Was single seat Firefly possible?

[pinsog]

Removing the F4F and Martlet makes a big hole in USN and FAA aircraft procurement.

How much would the F5F weigh with fuel, armour, SS tanks and a full ammo load?

Also it's minimum folded width is 20ft or more. FAA spec was 18ft, to fit on 22ft width lifts.

Removing the F4F and Martlet makes a big hole in USN and FAA aircraft procurement.

How much would the F5F weigh with fuel, armour, SS tanks and a full ammo load?

Also it's minimum folded width is 20ft or more. FAA spec was 18ft, to fit on 22ft width lifts.

Not if the F5F is there to replace it at the same time which shouldn't be a problem if the F5F is built instead of the Wildcat.

Empty weight 7990
Overload weight 10,892 leaving 2902 for load
277 gas is 1662
150 pounds of oil
200 pound pilot
Leaves 890 pounds for weapons
4 50's is 300 pounds
500 rounds per gun is 500 pounds

Add 150 pounds for armor
Add 150 for self sealing tank. (Tank capacity drops to say 250 gallons so the reduction in fuel might equal self sealing tank weight?)

11,200 pounds with Wright engines,
11,700 pounds with 2 stage P&W

Width is I think 21' 6" so the width would be tight but the performance difference would be astounding.

 

[swampyankee]

I really don't understand how a prototype, rejected by the USN, ended up being the answer to "was a single-seat Firefly possible?"

There were certainly alternated design routes to an RN carrier-based fighter than the Firefly, but the question that has been failed to be answered is "what was the Fleet Air Arm actually looking for in the specification that resulted in the Firefly?" Certainly, the FAA (although not, technically, the RN) had experience operating single-seat aircraft (not just fighters!) off of its carriers. There may have been some loss in technical expertise when the RN regained the FAA from the RAF because, I suspect, many naval aviators would have had organizational loyalty to the RAF and, from a long-term career viewpoint, may have felt that joining a section of the RN may restrict the opportunities for advancement in ways that remaining in the RAF wouldn't: someone given the choice of staying within the RAF or becoming aviator with the RN may feel that RN flag rank would be forever out of reach, especially without the possibility of commanding a ship. Could this have resulted in the specification resulting in the Firefly?

Beyond that, though, I wonder (and only wonder; I've not sat down with a sizing tool, such as Nicolai's, to seriously examine the question) whether the Firefly's performance, even as a two-seater, was less than optimal due to design issues. A second question was what equipment was added -- along with the guy in back -- to make the Firefly? Could the pilot manage the aircraft and that equipment alone? Would removing the guy in back, and retaining the equipment he may have needed saved enough weight to make a single-seat Firefly competitive with a Corsair or Hellcat?

 

[pinsog]

I really don't understand how a prototype, rejected by the USN, ended up being the answer to "was a single-seat Firefly possible?"

I guess the same way a protype rejected by the USAAF, re-engined with a Merlin became the best long range escort fighter of WW2. One reason the XF5F was rejected was because it was too heavy, so in the wisdom of the US Navy they bought Corsairs and Hellcats which both weighed more and didn't arrive until 1943. The F5F could have been in the fight for the US on December 1941. They also bought the F7F twin engine carrier fighter which couldn't operate from a carrier.

 

[RCAFson]

I really don't understand how a prototype, rejected by the USN, ended up being the answer to "was a single-seat Firefly possible?"

There were certainly alternated design routes to an RN carrier-based fighter than the Firefly, but the question that has been failed to be answered is "what was the Fleet Air Arm actually looking for in the specification that resulted in the Firefly?" Certainly, the FAA (although not, technically, the RN) had experience operating single-seat aircraft (not just fighters!) off of its carriers. There may have been some loss in technical expertise when the RN regained the FAA from the RAF because, I suspect, many naval aviators would have had organizational loyalty to the RAF and, from a long-term career viewpoint, may have felt that joining a section of the RN may restrict the opportunities for advancement in ways that remaining in the RAF wouldn't: someone given the choice of staying within the RAF or becoming aviator with the RN may feel that RN flag rank would be forever out of reach, especially without the possibility of commanding a ship. Could this have resulted in the specification resulting in the Firefly?

Beyond that, though, I wonder (and only wonder; I've not sat down with a sizing tool, such as Nicolai's, to seriously examine the question) whether the Firefly's performance, even as a two-seater, was less than optimal due to design issues. A second question was what equipment was added -- along with the guy in back -- to make the Firefly? Could the pilot manage the aircraft and that equipment alone? Would removing the guy in back, and retaining the equipment he may have needed saved enough weight to make a single-seat Firefly competitive with a Corsair or Hellcat?

The combat rating of the R2800-10 was substantially higher than the Griffon IIB used in the Firefly but both aircraft have roughly the same weight.. If we fitted an R2800-10 to the Firefly, what would the resulting performance be?

If the Firefly 1 had entered service in 1942 as planned, it would have been considered a very viable naval fighter, with excellent performance.

For reference a Firefly III with a two stage Griffon 71 made 347mph at 18300ft but the chin radiator caused instability. The FR4 with a similar Griffon 61 engine but with wing radiators made 367mph at 14000 ft and this is quite comparable to a Hellcat or Corsair at the same altitude.

 

[swampyankee]

I guess the same way a protype rejected by the USAAF, re-engined with a Merlin became the best long range escort fighter of WW2. One reason the XF5F was rejected was because it was too heavy, so in the wisdom of the US Navy they bought Corsairs and Hellcats which both weighed more and didn't arrive until 1943. The F5F could have been in the fight for the US on December 1941. They also bought the F7F twin engine carrier fighter which couldn't operate from a carrier.

Boeing's history site states the P-51, NA73X, was designed for the RAF. So do the Smithsonian and Encyclopedia Brittanica. Are they wrong?

 

[RCAFson]

Width is I think 21' 6" so the width would be tight but the performance difference would be astounding.

Additionally, looking at the pictures, wing folded height probably exceeds 16ft, so it's doubtful that it was really an option for four of the RN fleet carriers.

 

[pinsog]

Additionally, looking at the pictures, wing folded height probably exceeds 16ft, so it's doubtful that it was really an option for four of the RN fleet carriers.

As I said, I would use the Wildcat wing folding mechanism so that isn't an issue.

 

[RCAFson]

Not if the F5F is there to replace it at the same time which shouldn't be a problem if the F5F is built instead of the Wildcat.

Empty weight 7990
Overload weight 10,892 leaving 2902 for load
277 gas is 1662
150 pounds of oil
200 pound pilot
Leaves 890 pounds for weapons
4 50's is 300 pounds
500 rounds per gun is 500 pounds

Add 150 pounds for armor
Add 150 for self sealing tank. (Tank capacity drops to say 250 gallons so the reduction in fuel might equal self sealing tank weight?)

11,200 pounds with Wright engines,
11,700 pounds with 2 stage P&W

Width is I think 21' 6" so the width would be tight but the performance difference would be astounding.

This is from the short history that I linked to earlier:

"By that time, basic requirements for fighter aircraft had been modified to include installation of pilot armor and self-sealing fuel tanks, and other gear whose essentiality had been demonstrated during aerial combat over Europe and the British Isles. Such gear could not have been installed in the existing XF5F-1 airframe, therefore that aircraft could not have served as a true prototype for a production aircraft."

 

[pinsog]

Boeing's history site states the P-51, NA73X, was designed for the RAF. So do the Smithsonian and Encyclopedia Brittanica. Are they wrong?

And that prototype was tested by the US and the test pilot said it was junk and the P40 was better. Glad they re-thought that horrible decision. My point is that just because a plane is rejected doesn't mean it was a bad plane.

 

[wuzak]

And that prototype was tested by the US and the test pilot said it was junk and the P40 was better. Glad they re-thought that horrible decision. My point is that just because a plane is rejected doesn't mean it was a bad plane.

It took the USAAC/F some time to getting around testing the P-51.

And I believe that it was an early production model, not the prototype.

 

[pinsog]

It took the USAAC/F some time to getting around testing the P-51.

And I believe that it was an early production model, not the prototype.

Whichever it was, they gave it a bad review and then left it sitting on the runway for, seems like a year, when it should have been in production ASAP. I think the same about the XF5F.

 

[Zipper730]

Card 124 Martlet I operational late 1940 from land bases. Some operated off Illustrious according to Wikipedia.
I'd be surprised if no SS fuel tanks nor armour was fitted was fitted to any of these fighters as this is post Bob.

I'm not sure when self-sealing tanks were fitted: According to a documentary on the F4F-3, they said the early variants didn't have self-sealing tanks and armor. They did various kluges for armor, but the self-sealing tanks might not have been in all the way until 1941-42. Could be wrong.

 

[nuuumannn]

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

The RAF? The RAF didn't give up on two-seat fighters - Mosquitoes, Beaufighters, Defiants, Phantoms, Tornado F.3s, Javelins, Meteor NF variants... As for scouting, tactical and strategic reconnaissance types.

Besides, the Royal Navy wasn't fighting Zeros anyway.

Actually they were. When Fulmars encountered Zeroes,the results weren't entirely one-sided, but the clear outcome was that the Fulmar was too slow. In the Med, the defence of Malta was carried out by Fulmars and Sea Gladiators before the Hurricanes and Spitfires arrived.

The problem with wanting to make modifications to the Sea Hurris and Martlets is that doing so would have defeated the purpose of why they were brought in in the first place, as stopgaps before something better came along. I'm sure the navy wanted a Sea Hurricane with folding wings and a better armed Martlet I with folding wings, but got what it could when it could. The improvements came in later marks- apart from the Hurricane, when it just wasn't worth it as the Seafire came along. This is why we didn't see as much change to the Fulmar other than a slightly more powerful Merlin, because, a, it was an obsolecent design not long after it entered service, being based on a bomber built to a 1934 specification, and b, because a single-seater could do what it was doing at any rate, except the long range bit, and that's what the Firefly was for.

The path the admiralty took was expeditious as a result of evolving circumstance.

 

[Zipper730]

There were certainly alternated design routes to an RN carrier-based fighter than the Firefly, but the question that has been failed to be answered is "what was the Fleet Air Arm actually looking for in the specification that resulted in the Firefly?"

Correct

Certainly, the FAA (although not, technically, the RN) had experience operating single-seat aircraft (not just fighters!) off of its carriers. There may have been some loss in technical expertise when the RN regained the FAA from the RAF because, I suspect, many naval aviators would have had organizational loyalty to the RAF and, from a long-term career viewpoint, may have felt that joining a section of the RN may restrict the opportunities for advancement in ways that remaining in the RAF wouldn't: Someone given the choice of staying within the RAF or becoming aviator with the RN may feel that RN flag rank would be forever out of reach, especially without the possibility of commanding a ship. Could this have resulted in the specification resulting in the Firefly?

There's also the fact that the RN's in-house expertise might have been low compared to the RAF. Remember, the RAF, for better or worse, was involved in specification to flying the aircraft. The RN might have some say in issuing the specs, and operating them off the decks, but they might not have been as proficient from spec issuance to design, to flight.

While there may have been loyalty to the RAF, the fact is, upon conversion to the RN: The high-ranking types might have had trouble with promotions, the younger guys would probably have a better chance at promotion.

Beyond that, though, I wonder (and only wonder; I've not sat down with a sizing tool, such as Nicolai's, to seriously examine the question) whether the Firefly's performance, even as a two-seater, was less than optimal due to design issues.

That sounds interesting. Tony Buttler's book gave dimensions for the plane, and weight estimates. I gave some estimates as to the design gaining weight.

Also, one has to calculate for aerodynamic matters such as the NAD.925/39 having thinner wings than the Firefly.

A second question was what equipment was added -- along with the guy in back -- to make the Firefly? Could the pilot manage the aircraft and that equipment alone?

Agreed

Would removing the guy in back, and retaining the equipment he may have needed saved enough weight to make a single-seat Firefly competitive with a Corsair or Hellcat?

From the estimates made, the single-seater would be between 2-22 knots faster. While there were estimates all over the place, at one point 277 knots was cited (275 knots was achieved), and provided that 2-22 knot spread remained that would see the following

1. Firefly (Actual): 275 knots / 316.5 mph
2. Firefly (Later Estimate): 277 knots / 318.8 mph
3. Firefly (Single Seater)
   • + 2 knots: 277-279 knots: 318.8 - 321.1 mph
   • + 12 knots (median): 287-289 knots / 330.3 - 332.6 mph
   • + 22 knots: 297-299 knots: 341.8 - 344.1 mph

I would say, looking at these figures

• The Hellcat (F6F-3: 371-379.5 mph; F6F-5: 391 mph) and Corsair (F4U-1: 395 early; 417 later) were faster
• The Seafire was similar (Mk.IIC: 342 mph; L.IIC: 333.5-334 mph) to marginally faster (Mk.III: 350.8-350.1 mph) depending on variant.

The actual firefly could turn inside an A6M with the flaps out, and the single-seater, provided it had the same stall speeds, would have done the same, with the ability to hold the turn a little bit longer.

 

[Kevin J]

I'm not sure when self-sealing tanks were fitted: According to a documentary on the F4F-3, they said the early variants didn't have self-sealing tanks and armor. They did various kluges for armor, but the self-sealing tanks might not have been in all the way until 1941-42. Could be wrong.

That was the USN F4F-3, not the FAA Martlet.

 

[RCAFson]

Here we see 390mph being anticipated for the Firebrand and 360mph for the two seat Firefly:


" Memorandum from Fifth Sea Lord (1) to Admiralty Board
[ADM 1/13488] 21 June 1940

Requirements for two-seater and single-seater fighters
Proposal to introduce a Single Seater type for certain special functions
———————————
Memorandum for the Board, by the Fifth Sea Lord.
During recent months, lengthy consideration has been given in the light
of war experience to the most suitable type of Fighter Aircraft for the Fleet
Air Arm, and the pre-war conclusion has been confirmed that for normal
and general functions of Fleet Air Arm Fighters, the two-seater type
should be retained in preference to the single-seater alternative.
2. Orders have been placed accordingly for two-seater Fighters to meet
the full estimated requirements. A two-seater eight-gun Fighter, the
'Fulmar', with a top speed of 260–280 m.p.h. is now coming into quantity
production. This, as a stop gap, was converted out of the Fairey P.4/34
light bomber design, and ordered before the war. The Fulmar will be
succeeded by an improved two-seater, N.5/40,(2) with a top speed of up to
360 m.p.h., of which deliveries are expected to begin in about 18 months
time.
3. Both the 'Fulmar' and its replacement, the N.5/40, are of conventional
monoplane design, and their production will be centred in one factory
only, that of Messrs. Fairey at Stockport, near Manchester.
4. Experience has, however, also shown that there are occasions on
which a single seater, on account of its generally superior performance
and notwithstanding its lack of facilities for navigation and wireless
communication, can be employed with advantage. Briefly, these occasions
primarily arise when ships in harbour or Naval bases require defence
against shore based aircraft, for which an interceptor s.s. type operating
(1) VA G. C. C. Royle.
(2) N.5/40 – Fairey Firefly.

from the shore, is best. Single sections can also be employed as Mixed
Units with two-seaters, in certain circumstances at sea.
The defence of Fleet bases is, constitutionally a R.A.F. commitment
for which no provision has hitherto been made in the Fleet Air Arm
programme. Experience shows, however, that in practice it devolves
largely upon the Fleet Air Arm; that it arises at short notice and that it is
likely to continue to do so. The advantages of having a force of high
performance fighters which can be transported readily in a carrier and
which, pending the acquisition of an aerodrome, can be operated from a
carrier, needs no elaboration in the light of recent experiences in Norway.
5. For these reasons it is proposed to introduce as soon as possible a
limited number of high-performance single-seater Fighters to a design
prepared by Messrs. Blackburn with an estimated top speed of up to 390
m.p.h. which might be raised to some 420 m.p.h. at high altitudes with a
suitably rated engine. The new design has been approved by the technical
experts of the Air Ministry and in order to accelerate deliveries it is
proposed to place an order 'off the drawing board', i.e. without passing
the design through prototypes.(1)
6. From the design aspect, deliveries could begin in 18 months to 2 years
but, in view of the desirability at the present time of concentrating on the
production of essential types for the R.A.F., it would not be proposed to
proceed with construction until, in the opinion of the Ministry of Aircraft
Production, this can be done without detriment to other vital requirements.
At the present stage, therefore, the effect of the proposed order would be
to enable the design work to proceed and production to be planned. In
this connection it should be stated that the Ministry of Aircraft Production
are most anxious to keep design staffs in being in order that on a return
to normality, progress in the construction of aircraft of improved design
may be resumed.
7. Under present intentions, the single seater Fighters would be used as
alternative equipment to the two seaters in suitable tactical proportions. It
is proposed to build up a force of single seaters sufficient to arm 4
Squadrons completely, i.e. 48 I.E. aircraft, plus an equal number of reserves.
For this purpose, it is proposed to place an initial order for 100 aircraft of
the new type with Messrs. Blackburn, to be built in their factory at Brough
where the requisite capacity will be available for the Fleet Air Arm.
8. The cost of 100 aircraft to the new design, with the usual allowance
of spare engines, and of operational equipment, is estimated at £1¼
millions, for which Treasury sanction would be necessary. The Ministry
of Aircraft Production would place the order, and the contract would,

(1) This aircraft became known as the Blackburn Firebrand.

presumably, include their usual break clause, whereby the order might be
cancelled or reduced at 3 months' notice.
9. In addition to the tactical aspects outlined above, the proposal would
have other important benefits to the Fleet Air Arm as follows –
(a) The order would give the Fleet Air Arm a semi-alternative source
of supply of Fighter aircraft, against the risk of discontinuance or
interruption by enemy action to Messrs. Fairey's Stockport factory, in
which production of Fighters would otherwise be concentrated; semialternative,
because a single seater would not be a complete substitute for
the standard two seater requirement.
(b) Messrs. Blackburn's design embodies in the wings several new
features which, if successful, would be of great value in improving the
performance of all types of Fleet Air Arm aircraft. These features are still
experimental and not yet sufficiently proved for adoption in the first
production order, for which an orthodox wing design would be specified.
It would be proposed, however, that the experimental wing features should
be developed in one or two aircraft of the new type, so that if the
advantages expected from them were realised they could readily be
incorporated in the subsequent quantity production. This aspect of the
proposal has been strongly endorsed by the Air Ministry (A.0227/40.)
10. It is important that an early decision should be reached."
(Jones, The FAA in WW2 V.1, p.167-169)

Some of the problems faced by the FAA:

"Letter from First Lord of the Admiralty(1) to Minister of Aircraft
Production
[ADM 1/13488] 7 February 1941
Supply of engines for Blackburn Firebrand prototypes
Thank you for your letter of the 7th February. I note with appreciation
that you can let me have two engines for the prototypes, though actually
I need three.
T he rest of your letter, to use an old saying, asks me to rely on the
'sweet by and by'. The need for a fighter of this performance to protect
the Fleet is already apparent, and cannot wait as long as that.
The Navy has a just claim to its share of the best products of the British
aircraft and aero-engine industry. The allocation for which I ask must be
small in comparison with the production which will be provided for the
R.A.F. If we place our order now, we shall still not need Sabres until early
1942. In order that the Fleet may not have to rely on fighters which may
be too slow for their job, I ask you to agree to my placing that order
without delay.
(1)1 The Rt Hon. A. V. Alexander"

 

[Zipper730]

That was the USN F4F-3, not the FAA Martlet.

Oh, there were differences in the armor and self-sealing schemes? I didn't know that. For most purposes, the only difference I knew about was the single-stage supercharger.

Here we see 390mph being anticipated for the Firebrand and 360mph for the two seat Firefly

While somewhat off topic, did they factor in climb performance on single/twin-seaters?

According to the first memorandum (6/21/1940)

1. They wanted to retain the twin-seater for most purposes: Predominantly to act as both a fighter and scout
2. The Fulmar was ordered as a stop-gap, and was (at the time) entering quantity production, with an ultimate intended design being N.5/40 (Firefly), with a top speed of 360 (anticipated).
3. Both designs were to be centered out of Fairey's Stockport factory
4. Single-seat fighters would be considered useful for special purposes, because of superior performance
   • Plans were afoot to use mixes of twin-seaters (to provide the navigation function), while the single-seaters provide the performance side of the equation
5. Blackburn's design was to show a performance of 390-420 if a suitable engine was available
6. Deliveries of this design could begin in 18-24 months

While I can understand why, for scouting, a second person can add an extra set of eyes; it's possible to operate a single-seater with properly designed navigation gear (such as the USN). I sense a degree of bureaucratic inertia (common to all organizations, but some more than others), and a failure to calculate performance correctly (this seemed to be endemic in the UK, possibly owing to the knowledge base of contractors, as well as the government wind-tunnel facilities).

According to the second memorandum (2/7/1941), which outlined problems faced by the FAA

1. There's an over-reliance on trusting the tried and true, rather than entertaining new ideas
2. There's a need for a fighter of high performance to protect the fleet
3. The need for state of the art engines and aircraft design cannot be achieved if the RAF is still ultimately deciding what can/cannot get purchased
4. They need the Napier Sabre won't really take hold until 1942, so they just need them then. If they can place the order immediately, it would be possible to get the engines on time, so they don't have aircraft that will be under-performers.

I really should start chronicling these memos in a summarized format.

 

[ThomasP]

I feel it necessary to point out that the USN relied on 2-seat aircraft for the vast majority of scout duties for the entire war, hence the SB (Scout Bomber) in the SB2U (1937), SBD (isd 1940), SB2C (intended isd 1941, actually isd 1943), and the increased use of the TBF as a scout as the war went on. If my information is correct, it was not until very late-1944 to early-1945 that the USN started to rely on single-seaters for some over-the-horizon scouting.

The RN navigation system worked as well as (or better than) the USN version, but they found that the technology of the time was not up to snuff for over-the-horizon navigation by the a single person. The workload was too high and the radio-electronics were too unreliable. The USN had similar issues.

 

[Zipper730]

I feel it necessary to point out that the USN relied on 2-seat aircraft for the vast majority of scout duties for the entire war

That I'm aware of, though I didn't know the TBF/TBM was used for this role.

As for single-seat aircraft being used, which aircraft was this?

The RN navigation system worked as well as (or better than) the USN version, but they found that the technology of the time was not up to snuff for over-the-horizon navigation by the a single person.

I was talking to another member on this thread, and they said it wouldn't have been all that hard to have adapted it, and made it's workload as good as the USN's system.

That said, if the USN's workload was high, that would prove a justification for the argument. That said, the USN managed to make it work to an extent...

 

[ThomasP]

The post linked below has some information on the USN and RN problems with navigation for single-seaters, and the rational for the RN/FAA 2-seat fighter.

Build a better Sea Hurricane 1938

I have read specifically that the F6F (with radar pod) was used for over-the-horizon scouting. I apologize for not being able to post more specifics on the subject, but I still have not recovered the data from my last lap top.