Was single seat Firefly possible?

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

Hm, as much as it's a nice simple scenario that Charles Knell has written, what he doesn't acknowledge is that development of the Firefly took place over a ten year period. The Griffon engined Mk.IV, which Charles alludes to in his scenario did not fly for the first time until 25 May 1945, by that time the FAA is equipped with Corsairs, Hellcats, Martlets and Wildcats, Seafires etc - and the war in Europe is over. Does the FAA need another single-seat fighter by then, especially with the first Sea Fury proper about to fly on 25 July 1945 and the navy having settled on a production navalised variant of Hawker's Tempest Light Fighter? That the Firebrand was never going to measure up as a single-seat fighter compared to existing aircraft in FAA service, and cancellation should have taken place sooner, is certain, but with alternatives from the United States and the Seafire and Sea Fury settled on, it leaves the need for a single-seat Firefly hanging.

There is also the little matter of its not as simple to just get rid of the seat and stuff in the back to create a single-seater from a two-seat aircraft. Location of cg means that something needs to be there otherwise its nose heavy. The alternative is to shorten it, but what does that do to its handling and stability, also changes to the production line throw it back in time, meaning the aircraft would likely be completely redundant by the time it is service ready.
 

The Fulmar was often flown as a single seater, (and this was possible on the Firefly) often with the observer's seat in place, but it could certainly have been removed, however ~400lb less (on the Firefly) is not much on a ~12000lb aircraft and with an observer the Fulmar/Firefly pilot literally had eyes in the back of his head.
 

Yup. And a single-seat Fulmar is more feasible within the time scale, that's for sure. But again, is it able to match existing naval fighters that the FAA was receiving from the USA in performance? And what about in numbers? The USA was a godsend in terms of resources and support for those, why not rely on it and focus internal production on aircraft that actually make a difference, like the Spitfire and Mosquito, for example?
 
A 1-seater was certainly possible. Questions: for what time is this wanted, and what role(s) to do once we get there?
 
I don't know why people think that you can a large two seat machine and by taking out the rear seat crewman, plating over the hole and rearranging some of the internals you are going to get a high performance single seat machine.

A Firefly was nearly the size and weight of an F6F Hellcat. Some dimensions and weights a little less, some a little more. Without a crapload of power you aren't going to get much by leaving the rear seat crewman on the ground. Either in performance or handling.

Sabre engine is roughly 400lbs heavier than the two stage Griffon. Size of the radiators is proportional to the power of the engine.
 
A Firefly was nearly the size and weight of an F6F Hellcat. Some dimensions and weights a little less, some a little more. Without a crapload of power you aren't going to get much by leaving the rear seat crewman on the ground.
Click to expand...
The 14,000 lb. Firefly Mk 1's Griffon is pulling 1,730 hp. True, that's not the lighter 12,500 lb. Hellcat's 2,200 hp Double Wasp, but the Griffon is no pansy.

But I agree, a lot more weight needs to be taken out of the Firefly beyond stripping out the seat, etc.
 
Kevin J said:
Better still, put the 2 stage Merlin in the Fulmar, add the dive brakes that were tested on it, and you'd have a fast reconnaissance dive bomber for use in the East Indies, immune to interception.
Click to expand...
As the primary East Indies carrier, we'll want to adjust Hermes' 36 by 36.6 ft lifts to accommodate the Fulmar's 40 ft 2 in length.

Allowing for reasonable space for aircraft movement and maintenance, I calculate we can fit 12-13 Fulmars in Hermes' hangar. Add some outriggers and a crash barrier and we should be able to add 3-4 Swordfish as well. Not a bad CAG, provided an avgas tender can follow alongside.

 
Last edited:
Admiral Beez said:
As the primary East Indies carrier, we'll want to adjust Hermes' 36 by 36.6 ft lifts to accommodate the Fulmar's 40 ft 2 in length.
Click to expand...
Simple solution, don't build the KGV class battleships, instead modernise Tiger a Iron Duke class and build Improved Ark Royal class with deck edge lifts. That way we have 5 extra carriers to oppose the IJN.
 
Not this again.
Modernizing the Tiger and Iron Dukes means keeping the basic hull, some of the armor and keeping the out dated, too small guns. It means ripping out the old boilers and turbines and installing new ones, adding thousands of tons of armor, bulging the hulls and being stuck with slow, short ranged weak ships. An awful lot of money and effort for little result. Ability to mount effective AA battery is suspect.
 
Take out the middle turret and you have more room for bigger boilers to increase speed. 13.5 or 14 inch guns, so what's the difference? Remove the end turrets, and you have hybrid carrier. For escort duties, two turrets should be sufficient. Swordfish floatplanes for ASW, Spitfire floatplanes for fighter protection.
 


Fulmar production began before any Martlets had been received by the UK. Grumman could not produce enough F4F's to meet the needs of the USN, until 1942, much less all the needs of the RN's FAA and the USN.
 
Floatplanes operated from catapults, had best be considered as expendable or semi-expendable. The requirements for operating such aircraft vary, with weather being a major consideration. It is possible to operate some aircraft off of fixed decks in seas that you could not land a floatplane in safely. You also have to either stop or slow to a few knots in order to hoist the floatplanes back aboard. Not a good plan if there are U-boats about. In the south Pacific (as opposed to the North Pacific) and China Sea (or the Med), you can operate floatplanes a higher percentage of the time. But you still have to recover them aboard ship.

That said, there is no reason to pull the middle turret. 1930s boilers were much smaller and more powerful than early WW I boilers. In fact there was a turning point in WW I when small tube boilers began to replace large tube boilers which the Tiger had. Likewise geared turbines began to replace direct drive turbines. This is in addition to the change to oil fuel which allowed smaller boiler rooms, no need to have room for hundreds of men shoveling coal. Further improvements were made during the 20s so by the early 30s the weight per shaft hp was significantly reduced as was the volume needed by the machinery. In fact the Tiger might have been good for 30kts if it had small tube boilers, even if coal fired.
However an extensive battleship renovation could pay for 3 cruisers.
Unless you change the elevation of the 13.5in guns they have roughly the same max range as a modern cruiser with 6in guns. The 8in gun cruisers definitely out range the 13.5in guns with 20 degrees elevation.

edit:


supposed to a picture of the Illustrious at the time of the Taranto Raid.
 
Last edited:
Kevin J said:
Simple solution, don't build the KGV class battleships, instead modernise Tiger a Iron Duke class and build Improved Ark Royal class with deck edge lifts. That way we have 5 extra carriers to oppose the IJN.
Click to expand...

The only way you could convert Tiger or an Iron Duke class to make them useful as aircraft carrier escorts for WW2 would be to fit a new hull, new superstructure, new guns, new magazines, new engines, new boilers and new armour. About the only things you could reuse would be the Bell and the Captains drinks cabinet.

Deck edge lifts for British carriers were tried on post WW2 carriers and its noticeable they lasted only a few years till the hole was plated up and everyone pretended they had never existed.
 
USS Wasp had a deck edge lift in 1940, so it's both feasible and practicalable. I'm trying to get some extra aircraft carriers for late 1941 to contest the IJN in the Indian Ocean and Pacific, so not building the KGV class gives me that spare shipbuilding capacity. Tiger, the Iron Duke class are inferior to them, but available with modernization. They can even be converted into Hybrids able to operate floatplanes oft an aft deck and hanger for escort duties. Worn out by 45 of course and expendable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

A
Heaviest armed Japanese single seat, single engine fighter?
2 3
Replies
41
Views
4K
MIflyer
M
A
Worst liquid-cooled, V12-powered, single-engine, single-seat, monoplane, retractable undercarriage fighters of WW2?
2 3
Replies
56
Views
5K
yulzari
Single seat F-82?
Replies
2
Views
925
Admiral Beez
A
A
Could a single engined, single seat fighter be made for the Lycomings xr-7755?
Replies
8
Views
1K
GrauGeist
Single seat/single engine fighter landing gear positioning logic
Replies
0
Views
488
BarnOwlLover
Menu
Log in
Register