
c) The Hurricane was heavily outclassed by the Me109 we all accept that, but the Fulmar was worse than the Hurricane by some margin, speed acceleration, agility, climb you name it. The losses would have been huge
d) Its poor climb would have made it very difficult to intercept the bombers in the first place.
The only area where I can see the Fulmar of being of assistance in defending the North of England against attacks from Norway. It would be fast enough to catch an incoming bomber at cruising speed. There are no 109's to worry about and the Fulmars good range and ammunition supply would have been of considerable assistance
lets not either kid ourselves, neither short change these second string fighters. with regard to the Fulmar, it had no chance whatsoever of acting in the air superiority role. F-15 it was not. But I agree to an extent with RCAFson....it had runs on the board as far as destroying bombers, AND, it demonstrated that it could operate and survive in a moderately hostile environment. You wouldnt trade your Hurricane or Spitfire for a Fulmar, but if you were coming up short of those two, but still had the pilots, the Fulmar could take some of the load.
A better option, which Ive suggested a couple of times now is a twin engined version of the Fulmar. Id love some of you technical types to have a go at estimating its performance with two merlins fitted......
The Fulmar would have been withdrawn from the BoB in days. It had no chance of surviving in that environment. The primary objective of Fighter Command, as re-iterated on several occasions by both Park and Dowding, was to shoot down the Luftwaffe's bombers. The Fulmar would have been unable to climb to reach them, then have struggled to catch them, and finally been cannon fodder for the escorting Bf 109s.
This fate was only narrowly avoided by the Hurricane and to a lesser extent the Spitfire, both of which largely out perform the Fulmar.
A twin engine Fulmar derivative might be an interesting 'what if' but in 1939/40 such a suggestion would have been met with a 'why?' The Air Ministry had effectively just axed the Whirlwind.
Cheers
Steve
I have consistently argued here and elsewhere for the Hurricane. I do not believe it was outclassed by the Bf 109 E, but the Messerschmitt was a better fighter. Nonetheless on 1/9/40 11 Group comprised 14 Hurricane squadrons and only 6 Spitfire squadrons. Contrary to the myth it was the Hurricane that bore the brunt of the battle.
Raids were detected as they formed up over the French coast. Interceptors were vectored to the raids as their course (and altitude) were established from 11 Groups airfields. I can't make sense of the suggestion that formations of Fulmars could have been vectored onto raids from bases further back. The detection ranges and timings don't support your proposition. Aircraft had to be vectored to within visual range of a raid, about a maximum of three miles. The course of the raid had to be accurately plotted to enable this. It only took a raid about ten to fifteen minutes to cross the Channel. Attempts by the so called Duxford Wing to make interceptions from 12 group almost invariably failed.
Cheers
Steve
I'm sorry, Parsifal, but you have not addressed the big difference between Malta and UK; the sheer numbers of Bf 109s operating at any one time. Aozora's right, there are few instances of Fulmars in combat with Bf 109s and those that there are were not nearly in anything like the numbers over the UK in 1940. How can you expect the Fulmar to do any better than the Defiant in the same circumstances as the turret fighter found itself in? The Fulmar was slower by a considerable margin, had a lower rate of climb and ceiling.
Right, so that's why the 1000lb heavier, navalized Fulmar, with low altitude rated engines never shot down ANY axis bombers...A handful of Carrier borne Fulmars, were, in actuality, shooting down axis bombers at a terrific rate compared to the Spitfire/Hurricane even while the BoB was still on.
Remember that a non-navalized Fulmar is much lighter, faster aircraft with a higher ceiling.
As you state a non-Naval Fulmar with a higher altitude rated engine could have been used as a long range patrol fighter, and it could have replaced and/or supplemented the Hurricane/Spitfire in areas beyond the reach of the 109. Probably a very useful for Patroling the Bay of Biscay to deter the FW-200 and in the eastern Med where it could have provided some air cover all the way to Crete, while flying from Egypt.
I'm sorry, Parsifal, but you have not addressed the big difference between Malta and UK; the sheer numbers of Bf 109s operating at any one time. Aozora's right, there are few instances of Fulmars in combat with Bf 109s and those that there are were not nearly in anything like the numbers over the UK in 1940. How can you expect the Fulmar to do any better than the Defiant in the same circumstances as the turret fighter found itself in? The Fulmar was slower by a considerable margin, had a lower rate of climb and ceiling.
It included the full bomb load, bomb racks, 2nd seat and related equipment, so this will more than balance off the conversion to a single seat heavy fighter.
The supercharger gear ratios could have been adjusted to boost power at high altitude, but in any event a Gladiator with a Mercury XV and CS prop would have been a handful for any axis fighter, while the improved climb and ceiling from the CS prop would increase success in interceptions.
IIRC Fulmars from carriers also engaged Bf 109s 110s during a couple of convoy escort missions to Russia.