For the most part, it'd be smaller, lighter, and have smaller wings. There appeared to be claims that the wings would be thinner -- I'm not sure what effects it would have on our aircraft.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
For the most part, it'd be smaller, lighter, and have smaller wings. There appeared to be claims that the wings would be thinner -- I'm not sure what effects it would have on our aircraft.Obviously, a single-seat Firefly wouldn't be possible; an aircraft designed as a single-seater would be a completely different aircraft.
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.
I would've loved to see what the FAA could have procured if:For the most part, it'd be smaller, lighter, and have smaller wings. There appeared to be claims that the wings would be thinner -- I'm not sure what effects it would have on our aircraft.
That reminds me of a quote my father was fond of saying "If the Queen had balls, she'd be King"...I would've loved to see what the FAA could have procured if:
- The FAA free of RAF and Air Ministry inference
- The FAA maintains the lead of the Griffon program
- The FAA demanded a single-seat, folding-wing fighter instead of the Fulmar in Specification O.8/38.
The USN seemed to be fine with a single-seater...The navigator was necessary in some situations. A number of the ferry flights of single seat fighters to Malta had one and sometimes two Fulmars providing navigation for the formation.
I wonder if the navigator ever brought a Sten gun or something heavier into the rear seat.That reminds me of a quote my father was fond of saying "If the Queen had balls, she'd be King"...
Truthfully, it seems like they had considered a single-seat and twin-seat Firefly to replace the Fulmar. While the Fulmar racked up a surprising amount of kills, the navigator wasn't necessary, and largely helpless. Some had taken to throwing toilet paper at enemy planes (I'm not sure if it saved a single Fulmar, but I'll give you one thing -- it's creative).
We have been over this a number of times.The USN seemed to be fine with a single-seater...
The USN's RDF system was designed to be used by a single crewman. The US system was the YE-ZB, a UHF (line of sight) transmitter which transmitted a Morse code letter denoting 15 degrees of a circle. The US were also heavily trained in distant navigation, http://www.skywaves.ar88.net/Docs/YE-ZB Presentation.pdfWe have been over this a number of times.
The US was facing different weather conditions. The US also was known to send dauntlesses or other multi seat aircraft with fighter formations at times.
The USN seemed to be fine with a single-seater...
The USN's RDF system was designed to be used by a single crewman. The US system was the YE-ZB, a UHF (line of sight) transmitter which transmitted a Morse code letter denoting 15 degrees of a circle. The US were also heavily trained in distant navigation, http://www.skywaves.ar88.net/Docs/YE-ZB Presentation.pdf
The British RDF was intended for two crew. The fellow in the rear of the Fulmar was a navigator, but an observer/RDF operator.
I wonder if the navigator ever brought a Sten gun or something heavier into the rear seat.
Didn't the USN serve in the Atlantic to some extent?We have been over this a number of times. . . The US was facing different weather conditions.
That's actually a smart move -- I'm not sure how much it slowed up the fighters, but it worked.The US also was known to send dauntlesses or other multi seat aircraft with fighter formations at times.
And the RN's system wasn't. I'm curious about two things.The USN's RDF system was designed to be used by a single crewman.
So basically, you'd get a morse code letter 24 times as you did a three-sixty?The US system was the YE-ZB, a UHF (line of sight) transmitter which transmitted a Morse code letter denoting 15 degrees of a circle. The US were also heavily trained in distant navigation, http://www.skywaves.ar88.net/Docs/YE-ZB Presentation.pdf
How long would it have taken to have modified the RDF system to use a single individual from when it was first used on the Fulmar, to a new aircraft? Could this have been done, reasonably speaking, for use in a single-seat fighter? I'm also curious if it would have been possible to increase overwater navigation training for RN:FAA crews for this purpose.The British RDF was intended for two crew. The fellow in the rear of the Fulmar was a navigator, but an observer/RDF operator.
Not long at all. It was a choice, not a necessity to require a dedicated crewman to run the system. The single-seat Seafire and IIRC Sea Hurricane had a radio beacon system, as did the Martlet.How long would it have taken to have modified the RDF system to use a single individual from when it was first used on the Fulmar, to a new aircraft?
Weird that you would choose to use two guys when one would do the job.Not long at all. It was a choice, not a necessity to require a dedicated crewman to run the system.
Didn't the USN serve in the Atlantic to some extent?
That's actually a smart move -- I'm not sure how much it slowed up the fighters, but it worked.
And the RN's system wasn't. I'm curious about two things.
So basically, you'd get a morse code letter 24 times as you did a three-sixty?
- When did the RN develop RDF systems?
- Why wasn't the RN as well trained in overwater navigation?
How long would it have taken to have modified the RDF system to use a single individual from when it was first used on the Fulmar, to a new aircraft? Could this have been done, reasonably speaking, for use in a single-seat fighter? I'm also curious if it would have been possible to increase overwater navigation training for RN:FAA crews for this purpose.
AIUI, when HMS Ark Royal commissioned in 1938 she was already equipped with its RDF system and with aircraft equipped with the R.1110 (homing beacon W/T receiver).The RN system was in use years before the USN ZB system. The USN was just completing the transition to their homing system in early 1942.
The RN FAA was at least as well trained as the USN for over the water navigation.
I think in peacetime that maybe recruitment would be a problem, high staff turnover, I thinks its called, if you don't have your navigator. In wartime, are we looking at 10 percent of sorties ending in combat? The FAA must have been right, the Fulmar was our highest scoring naval fighter with the Sea Hurricane a close second.Here's some info..... Armoured Aircraft Carriers
It was agreed that Fleet Air Arm Fighters were required for the following duties:–
(1) To destroy enemy shadowers.
(2) To intercept enemy striking forces.
(3) To destroy enemy spotters and to protect our own.
(4) To escort our own striking forces to their objectives.
2. Functions 1, 2 and 3 could be met by a Single Seater using the homing beacon as a navigational aid. Function 4 was considered to be problematical but apart from this it was agreed that there would be many occasions when fighters would be required to fly over the sea outside beacon range of their parent ship. It was therefore considered to be a sound policy to develop a 2 Seater fighter having navigational facilities, provided this did not entail a serious reduction in performance compared to a Single Seater.
That's why the Fulmar has two seats. Not because two crew were needed to operate the radio-beacon system, but navigation was needed beyond the beacon's range, and it was thought a second man would be useful in this regard. I imagine any pilot flying far from his carrier above clouds and fog in the North Atlantic would welcome a dedicated navigator, at least until his added weight meant you died in a dogfight.
Good info here Fleet Air Arm homing beacons. Page 5 of the linked article includes a chart showing that the beacon was ineffective once the aircraft exceed 180 miles from the carrier. This is where the Fulmar's rear seater was considered useful. On page 4, there's a section called (1.3.2) Ease of Operation and Reliability in the Aircraft which refers the easy use of the audible beacon system by the pilot. "With the beacons now in use a homing bearing is provided aurally once a minute when required. The pilot does not have to perform a d.f. operation, and his vision is not distracted."
You mean losing track of where you are, running out of gas, and ending up in the drink?I think in peacetime that maybe recruitment would be a problem, high staff turnover, I thinks its called, if you don't have your navigator.