Fairey Fulmar also designed as a single seat version alongside the Hurricane & Spitfire?

[ArtosStark]

The 18" Aerial Torpedo or equivalent bombload. The ultimate purpose of the RN and FAA is to sink the King's enemies ships. This can do that, a Fulmar can't.

Well, for starters, the Fulmar was never intended to. The RN needed a long range fighter to escort strikes, take down fleet shadowers and provide reconnaissance. And due to the changing understanding of requirements they needed one quickly as a stopgap. Hence the consideration of aircraft that had been designed to an earlier, now cancelled light bomber spec (the Fairey P.4/34 and the Hawker Henley). If the RN had wanted the Fulmar as a strike aircraft they would have had to change the requirements for the TSR specification that was already underway and would produce the Albacore. And while it’s certainly possible that that would have been a better use of resources, it’s not really reasonable to critique the aircraft for not delivering something that was never asked for.

Additionally, the OTL battle could not carry a torpedo either. Your Sea Battle had to use a radial to make that work (otherwise the intake is right in the way). But if you are going to be shoving a radial (I am guessing a Hercules based on the timeframe) into something, why the larger and slower Battle rather than the Fulmar?

 

[JasTysoe]

Fleet fighters were needed for strike protection, which meant range, and the RAF told them that long distance navigation over water was only possible with a dedicated navigator. Japan and the US were more used to operating in the Pacific and had naval aviators better represented in the higher command, and they both came to quite different conclusions.

The Japanese naval fighters also seem, from multiple sources, to have relied entirely upon bombers for navigation outside of visual range from the carriers and therefore had a far higher loss rate from simply....getting lost. The RAF's view is arguably competely correct before enhanced navigational aids and in the vastly inferior visibility of the Atlantic and North Sea. Mid-war FAA navigator in the North Sea "got the wind" every half hour, if I recall correctly, because direction and strength are so variable there. That involved two 180 degree turns and getting bearings and timing, which would not have been very easy at all in a single seat fighter. So arguably the FAA's view wasn't inhibited by a lack of naval aviators in higher command, but a completely logical response to operating in very different conditions.

 

[yulzari1]

The Fulmar and Battle both suffer from the same issue and that is they needed more engine power in order to be more competitive. The proposal for a twin engined Battle would have made it equally as fast as the ME-110 and possibly faster. That would make it a fast light bomber with better performance than the Blenhiem and thus produced throughout WW2. Fairly Sure Peg Leg Pom did a picture of it in an earlier thread.

The frequently seen drawing of a twin engined Battle is for Peregrines not Merlin’s.

 

[Giant Man Eating Rabbits]

What other nations might have ordered the Fulmar single seater?

I myself was thinking of Belgium considering the designer was from Belgium and the country had a Avions Fairey which was going to produce Battles but WWII broke out. Would a Fulmer single seater be built/ordered instead of Hurricanes?

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

What other nations might have ordered the Fulmar single seater?

I myself was thinking of Belgium considering the designer was from Belgium and the country had a Avions Fairey which was going to produce Battles but WWII broke out. Would a Fulmer single seater be built/ordered instead of Hurricanes?

I doubt it, as even though the single seat Fulmar would be a more modern aircraft than the Hurricane it would have worse performance, probably on a par with the Dutch Fokker DXXI. While that would be acceptable to the FAA as an alternative to the new but obsolescent Sea Gladiator, as a land based fighter facing the likes of the BF109 it's a waste of resources.

 

[naraic]

ie 750 rds per gun compared to 338 rds per gun(I know the number of rounds varied but for the sake of simplicity we are going with this number) in the Hawker Hurricane.

THe Fulmar should have had 2,000hp instead of 1300 which would have certainly altered the types performance against the Zero and ME 109.

I'll note that it was the mk1 Fulmar that had 750 rounds per gun. That flew with the Merlin VIII instead of the Merlin XXX and was a mere 1080 horsepower.

The MK2 Fulmar had 1,000 rounds per gun and the 1300 horse power.

Either way the point is the same. The Fulmar was too big a beast for a single smaller engine. Even if you knock off a couple of hundred kilos from the second person (and their seat and extra cockpit space.

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

Either way the point is the same. The Fulmar was too big a beast for a single smaller engine. Even if you knock off a couple of hundred kilos from the second person (and their seat and extra cockpit space.

I should note that the Fulmar was quite liked by its crews, who only had one real complaint about it. It was too slow to catch enemy bombers once the first pass had been made. If you didn't shoot the enemy down in that first pass you rarely got a second chance. Even without the second cockpit and a shortened fuselage that's unlikely to change much.

 

[sonofpegasus]

Here I go again! you all know I love the Fairey Monarch!
Give the Fulmar, Sir Richard Fairey's, own H24/2000hp engine in 1939. Have the Fairey P.4/34 prototype rebuilt as a test bed for the Monarch engine instead of a Farey battle and then convert it to a fleet fighter. In 1940 a 2000hp fleet fighter that has twin engine like characteristics could make life very uncomfortable for the Italian Airforce. How fast it would be I could not guess but with a bit of work om tidying it up aerodynamically maybe 300mph at a push. Could it dog fight, not really, could it 'Boom and zoom' and come back for more, oh yes siree! Give it four cannons and then any bomber it meets will have a very bad day.

 

[Giant Man Eating Rabbits]

Was there any serious investigation in fitting the original Fulmar with a laminer flow wing?, If so would that help in a dingle seat fighter version of the Fulmar?

 

[jannickz]

Possibility: Designing a single-seat Defiant alongside the two-seater was certainly possible. The RAF did encourage multiple submissions for the fighter competition.
Effectiveness:

• Strengths: A single-seat Defiant might have offered better maneuverability and performance due to reduced weight and good-quality Rolling Mill Bearing. The turret system added complexity and weight.
• Weaknesses: The main selling point of the Defiant, the turret, would be gone. Without the turret, it wouldn't be significantly different from other fighters entering the competition.

 

[Capt Thunderbolt]

A spin-off from my earlier post

Boulton-Paul Defiant also designed as a single seat version alongside the Hurricane & spitfire?

What if alongside it's twin crew turret fighter, Boulton-Paul also designed a single engine version for the RAF Fighter competition that was ultimately won by both the Hurricane and Spitfire? Would this be possible? How effective would this fighter be especially in the BoF, BoB and against the...

www.alternatehistory.com

What if the Fairey Fulmar was also designed as a single seat version alongside the Hurricane & Spitfire?
Would this be possible?
What design changes would need to be done and what improvements would it need?, a shorter fuselage and a shorter wingspan?
Would the engines and their incremental power increase allow continued service like the Hurricane at least?
Could the design be navalized as to serve on RN carriers instead of Hurricanes & SeaFires?
How would this aircraft perform in combat, performance wise?
Could the same be done to the future Fairy Firefly design?

The Fulmar was a miniature Battle. It has already been shrunk to be a naval fighter.

If anything, the FAA needed a SeaHurricane, and the Fulmar as a multi roled scout bomber / interceptor/ dive bomber than a fighter??

Skua would not be needed. Or sea gladiator.

A dive bomber Fulmar would be much more useful to the RAF, than the bigger Battle?

 

[Wolf1965]

Given that the Hurricane made its first flight in 1935 I do not see a place for a single-engined Fulmar, provided that a single-seat fighter is acceptable. It would be just one more plane for the same job.

 

[naraic]

Given that the Hurricane made its first flight in 1935 I do not see a place for a single-engined Fulmar, provided that a single-seat fighter is acceptable. It would be just one more plane for the same job.

Fulmar will still have longer range. This could have value for simplifying carrier operations by maintaining a carrier air patrol while preparing a strike and for escorting a strike mission.

That's assuming the Fulmar is still carrier Bourne fighter when a single seater.

 

[Wolf1965]

Fulmar will still have longer range. This could have value for simplifying carrier operations by maintaining a carrier air patrol while preparing a strike and for escorting a strike mission.

That's assuming the Fulmar is still carrier Bourne fighter when a single seater.

Given the roomy fuselage and thick wing profile of the Hurricane, adding tanks or enlarging the existing ones should not be too difficult. This is not the Spitfire with its minimal dimensions.

 

[Gannt the chartist]

The Japanese naval fighters also seem, from multiple sources, to have relied entirely upon bombers for navigation outside of visual range from the carriers and therefore had a far higher loss rate from simply....getting lost. The RAF's view is arguably competely correct before enhanced navigational aids and in the vastly inferior visibility of the Atlantic and North Sea. Mid-war FAA navigator in the North Sea "got the wind" every half hour, if I recall correctly, because direction and strength are so variable there. That involved two 180 degree turns and getting bearings and timing, which would not have been very easy at all in a single seat fighter. So arguably the FAA's view wasn't inhibited by a lack of naval aviators in higher command, but a completely logical response to operating in very different conditions.

They did do some fighter only hops from Formosa to Truk pre war, and had a 10% loss rate per mission.

Whose if flying in an FAA aircraft is strange but all the observers pre war were naval personnel.



Just to put some comtaxt I 1940 the Fulmar, and interim design, was probably the best carrier fighter in service, the alternatives being the Claude and th F3F, The F2a just coming in.

With. NO war the FAA would probably have gone for an interceptor, they are aware of the radar systems, happy to take gladiator as it gets replaced and were looking at a proposal for a gull winged single monoplane from Supermarine, they called in Seafire but it was a purpose built carrier aircraft.

But war and Supermarine, never the biggest company get told to work on making spitfire better. Initially hawker are working on the Typhoon which has a naval variant in the same contest as the firebrand. But are told to keep hurricane going and flight testing is reduced.. Sabre and Centaurus engines do not progress and in 1940 the air ministry, a collection of backwards looking morons obviously prioritise things to win the war now and such total dead ends as the Mosquito and Meteor compounding this by specking the Vampire next year.

In terms of performance the Fulmar as a defensive fighter has a better track record that Zero or Wildcat and as an offensive escort probably better too. I mean the FAA is limited to sinking battleships, and cruisers, and destroyers, and subs, and merchantmen. and operating within range of major Germans aNd Italian airbases with hundreds of fighters with a functioning at least local warning system. Not trying to fight through the 4-8 planes on cap.

Also barracuda is the torpedo bomber delayed because the carriers were delayed. And that’s a multi role level dive torpedo bomber with radar flying in1941. Devastator anyone? Also the torpedo work.

 

[tomo pauk]

Given the roomy fuselage and thick wing profile of the Hurricane, adding tanks or enlarging the existing ones should not be too difficult. This is not the Spitfire with its minimal dimensions.

Spitfire was not of 'minimal dimensions'
It was very easy to add more fuel on Spitfire as per OTL. Barring the blind alley of mounting a fixed extra tank on the wing of Spitfire IIs that proved as unworkable as one can imagine, addition of the 29 imp gal tank behind the Spitfire to be used in conjunction with the 170 imp gal tank for deploying ouside of UK was done by 1942.
Bigger tankage behind the pilot (about 60-70 imp gals in two tanks combined) was done by late 1944 on some Spitfire IXs.

Unfortunately, a long range high-performance fighter was anathema for the RAF until the mid 1944, despite having all the ingredients to make them before ww2 started.

Also barracuda is the torpedo bomber delayed because the carriers were delayed. And that’s a multi role level dive torpedo bomber with radar flying in1941. Devastator anyone? Also the torpedo work.

Barracuda in 1941, debugged and in service? Please, do tell.

 

[tomo pauk]

Initially hawker are working on the Typhoon which has a naval variant in the same contest as the firebrand. But are told to keep hurricane going and flight testing is reduced..

Flight testing of the Typhoon that is rival of Firebrand?

 

[Gannt the chartist]

Barracuda in 1941, debugged and in service? Please, do tell.

Flight testing of the Typhoon that is rival of Firebrand?

With a war not chance.

Without a war well all of industry is not producing stuff for now. Everyone had issues in developing next generation aircraft and engines in the 40-43 period. The US and to some Extent the Japanese and USSR benefit from not being at war in late 39.

The spec for both however had been issued and that includes for the Barracuda all those features, and for Hawker work is ongoing as the Hurricane successor. I am not saying that the Germans or Italians would not have had more time sort out issues with their aircraft programmes.

 

[tomo pauk]

With a war not chance.

Okay, roger that.

 

[The Wooksta!]

The navalised Typhoon was about the same size as the Firebrand and would have been a deathtrap.

As for the Gloster F5/34, the wingspan is about the same as the Hurricane and the latter had few problems in the carriers.