Design the best FAA fighter to be in service by Jan 1940

As the highest scoring FAA fighter of all time, noteworthy given its relatively short two year period as the FAA’s frontline fighter, the Fulmar did okay. Of course a fighter as I’ve specified at top would have done even better, as would the Hurricane. But still, nothing has matched the Fulmar in FAA aerial kills before or since.

Don't forget it's score claims were mostly against italian bombers and their mostly obsolete escorts; not exactly something to brag about. It's like saying the performance of the Buffallo in Finland proves it was outstanding. Put the Fulmar against modern german or japanese fighters...
 
As the highest scoring FAA fighter of all time, noteworthy given its relatively short two year period as the FAA’s frontline fighter, the Fulmar did okay. Of course a fighter as I’ve specified at top would have done even better, as would the Hurricane. But still, nothing has matched the Fulmar in FAA aerial kills before or since.

It did very well given it was obsolete as a fighter pretty much as it entered service had those FAA Squadrons been equipped with Seafire or Sea Hurricane or Wildcat (which was not ready for service in jan 1940) then I have no doubt that the number of 'Kills' would have been higher.

The Op has tasked us with providing the best British carrier fighter by Jan 1940 - and thats not the Fulmar despite the FAA 'muddling' through with it OTL!
 
Part of the problem of providing the best fighter is when exactly can we start from?
There are a number of problems to solve, and the earlier the start the better.
(1) The aircraft itself
(2) The engine
(3) The available armament
(4) Production facilities - no point in a wonder aircraft if we only make 1 a month
(5) Treasury - we need the money to develop the aircraft and engine, to build a shadow factory for it
(6) We need to keep the AM mitts off it, as if its any good they will try and steal it.

So, define a starting date and I'll come up with some options
 
images

images

Well if you let us do anything....RN funds power jets, ready to fight over Norway :p
 

Driftless

Donor
With the Fulmar, can you attribute much of its success to the skill of the pilots, over its technology?
 
With the Fulmar, can you attribute much of its success to the skill of the pilots, over its technology?
That or more a target rich environment? Lots of Bombers attacking CV supported RN convoys in Med with good fighter direction to ensure they fight.
 

Jack1971

Banned
Part of the problem of providing the best fighter is when exactly can we start from?
There are a number of problems to solve, and the earlier the start the better.
(1) The aircraft itself
(2) The engine
(3) The available armament
(4) Production facilities - no point in a wonder aircraft if we only make 1 a month
(5) Treasury - we need the money to develop the aircraft and engine, to build a shadow factory for it
(6) We need to keep the AM mitts off it, as if its any good they will try and steal it.

So, define a starting date and I'll come up with some options
Start with Specification being issued same year as the Spitfire and Hurricanes’, 1934. We are limited to engines and armaments then in late development or service. Fix the Napier Sabre or RR Vulture if you please.
 
Last edited:

Jack1971

Banned
That or more a target rich environment? Lots of Bombers attacking CV supported RN convoys in Med with good fighter direction to ensure they fight.
8 x mgs in a tough, stable, long ranged and sufficiently quick aircraft would make any commander of unescorted medium bombers worried.

OTOT, imagine if the Fulmar had not replaced the Sea Gladiator and Skua in the fighter role?
 
8 x mgs in a tough, stable, long ranged and sufficiently quick aircraft would make any commander of unescorted medium bombers worried.

With as clean sheet why would the RN FAA go for the 8 x .303 MGs? Surely 4 or 6 .50 cal HMGs would be better?

EDIT: The Vickers .50 cal used .50x81mm ammo, not the .50x99mm ammo of the more famous Browning, so maybe it's not very good. Does anyone know what the practical difference is?
 
If we take the Fairey Fulmar as a lightweight Fairey Battle and we know that the Battle as a test airframe took everything from the Rolls Royce Exe to the Napier Sabre can we think of any engine with significantly more power than a 1940 Rolls Royce Merlin that could be bolted to a Fulmar airframe? If we can get the Fulmar a significantly better power to weight ration then not only do we have a viable naval fighter but also a viable naval strike airframe at the same time. With more power to accelerate it at take off then carrying 2 x 500lb bombs with full fuel and wing armament cab be lifted off with a reasonable deck wind. Asking it to carry a torpedo is a bit much but otherwise all you need is a carrier of Fulmars and a torpedo airframe.

The Sea Spitfire is the best fighter airframe that could be done in a form that we know will work. The Sea Hurricane would be an interim choice but has it's production advantages but I was thinking of the Fulmar in terms of the best fighter for the FAA as a weapons system, not just the best fighter airframe.
 
Start by stripping out the rear crewman and his armour, kit, etc.
Perhaps saves 400lb and Fairey did not think it significant and they had a purpose.
The Vickers .50 cal used .50x81mm ammo, not the .50x99mm ammo of the more famous Browning, so maybe it's not very good. Does anyone know what the practical difference is?
This is the same cartridge as used in the Italian Breda SAFAT and Japanese Ho 103 and both did a sound job.
 

Jack1971

Banned
Perhaps saves 400lb and Fairey did not think it significant
True. It’s still a big, heavy aircraft without the rear seat. Similarly Fulmar-sized Firefly second from top compared to Spitfire at bottom.

P1010086.jpg~original


Forget the five blades and counter rotating props of the later models, but is there anything on the Seafang’s wing design that is not likely feasible in the late 1930s? I ask because the Seafang has such a thinner wing vs. the thick wing of the F5/34, Typhoon and Hurricane. However the Seafang’s A6M-like fold point is not sufficient for Ark Royal (a Specification requirement). We need to fold at the guns, I’d say.

1434599962622.jpg
 
Last edited:
Start with Specification being issued same year as the Spitfire and Hurricanes’, 1934. We are limited to engines and armaments then in late development or service. Fix the Napier Sabre or RR Vulture if you please.

Ok, then lets see (he says, blatantly cribbing from his pet Whale).

(1) The Gloster F34/5 is a start, but it needs a number of changes. It needs a good robust undercart, more petrol stowage, and additional naval equipment as well asfolding wings. It was a lihgt aircraft, it will end up in the 7k - 8k lbs range, as with other aircraft with similar specs.But I see no reason why we cant design a similar if bigger aircraft.Some of the Fairey designs would also work, if made single-seat and possibly a bigger engine.
So we end up with something looking like the F34/5, but bigger. Look for a bit longer range than the Hurricane, able to carry big drop tanks.

(2) The F34/5 used the fairly small Mercury. We can use the Perseus (upgraded early to 100 octane). The Taurus isn't going to be ready early enough for an aircraft needed on theproduction line in 38/9. The P&W would work, but would need dollars. The Hercules is going to be rather heavy. Given the time, an enlarged Perseus would be a good bet, giving the extra power to give the plane proper fighterperformance. We dont need a supercharger as we are looking at optimal performance under 20,000ft.

(3)Armament. For a naval fighter, 0.5" is better than 0.303 as we have to bring down some large aircraft in a short time. Cannon would be even better. I would go for 6x0.5", with a change to 2x20mm, 2x0.5" as the cannon come on line. With the FAA needing them, then the stupid RL 12+month delay can easily be avoided.

(4) Production - If we go with Gloster, drop the Gladiator, it wont be ready much earlier anyway. Go straight to the new fighter, and set up a shadown factory ready for it.

(5) It wont use a merlin, so less chance the AM will try and poach it. Given the need for navalisation, it wont be as good as the Spitfire, but should be able to holdits own up till the Zero.Even the Zero is handleable, the Wildcat did well given decent tactics. Although by then, the replacement should be coming off the production line.

So we end up with something like the Wildcat, but prettier and at least as good performance.We should be looking at as least as good as the RAF Hurricane, but not as good as the Spitfire. But the other qualities mean its better in actual use than a Seafire (at least in 1938).

There, sorted. We could call it something like the Gloster Goshawk...:):)
 
Anyone knows if France was designing any naval fighter? Just to compare? I know they intended to replace the Bearn, and had at least one bomber in design, but fighters?...
 

Jack1971

Banned
(5) It wont use a merlin, so less chance the AM will try and poach it. Given the need for navalisation, it wont be as good as the Spitfire, but should be able to holdits own up till the Zero.Even the Zero is handleable, the Wildcat did well given decent tactics.
I like it. And we can poach Kurt Tank’s cowling design once the FW-190 is examined.
Anyone knows if France was designing any naval fighter? Just to compare? I know they intended to replace the Bearn, and had at least one bomber in design, but fighters?...
Dewoitine D.790. Use the Merlin engine from the D.521 prototype and you’ve got something the FAA can license build.

588767dewoitine_d790.jpg


d_790_11.jpg
 
Last edited:
With the Fulmar, can you attribute much of its success to the skill of the pilots, over its technology?

I seem to have dredged up the following - of it Air To Air combats only 8 were vs fighters and I believe that the score was 5 : 3 in favor of the RN

Another 'feature' I recall is that vs the common SM79 Bomber could only be intercepted if the Fulmar was higher and was able to dive on it as the Italian plane was faster
 
With as clean sheet why would the RN FAA go for the 8 x .303 MGs? Surely 4 or 6 .50 cal HMGs would be better?

EDIT: The Vickers .50 cal used .50x81mm ammo, not the .50x99mm ammo of the more famous Browning, so maybe it's not very good. Does anyone know what the practical difference is?

I seem to recall that the trails that the RAF conducted pre-war found (rightly or wrongly) that the jump to .50 over .303 was not worth the weight and ROF drop penalty (the .303 Browning Mk2 fired at 1150 RPM x 8 - 9600 RPM or about 150 RPS - while the AN2 .50 cal fired at 750-850 RPM x 4 = 3,400 RPM or about 55 RPS) - and only a jump to 20mm cannon was worth it.

That being said the last batch of the Fulmar MK2 did swap the 8 x Browning .303s for 4 x Browning .50s so perhaps the RN thought differently - it's also worth noting that the Wildcat F4F-4 had 6 x 50 cals at the insistence of the RN - the USN flyers at the time thought that it was unnecessary and only served to make the aircraft heavier - I guess this reflects their foes - the RN had to contend with 2 and 3 engined bombers and 4 engined Condors most of which had armour and self sealing fuel tanks while the Japanese aircraft had no armour or Self sealing tanks!

Weight wise - an AN2 weighs 27 KGs while the Browning .303 MK2 weighs 10.7 KGs

My google fu has failed and I cannot find .50 cal ammo and link weights

British Browning .303 MG: 7.7 x 56R
Complete Round + Link: 1.06 Ounces

Which is 30 grams
 
Start by stripping out the rear crewman and his armour, kit, etc.

Here’s a what if single seat Firefly for consideration of the Fulmar http://uamf.org.uk/viewtopic.php?t=4533&start=0
I am oddly hesitant about pulling the second seat. Sometimes a bug becomes a feature. As noted above there are plenty of single seater fighter options if someone is willing to pursue them. The two seater Fulmar is somewhat unique and offers some interesting possibilities combined with it's long range.
 

Jack1971

Banned
I am oddly hesitant about pulling the second seat. Sometimes a bug becomes a feature. As noted above there are plenty of single seater fighter options if someone is willing to pursue them. The two seater Fulmar is somewhat unique and offers some interesting possibilities combined with it's long range.
If you want two seats, make the Fulmar a TSR.
How about the Gloster F.5/34?
Looking at this Folland Fo-117 gives me hope for his Gloster attempt.

folland-fo117-lightweight-fighter-proposal-united-kingdom.jpg


https://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/detail.asp?aircraft_id=1714
 
Top