Fulmar II

[LoBaron]

Agree!

CT Grognard, good posts, thanks!

[Nikademus]

There was never anything wrong with the Fairey Fulmar. It was a fine aeroplane, manoeuvrable, with a good take-off, a moderate climb, and plenty of endurance. It satisfied the demands for a navigator's seat and several wireless sets considered essential for Fleet work. It merely lacked the fighter's first essential quality - speed."

It was also a common held view back in the late 30s that a naval fighter was inherently inferior to a land based fighter because of added requirements, such as stressing for carrier landings, needed range, or a need for a navigator etc etc. The A6M was the first carrier plane to totally demolish that held notion. Fulmar was a decent plane for it's intended role and performed invaluable service for RN carriers as part of an advanced and integrated Fleet Defense system that was in the best in the world during 41-42. It's large endurance and generous ammo load (double that of a Hurricane) made it ideal for this as well as good for the green pilots being assigned to it. Fulmar became the bane of enemy recon/patrol planes in particular and it was effective against unescorted bombers though it's large profile sometimes made it's trade with said enemy bombers even or close to it. Against a modern 1E fighter though it was outmatched. During the Illustrious blitz IIRC, the Fulmar squadron temporarily basing at Malta was restricted to night ops after only one day of trying to do day CAP work against Me-109s

[dr.hal]

I agree too. I certainly got more than I bargained for! Thanks everyone! But I'm still not sure of the answer to my original question, can the carrier based A/C carry bombs and if so, up to 500pds?? Although as pointed out, it was not done often... the question is could the A/C fly off the deck with that load.

Interestingly the F-4 and F-14 both had two seats for much the same reasons as the Fulmar, although the rear seat was the main weapons control/intercept officer or RIO IIRC. Hal

[CT Grognard]

ORIGINAL: CT Grognard

One more thing - the Hawker Henley had an interior bomb bay holding a 500lb bomb.

The Hawker Henley design had an interesting history.

Initially designed for Specification P.4/34, the design was slightly modified in order to compete for Specification F.9/35 - which was for a two-seat day and night four-gun turret fighter capable of 290 mph at 15,000 feet, as a replacement for the Hawker Demon - and the Hawker Hotspur was born.

It was essentially a Henley - with standard Hurricane outer wing panels - fitted with armament of four .303-in Brownings in a Boulton-Paul dorsal turret plus one .303-in Vickers K machine gun mounted in the front fuselage.

It offered very decent performance - a maximum speed of 316 mph, compared to the 320 mph of the Hurricane Mk I - and similar manoeuverability.

One prototype was built in 1937, first flying in June 1938. However, by that time, the rival Boulton Paul Defiant had already flown (August 1937). (Incidentally, the Boulton Paul Defiant without its turret looked a lot like the Hawker Hurricane - even though it was a lot heavier.)

Again, both competing designs were powered by the Rolls-Royce Merlin engine, with 1,030 hp. The Defiant had a maximum speed of 302 mph and slightly weaker performance than the Hotspur, but since the Defiant flew ten months before the Hotspur, it was declared the winner of the turret fighter competition.

Interestingly enough Boulton Paul were so busy producing Blackburn Roc naval turret fighters that only three Defiant Is were delivered to the RAF by the time the war started on 1 September 1939!

There was some interest in the Hotspur, though, and an initial production order (Specification 17/36) was written, with production planned by Avro (again since Hawker was concentrating on Hurricane production), but this was soon cancelled.

[CT Grognard]

ORIGINAL: dr.hal

Thanks all, some very interesting input. According to research the Fulmar was designed to be a navy fighter with bombing (including dive) capability. The basic concept was that the craft had to have two people in order to navigate over large bodies of water (a concept the USN followed from after the war until very recently). It has been pointed out that the Fulmar might have been too heavy to carry the ordinance it was designed to carry abord a carrier but was ok with it for land take offs. Here are the stats I have found in relation to that concept as compared to another RFAA aircraft, the Swordfish.

Swordfish/// Fulmar
Dry Weight = 4195 pds/// 7015 pds
Loaded Weight = 7720 pds (approx)/// 9672 pds (approx)
max ordinance = 1670 pds/// 500 pds
Max + Loaded = 9390 pds (approx)/// 10172 pds (approx)

Thus I would suspect that weight was not the problem, as the aircraft are within 10% of each other and the Swordfish was one of the lighter aircraft in the FAA (unlike the A-5 Vigilante that McNamara wanted the USN to take on!). So I still wonder what is keeping the designers from allowing the Fulmar a license "to carry" on a carrier??? Hal

Coming back to the discussion of wing loading.

The Fairey Fulmar Mk II had a wing loading of 138.08 kg/square metre. Adding the two 250lb bombs increased that wing-loading to 145.64 kg/square metre - an increase of 5.5%.

As a result of the higher wing loading the take-off speed of the aircraft would have increased by the square root of this increase, or 2.7%.

The Fulmar's takeoff speed was, from what I can gather, about 65 knots.

Trying to take off with the additional two 250lb bombs would increase take-off speed to 67 knots. Simplistically, one assumes then that take off distance would increase by the square of 2.7%, i.e. 5.5%.

The Fairey Swordfish I, fully loaded, had a wing loading of 62.05 kg/square metre. (At maximum overload its wing-loading was 74.56 kg/square metre).

That very low wing-loading on the Swordfish meant a lot of lift, excellent turning ability, and a low take-off speed (just over 50 knots).

So much so that, into a 30-knot headwind, the Swordfish's take-off distance was only 115 yards; into a 40-knot headwind its take-off distance was only 65 yards.

For interest sake, the flight deck of the HMS Hermes was 190 yards. The HMS Illustrious had a flight deck of about 246 yards.

[LoBaron]

Ok there goes my theory. [:D]

[CT Grognard]

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

Ok there goes my theory. [:D]

Which one? You were right about the 30% difference in take-off speed between the Swordfish and Fulmar (50 knots versus 65 knots).

I have found an unsubstantiated reference that the Fulmar had a take-off run at normal weight of 280 feet (or 93 yards) into a 20-knot headwind. At maximum weight (i.e. loaded with 500lbs) I can only estimate that take-off distance increased to around 100 yards.

[CT Grognard]

Incidentally, I don't know enough about the subject, but I can only imagine that the Swordfish's larger take-off distance (115 yards into a 30-knot wind) as opposed to the Fulmar (estimated 95 yards into a 20-knot headwind (UNSUBSTANTIATED)) is due to the fact that the Fulmar had a 40% greater power-to-weight ratio (0.127 hp/lb) than the Swordfish (0.09 hp/lb) which meant far greater acceleration on take-off.

[CT Grognard]

The more I read up on this stuff, the more interesting it gets [8D]

The A6M2 had a wing loading of 107.4 kg/square metre - compare this to the F4F Wildcat at 149.77 kg/square metre.

The A6M2's power-to-weight ratio was 0.179 hp/lb - compare this to the F4F Wildcat at 0.15 hp/lb.

These differences can clearly be seen in:

1) The A6M2's slightly better acceleration in dogfights;
2) Its vastly smaller turning radius;
3) Its superior climbing rate (3,100 ft/min versus 2,200 ft/min).

[LoBaron]

ORIGINAL: CT Grognard

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

Ok there goes my theory. [:D]

Which one? You were right about the 30% difference in take-off speed between the Swordfish and Fulmar (50 knots versus 65 knots).

I have found an unsubstantiated reference that the Fulmar had a take-off run at normal weight of 280 feet (or 93 yards) into a 20-knot headwind. At maximum weight (i.e. loaded with 500lbs) I can only estimate that take-off distance increased to around 100 yards.

The theory the deck of a RN could be too short/dangerous for a Fulmar with 2x250s.

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: CT Grognard

The more I read up on this stuff, the more interesting it gets [8D]

The A6M2 had a wing loading of 107.4 kg/square metre - compare this to the F4F Wildcat at 149.77 kg/square metre.

The A6M2's power-to-weight ratio was 0.179 hp/lb - compare this to the F4F Wildcat at 0.15 hp/lb.

These differences can clearly be seen in:

1) The A6M2's slightly better acceleration in dogfights;
2) Its vastly smaller turning radius;
3) Its superior climbing rate (3,100 ft/min versus 2,200 ft/min).

The sustained turning rate is power-limited as is climb rate. (Power is rate of change of energy, and kinetic energy is m*v.v, Hence power is m*v.a, where a is the net acceleration.) However, the maximum turning rate is for a low flight velocity. On the other hand, dive speed is drag limited, so the A6M was inferior for that. Complicated.

[CT Grognard]

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

ORIGINAL: CT Grognard

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

Ok there goes my theory. [:D]

Which one? You were right about the 30% difference in take-off speed between the Swordfish and Fulmar (50 knots versus 65 knots).

I have found an unsubstantiated reference that the Fulmar had a take-off run at normal weight of 280 feet (or 93 yards) into a 20-knot headwind. At maximum weight (i.e. loaded with 500lbs) I can only estimate that take-off distance increased to around 100 yards.

The theory the deck of a RN could be too short/dangerous for a Fulmar with 2x250s.

I think your theory might still hold! That 280 feet take off distance looks suspicious, and I think it might be using assisted take-off.

I'm trying to do some more research on this; but I have found references stating that the Fulmar became unstable along its longitudinal axis if heavily loaded.

[LoBaron]

ORIGINAL: CT Grognard
I have found references stating that the Fulmar became unstable along its longitudinal axis if heavily loaded.

Read something similar.

[CT Grognard]

Speaking of carrier fighters...here's an interesting one...

The Fairey Flycatcher holds the honour of being the first designed-for-the-purpose single-seat carrier-borne fighter to be designed and enter production.

Built to Air Ministry Specification 6/22, this tiny little biplane fighter (weighing only 1,372 kg amd wotj a wingspan of only 8.84m!) was much-loved by its pilots. Construction was composite with wooden fabric-covered wings and a fuselage of wood and metal with fabric covering.

Powered by an Armstrong Siddeley Jaguar III radial engine delivering 298 kW, it had a maximum speed of only 135 mph and a ceiling of 19,100 feet. It had the then formidable armament of two .303-in forwarding firing machine-guns and four 9kg bombs [8D]

It had flaps running all the way along the trailing-edge of the wings and drooped ailerons which provided a steep path of descent which was ideal for carrier landing. It was easy to fly, even at low speed, and had amazing manoeuverability.

Once on deck, they were designed to be dismantled easily into sections which did not exceed 4.11m in length. The training, skill and enthusiasm of deck handling crews made possible such feats as a record of six aircraft landed and stowed in their hangars in ONLY 4 MINUTES AND 20 SECONDS. These little fighters could take off from a special tapered runway - only 60 ft in length - leading directly from their hangar and out over the bows.

[Dili]

Fulmars were good planes at low level, but the rate of climb was slow. I have a note they were comparable in speed to Hurricanes up to 3000m. Nevertheless they were inedaquate for fighting against land fighters. When in Crete the commander requested Sea Gladiators instead of Fulmars to reinforce the 805 FAA because of "inadequacy" of them against Fiat CR42 a biplane.

[red admiral]

The Fulmar was capable of carrying 2 250lb bombs from the carriers but it's primary role was as an air defence fighter. To remedy this simply go into the game editor and reclassify the Fulmar as a fighter/bomber [as i have done] and bingo it can carry the ordnance it was capable of.

Out of intrest the Hawker Henley would have made a better air defence fighter than the Fulmar if the air ministry had sanctioned it.

ORIGINAL: dr.hal

Folks can anyone explain the following? The Fulmar IIs that are in a RAF squadron are able to carry two 250 pd GP bombs. Thus the title for the aircraft is fighter bomber. But that very same aircraft, if part of a FAA squadron, is not capable of the same carry... indeed they have no listed ordinance at all. I sure wish the fighter bomber designation would apply to both! Hal