Was single seat Firefly possible?

[Shortround6]

So, the FAA used some of it's fighters as reconnaissance aircraft, whereas the USN used dive-bombers as scouts and bombers?

That is pretty much what the US designations say.

SBC- Scout Bomber Curtiss (the biplane Helldiver)
SBD- Scout Bomber Douglas (Dauntless)
SB2C- Scout Bomber 2 model Curtiss (the Monoplane Helldiver)
SBA/N Scout Bomber A manufacturer (Brewster) or N (Naval aircraft factory)
SB2A Scout Bomber 2 model A manufacturer (Brewster Buccaneer)

Boeing may have had the "B" manufacturer designation, Like F2B while the Buffalo was the F2A, Fighter 2nd model A manufacturer

TBD Torpedo Bomber Douglas.

Somehow Grumman wound up with the letter code F and Vought would up with U (quite possibly for United AIrcraft?)

 

[Zipper730]

That is pretty much what the US designations say.

And the scout mission was basically the reconnaissance mission that the RN:FAA was using Fulmars for?

 

[Freebird]

So, the FAA used some of it's fighters as reconnaissance aircraft, whereas the USN used dive-bombers as scouts and bombers?
Sounds like a way to hedge one's bets.

Well no, the Fulmar wasn't primarily a fighter, which is why it's original specification was O8/38 (Observation aircraft) and not N8/38 (Naval fighter)

The Firefly was an improved Fulmar, with better speed, higher bomb payload and 4 x 20mm cannon.

When you think of it, the RN placed a much higher priority on "patrol" function, as it was thought that the missions would involve a lot of patrol for U-boats and surface raiders.

 

[Freebird]

And the scout mission was basically the reconnaissance mission that the RN:FAA was using Fulmars for?

Yes.
Obviously if you encountered enemy aircraft the Fulmar/Firefly is far more capable than a Dauntless.
By 1940 (when the Firefly prototype was ordered) the FAA would have been considering a radar set for surface search (& ASW), which wouldn't work in a single seat Firebrand

 

[Zipper730]

Well no, the Fulmar wasn't primarily a fighter, which is why it's original specification was O8/38 (Observation aircraft) and not N8/38 (Naval fighter)

That seems like a good point...

The Firefly was an improved Fulmar, with better speed, higher bomb payload and 4 x 20mm cannon. . . . When you think of it, the RN placed a much higher priority on "patrol" function, as it was thought that the missions would involve a lot of patrol for U-boats and surface raiders.

Yeah, but U-boats and surface-raiders aren't really all that fast. You don't need fighter-speed to run them down.

Obviously if you encountered enemy aircraft the Fulmar/Firefly is far more capable than a Dauntless

They both had greater speed (possibly agility) than the Dauntless.

By 1940 (when the Firefly prototype was ordered) the FAA would have been considering a radar set for surface search (& ASW), which wouldn't work in a single seat Firebrand

Though this might sound fairly ridiculous: The FAA might have been better off keeping the Fulmar, modifying it a bit, and covering it with a new single-seat fighter.

1. The Fulmar was a better performer than the Dauntless
   • It was faster at 272 mph vs 250-255 mph
   • I'm not sure if it was more maneuverable, but it might have been more easy to bring aboard deck than the SB2C, which the FAA didn't adopt anyway
2. The aircraft could have been refined a number of different ways.
   • The radiator seemed poorly designed: With some redesigns and refinements, I figure some extra speed could be produced by the aircraft
   • I'm not sure what supercharger gearing it had compared to the Spitfire or Hurricane, but I figure a two-speed supercharger would give it adequate low speed performance while retaining performance to higher altitudes.
3. For reconnaissance
   • One could remove all the guns: It would reduce weight and drag, and that would allow it to climb, accelerate, and fly faster.
   • It could still be covered by fighter-escort, to increase survivability, as it'd be unarmed, and would need such help.
4. For surface & ASW radar: The extra crew could help reduce workload. It could also work in concert with other aircraft.

 

[nuuumannn]

Firstly: When did they gain control of the FAA? Secondly: Fairey was had already proposed a single-seater for NAD.925/39.

The RN regained control of the FAA on 24 May 1939. Yes, Fairey did, as did Blackburn, Supermarine, Gloster, Hawker and Westland. There was talk that because Fairey had the bulk of contracts for admiralty specifications up to then, O.8/38, the Swordfish and its replacement the Albacore and then the Barracuda to S.24/37, other firms might feel reluctant to bid on naval contracts, so Blackburn was selected to produce a fighter, that and it was felt it had better aerodynamic properties.

Well no, the Fulmar wasn't primarily a fighter, which is why it's original specification was O8/38 (Observation aircraft) and not N8/38 (Naval fighter)

Actually it was. The specification's full title and first paragraph:

"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."

As far as I'm aware, no Fulmar was ever fitted with floats. That Marcel Lobelle used the P.4/34 as the basis of the Fulmar makes sense when the 'interim for quick production' is taken into account. The hard work has been done and being a deck landing and catapult type is meant to be strong. A light day bomber capable of dive bombing is also designed to be inherently strong, so the P.4/34 became the Fulmar with little change, apart from reduced, wingspan and different tailplane. The first production airframe, N1854 was the first true Fulmar prototype and survives today at Yeovilton.

0307 FAA Museum Fulmar

 

[nuuumannn]

The problem with refining a Fulmar into a better fighter was that the design was dated by the time it entered service in 1940 and by then the admiralty had its bets hedged on a modern single-seater, the Firebrand. It had also requested that the Air Ministry investigate a 'Sea Spitfire' in February 1940, but this was rejected as mentioned earlier, so Grumman Wildcats were ordered as an interim until the Firebrand was ready. It's worth noting that the two-seat fighter was an aberration bought about by the doubt that the admiralty had about a single-seater not being able to find its way back to its carrier over miles of ocean; the Fulmar had a maximum range of around 800 miles, which in 1940 was huge for a single engined fighter.

 

[tyrodtom]

[QUOTE="Zipper730,
Yeah, but U-boats and surface-raiders aren't really all that fast. You don't need fighter-speed to run them down.

1. • • • /QUOTE]
       • In the case of the U-boats, they may not be fast, but they can crash dive pretty fast.
       • It's nice to be able to get close enough to shoot them up, on drop some depth charges close by while they're still close to the surface, speed would help make that more likely.
       • And speed would help with surface raiders too, they don't just sit there and wait to get bombed, they shoot back.

 

[Zipper730]

The problem with refining a Fulmar into a better fighter was that the design was dated

I figure some changes to the exhaust pipes and revisions to the radiator could get some extra speed out of it regardless. That said, I see your point on the overall matter.

It's worth noting that the two-seat fighter was an aberration bought about by the doubt that the admiralty had about a single-seater not being able to find its way back to its carrier over miles of ocean; the Fulmar had a maximum range of around 800 miles, which in 1940 was huge for a single engined fighter.

Wait, I thought they wanted the twin crew for the scouting function?

they may not be fast, but they can crash dive pretty fast.

True enough

It's nice to be able to get close enough to shoot them up, on drop some depth charges close by while they're still close to the surface, speed would help make that more likely.

How big is a depth charge?

And speed would help with surface raiders too, they don't just sit there and wait to get bombed, they shoot back.

True enough.

 

[nuuumannn]

Wait, I thought they wanted the twin crew for the scouting function?

The back seater was navigator and radio operator, also for taking photos with hand held cameras, so, yeah, scouting was done - Fulmars provided recon in support of finding the Bismarck but, although recon was certainly one of its primary roles, it was built as a two-seat fighter; it had eight forward firing machine guns. You don't need those for fleet scouting as a primary mission.

 

[wuzak]

How big is a depth charge?

 

[Zipper730]

I didn't know the Fulmar or Firefly could carry them

 

[RCAFson]

I didn't know the Fulmar or Firefly could carry them

The Firefly could carry them, because it had the needed hardpoints from the start.

 

[RCAFson]

The problem with refining a Fulmar into a better fighter was that the design was dated by the time it entered service in 1940 and by then the admiralty had its bets hedged on a modern single-seater, the Firebrand. It had also requested that the Air Ministry investigate a 'Sea Spitfire' in February 1940, but this was rejected as mentioned earlier, so Grumman Wildcats were ordered as an interim until the Firebrand was ready. It's worth noting that the two-seat fighter was an aberration bought about by the doubt that the admiralty had about a single-seater not being able to find its way back to its carrier over miles of ocean; the Fulmar had a maximum range of around 800 miles, which in 1940 was huge for a single engined fighter.

A Fulmar with a Merlin X would have had much better climb above 10K ft and probably been good for ~270mph at 17K and ~250mph at ~4k ft. Not great, but better at high altitude than with a Merlin VIII. With a Merlin 20 it should do about the same as a Martlet II/IV. However, investment in Fulmar production and development was limited by the RAF having engine priority, the lure of Grumman (esp via lendlease), and the promise of the Firefly.

The Admiralty was correct to have doubts about SE fighter LR navigation capability.

 

[nuuumannn]

However, investment in Fulmar production and development was limited by the RAF having engine priority, the lure of Grumman (esp via lendlease), and the promise of the Firefly.

Yes, RCAFson, but a small correction, the Martlets were bought awaiting the Firebrand. The admiralty definitely wanted a single-seater and it would provide a different role to the long range two-seat fighter, that of short range point defence interception. Again however, regarding the Fulmar, it was intended as a stopgap catapult and carrier fighter with a recon patrol role - a range of 800 miles gives you that option, hence the back seater, but upgrading it seemed pointless with the Firefly coming along, that's why little modification was made to it throughout its career. It was built in two variants, the I and II, the latter receiving the 1,300hp Merlin 30 and mods for tropicalisation, with changes to oil system and radiator as well as a Rotol prop. Fulmar IIs were configured for night intruder ops as well.

 

[Zipper730]

The Firefly could carry them, because it had the needed hardpoints from the start.

That's interesting

A Fulmar with a Merlin X would have had much better climb above 10K ft and probably been good for ~270mph at 17K and ~250mph at ~4k ft. Not great, but better at high altitude than with a Merlin VIII. With a Merlin 20 it should do about the same as a Martlet II/IV. However, investment in Fulmar production and development was limited by the RAF having engine priority, the lure of Grumman (esp via lendlease), and the promise of the Firefly.

So, they couldn't have procured better Merlins because of the RAF's demands, even if they made a single-seat Firefly?

The Admiralty was correct to have doubts about SE fighter LR navigation capability.

SE fighter LR navigation capability? By that you mean the scout-fighter. When did such doubts start to emerge?

I'm curious if they could have revamped the specification after the Norway campaign for the Firefly. This is a quote from Tony Buttler's book on the Blackburn Firebrand (page 173-174)

Blackburn Firebrand

Experience, however, had shown that there were occasions when a single-seat fighter, with its generally superior performance, could be employed with advantage. These included the defense of naval bases or ships in harbour against shore-based enemy aircraft by an interceptor type. Constitutionally the defense of Fleet bases was an RAF commitment for which no provision had been made in the FAA programme, but the Admiralty, now stated that in practice the FAA would have to perform much of this task itself. In addition the advantage of having a force of high-performance fighters which could readily be transported and operated in a carrier had been made clear by experiences in Norway during the spring of 1940. For this reason it was now proposed to introduce a limited number of high-performance single-seat fighters to Blackburn's B.37 design, which had an estimated top speed of 390 mph (628km/h).
...By 21st June 1940 the design had been approved by the Air Ministry's technical experts and, to speed delivery, it was proposed to order it 'off the board' without prototypes. Specification N.11/40 of 24th August was raised to cover the aircraft and stated that the minimum top speed had to be 350 knots (403mph/648km/h). The mock-up was examined in the autumn and three prototypes, DD804, DD810 and DD815, were ordered in January 1941. On 11th July 1941 the new aircraft was named Firerand and DD804 was first flown on 27th February 1942 with a Sabre II. On trials it was found to be 32mph (51km/h) below Blackburn's maximum speed estimate but fitting a Sabre III brought the figure up to 358 mph (576km/h) at 17,000ft (5,182m). However, problems, delays, and doubts regarding the Sabres's development were to lead to a switch to the Centaurus.
...The Firebrand was a large and heavy machine which, although possessing considerable endurance, in maneuverability suffered in comparison with lighter shipboard fighters. It was also to suffer many development problems and consequent changes to its role, before being turned into a torpedo bomber fighter (that is, a strike fighter) for which the centre section was widened to make room for a torpedo. The first order for fifty machines eventually comprised nine TF Mk.Is and twelve TF Mk.IIs, all with Sabres, two B.45 Firebrand TF Mk.III prototypes to Specification S.8/43 with Centaurus VII engines (DK372 first flown on 21st December 1943 and DK373) and the rest production Mk.IIIs with Centaurus. All of these were used for development and trials but they were followed by another 170 built to Mk.IV or Mk.V (B.46) standard which had many modifications including a larger fin and more powerful 2,520bhp (1879kW) Centaurus IX or 57's. After a long wait the Firebrand at last began to reach operational units in 1945; it served until 1953 before being replaced by the Westland Wyvern.

I know contracts have a binding quality, but, I'm curious if one could get around this, because the military often seems to change specifications.

I'm curious at what point they realized that the Firefly would perform a lot slower than expected? I'm not sure if it was after the plane started flying or some point before. That said, I'm curious what changes (either single or twin-seat) could be made to the radiators to drive up high speed performance.

Yes, RCAFson, but a small correction, the Martlets were bought awaiting the Firebrand. The admiralty definitely wanted a single-seater and it would provide a different role to the long range two-seat fighter, that of short range point defence interception. Again however, regarding the Fulmar, it was intended as a stopgap catapult and carrier fighter with a recon patrol role - a range of 800 miles gives you that option, hence the back seater, but upgrading it seemed pointless with the Firefly coming along, that's why little modification was made to it throughout its career. It was built in two variants, the I and II, the latter receiving the 1,300hp Merlin 30 and mods for tropicalisation, with changes to oil system and radiator as well as a Rotol prop. Fulmar IIs were configured for night intruder ops as well.

I'm curious what the RAF ultimately adopted after they gave up on two seaters? What did they use for that scouting role?

 

[RCAFson]

That's interesting
1)So, they couldn't have procured better Merlins because of the RAF's demands, even if they made a single-seat Firefly?
2)SE fighter LR navigation capability? By that you mean the scout-fighter. When did such doubts start to emerge?

3)I'm curious if they could have revamped the specification after the Norway campaign for the Firefly. This is a quote from Tony Buttler's book on the Blackburn Firebrand (page 173-174)
I know contracts have a binding quality, but, I'm curious if one could get around this, because the military often seems to change specifications.

4) I'm curious at what point they realized that the Firefly would perform a lot slower than expected? I'm not sure if it was after the plane started flying or some point before. That said, I'm curious what changes (either single or twin-seat) could be made to the radiators to drive up high speed performance.

I'm curious what the RAF ultimately adopted after they gave up on two seaters? What did they use for that scouting role?

1) We know that the RAF refused to let the Sabre go to the FAA and the two speed Merlins were in high demand by the RAF. The RAF also took over the Griffon despite the fact that the Admiralty sponsored it's development.
2) Sorry, I meant single seat fighters. The FAA was using the Gloster Sea Gladiator from 1938. Look at the USN/F4F-4 issues at Midway when the ZB failed.

3) The FAA tested both the Martlet II and IV and both had a maximum speed of under 300mph, and at low altitude the Martlet II Martley IV was barely faster than a Fulmar II using 12lb boost. The point is that a twin seat fighter doesn't automatically mean lower performance nor does a single seat fighter mean higher performance because the airframe size and weight is already being dictated by the need for large wing area, large fuel and ammo capacity.

4) Changing the Firefly radiator design from the chin to wing mounted, seems to have resulted in a 20-30mph speed gain. We can see that the Firebrand was initially much slower than predicted. I think there was a general underestimation of high speed drag effects.

5) The RAF had an abundance of TE aircraft for overwater recon and could use specially modified SE aircraft for overland recon because the pilot could navigate visually using terrain recognition.

 

[wuzak]

1) We know that the RAF refused to let the Sabre go to the FAA and the two speed Merlins were in high demand by the RAF. The RAF also took over the Griffon despite the fact that the Admiralty sponsored it's development.

Because some bright person figured it could be made to fit the Spitfire.

4) Changing the Firefly radiator design from the chin to wing mounted, seems to have resulted in a 20-30mph speed gain. We can see that the Firebrand was initially much slower than predicted. I think there was a general underestimation of high speed drag effects.

The Firefly also went from a single stage two speed supercharger on the I to a two stage two speed supercharger ob the IV (with leading edge radiators).

 

[BiffF15]

A little off topic here but does anyone know the reasoning behind the Griffon spinning in the opposite direction to the Merlin?

 

[wuzak]

A little off topic here but does anyone know the reasoning behind the Griffon spinning in the opposite direction to the Merlin?

To standardise direction of rotation with the other British manufacturers (Bristol and Napier).

Some have suggested that it was a naval requirement to change the direction of swing on take-off, but the Griffon would tend to swing the aircraft to the right and the island.