Fairey Fulmar - The Royal Navy's Stop-Gap Carrier Fighter | Aircraft History #8
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 26 ноя 2021
- The Fleet Air Arm was in need of a new fighter to replace its ageing fleet of Blackburn Skuas and Rocs, enter the Fairey Fulmer. Based partly on the Fairey Battle, this aircraft was originally intended for the RAF but never made it past air trials. The Navy realised it could fill in their needs, and save them the cost of fully funding a new design from the ground up, and so the aircraft entered production and was pushed into service.
Though heavy and slow, the Fulmar was used throughout a large portion of WW2 in one role or another. It saw most of its action in the Mediterranean, with aircraft carriers HMS Indomitable, HMS Formidable, and HMS Illustrious, but also served during the Battle of Norway, and in the Pacific. Its long range and relatively powerful armament made its a decent support fighter, though it struggled when facing modern combat aircraft.
The Fulmar left frontline service in late 1942/early 1943, but it achieved its main goal: which was to provide the Navy with a stop-gap until better aircraft like the Barracuda and the Firefly were able to enter service.
****
Producing these videos is a hobby of mine. I have a passion for history, and personally own a large collection of books, journals and other texts, and endeavor to do as much research as possible. However if there are any mistakes, please don't hesitate to reach out and correct anything :) 
Наука
![Fairey Swordfish | Darling of the Fleet Air Arm [Aircraft Overview #16]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Y7km1F_6eqM/mqdefault.jpg)
![Fairey Swordfish | Darling of the Fleet Air Arm [Aircraft Overview #16]](/img/tr.png)
The other reason that the RN wanted two-man crews was for communication. RN aircraft didn't use use r/t (radio telephony), they used w/t (wireless telegraphy) so you you needed a crew member who could communicate in Morse Code.
You said it, it is impossible to communicat by Morse code and fly an airplane at the same time, if only one man is in the aircraft.
@@jmrodas9 Also easier to navigate over sea if the co -pilot can map plot. Ands primary role was to beat off Ju88 and Condor bomber attacks.
@@jmrodas9 well originally Spitfires had morse keys so it was perfectly possible.
Those were so the pilot could communicate using nav lights not radio. How do you think they could fly a spitfire and receive and write down morse code?@@womble321
Just a little correction: Fulmar was never intended to be the full air defence fighter, which was something the admirals desperately wanted. It was problems at the Spitfire plant at Castle Bromwich that forced it into that role.
The FAA had long had three carrier borne aircraft requirements: A three-seat torpedo / spotter / reconnaissance aircraft whose specification requirements were prefixed by an 'S' - S.15/33 for instance being the Swordfish; A two-seat light bomber / escort fighter / reconnaissance aircraft prefixed by an 'O' - O.27/34 being the Skua; And a single seat fighter for fleet defence prefixed by an 'N' - N.18/37 for the Gloster Sea Gladiator.
S stood for strike, N for naval fighter - been that way since the Fairey Flycatcher (N.6/22) and the Blackburn Blackburn (S.3/21) The first O type aircraft was the Hawker Osprey, (O.22/26) the navalised version of the Hawker Hart. This was for light bombing and reconnaissance, such was its performance it had a secondary escort fighter capacity. The TSR bombers were hindered by their slow speed, necessary for torpedo carriage and dropping, but it meant they couldn't search the ocean very efficiently - a box search at 90kts is going to cover less space in the same time as one done at 180kts.
So the mission of the O type was light bombing, escort fighting but primarily observation. The Skua replaced the Osprey and the Fulmar (O.8/38) was to replace the Skua. It was stressed for dive bombing and every account of it during the war has dive bombing practice being conducted. They were commonly used as search and shadower aircraft. Victorious and Ark Royal used theirs this way against the Bismarck.
When the FAA decided to go all-metal monoplane you had Fulmar, Barracuda (S.24/37) and a naval fighter requirement (N.8/38) being a twin seat turret fighter. Hawker, Supermarine, Fairey, Gloster and Westland all put up proposals for both. The Blackburn Roc (O.26/36) had been developed the year before to explore the potential of the turret fighter idea and Admiral Ramsey the chief of naval air services had slated it's performance. N.8/38 was to address the speed and range issues, but none of the the proposals were ever built. The predicted performance of all of them fell far short.
Fairey had offered to build a navalised Spitfire for N.8/38 and Supermarine had put forward a twin seat that could be easily cut back to a single seat. N.925/39 was written the next year to confirm one of these powered by a Griffon to be the next single seat naval fighter.
Unfortunately this came about the same time as the Spitfire production line at Castle Bromwich failed to get up to speed in time. The FAA was told to use the Fulmar for both interceptor and observation/dive bombing/escort fighter as Fighter Command Spitfires took priority. But there was always a single seat fighter requirement for carriers from 1917 onwards.
I was just reading about this in ‘Fighters Over the Fleet’ Bloody confusing if you ask me. ( I’m easily confused, truth be told:) I think a large part of the problem was that the RN we’re trying to invent carrier tactics and choose a plane to go along with their choicesNever easy to be first at such things.
The Spits landing gear would have been a nightmare on a carrier. The first thing the navy asks when introduced to a new plane will be "can it land"
@@briansteffmagnussen9078 The Supermarine and Fairey pre-war Naval Spitfire's both had rebuilt undercarriage. As requested by the Admiralty and Fleet Air Arm.
Supermarine's N.925 had a completely rebuilt centre section with many improvements needed for carrier operation in 1939. Including hardier undercarriage and larger fuel tanks.
It's just no production effort was made to complete the projects and so old Spitfire Vs and VII's straight from RAF attrition stores were used. By which time war was upon them and they didn't care if a few got bent, they needed a high altitude fighter to chase off Ju.88s.
ll l
pp
It was a stop gap but not a particularly good one.
'Weighs one ton, with no rear gun.
You know what you can do with your Fulmer 2?
Old iron, old iron!'
I heard this on the tv in the 70's. I think on 'The World At War.'.
I've developed a weird obsession with this plane. It's a perfect example of "it's not what you've got, it's what you do with it." Although radar fighter direction development might be more important.
ETA, on Pedestal the Fulmars were drawn down to deal with one attack to allow another higher level attack to get through. They weren't swatted aside, the attacks were well organised.
Edit, I've got the wrong operation there, I was thinking of Excess. I recently came across a reference to them being used with F4 Martlet/Wildcats and Hurricanes on Pedestal, but unless I can get to Kew archives it will have to stay at that.
I love that feeling when I find an obscure aircraft and then suddenly need to learn everything I possibly can about it. Once the newness fades away and I have learned a lot about it.. I back off until another plane comes along. I did this very same thing with a few planes .. the Firefly and the Gannet being my last obsessions.
Malta: The Hurricane Years by Chris Shores covers these operations in decent depth. Well worth a read if you can find a copy.
Warby's War, is an excellent read. Adrian Warburton was a photo recon pilot, but a real chrachter, even flying in pyjamas, flying helmet and officers hat along with pipe or ciggie, accordind to his observation pilot.
I've added those two to my To Be Read list but may have to resort to Amazon to find copies .
"I feel the need,the need for speed".1938 RAF,probably.
And now, George Formby with his new hit, 'Motorway to the Precarious Zone'
DENIED!
@@WanderlustZero you win the fricking internet with that one!
@@WanderlustZero i have no idea who he is, but i heard that in a posh BBC announcer’s voice 🤣
@@bostonrailfan2427 I'd you're feeling brave, RUclips "my old man's a dustman" and either laugh or cry.
Actually worked on the last survivor at Lossimouth (HMS Fulmar) just after i finished training - it made its test flight with a bag of spuds on the back seat
Did the spuds survive?
I never knew this aircraft existed but it looks like a dive bomber wanted to be a fighter. Also great video man
technically it was being a version of the battle
Yes, it's correct. But Seafire and Sea Hurricane had problems in landing on the carriers deck because their landing speed were too high, and a lot of pilotes died. Instead this Fulmar had not. The presence of a navigator was a premium. It's job was not to fight with other fighters, but agianst torpedo bombers like our SM 79 or against Ju 87 dive bombers. It was very rare that italian fighters or german fighters could reach a RN carrier. It was a very good modification of an inusefull light bomber.
@@prowlus It looked like the "Battle" but it was quite different.
It reminds me of the Twin Beach.
It looks exactly like a battle … 😗. Good job the Italian aircraft were so bad and those Germans don’t turn up 4:56
The Fairey plane that got my attention (book: To War in a Stringbag) was the Swordfish, an obsolete biplane design that STILL found usefulness during WW2, esp with the Fleet. Your vids are a welcome fact-based tour of old aircraft, so I've just subscribed. Now for the deep dive back !!
Their high endurance allowed them an height advantage in initial engagements, which in turn gave more favourable kill ratios.
Navy: Sets out very modest performance goals.
Fulmar: Can't do it...
Not really. No.. Fulmars were an excellent multi role aircraft.
If they got rid of the unnecessary crewman and all the extra weight associated with that crewman its performance would have been close to a Spitfire
@@jamesricker3997 that’s interesting. They could’ve done a variant, maybe, with a single seat(I think that’s not as easy as it sounds:). But the second crewman was essential for the Fulmar to do what it had to do. FAA knew that operating over the ocean or sea meant navigation was a nightmare. You can’t look for landmarks. Also, the Fullies had to operate as Scouts and Recon. Also requires a WTO. Because the new British carriers were armoured carriers they had reduced capacity so the planes needed to fill a multitude of roles.
@@geordiedog1749 Excellent is really a stretch, but think what you like.
@@kyle857 I’ll do just that, ta.
Damn, in this context a few dozen Brewster F2A2 "Buffalos" would have been hot stuff!
Great vid Rex! Fascinating info, thanks for the upload.
I'm enjoying your videos. They're well-researched, scripted, and produced. Thanks!
The Henley is a real puzzle it was an excellent light bomber but only used for training.
yussss! another ww2 aircraft i got to know through IL2 (the game)
when i used to play it for hours daily (i don't play since i got a girlfriend ^ years ago, and when i try!! crash! bang! "pilot killed") i always put a squad of fulmars hanging about (second page of "quick mission" setup so if i took a nasty hit and needed to run home i'd call"anyone! help" and "brrrrrrang!" they would fall from up high with 8 mg blazing per plane...
Thank you again and again... i said i was not goimng to binge on your vids but i've been watching them all afternoon. my eyeballs are a bit inflammed (didn't have much sleep last week) but i can't stop!
you have created the equivalent of crack cocaine in the aviation video domaim.... and for rthis i'm still grateful like a ragged crackhead is for his supplier!
(this was a very bad joke, i always get in awful scrapes online because of my dark humour, sarcasm and polite anger ... i hope you'll understand the joke and not report me to the youtube PC police and that They will leave me be ,the defenders of sanitized freespeech so reminiscent of Orwell's 1984's Newspeak.... -see? i already start to rant! time to sayTHANKS for your great channel!)
Another great video feller! Keep up the good work!👍🏻
Thanks for this Rex. Just been reading some FAA memoirs ane wanted to get a brief on the fulmar. Good work as always.
Loving your work Rex.
Excellent history. Thank you.
Tbh this sounds like a plane that should be in WT even though its not
Still odd that the Fulmar, Barracuda and Skua aren't in the game yet - problem being they'd be pretty low tier and Gaijin don't seem very bothered by that anymore.
Apparently , the Fulmar shot down more enemy aircraft for the Fleet Air Arm than any other Fleet Arm Arm fighter. You can't argue with success.
In the 1941 movie "Ships With Wings" (featuring HMS Ark Royal before she was sunk), the Fulmar makes an appearance as a "prototype fighter."
Very interesting account of the Fulmar.
Excellent.
Thank You
The Rolls Royce Merlin III was a V-12 that underwent many improvements and saw a wide variety of configurations, but the best ratings were attained only in straight-and-level flight. Agile acrobatic flying invited power-robbing adjustments that led to in-flight disadvantage. It was always easier to attack from a dive than to defend from a climb, so developments were focussed on rapid take-off and climbing rates before air engagements were expected.
Almost as if it was designed to go into an interceptor...
I find it interesting that in all of the books or articles that I have read or videos viewed covering Taranto and the Bismark...none have mentioned the Fulmar, until now. Thank you.
I really think you should do a video or two on the British aircraft carriers. I know that and many other Americans never knew that Great Britain even had them firing the second world war. The only ones we ever hear about were the American navy and the carriers from Japan in the Pacific.
Sorry typing on my phone in a moving car. Old guy thumbs!
You should check out Drachinifels channel if you're after historical naval videos: ruclips.net/user/Drachinifel
I think Fulmars were a fine looking aircraft. The Fairey Firefly, and the Barracuda would be excellent video topics.
Could probably throw in the firebrand in there as well
Stop-gap status aside, TFW a naval derivative of the much-maligned base design, had chalked up way shinier successes during its service life. :P
Thanks Rex.
it was a nice looking plane.
Thanks again for this video.
Since I discovered your RUclips channel I have been like a child in a toy store!
At 7.14 what weird twisted roundels is this Fulmar sporting? Anyway, what a fine channel is yours! Can't have enough of this stuff! Fine videos, very well done and exceedingly interesting! Çela va sans dir, i immediately subscribed! Keep up the good work and thank you!
I believe that is an artifact caused by an error when scanning the original photo
The Fulmar served well in Royal Navy service, but by 1942 it was obvious they needed something better. The result was the vastly better Firefly, but that plane didn't really become widely available until 1944.
The Firefly was vastly better but still a vastly better type of Fulmar. i guess that if it's not broken then don't fix it.
The Fulmar was kept on as a night fighter on the escort carriers until they ran out of Fulmars, The last one being written off in an accident on HMS Campania in Feb 1945 (813 sq).
I get that special feeling whenever I see a Fairey Fulmar fly over?
Interesting.
This is a pretty cool aircraft. Kind of like the British version of the dauntless.
For the English, the Fairey Fulmar, made do, with a decent amount of success, it was a good plane! Very interesting.
The Fulmar was designed in the early 30s when the most likely enemy was NOT Germany, it was Japan. Long range was a requirement in the Far East, and the Fulmar would have performed well (or, at the very least, adequately) against Japanese aircraft. N.B.: NOBODY predicted that the Japanese would build Zeros. The RAF also designed the Wellington at this time, and it had a very long range for a medium bomber.
Britain never considered Japan a threat, before Germany it was Italy they saw as being their main naval opponent.
…and then when they were finally able to face the threats that they were needed for they were obsolete and underpowered and replaced by faster, heavily armed fighters
@@watcherzero5256 they actually did see Japan as a threat more so than Italy…the Italians weren’t a real threat as their fleet was obsolete and underpowered but Japan had the size, strength, and growing emphasis on airpower that Italy didn’t have
@@bostonrailfan2427 Britain was allied with Japan when it was stronger and Italy was the larger threat, then the threat became the resurgent Germans. Specification P.4/34 wasnt for a long range pacific fighter, it was for a close support dive bomber with a range of 1000 miles. The 1934 specification was three years before Japan finished its first successful carrier fighter, the A5M.
What a long boy!
at 7:35 - Prototype Firefly and (prototype or Mk1) Firebrand. Good shot. Wonder what ship that was.
At least its armament was adequate for a fighter of that era. And for knocking down bombers it was reasonably succesful.
07:10 oh my Fulmars were expected to fight like the HurriCats against FW-200s? That's a bit of madness there.
This is what happens when an Airforce controls the aircraft the navy can use. Fulmars were used as strike aircraft by the British Pacific Fleet. Could you imagine flying the two seat and under powered Fulmar against BF 109's.
Great video. I love the Fulmar.
I’m not sure where this idea that Fulmars got slaughtered by German fighters. They weren’t. There kill to loss ration against them was 1:1. Most Fulmars were lost to return fire from Bombers as they had to fly so close to make the rifle cal. Browning effective. .50s we’re fitted to some but the guns did poorly in cold climates. When attacked by fighters they dived away as they could dive at very high speeds. With flaps they could turn with the Italian Fiat biplane fighter. The question about the lack of rear gun was down to weight. However, this leads to the big question about the Fulmars……. Did the WT/Os carry Thompsons or Lanchester? Often described as being given a “Tommy gun” the word was often a generic word for SMGs. The navy had ordered Lanchester for its ships armouries back in the late thirties. If anyone knows please tell me
And remember, it’s not about top trumps - it’s about what worked. Fulmar was the top scoring aircraft in the FAA in WW2. All its aces flew Fullies at some point.
I'm not sure about use of the Lanchester in great numbers (few survived the war as surplus) but I know from my time in naval armouries that the 1928 Thompson was issued with drum magazines to FAA observers. (Many still reside in reserve storage)
The Fulmar at the FAA museum in Yeovilton has the observer mannequin equip with one such example of the weapon complete with forestock hand grip. Many of these were later given over to home guard units as the Sten replaced them in general issue and aircraft were equip with vickers/browning machine guns. The navy continued to issue the Thompson to landing parties and Marines.
@@1bert719 Ah ha!! More info. Great stuff and helpful with the mystery. Armoured Carriers is trying to get to the bottom of this as well.
So the story so far is that at the beginning of re-armament the British military had no SMGs (machine carbine is their nomenclature). The army needed a lot and had a competition (jointly identifying the 2 best guns at the time - the beretta and the Suomi) choosing the Suomi* because fascism. The navy needed far less weapons and just went with the Lanchester. Most pictures of Lanchesters are in navy hands. The navy got Thompson’s later when they ran out of their stocks of Lanchesters. Sorry if you know this already.
So, some Fulmar WTOs described having “Tommy Guns” but it turns out that they were using the name in its generic form. Nazis we’re often described by ‘Tommies’ as having “Tommy Guns” (MP40/41’s obviously) - the implication being gangster weapons used by gangsters. Tommy gun just meant SMG. There seems to be some evidence that Lanchesters were called Tommy guns and this was later interpreted as Thompson’s being used (“I was given a Lanchester Tommy gun for defence!”) But then the Navy did get Thompson’s as did the Army (ironically as they avoided the lanchester initially because it was machine tooled and expensive like the Thompson). It seems that the more well known Thompson was assumed as issued weapon when in fact they were Lanchester ‘Tommy Guns’. One report mentions his Tommy Gun being like “the Sten but with a wooden stock” which would describe a Lanchester.
So this were the confusion comes in.
*The Army ordered 20,000 Suomi SMGs but just as they were to be shipped to us uncle Joe turned up and the Finns kept them. Because they had lots of SMGs it affected tactics which the Soviets copied and the Germans learned from leading to the Stmg ‘43/44’s etc etc.
@@geordiedog1749 Although not as widespread the navy did also use (in limited capacity) and helped distribute the Marlin sub machine gun during the Mediterranean campaigns (especially the Greek island resistance units) this also resembles a Thompson minus the pistol grip and was generically referred to as a Tommy gun. (See the memoir "I'll met by moonlight") The navy discarded these cheaper weapons at wars end whilst the more engineered and thus expensive Thompson was retained as reserve weapons for a longer period. Though in my experience these were never again used and were sold off in batches. Several 1928 models found during the Irish troubles from the 50's onward were ex-navy stock either stolen or acquired via black market sellers. Hope this helps.
@@1bert719 Marlins. I forgot about them. The Marlin light MGs (potato digger:) ended up welded to the rails of coastal convoy colliers and RNPS trawlers. Marlins and Savage guns (Lewis guns only made by the Savage Co.) and anything else in storage from the great war.
@@1bert719 what is a Marlin SMG? There was the United Defense M-42, often called the "Marlin Sumachine gun", but I can't imagine mounting an SMG on a ships railing. Do you mean the Browning M1895 "potato digger" MG?
very successful plane
Quick synopsis, "The Fulmer was "adequate" as a fighter as long as it didn't face any aerial opposition."
Rex, I am trying to find the data on FAA breakdown of victories by aircraft type. I know that the Fulmar is the FAA top scoring fighter with something like 112, but many are unconvinced and are certain that the Martlet, or the Corsair or the Seafire had higher scores.
Could you provide a breakdown?
It would be much appreciated.
My preferred question for the show "Pointless" would to be to name British Military aircraft that used the Merlin; the Fulmar was one of the three. Luckily I have recently learned that the Beaufighter Mk II used the engine, son that is added to the Fulmar and Boulton Paul Defiant as my three likely choices - however, the Fulmar is now no longer my banker.
Spitfire, Hurricane, Lancaster, Halifax, Mosquito, Mustang, Welkin, York.
@@bassetdad437 Some good calls, but only the Welkin and York are likely to be 'pointless'.
I think the Fulmar was not bad but I really have a soft spot for the Firefly ( Version without the chin radiator).
The Firefly had the Griffin engine, so was a step up in performance over the Fulmar.
That's why the FAA began using Gruman Wildcats, Hellcats and Vought Corsairs.
4:40 sorry but the Incompetence of Italy never ceases to amaze and amuse me
Do a video about the Westland Wyvern please!
Loved the video @Rex's Hangar! Can't wait for the next video man! First video of yours that I'm watching and I'm loving the content! Don't suppose you have a video on the Fairey Swordfish, Fairey Firefly, Hawker Typhoon, Handley Page Halifax, Vought Corsair, Grumman Hellcat, Grumman Avenger, North American Mitchell or Consolidated Catalina aircraft by chance man?
Phew! I think you should have said Santa not Rex. That's quite the Christmas list you've got there, kid.
I got to see it in the faa museum
Could you imagine the Admral “there must be something wrong with our bloody planes today
The channel Armoured Carriers has a video with some good firsthand accounts by Fulmar pilots.
How was is that the Fulmar was " out matched " or " outclassed " by Stukas ?
Though I don't remember the source now, I once read that when under attack from the rear by fighters, the navigator (lacking a rear gun) would slide his canopy open just slightly and release sheets of toilet paper, which would look like tracers to the fighter speeding up behind and cause it to break off.
Possibly daft question, but I'm guessing the Fulmar's on the cam-ships would just have to ditch after their sortie? Or were they adapted for water landings?
Usually they were deployed in rang of land, I believe
@@RexsHangar ahh, that makes sense
Actually, yes, and the Hurricats that were used in addition to the Fulmars did indeed usually ditch after combat.
Teorically, otherwise the pilots had to try an emergency "landing" on the sea and (hopefully) being rescued by friendly ships. These kind of operations were a desperate measure, luckyly the arrive of escort carriers and VERY long range Catalinas & B24 made them obsolete.
I believe they were typically modified with air bladders and stuff in the aircraft, so it wouldn't sink so quickly and they'd have more time to be picked up.
But yes, they were one shot weapons effectively, although sometimes they'd fly on to land on land if close enough.
6:13 nice Albacore
Looks like a cut and shut of a Hurricane and Lysander.
Reminds me of the Sabca S.47
09:38 - I went to school with Stan Orr's sons. The subject of the Taranto Raid came up and I asked if he had been involved.
His airy reply, "I was around, I was around."
Taranto?
@@benwilson6145- Thank you, the joys of autocorrect.
Fairey Fulmar sounds terrifying.... lucky the war ended. there may have been a Handcock or a Bumstead.
I use to live in a village called Steeple Bumpstead, which is Anglo-Saxon English for a place with reeds. Its near Stansted Airport, which in WW2 had B 24's stationed there, but no Fulmars, alas..........
can someone identify the folded wing bi-plane with the fully enclosed cockpit at 6:16, I can't recognise it myself.
Albacore, I think.
Those were on CAMs ? Then I'd rather be thrown off a CAM I in a Fulmar than a Hurricane. Considering the range the Fulmar has, it would give me/us (if there's a navigator on board) a better chance to reach something less deadly to land on than the North Atlantic.
It sounds like the Fulmer was a good navy utility aircraft.
@RexsHangar >>> 👍👍
When you listen to stories like this. It begs disbelief. I had no idea how short sighted/blind/ignorant people can be.
I like the Fulmar. Always liked twin seat fighters. It wouldn't be able to outperform even an early JU 88 A or C, would it...
Maybe not...but the Firefly sure could.
Shot plenty of them down, though.
@@geordiedog1749 it did...but specifically because it was a peer-level aircraft, bomber vs. bomber-derived fighter.
The humble Brewster Buffalo would likely have handed both the unescorted Ju88s OR the Fulmar a mauling.
@@jacobmccandles1767 Fulmars did very well against much better Italian and German fighters than buffalos (fulmars v German Land based fighters loss to kill ratio was 1:1) They could turn with Italian bi planes with the use of their flaps and could out dive most other planes. Most fulmars were lost to return fire from enemy bombers later in their service when they had to fly so close to defeat upgraded armour with the 303s. I get you’re point though.
@@geordiedog1749 I really meant in the Battle of the Atlantic, not in the Med.
I'm not sure a 1:1 stalemate is "faring well", but it was better than a few Gladiators and spanned the gap.
Comes to it, the Buffalo fared better in Northern Europe than in the Pacific as well.
Did this become the Fairey Firefly?
Yes, it did. Much improved aircraft. Not that Fullies were bad. They were a very good multi role aircraft, given the circumstances. But Firefly’s were excellent.
Why is the Fulmar so long?
Who else had never heard of this plane?
So if the Battle had been Fulmars they would have been better?
7:39 Fairey Firefly
It was very lucky that the Italians didn't have any long range fighters, imagine if they'd pushed in service the long range version of the Reggiane 2000/2, the Regia Marina was interested, but the Regia Aeronautica vetoed it.
Alora….I don’t think it would have made much difference, to be honest. The Italians always had RA bases close enough to operate their land based fighter from, be it from Southern Italy, Sicily, Sardinia or North Africa. Fulmars handled both German and Italian fighters well thanks to ship based radar, it’s ability to dive at very high speed and it’s ability to turn tightly with flaps out. The loss to kill ratio with land based fighters was 1:1. Most Fulmars were shot down by return fire from bombers due to pilots having to close to suicidal ranges to make their rifle calibre Brownings defeat the armour plating.
Forward Italia!
A P47 would look pretty damned sexy parked next to a Fulmer.
Matter of opinion. :)
The Graf Zeppelin was completed but never commissioned. If it had been deployed it may have been a huge problem for the British.
Better than a battle anyway. A desperately needed stopgap.
Every Fairey aircraft that I've seen mentioned on this channel seems less than adequate, which would seem consistent with a name like Fairey.
usually (apart from the Swordfish) referred to as Fairey Failures.
When greenhouses go to war!
🇺🇸
We have a new aircraft requirement
A single-engine fighter with a long green house in the back for unnecessary crewman
The extra weight should decrease performance to the extent where it will not make RAF fighters look bad
And the swordfish must have been better because that is what they used if they weren’t bombing sharnhorst with wellingtons,Lancasters whatever
How did this aircraft fit into the defense of the rest of the realm?
I'll never understand why the admiralty insisted on a two seater for their carrier fighters.
Many of us think the same.
8 .30 cal guns is crazy, but i know why they used 30 cals
0.303, not 30 cal. Functionally equivalent though.
I wanna see a Topgun spoof/remake with an FAA Fulmar. Pilots Dissenter and Duck vie for the title of the top ace on the carrier HMS Illustrious in the Mediterranean with the rivals Ice Tea and Curry (a token pilot from the British Raj) and their navigators. (and to keep it historically accurate, those are the only 3 fighters on the carrier, all other 25 aircraft being the Swordfish...).
Is nice to see videos about little kwon ww2 aircrafts. I am tired of always hearing about mustangs, bf 109, zeros and spitfires.
Fairey Farmer? Fairey Former? Fairey Fulmar (Full ma) is how I thought it was pronounced. Still, as long as it did the job.
The Fulmar was obsolete before it even left the drawing board. The contemporary Grumman F4F was used by 6 nations, including Great Britain, the Brewster F2A was also used by 6 nations, including Great Britain, and the Vought F4U was used by 7 nations, including Great Britain. But the Fairey Fulmar was only used by one service, the Royal Navy. That should tell you something. As for needing a dedicated navigator to find one's way back to the carrier while flying a fighter, the Japanese and American fighter pilots, and the Royal Navy fighter pilots flying single seat fighters, managed to do that on a routine basis during WWII. The idea of turning a single engine day bomber into a carrier fighter was flawed from the beginning.
I can see what you’re driving at but it’s not the case with the Fulmar. The FAA were always desperate for Fulmars and certainly couldn’t sell them. Plus who would they sell them to, as in what country? Your point about needing a navigator is just not accurate, though. A lot of planes with single crew were lost operating at distance from carriers (distance is important) before radar and most single seat naval aircraft were never expected to operate at distance from their carriers - rather they were to protect the fleet which means flying over it. Similarly, if defending strike craft they would be with two or three crewed planes and could navigate with them. Fullies were expected to be used as recon. and observation aircraft as well as engage torpedo and dive bombers as well as enemy snoopers and recon. With reduced capacity, RN armoured carrier aircraft had to fulfil multi-roles and the Fulmar excelled at this. Fulmars also had excellent deck landing characteristics unlike, say, Seafires (more of which were lost in landing accidents than to the enemy by several magnitudes). What should tell you something is that all FAA aces flew Fulmars at some point and the Fulmar shot down more enemy aircraft than any other FAA aircraft in WW2. Also, Fulmar loss to kill ratio against land based fighters was 1:1.
@@geordiedog1749; did you know the UK gave 212 to the USSR at a time when it was fighting for its very existence. The RAF desperately needed fighters, but it gave away fighters they considered sub-standard. Because of pure neglect and indifference the Fleet Air Arm was forced to go to war with the worst collection of obsolete aircraft possessed by any Navy operating Carriers. The Fulmars might have held its own against Italian biplanes and mostly wooden trimotor bombers, but against any modern aircraft in 1940 they were totally outclassed. The RN would have been better off spending its scarce resources putting tail-hooks on Hurricanes, or buying more American Wildcats or even Buffalos. Every Fulmar made was a wast of a good RR engine.
@@oldgysgt 212 of what type of aircraft? I’m not sure what plane you mean. No Fulmars went to Russia.
Having naval aviation under control of the RAF until just before the outbreak of the war was a disaster for British naval aviation. I couldn’t agree more. But saying the Fulmar was a waste of a merlin is just wrong. If you look at what it was designed to do, and what it achieved it did it very well. You need to look at what the special requirements for naval aircraft are. Sea hurries were ok but they had major flaws that Fulmars didn’t. They were short range and didn’t have large supplies of ammo. This is a big problem at sea because every time you have to refuel or rearm your carriers has to drop out of convoy or fleet to sail into the wind at full speed. Also, sea hurricanes were death traps to ditch in as they flipped over. Although better than the Seafires Hurricanes also had land designed landing gear for runways that aren’t moving up and down by several
feet. Fulmars had long range fuel tanks, hi capacity ammo provision and very robust gear. RN had armoured carriers which couldn’t accommodate the big numbers of planes that unarmoured American and Japanese carriers could therefore our planes needed to be able to fulfil multiple roles which fulmars did very well. Recon. snooping spotting (also dive bombing although they never actually did any) and defending the fleet from dive bombers, level bombers and torpedo bombers and enemy recon/snoopers. An aircraft with all these jobs that still had a 1:1 kill loss ratio against Italian and German land based fighters is pretty bloody good. I’m not sure what you’re not getting about this. It’s not a game of top trumps:) Helldivers were technically better than DB3s in ever way yet American pilots preferred the older kites and felt they were better. They just worked. Same with the Fulmars. The WTOs even got to throw bog roll at their attackers! How cool is that?
@@geordiedog1749; No one ever said the UK sent any Fulmars to the USSR, but the UK did send 212 Bell P39s to the USSR at a time the RAF was desperate for fighters. They felt the performance of the P39 was not good enough, although it was vastly superior to the Fulmar. It would been much easier to navalize the Hurricane than convert the Fairey Battle into a navel fighter. Although the Brewster F2A Buffalo was not a great fighter, it was already a navel fighter, was 50 MPH faster than the Fulmar, had a greater rate of climb, and a longer range, but the UK sent their Buffalos to the fare east instead of putting them on their carriers. The requirement for a navigator on a naval fighter was stupid, as was the adoption of the Fulmar.
@@oldgysgt It read like you thought they had sent Fulmars to Russia.
The RAF only let planes it was finished with go to the USSR - whose need was much greater than ours to be fair.
Airacobras were poorer than contemporary high altitude interceptors (high altitude fighters which is what they were advertised as) so the RAF said no thanks. Shame. Good planes and the Soviets did great work with them.
Comparing P39s to Fulmars, however, is comparing apples to oranges. It’s pointless. Unless we’re back to playing Top Trumps again?
Also, they did navalise the Hurricane (the Sea Hurricane - clue in the title) but didn’t “convert the Fairey Battle into a fighter”. Fulmars were based on the same airframe but were a completely different aircraft.
And speaking of Top Trumps which Buffalo are you referring to? The one with the radios or without? The one with the armour plates and the .50s in the wings? The ones with the self sealing tanks? The ones with 303s in the snout or with the 50s? The really heavy one or the lightweight one? Not that it matters because it’s apples and oranges again.
Finally, “The requirement for a navigator on a naval fighter is just stupid” isn’t a very clever thing to write, now, is it? Seriously. Perhaps if you went and had a look at what the actual requirements of the FAA aircraft that the Fulmar became you would cop on (it’s Requirement 0.8/38 btw - yes I am that much of a nerd). Flying over the sea with no radar, beacons etc with complete strangers trying to kill you, while you look for complete strangers to kill, often at night, is a challenge. You can’t just have a gander over the side a get a landmark. “Oh I recognise that wave! I know exactly where we are!” Said no one. Ever.
Fairey Fulmar was a valuable part of the FAA because the RAF did an terrible job providing carrier aircraft between the wars.
Fairey. Dependable.
I dont get how the Fulmar did relatively ok but the Battle was a complete disaster. Theyre almost identical.
Well no, not almost identical though the Fulmar was based on the Battle design. As to why one was reasonably successful and the other a failure it's quite simple, they were used in totally different roles.
I call it accidentaly "fullmars" XDDD
“More noteworthy”?? Not at all.Fulmars we’re the the most noteworthy. And I’ll fight anyone who says no. Well…………. Maybe not quite that :)
A good video apart from the narrator saying "Haitch-Emm-Ess" rather than "Aitch-Emm-Ess".
I wonder why he doesn't say Haitch-Mem-Sess, to be consistant...........