There's been a trend of designing two seat fighters. If anyone asked my opinion which no one has for the same reasons the Firefly form the 1st time pencil touched paper they knew that with the limited technology available in the early 40's having a navigator/ radar operator and most of all two more eyeballs was worth pretty limited performance loss. I've read in a few articles that imply that FAA flew more night missions than U.S.N. and Japanese navy. Having the pilot and the gib being able to concentrate on finding the boat while pilot can put all his attention to flying just following the directions to the target then back to base. I apologize for any spelling, or improper grammar. I ate more than a few minor explosive blast force TBI's. I'm also a Cajun and 1st generation to speak English as a 1st language.
Carrier borne aircrafts finding a secure way back to a moving carrier had been a serious problem before WW2. The US Navy solved it by deploying the secured radar based navigation aid YE-ZB 'Hayrake' as its standard homing system for carrier aircrafts early on. This tool had a range of over 270 miles and could be operated easily by the pilot alone without giving away the position of the carrier. The Royal Navy adopted this navigation aid later in the war which negated much of the needs for two seat naval fighters.
As a kid I never thought it was cooler than the Spitfire, but my opinions changed after really understanding it Genuinely believe now that it is one of my favorite old war planes and I can't help but think of it as essentially being a race car with a flat bed in the back
Probaly in the mid-1960s I remember passing Fairey's factory when it used to be beside the approach road to London Airport (now Heathrow), There was a stack of Firefly fuselages between the factory wall and the fence.
The first time I know of this aircraft was when I saw my classmate building one. That was 1/72 Airfix and the most impressive feature was the movable folding wings. Thank you for the upload.
The last Fireflies in service must have been the "target drone" conversions that were being flown (for test/delivery) from a Fairey facility at what was the Ringway Airport, near Manchester, England, in the late '50s. They appeared to be painted maroon or dark red. I found out later that they were destined to be flown pilotless, under radio-control, to serve as targets for missiles. .
Great video. I’m actually a big fan of the Firefly’s for-bare the Fulmar. There’s only one left and it’s static at the FAA museum in the UKs West Country.
It looks kind of nice, like it could perform, but just didn't have the performance. The little engine that could. It was like combining biplane speed with bomber turning ability. It seems like the British had their naval specifications too complex like the Germans wanting large bomber be able to dive bomb.
@@kentl7228 The Fulmar could out turn even the Italian bi-planes with its flaps deployed. It’s main let down was it’s RoC which was awful, admittedly. The need for large self sealing tanks, large ammo stocks, two crew and the general robustness required of naval aviation meant that the only engine around, although a great engine, still,wasn’t powerful enough for the plane. The RN was badly screwed over by the RAF during the inter war years (bloody Crabs again!). The FAA had to play major catch up once they had control back in ‘39 and at the start of the war as its fighter itinerary had planes like the Roc in it as well as lots Sea Gladiators and Skuas. The RN requirements for the next plane where based on the fact that RN armoured carriers had smaller air groups so their aircraft needed to be able to fulfil multiple roles - hence the inclusion of the wireless operator, observer position in the Fulmar so it could recon. and spot shot fall for the fleet. RN doctrine also required a dedicated navigator as they had found one of the biggest risks to aircraft and crews was getting lost over the sea (pre radar etc). It’s important to remember at this stage the worlds navies ‘Hot’ carrier operational experience consisted of one raid at the end of WWI. The Inter-War US fleet problem exercises , the Japanese Navy’s strategy plans and the Andrew’s carrier exercises were all coming in with differing results due to differing theatres and tactics. The RN expected to be fighting Nazi Germany/Kreigsmarine (zero operational carriers) and Fascist Italy/Regina Marine (ditto) so the need for a fighter to take on other fighters wasn’t envisaged. Royal Naval fighters would take on recon/snoopers, TBs and Dive/Level bombers and the Fulmar was well suited to deal with that type of aircraft and actually did so extremely well. Against modern, monoplane fighters the Fulmars kill to loss ratio was actually 1:1 but the cohort is tiny. Most Fullies were lost to return fire from bombers in later ‘41 and ‘42 when they had more armour plate meaning the Fulmars had to close up to make the rifle calibre guns defeat the armour - usually a hit in the nice big radiator in the nose. Against most fighters it could usually dive away (it was derived from a dive bomber after all) or out turn and evade them. The big question about the Fulmar is this. The chap in the rear would often arm himself. This was never by throwing toilet rolls btw but they did use Very pistols, SMGs and sometimes Brens, Lewis/Savage guns and Vickers K/GOs. The SMGs were described as “Tommy Guns” but this was often used as a generic term for a sub machine gun. They should have been Lanchesters as that’s what the RN purchased in 1938 (while the army were still dithering) but I’ve never found any definitive proof either way. The Fulmar was actually the most successful fighter of the Fleet Air Arm (ie it shot down the most enemy aircraft) and all FAA aces scored vics flying Fulmars at some point.
@@guaporeturns9472 I am replying to you on the forebear you mentioned, the Fulmar. To be simple. Slow and it couldn't turn so well. It looked capable, if overbuilt was a piece of junk as a fighter. The specifications created the problem by trying to mix roles together. The Germans did this problem with their heavy bombers and never made a good one.
@@geordiedog1749 Good points but turning ability isn't at just biplane speeds. I understand that the Fulmar did many attempted intercepts and couldn't even catch the enemy to risk or improve the kill ratios. I assume that if you were given the option of a Martlet or a Fulmar, you would rather fly the Martlet. ) I would. Let alone a Corsair (hard to land) or a Hellcat. PS. I do realise that you aren't exactly saying the Fulmar is brilliant or junk, whereas I am perhaps towards the latter. It seems they almost navalised the Battle, not quite serious there. I feel sorry for the Fairey design team because of the specifications, and who made the specifications because the RAF got priority and the Fleet Air Arm got the dregs which created the need for a do everything, imposible wonder plane.
As strange as it seems, they weren’t designed to go up against ‘nimble single seat fighters’. British aircraft carriers were expected (And designed) for use in the Atlantic where there wasn’t a threat of enemy aircraft carriers, so no fighters and too far for land based fighters. They just expected bombers. That’s why British aircraft carriers differed from American ones who expected to fight Japan in the Pacific, who did have carrier based fighters. So the British had armoured flight decks, limited space as all aircraft would need to be stored below because of the Atlantic weather and a twin seat fighter good enough to take on bombers and other roles, with a dedicated navigator to find their way back to the carrier. When people think of carriers and carrier fighters, they think of the US in the Pacific. It was totally different for the British.
I always found the idea of the Fairey Firefly being a fighter a bit weird. It was big, carried a crew man with equipment, and it had to battle Japanese fighter aircraft.
The owner in the video says it could outturn a Zero. It was also (certainly as it developed) faster, stronger and more heavily armed. So you can stop being weirded now.
Click the link to watch more aircraft, heroes, and their stories, and missions: www.youtube.com/@Dronescapes
There's been a trend of designing two seat fighters. If anyone asked my opinion which no one has for the same reasons the Firefly form the 1st time pencil touched paper they knew that with the limited technology available in the early 40's having a navigator/ radar operator and most of all two more eyeballs was worth pretty limited performance loss. I've read in a few articles that imply that FAA flew more night missions than U.S.N. and Japanese navy. Having the pilot and the gib being able to concentrate on finding the boat while pilot can put all his attention to flying just following the directions to the target then back to base.
I apologize for any spelling, or improper grammar. I ate more than a few minor explosive blast force TBI's. I'm also a Cajun and 1st generation to speak English as a 1st language.
Carrier borne aircrafts finding a secure way back to a moving carrier had been a serious problem before WW2. The US Navy solved it by deploying the secured radar based navigation aid YE-ZB 'Hayrake' as its standard homing system for carrier aircrafts early on. This tool had a range of over 270 miles and could be operated easily by the pilot alone without giving away the position of the carrier. The Royal Navy adopted this navigation aid later in the war which negated much of the needs for two seat naval fighters.
As a kid I never thought it was cooler than the Spitfire, but my opinions changed after really understanding it
Genuinely believe now that it is one of my favorite old war planes and I can't help but think of it as essentially being a race car with a flat bed in the back
Probaly in the mid-1960s I remember passing Fairey's factory when it used to be beside the approach road to London Airport (now Heathrow), There was a stack of Firefly fuselages between the factory wall and the fence.
Weren't they absorbed or merged with another company?
Did they use of these in the Pluskat strafing scene in The Longest Day?
The first time I know of this aircraft was when I saw my classmate building one. That was 1/72 Airfix and the most impressive feature was the movable folding wings. Thank you for the upload.
Thanks!
Thank you so very much!
Graceful little bird, very underrated
Excellent video, thank you.
Glad you liked it!
Strangely, there's a Firefly monument, a Firefly on a stick, in the middle of Griffith, NSW, 2680, Australia, some 400 odd miles inland from the sea!
The last Fireflies in service must have been the "target drone" conversions that were being flown
(for test/delivery) from a Fairey facility at what was the Ringway Airport, near Manchester, England, in the late '50s. They appeared to be painted maroon or dark red. I found out later that they were destined to be flown pilotless, under radio-control, to serve as targets for missiles.
.
Thank you for posting
Great video. I’m actually a big fan of the Firefly’s for-bare the Fulmar. There’s only one left and it’s static at the FAA museum in the UKs West Country.
It looks kind of nice, like it could perform, but just didn't have the performance. The little engine that could. It was like combining biplane speed with bomber turning ability. It seems like the British had their naval specifications too complex like the Germans wanting large bomber be able to dive bomb.
@@kentl7228 The Fulmar could out turn even the Italian bi-planes with its flaps deployed. It’s main let down was it’s RoC which was awful, admittedly. The need for large self sealing tanks, large ammo stocks, two crew and the general robustness required of naval aviation meant that the only engine around, although a great engine, still,wasn’t powerful enough for the plane.
The RN was badly screwed over by the RAF during the inter war years (bloody Crabs again!). The FAA had to play major catch up once they had control back in ‘39 and at the start of the war as its fighter itinerary had planes like the Roc in it as well as lots Sea Gladiators and Skuas. The RN requirements for the next plane where based on the fact that RN armoured carriers had smaller air groups so their aircraft needed to be able to fulfil multiple roles - hence the inclusion of the wireless operator, observer position in the Fulmar so it could recon. and spot shot fall for the fleet. RN doctrine also required a dedicated navigator as they had found one of the biggest risks to aircraft and crews was getting lost over the sea (pre radar etc).
It’s important to remember at this stage the worlds navies ‘Hot’ carrier operational experience consisted of one raid at the end of WWI. The Inter-War US fleet problem exercises , the Japanese Navy’s strategy plans and the Andrew’s carrier exercises were all coming in with differing results due to differing theatres and tactics. The RN expected to be fighting Nazi Germany/Kreigsmarine (zero operational carriers) and Fascist Italy/Regina Marine (ditto) so the need for a fighter to take on other fighters wasn’t envisaged. Royal Naval fighters would take on recon/snoopers, TBs and Dive/Level bombers and the Fulmar was well suited to deal with that type of aircraft and actually did so extremely well.
Against modern, monoplane fighters the Fulmars kill to loss ratio was actually 1:1 but the cohort is tiny. Most Fullies were lost to return fire from bombers in later ‘41 and ‘42 when they had more armour plate meaning the Fulmars had to close up to make the rifle calibre guns defeat the armour - usually a hit in the nice big radiator in the nose. Against most fighters it could usually dive away (it was derived from a dive bomber after all) or out turn and evade them.
The big question about the Fulmar is this. The chap in the rear would often arm himself. This was never by throwing toilet rolls btw but they did use Very pistols, SMGs and sometimes Brens, Lewis/Savage guns and Vickers K/GOs. The SMGs were described as “Tommy Guns” but this was often used as a generic term for a sub machine gun. They should have been Lanchesters as that’s what the RN purchased in 1938 (while the army were still dithering) but I’ve never found any definitive proof either way.
The Fulmar was actually the most successful fighter of the Fleet Air Arm (ie it shot down the most enemy aircraft) and all FAA aces scored vics flying Fulmars at some point.
@@guaporeturns9472 I am replying to you on the forebear you mentioned, the Fulmar. To be simple. Slow and it couldn't turn so well. It looked capable, if overbuilt was a piece of junk as a fighter. The specifications created the problem by trying to mix roles together. The Germans did this problem with their heavy bombers and never made a good one.
Thanks for the info!
@@geordiedog1749 Good points but turning ability isn't at just biplane speeds. I understand that the Fulmar did many attempted intercepts and couldn't even catch the enemy to risk or improve the kill ratios. I assume that if you were given the option of a Martlet or a Fulmar, you would rather fly the Martlet. )
I would. Let alone a Corsair (hard to land) or a Hellcat.
PS. I do realise that you aren't exactly saying the Fulmar is brilliant or junk, whereas I am perhaps towards the latter. It seems they almost navalised the Battle, not quite serious there. I feel sorry for the Fairey design team because of the specifications, and who made the specifications because the RAF got priority and the Fleet Air Arm got the dregs which created the need for a do everything, imposible wonder plane.
Kes me wonder how load the flight decks were on the light fleet carriers were during Korea.
Nifty was the first thing that came to my mind also
The British seemed to love the idea of Swiss Army knife airplanes...one that could do many missions
Appreciate your sharing, working on and posting these Sir. 🇬🇧 📚 🇺🇸
Much appreciated Dave!
Could you imagine taking a sluggish two seat plane against a nimble single seat fighter.
As strange as it seems, they weren’t designed to go up against ‘nimble single seat fighters’. British aircraft carriers were expected (And designed) for use in the Atlantic where there wasn’t a threat of enemy aircraft carriers, so no fighters and too far for land based fighters. They just expected bombers.
That’s why British aircraft carriers differed from American ones who expected to fight Japan in the Pacific, who did have carrier based fighters. So the British had armoured flight decks, limited space as all aircraft would need to be stored below because of the Atlantic weather and a twin seat fighter good enough to take on bombers and other roles, with a dedicated navigator to find their way back to the carrier.
When people think of carriers and carrier fighters, they think of the US in the Pacific. It was totally different for the British.
This is the internet. "We" are not American.
I always found the idea of the Fairey Firefly being a fighter a bit weird. It was big, carried a crew man with equipment, and it had to battle Japanese fighter aircraft.
It was a requirement by the fleet air arm that even their fighters needed a separate navigator to operate over the seas
The owner in the video says it could outturn a Zero. It was also (certainly as it developed) faster, stronger and more heavily armed. So you can stop being weirded now.
Darn. I thought he was going to show how the Firefly could fly with one wing behind its back.
Korea was a horrible war? What war isn't a horrible war?