Was single seat Firefly possible?

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

BiffF15 said:
Could the tradition part have been the radial versus inline / liquid cooled?
Click to expand...
No, that part came up separately, as far as I remember.

The USN was an interesting animal at the time: While they generally were opposed to inlines, they were willing to fund some designs, and were willing to operate them provided they could provide superior performance.
 

Really?

Zipper730 said:
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.
Click to expand...

The bolded part sure sounds like the X/YFM-1 and not the XFL-1.
 
Do shadowers mean enemy vessels or scouting aircraft trying to identify the fleet's position?
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 

Shadowers = aircraft in this context. Enemy surface vessels shadowing an RN battlefleet would be destroyed by other means.
 
While I think I get the decision for why they went with a two-seat firefly: Tell me if I'm right or wrong
  1. They operated in both the Atlantic and Pacific: The weather there sucks and one is heavily dependent on Radio-Navigation Aids
  2. The school of thought was that the Fulmar as a twin-seater would have minimal performance shortcomings compared to a single-seater, but would have superior navigational ability, when outside the range of the navigation beacons
  3. The USN operated over the Pacific, and had started developing a radio-navigation aid that would be equipped for single-seater aircraft. While it wasn't ready until 1942, it was in the works, so the US decided to favor performance.
  4. The Firefly was an advanced development of the Fulmar and, without much experience in WWII, they figured, there was little need for a single-seater yet. By the time they did realize this, it was too late.
That said, there was an interest in Seafires as early as 1938. That's before the Fulmar flew, and the Seafire was a single-seater.
 
The primary areas the RN operated in were the Atlantic and Indian Oceans, not the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans.
 
Zipper730 said:
The Firefly was an advanced development of the Fulmar and, without much experience in WWII, they figured, there was little need for a single-seater yet. By the time they did realize this, it was too late.
Click to expand...

Yes and no. The Firefly story is rather convoluted and involves separate specifications that eventually were to lead to a replacement for the Fulmar, which in its design was actually borne from a light attack aircraft, just to confuse. The 'little need for a single seater' is the 'no' bit, for although this is often believed to be the case, the admiralty actually wanted single-seat carrier fighters, which negates the common misconception that it didn't because of the Fulmar and Firefly - if that makes sense.

Putting it simply, two specs were produced in 1938, N.8/38 and N.9/38, the first for a two-seat fighter, the second for a turret fighter. Updated in 1939, the turret fighter spec was dropped and N.8/39 was rejigged as NAD.925/39 for single and two-seat fighters. From this new spec, the firms investigating designs came up with single and two seat fighter designs, one of which led to the Firefly, built to N.5/40 and another the Blackburn Firebrand to N.11/40.

it should be remembered that the admiralty regained control over the Fleet Air Arm in 1939, which meant it did not have to act in an advisory role to the RAF, which, as we remember took over naval aviation on 1 April 1918 with the merger of the RFC and RNAS. From this date until 1939, the Fleet Air Arm was a branch of the RAF, but admiralty control in 1939 formally released the naval air component to the navy.

There was much activity among the aircraft manufacturers to cater to new single-seat fighter specs after 1939, as well as the Firefly as a two seat fighter to replace the Fulmar, but remember the Fulmar was ordered as an (quoted direct from the specification) "interim two-seat front gun fighter is required for quick production for the FAA, capable of operating from catapult ships and from the deck of a carrier", the design of which was based on the Fairey P.4/34 light day bomber prototype.

That the Firebrand was a disaster was not the fault of the admiralty, which ordered the Grumman Martlet and Sea Hurricane as interims until the Firebrand's issues were sorted. The Seafire came eventually since the navy wanted a 'Sea-Spitfire' as we know, but to back up the Firebrand, Hawker developed the Sea Typhoon and a stop gap fighter from a stop gap fighter was investigated in the Miles M.20, which it was eventually decided would not make a good carrier fighter.

Further specifications for single-seat carrier fighters were released throughout the war, and investigations among the manufacturers went on, spurred on by the continuing failure of Blackburn to get the Firebrand right, including advancing the Seafire.
 
Last edited:
Fascinating
I'm curious why they went with both, that said: The Firebrand didn't seem to perform all that good from the start.

Was it even suitable for carrier use initially?
That makes the twin-seater seem even a weirder idea. That said, It's late so It might make sense in the morning, though who knows -- maybe it won't.
 
Zipper730 said:
Was it even suitable for carrier use initially?
Click to expand...

Again, yes and no! The first prototype Firebrand F.I flew for the first time on 27 February 1942, so was very late to the party, but during contractor's trials for a month beginning in mid June 1942 the aircraft required much effort to get the design suitable for carrier use, even though it was designed for it. The second iteration, the TF.II capable of carrying a torpedo was built only in small numbers (12) and a handful briefly operated with 708 Sqn for weapons trials but never saw a carrier deck.

The TF.II variant had good performance for a torpedo dropper but average for a single-seat fighter in 1942/43 with a max speed of 355 mph and cruise speed of 274 mph, with 2,300 ft/min carrying a torpedo to a max altitude of 29,000 ft.

The first true carrier variant was the TF.III, which was built to an entirely new specification written for it, S.8/43 and was a different beast, but still a beast, compared to the F.I and TF.II, but it too never saw a carrier deck. The Centaurus engined TF.III had lower speeds and less range, although a marginally greater climb rate and altitude compared to its Sabre engined predecessors. The first Firebrand variant to operated from a carrier deck was the TF.V, with 813 and 827 Sqns, not reaching the fleet until 1947!
 
Zipper730 said:
That makes the twin-seater seem even a weirder idea.
Click to expand...

It was, in hindsight. Even during the post-Great War years, the FAA under RAF control had single-seaters, (in order of appearance) the Nieuport Nightjar, Fairey Flycatcher, Hawker Nimrod and Gloster Sea Gladiator (Parnall Plover and sundry secondary types as well in that time), although the Hawker Osprey two-seater carrier version of the Hart day bomber was classified as a fighter reconnaissance type and was eventually replaced by the Blackburn Skua. So in the modern monoplane era from the mid 1930s, the Fulmar was an aberation, although it was only intended as an interim, but no single-seat fighter spec was issued for the admiralty until N.8/39 was rewritten.

This delay, between the admiralty gaining control of the FAA and getting interest from the manufacturers in the new spec and the outbreak of war, which accelerated single-seater development for the RAF, adding the delay of the Firebrand, was enough to mean that the first 'modern' British single-seat carrier fighter was the Sea Hurricane, going to sea in 1941 for the first time.
 
Last edited:
What was it about the Firebrand that caused so many problems? I was told it didn't handle well, but I'm not really able to articulate why.
I think the NAD.925/39 would have been far better than the Seafire in terms of ease of handling. Plus, if it had a top speed of around 380 mph, as listed, it would probably outperform the Seafire and early Hellcats.
This delay, between the admiralty gaining control of the FAA and getting interest from the manufacturers in the new spec and the outbreak of war, which accelerated single-seater development for the RAF
Click to expand...
Firstly: When did they gain control of the FAA? Secondly: Fairey was had already proposed a single-seater for NAD.925/39.
​
 

The issue is that the Firefly isn't a fighter, it's a Fighter-bomber multi role aircraft.

Long distance navigation and search would require a radar operator.
Also used as a dive-bombers, how many other dedicated DB had one crew?
 

Fairey overestimated performance, probably because they underestimated radiator drag and over estimated Griffon output:

"34. Minute by Director of Air Materiel1
[ADM 1/13488] 8 March 1940
Requirements for two-seater and single-seater fighters
A t the meeting held in 5th. Sea Lord's room on Thursday January 4th,
1940, to consider fighter policy, it was decided to confirm the original
two-seater policy. This decision was largely influenced by the apparently
small disparity in speed between two-seaters and single-seaters in the
skeleton tenders submitted to staff requirements laid out in N.A.D. 924/39
and N.A.D. 925/39. This disparity appeared to vary between 2 and 22
knots.
2. T his aspect of the matter has since been more closely examined by
the technical departments of the Air Ministry, and the following points
emerge (summarised in Appendix I):–
(a) The speed of the revised N.8/392 two-seater will be some 35 knots
faster than was contemplated in the original specification, but this
speed cannot now be further improved upon in a two-seater
conforming to F.A.A. limitations. A speed of about 310 knots is
expected.
(b) A single-seater design would allow the use of a more powerful
engine and the true disparity in speed between single-seater and twoseater
is likely to be 30–35 knots...."
(Jones, FAA in the 2nd WW, p.85)

So Fairey estimated the Firefly to be about 310 knots, or ~355 mph but the early Griffon put out only ~1750hp maximum, and a single seater would likely have been ~350-360mph.
 
Zipper730 said:
Really? I thought it was predominantly a fighter by design. That said the F6F and F4U were both able to drop-bombs.
Click to expand...
No, it was intended to replace the Fulmar in the reconnaissance/fighter dual role.
They needed the second crew as navigator & radar operator.

It was requested (N5/40) almost at the same time as the single seat naval fighter specification (N11/40) so they obviously intended in two different aircraft for two different roles.
 
RCAFson said:
Fairey overestimated performance, probably because they underestimated radiator drag and over estimated Griffon output
Click to expand...
Was this a common problem at the time, something more specific to Fairey, or both?

Regardless, how much power output were they expecting from the Griffon? Looking at the figures from Buttler's book (admittedly, written later), specified around 1600 horsepower, which is less than the 1730 actually produced operationally in the Firefly.

In the quote that you cited, it appeared to suggest
  1. 1/4/1940: Disparity between NAD 924/39 would be 2 knots faster if a single seater; NAD 925/39 would be 22 knots faster in a single-seater configuration
    • While I'm not sure if this was covered: NAD 924/39, was this the twin-seater, the thicker winged version, or the Napier Sabre version?
    • 22 knots is a substantial amount of speed (25 mph) to add onto an aircraft: That's basically the difference between the XP-40 and P-40.
  2. Between 1/4/1940 and 3/8/1940: Speed of revised two-seat Fulmar replacement would be 35 knots faster than contemplated
    • Was this based on Fairey's calculations or the RAE's calculations?
    • 275 knots seems pretty much on the ball for the actual Fairey Firefly
Freebird said:
No, it was intended to replace the Fulmar in the reconnaissance/fighter dual role.
Click to expand...
So, the FAA used some of it's fighters as reconnaissance aircraft, whereas the USN used dive-bombers as scouts and bombers?
It was requested (N5/40) almost at the same time as the single seat naval fighter specification (N11/40) so they obviously intended in two different aircraft for two different roles.
Click to expand...
Sounds like a way to hedge one's bets.
 

It's hard to reconcile the figures, but if you look at Butler's performance tables, we see a NAD/925 Fairey 42ft wingspan 9380lb single seat fighter at 382mph and two seat cannon fighter at 9850lb. 382mph with only 1600hp seems very optimistic.

The original spec for the Fulmar called for one x 250lb capacity under each wing, but this may have been deleted to get it into production sooner.

The FAA did use the Fulmar for recon, and for that the observer was invaluable. Notable Fulmar recon missions were from Victorious against Bismarck and Tirpitz.

In late 1941 a drop tank was designed and then useful recon missions could be flown to ~270nm. By mid 1942 the drop tank lugs were used to carry a 500lb bomb.
 
RCAFson said:
It's hard to reconcile the figures, but if you look at Butler's performance tables, we see a NAD/925 Fairey 42ft wingspan 9380lb single seat fighter at 382mph and two seat cannon fighter at 9850lb. 382mph with only 1600hp seems very optimistic.
Click to expand...
I thought I put in the weight figures for the plane being cannon armed...
The original spec for the Fulmar called for one x 250lb capacity under each wing, but this may have been deleted to get it into production sooner.
Click to expand...
For the time, that sounds about right. The ability to haul a thousand was pretty good.
 
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
5K
MIflyer
M
Why was it?
2
Replies
27
Views
3K
nuuumannn
A
Would the early introduction of a single seat, robust, monoplane fighter for the FAA have made any difference?
2
Replies
29
Views
1K
Big Jake
B
A
Worst liquid-cooled, V12-powered, single-engine, single-seat, monoplane, retractable undercarriage fighters of WW2?
2 3
Replies
56
Views
6K
yulzari
Single seat F-82?
Replies
2
Views
1K
Admiral Beez
A