Was single seat Firefly possible?

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Kevin J said:
The FAA must have been right, the Fulmar was our highest scoring naval fighter with the Sea Hurricane a close second.
Click to expand...
For shooting down wave upon wave of slow, lightly armed and mostly unescorted Italian and German level bombers over the Mediterranean the sufficiently fast, highly stable and heavily armed Fulmar was ideal. The second crewman wasn't necessary at all for that success, as the CAPs and interceptions were radar-guided, within easy range of the radio beacon and over clear skies.

The Fulmar was also the ideal pick for the Mediterranean combat conditions, as the non-folding Sea Hurricane, while much faster and likely more lethal would have required a reduced CAG. Same for the non-folding Seafire available, even worse since its high prang rate. And lastly the Martlet didn't have the Fulmar's heavy armament for smashing the unescorted, medium bombers. The Fulmar was the right plane for the right combat conditions. I imagine every carrier fighter pilot revels in such a turkey shoot, engaging waves of unescorted, lightly armed, slow and level flying bombers.

But none of this supports the hypothesis that the FAA made the right decision specifying a two-seat configuration for their Sea Gladiator replacement. This was the FAA's first fighter since the Flycatcher that was free of RAF interference, and IMO they got it wrong. Had the FAA replaced the Sea Gladiator with a dedicated FAA-Specified single seat, Merlin-powered, wide undercarriage, folding wing, robust all metal constructed, long-range, eight-gun fighter they wouldn't have needed the Martlet, Sea Hurricane or the expensive Seafire program. This may have freed up more Spitfires and Hurricanes (or non-folding Martlets) that could have gone to RAF squadrons at home, Malta, North Africa, India, Malaya or Australia. The FAA got it wrong a second time with the Firefly.
 
Last edited:

The Sea Gladiator was never a desired type, it was an interim fill-in aircraft to replace the Hawker Nimrod while the Fulmar could be brought into service.
The Skua was a 1934 program, the Fulmar a 1938 program (officially, talks started earlier), the Sea Gladiator was a 1937-38 program to get some sort of fighter onto the flight decks while the Fulmar was sorted out and put into production.

You can only free up Hurricanes and Spitfires for Mayala if this hypothetical fleet fighter is manufactured by elves in Sherwood forest. That or it is made by Boulton Paul in lieu of the Defiant. You only have so much production capacity regardless of which factories were making what. coming up with a different design does not mean the production capacity existed to make it in quantity.
 
Shortround6 said:
The Sea Gladiator was never a desired type.
Click to expand...
I don't believe anyone stated it was.

The rest of your post is as expected. We already know why something wouldn't, couldn't or shouldn't have occurred. Instead let's figure out, without flippancy or dismissive fantasy how to make it happen.

For starters, if the 600 Fulmars produced from 1940 onwards had been competitive single seat fighters, those that survived wouldn't have needed to begin withdrawal from service in 1942, the same year the last Fulmar was produced. And the production line for the single-seat fighter could have kept churning them out, instead of halting production of the Fulmar exactly 24 months after the first one was delivered in Jan 1940. If the FAA fighter delivered in 1940 was a winner, it could have, like the Spitfire continued production, with updates until war's end. We're already using Merlins and then Griffons for FAA fighters (Fulmars, Fireflies, Seafires, Sea Hurricanes), so by switching these resources to this new fighter we're no more stressing engine procurement or aircraft production capacity.
 
Last edited:
Unfortunately you make no allowance for the progression of aircraft.
The early Fulmars would have been pulled from service, at least from front line service, in 1942 because they were built with 1940 engines. The Merlin MK VIII or equivalent.
Everybody wants to blame the Fulmars lack of Performance on the rear seater and ignore the fuel and ammunition load.
If you want to design a single seater with less fuel and less ammo in 1938 or so with better performance you could do it, just don't expect much better performance than the Hurricane if you want the wide track undercarriage and sturdiness and so on.
 
Shortround6 said:
just don't expect much better performance than the Hurricane if you want the wide track undercarriage and sturdiness and so on.
Click to expand...
Give it folding wings and more fuel (externally and jettisonable if necessary to maintain performance) and I'll take it. Winkle Brown compared the Sea Hurricane's performance favourably to the Grumman Wildcat, the USN's sole carrier fighter until the Hellcat reached the front lines in autumn 1943.

If a Wildcat/Hurricane level of performance is good enough for the USN throughout its greatest battles, it's good enough for the FAA. Though I'd prefer an all metal construction for more streamlining and to allow for pressurized cockpits later on (and perhaps to address Brown's last point below, but IDK if fabric over frame is more vulnerable).

Here is Brown's assessment of the F4F-4 versus the Sea Hurricane IIC:

"Here were two fighters almost evenly matched in combat performance and firepower, with the British fighter holding the edge. The Hurricane could exploit its superior rate of roll, the Wildcat its steeper angle of climb. In a dogfight the Hurricane could outturn the Wildcat, and it could evade a stern attack by half rolling and using its superior acceleration in a dive.​
Verdict: This is a combat I have fought a few times in mock trials. The Hurricane could usually get in more camera gunshots than the Wildcat, but for neither was this an easy job. The Hurricane would probably have been more vulnerable to gun strikes than the Wildcat."​
 
Last edited:
Admiral Beez said:
For shooting down wave upon wave of slow, lightly armed and mostly unescorted Italian and German level bombers over the Mediterranean the sufficiently fast, highly stable and heavily armed Fulmar was ideal.
Click to expand...
That's how they racked up so many kills? How'd they do against fighters?
The Fulmar was also the ideal pick for the Mediterranean combat conditions . . . lastly the Martlet didn't have the Fulmar's heavy armament for smashing the unescorted, medium bombers.
Click to expand...
The Fulmar's armament was 8 x 0.303 or 4 x 0.50 right? The F4F's armament was 4 x 0.50
It's my attitude that, while the Fulmar was a stupid design: We've all made dumb mistakes. That said, it's one thing to make this decision the first time, but far different the second time.

fubar57 said:
From the Fleet Air Arm in the Second World War...
Click to expand...
Looking at what was stated, there was an assumption that the two-seater would perform a whole lot better than it turned out to be able to. They indicated an estimated top-speed of around 360 mph top-speed, which is nowhere near what the Firefly was capable of.

I'm not sure where they got the idea that the F4F and F2A's would be better operating from shore basing: Their design was entirely predicated on operating off the decks of a carrier. If you're just going to operate off land, get a bunch of Hurricanes, Spitfires, and other land-based designs that were either in development or flight testing.

As for wireless communication, it appears as if it wouldn't have been an issue to adopt a configuration for radio-navigation aids that would be suitable for a single-crewed aircraft.
 
The Wildcat wasn't good enough in combat for the US Navy in 1942. We lost the Lexington, Yorktown and Hornet while the Wildcat was on duty. I personally think all 3 would have survived if the Hellcat or Corsair would have been in service at that time. Kate's flew over the top of patrolling Wildcats and the Wildcats didn't have the speed to catch them before they torpedoed Lexington. Wildcats has trouble getting past the Zero escort at Midway when Yorktown was crippled. Can't remember specifics on Hornet except that it was a huge fur ball and there was some poor fighter direction from the US controllers
 
Consider that the Firefly's first flight was still a year and a half in the future from the time the above letter was written. How many Allied and Axis projects failed to live up to expectations.
 
The British had some bad formulas for estimating top speed in 1939-40, hence 370mph Beaufighters, 420mph Typhoons, 360mph single seat Defiants and yes 360mph Fireflies. Blackburn Firebrand may have been a bit over rated when on paper too.


What the British got, initially, where planes without arrestor hooks and catapult equipement. Refitting them to be carrier capable would take time. British catapults used a different attachment system than US catapults (and different attachment points on the aircraft) so just getting few boxes of parts wasn't the entire answer.
 
Shortround6 said:
What the British got, initially, where planes without arrestor hooks and catapult equipement.
Click to expand...
I didn't know that. I assumed since Britain was getting the non-folding Wildcats intended for the French Navy that they'd have hooks. I expect that nearly all Martlet launches were without catapult use, so that's less an issue.

Just push the Martlet to the stern, accelerate to max ship's speed, turn into the wind, and you're off.

 
The E-book version of D J Brown's book Carrier Operations has a couple of relevant quotes. The first concerns the Mediterranean Fleet:


The second is about Force H:


The Sea Hurricane was at least as good as the F4F which implies that the Fulmar would also have been superior to the Wildcat below 10-12,000 feet.
 

That could be because of the supercharger on the Fulmar being set so the Merlin VIII produced its maximum power at low level
1,275 hp (951 kW) at 3,000 rpm, +9 psi (62 kPa) boost, sea level with 100 octane
Sea Hurricane Merlin IIIs could run at +12 psi but didnt make maximum power till they were at 9,000 feet. IN 1942 Sea Hurricane Merlin IIIs could run at +16 psi and produce 1,440 hp at 5,500 feet.
 
In 1938 the RAF was receiving so many Hurricanes that Hawkers were allowed to export spare production to several countries. It would have been nice if the FAA had been allocated some Hurricanes with folding wings and Merlin VIIIs or maybe even Bristol Hercules engines. It would have been the best carrier fighter of the time.
 
Depends on which Sea Hurricane vs which Wildcat. Eric Brown said the F4F-3 was 30 mph faster, climbed better and much more maneuverable than the Sea Hurricane Mark I. F4F-3 top speed 330-335 mph while Sea Hurricane Mark 1 was only 300 mph.

He said F4F-4 vs Sea Hurricane Mark II that the Hurricane climbed faster but Wildcat climbed steeper, Hurricane could break off by out rolling and diving away from Wildcat, the Hurricane had better firepower but Wildcat was tougher and could take more damage. Hurricane could usually get in more gun camera pics of Wildcat but it wouldn't be an easy fight for either fighter.

The fair comparison is a non folding wing F4F-3 vs either Hurricane. vs mark I it's F4F-3 all the way, no comparison. He didn't compare F4F-3 to Hurricane Mark II. I'd probably pick F4F-3 but that's just me. When comparing Hurricane Mark II to F4F-4 you need to fight 2 F4F-4 vs 1 Hurricane or at least 3 vs 2 because that's how many more F4F-4 you can fit in the same space on a carrier
 
Keep the Merlin. A folding wing Hurricane goes a long way to reaching our objective. Increase range through more internal or external fuel.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

A
Heaviest armed Japanese single seat, single engine fighter?
2 3
Replies
41
Views
4K
MIflyer
M
A
Worst liquid-cooled, V12-powered, single-engine, single-seat, monoplane, retractable undercarriage fighters of WW2?
2 3
Replies
56
Views
5K
yulzari
Single seat F-82?
Replies
2
Views
925
Admiral Beez
A
A
Could a single engined, single seat fighter be made for the Lycomings xr-7755?
Replies
8
Views
1K
GrauGeist
Single seat/single engine fighter landing gear positioning logic
Replies
0
Views
489
BarnOwlLover
Menu
Log in
Register