Was single seat Firefly possible?

[pinsog]

I can see we're going to disagree. The Yorktown remained afloat for significant period of time after the second attack. Again, please allow me to repeat....the lack of portable gear to dewater and energize various parts of the ships caused their losses. (After the Coral Sea, the Navy pretty much started pulling all the nice flammables off the ships.)

To go slightly off the reservation, go read up on the loss of HMS Sheffield, buried deeply in the reports you will find that no one opchecked their pumps before they left for the Falklands.........turns out they didn't work. No pumps, meant no dewatering and no firefighting water after the firemains were cut.

Bye, bye Sheffield.

No problem on the respectfully disagreeing and you may in fact be correct. I do understand the loss of electrical power etc. One detail, the submarine captain that torpedoed Yorktown set his torpedoes to run in a line, not in a spread. The 2 sub torpedoes that hit Yorktown hitbin the same spot, the first torpedo made a hole, 2nd torpedo went into that hole and exploded deep inside the hull, and I assume you know how powerful Japanese submarine and surface ship torpedoes were.

Interesting chat. I look forward to more with you.

 

[Shortround6]

Why would you buy a carrier based airplane without carrier capability? At that point, they could have just bought more P-40's. They were faster and had a better roll rate...

When did catapults and arrester hooks come to define "carrier capable"? I have seen lots of footage of USA aircraft taking off without catapults and that is obviously after the UK and France were ordering what became known as Martlets.[/QUOTE]

Different Navies had different requirements. The American carriers were larger and with the Langley excepted, faster than many other carriers. They only planned to catapult enough aircraft to clear enough deck space to fly off the rest of the planes in quick succession, They were able to put a lot more planes into the air in the same amount of time as some other carriers. That doesn't mean that ALL of the planes on board didn't have to be catapult capable as this made arranging the planes on deck much easier. Any plane (or group of planes) could be at the front of the deck park to be catapulted off instead of only select planes with the rest being fly off only.

ANd again, what were the US factories capable of making and when? Some of the is factories expanded their workforce by 3-5 times from 1939 to 1941. If you are ordering planes in 1939 there are only so many that each manufacturer can build in 1940. Doesn't do you any good to order 1500 P-40s in the fall of 1939 if Curtiss can only build 800 planes in that year for example (for all customers) you need to order other types of aircraft from companies that can actually deliver in 1940.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Instead of ultimately wasting his skills and time on the Whirlwind, I'd like to have seen what Petter could have done for a 1939/40 single seat carrier fighter? Imagine the Whirlwind's bubble canopy and streamlining in a single engine fighter, with Petter brought to the Fairey design team when the spec calls for a single seater.

 

[Shortround6]

When your military sits in a Chateau waiting for news from a despatch rider, it doesn't matter whether your air force have bi planes or P-51s they will be over run by an opponent that advances almost as fast as your despatch rider.

Hmmm, rely on dispatch riders or the French telephone system?????
because radios are too new fangled to trust

 

[pbehn]

Hmmm, rely on dispatch riders or the French telephone system?????
because radios are too new fangled to trust

As with many things when the doo doo hits the fan it doesn't look great in historical records. its like a present day US president starting to use Morse code.

 

[jetcal1]

No problem on the respectfully disagreeing and you may in fact be correct. I do understand the loss of electrical power etc. One detail, the submarine captain that torpedoed Yorktown set his torpedoes to run in a line, not in a spread. The 2 sub torpedoes that hit Yorktown hit in the same spot, the first torpedo made a hole, 2nd torpedo went into that hole and exploded deep inside the hull, and I assume you know how powerful Japanese submarine and surface ship torpedoes were.

Interesting chat. I look forward to more with you.

Please keep in mind that there is a difference between bringing the ship home (See USS Houston CL-81, Another great DC epic, optional reading in my locker for an extra point on your annual eval.) And having a hull that is still straight enough to be useful and isn't so tweaked that it will start hogging in any kind of sea like her keel is broken.
Here is the report on the Houston. The shoring efforts alone were quite impressive along with the at-sea welds.
USS Houston CL81 War Damage Report No. 53

I'm assuming the torpedo was the type 93(?) The one that basically let the Japanese have their way with the USN at night in the Solomons? (Must be mines!)
From a let's go kill the enemy standpoint? Great torpedo! However, given the fuel? I'd give serious thought to stowage and damage control considerations to keep them nice and cool.

 

[jetcal1]

As with many things when the doo doo hits the fan it doesn't look great in historical records. its like a present day US president starting to use Morse code.

We're still using messengers onboard Navy ships, because sometimes there just ain't no comm.

I'd also point out the PLA is using ultralight aircraft as messengers and as away to move troops around the battlefield.

 

[pinsog]

Please keep in mind that there is a difference between bringing the ship home (See USS Houston CL-81, Another great DC epic, optional reading in my locker for an extra point on your annual eval.) And having a hull that is still straight enough to be useful and isn't so tweaked that it will start hogging in any kind of sea like her keel is broken.
Here is the report on the Houston. The shoring efforts alone were quite impressive along with the at-sea welds.
USS Houston CL81 War Damage Report No. 53

I'm assuming the torpedo was the type 93(?) The one that basically let the Japanese have their way with the USN at night in the Solomons? (Must be mines!)
From a let's go kill the enemy standpoint? Great torpedo! However, given the fuel? I'd give serious thought to stowage and damage control considerations to keep them nice and cool.

What about when the USS New Orleans had her bow blown off and sailed backwards all the way to Australia! The US Navy had some amazingly damaged ships at Guadalcanal that survived. I'll read the report on the Houston as soon as I can. Damage control aboard warships is something I am interested in. Another fascinating read is the forensic analysis of sinking of the Prince of Wales

 

[jetcal1]

Maybe in an attempt to actually get an Airacobra to actually take-off from a carrier?

One chart has the P-39D-2 ranked 16th in take-off distance among American fighters. This is out of 20, (Many had more than one model in the chart)
taking off from a hard runway at sea level with zero wind and fuel ammo and internal fuel but no external stores the P-39D needed twice the runway off all but the worst Navy fighters. ANd the P-39D needed a mere 84% more runway than the worst Navy fighter.

The Airabonita also had a .50 cal gun through the prop in an attempt to lighten the plane and used a slightly bigger wing in an attempt to get the wing loading down even further.
The tail dragger landing gear was used to change the angle of incidence of the wing for more lift much like the Whitley's wing didn't line up with the fuselage, The Stirling had that really tall landing gear, and the later B-26s had their wings mounted at about 3 degrees more incidence.

I'm guessing it was also to save weight. (Plus one can only imagine the amount of beefing up the forward fuselage the Navy would have wanted in 1938.) Although, moving the radiators around, dropping the nose gear and reducing the armament in the nose along with moving the 3rd wheel aft must have played havoc with CG.

 

[Zipper730]

The French were simply ordering something, anything they they thought they could get delivery on quick.

Desperation

 

[Admiral Beez]

Desperation

If they'd chosen the best and focused on producing that instead of concurrent designs, they'd have more on hand. Instead, France had FIVE entirely distinct single-seat, single-engine, monoplane fighters entering service between 1938 and 1940. This doesn't include foreign types, like the Koolhoven F.K.58 that was also introduced in 1940.

1. Bloch MB.150. Specified 1934. First flight 1937. Introduced 1939.
2. Morane-Saulnier M.S.406. Specified 1934. (same as the MB.150). First flight 1938. Introduced 1938.
3. Arsenal VG-33. Specified 1936. First flight 1939. Introduced 1940.
4. Dewoitine D.520. Specified 1936 (same as the VG-33). First flight 1938. Introduced 1940.
5. Caudron C.714. Specified 1936 (same as VG-33). First flight 1936. Introduced 1940.

Vichy France has 5 aircraft carriers in WW2

 

[RCAFson]

The F4F-3 really had no faults, it was competitive in speed at 330 ish, very good climb and good weapons for the time of 4 50's and 430 or 450 rounds per gun. Against the first Zero it only gave up low speed turn. I agree with you on the Zero as well, it climbed great and at a steep angle, fast, low speed turn was unmatched. I disagree on the 20 mm the Zero carried. They weren't very good as 20 mm go, low velocity, small bursting charge and only a 60 round drum.
The F4F-4 on the other hand was a pig. Terrible climb rate, around 315-318 mph, 6 50's with only 230 rounds per gun, loss of turn ability etc.

F4F-3 vs early P40 would have been interesting. P40 is faster down low but the F4F-3 would be superior at altitude. F4F-3 should outclimb the P40 and definitely outturn it while the P40 can outroll and outdive the F4F-3

The F4F-3, with a full fuel load, full ammo, self sealing tanks and full armour, weighed in at 7556lb while the F4F-4 weighed in at 7975 lb. Adding 420b to an F4F-3 isn't going to turn a great performer into a slug. The fact is that both the F4F-3 and F4F-4 were slugs and the stats that claim the F4F-3 was otherwise, are simply bogus. BWOC, the Hawker Sea Hurricane 1B weighed ~7015lb and had a maximum speed of 315mph at 7500ft while it's climb rate and turn radius were far superior to the F4F-3 or -4. Only the early Martlet variants, with fixed wings, no armour and no SS tanks had an equal or superior performance to the Sea Hurricane, and these variants were also superior to the F4F-3 and -4 because they were considerably lighter. Combat trials between the Sea Hurricane and Martlet, are skewed, probably because the Sea Hurricane was denied the use of overboost (just as RAAF trials of the Spitfire V were skewed in trials against the Hap).

 

[yulzari]

Hmmm, rely on dispatch riders or the French telephone system?????
because radios are too new fangled to trust

It was a (stupid) deliberate decision for (daft) reasons of security. Not even telephones. Mind you, if the Germans had used despatch riders etc in WW2 then there would have been no Allied reading of vital messages via Ultra etc. They could have had, and used radios. Like their BEF colleagues who were night and day by signals comparison and fully motorised to boot.

Despatch riders are a bit tricky for navies at sea and need to flap damn hard for air forces.

 

[Zipper730]

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.

That's something I find strange: Maneuvering discrepancies in the two fighters.

I have stall speed figures for the F4F-3 and F4F-4 power on/off flaps up. I don't really have power-off stall speeds for any of the Hurricanes, and I'm not sure I have any figures for flaps up either. This is important as power-off flaps-up is the best way to estimate corner velocity, which is the minimum speed to pull the maximum rated g-load

1. To compute corner velocity: Square root the g-load and multiply by stall speed
2. To compute stall speed with differing weights (provided you have one figure): Divide the two and square-root it; then multiply by the square root of the g-load at that weight.

 

[Zipper730]

"In February 1942, during a Firefly progress meeting at Air Ministry, the idea of a single seat version of the Firefly with the more powerful Rolls-Royce 1980 hp Griffon engine was raised. The Admiralty was not interested, saying that the Firefly's potential lay in its two-seat strike role........" Fairey Firefly in action by W.A. Harrison - 2006

Two-seat strike role sounds like a dive-bomber... that sounds like it wouldn't really be the primary role of the fighter (which would be to protect the fleet from bomber attack, and remove fighter-cover so bombers can sink them).

Royal Navy specification NAD925/39A called for a single seat shipboard fighter with a . . . thin wing and a Rolls Royce Griffon engine with a two speed supercharger . . . . The thickness of the wing is the critical issue for a 1940s fighter.

I'm not sure if I asked this before, but is there any rule of thumb for what effect thickness has on either stall speed? That said, they didn't seem to object to navalizing a Spitfire which had one of the thinnest wings of the day.

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's the range of their beacon compare with the ZB system that the USN used?

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.

I'm thinking about the fact that

• The USN had decided to do away with two-seat fighters in the 1930's -- before the RAF/RN:FAA did
• The fact that the RAF/RN:FAA already had the navigation equipment years before we did
• That and, according to Admiral Beez, it would not have taken all that long to convert the radio-navigation system for use in a single-seat aircraft.
• The RAF/RN:FAA was at least as well trained for overwater navigation as the USN was

It shouldn't have been that hard to have ditched the idea after the Fulmar. The Fulmar was already an out-modded concept, but it flew decently enough to do the job. That said, a single-seater would have been a better replacement. Looking at the numbers I have the following...

A/C.....................................-.-.-.Weight....-.-.-Wing-Area.....Aspect-Ratio.....Wing-Loading.....Power-Loading.....Top-Speed
Fairey Firefly Mk.I (as flown).-.-.12020 lb.*-.-.328 ft^2-.-.-.-6.0373.-.-.-.-.---36.64 lb/ft^2.-.-.-0.1439.-.-.-.-.-.-.-..316 @ 14000'
Fairey NAD.925/39..............-.-.-9380 lb..---.-292 ft^2-.-.-.-6.0411-.-.-.---../32.13 lb/ft^2-.-.-.0.1706-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.382 @ 15000'

I presumed the 14020 weight figure was based on the aircraft carrying 2000 lb. of ordinance, so my estimates, if anything, give the Firefly Mk.I some favors and, even factoring in the 1600 horsepower figure for the single-seater, I still get superior wing-loading and aspect-ratio for the single-seat NAD.925/39 than the Firefly Mk.I. Since it's common for aircraft to end up gaining weight through development and flight-test, I made a crude assumption based on the power-loading staying the same despite the increase in power from 1600 to 1730 horsepower: This yields a wing-loading of 34.73 lb/ft^2, which is lighter than the actual Firefly.

I'm not sure what effect wing thickness has on low-speed performance as...

• The Spitfire has one of the thinnest wings of the time, yet it has a lower stall speed than the Me.109, and can easily turn inside it without incident.
• The Seafire also had a terrible record of landing on carriers with a crash rate that was around 38% (that said, the accident rate lowered).
• The Hurricane/Sea Hurricane and Spitifre/Seafire used split flaps, which have less effect on reducing stall speeds than plain-flaps/fowler flaps
• The Firefly used Fairey-Youngman flaps which are probably similar to fowler-flaps: They provide a substantial benefit to low-speed handling.

I wonder why the otherwise tricycle Airacobra was converted to taildragger for carrier trials?

I can think of two reasons

1. The requirements the XFL-1 included the ability to drop bombs on enemy bombers: This included a window down below to sight enemy planes. The landing-gear position might have gotten in the way.
2. Tradition: While one of the first few aircraft to operate off a carrier deck used a tricycle gear, once tail-draggers became established, the tradition became hard to shake.[/quote]

 

[wuzak]

I figure that the decisions that drove the Fulmar came way before the Firefly. Fairey submitted their single-seat proposal (NAD.925/39) in January, 1940, with N.5/40 being issued in February of 1940.

I'm curious what carrier experience the RN:FAA had in WWII up to this point, and how in touch the guys who issued specifications were with operational commanders?
I can think of two reasons

1. The requirements the XFL-1 included the ability to drop bombs on enemy bombers: This included a window down below to sight enemy planes. The landing-gear position might have gotten in the way.
2. Tradition: While one of the first few aircraft to operate off a carrier deck used a tricycle gear, once tail-draggers became established, the tradition became hard to shake.

I think you are confusing the role of the XFL-1 with that of the YFM-1.

Since the war started in September of 1939 there wasn't a whole lot of air engagement for the FAA.

 

[Shortround6]

Tradition: While one of the first few aircraft to operate off a carrier deck used a tricycle gear, once tail-draggers became established, the tradition became hard to shake.

these guys were not stupid. the XFL-1 was converted to a taildragger because that gave a better angle of incidence (angle of attack) for lift at the speed range needed for taking-off and landing on a carrier at the time. High lift flaps were in their infancy.
A trike gear P-39 needed hundreds of feet more runway/deck as as the tail dragger fighters the Navy did use, including the F4U and F6F.

tradition had little to do with it.

 

[Zipper730]

I think you are confusing the role of the XFL-1 with that of the YFM-1.

Nope, I was actually responding to several messages, and you actually got part of the message that was for somebody else. The first part had to do with NAD.925/39 and how much the operational commanders were in touch with the guys who issued the specs. The rest had to do with the P-39/XFL-1

Since the war started in September of 1939 there wasn't a whole lot of air engagement for the FAA.

When did they begin to encounter a lot of aerial combat?

 

[Zipper730]

these guys were not stupid. the XFL-1 was converted to a taildragger because that gave a better angle of incidence (angle of attack) for lift at the speed range needed for taking-off and landing on a carrier at the time. High lift flaps were in their infancy.
A trike gear P-39 needed hundreds of feet more runway/deck as as the tail dragger fighters the Navy did use, including the F4U and F6F.

Now that makes sense: I was basing this on what was written in a book about the plane. It seemed that the author was under the impression that the issue was more about a desire to not part with tradition, and mention was made of a sighting station.

 

[BiffF15]

Now that makes sense: I was basing this on what was written in a book about the plane. It seemed that the author was under the impression that the issue was more about a desire to not part with tradition, and mention was made of a sighting station.

Could the tradition part have been the radial versus inline / liquid cooled?

Cheers,
Biff