Fairy Fulmar

[Wirraway_Ace]

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve



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". [:)]

Very true. The Fairey Fulmar probably would have been what it was unless a whole lot more money was available. Bomber Command might have had more survivable aircraft though. Take a look at the casualties (deaths) in Bomber Command and then compare them, for instance to the battlefield losses in the entire USN and USMC...

[Terminus]

ORIGINAL: JeffK

ORIGINAL: Terminus

ORIGINAL: Nikademus



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

The Firefly entered service in the second half of 1944; that qualifies as "late war" to me. It was a fighter in the same way the Fulmar was, i.e. not very.

[Terminus]

ORIGINAL: JeffK

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

Biplanes?

The F2F and the Claude.

[oldman45]

You're killing me Terminus. [;)]


So you think the Hermes could not carry Fulmars?

[Shark7]

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.

Despite all that, they were used in the attack and recon roles as well. Also, a single Vickers .303 MG was mounted in the rear in some cases, while not standard it could be a nasty surprise to any fighter getting in above and behind it.

[Shark7]

ORIGINAL: oldman45

You're killing me Terminus. [;)]


So you think the Hermes could not carry Fulmars?

Given the size difference between the Fulmar and the Swordfish, personally I'd doubt it. Now if you had some Gloster Gladiators, no doubt they would fit nicely.

[Terminus]

ORIGINAL: oldman45

You're killing me Terminus. [;)]


So you think the Hermes could not carry Fulmars?

Definitely not.

[warspite1]

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.

Warspite1

I agree, I think what the United Kingdom achieved given her straightened financial position and her Empire strategic overstretch was a bloody good performance. Fact was, the combination of the two made her position most uncomfortable. She had to have a large navy, but could not really afford what she had in 1939 - even though that was not anywhere near what she needed given her commitments!

Across all services there were some dogs (and some dog ideas), there were some brilliant successes, but for the most part, it was a case of make do and muddle on through.

As far as "could she have borrowed" more was concerned? No. The UK was a democracy, and in the depressed inter-war years - the Jarrow marches, people living in real poverty etc - I do not think additional military spending for a possible future war was ever a remote possibility; hence the bizarre 10 year plan and the understandable enthusiasm for the naval treaties.

Once the threat from Hitler was truly realised in the late thirties and spending increased, it was too late in the day to reverse the position, given the long lead times to build ships, develop aircraft etc. For example, the Royal Navy had ships designed and built in anticipation of future reductions being agreed at the next naval treaty [X(] e.g. 14-inch gunned battleships which could not be changed once Japan refused to ratify.

As a result, the RAF went into action with Fairey Battles, the Royal Navy were using too many First World War vintage ships, and the army remained largely an "Empire policeman".

[inqistor]

ORIGINAL: oldman45

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

The only issue, I am aware of, is thet some planes could simply NOT take-off from shorter airstrip (short CV). It is pretty complicated, taking into account weight, wing area, and engine.
But it all ends up in Take-off distance. Take a look at picture. Early war models have really short demands, but later models have exceeded it by 50%. You should probably search for take-off distance for Fulmar, and everything will be clear.

After all, planes always could be station on-board.

[Terminus]

Wrong again...[8|] There's a difference between flying them off ONCE and operating them properly. If you only want to fly a plane off a carrier once, then any plane can do it...

[herwin]

Part of the UK social contract during WWII was the promise that after the war, the sacrifices would be repaid--NHS, nationalisation of a number of industries, etc. That laid the foundation for where the UK is now.

[Shark7]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Wrong again...[8|] There's a difference between flying them off ONCE and operating them properly. If you only want to fly a plane off a carrier once, then any plane can do it...

Sort of like the B-25s of Doolittle's Raid. They took off from a carrier once...no way they were going to land and do it again.

The Fulmar problem is less of being able to land again as it is a problem of getting them into the hangar to clear the flight deck, do maintainence, etc etc.

[dr.hal]

As Nikademus points out the USN even today likes the idea of a two seat fighter, the Tomcat being the most obvious example. There is a strong feeling in the Nav pilot community that two heads are better in the long run than one. Unless, as pointed out, the one head is Tom Cruise... But when I was on the Connie, the air crews loved the Tomcat and Phantoms (if it only had a gun system!).... both two seaters.... Hal

[dr.hal]

And the US is not above trying to cram down naval air throats an A/C that was unacceptable, look at the Vigilante. The A-5 was a dream child that went ALL wrong... it was a beautiful looking bird but huge.... and did NOT fit well even on USN big deck carriers.. On the Connie we could only fit two... Hal

[YankeeAirRat]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

ORIGINAL: JeffK

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

Biplanes?

The F2F and the Claude.

Actually it was F3F's, F2A's, and F4F's were just starting to hit the fleet in the US Navy. While the IJN had the Claude and the A6M2 was being introduced into the fleet in July of 1940.

[AW1Steve]

After studying all I could about Hermes, I'd say the biggest problem was that her two elevators were very small. So landing and launching Fulmars are possible (if difficult, requiring highly skilled aircrew) but servicing the planes would be very , very difficult. While the UK did operate a couple of Merchant Air Craft carriers with no ability to strike aircraft below (and had to perform ALL maintainace on deck! [X(][X(][X(]), those ships didn't do so for long term. In my opion you could operate Fulmars off Hermes for a week, maybe two (at extreme most!) it would we unpleasant, unweildly and not very effiecient. But if you had to do it , I belive you could. And at the end of that time you'd have to crane off what ever surviving planes as they'd be long term "Hangar Queens", due to all the deferred maintainance. Handling would be difficult , but not impossible, leading to extended OPS cycle for very few planes , and little chance of co-ordinated air strikes. Probably not a big deal on a ship rated to carry only 15 planes. and you'd probably carry less than that with Fulmars. So maybe 6 might be carried.

If Hermes had a deck edge elevator installed , such as Wasp and the Essex class , she could have easily carried Fulmars. (but again, not many). [:)]

[YankeeAirRat]

ORIGINAL: dr.hal

As Nikademus points out the USN even today likes the idea of a two seat fighter, the Tomcat being the most obvious example. There is a strong feeling in the Nav pilot community that two heads are better in the long run than one. Unless, as pointed out, the one head is Tom Cruise... But when I was on the Connie, the air crews loved the Tomcat and Phantoms (if it only had a gun system!).... both two seaters.... Hal

The reason for two personnel in fighters and bombers for a large number of USN's carrier based bombers, attack aircraft, and fighters was that the belief the operation of the AWG-9 (F-14), AWG-10(F-4J), APQ-92(A-6A), and various other radar suites required one guy to be trained not to do the "Controlled flight into ground" and the other guy to fiddle all the buttons and knobs on the radars to get the pictures need to do the missions. The powers to be in BuAir came to that realization as the radar suites in the late 1950's and into the early 1960's became more complex and accidents to to aircraft trying to fiddle with the radars in aircraft like the F4D Skyray or even some of the early Night Fighting/All Weather variants of the F8U were doing that controlled flight into the ground. That mentality stuck around until even recently where if you notice most of the dedicated all weather aircraft have dual seats the F-18D and F-18F aircraft.

[AW1Steve]

ORIGINAL: dr.hal

And the US is not above trying to cram down naval air throats an A/C that was unacceptable, look at the Vigilante. The A-5 was a dream child that went ALL wrong... it was a beautiful looking bird but huge.... and did NOT fit well even on USN big deck carriers.. On the Connie we could only fit two... Hal

True, but carriers seldom carry more than two Recon birds . And as it's original role (End of the world strategic nuke bomber) , how many do you need aboard?

[AW1Steve]

ORIGINAL: YankeeAirRat

ORIGINAL: dr.hal

As Nikademus points out the USN even today likes the idea of a two seat fighter, the Tomcat being the most obvious example. There is a strong feeling in the Nav pilot community that two heads are better in the long run than one. Unless, as pointed out, the one head is Tom Cruise... But when I was on the Connie, the air crews loved the Tomcat and Phantoms (if it only had a gun system!).... both two seaters.... Hal

The reason for two personnel in fighters and bombers for a large number of USN's carrier based bombers, attack aircraft, and fighters was that the belief the operation of the AWG-9 (F-14), AWG-10(F-4J), APQ-92(A-6A), and various other radar suites required one guy to be trained not to do the "Controlled flight into ground" and the other guy to fiddle all the buttons and knobs on the radars to get the pictures need to do the missions. The powers to be in BuAir came to that realization as the radar suites in the late 1950's and into the early 1960's became more complex and accidents to to aircraft trying to fiddle with the radars in aircraft like the F4D Skyray or even some of the early Night Fighting/All Weather variants of the F8U were doing that controlled flight into the ground. That mentality stuck around until even recently where if you notice most of the dedicated all weather aircraft have dual seats the F-18D and F-18F aircraft.

That's a phenomenon I've even seen to a lesser degree in P-3's, once the commercial cockpit doppler weather RADAR's were installed. Many times I've gone into a cockpit and seen both pilots and the engineer looking at (and more than a few times arguing over it). My usual reply (as the dedicated RADAR operator ) was usually , "If you guys want to be scopedopes, does that mean I get to fly the plane?". That usually corrected the problem for a flight or two.

AW1Steve's rule number 18 "Pilots will always play with the most INTERESTING gadget in the cockpit. Even if it has nothing to do with flying an airplane!". [:D]

[reg113]

Should move that one closer to the top of the list...[:D][:D][:D]