Was single seat Firefly possible?

If anyone's interested, a photoshopped image of how NAD925/39A might have turned out had it proceeded is in another thread on this site.

Images from the world of Drake's Drum

The specification for OTL's Firefly was N.8/39. The image here is from Drake's Drum, a series of books I am in the process of writing.

Nick Sumner said:

Royal Navy specification NAD925/39A called for a single seat shipboard fighter with a top speed of There are pictures of it in both editions of Tony Buttler's British Secret Projects: Fighters 1935 to 45.

Click to expand...

Here's the photo from Drake's post. Very cool.

Admiral Beez said:

Here's the photo from Drake's post. Very cool.

View attachment 563121

Click to expand...

It actually looks a lot like a P-40 Warhawk.


Nick Sumner
Did it retain the Fairey-Youngman flaps?

Obviously, a single-seat Firefly wouldn't be possible; an aircraft designed as a single-seater would be a completely different aircraft. Whether a single-seat aircraft for a similar, but not identical mission, would be possible is a different question.

The answer is obviously "yes, but...." During this time the single-seat fighter roll was being increasingly filled by Sea Hurricane and imported US aircraft, reducing the need for a single-seat fighter. This brings up a question, then: how would one re-write the spec that led to the Firefly so that one could have a single-seat fighter and a two-seat reconnaissance aircraft but using the same basic airframe? I think this could be done, albeit with some difficulty.

Here's how I would do it.

The single seat version (Firefly F) would be the baseline. The two-seat version (Firefly R) would get a lengthened fuselage (probably about 2 meters) to accommodate the second crew member, a longer-range radio (that was probably why he was there), and additional fuel. The wings would get get an increased span by adding a plug in the root. The added volume could be used for more fuel. Just guessing, but the R version would probably have a structural weight increase of about 250 kg. It would also have more equipment (that radio, the batteries for the radio, and a larger generator), so it's equipped empty weight would probably be about 400 kg greater. The R version could also be used as the basis for a night fighter (it would probably look a lot like the Firefly as-built). The single-seat version could have performance about equal to the Corsair, which would certainly be adequate for WW2 combat.

The problems with this are multiple. One is that the transfer of all aircraft to the RAF until something like 1938 caused the RN to lose almost all of its institutional knowledge of the interactions between aircraft specifications and aircraft tactical operations and the RAF did not seem to be interested in closing that gap: the 20 years where the RAF operated all aircraft was one in which neither the RAF nor the RN seemed able (or willing) to come to a modus vivendi which would maximize the value of the aircraft to the United Kingdom. When the RAF lost its carrier-based and catapult-launched aircraft to the RN, the RAF was not as forthcoming with assistance to the FAA as it should have been (bureaucratic parochialism joined with inter-service rivalry beats patriotism 9 times out of 10).

A single seat fighter with the Griffin engine, decent performance and range was certainly possible. But no one would ever describe it as a single seat Firefly.

swampyankee said:

The problems with this are multiple. One is that the transfer of all aircraft to the RAF until something like 1938 caused the RN to lose almost all of its institutional knowledge of the interactions between aircraft specifications and aircraft tactical operations and the RAF did not seem to be interested in closing that gap: the 20 years where the RAF operated all aircraft was one in which neither the RAF nor the RN seemed able (or willing) to come to a modus vivendi which would maximize the value of the aircraft to the United Kingdom.

Click to expand...

Makes me think of the FAA losing control of its fixed wing aircraft post Sea Harrier, with RAF F-35s operating on the Queen Elizabeth class. It's as if Britain has forgotten the folly of this the last time.

RAF unveils F-35 fighter jets with top speed of 1,200mph landing on HMS Queen Elizabeth
RAF unveils F-35 fighter jets with top speed of 1,200mph landing on HMS Queen Elizabeth

Admiral Beez said:

Makes me think of the FAA losing control of its fixed wing aircraft post Sea Harrier, with RAF F-35s operating on the Queen Elizabeth class. It's as if Britain has forgotten the folly of this the last time.

RAF unveils F-35 fighter jets with top speed of 1,200mph landing on HMS Queen Elizabeth
RAF unveils F-35 fighter jets with top speed of 1,200mph landing on HMS Queen Elizabeth

Click to expand...

I suspect that the RAF and RN may have a somewhat less contentious relationship after some seventy years of combined arms operations and sixty years of penury. Inter-service rivalry works better when there's more money to fight over. The RAF has little global impact unless it gets to put planes on carriers.

Of course, it could that the RAF has a Cunning Plan

fastmongrel said:

The Illustrious class carriers were almost ideal for their intended purpose of fighting in the North Atlantic and the Mediteranean. Their two downfalls was size they were 710 x 96 foot on the waterline as opposed to the USS Yorktown which was 770 x 103 foot on the waterline and a chronic lack of aircraft and pilots early on.

A 60 foot longer and 7 foot wider Illustrious with larger lifts (or an extra lift of the original size) would be able to fit more aircraft in the hangars and allow a larger deck park when used in the Pacific late in the war. The Illustrious class carried 57 aircraft in the Pacific an extra 6,000+ foot of flight deck and an extra 3600+ foot of hangar deck should allow for at least a dozen more aircraft. If you went to the mid war designed Ark Royal and Eagle size (they were 800 x 112 foot on the waterline as designed and had 3 centreline lifts) you could have space for 55 to 60 aircraft in the hangar and 30 in a deck park.

Aviation fuel capacity was always the problem for RN carriers for safety reasons it was carried in cylindrical tanks that were seperated from the hull and surrounded by an air gap which could be flooded if required rather than the USN practice of fuel bunkers that were part of the hull. Its noticable that RN carriers no matter how badly damaged didnt suffer from avgas leaks like equivalent USN or IJN carriers.

Click to expand...

Indomitable carried ~50% more avgas than Illustrious and her hangars were could nominally carry 12 more aircraft. Enterprise, the sole surviving member of her class, had to be blistered to widen her beam to maintain stability, as more AA and larger aircraft were carried.

RCAFson said:

Indomitable carried ~50% more avgas than Illustrious and her hangars were could nominally carry 12 more aircraft.

Click to expand...

Problem with Indomitable and her later sisters was the Hangar height of 14 feet and 50% more of nowhere near enough was still not enough avgas.

My idea of lengthening/widening the Illustrious carriers was to maintain a 17' 6" minimum hangar height and improve aircraft handling by either having 3 original size lifts or 2 larger lifts. I believe the original design was excellent for the RNs needs but a chunk of extra steel could have made them much better. Building a bigger hull is not particulary more expensive its whats fitted inside the hull that really costs.

fastmongrel said:

Problem with Indomitable and her later sisters was the Hangar height of 14 feet and 50% more of nowhere near enough was still not enough avgas.

My idea of lengthening/widening the Illustrious carriers was to maintain a 17' 6" minimum hangar height and improve aircraft handling by either having 3 original size lifts or 2 larger lifts. I believe the original design was excellent for the RNs needs but a chunk of extra steel could have made them much better. Building a bigger hull is not particulary more expensive its whats fitted inside the hull that really costs.

Click to expand...

I think that takes you back to my idea for an improved Ark Royal design with a deck edge lift for use in the Far East.

Kevin J said:

I think that takes you back to my idea for an improved Ark Royal design with a deck edge lift for use in the Far East.

Click to expand...

I totally agree. A follow on design of the Ark Royal with lessons learnt would have been a much better idea than the totally new Illustrious class. It would also have been cheaper and they would have been available sooner.

Glider said:

I totally agree. A follow on design of the Ark Royal with lessons learnt would have been a much better idea than the totally new Illustrious class. It would also have been cheaper and they would have been available sooner.

Click to expand...

No, the Illustrious class were ideal for European waters, the Implacable class okay for both Europe and Asia Pacific. I'm thinking of something like the post war Audacious class but delivered sooner. The Implacable class were delayed by about 2 years because of ship building priorities.

fastmongrel said:

Problem with Indomitable and her later sisters was the Hangar height of 14 feet and 50% more of nowhere near enough was still not enough avgas.

My idea of lengthening/widening the Illustrious carriers was to maintain a 17' 6" minimum hangar height and improve aircraft handling by either having 3 original size lifts or 2 larger lifts. I believe the original design was excellent for the RNs needs but a chunk of extra steel could have made them much better. Building a bigger hull is not particulary more expensive its whats fitted inside the hull that really costs.

Click to expand...

Indomitable had a 16ft height lower hangar. Post war higher hangar heights were necessary, but during WW2 14ft was quite sufficient - the only aircraft limited by 14ft were the SB2C and F4U. These carriers were designed to treaty limits and limited to 23000 tons std displacement.

fastmongrel said:

Problem with Indomitable and her later sisters was the Hangar height of 14 feet and 50% more of nowhere near enough was still not enough avgas.

My idea of lengthening/widening the Illustrious carriers was to maintain a 17' 6" minimum hangar height and improve aircraft handling by either having 3 original size lifts or 2 larger lifts. I believe the original design was excellent for the RNs needs but a chunk of extra steel could have made them much better. Building a bigger hull is not particulary more expensive its whats fitted inside the hull that really costs.

Click to expand...

Hi

As well as the limits on displacement mentioned, there were limits on the Ark Royal and Illustrious class in length and beam due to the extent dry docking limits. This means it would have been very hard to increase these dimensions without investing a lot in naval dockyard infrastructure, which in the 1930s was unlikely to happen.

Mike

MikeMeech said:

Hi

As well as the limits on displacement mentioned, there were limits on the Ark Royal and Illustrious class in length and beam due to the extent dry docking limits. This means it would have been very hard to increase these dimensions without investing a lot in naval dockyard infrastructure, which in the 1930s was unlikely to happen.

Mike

Click to expand...

Yes, and as built the Yorktown class had a WL beam of 83ft 2in, increased in 1943 by blistering, to 95ft 5in. Illustrious class and variants as built had a WL beam of 95ft 11in. The Essex class had a WL beam of 93ft, as built.

RCAFson said:

Yes, and as built the Yorktown class had a WL beam of 83ft 2in, increased in 1943 by blistering, to 95ft 5in. Illustrious class and variants as built had a WL beam of 95ft 11in. The Essex class had a WL beam of 93ft, as built.

Click to expand...

The KGV class battleships were 740' x 103' on the waterline. Repulse/Renown Battlecruisers were 750' x 90' HMS Hood was 860' x 104' and the Courageous class were 786' x 81' so there must have been dry docks available for a longer beamier Illustrious.

fastmongrel said:

Problem with Indomitable and her later sisters was the Hangar height of 14 feet and 50% more of nowhere near enough was still not enough avgas.

Click to expand...

Illustrious had enough Avgas to have replaced CV-6 at Midway and to have flown all CV-6 historical sorties. Indomitable would have had lots of avgas remaining. It can be argued that the Yorktown and Essex class had excessive Avgas, and the later Essex class actually reduced avgas stowage ( by ~20%) in favour of safer stowage

fastmongrel said:

The KGV class battleships were 740' x 103' on the waterline. Repulse/Renown Battlecruisers were 750' x 90' HMS Hood was 860' x 104' and the Courageous class were 786' x 81' so there must have been dry docks available for a longer beamier Illustrious.

Click to expand...

There were, but these docks were limited in number. Carriers also had much wider beam at the flight deck, where battleships/battlecruisers typically had the same beam from the WL upwards.

Kevin J said:

No, the Illustrious class were ideal for European waters, the Implacable class okay for both Europe and Asia Pacific. I'm thinking of something like the post war Audacious class but delivered sooner. The Implacable class were delayed by about 2 years because of ship building priorities.

Click to expand...

Apologies, my misunderstanding. That said I do believe that repeat Ark Royals with some fairly easy mods would have been a better investment in time and money.

Glider said:

Apologies, my misunderstanding. That said I do believe that repeat Ark Royals with some fairly easy mods would have been a better investment in time and money.

Click to expand...

Nor me, I think you end up with the Audacious class. Which were started just before the end of WW2.