Fulmar torpedo bomber?

[Hurricane IIc]

Hello -
Since the Fairey Fulmar was such a good aircraft overall, only lacking speed, I have always thought it should have been used as a multi-role plane instead of a fighter:
First, with the dive-bombing equipment from the Skua (I had read that test pilot Eric Brown stated it was stressed for dive-bombing) and it's forward-firing armament I think it could have been very useful in the Mediterranean as an attack plane with the 500 lb SAP bomb.
Second, with a torpedo, instead of the slow biplane Swordfish which could be used from CVE's instead of fleet carriers. This would give the Royal Navy's fleet carriers more modern monoplane airgroups, along with Hurricanes, or possibly single-seat Boulton-Paul Defiants (P.94) as fighters, all using the same type of engine if that would be advantageous.

So has anyone calculated if the Fulmar could have carried a torpedo? The Fulmar looks so low to the ground, maybe it just looks that way due to it's length, but I don't have any measurements for ground clearance.

Thanks very much,
Hurricane IIc

[tomo pauk]

Welcome to the forum, Hurricane II.

1st, let me disagree that Fulmar was such a great aircraft - if a fighter plane lacks speed on a day it enters service, it's hardly a great one.
Now to the question.
Even though I've never see a torp under Fulmar's hull, we can draw paralels from another planes of similar shape, size & power. The closest I can find is Nakajima 'Kate', with 1000HP, about same wing span (but shorter then Fulmar), but weighting loaded almost as much as Fulmar weighted empty. Since UK torps weighted 750kg, I doubt that it would be possible carrying them successfully until Fulmar received 1300HP Merlin 30 engine.

The 500, or even 1000lb bomb seems much better choice for me.

[Shortround6]

Part of the considerations when thinking about "modifing" existing aircraft are their take-off and landing characteristics.

The Fulmar had the smallest wing of the 3 planes mentioned here even if the MK II did have the most powerful engine.
In order to be a successful torpedo bomber the plane has to be able to get off the carrier deck with the torpedo.

The Fulmar might have had a mininum flying speed 8-12 mph faster than either of the two torpedo bombers mentioned here.
The Fulmar was also carrying well over 400lbs of guns and ammo. Leave 6 guns and 3000rounds behind and you just might get to carry more bombs

See the Fairey Barracuda for a Merlin powered torpedo bomber. Note the extra power, larger wing and rather extraordinary flap system.

Most WW II carriers did not have catapaults.

[Hurricane IIc]

Thanks for the comparisons -
and yes I agree I would have liked to see the Merlin 30 (or even 32 for that matter) to help get a heavily-loaded Fulmar off the deck.
Thanks again

[freebird]

Originally Posted by tomo pauk

Welcome to the forum, Hurricane II.

1st, let me disagree that Fulmar was such a great aircraft - if a fighter plane lacks speed on a day it enters service, it's hardly a great one.

Yes quite correct Tomo, here we are agreed. "Barely adequate" would be a better description.

Now to the question.

The 500, or even 1000lb bomb seems much better choice for me.

I would be happy with a pair of 500's

[tomo pauk]

Fulmar with Merlin 32 (1640 HP) would have far better power-loading then both Firefly* and Barracuda , while already beating them in wing-loading category (= it would be able to carry a torpedo or heavy bomb load). ABS radar, two or four cannons, plus perhaps those retractable flaps. A couple of MGs at back would be nice to have.
The fictional Fulmar 32 would be available from early 1943. Replacing Swordfish, Albacore. Produced instead of Firefly and Barracuda.

Then produce a Centurus powered twin seater, to have something powerful before jet age.

*now that I wrote this, the original Fulmar II had better power-loading then Barracuda II.

[tomo pauk]

Originally Posted by freebird

...
I would be happy with a pair of 500's

Oops, my bad, Fulmar could've hauled just 2 x 250lb

[Shortround6]

Originally Posted by tomo pauk

Fulmar with Merlin 32 (1640 HP) would have far better power-loading then both Firefly* and Barracuda , while already beating them in wing-loading category (= it would be able to carry a torpedo or heavy bomb load). ABS radar, two or four cannons, plus perhaps those retractable flaps. A couple of MGs at back would be nice to have.
The fictional Fulmar 32 would be available from early 1943. Replacing Swordfish, Albacore. Produced instead of Firefly and Barracuda.

Then produce a Centurus powered twin seater, to have something powerful before jet age.

*now that I wrote this, the original Fulmar II had better power-loading then Barracuda II.

Just maybe it had these lower power and wing loadings because it wasn't carrying torpedo?

Try adding 1620lbs (for the weight of the torpedo) to the weight of the Fulmar and running the wing loading and power loading numbers again.

You might want to check on that "ABS radar, two or four cannons" stuff also. A single 20mm cannon weighs 25-30lbs more than four .303 brownings and while th Fulame carried a rather large amount of .303 ammo, 20mm ammo is not light stuff.

I an assuming the British had some reason for building those two aircraft rather than just sticking a more powerful engine in the Fulmar.

As for the Centurus powered twin seater see: Fairey Spearfish - torpedo bomber

Fairey Spearfish aircraft profile. Aircraft Database of the Fleet Air Arm Archive 1939-1945

Of course if you leave out the rear seater you get : Blackburn firebrand aircraft profile. Aircraft Database of the Fleet Air Arm Archive 1939-1945

[Graeme]

Originally Posted by Hurricane IIc

So has anyone calculated if the Fulmar could have carried a torpedo?

Boscombe Down played with a Fulmar Mk II (X8757) in June 1942 in an attempt to arm it with bombs. They discovered that it could only carry one British 250 lb or 500 lb bomb. The American equivalent couldn't be carried as the rear crutches proved to be too long. Based on this, I suspect carrying a torpedo would have been impossible. Adequate clearance from the propeller on release of the bombs in dives were achieved up to 60 degrees and 357 mph.
(Bit of trivia. It took two men 40 minutes to rearm the four 0.5 in wing guns. Considered far too long, thirteen modifications were recommended. )

[tomo pauk]

Originally Posted by Shortround6

Just maybe it had these lower power and wing loadings because it wasn't carrying torpedo?

Try adding 1620lbs (for the weight of the torpedo) to the weight of the Fulmar and running the wing loading and power loading numbers again.


The comparison was based upon empty weights, so your comment is not valid.

You might want to check on that "ABS radar, two or four cannons" stuff also. A single 20mm cannon weighs 25-30lbs more than four .303 brownings and while th Fulame carried a rather large amount of .303 ammo, 20mm ammo is not light stuff.

If the Firefly could take 4 Hispanos in the air, there is no reason why 'Fulmar 32' wouldn't be able to do the same, moreso since it would have far better power- & wing-loading figures.

I an assuming the British had some reason for building those two aircraft rather than just sticking a more powerful engine in the Fulmar.

The purchase politics were a problematic issue for FAA (and for Germans too, for example). If you can state any pluses that Barracuda & Firefly would have against upgraded ulmar, please do so.

As for the Centurus powered twin seater see: Fairey Spearfish - torpedo bomber

Fairey Spearfish aircraft profile. Aircraft Database of the Fleet Air Arm Archive 1939-1945

Of course if you leave out the rear seater you get : Blackburn firebrand aircraft profile. Aircraft Database of the Fleet Air Arm Archive 1939-1945

I'm avare about those two planes, thanks

.

[tomo pauk]

Originally Posted by Graeme

Boscombe Down played with a Fulmar Mk II (X8757) in June 1942 in an attempt to arm it with bombs. They discovered that it could only carry one British 250 lb or 500 lb bomb. The American equivalent couldn't be carried as the rear crutches proved to be too long. Based on this, I suspect carrying a torpedo would have been impossible. Adequate clearance from the propeller on release of the bombs in dives were achieved up to 60 degrees and 357 mph.
(Bit of trivia. It took two men 40 minutes to rearm the four 0.5 in wing guns. Considered far too long, thirteen modifications were recommended. )

Was that bomb carried under hull?

[Graeme]

As far as I know, yes, under the fuselage. I'm not sure if the Mk II had a similar catapult spool as the Mk I but another thought is that any long weapon such as a torpedo would certainly interfere with this...

[tomo pauk]

Thanks, Graeme.
Perhaps we could agree that, if an requirement for torpedo-carrying capability for 'Fulmar 32'was included, the under-carriage would've received souped-up legs & wheels to cater for that. Of course, the stronger U/C would be needed to enable greater weights of the upgraded plane.

[Shortround6]

Originally Posted by tomo pauk

.The comparison was based upon empty weights, so your comment is not valid.

You don't try to fly empty airplanes of off of carrier decks so I would say that your comparison is less than valid.

Some weight figures.

Albacore 7250lbs empty, 10,460 max loaded.
Fulmar 7015lbs empty, 10,200max loaded.
Barracuda 10818 9800lbs empty 14,080 max loaded.
Firefly I 9750lbs empty 14,020lbs loaded.

Please note that the later two planes have a useful load about 1000lbs greater than the Fulmar. you just can't decide to load another 1000lbs into an aircraft and go on your merry way.

Both later plans used high lift flap systems the Fulmar did not have. Both later planes were stressed to operate at the higher weights.

Perhaps part of the reason that the Firefly could carry the 4 20mm cannon? Off course if you don't put any ammo in the plane and don't put any fuel in the tanks the Fulmar will continue to have a better power to weight ratio

"The purchase politics were a problematic issue for FAA..."

I have no idea what you are getting at here. Since all three planes were designed and manufactured (initially) by the same company I have no idea what supposed benifit they would have gotten by switching form one to another if they didn't have to.

Souped up under carriage weighs more and may take up more room in the wing.

[tomo pauk]

Originally Posted by Shortround6

You don't try to fly empty airplanes of off of carrier decks so I would say that your comparison is less than valid.

Empty weights are starting figures, so I guess my comparison is more then valid. Barracuda weighted 3800 lbs more (more then 2 torpedoes ), Firefly 2700 lbs more, so that proves my case. Both planes needed more fuel too.

Some weight figures.

Albacore 7250lbs empty, 10,460 max loaded.
Fulmar 7015lbs empty, 10,200max loaded.
Barracuda 10818 9800lbs empty 14,080 max loaded.
Firefly I 9750lbs empty 14,020lbs loaded.

Please note that the later two planes have a useful load about 1000lbs greater than the Fulmar. you just can't decide to load another 1000lbs into an aircraft and go on your merry way.

Not until I shove Merlin 32 on Fulmar and strenghten my undercarriage...

Both later plans used high lift flap systems the Fulmar did not have.

Since their empty weights were such, I'd say they dearly needed those flaps.

Both later planes were stressed to operate at the higher weights.

Both paid the price of being stressed for higher weights.

Perhaps part of the reason that the Firefly could carry the 4 20mm cannon? Off course if you don't put any ammo in the plane and don't put any fuel in the tanks the Fulmar will continue to have a better power to weight ratio

Haven't I proposed "2 to 4 cannons", or you conveniently missed the number 2?

"The purchase politics were a problematic issue for FAA..."

I have no idea what you are getting at here.

That was a reply to your statement that FAA went 100% correct for choosing Barracuda and Firefly.

Since all three planes were designed and manufactured (initially) by the same company I have no idea what supposed benifit they would have gotten by switching form one to another if they didn't have to.

Souped up under carriage weighs more and may take up more room in the wing.

Sure enough, but we have a 2000-2500lbs bonus (vs. Firefly; 1000lb more vs. Barracuda) to use up And if we still manage to use all of it, the resulting plane would be bombing axis forces a year and half before Firefly was doing the same.

.