Was the Seafire’s narrow track the issue?

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


Not quite right. they wanted a two seat, long endurance fighter/recon plane which the existing single seat fighters could not satisfy. They also wanted a two seat turret fighter, (too much beer at lunch with the RAF guys).

But is was going to take 3-4 years (if lucky) to get either plane in the form wanted ( Griffon or Hercules or Exe engines or.....) so a succession of interim planes appeared.
The Fulmat was NOT designed as a fighter but was an adapted dive bomber/close support plane that was already flying (or near flying).

The single seat fighters of the day ( F2A, F4F, A5M and landbased fighters) could not fly/operate/ navigate in the weather conditions that the FAA wanted to operate in. They also did not have the range/endurance the FAA wanted. A few years can make a big difference. The slow pace of British development/introduction to service doomed several design. The Fulmat was ordered well over a year before the F4F flew in anything like it's production form and the first production F2A didn't fly until June of 1939, It used a 950hp engine with no reduction gear, only 11 were built (other 40 something planes were given to the Finns staring in jan 1940)

There were no F2A's of F4Fs to compare to when the Fulmar was ordered and in the summer of 1940 when the Fulmar went into service the only F4Fs in actual production were the ex french Martlets with fixed wings and Wright cyclone engines with two speed (not tow stage) superchargers. US Navy was just getting the first of it's F2A-2 planes at the same time.

Bashing the Fulmar with the aid of a time machine is getting old.
 
With a 2 speed Merlin, Fulmar performance would not seem so bad. When it arrived it was still a bomber pilot's nightmare due to radar GCI.
 

Actually, that's not quite correct. Just to clarify a few things here, the Fulmar was only intended as an interim and it was to a spec for a two seat long range catapult fighter issued when the RAF was in charge, but when the FAA got its opportunity to launch a bespoke fighter, and let's be clear about this, the FAA wasn't in the business of designing fighters, just writing requirements for them, which were issued to manufacturers, who then designed the fighters, the fighter that resulted was the Firebrand.

Blackburn's single-seater was to be the FAA's single seat fighter. The Fulmar was to be replaced by the Firefly as a separate requirement, which was kept by the Admiralty. Neither the Fulmar nor the Firefly were built to replace single-seaters. When the RAF was in charge of the FAA, there was no modern single-seat requirement launched, but when the Admiralty took over the FAA, the requirement produced for a single-seater resulted in the Firebrand.

Its complex, the problem being the change over from RAF to Admiralty control of the FAA.
 
Unfortunately, most of us have never seen the "official" requirements which may ( don't know for sure one way or the other) include such things as stalling or landing speed. take-off distance, desired endurance or range/radius or even the desired radio equipment. All of which have some impact on the "design" of the plane/s in question.

Most of what we have read is a very quick "highlight" of the specification in which speed, climb/ceiling and perhaps armament is given. Leaving us guessing.

I have no idea how the British did it but the US had book or booklet specifying all kinds of details of construction and stress levels and such that ALL proposed aircraft had to meet so there weren't pages of redundant requirements attached to every new invitation to tender a design.

From Tony Butlers books on British Secret Projects is seems that the FAA (or remnants of the RAF?) were not interested in a single seat fighter in 1937-39. They seem to have been very interested in the the two seat fixed gun fighter recon plane, (with wither eight ,303s or four 20mm cannon) and a two seat turret fighter with quite a few designs being submitted for each of the two types. for some reason this changed abruptly in Jan of 1940 (before the Defiant ever saw combat) and the two seat turret fighter idea was dropped completely and a single seat fixed gun fighter requirement shows up in addition to the two seat fixed gun fighter.

I think the Roc was a way to get some sort of turret fighter into service quickly and was not what was really wanted. However the "quickly" part disappeared when it was subcontracted out to Boulton Paul instead of being built by Blackburn. It is also a cautionary tale for those who want to substitute other aircraft. 136 planes were ordered 28th of April 1937 (off the drawing board) but it took until March 1st of 1940 for the 100th plane to be delivered and until august 1940 for the last of the order to be finished.

I would also suggest that the speed differential between the Skua and some of it's theoretical opponents (or British test planes) was not quite so great as it appears. Same for the Fulmar.
Many of these quoted top speeds make no mention of altitude and our 250mph (257mph at 15,000ft) Battle was actually good for 210mph at sea level and 240mph at 10,000ft. This is clean, no external bombs or torpedo. The Skua could do 225mph at 6,500ft and 204mph at sea level. The Blenheim I was faster but it's claimed 285mph at 15,000ft speed dropped to 240mph at sea level. Yes they are still faster but not quite the level of superiority sometimes suggested.

The two seat bomber that the Fulmar was developed from was tested at 283-284mph at 15,000ft so while no ball of fire it wasn't quite the slow poke suggested, flying low level with full military fighter equipement did slow it down. Finding 300mph plus single seat fighters in 1938 wasn't quite as easy as it sounds.
The XF2A-1 Buffalo was only good for 277-278mph but after a good going over in the Langley wind tunnel they got it up to 304 mph at 16,000ft. However the the plane was carrying one ,50 cal gun with 200 rounds and one . 30 cal gun with 600 round. the wing guns came later (and speed and climb both suffered a bit).

Going back to the endurance/range of the Fulmar
"Total endurance was about four hours 45 minutes, equalling four hours operational endurance (plus combat reserves). While lower than the design requirement, this was at least double that of any other known single-engined fighter."

from Armoured Aircraft Carriers

Which may explain, somewhat, the FAA liking of that type airplane, It could stay in the air longer than existing single seat fighters meaning fewer take-offs and landing per day needed for CAP, it could certainly scout/search at a longer distance.
 

Yup, pretty much it. The RAF decided, after years of single-seat fighters that the navy needed to economise and that's when the fighter/dive bomber came out, but the Fulmar was an interim to the turret fighter, which was, as Dave pointed out, a bomber destroyer. It was argued that a long range enemy bomber/ recon aircraft that was encountered out to sea could be taken down by a turret fighter, hence the interest in those by the RAF.

Asdide from official documentation and specifications, it's on record that personnel within the FAA wanted a single-seat fighter during the period that the two-seat fighter was being put to paper as requirements, and, as mentioned, interest in a naval Hurricane was discussed in 1937 and subsequently a Sea Spitfire, to which both manufacturers of both types prepared proposals. The dropping of the turret fighter was fortuitous of course, but as said in another thread, it's pretty hard to stop a production order once it has been placed, so these Rocs that were produced were shunned because of their poor performance and misguided specification.
 

We're in luck! I have a copy of Specification No.0.8/38.

Your suspicious are correct -- it's a lot more involved than a few snippets; 14.5 pages.

Endurance​
It is to be capable of operating for six hours at operational height at not less than 120 knots + ¼ hour at maximum power at sea level, or for at least 2¾ hours at maximum economical cruising speed at 10,000 ft. + ¼ hour at maximum power at sea level.​

It's very specific about the 2-seat design. Right down to things like the different type of compass the observer gets as opposed to the pilot.
 
Out of interest's sake, there is a good potted history of the concern the Admiralty had with the Air Ministry's decision to go with a fighter dive bomber specification and the lack of a single-seat fighter specification within those crucial years of 1934 through 1939 and its attempts to get one, in Morgan and Shacklady's entry on the Seafire in their definitive tome Spitfire, The History (Key, 1988). It's too long to transcribe here.
 
GrauGeist said:
The "turret fighter" was actually a bomber interceptor.
It was not intended to engage and fight single-seat, single-engined fighters.
Click to expand...
But the Roc was significantly slower than almost all monoplane bombers of the time. What was the assumed inteceptor target? As for the Fulmar, wasn't the Skua the FAA's fighter-bomber? The Fulmar (and Firefly) didn't give a gun to the rear-seat chap, is there any other carrier-based, bomb-equipped, two-seat aircraft in WW2 that didn't have gun in the rear seat? That's not a fighter-bomber.
 
Last edited:
When looking at some of these programs you have a lot of dates to consider.

Issue of specification date, which may be an updated previous specification or a new one. In any case sometimes months of talks/discussion could proceed the issue of a specification.

Issue of prototype contract, however some aircraft were given production contracts off the drawing board without a prototype. Sometimes the production contract followed the prototype contract by a number of months but before the prototype had flown.

First flight date.

First production aircraft flight date. (again, sometimes the first production aircraft (or first several, acted as prototypes and initial production was very slow as changes filtered back)

first issue to squadron, which may or may not be introduction to service. Often first squadron got to help write the pilot's notes or manual (plus service manual/s)

Date 1st squadron was declared "operational"with the new aircraft.

The Roc seems to have been ordered almost by default. The RAF was looking for a replacement for the Hawker Osprey

for the Reconnaissance fighter job. Both wheeled and float.

A navel version of the Defiant was submitted but failed to meet the wing fold dimension without a lot of redesign. Which pretty much left the modified Skua as the only plane standing (Floating?) Redesign from the Skua was more complicated than originally thought. Production was farmed out Boulton Paul (salt in the wound?) as Blackburn was too busy getting set up to build Botha's.
2nd and 3rd production/prototype Rocs were fitted with floats. It did not go well but by then it was late 1939.

Max range of the Roc is given in one source as 810 miles. If this is true then the RAF/FAA in 1938-39 had a real problem on their hands. No single seat fighter available at the time has the range/endurance for the Recon part of the job and the two seat aircraft in production or about to enter production(Skua and Roc) don't have the performance for the fighter part of the job. The Fulmar was ordered around 6 months before the first Roc flew so perhaps they thought they had both range/endurance and performance covered? Fulmar was not as fast as expected when it showed up, and it may have showed up late.

Without articles (or minutes of meetings/letters) it is hard to know what they were thinking but simply using Swordfish, Sharks, Albecores as recon strike aircraft and keeping the fighters as fighters may not have worked out well. With the rather limited air groups the FAA was using having to get the search aircraft back on deck to be re-armed in order to conduct the strike may have been thought too limiting in some scenarios Even with one or more planes left as target shadows the number of hours needed to get the search planes back on deck, re-arm/refuel and go back out to the target area may have taken to many hours vs a strike being launched by planes on board with information from the Recon fighters?

A lot also depends on expected search radius, One Roc/Fulmar may have been able to replace 3 hypothetical Sea Hurricane in the search/Recon role (or CAP) when the short endurance of the Hurricane is factored in. Sea Hurricane (or early Seafire) may have been thought to spend too much time/fuel getting to and from the search/recon areas in relation to the amount of time on station?

Some of this is just my thoughts and some of our members with their own sources or access to archives may have a much better understanding of what lead to certain requirements and put my suggestions in the rubbish bin.

Warning signs were there for the Roc (much like the Botha) as anyone that could do simple arithmetic (to heck with engineering) could figure out the power to weight ratio and figure out that the "new" planes were very unlikely to perform as well as the older planes (Skua and Blenheim) but if canceled there were no real replacements for many months or several years.
 
Admiral Beez said:
Interesting comment from a Seafire pilot where boost was possible continually.



The field ops of removing exhaust stubs and wing tips surprised me.
Click to expand...
Those early exhaust stubs were involved in the hot air heating system for the guns I think. I read somewhere else that the wing tips were removed to increase the sink rate and reduce float, which is sort of what is said in the video but in a different way.
 
Admiral Beez said:
Is there any land-based WW2 monoplane fighter better suited for carrier ops than the Hawker Hurricane? Maybe the Reggiane Re.2001.
Click to expand...

During PQ18, the only deck landing problems were two instances of tail wheel damage, that was easily repairable by the ship's staff. The Sea Hurricane seems to have had a very high serviceability rate and a low operational loss rate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

A
Was the Hispano-Suiza 12Y the worst ≥25L V-12 of WW2?
2 3
Replies
46
Views
3K
ThomasP
T
Paper comparing the flight performance of the P-40E Warhawk and the A6M2 Zero
Replies
8
Views
872
Ivan1GFP
I
F
Just how good was the Mitsubishi F1M 'Pete'
Replies
12
Views
2K
cammerjeff
A
The Myth of the British "Fixing" The Corsair
8 9 10
Replies
183
Views
12K
EwenS
E
M
The Zero's Maneuverability
18 19 20
Replies
391
Views
21K
Ivan1GFP
I
Menu
Log in
Register