Jump to content

Fairey Fulmar I or II?


Kameruka

Recommended Posts

I am new to this site and wonder if anyone can help with a definitive answer to my query.

Many references seem to imply that the defining element of the Fairey Fulmar II are the additional side air inlets, yet evidence from pilots logs and Serial Number Lists show that many of the aircraft delivered and flown as Fulmar IIs did not have the addtional air inlets.  I would love to know for certain as I am trying to complete versions of models of Fulmars N4074 and X8812 both of which were flown by my father and both of which were delivered and flown as Fulmar IIs. Special Hobby / Eduard / MPM versions show images of these aircraft but refer to N4074 as a Fulmar I, which it isn't, and this leads me to be uncertain that the appearance of their version of X8812 with the side air inlets is actually correct.  Is there a photo reference of X8812 somewhere to settle this, or can anyone confirm for certain that the serial number X8812 did in fact have the side air inlets? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello, Kameruka

Not a conclusive proof, but ...

https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205185916

This is a well-known photo of HMS Indomitable, passing astern of HMS Victorious during operation Pedestal. Photo also shows some aircraft on HMS Victorious' deck. Code letters of two Fulmars Mk.II with their wings folded, definitely equipped with tropical oil filters, read (probably) F and G. Colour profile, published first in Profile publication, show Fulmar Mk.II X8812 during operation Pedestal coded as 6F. I hope it helps. Cheers

Jure

 

Edited by Jure Miljevic
inoperative link replaced
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Mk.II had a larger intake. On the Mk.I the outsides of the chin intake was smaller and the sides of the cowling were raked in slightly with the lower section rising up slightly, plus there was a smaller intake inside the chin intake, but on the Mk.II the side of the cowlings were straight and squared off....caused by the larger chin intake. The side intakes were merely tropical filters.

Here is the Mk.I;

Related image

Related image

Related image

Image result for fulmar air intake

Image result for fulmar air intake

Mk.II type intake,....seen on the Yeovilton aircraft which was retrofitted with Mk.II intake.

Image result for fulmar air intake 

Image result for fulmar air intake 

Image result for fulmar air intake

 

Hope this helps,

Cheers

            Tony

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Tony and Jure, 

 

I may be getting closer to understanding this.  It seems to be a fairly subtle difference between the Mark I and Mark II, with those Mark II with tropical filters being a more obvious variant.  Is that correct?

 

Tony, would that make the 3rd , 4th and 5th photos on your post Mk II's? I know that the 5th is a Mk II of 809 on Victorious from the Donald Duck emblem and 809 was entirely Mk IIs at the time. There is another photo of  the same aircraft flying off taken from the front which seems to have the wider intake you describe.  If I could work out how to do it I'd post that picture, I found it in Ray Sturtivant's book "FAA at War".

 

Jure, thanks for the link to the picture of the flight deck of Victorious.  It a brilliant image, very evocative of the place.  I hadn't seen that one before but there is a very similar shot of the same scene with a different Code letter G aircraft without the tropical air filters which establishes that both variants of the Mk II were supplied to 809.

 

To properly represent a Mk II without the tropical filters would therefore involve a bit of modification to any of the Kits I've referred to or is there a version out there that anyone could point me to?

 

Cheers

 

Henry

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, Kameruka said:

Thanks Tony and Jure, 

 

I may be getting closer to understanding this.  It seems to be a fairly subtle difference between the Mark I and Mark II, with those Mark II with tropical filters being a more obvious variant.  Is that correct?

 

Tony, would that make the 3rd , 4th and 5th photos on your post Mk II's? I know that the 5th is a Mk II of 809 on Victorious from the Donald Duck emblem and 809 was entirely Mk IIs at the time. There is another photo of  the same aircraft flying off taken from the front which seems to have the wider intake you describe.  If I could work out how to do it I'd post that picture, I found it in Ray Sturtivant's book "FAA at War".

 

Jure, thanks for the link to the picture of the flight deck of Victorious.  It a brilliant image, very evocative of the place.  I hadn't seen that one before but there is a very similar shot of the same scene with a different Code letter G aircraft without the tropical air filters which establishes that both variants of the Mk II were supplied to 809.

 

To properly represent a Mk II without the tropical filters would therefore involve a bit of modification to any of the Kits I've referred to or is there a version out there that anyone could point me to?

 

Cheers

 

Henry

Henry,.....the black and white photos show Mk.I`s as far as I know,......the colour ones the Mk.II layout. Maybe some early Mk.II`s had the earlier radiator,....as far as I know the main difference was with the engine variant. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi

   A friend of mine in the UK, was involved with researching the crash site of X8812.

    I think some parts were recovered.

     If you wish pm me your e mail and i will forward it to him,

         Cheers 

             Jerry

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A question for Tony.

 

Are you saying that, when viewed from the front;

The Mk.I intake is larger at the top than the bottom, and the sides are not parallel,

The Mk.II intake is the same width top and bottom and the sides are parallel with or without the side intakes?

 

looking forward to your reply,

Garry c

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not Tony, but what he says agrees with what I have found on the subject.

 

The more powerful engine required increased cooling.  You can see the same factor in development of all aircraft of all nations at this time.  Of course, it isn't quite as simple as that because there were developments in cooling that produced a trend to smaller radiators (from water to glycol to pressurised water) but in this case the effect was a visibly larger radiator.  I'm not so sure about the side intakes - I think that they are an intrinsic part of the Mk.II design but would appreciate confirmation.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Garry c said:

A question for Tony.

 

Are you saying that, when viewed from the front;

The Mk.I intake is larger at the top than the bottom, and the sides are not parallel,

The Mk.II intake is the same width top and bottom and the sides are parallel with or without the side intakes?

 

looking forward to your reply,

Garry c

Yes.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gary,

 

Don't know if you have already seen this, but I have attached a link to a good site I found with technical and operational information on the Fulmar,  as well as some excellent photos. I hope they will be useful as modeling references.

Mike

 

http://www.armouredcarriers.com/fairey-fulmar-development/

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...