Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
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.
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 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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.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 curious what the RAF ultimately adopted after they gave up on two seaters? What did they use for that scouting role?
Besides, the Royal Navy wasn't fighting Zeros anyway.
CorrectThere 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?"
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.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?
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.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.
AgreedA 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?
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 followingWould 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?
That was the USN F4F-3, not the FAA Martlet.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.
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.That was the USN F4F-3, not the FAA Martlet.
While somewhat off topic, did they factor in climb performance on single/twin-seaters?Here we see 390mph being anticipated for the Firebrand and 360mph for the two seat Firefly
That I'm aware of, though I didn't know the TBF/TBM was used for this role.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
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.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.