The Fairey Firefly

[Dave Homewood]

I was just listening to the download of the Warbird Radion Wix Show, episode 66, in which Ryan Keough states the following about the Fairey Firefly:

""That airplane actually is one of those airplanes that has always held a kind of a place in my heart. It was a relatively unknown airplane , used as a target tug. It was meant as a naval attack aircraft but it was very, very underbuilt, underpowered..."

I cannot help by think that this was a bit of a disservice to the type. In that statement it seems like Ryan was saying it was only good as a target tug, however it was one of the best British Naval fighters of the Second World War.

Designed to a 1938 requirement and developed through the early war period, the Firefly was a carrier fighter that even up being developed to serve in other roles.

The original Mk I Firefly, powered by a Rolls Royce Griffon engine could carry 2000lb in bombs and was rated to carry rockets. I'm not sure what Ryan means by "underbuilt". They were very well liked by those who flew them, who had progressed from other Royal Navy fighters.

it was basically a replacement for the Fairey Fulmar, which in itself also gets much maligned these days by the armchair experts but in fact I have spoken with Royal Navy pilots and observers who flew the Fulmar and they loved it. They admitted there was a bit of a lack of power in the climb but it was lovely to fly and could dogfight with the rest of them.

That lack of power was made up for in the Firefly, those crew members I've talked with who were there actually flying them said they finally felt they had a top notch fighter with plenty of guts and power when they got onto the Firefly. This is the Mk I Firefly they were flying too. Sure they're no Sea Fury or Venom but those things just were not around then.

The Firefly served in the 1944 attacks on the Tirpitz, and really came into their own with the Eastern Fleet in their attacks on Japanese oil refineries, and the British Pacific Fleet in 1945 in such operations as the Battle of Okinawa and attacks on mainland Japan. The Firefly was the first Briish aircraft to fly over Tokyo during attacks on that city.

After WWII the Firefly got developed more and that included the bigger Griffon engine. It served in Korea and in the Malayan Emergency against the terrorists with success.

The Firefly was a fairly successful fighter aircraft all in all. I don't really believe it was underbuilt or underpowered from what the guys have told me. I'd like to learn otherwise if that's the case.

As well as a fleet fighter it went on to serve as a ground attack aircraft, an anti-submarine warfare aircraft, and as Ryan mentioned a target tug BUT it was only later in its career that the target tug and target drone versions were developed.in And let's face it, the same sort of treatment happened to many other of WWII's top piston engined fighters, including Spitfires, Sea Fury, Mustangs all towing targets.

Though only the Royal Navy Fleet Air Arm used it in WWII (with crews from Britain, New Zealand, Canada and Australia, and likely other nations) it was used postwar by nine different Navies and Air Forces.

One thing I do agree with Ryan is I would love to see one flying. There's a rare Mk 1 version sitting here in NZ that I wish someone would get flying in wartime FAA colours.

As an aside. I have interviewed a chap who was shot down over Japan in a Firefly, baled out and got stuck in the same POW camp hut as Pappy Boyington.

[WallyB]

One thing I do agree with Ryan is I would love to see one flying.

Long way to go, but the CWH at Hamilton Ont. has an airworthy Mk 6. It has attended the last couple of Geneseo shows and hopefully will be in the air at the Hamilton show: http://airshow.warplane.com/ .

[Chris]

I don't think Ryan intended to slander the Firefly, but rather point up how we as Yanks think sometimes that the only Brit planes produced during WWII were the Spit, Hurricane and Lanc. Initially, most aircraft have issues as to their intended roles and have to go through several mods, mostly upgrading engine performance. One need only to look at the P-51 and see the evolution from ground strafer to high altitude ascort. Personally, I love to watch Captian Eddie fly his Firefly and I think that most American airshow attendees get educated upon watching it fly.

[WallyB]

I don't think Ryan intended to slander the Firefly, but rather point up how we as Yanks think sometimes that the only Brit planes produced during WWII were the Spit, Hurricane and Lanc.

Certainly anyone using the yardstick of the Grumman Ironworks, Vought etc. products might well conclude the Firefly was "underbuilt". Probably could be applied to every other FAA airplane up until the Sea Fury.

Wonder what Ryan thinks of the Swordfish ?

[Steve T]

Here's CWH's Firefly seen taxiing on the Mt.Hope ramp at a museum event in 2008. Painted as an 825 Sqn RCN AS.5, VH142, she's actually an AS.6/TT.6, WH632, formerly belonging to the Camden museum in Oz and ex-RAN.



She's a lucky aircraft in an odd way: right after completion in 1992 in Victoria BC, she swung off a runway and struck a backhoe, suffering damage that precipitated virtually a second rebuild. That doesn't sound lucky unless one remembers she was due to be flown back to Hamilton soon afterward...and would, beyond doubt, have spent the post-season of 92-93 in the maintenance bay of Hgr#3. Thus, without that unscheduled encounter with that backhoe at Victoria...she'd have perished in the infamous fire!

Here's another view of C-GBDG on a visit to Gatineau, Quebec, home of Vintage Wings of Canada...



S.

[Nathan]

I got to see that fly last year at Geneseo. It was one of the greatest highlights for me in seeing such a type flying!

(And I'm a yank)

[Dave Homewood]

Thanks chaps.

Chris said,

Initially, most aircraft have issues as to their intended roles and have to go through several mods, mostly upgrading engine performance.

That is one thing I was trying to say was the Firefly, as I understand it from talking with people who flew the Mk I, didn't have those initial problems with lack of power as today's folk think. It was fine. Just because it was later developed with larger horsepower does not mean it was initially underpowered. It was perfectly adequate as a fighter, from what I have gathered from the veterans. Like the Spitfire, which was awesome from Day One, but later was developed to be more and more awesome.

As mentioned the Fulmar also gets the label of being underpowered but people I talked with reckoned it was fine in most respects and the only real issues came when dogfighting with the Bf109. The Fulmar did a fine job otherwise and the Firefly was considered a big step up from there.

WallyB said:

Certainly anyone using the yardstick of the Grumman Ironworks, Vought etc. products might well conclude the Firefly was "underbuilt". Probably could be applied to every other FAA airplane up until the Sea Fury.

Wonder what Ryan thinks of the Swordfish?

Indeed. Grumman overbuilt everything. A good thing for the pilots and crews but it does not mean the Firefly was underbuilt. The Swordfish was an awesome beast, being the only Allied Naval aircraft to serve from day one to the end of the war and actually be still in production over that whole time - not bad for an aircraft considered obsolete in 1939. Meanwhile the Americans were flying around in heavy, overbuilt gas guzzlers.

I would love to see a Swordfish flying someday. And another favourite type of mine is the aircraft that came between the Swordfish and the Fulmar, the Fairey Albacore. A biplane bomber like the Swordfish, I have talked to people who flew them against ships in near-suicide missions. Lots of respect.

[vg-photo]

The last several years at the Chino airshow have had the Firefly. I don't know anything about the history of this particular plane, but I do enjoy seeing it at the show.

[WallyB]

The last several years at the Chino airshow have had the Firefly. I don't know anything about the history of this particular plane, but I do enjoy seeing it at the show.

That's Captain Eddie's WB518/N518WB mentioned above: http://www.faireyfirefly.com/index.php?page=home

[baldrick]

[quote="Dave Homewood"]
One thing I do agree with Ryan is I would love to see one flying. There's a rare Mk 1 version sitting here in NZ that I wish someone would get flying in wartime FAA colours.

Hullo Dave, there is also the RAN Historic Flight Firefly at HMAS Albatross that is reportedly very close to flight.



Simmo

[Dan K]

Simmo

What I like most about the Firefly is the triangular window at the fore of the Observers area glass...almost like an arrowhead. I always figured that was a clever way to remind the pilot in which direction the bird gets launched off a catapult.

[Dave Homewood]

Nice shots. I didn't know they were getting that Firefly flying again, great stuff.

[Steve T]

Somebody keeps saying Swordfish...

Here's Swordfish II C-GEVS/HS554, recently returned to flight by Vintage Wings of Canada at Gatineau, Quebec, who now own this aircraft that was restored (over a 21-year period) by Bob Spence and family/crew at Muirkirk, Ontario. It was one of the seven derelict Swordfish airframes sold at auction in September 1970 at Courtland, Ontario, after the death of collector Ernie Simmons; Bob Spence thoughtfully secured the civil reg C-GEVS, which is Ernie's initials. This pic was taken this past September at the Gatineau airshow.



S.

[Steve T]

...And to complete our Fairey tale , here's Battle T.I R7384, stored--thankfully always indoors--for many years at what is now the Canada Aviation and Space Museum at Rockcliffe (Ottawa). This shot dates to 2006, not too long after the new storage hangar opened.



S.

[Steve T]

Coming back to the Firefly, here are two old shots from Asmara in Eritrea (which used to be part of Ethiopia); several FR.1 and T.1 (dual control) Fireflies were stored in the open there in the sixties. At least four of the ex-Ethiopian group survive: two ex-RCN FR.1s that went to museums in Canada in the 90s, and another FR.1 and a possibly-unique surviving T.1 that went to South Africa a couple years later...

FR.1, likely ex-RCN, acquired from Canada for the EAF via Count von Rosen in 1954


T.1, also possibly ex-RCN as the remaining Canadian trainers did go to the EAF along with the batch of FR.1s


S.