Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Fulmar II

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> The War Room >> Fulmar II Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Fulmar II - 10/31/2011 12:55:50 PM   
dr.hal


Posts: 3335
Joined: 6/3/2006
From: Covington LA via Montreal!
Status: offline
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

< Message edited by dr.hal -- 10/31/2011 12:56:58 PM >
Post #: 1
RE: Fulmar II - 10/31/2011 1:12:05 PM   
LoBaron


Posts: 4776
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline
Just a guess, but the Fulmar was rather big and heavy for a CV capable a/c.
Could well be that it didn´t have the power to get off a flight deck with 2 250s.

Also IIRC it was classed as a fighter in the FAA.

_____________________________


(in reply to dr.hal)
Post #: 2
RE: Fulmar II - 10/31/2011 2:16:24 PM   
CT Grognard

 

Posts: 694
Joined: 5/16/2010
From: Cape Town, South Africa
Status: offline

quote:

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



I believe there was only one RAF squadron ever that used the Fulmar - No. 273 Squadron, based in Ceylon - from March to August 1942 (they changed to Hurricanes and later Spitfires after that).

Theoretically, the Fulmar II could carry a single 500lb SAP bomb or two 250lb SAP bombs in a dive-bomber configuration (it was a very large, sturdy aircraft and its wings were fully stressed for dive-bombing).

In practice, however, the Fulmar II in Fleet Air Arm hands was utilised almost exclusively to provide CAP and fighter escort, with a secondary role of recon due to its handy range. There were simply never enough Fulmars for the FAA to consider using them for anything other than a fleet fighter role. By the time the FAA contemplated using the Fulmar as a dive-bomber, there were no sufficient targets left to use them against.

I can only imagine the game developers have decided to reflect this historical situation by making the FAA Fulmar II unable to carry ordnance?

(in reply to dr.hal)
Post #: 3
RE: Fulmar II - 10/31/2011 2:37:39 PM   
herwin

 

Posts: 6059
Joined: 5/28/2004
From: Sunderland, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

Just a guess, but the Fulmar was rather big and heavy for a CV capable a/c.
Could well be that it didn´t have the power to get off a flight deck with 2 250s.

Also IIRC it was classed as a fighter in the FAA.


The bombload was part of the spec. It was an effective interceptor with 8 MGs, gaining about a third of the FAA's victories.

_____________________________

Harry Erwin
"For a number to make sense in the game, someone has to calibrate it and program code. There are too many significant numbers that behave non-linearly to expect that. It's just a game. Enjoy it." herwin@btinternet.com

(in reply to LoBaron)
Post #: 4
RE: Fulmar II - 10/31/2011 3:10:21 PM   
CT Grognard

 

Posts: 694
Joined: 5/16/2010
From: Cape Town, South Africa
Status: offline
Pretty much every Fleet Air Arm ace in World War II flew a Fulmar at some stage.

Not very fast, low ceiling, but very sturdy, good range and a stable, strong gun platform.

They shot down a lot of German and Italian planes over the Mediterranean.

(in reply to herwin)
Post #: 5
RE: Fulmar II - 10/31/2011 7:26:09 PM   
dr.hal


Posts: 3335
Joined: 6/3/2006
From: Covington LA via Montreal!
Status: offline
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


< Message edited by dr.hal -- 10/31/2011 8:34:31 PM >

(in reply to CT Grognard)
Post #: 6
RE: Fulmar II - 10/31/2011 8:45:36 PM   
LoBaron


Posts: 4776
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline
Swordfish is a biplane.

That makes a lot of of difference.

_____________________________


(in reply to dr.hal)
Post #: 7
RE: Fulmar II - 10/31/2011 8:54:51 PM   
dr.hal


Posts: 3335
Joined: 6/3/2006
From: Covington LA via Montreal!
Status: offline
Actually what makes the difference is lift capability not the number of wings. The Fulmar had almost the same lift capability and it was designed to lift off the same carriers (of which the length was known to designers). Hal

(in reply to LoBaron)
Post #: 8
RE: Fulmar II - 10/31/2011 9:28:35 PM   
dr.hal


Posts: 3335
Joined: 6/3/2006
From: Covington LA via Montreal!
Status: offline
LoBaron,

I looked up some more stuff as your idea of the double wing is of course interesting, but again, one does have other factors to consider. You are right when it comes to surface area, the Fulmar is 342 sqft while the Swordfish is 607. However the engines are also very different, Fulmar a Merlin at 1300 HP and the Swordfish a Bristol Pegasus at 690 HP. So I'm not sure. The Albacore was even more of a concern having a full load weight of 12,600 pds (higher than either of the Fulmar or Swordfish) with an engine of 1065 HP!!! And to add further fuel to a non-existent fire, the Barracuda weighs in at 14,100 pds with a wing area of 405 sq ft and a Merlin engine of 1640 HP... So I think the evidence in a linear progression suggests that the Fulmar could take off from a carrier with a few hundred pounds of bombs.... Ah but who really knows other than the pilots that took off with the Fulmar! Hal

(in reply to dr.hal)
Post #: 9
RE: Fulmar II - 10/31/2011 9:33:52 PM   
LoBaron


Posts: 4776
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline
The important attributes there are stall speed and accelleration.
Their wing area alone are two different worlds: 56m² on the good old Swordfish against 32 m² on the Fulmar.
Thats why I was hinting at the biplane.

Comparing their capability to take off from a CV by comparing their lift capacity doesn´t make much sense.

_____________________________


(in reply to dr.hal)
Post #: 10
RE: Fulmar II - 10/31/2011 9:35:33 PM   
LoBaron


Posts: 4776
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline
Agree, whether they could take off from a CV with two 250s...I don´t know.

Just pointing out theres a huge difference between the Swordfish and the Fulmar.
And it got nothing to do with lift capacity.

_____________________________


(in reply to dr.hal)
Post #: 11
RE: Fulmar II - 10/31/2011 10:25:04 PM   
LoBaron


Posts: 4776
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline
Really interesting plane btw., if anybody got some more detailed specs than the wiki´s guesstimates I´d apprechiate!


_____________________________


(in reply to LoBaron)
Post #: 12
RE: Fulmar II - 10/31/2011 11:08:57 PM   
Dixie


Posts: 10303
Joined: 3/10/2006
From: UK
Status: offline
Stall speeds factor in as well, minimum 50kts for a Swordfish vs 60kts for a Fulmar, according to the pilots notes for the Fulmar 'safe' speed is 90kts.  10kts might not seem like a lot for an aircraft, but on an aircraft carrier it's a lot.  

_____________________________



Bigger boys stole my sig

(in reply to LoBaron)
Post #: 13
RE: Fulmar II - 10/31/2011 11:52:40 PM   
LoBaron


Posts: 4776
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline
Yes, about 30% difference in speed required for takoff, when including that CVs turn into the wind and go to flank speed
when launching their planes, so usually produce +30kts alone.

Dixie, where did you get the info about stall speeds from? Didn´t find anything reliable.

_____________________________


(in reply to Dixie)
Post #: 14
RE: Fulmar II - 11/1/2011 7:28:18 AM   
Dixie


Posts: 10303
Joined: 3/10/2006
From: UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

Yes, about 30% difference in speed required for takoff, when including that CVs turn into the wind and go to flank speed
when launching their planes, so usually produce +30kts alone.

Dixie, where did you get the info about stall speeds from? Didn´t find anything reliable.


The Swordfish speed is something I remember from somewhere, so it could be a bit off. The Fulmar was from the official pilots notes from the period.

_____________________________



Bigger boys stole my sig

(in reply to LoBaron)
Post #: 15
RE: Fulmar II - 11/1/2011 11:29:10 AM   
CT Grognard

 

Posts: 694
Joined: 5/16/2010
From: Cape Town, South Africa
Status: offline
Here is a quote from Terence Horsley's book "Find, Fix and Strike" - which apparently was shared by most pilots of the Fulmar:

"At the time when a decision had to be made there was insufficient evidence that the development of new navigational aids was far enough advanced to merit the risk of using a single-seat fighter. A second seat for a navigator was still the only certain way of bringing the fighter back in bad weather. While there was a probability that new devices could be operated by the pilot would be sufficiently advanced in a few years' time, it would have been a sorry business had the single-seat fighter been chosen only to discover that, after all, the new equipment failed to live up to expectations. So the Fulmar was chosen, and there is little doubt that the choice was inevitable.

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."

(in reply to Dixie)
Post #: 16
RE: Fulmar II - 11/1/2011 11:53:59 AM   
CT Grognard

 

Posts: 694
Joined: 5/16/2010
From: Cape Town, South Africa
Status: offline
Interesting explanation on the design philosophy behind the two-seat fleet fighter (the Fairey Fulmar):

Navies operating aircraft carriers in the mid-1930s were faced with a new difficulty as a result of the technological revolution in aircraft development. The new land-based bombers, which were foreseen at the time as the carrier's greatest possible enemy, were much faster than their predecessors, with increased range and bomb load. Countering the bomber was a problem for the fleet, inasmuch as there was at the time no way of spotting an incoming attack when it was far enough away from the fleet to allow interceptors to be launched from the carrier with any hope of arriving at the enemy's altitude in time to prevent the attack. This was especially a problem for the Royal Navy, inasmuch as its most likely operating areas were the North Sea and the Mediterranean, bodies of water that were small enough to be well within range of land-based aircraft at all times. While radar would eventually solve this problem, its development and use was unseen at the time.

The only answer to this problem that could be seen by the Fleet Air Arm at the time was to create a fleet defense fighter capable of maintaining standing patrols at altitude far enough from the fleet to allow the spotting and interception of incoming raids. The FAA insisted on a two-seat aircraft, since it was believed the pilot would not be able to navigate AND maintain long-distance radio contact with the home carrier for extended periods of time, since long-range radio communication at the time was strictly via Morse Code. Given the limited space on board a carrier, it was also desirable to the fleet defense fighter to be multi-role capable, such as dive-bombing and general reconnaissance.

In 1938 the choice for a new fleet fighter became critical in light of the perceived emergency with war looming. It was decided by the Royal Navy to take up the development of an airplane that already existed and could be modified easily and quickly to become the new fleet defense fighter. The merits of the Fairey P.4/34 and the Hawker Henley - which had first appeared as replacements for the Fairey Battle light bomber - were considered and the P/4/34 design was chosen for further development due to Hawker's commitment to Hurricane fighter production. Fixed armament was specified as eight .303 Vickers K machine guns, and the mount designed for the Hurricane was adopted. The size of the aircraft allowed for a doubling of the ammunition load over that of the Hurricane, and it was capable of flying a 6-hour patrol mission. While the P.4/34 had a .303 machine-gun in the rear cockpit for use by the observer, this was deleted in the fighter version - a decision that would later be regretted.

While the Royal Navy would have preferred a radial engine powerplant, there was none available providing sufficient power, so the moderately-supercharged Rolls-Royce Merlin "H" was specified. This was produced as the Merlin VIII, providing 1,080 hp. Given that the design weighed in at nearly 9,000 pounds - double that of a similarly-powered Hurricane - it was not surprising that the maximum speed was only 265 mph at 7,000 feet. Since the operating strategy for the carriers was to remain out of the operating range of single-seat land-based fighters, this performance was considered sufficient to chase the bombers the airplane was designed to fight.

Fulmar Mk. Is were deployed to the new armoured carrier HMS Illustrious in June 1940 which departed to the Mediterranean in August 1940. Outclassed by contemporary land-based fighters like the Me 109, the 15 Fulmars of 806 Squadron were nevertheless an advance over the three Sea Gladiators being operated by HMS Eagle, which were the sole Fleet Air Arm fighter strength in the eastern Mediterranean at that point.

The Mk I was rapidly replaced by the Mk II in June 1941 which had entered production that spring with a Merlin 30 engine delivering 1,300 hp. While the increased power resulted in an improvement of maximum speed by only 10 mph (i.e. a maximum speed of only 275 mph) it DID have one advantage - it could outclimb the Sea Hurricane just entering service and offer a generally-similar overall performance below 10,000 feet, and could also carry two 250 lb bombs for strike missions (although this very rarely took place in real life).

Throughout the Fulmar's combat service, the armament was seen as too light to be truly effective against bombers like the Junkers Ju-88 and the Savoia-Marchetti S.M. 79. Proposals were made to convert from eight .303 machine guns to four 20mm cannons, but the weight penalty was too much. Another Fulmar had its eight .303 machine guns changed to eight .50-caliber machine guns, but again the weight penalty was too high. Some Fulmars were converted to carry four .50-caliber machine guns.

By the time the Fulmar was withdrawn from front-line fleet service in August 1942, it had destroyed 112 enemy aircraft in air combat and damaged over 80 more. Since this was a third of the total Royal Navy carrier-based fighter victories in the entire war, this represents a considerable success for a fighter that was an emergency makeshift, designed and produced in extreme haste, and which never outperformed its adversaries.

(in reply to CT Grognard)
Post #: 17
RE: Fulmar II - 11/1/2011 2:16:44 PM   
CT Grognard

 

Posts: 694
Joined: 5/16/2010
From: Cape Town, South Africa
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: CT Grognard

Interesting explanation on the design philosophy behind the two-seat fleet fighter (the Fairey Fulmar):

Navies operating aircraft carriers in the mid-1930s were faced with a new difficulty as a result of the technological revolution in aircraft development. The new land-based bombers, which were foreseen at the time as the carrier's greatest possible enemy, were much faster than their predecessors, with increased range and bomb load. Countering the bomber was a problem for the fleet, inasmuch as there was at the time no way of spotting an incoming attack when it was far enough away from the fleet to allow interceptors to be launched from the carrier with any hope of arriving at the enemy's altitude in time to prevent the attack. This was especially a problem for the Royal Navy, inasmuch as its most likely operating areas were the North Sea and the Mediterranean, bodies of water that were small enough to be well within range of land-based aircraft at all times. While radar would eventually solve this problem, its development and use was unseen at the time.

The only answer to this problem that could be seen by the Fleet Air Arm at the time was to create a fleet defense fighter capable of maintaining standing patrols at altitude far enough from the fleet to allow the spotting and interception of incoming raids. The FAA insisted on a two-seat aircraft, since it was believed the pilot would not be able to navigate AND maintain long-distance radio contact with the home carrier for extended periods of time, since long-range radio communication at the time was strictly via Morse Code. Given the limited space on board a carrier, it was also desirable to the fleet defense fighter to be multi-role capable, such as dive-bombing and general reconnaissance.

In 1938 the choice for a new fleet fighter became critical in light of the perceived emergency with war looming. It was decided by the Royal Navy to take up the development of an airplane that already existed and could be modified easily and quickly to become the new fleet defense fighter. The merits of the Fairey P.4/34 and the Hawker Henley - which had first appeared as replacements for the Fairey Battle light bomber - were considered and the P/4/34 design was chosen for further development due to Hawker's commitment to Hurricane fighter production. Fixed armament was specified as eight .303 Vickers K machine guns, and the mount designed for the Hurricane was adopted. The size of the aircraft allowed for a doubling of the ammunition load over that of the Hurricane, and it was capable of flying a 6-hour patrol mission. While the P.4/34 had a .303 machine-gun in the rear cockpit for use by the observer, this was deleted in the fighter version - a decision that would later be regretted.

While the Royal Navy would have preferred a radial engine powerplant, there was none available providing sufficient power, so the moderately-supercharged Rolls-Royce Merlin "H" was specified. This was produced as the Merlin VIII, providing 1,080 hp. Given that the design weighed in at nearly 9,000 pounds - double that of a similarly-powered Hurricane - it was not surprising that the maximum speed was only 265 mph at 7,000 feet. Since the operating strategy for the carriers was to remain out of the operating range of single-seat land-based fighters, this performance was considered sufficient to chase the bombers the airplane was designed to fight.

Fulmar Mk. Is were deployed to the new armoured carrier HMS Illustrious in June 1940 which departed to the Mediterranean in August 1940. Outclassed by contemporary land-based fighters like the Me 109, the 15 Fulmars of 806 Squadron were nevertheless an advance over the three Sea Gladiators being operated by HMS Eagle, which were the sole Fleet Air Arm fighter strength in the eastern Mediterranean at that point.

The Mk I was rapidly replaced by the Mk II in June 1941 which had entered production that spring with a Merlin 30 engine delivering 1,300 hp. While the increased power resulted in an improvement of maximum speed by only 10 mph (i.e. a maximum speed of only 275 mph) it DID have one advantage - it could outclimb the Sea Hurricane just entering service and offer a generally-similar overall performance below 10,000 feet, and could also carry two 250 lb bombs for strike missions (although this very rarely took place in real life).

Throughout the Fulmar's combat service, the armament was seen as too light to be truly effective against bombers like the Junkers Ju-88 and the Savoia-Marchetti S.M. 79. Proposals were made to convert from eight .303 machine guns to four 20mm cannons, but the weight penalty was too much. Another Fulmar had its eight .303 machine guns changed to eight .50-caliber machine guns, but again the weight penalty was too high. Some Fulmars were converted to carry four .50-caliber machine guns.

By the time the Fulmar was withdrawn from front-line fleet service in August 1942, it had destroyed 112 enemy aircraft in air combat and damaged over 80 more. Since this was a third of the total Royal Navy carrier-based fighter victories in the entire war, this represents a considerable success for a fighter that was an emergency makeshift, designed and produced in extreme haste, and which never outperformed its adversaries.


By the way, Specification P.4/34 was for a "light bomber and close air support aircraft" capable of carrying 500 lbs in bombs and stressed for dive-bombing.

Fairey, Gloster and Hawker all submitted designs. Only the Fairey and Hawker designs were given authorisation to construct prototypes.

The Fairey P.4/34 was a low-wing all-metal monoplane powered by a 1,030HP Rolls-Royce Merlin III engine, with a crew of two accommodated in tandem under a long-glazed canopy. It was very similar to Fairey's earlier Battle light bomber, but was smaller and had a wide-track, inwards-retracting undercarriage. It had one fixed, forward-firing .303-in Vickers K and a flexible rear-firing .303-in Vickers K in the back, and could carry two 250lb bombs mounted under its wings. Maximum speed was 283 mph with a stall speed of 55 mph and a range of 800 nautical miles. Climb rate waThe first prototype flew in January 1937.

The competing design, the Hawker Henley, was interesting. Since the specification asked for a modest bomb load, Hawker decided performance was paramount and decided to design an aircraft similar in size and performance to the Hawker Hurricane (by then already in an advanced design stage). As a result, the Hawker Henley featured exactly the same outer wing panel and tainplane jigs as the Hurricane. Both used the Rolls-Royce Merlin "F" inline engine which offered the best power/weight ratio and minimal frontal area. The wing was mid-set with a retractable tailwheel-type landing gear, and seating was provided for a pilot and an observer/air gunner. The prototype first flew in March 1937 and was subsequently refitted with stressed-skin wings and a Merlin I engine, and further test flights confirmed the excellence of its overall performance - a maximum speed of 294 mph and a 940 nautical mile range.

The main differences between the designs appear to be that the Fairey P.4/34 was slightly larger, heavier and slower than the Hawker Henley, but had a slightly better rate of climb (also, a larger wing area).

As soon as the two prototypes had flown, however, the Air Ministy decided in 1937 they no longer required a light bomber and the Hawker Henley was re-designated as a target tug, and its production was subcontracted to Gloster - 200 were eventually built.

The Fairey P.4/34 design, as stated earlier, was then accepted the very next year as a fleet defense fighter with some minor modifications and designated the Fairey Fulmar I.

The main changes were to reduce the wingspan on the Fairey P.4/34 from 47 ft to 46 ft and to install eight wing-mounted .303-in caliber machine guns with 400 rounds each as well as making some aerodynamic changes and installing the moderately-supercharged Merlin VIII engine.

The increased weight from the eight .303-in machine guns and ammunition had the result of increasing the loaded weight of the aircraft from 8,787 lbs to 9,672 lbs - and reducing maximum speed to 265 mph.

Ultimately, the Fairey Fulmar Mk I arose because of a number of factors:

1) It was an existing prototype and simple modifications meant it would be available quickly;
2) A superior competing design (the Hawker Henley) was not considered since Hawker was focusing on Hurricane production.

(in reply to CT Grognard)
Post #: 18
RE: Fulmar II - 11/1/2011 2:17:44 PM   
CT Grognard

 

Posts: 694
Joined: 5/16/2010
From: Cape Town, South Africa
Status: offline
One more thing - the Hawker Henley had an interior bomb bay holding a 500lb bomb.

(in reply to CT Grognard)
Post #: 19
RE: Fulmar II - 11/1/2011 2:26:52 PM   
USSAmerica


Posts: 18715
Joined: 10/28/2002
From: Graham, NC, USA
Status: offline
Very interesting read from all the posters here.  Thanks, guys!  

_____________________________

Mike

"Good times will set you free" - Jimmy Buffett

"They need more rum punch" - Me


Artwork by The Amazing Dixie

(in reply to CT Grognard)
Post #: 20
RE: Fulmar II - 11/1/2011 7:03:26 PM   
LoBaron


Posts: 4776
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline
Agree!

CT Grognard, good posts, thanks!

_____________________________


(in reply to USSAmerica)
Post #: 21
RE: Fulmar II - 11/1/2011 7:11:43 PM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline
quote:


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




_____________________________


(in reply to LoBaron)
Post #: 22
RE: Fulmar II - 11/1/2011 7:12:10 PM   
dr.hal


Posts: 3335
Joined: 6/3/2006
From: Covington LA via Montreal!
Status: offline
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

(in reply to LoBaron)
Post #: 23
RE: Fulmar II - 11/2/2011 8:54:29 AM   
CT Grognard

 

Posts: 694
Joined: 5/16/2010
From: Cape Town, South Africa
Status: offline

quote:

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.

(in reply to CT Grognard)
Post #: 24
RE: Fulmar II - 11/2/2011 10:48:54 AM   
CT Grognard

 

Posts: 694
Joined: 5/16/2010
From: Cape Town, South Africa
Status: offline

quote:

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.

(in reply to dr.hal)
Post #: 25
RE: Fulmar II - 11/2/2011 10:51:24 AM   
LoBaron


Posts: 4776
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline
Ok there goes my theory.

_____________________________


(in reply to CT Grognard)
Post #: 26
RE: Fulmar II - 11/2/2011 11:22:56 AM   
CT Grognard

 

Posts: 694
Joined: 5/16/2010
From: Cape Town, South Africa
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

Ok there goes my theory.


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.

(in reply to LoBaron)
Post #: 27
RE: Fulmar II - 11/2/2011 11:28:22 AM   
CT Grognard

 

Posts: 694
Joined: 5/16/2010
From: Cape Town, South Africa
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to CT Grognard)
Post #: 28
RE: Fulmar II - 11/2/2011 11:37:53 AM   
CT Grognard

 

Posts: 694
Joined: 5/16/2010
From: Cape Town, South Africa
Status: offline
The more I read up on this stuff, the more interesting it gets

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).

(in reply to CT Grognard)
Post #: 29
RE: Fulmar II - 11/2/2011 1:06:29 PM   
LoBaron


Posts: 4776
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: CT Grognard


quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

Ok there goes my theory.


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.

_____________________________


(in reply to CT Grognard)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> The War Room >> Fulmar II Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.391