FAA aircraft comparative performance

[dunmunro]

I found out a bit more about the Fulmar. The Fulmar II was given the capability to carry a single 60 gal (273l) centreline drop tank. This hardpoint could also carry a 500lb bomb:
Testing of the Fulmar II, at Boscombe Down, in June 1942 showed that the Fulmar could safely drop a 500lb bomb during 60 degree dives at up to 310 knots.[11]
[11]Mason, Tim. The Secret Years: Flight Testing at Boscombe Down 1939-1945, p269 (from wikipedia)
David Brown's Fairey Fulmar Mks I & II, Aircraft Profile 254. States a patrol endurance of 5.5 hours and a patrol radius of 320 miles. He states a combat strike radius of 220 miles with a single 500lb bomb. These figures appear to be in statute miles but with combat allowances for fuel consumption. It would appear that the Fulmar was potentially a very good dive bomber.

[Bgile]

Well, the SBD can carry a much superior bomb load over a greater range and competes reasonably well with the Fulmar as a fighter. How about replacing all the Fulmars with SBDs?

[dunmunro]

Well, the SBD can carry a much superior bomb load over a greater range and competes reasonably well with the Fulmar as a fighter. How about replacing all the Fulmars with SBDs?

The lack of folding wings disqualified the SBD from FAA service. As well it's power to weight ratio was 30% lower than the Fulmar.

[Bgile]

Well, the SBD can carry a much superior bomb load over a greater range and competes reasonably well with the Fulmar as a fighter. How about replacing all the Fulmars with SBDs?

The lack of folding wings disqualified the SBD from FAA service. As well it's power to weight ratio was 30% lower than the Fulmar.

The Fulmar has tradeoffs too, such as it's liquid cooled engine, it's bomb load and it's range. And you are discussing putting them on US carriers, where they served most of the war, folding wings or not.

[dunmunro]

dunmunro, what specifications do you need? Just count the number of wings! The Royal Navy was so satisfied with biplanes that they accepted a new biplane, the Sea Otter, in 1944!

Do you really want to bring up the Firefly? First operational in late 1943, it was actually slower than the prewar Hurricanes and even the wretched Brewster Buffalo. The Barracuda, also introduced in 1943, had only two rifle caliber guns and, for 1943, really bad range. It was also about the ugliest plane that wasn't a French heavy bomber of the early 1930s. The FAA realized the limitations of these planes and got rid of them as soon as they could (the Barracuda was in service less than a year, much of it employed as a minelayer), replacing them with Corsairs, Hellcats, and Avengers. They kept some Fireflys around as strike pathfinders because of their obsession with two-seat fighters. An indication of their relative worth in the FAA's eyes is shown by the numbers employed. There were fewer than 1000 Fireflys ever built while the Royal Navy had over 2000 lend-lease Corsairs and another almost 1200 Hellcats (originally Gannets). In the Spring of 1945 in the Pacific, Illustrious carried no British planes (36 Corsairs and 16 Avengers).

I didn't reply to this post because it draws the thread off it main topic which is a comparative study of FAA aircraft that were in service up to 1942. I have already outlined the reasons for the next generation of FAA aircraft, the Firefly and Barracuda being delayed due to lack of design and production priority but I guess I have to point out the errors in the above post by Keith Enge.

1) The Firefly was a long range day/night strike fighter. It was not designed to function primarily as a point defence fighter, but had it entered service in 1941/1942, as planned it would have been fully comparable to existing USN and IJN fighters in terms of performance yet having far more firepower while being able to lift a wide variety of external stores. The Firefly could also function as strike aircraft and could carry up to 2 1000lb bombs. The Fairey-Youngman flaps gave the Firefly outstanding manoeuvrability and it was probably the only Allied fighter that could out turn a Zero:

Toward the end of 1943, Firefly F.1 Z1883 was sent to the Naval Air Fighting Development Unit, then based at RAF Wittering, for tactical trials. These revealed that, although the Firefly F. 1 had good handling characteristics, it would be more suited for long-range close-escort duties and/or as a naval night fighter, rather than as a straight day combat fighter. The trials also showed that in mock combat with contemporary single seat fighters, the Firefly's turning circle was outstanding when the pilot lowered the flaps to the mid-position. In fact, Firefly F.1 Z1908 was sent to the US for such trials at a Joint Fighter Conference, where it was flown against various British and American fighters, including a captured Japanese Mitsubishi A6M2 Type O 'Zero.' When its flaps were lowered to the mid-position, the FireflY could out-turn the Zero.
Greer, Fairey Firefly in Action, p6

Eric Brown, in Wings of the Navy, was high impressed with the Firefly:

APPELLATIONS assigned to combat aircraft have ranged over the years, the full gamut from sublime to ridiculous, but there can have been few more truly appropriate examples of aeronautical nomenclature than that assigned to Fairey's final fighter, the Firefly. The lampyrinae from which the name was borrowed have the property of emitting phosphorescent light, and if their Fairey-built namesakes were not exactly luminiferous, they were luminaries in the sense that, among shipboard aircraft of their day, the combination of supreme versatility, tractability and reliability that they coupled with performance, handling qualities and firepower was unrivalled. Indeed, the extraordinary amenability that the Firefly was to reveal to an unprecedentedly broad role spectrum was to endow it with a life span of almost a quarter century.

2) The Barracuda served from 1943 on RN CVs and CVEs until the end of the war. It's range when, first introduced, was fully comparable to the TBF-1 and the Helldiver and the Barracuda was both an excellent TB and DB. Like the Firefly it suffered, most of all, from low design and production priority, especially from the protracted development of the RR Griffon engine, which was also a by-product of a lower design and production priority, including complete suspension during the BofB. Yet when the Barracuda was fitted with a Merlin 32 engine, it became a very competent naval strike aircraft, able to perform a dual TB/DB strike role even when operating from the short flight decks of older CVs, such as Furious.

[Keith Enge]

dunmunro says:
It would appear that the Fulmar was potentially a very good dive bomber

As proof, he cites some June 1942 trial which showed that the plane was capable of bombing at a 60 degree angle. That is not divebombing, it's glide bombing. Glide bombing isn't anywhere as near accurate as divebombing. Furthermore, it gives AA gunners a much better firing solution. Also, because you are flying over the target rather than diving at it, you can't use your guns to suppress AA fire. The Fulmar's 0.303" guns don't have the size to be much good as suppression in any case. The inline engine with its coolant plumbing is also more vulnerable to AA and even small arms fire than a radial engine. Since you can't divebomb, you might try to strafe but here the same problems occur. You can't suppress fire, your engine is vulnerable, and you don't have adequate speed either. The Fulmar was based on the Fairey Battle and shared many of the problems of that dismal plane.

In another post, dunmunro extols the virtues of the Fairey Barracuda. I disagree here too. Since, in that same post, he cites Eric Brown's opinion of the Fairey Firefly, I'll use that same author to contradict dunmunro's praise of the Barracuda. In "Duels in the sky", Brown says,"the Barracuda was the Royal Navy's albatross. Its performance was pathetic by contemporary standards and its defensive armament was poor". On the same page, he continues "the Barracuda had virtually no hope of survival against any German or Japanese fighters it was likely to encounter". I sometimes question Brown's judgment and impartiality but, in this case, he was spot on.

[lwd]

... As proof, he cites some June 1942 trial which showed that the plane was capable of bombing at a 60 degree angle. That is not divebombing, it's glide bombing. Glide bombing isn't anywhere as near accurate as divebombing. Furthermore, it gives AA gunners a much better firing solution. ....

This seems to have been the problem with the SBD's that attacked from Midway. Most of the Marine pilots were not trained in dive bombing so a glide bombing attack was conducted. The result was no hits and as I recall some significant losses.

[dunmunro]

By definition, all the 10 Barracudas (G&D state 9) that dropped 1600lb bombs on Tirpitz on April 03 1944, had to drop them in 60deg (or less) dives, but with the additional complication of having to drop them above 3500ft (although not all did), yet despite these handicaps, they hit Tirpitz with 4 of 10, 1600lb bombs dropped on that day.

[Bgile]

Tirpitz was sitting still, or moving?

[dunmunro]

Tirpitz was sitting still, or moving?

Tirpitz was moving at about 5-10 knots during the first attack and partially covered by a smokescreen during the 2nd attack.

[dunmunro]

On the same page, he continues "the Barracuda had virtually no hope of survival against any German or Japanese fighters it was likely to encounter". I sometimes question Brown's judgment and impartiality but, in this case, he was spot on.

The Barracuda, clean, with 1/2 fuel was a ~11000lb aircraft with a 1600hp engine, the SB2C-4 in similar configuration had similar power to weight ratio, while the TBF1-C is a bit worse. The speed and rate of climb of these aircraft while using combat power is not much different while the Barracuda's Fairey-Youngman flaps gave it outstanding manoeuvrability. The rear gunner's armament is typically a single .5" MG on the USN aircraft versus twin .303 MGs on the Barracuda. The USN aircraft have 2 x 20mm or 2 x .5" MGs firing forward, but these were of little use against contemporary fighters, although they were useful in the strike role. The Barracuda's chances of survival against a determined attack by enemy fighters were probably about the same as either USN strike aircraft, which is why they all required fighter escort.

[Bgile]

I thought pilot's comments on Barracuda was that it was very slow to initiate a roll/turn, which made it hard to take evasive action after releasing a weapon. Obviously if that is true, it would have more trouble than normal with fighers since it would be unable to take evasive action quickly. And of course the vulnerable liquid cooled engine.

The TBF/TBM had a ventral .30 MG in addition to the .50 turret on top.

I believe one Dauntless destroyed three Zeros in a dogfight. What was the Barracuda's record?

[dunmunro]

I thought pilot's comments on Barracuda was that it was very slow to initiate a roll/turn, which made it hard to take evasive action after releasing a weapon. Obviously if that is true, it would have more trouble than normal with fighers since it would be unable to take evasive action quickly. And of course the vulnerable liquid cooled engine.

The TBF/TBM had a ventral .30 MG in addition to the .50 turret on top.

I believe one Dauntless destroyed three Zeros in a dogfight. What was the Barracuda's record?

I haven't read anything to suggest a lower than average roll rate for the Barracuda. BTW, here is a NACA report on the Fairey Youngman flap, as used on a P4/34 (prototype Fulmar):
http://aerade.cranfield.ac.uk/ara/arc/rm/2547.pdf

The ventral MG was often removed, IIRC.

Yet some believe that the Fulmar which was faster, had lower wing loading and more firepower than the SBD would not be able to stand up to the Zero...

[Bgile]

My Father in Law served on TBMs in the latter part of WWII, and operated the ventral MG and the radio. He described a number of engagements to me, and never indicated it was removed. It would have been a major thing, since he spent a lot of time firing it during strafing attacks.

[dunmunro]

My Father in Law served on TBMs in the latter part of WWII, and operated the ventral MG and the radio. He described a number of engagements to me, and never indicated it was removed. It would have been a major thing, since he spent a lot of time firing it during strafing attacks.

I looked through several sources and lots of photos. It appears as though most TBF/TBMs retained their ventral guns, but the final wartime production models (TBM-3E)did delete it according Walk Around TBF-TBM Avenger.