Fairy Fulmar

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: ilovestrategy

I had never even heard of this plane, had to Google it to see what it looked like. What was it's role?

Fighter/dive bomber. Two-person fighter so that one member of the crew can navigate (over-water) while the other pilots.

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

ORIGINAL: Shark7

ORIGINAL: ilovestrategy

I had never even heard of this plane, had to Google it to see what it looked like. What was it's role?

Fighter-Bomber, Recon...

It was a jack of all trades, master of none.

Not exactly. It was an ideal naval fighter in the early days of the war when deployed out far from enemy shores because of several factors it had going for it.

1) Two seat fighter.....allowing a dedicated navigator. This allowed the plane to more safely navigate over large stretches of water and coordinate more closely with the FDO's located aboard the home carrier.

2) large fuel reserve allowed the plane to patrol for long hours or escort 1E planes in ferry or strike missions

3) It had twice the ammo capacity of the Hurricane allowing green FAA pilots a better chance to down enemy intruders.

The Fulmar did sterling service for the UK in the Med, particularily when it came to intercepting enemy patrol planes and bombers. However it's positive attributes negated from it's ability to face down 1E fighters. Keep in mind that back in the early days of the war, it was generally felt that one could not create a naval fighter that was fully competetive with a dedicated land based 1E fighter. The A6M more than any other carrier fighter of the time dispelled that notion. UK Fleet air doctrine however had pretty much accepted the fact that (their) carrier groups would be at a disadvantage if operating near concentrated land based airpower which was a big part of the reason why they opted for armored flight decks.

Fulmars shot down a good number of bogies but a short stint at Malta and worse, a very brief stint in the I/O vs. A6M's revealed it's shortcomings in spectacular fashion. Interestingly....the UK never gave up completely on the two seat fighter requirement......IIRC it's immediate latewar/post war fighter design was also a two seater.

BTW, any idea how many A6M pilots got lost on their long flights and had to splash?

[Terminus]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

ORIGINAL: Shark7

ORIGINAL: ilovestrategy

I had never even heard of this plane, had to Google it to see what it looked like. What was it's role?

Fighter-Bomber, Recon...

It was a jack of all trades, master of none.

Not exactly. It was an ideal naval fighter in the early days of the war when deployed out far from enemy shores because of several factors it had going for it.

1) Two seat fighter.....allowing a dedicated navigator. This allowed the plane to more safely navigate over large stretches of water and coordinate more closely with the FDO's located aboard the home carrier.

2) large fuel reserve allowed the plane to patrol for long hours or escort 1E planes in ferry or strike missions

3) It had twice the ammo capacity of the Hurricane allowing green FAA pilots a better chance to down enemy intruders.

The Fulmar did sterling service for the UK in the Med, particularily when it came to intercepting enemy patrol planes and bombers. However it's positive attributes negated from it's ability to face down 1E fighters. Keep in mind that back in the early days of the war, it was generally felt that one could not create a naval fighter that was fully competetive with a dedicated land based 1E fighter. The A6M more than any other carrier fighter of the time dispelled that notion. UK Fleet air doctrine however had pretty much accepted the fact that (their) carrier groups would be at a disadvantage if operating near concentrated land based airpower which was a big part of the reason why they opted for armored flight decks.

Fulmars shot down a good number of bogies but a short stint at Malta and worse, a very brief stint in the I/O vs. A6M's revealed it's shortcomings in spectacular fashion. Interestingly....the UK never gave up completely on the two seat fighter requirement......IIRC it's immediate latewar/post war fighter design was also a two seater.

Yup. The Fairey Firefly; this was almost a carbon copy of the Fulmar.

[Canoerebel]

ORIGINAL: oldman45

I throw myself on the mercy of the court

That's good enough for me, as I'm feeling characteristically charitable today. As Temporary Self-Appointed District Attorney, I hereby nol prosse the indictment. You may proceed about your business, Oldman.

But be ye warned, forumites...the Kangaroo Court is ever vigilent.

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: herwin
BTW, any idea how many A6M pilots got lost on their long flights and had to splash?

A good number of planes returning from Guadalcanal disapeared into the ether on the long flight back. Conversely, a small # disapeared during the carrier battles. Exact numbers will never be known. Probably the most famous incident involved F4Fs of the Hornet which was unable to navigate back to the home carrier before the entire escort splashed.

[AW1Steve]

My understanding is that the Fulmar was a variant of the proto type that resulted in the "Battle" light bomber. What were they thinking? "Ok, it's a lousy bomber (it got massacred in the French campaign) so let's try it as a fighter?"[&:]

And the Firefly and SeaSkua were further examples of this way of thinking (but the Skua wasn't a bad dive bomber), as was the ME-110, and the use of the SBD at Coral Sea as "Auxialry fighters"[X(] The therory is they could handle bombers. (It might work if your enemy doesn't escort his bombers--in other words if your enemy is either desperate or stupid).

[AW1Steve]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

ORIGINAL: herwin
BTW, any idea how many A6M pilots got lost on their long flights and had to splash?

A good number of planes returning from Guadalcanal disapeared into the ether on the long flight back. Conversely, a small # disapeared during the carrier battles. Exact numbers will never be known. Probably the most famous incident involved F4Fs of the Hornet which was unable to navigate back to the home carrier before the entire escort splashed.

Yeah but there you had rookie flyers of a rookie ship.

Just because you've got a navigator doesn't mean you'll find your way back. Flight 19 had FIVE rookie navigators. [:D]

Seriously , the single most effective way to find your way home to a ships was the TACAN system. But who wants to broadcast a homing beacon during war time? [&:]

[AW1Steve]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

ORIGINAL: oldman45

Is it possible for a Fulmar to take off and land on the Hermes?

don't believe, and if one could...the airgroup would be so small as to be useles.....probably not more than a flight. However I doubt the plane even with folding wings could fit down the carrier's elevator.

That would be the real limiting factor. FAA pilots were often willing to bend the rules IF it would help give them a fighting chance. Their use of the Coursair proved that. The USN had totally rejected the Corsair for fullsized carrier use, the FAA used them on escort carriers [X(] , by using a wild , weird and semi blind landing approach. After that , the USN took a second look at the Corsair (and the shortage of F-6F Hellcat's didn't hurt either).[:D]


BTW , there was a squadron of Fulmars ashore at Ceylon (along with Hermes's Swordfish) when she was sunk. They couldn't get to her in time to cover her.

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

Yeah but there you had rookie flyers of a rookie ship.

Just because you've got a navigator doesn't mean you'll find your way back. Flight 19 had FIVE rookie navigators. [:D]

Seriously , the single most effective way to find your way home to a ships was the TACAN system. But who wants to broadcast a homing beacon during war time? [&:]

Certainly nothing in life is guranteed. having a dedicated navigator won't give you 100% anymore than an IFF/homing beacon will, but it helps. Just saying that the there were some genuine pluses to the two pilot idea....the British wern't tripping on LSD after all.

The Fleet Defender....the F-14 was one....unless Tom Cruze was piloting....in which case the plane was reduced to 0.5 pilots.

[Wirraway_Ace]

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

My understanding is that the Fulmar was a variant of the proto type that resulted in the "Battle" light bomber. What were they thinking? "Ok, it's a lousy bomber (it got massacred in the French campaign) so let's try it as a fighter?"[&:]

Development time, development cost. The British war effort was a model of economy which tended to result in inferior but adequate equipment. The Empire was broke before the war and had a real challenge on its hands as it accumulated wartime debt. My memory is the last of the debt was paid off in the 70s.

Also, this develop method was not always a failure. The Beaufighter was a very successful modification of the marginal Beaufort bomber afer all.

p.s. I get a kick out of Max Hastings inability to hide his distaste in Retribution for the massive material available to the US versus British forces. It appears to lack elegance to him....

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

The therory is they could handle bombers. (It might work if your enemy doesn't escort his bombers--in other words if your enemy is either desperate or stupid).

Or Japanese...

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Wirraway_Ace

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

My understanding is that the Fulmar was a variant of the proto type that resulted in the "Battle" light bomber. What were they thinking? "Ok, it's a lousy bomber (it got massacred in the French campaign) so let's try it as a fighter?"[&:]

The Empire was broke before the war and had a real challenge on its hands as it accumulated wartime debt. My memory is the last of the debt was paid off in the 70s.

Warspite1

I think it was only about four/five years ago that we paid off the final installment, not the 70's.

[Wirraway_Ace]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Wirraway_Ace

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

My understanding is that the Fulmar was a variant of the proto type that resulted in the "Battle" light bomber. What were they thinking? "Ok, it's a lousy bomber (it got massacred in the French campaign) so let's try it as a fighter?"[&:]

The Empire was broke before the war and had a real challenge on its hands as it accumulated wartime debt. My memory is the last of the debt was paid off in the 70s.

Warspite1

I think it was only about four/five years ago that we paid off the final installment, not the 70's.

You are indeed correct. Last installments made to the US and Canada in 2006. Almost 60 years...

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Wirraway_Ace

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Wirraway_Ace




The Empire was broke before the war and had a real challenge on its hands as it accumulated wartime debt. My memory is the last of the debt was paid off in the 70s.

Warspite1

I think it was only about four/five years ago that we paid off the final installment, not the 70's.

You are indeed correct. Last installments made to the US and Canada in 2006. Almost 60 years...

Warspite1

The price of freedom eh? [:(]

[JeffroK]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

ORIGINAL: Shark7




Fighter-Bomber, Recon...

It was a jack of all trades, master of none.

Not exactly. It was an ideal naval fighter in the early days of the war when deployed out far from enemy shores because of several factors it had going for it.

1) Two seat fighter.....allowing a dedicated navigator. This allowed the plane to more safely navigate over large stretches of water and coordinate more closely with the FDO's located aboard the home carrier.

2) large fuel reserve allowed the plane to patrol for long hours or escort 1E planes in ferry or strike missions

3) It had twice the ammo capacity of the Hurricane allowing green FAA pilots a better chance to down enemy intruders.

The Fulmar did sterling service for the UK in the Med, particularily when it came to intercepting enemy patrol planes and bombers. However it's positive attributes negated from it's ability to face down 1E fighters. Keep in mind that back in the early days of the war, it was generally felt that one could not create a naval fighter that was fully competetive with a dedicated land based 1E fighter. The A6M more than any other carrier fighter of the time dispelled that notion. UK Fleet air doctrine however had pretty much accepted the fact that (their) carrier groups would be at a disadvantage if operating near concentrated land based airpower which was a big part of the reason why they opted for armored flight decks.

Fulmars shot down a good number of bogies but a short stint at Malta and worse, a very brief stint in the I/O vs. A6M's revealed it's shortcomings in spectacular fashion. Interestingly....the UK never gave up completely on the two seat fighter requirement......IIRC it's immediate latewar/post war fighter design was also a two seater.

Yup. The Fairey Firefly; this was almost a carbon copy of the Fulmar.

Nope, the Firefly arrived mid war, however it proved so useful in many roles, FB, NF, ASW, that it served for many years in the RN. As a fighter it was replaced by the American types, the Seafire and in the immediate post war era by the Hawker Sea Fury

[JeffroK]

As a comparison, what were the IJN & USN using  as their carrier fighter in July 1940?

Biplanes?

[oldman45]

I did find a foot note that the Fulmars were assigned to the fleet carriers and 5 escorts. I looked up the escorts they had in 1941 and I have a feeling they could be used on the Hermes. Not sure how many she would be able to carry.

[oldman45]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

ORIGINAL: oldman45

I throw myself on the mercy of the court

That's good enough for me, as I'm feeling characteristically charitable today. As Temporary Self-Appointed District Attorney, I hereby nol prosse the indictment. You may proceed about your business, Oldman.

But be ye warned, forumites...the Kangaroo Court is ever vigilent.

You are a good and just District Attorney. I will toast in your general direction tonight.

[Wirraway_Ace]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Wirraway_Ace

ORIGINAL: warspite1


Warspite1

I think it was only about four/five years ago that we paid off the final installment, not the 70's.

You are indeed correct. Last installments made to the US and Canada in 2006. Almost 60 years...

Warspite1

The price of freedom eh? [:(]

Probably. The more interesting question to me is should Britain have borrowed more to provide better equipment to reduce wartime losses while further burdening its surviving citizens with debt? I have come to the opinion that the wartime leadership achieved a reasonable balance given the constraints of a chronically weak economy. Very tough decisions that are little comfort to those who lost family members in undersized cruisers or bombers with almost no ability for the crew to escape once hit.

[AW1Steve]

ORIGINAL: Wirraway_Ace

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Wirraway_Ace



You are indeed correct. Last installments made to the US and Canada in 2006. Almost 60 years...

Warspite1

The price of freedom eh? [:(]

Probably. The more interesting question to me is should Britain have borrowed more to provide better equipment to reduce wartime losses while further burdening its surviving citizens with debt? I have come to the opinion that the wartime leadership achieved a reasonable balance given the constraints of a chronically weak economy. Very tough decisions that are little comfort to those who lost family members in undersized cruisers or bombers with almost no ability for the crew to escape once hit.

Even if more money were available, do we honestly feel it would be spent on carrier aircraft? If I recall correctly , FAA aircraft were funded through the RAF. A condition not dissimilar to the Pre-war USMC in regards to the USN. As a friend once described it , "A benevolent fund for cats , administered by dogs". [:)]