Would the Fairey fulmar be able to be turned into a single seat mono-plane fighter?
Wi: Fairey Fulmar
- Thread starter HMS Audacious
- Start date
This has been dicussed a lot on various forums over the years. If you go into the 'JustLeo' memorial archive thread I am fairly sure that he at some time produced an illustration of a single seat Fulmar. If you just take out the second seat from the OTL fulmar you still have a large and heavy aircraft. if you start shortening the fuselage and doing other redesign works then why not a new proper single seater.
What could be built instead? Would the Whirlwind be modified for carrier use
It'd be great if the FAA got a good purpose built single seat fighter from scratch.
Of course. Not to gain anything, though.
Make a 1-seater from the get-go - ~250 sq ft wing, obviously shorter and lighter fuselage, 'beard' radiator (already is known from the Battle), 150 imp gals of fuel, later the ability to carry drop tanks. 8 Brownings, switch to cannons when available. Perhaps Bristol Hercules might be a more suitable engine - the drag is already high, so engine's swapping will not mess streamlining, and extra 20% power in 1941-42 might be useful. Or, Merlin X engine, switch to 20 series when available.
Result is nothing fancy, performance should've been in range of the Sea Hurricane, Wildcat, Oscar or early Zeroes = suitable for bomber busting, does not afraid of fighters of a day.
Just Leo's take on subject: picture
If we must use the OTL Fulmar, then a better engine is a must - Hercules or Merlin 20s ASAP.
Obvoiusly, a more refined Sea Hurricane will work.
Most plausible choice is the Hercules, other British radials will not cut it, Centaurus is not developed enough.
Not that far-fetched is the R-2600 (either bought in the USA or licence-produced by, say, Alvis or Armstrong-Siddeley). R-1830 does not bring anything, the R-2180 got next to no development in the late 1930s-early 1940s (thus a non-starter). R-2800 is interesting choice, especially for 1942 when the Americans can spare a few hundreds.
Fulmar was a bit bigger than Hellcat/Corsair/Jug, though much lighter.
Hercules engined Spitfire developed by Fairey. In 1940 it would be the best carrier fighter in service and even by 1945 would be a nasty prospect for anyone.
Hercules-engined Spitfire makes plenty of sense IMO. Sorta mid/late ww2 Japanese A/C, or as close the Fw-190As as possible. By late 1944, Hercules was making almost 2000 HP, also gaining, finally, a proper exhaust system; post war more than 2100 HP was available by versions that were in production and service. Talk Bearcat level of performance.
Re. the picture - I'd remove the under-wing radiators (that also removes a significant source of drag, to cancel-out increased 'nose drag')
When, with what engine, HP on 87 and 100 oct fuel, internal fuel, how much navalized (wing folding or not, etc)?
Gloster gorshawk MK 1 single seat Fighter specs
Crew: 1
Range: 650 miles
Engine: 1 RR Merlin x
Speed: 330 mph
Armament: six 50 cal Vickers heavy machine guns
Crew: 1
Range: 650 miles
Engine: 1 RR Merlin x
Speed: 330 mph
Armament: six 50 cal Vickers heavy machine guns
A couple of years ago there was a very good thread on a navalised version of the single seat Defiant, In 1939 with four 20mm cannon that really is a 'Go To' fighter for the FAA,
sure. Pick up the gas cap and slide a Fairly Spearfish underneath and say its an improved version using some original parts.
That seems very plausible. Again, Just Leo's multiple take on the Gloster fighter, including 3 examples with hooks: picture
On the other hand, range must be at least as twice of that 650 miles figure, if not 3 times greater with a drop tank or two.