Single Seat Firefly

[kitnut617]

I'd like to see one of these 'single-seat' Fireflys done to one of the later requirement for fighters, that is with a minimum of 7 degrees view for the pilot over the top of the cowling/spinner (i.e. Spiteful/Seafang/Sea Fury etc). These all had raised cockpits which tended to slope the top of the cowling up to the windshield.  I think a Firefly done this way would look quite smart, mind I would move the cockpit forward too ---

[kitnut617]

Great job on that one Martin ! I don't recall seeing it before !

*click* * save*

This one is pretty sweet as well, but not nearly Navy enough

I like that too, I wonder what propeller was put on it, doesn't look like a Firefly type but whatever it is, it's the wrong hand for a Griffon powered aircraft

[KJ_Lesnick]

dogsbody

From British Experimental Combat Aircraft of World War II, by Tony Buttler.

That was proposed in 1944...


kitnut617

No idea where you're getting your (mis) information from

I wasn't intending to mislead anybody...

"For this it needed an interceptor fighter. Experience in the Norwegian Campaign of early 1940 had also shown a high-performance, carrier-based, single-seat fighter would be an advantage."

Not anywhere is there anything that says it was designed to be a land-based aircraft, it was always to be a carrier born one

Just before that, it read

In general, the Fleet Air Arm had required fighters that were capable of navigating long ranges over sea and speed differential over attackers was not critical. However, while defence of British naval bases was a RAF commitment, provision had not been made for this and so the Admiralty accepted that it would have to take on the duty.

For some reason that's all I remembered.

[kitnut617]

kitnut617

No idea where you're getting your (mis) information from

I wasn't intending to mislead anybody...

"For this it needed an interceptor fighter. Experience in the Norwegian Campaign of early 1940 had also shown a high-performance, carrier-based, single-seat fighter would be an advantage."

Not anywhere is there anything that says it was designed to be a land-based aircraft, it was always to be a carrier born one

Just before that, it read

In general, the Fleet Air Arm had required fighters that were capable of navigating long ranges over sea and speed differential over attackers was not critical. However, while defence of British naval bases was a RAF commitment, provision had not been made for this and so the Admiralty accepted that it would have to take on the duty.

For some reason that's all I remembered.

Yeah! right!  it's just the next sentence after it -----

[NARSES2]

NARSES2

RN worked on the basis you needed a navigator to find the target and then find his way home and before radio aids you did.

How did the USN find his way to the target and home without a navigator?  Did we have better radio navigation?

Plus the RN thought you needed a separate radioman/gunner.

1. Why?

2. The Firefly didn't have a separate gunner as far as I know, the only armament was the forward 20mm's.

Imperial Japanese Navy thought the same way in the 30's.

I'm looking at a list of carrier aircraft designs from the 1920's all the way up until the A6M first flew and I've seen nothing to suggest this for a fighter-plane...

As for carrier construction ? To quote a USN liaison officer after a kamakazie hit on a RN carrier "In the USN after that it's 6 months in Pearl, In the RN it's sweepers man your brooms"

The RN and USN had different advantages and disadvantages in terms of carrier design.

Apologies I was just musing in general rather than talking specifically about the Firefly.

[Dizzyfugu]

Great job on that one Martin ! I don't recall seeing it before !

*click* * save*

This one is pretty sweet as well, but not nearly Navy enough

I like this conversion and the Saab 27 idea. Needs some more modifications (bubble canopy, radiator tunnel under the fuselage and clean leading edges on the wings), but that could! Thanks for posting. 

[KiwiZac]

That is a great starting point, but if that's a Mustang prop...did they put a Merlin in it??

[tahsin]

making it to target by 1945 as a suicider tended to mean an A6M with that 250kg bomb. Was it Illustrious that went to US for a year or two after Stukas did what they did?

[rickshaw]

making it to target by 1945 as a suicider tended to mean an A6M with that 250kg bomb. Was it Illustrious that went to US for a year or two after Stukas did what they did?

Illustrious.

However, that was because of a failure of the Czech made armour which had been used on her decking, not because of an inherent flaw in her design.

[NARSES2]

Was it Illustrious that went to US for a year or two after Stukas did what they did?

Yup and my dad was on one of the escorting ships. Hit in Jan 41, eventually reached Norfolk Navy Yard in May 41 after various stops. Work was finished end October and she returned home in Dec 41.

[wuzak]

N.8/39 and N.9/39 were not entirely satisfactory so an intermediate document was drawn up, NAD.925/39.  This created a requirement for a two seat aircraft that became N.5/40 (Firefly) and a single seat fighter that became N.11/40 (Firebrand).

Interestingly, Supermarine submitted a design of a two seat naval fighter to N.8/39, which was not related to the Spitfire - having a different wing shape and all.

Also, in early 1940 they submitted a proposed folding wing Spitfire with Griffon engine after a request from the Admiralty. Fairey was asked to help with production of such a machine, but said he wanted to build his own designs.

The Admiralty was keen on getting a navalised Spitfire into service after attacks on Scapa Flow.

[KJ_Lesnick]

I'm curious how much of the navigator's weight was consisting of

• Himself & his flight gear: I know how much an average man weighs, but I'm not sure how much the flight suit adds
  
• His map and map-tables
  

I was told the total would have been like 1,000 pounds of weight less, though it was just an estimate made by rickshaw, and I'm not sure if it includes the growth factor and everything.

[Mossie]

I can't break it down, but I can tell you the overall difference between the Fairey single and two seat NAD 925/39 designs:
Griffon powered aircraft with 4x cannon
Single seat:  9,380lb
Two seat:  9,850lb
Difference:  470lb

Sabre powered aircraft with 4x cannon
Single seat:  10,880lb
Two seat:  11,350lb
Difference:  470lb

All a bit neat with both coming out the same, but NAD 925/39 was put together very quickly.  Interestingly the Firefly FR.1 is quoted as 14,020 pounds so the original estimates were very optimistic.

[Doug K]

Some good background in William Harrison's "Fairey Firefly, Operational Record", single seaters, turret-equipped, and even one with a jet engine - Ryan Fireball-style....

[KJ_Lesnick]

wuzak

I'm curious about a couple of different things regarding the concept of a single-seat Firefly

• Provided the Firefly had the same engine, propeller, radiator design, fuel-load, and wing-design, but was 470# lighter and 2'2" shorter: How much faster would you speculate it would be capable of going if you were to venture a guess?
  
• Provided the Firefly was actually designed as a single-seater and 470 pounds lighter: Do you think the wing would have been designed smaller to go with it?
  

.

Mossie

I can't break it down, but I can tell you the overall difference between the Fairey single and two seat NAD 925/39 designs:
Griffon powered aircraft with 4x cannon
Single seat:  9,380lb
Two seat:  9,850lb
Difference:  470lb

Sabre powered aircraft with 4x cannon
Single seat:  10,880lb
Two seat:  11,350lb
Difference:  470lb

Okay, that's useful -- the plane would be 470 pounds lighter.

I could compile a chart of the Firebrand F.I (which I've been able to infer performance data based on Capt. E.M. Brown's book "Wings of the Navy" provided the data is correct), which I could compare to this aircraft with the following parameters measured

• Aspect Ratio
  
• Wing-Loading
  
• Power-Loading
  
• Fuel Fraction
  
• Weights