I remember a discussion about the practicality of a single-seat Firefly: I'm not sure how realistic the concept would work, but I was thinking
- Specification N.8/39: Issued in 1939 for a twin-seat carrier-based fighter to replace the Blackburn Roc
- Specification N.9/39: Issued in 1939 for a twin-seat carrier-based fighter to replace the Fairey Fulmar
This specification carried forward into N.5/40 which was called a two-seat carrier-based fighter: The RN had the mentality that over long-ranges you'd need a navigator even on a fighter, though most navies had already ditched that idea if they ever entertained it. I was thinking, what if at this point the decision was made to just ditch the two-seat arrangement. The turret-fighter was abandoned, and there really isn't any need for a naval-fighter to have two crew-members.
I remember a discussion which stated to the effect that the navigator and all his equipment, would effectively dump something like 1,000 pounds off the aircraft. While, the pilot would need the maps and a map-table, it's possible that a significant amount of weight could be dumped off the aircraft without too much difficulty. From what it would appear the aircraft had a number of great qualities
- A powerful engine in the form of the RR Griffon
- Wide-spaced landing-gear legs
- A large wing with Fairey-Youngman flaps that provided good low-speed handing and excellent maneuverability
- A good payload, and cannon armament
It would be faster with the reduction in weight and would be more maneuverable provided the wing size stayed the same
There's a great single seat Firefly on Hyperscale. Here
http://www.network54.com/Forum/149674/message/1343871089/Single+seat+Fairey+Firefly+Fighter............ (http://www.network54.com/Forum/149674/message/1343871089/Single+seat+Fairey+Firefly+Fighter............)
David
theres also this one that I did at least 14-15 years ago.
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi2.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fy22%2Fmartinhiggs%2FFirefly%2520pic%25201_zpsnw97z3xc.jpg&hash=09669bc05fa0ac631d40b03cb2ae603395023bfb)
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi2.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fy22%2Fmartinhiggs%2FFirefly%2520pic9_zps9fun2ufy.jpg&hash=ab20b040a41f530f5d3cd1e742f9e7c639640cd4)
Yee olde Airfix kit with a Bearcat canopy from Squadron.
Quote from: KJ_Lesnick on July 03, 2016, 10:27:49 AM
and there really isn't any need for a naval-fighter to have two crew-members.
You may think that, and I may think that, and many of us on here may think that, but their Lords of the Admiralty at the time DIDN'T think that.........
There was the proposed SAAB J-27 fighter, based on the Firefly as well.
Let's see, all the American scouts who also double as divebombers have two 2 crew members. And Americans opt for making the carriers as aircraft carriers whicg means they can field more planes per ship. While the British opt for smaller but stronger ships confident 250 kg is the max amount of weight that can ever be dropped on a ship. Which means their fighters must also be scouts?
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. Plus the RN thought you needed a separate radioman/gunner. Imperial Japanese Navy thought the same way in the 30's.
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"
dwomby & Martin H.I'm quite glad to know I wasn't the first person to think of the idea!
PR19 KitQuoteYou may think that, and I may think that, and many of us on here may think that, but their Lords of the Admiralty at the time DIDN'T think that.........
I'm aware of that
NARSES2QuoteRN 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?
QuotePlus 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.
QuoteImperial 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...
QuoteAs 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.
It's easily missed but the Admiralty did order a single seat fighter at the same time as the Firefly, the Blackburn Firebrand. It's just that the Firebrand took so long to iron out the problems that it entered service as a strike fighter instead and not until the war had ended.
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).
Now what's really interesting is that Fairey did design a single seater aircraft as well. It was similar to the Firefly and also Griffon powered, but a surpsingly pretty design considering it came from Fairey! Unfortunately I can't find any pics on the web but there's a three-view and artists impression in BSP Fighters and Bombers. It's one of my favourite wartime naval fighter designs and I've thought about modelling it using an old Novo Firefly F.1, it'd need some very hefty mods though. There was also a Sabre engined design that was slightly larger, I've not seen pics of that one though.
MossieQuoteIt's easily missed but the Admiralty did order a single seat fighter at the same time as the Firefly, the Blackburn Firebrand.
The Firebrand was initially intended as a land-based fighter
(much like the J-series of planes the IJN used) to protect Naval bases. Admittedly, it was eventually adapted for use on a carrier.
While the plane may have had a better rate of climb and power-to-weight ratio: It didn't appear to be as maneuverable as the Firefly. Admittedly, on paper I'm not sure how if a single-seat Firefly would have had a chance.
Looking at performance figures, which admittedly are tainted by the fact that I only have data on the Firefly F.1, and the Firebrand TF.4 (not the first of each mark), in the air to air weights
- It had a higher promised top-speed
- It had a higher power-loading
- It had a lighter wing-loading
- It had a higher aspect-ratio
- It had more rounds per gun
Admittedly, the Firefly could still turn tighter, presumably roll-faster, and the Blackburn design also never met it's top speed requirement far as I know, except in dives.
QuoteIt's just that the Firebrand took so long to iron out the problems that it entered service as a strike fighter instead and not until the war had ended.
Which is a big problem obviously
QuoteNow what's really interesting is that Fairey did design a single seater aircraft as well.
Cool!
QuoteUnfortunately I can't find any pics on the web but there's a three-view and artists impression in BSP Fighters and Bombers.
You know, you can scan that in and post the picture online
(Tiny Pic (http://tinypic.com/) is a good one), as long as you don't violate any copyright laws.
From British Experimental Combat Aircraft of World War II, by Tony Buttler.
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi92.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fl23%2Fchris7421%2FFairey%2520F.jpg&hash=a0aeac2a677da1cdf5605254e25206ee87618ef1) (http://s92.photobucket.com/user/chris7421/media/Fairey%20F.jpg.html)
Chris
I'll see what I can do with the pictures, my scanner is not working well and I don't currently have access to one. I'll see if I can find another way.
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
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi275.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fjj307%2FAllanscott31%2FFirefly%2FP1010036.jpg&hash=935cccdd46819ca8840a5862d6801064c558fcfe)
Quote from: KJ_Lesnick on July 05, 2016, 11:03:46 AM
The Firebrand was initially intended as a land-based fighter (much like the J-series of planes the IJN used) to protect Naval bases. Admittedly, it was eventually adapted for use on a carrier.
No idea where you're getting your (mis) information from
From your favorite website - wiki
"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
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi703.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fww37%2Fjmsfbip%2FFlyBuster.jpg&hash=48315f8f35df39a8d0a58c693867e497549977e1)
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 ---
Quote from: Captain Canada on July 05, 2016, 03:07:10 PM
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
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi275.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fjj307%2FAllanscott31%2FFirefly%2FP1010036.jpg&hash=935cccdd46819ca8840a5862d6801064c558fcfe)
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
dogsbodyQuoteFrom British Experimental Combat Aircraft of World War II, by Tony Buttler.
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi92.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fl23%2Fchris7421%2FFairey%2520F.jpg&hash=a0aeac2a677da1cdf5605254e25206ee87618ef1) (http://s92.photobucket.com/user/chris7421/media/Fairey%20F.jpg.html)
That was proposed in 1944...
kitnut617QuoteNo 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
QuoteIn 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.
Quote from: KJ_Lesnick on July 06, 2016, 09:39:37 AM
kitnut617
QuoteNo 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
QuoteIn 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 -----
Quote from: KJ_Lesnick on July 04, 2016, 08:57:11 AM
NARSES2
QuoteRN 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?
QuotePlus 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.
QuoteImperial 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...
QuoteAs 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.
Quote from: Captain Canada on July 05, 2016, 03:07:10 PM
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
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi275.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fjj307%2FAllanscott31%2FFirefly%2FP1010036.jpg&hash=935cccdd46819ca8840a5862d6801064c558fcfe)
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:
That is a great starting point, but if that's a Mustang prop...did they put a Merlin in it??
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?
Quote from: tahsin 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?
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.
Quote from: tahsin on July 08, 2016, 01:02:02 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.
Quote from: Mossie on July 04, 2016, 03:54:48 PMN.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.
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.
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.
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....
wuzakI'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?
.
MossieQuoteI 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
Quote from: KJ_Lesnick 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?
Still not as fast as a Seafire with the same engine. Maybe a few mph faster than the 2 seater, not a whole lot.
I doubt that the wing would reduce much, if at all, simply because that is 470lbs more fuel/ammo/bombs that can be carried by the aircraft.
wuzakQuoteStill not as fast as a Seafire with the same engine.
I had kind of gathered that, though I just wasn't certain to the extent. I assume by a few miles an hour you mean somewhere between 0 and 10 mph?
Regardless: I do remember reading something about proposals issued for the following
- Single-seater: Top-speed of 330 knots
- Twin-seater: Top-speed of 300 knots
It seemed that even the twin-seater didn't quite measure up in terms of speed
QuoteI doubt that the wing would reduce much, if at all, simply because that is 470lbs more fuel/ammo/bombs that can be carried by the aircraft.
If you were to make a guess, what would you venture? If not, would it be a good estimate to simply scale the wing-loading to the weight?
Quote
Quote
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.
Nobody looks for the inevitable inherent flaw in some British ship of long past.
We have only established it in the mind numbingly pathetic Turkish way that the driving rationale for the design of the RN for the WW II was a requirement to fight Japan in the Pasific, possibly after securing the route. Meaning assuring the security of Suez with defeating the Italian fleet in a Nelsonian decisive engagement. Or as a rather easier proposition of destroying Turkey and capturing the Straits to bottle a Soviet fleet in the Blacksea, for which Churchill might assemble a Balkan Alliance.
The aircraft carrier of the RN was a support element for the big guns of the battleships, scouting to locate the enemy, spotting for gunfire, a couple of fighters to down enemy scouts and possibly knocking out enemy ships in many Mediterranean ports as they refused to challenge the RN blockade. When these ideas were first mooted, planes tended to have 200 hp engines and fabric wings, ideally a double set of wings. Americans started the same but they had all the money in the world but no requirement to survive attacks by land based aircraft; and a further distinction in the existantial need to have a credible aerial anti-shipping capacity to stop the Army Air taking over everything. Japanese on the other hand had a very serious desire to be able to defeat the Anglosaxons in a very quick way, due to the simple fact that they could have never won against either of the Anglosaxon powers in any protracted war. Fighting against an alliance of both was even more hopeless. As such Japanese planes had the longest range so that they could attrite enemy fleets, knocking out a cruiser or two before the main battle without risking a counter-attack from enemy carriers. Only because the Japanese carriers would be made out of paper. Almost... So that they could have of more of them with so much of Japan's steel production being out of scrap metal from the US. While Americans carried the heaviest bombs to smash a cruiser or two before the main battle. And American ships could dare ignoring armoured decks, because they could have so many of them to have a viable fighter cover. And the British could not have so many carriers, being almost bankrupt in the Great War. So they armoured their flat-tops.
End result was that at similar tonnage, the first Essex carried 50% more aircraft than its British equivalent which probably took 5 years to be sent into action, a period possibly 3 times of the American carrier. And the concept was entirely validated by the broomsticks sweeping that Kamikaze off the deck.
Now that there could be 3 Essexes instead of one armoured RN ship and hence the Americans could afford specilization with 9 planes for every 2 British, the RN flyers had to be multi-task. Their fighters were actually scouts and their scouts were fighters and so on. With two pairs of eyes being much better than one when searching for submarine periscobes and the like. Even the torpedo/dive bomber for war, Barracuda to be precise, was a scout plane, with maximum visibility for surface search. But is this the answer? Naturally, no.
Take note of the remarkable idea that the British were after land based Naval fighters in the mold of the J series of IJN... It's always the turkeys , the flops. Lockmart will never blame people for Supermarine B_tch, which was interceptor enough for any shore base. Always numbed by the unmentionable stories of WW II and not satisified by the everlasting glory of F-35 which can now even make it to Europe they have to blame the Firebrand on long dead people in America who used to advise people here in Turkey after joining NATO. And the failure the Firebrand is not enough on itself but the "success" of the Js must be on those long dead people as well. Jack, hted by the Japanese yet liked by the Allied test pilots and George being so fun (but still with 4 of those 250kg bombs)... OK, let's make this even better with a revelation on the designations of the entire IJN planes. With obviously some guy telling it all to the Japanese of the 1930s. Who actually had tails and lived on trees and lacked brains. A for fighter to defend their ships, B for bomber to attack American ships, C for scouts to find those American ships, D obviously dive bomber, E scouts on cruisers, G for Ground based and J for Japan! Making perfect sense to any White guy with Protestant beliefs or what?
Which actually was a legal argument of sorts when either Ford or ITT sued the US Goverment for bomb damage to their factories in the Nazi Germany that made Fw-190s. But this is the 21st Century and we all need a fresh air? Why, say the evildoers in the US come with Heinkel Blitz and trick Mitchell in his deathbed to get it for the Supermarine B_tch? So that the Nazis will have three 109s in the manhours that can build only one Schpitfeuer? But the good people answer that with Castle Bromwitch, the shadow factory, the secret factory that the evildoers never saw coming and hence won the Battle of Britain? As good as any but might turn British Nationalists the wrong way?
Quote from: KJ_Lesnick on July 09, 2016, 01:48:40 PM
QuoteI 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've got a different figure as well, the two seat Griffon powered design to N.8/39 is quoted as 10,627lb so that would make a difference of around 1200lb, significantly more.
Quote from: KJ_Lesnick on July 10, 2016, 07:14:24 PM
wuzak
QuoteStill not as fast as a Seafire with the same engine.
I had kind of gathered that, though I just wasn't certain to the extent. I assume by a few miles an hour you mean somewhere between 0 and 10 mph?
Regardless: I do remember reading something about proposals issued for the following
- Single-seater: Top-speed of 330 knots
- Twin-seater: Top-speed of 300 knots
It seemed that even the twin-seater didn't quite measure up in terms of speed
QuoteI doubt that the wing would reduce much, if at all, simply because that is 470lbs more fuel/ammo/bombs that can be carried by the aircraft.
If you were to make a guess, what would you venture? If not, would it be a good estimate to simply scale the wing-loading to the weight?
More figures from BSP Fighter and Bombers:
Type Max Speed Span Length Gross wing area
Single seat (Griffon): 381 mph/331 knots 42ft 0in/12.8m 34ft 3in/10.4m 292ft
227.2m
2Single seat (Sabre): 411 mph/357 knots 44ft 0 in/13.4m 35ft 10 in/10.9m 335ft
2/31.2m
2Two seat to N8.39: 319 mph/277 knots 48ft 0in/14.6m 39ft 3 in/12.0m 340ft
2/31.6m
2Firefly F.1 as flown: 316 mph/275 knots 44ft 6in/13.6m 37ft 7in/11.5m 328ft
2/30.5m
2
MossieQuoteI can't break it down, but I can tell you the overall difference between the Fairey single and two seat NAD 925/39 designs
Okay, so N.8/39 came first, then NAD 925/39, then N5/40?
QuoteMore figures from BSP Fighter and Bombers:
Type Max Speed Span Length Gross wing area
Single seat (Griffon): 381 mph/331 knots 42ft 0in/12.8m 34ft 3in/10.4m 292ft227.2m2
Single seat (Sabre): 411 mph/357 knots 44ft 0 in/13.4m 35ft 10 in/10.9m 335ft2/31.2m2
Two seat to N8.39: 319 mph/277 knots 48ft 0in/14.6m 39ft 3 in/12.0m 340ft2/31.6m2
Firefly F.1 as flown: 316 mph/275 knots 44ft 6in/13.6m 37ft 7in/11.5m 328ft2/30.5m2
I would have sworn that the Single-Seat Griffon was to be capable of 300 kts, though it's possible I could be wrong: The Secret Projects books contain some errors in some cases
(for example, a VFX design was listed as an FX entry); far as I know the Firefly F.I was listed as being capable of both 275 and 277 knots based on source
(Wikipedia: 275 kts; Capt. E.M. Brown: 277 kts); as for the subject of wing-loading these would produce massive discrepancies in both variants which seems odd.
QuoteI've got a different figure as well, the two seat Griffon powered design to N.8/39 is quoted as 10,627lb so that would make a difference of around 1200lb, significantly more.
Is this empty or with fuel?
Provided fuel-load is the same, this would produce substantial differences in wing-loading
Single-Seater Estimate #1
- Loaded Weight: 10627 lbs (Full Fuel, Guns)
- Wing Area: 292 ft2
- Wing-Loading: 36.3938 ft2
.
Single-Seater Estimate #2
- Loaded Weight: 10880 lbs (Full Fuel, Guns)
- Wing-Area: 292 ft2
- Wing-Loading: 37.2603 lbs/ft2
.
Twin-Seater Estimate
- Loaded Weight: 11350 lbs (Full Fuel, Guns)
- Wing-Area: 340 ft2
- Wing-Loading: 33.3824 lbs/ft2
.
Fairey Firefly F.I
- OEW: 9750 lbs
- Fuel: 1384.5 lbs (195.5 Imp Gal)
- Ammo: 404 pounds (1 API-T for every 4 API rounds, API-T: 262, API: 257g; Belt Weight: 2.828 kg per 100 rounds; 1 kg = 2.20462262 lbs)
- Loaded: 11538.5 lbs
- Wing-Area: 328 ft2
- Wing-Loading: 35.1784 lbs/ft2
Quote from: KJ_Lesnick on July 11, 2016, 02:26:38 PM
I would have sworn that the Single-Seat Griffon was to be capable of 300 kts, though it's possible I could be wrong: The Secret Projects books contain some errors in some cases (for example, a VFX design was listed as an FX entry); far as I know the Firefly F.I was listed as being capable of both 275 and 277 knots based on source (Wikipedia: 275 kts; Capt. E.M. Brown: 277 kts); as for the subject of wing-loading these would produce massive discrepancies in both variants which seems odd.
Tony Butler states elsewhere in the text that the two seater was to be capable of 300 knots and the single seater 330 knots. The odd error has crept into the Secret Projects books but I wouldn't take this to doubt most figures. Two knots difference isn't much of an error to worry about (talking of which I got the max speed slightly off for the griffon single seater, should be 382 mph/332 knots).
Quote from: KJ_Lesnick on July 11, 2016, 02:26:38 PMIs this empty or with fuel?
Provided fuel-load is the same, this would produce substantial differences in wing-loading
I've no idea, the table is a little ambiguous.
I wouldn't read too much into the figures for NAD.925/39, the spec and responses where put together quickly and the Air Ministry naturally disagreed with many of the numbers that were being thought up.
Mossie
QuoteTony Butler states elsewhere in the text that the two seater was to be capable of 300 knots and the single seater 330 knots.
Oh, okay
QuoteThe odd error has crept into the Secret Projects books but I wouldn't take this to doubt most figures.
No, they're
usually right...
QuoteI've no idea, the table is a little ambiguous.
Okay, I'm just curious what advantages to the Griffon have over the Sabre?
QuoteI wouldn't read too much into the figures for NAD.925/39, the spec and responses where put together quickly and the Air Ministry naturally disagreed with many of the numbers that were being thought up.
So you would say the 470 or 1200 weight difference is correct?
Quote from: KJ_Lesnick on July 11, 2016, 05:03:23 PM
QuoteI've no idea, the table is a little ambiguous.
Okay, I'm just curious what advantages to the Griffon have over the Sabre?
400-500lbs light and with a lower frontal area (by about 25%).
I think I have an Airfix boxing in the stash so I might have a go at this one myself. Might being the operative word!
Gondor
Good man! I'm keen to as well, it's a cool idea and the one with the Mustang prop really got my mind going.
Quote from: KiwiZac on July 14, 2016, 03:15:59 PM
Good man! I'm keen to as well, it's a cool idea and the one with the Mustang prop really got my mind going.
As the Firefly is much bigger than a Mustang, and by looking at the photo again, I'd say the prop comes off a P-47 and had the tips filed down slightly to round them off. Either way, it's the wrong hand for a Griffon engine.
I knew I should have bought that lot of 6 of the old ones when I saw it :blink:
Quote from: wuzak on July 11, 2016, 05:26:38 PM400-500lbs light and with a lower frontal area (by about 25%).
Sounds like a good reason.
By the way, what kind of superchargers they had?
Quote from: KJ_Lesnick on July 15, 2016, 09:52:42 PM
Quote from: wuzak on July 11, 2016, 05:26:38 PM400-500lbs light and with a lower frontal area (by about 25%).
Sounds like a good reason.
By the way, what kind of superchargers they had?
Large ones.
Quote from: wuzak on July 16, 2016, 01:46:33 AMLarge ones.
I meant like: Single stage, twin-speed, twin-stage, twin-speed, twin-stage, three-speed
Quote from: KJ_Lesnick on July 16, 2016, 05:51:42 PM
Quote from: wuzak on July 16, 2016, 01:46:33 AMLarge ones.
I meant like: Single stage, twin-speed, twin-stage, twin-speed, twin-stage, three-speed
You missed double sided.
Griffons came in all those variations.
Sabres only had single stage, two speed superchargers - but the early ones used double sided impellers (like the Rolls-Royce R).
The Firefly IV was the first production model to use a 2 stage Griffon. The Mk III was to use a Griffon 61, but it didn't go into production.
Earlier models had single stage engines.
All easily found through Google and wiki searches.
Quote from: wuzak on July 16, 2016, 05:56:00 PM
All easily found through Google and wiki searches.
Ed Zackery
Quote from: wuzak on July 16, 2016, 05:56:00 PMYou missed double sided
I didn't know that was a possibility, though I should have...
QuoteSabres only had single stage, two speed superchargers - but the early ones used double sided impellers (like the Rolls-Royce R).
Doesn't a twin-side act like twin-stage?
I checked the data on the Griffon II, and it would appear to have been a single-stage, twin-speed system.
The Rolls-Royce Merlin 60 series were first run in late 1941 and available in 1942 right? When were the Griffon first available in twin-stage form?
Quote from: KJ_Lesnick on July 16, 2016, 06:27:39 PM
Quote from: wuzak on July 16, 2016, 05:56:00 PMYou missed double sided
I didn't know that was a possibility, though I should have...
Well, it is!
Quote from: KJ_Lesnick on July 16, 2016, 06:27:39 PM
QuoteSabres only had single stage, two speed superchargers - but the early ones used double sided impellers (like the Rolls-Royce R).
Doesn't a twin-side act like twin-stage?
No.
Quote from: KJ_Lesnick on July 16, 2016, 06:27:39 PM
I checked the data on the Griffon II, and it would appear to have been a single-stage, twin-speed system.
Correct.
Quote from: KJ_Lesnick on July 16, 2016, 06:27:39 PM
The Rolls-Royce Merlin 60 series were first run in late 1941 and available in 1942 right? When were the Griffon first available in twin-stage form?
The first two stage Griffon was the 61. It was being run in 1942.
When were the first two stage Griffons available? When was the Spitfire VIIIG being tested and when did the Spitfire XIV enter production?
The single seat proposal, have you seen any drawings?