RE: Fulmar II

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: 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 >> RE: Fulmar II

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Fulmar II - 11/2/2011 1:27:47 PM

herwin

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: CT Grognard

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).

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.

_____________________________

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 CT Grognard)

Post #: 31

RE: Fulmar II - 11/2/2011 1:43:20 PM

CT Grognard

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

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.

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.

(in reply to LoBaron)

Post #: 32

RE: Fulmar II - 11/2/2011 1:45:38 PM

LoBaron

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

quote:

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

Read something similar.

_____________________________

(in reply to CT Grognard)

Post #: 33

RE: Fulmar II - 11/2/2011 3:52:11 PM

CT Grognard

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

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

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.

(in reply to LoBaron)

Post #: 34

RE: Fulmar II - 11/8/2011 6:32:42 AM

Dili

Posts: 4708
Joined: 9/10/2004
Status: offline

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.

(in reply to LoBaron)

Post #: 35

RE: Fulmar II - 11/11/2011 8:28:48 PM

red admiral

Posts: 4
Joined: 11/11/2011
Status: offline

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.

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

_____________________________

(in reply to dr.hal)

Post #: 36