Author Topic: Single Seat Firefly  (Read 2969 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline kitnut617

  • That's got his tum rumbling already just by the sound of it.
  • Needs A Life Outside What-If
  • *****
  • Posts: 10343
Re: Single Seat Firefly
« Reply #15 on: July 06, 2016, 05:23:40 am »
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 ---
If I'm not building models, I'm out riding my dirtbike

Offline kitnut617

  • That's got his tum rumbling already just by the sound of it.
  • Needs A Life Outside What-If
  • *****
  • Posts: 10343
Re: Single Seat Firefly
« Reply #16 on: July 06, 2016, 05:26:08 am »
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
If I'm not building models, I'm out riding my dirtbike

Offline KJ_Lesnick

  • Needs A Life Outside What-If
  • *****
  • Posts: 2999
Re: Single Seat Firefly
« Reply #17 on: July 06, 2016, 09:39:37 am »
dogsbody

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

That was proposed in 1944...


kitnut617

Quote
No idea where you're getting your (mis) information from
I wasn't intending to mislead anybody...

Quote
"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

Quote
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.
That being said, I'd like to remind everybody in a manner reminiscent of the SNL bit on Julian Assange, that no matter how I die: It was murder (even if there was a suicide note or a video of me peacefully dying in my sleep); should I be framed for a criminal offense or disappear, you know to blame.

Offline kitnut617

  • That's got his tum rumbling already just by the sound of it.
  • Needs A Life Outside What-If
  • *****
  • Posts: 10343
Re: Single Seat Firefly
« Reply #18 on: July 06, 2016, 10:03:10 am »

kitnut617

Quote
No idea where you're getting your (mis) information from
I wasn't intending to mislead anybody...

Quote
"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

Quote
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 -----
If I'm not building models, I'm out riding my dirtbike

Offline NARSES2

  • Nick was always on his mind - just ask the Pet Shop Boys
  • Global Moderator
  • Needs A Life Outside What-If
  • *****
  • Posts: 34432
Re: Single Seat Firefly
« Reply #19 on: July 07, 2016, 07:50:48 am »

NARSES2

Quote
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?
Quote
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.

Quote
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...
Quote
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.
Decals my @r$e!

Offline Dizzyfugu

  • Needs A Life Outside What-If
  • *****
  • Posts: 8261
    • Lots of works in my FlickR gallery
Re: Single Seat Firefly
« Reply #20 on: July 07, 2016, 08:19:49 am »
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.  :thumbsup:

Offline KiwiZac

  • The Zac Attack is Back!
  • Needs A Life Outside What-If
  • *****
  • Posts: 1967
  • aka K5054NZ, proud Whiffer since 2005
    • Zac on Facebook
Re: Single Seat Firefly
« Reply #21 on: July 07, 2016, 01:48:35 pm »
That is a great starting point, but if that's a Mustang prop...did they put a Merlin in it??
I find it very hard to believe Academy would make a mistake like that he said sarcastically...

Offline tahsin

  • Makes own decals
  • ***
  • Posts: 345
Re: Single Seat Firefly
« Reply #22 on: July 08, 2016, 01:02:02 am »
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?

Offline rickshaw

  • Needs A Life Outside What-If
  • *****
  • Posts: 9291
Re: Single Seat Firefly
« Reply #23 on: July 08, 2016, 04:21:09 am »
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.
How to reduce carbon emissions - Tip #1 - Walk to the Bar for drinks.

Offline NARSES2

  • Nick was always on his mind - just ask the Pet Shop Boys
  • Global Moderator
  • Needs A Life Outside What-If
  • *****
  • Posts: 34432
Re: Single Seat Firefly
« Reply #24 on: July 08, 2016, 06:18:39 am »
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.
« Last Edit: July 08, 2016, 06:24:02 am by NARSES2 »
Decals my @r$e!

Offline wuzak

  • Full scale Arrow in basement
  • *****
  • Posts: 948
Re: Single Seat Firefly
« Reply #25 on: July 08, 2016, 08:07:02 am »
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.

Offline KJ_Lesnick

  • Needs A Life Outside What-If
  • *****
  • Posts: 2999
Re: Single Seat Firefly
« Reply #26 on: July 08, 2016, 06:17:57 pm »
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.

That being said, I'd like to remind everybody in a manner reminiscent of the SNL bit on Julian Assange, that no matter how I die: It was murder (even if there was a suicide note or a video of me peacefully dying in my sleep); should I be framed for a criminal offense or disappear, you know to blame.

Offline Mossie

  • Twiglet doctor
  • What-IF SIG
  • Needs A Life Outside What-If
  • *****
  • Posts: 13156
  • Don't laugh at his mule
Re: Single Seat Firefly
« Reply #27 on: July 09, 2016, 12:02:02 am »
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.
I don't think it's nice, you laughin'. You see, my mule don't like people laughin'. He gets the crazy idea you're laughin' at him. Now if you apologize, like I know you're going to, I might convince him that you really didn't mean it.

Online Doug K

  • Kitbasher
  • ***
  • Posts: 206
Re: Single Seat Firefly
« Reply #28 on: July 09, 2016, 01:06:42 am »
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....

Offline KJ_Lesnick

  • Needs A Life Outside What-If
  • *****
  • Posts: 2999
Re: Single Seat Firefly
« Reply #29 on: July 09, 2016, 01:48:40 pm »
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

Quote
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
That being said, I'd like to remind everybody in a manner reminiscent of the SNL bit on Julian Assange, that no matter how I die: It was murder (even if there was a suicide note or a video of me peacefully dying in my sleep); should I be framed for a criminal offense or disappear, you know to blame.