# F4F's in Europe



## gjs238 (May 27, 2010)

If F4F's with 2-stage superchargers had such good high altitude performance, why were they not used to a greater extent in Europe?
I've read that the British were unsatisfied with the high altitude performance of the Allison-powered P-40 and non-turbo P-38. The F4F was not a viable option?


----------



## Thorlifter (May 27, 2010)

1 word

Spitfire

But you do bring up a good point. Instead of using the P-40 and early P-38's, the F4F's might have been a better plane to supply. Could it have been that the F4F was designated as a Navy plane and the British wanted land based planes?


----------



## gjs238 (May 27, 2010)

Thorlifter said:


> 1 word
> 
> Spitfire



But there weren't enough Spitfires, so the Brits were eager to receive US fighters.


----------



## Markus (May 27, 2010)

There weren´t that many F4F either. In ´41 Grumman made ~30 per month, they did not hit the 100 mark before May ´42. Just enough to satisfy the USN´s demand I guess. Plus the Wildcat was both slow and slow climbing.


----------



## Colin1 (May 27, 2010)

gjs238 said:


> But there weren't enough Spitfires, so the Brits were eager to receive US fighters.


Weren't enough Spitfires when?
The USN didn't accept the F4F until July 1940, the Battle of Britain was already at its height so eagerness wasn't going to get the RAF far with the F4F. At the point where Grumman were beginning to crank them out in respectable numbers, the Spitfire Mk IX was coming on line.

When the F4F (might) have been needed, it wasn't available, when it became available, it wasn't really needed.


----------



## Crimea_River (May 27, 2010)

Terry might know.....


----------



## Aaron Brooks Wolters (May 27, 2010)

THAT'S why they didn't use them. Terry HATES them with a passion. He would not allow them to use them.


----------



## B-17engineer (May 27, 2010)

Crimea_River said:


> Terry might know.....



Hehehehe


----------



## JoeB (May 27, 2010)

Wasn't this discussed ad nauseum here recently, or another forum, or both!  Anyway the availability question was pretty much determined by decisions on US side. One key set of three words is 'Army vs. Navy'. I think a credible argument could be made that the F4F would have been at least as effective a fighter in European/Med theater as the P-40, just as it demonstrably was in the Pacific, despite being slower. But the Army had their fighter programs and the Navy had theirs. And, the Army presumably didn't see any great flaw in the limited atlitude performance of the P-40 (in most models) and P-39, or they would have made it a higher priority to avoid that weakness. And if you're talking quite early in the war, then as mentioned the US just wasn't producing a lot of fighters of any kind, yet. A little later, still prior to US entry, the US had fighters to spare for Lend Lease, but there obviously would have been more F4F's if there weren't separate Army fighter programs. Of course the British did receive F4F's in limited numbers as carrier fighters, used in a few cases (from UK and North Africa) in combat from land bases.

You can''t really compare the P-38 and F4F. The P-38 had its teething problems, and is perhaps an overrated airplane in general, but what it could potentially accomplish in terms of speed, range, and altitude performance with turbochargers can't be compared to the F4F. That would be about like considering the P-38 as subsitute carrier fighter for the F4F 

Joe


----------



## Knegel (May 28, 2010)

Hi,

i doubt the F4F would have done as good as the P40 in Europe. The speed/climb performence was just as good as that of the HurriII. The P40 was way faster, specialy in a dive and additionally the P40 had excelent high speed handling.

Even the FM-2 was poor in relation to the 1941-43 German fighters, no matter what altitude.

It was a good carrier plane and specialy in the pacific, where it did face most of the time planes like the Zero(not to talk about the Japanese bombers), which had no real protection and which also had a rather poor performence, it could shine (somehow).

Vs the MG151/20 armned planes in europe, even the toughness wasnt a real bringer anymore and easy snapshot kills like vs the Japanese paperplanes also wasnt as easy in Europs.

The F4F could shine in the pacific cause its thoughness(in relation to the japanese guns), the japanese paperplanes and good teamfight. The F2A would have done same good, if they would have used the same tactics.

How different the performences in the Pacifc and Europe was you can acttualy see, if you look to the P38. 

Even the early P38F and G´s was so much more fast than any japanese plane of that time(1941/42), they could act somewhat like the 262 in 1944/45 over europe. Of course with the same turnfight problems. Her, in the pacific, it was vastly superior.

In Europe even the P38H and J had bad trouble, cause vs the 109G and FW190A they dont had a real speed advantage, neighter they could turn better, as result the P38 did not count as superior, rather as disadvanced in combat.
The not to bad results of the P38´s over Europe was then rather related to good pilot training/tactics and tot the fact that many german fighters was overloaded(still the P38 had trouble with them, unlike to the single engined fighters). 

Greetings,

Knegel


----------



## Shortround6 (May 28, 2010)

The F4F and the P-40 had rather different performance envelopes.

The P-40 being rather faster at altitudes below 15,000 ft or so with the F4 closing the gap and showing better performance the higher into the 20,000ft range you go. 

And as far as a time line goes, by the time the F4F was available in any numbers, spring of 1941, The British had the MK II Hurricanes with Merlin XX 2 speed engines and the MK V Spitfire was coming into service with the Merlin 45. 
Germans were also introducing the 109F at this time which is beyond the ability of the F4F to deal with on a consistent basis.


----------



## gjs238 (May 28, 2010)

But the British were still taking delivery of P-40's and P-51's.


----------



## renrich (May 28, 2010)

The F4F versus P40 was discussed ad nauseum in another thread, as JB said. The fact is that the F4F was in pretty short supply even in early 1942. The British took over an order of F4Fs for the FAA which was originally intended for France. But the USN, in early 1942 actually had some mixed squadrons of Buffaloes and Wildcats because the F4Fs were not available. They also operated mixed squadrons of F4F3s and F4F3As which had different performance characteristics. The USN was operating on a shoestring in 1942. The F4F did pretty well for itself in the Med, being credited with 26 kills as well as two kills in the ET0. It was more than adequate against LW aircraft at sea.


----------



## Shortround6 (May 28, 2010)

gjs238 said:


> But the British were still taking delivery of P-40's and P-51's.




true, but they didn't intend to use either one for high altitude work, as in anything over 15,000ft. 

I believe that was your original question. 

The F4F was in very short supply.

While the F4F performed better at 20,000ft and above than some P-40s it didn't perform better than what the British already had available (which the US did not available in the Pacific). 

The F4F didn't perform as well below 15,000 as the P-40 or early P-51s. 

No need to introduce another type of aircraft to the theater (naval use excepted) if the available planes already have both high and low altitudes covered.


----------



## vanir (May 29, 2010)

Plus as someone touched on, France and Greece purchased F4F's for land based operation. But iirc Grumman was basically taking whatever orders it could get whilst waiting for the USN order they really wanted. Once that came in it got priority...but GB did get both diverted batches meant for France and Greece and apparently liked them so much they turned around and ordered some for themselves. Again by this time though the USN was the production priority for Grumman and the best paying contract.

So I think the entire thing is wholly circumstantial, had Grumman unlimited instantaneous production capacity in a fantasy universe, then I dare say you would've seen Wildcats alongside Spits and Hurris all over the place operating from RAF land bases through 41-42, in all theatres. As it was they just got a small batch which they mixed in with the Wright engined Martlet I's and gave to the FAA who sorely needed something better than Fulmars and Gladiators.

Also from what I've heard the Brits were actually disappointed with the P-40 altitude performance and lack of appointments, they had fully intended using it as an interceptor but backstepped it to second echelon roles (overseas sqns and fighter-bomber or tactical recon locally). Their initial order was reduced after they got the first deliveries, even though Curtiss made modifications by request. In late 41 they were actually trying to give them away, and were more than happy to supply the AVG with their entire initial lineup plus spares (all the first Flying Tigers were ex-RAF aircraft).
Probably didn't help the Brits had a habit through 41 of swapping .50's out of Tomahawks for .303's or just leaving the nose armament deleted (most, but not all Brit Tomahawks had either 4 or 6 .303 brownings, which isn't exactly sparkling armament for 1941 but good enough against the Japanese).

But the F4F, I think if the US was out of the picture and thus production availability was there, the RAF would've loved having them. They were really impressed by the French/Greek Martlets they got.


----------



## vanir (May 29, 2010)

Plus as someone touched on, France and Greece purchased F4F's for land based operation. But iirc Grumman was basically taking whatever orders it could get whilst waiting for the USN order they really wanted. Once that came in it got priority...but GB did get both diverted batches meant for France and Greece and apparently liked them so much they turned around and ordered some for themselves. Again by this time though the USN was the production priority for Grumman and the best paying contract.

So I think the entire thing is wholly circumstantial, had Grumman unlimited instantaneous production capacity in a fantasy universe, then I dare say you would've seen Wildcats alongside Spits and Hurris all over the place operating from RAF land bases through 41-42, in all theatres. As it was they just got a small batch which they mixed in with the Wright engined Martlet I's and gave to the FAA who sorely needed something better than Fulmars and Gladiators.

Also from what I've heard the Brits were actually disappointed with the P-40 altitude performance and lack of appointments, they had fully intended using it as an interceptor but backstepped it to second echelon roles (overseas sqns and fighter-bomber or tactical recon locally). Their initial order was reduced after they got the first deliveries, even though Curtiss made modifications by request. In late 41 they were actually trying to give them away, and were more than happy to supply the AVG with their entire initial lineup plus spares (all the first Flying Tigers were ex-RAF aircraft).
Probably didn't help the Brits had a habit through 41 of swapping .50's out of Tomahawks for .303's or just leaving the nose armament deleted (most, but not all Brit Tomahawks had either 4 or 6 .303 brownings, which isn't exactly sparkling armament for 1941 but good enough against the Japanese).

But the F4F, I think if the US was out of the picture and thus production availability was there, the RAF would've loved having them. They were really impressed by the French/Greek Martlets they got.


----------



## Knegel (May 29, 2010)

The F4F was a ready carrier plane, thats the main reason why the RAF took it. 
An it was very good here as carrier plane, specialy cause it was able to operate from very smal carriers.

I doubt the RAF would have used it as land based plane. Although the high altitude performence was better than that of the P51A and P40, it was still worse than that of even the Me109E4. 

So there was two low level planes with at least a little advantage over the german oponents(highspeed manouverability and at least in case of the P51A the speed itself), but specialy the pritish planes of that time (HurriII and SpitV was very slow in low level) and a plane that was worse in all altitudes even vs the oldest german fighter. While at same time there was the Spit2a and SpitfireV with a way better altitude performence than even the later FM-2 had.


----------



## vanir (May 29, 2010)

They operated Martlets from land bases in Egypt. They were FAA but I think assigned to RAF control there (a similar way to the Sea Gladiators that defended Malta until Hurris and later MkV's could be shipped). Until those Martlets were sent they only had one operational Gladiator near Suez (which was famously flown around between several airfields day to day to give enemy spotters the impression there were more Gladiators than they actually had, which was one, more funny wartime tales).


----------



## Knegel (May 29, 2010)

In egypt they had a VERY smal probability to face german fighters, to intercept bombers even the Gladiator could be used.


----------



## vanir (May 29, 2010)

Italian G50's I think, or CR40 and SM79 but I don't think they ever wound up attacking, the Brits were just worried about it (can't remember, did SM79's ever wind up attacking Suez? or just midget subs?). The idea was to fool the spotters/observers.


----------



## JoeB (May 29, 2010)

Issue isn't F4F v Spitfire. The Spitfire was the most preferred plane by the British, but if there had been enough of them, they wouldn't have operated any of the other types of early-mid war as air-air fighters (like Hurricane, P-36 and P-40 variants, Buffalo, even Fulmar and Gladiator occasionally operated from land bases, etc). The issue would be F4F v those other types, assuming there were F4F's to spare. The F4F had a consistently far superior fighter combat record to the Hurricane in the Far East, not just in a few fluke combats but Hurricanes had a highly disadvantageous kill ratio v Japanese Army fighters all the way through 1943. The F4F didn't have as superior a record to the P-40, but still tended to get better results v the same Japanese fighter opposition. So it's not at all obvious the F4F wouldn't be a credible or even superior substitute to the Hurricane or Tomahawk in Med theater situations, especially the Hurricane. From Malta for example remember that the Hurricane's kill ratio result v Bf109E was 0:35. It accomplished other things of course, shooting down Axis bombers and it did much better v Italian fighters, but so could the F4F have done those other things, and how much worse could it possibly have done v the Bf109E? The record of Hurr and P-40 generally v 109 wasn't as lopsided, Malta 1941 was the poorest showing of the Hurricane Bf 109E, but still Hurr/P-40 v 109 tended to be clearly in favor of the Bf109 in most cases. So we shouldn't imagine that the Hurricane and P-40 were completely competitive with the Bf109, and that the F4F might somehow give up that parity. It's very plausible that the F4F would have done no worse than Hurricane and P-40 v German fighters in Med theater situations, just as it better than those two v Japanese fighters, again especially better than the Hurricane.

Of course, even the Spitfire had a (much) poorer record v the Zero than the F4F, but it had certain clear advantages in performance that can't be ingored. I wouldn't suggest generally substituting F4F's for Spitfires, not in most cases anyway. But compared to the 'second rate' types used by the British, the F4F was at no particular disadvantage as a practical air combat fighter IMO, and it showed that when the types operated alongside. Consider also that the P-36, ie French H-75's did better than the Hurricane v Bf109's over France in 1940, and that was a fairly similar plane to the F4F, inferior overall if anything.

Joe


----------



## Shortround6 (May 29, 2010)

I think we need an established time line. 

Quoting results from the battle of France for the Hurricane (MK I without self sealing tanks or armor) vs the combat capabilities of the MK II in the fall winter of 1940 even though only 6-8 months apart aren't quite the same. 
Did the Hurricanes in the Far East have tropical filters which affected their performance slightly? 

And for some reason combat over England and Europe tended to be at different altitudes than in North Africa/Med and Asia. It put a premium on performance at over 20,000ft. This is one of the reasons that the P-40, considered second rate for combat over Europe could do better in the other theaters. It could fight closer to the altitudes it's engine gave it's best performance. At 20,000ft or above the F4F might be faster than a P-40C or even E but at 12-15,000ft the P-40 would be 30-40mph faster than the F4F. Against Italian Aircraft who's engines tended to peak at 4000 meters or against early Japanese fighters with single speed engines the over 20,000ft performance while useful, wasn't as important. 

While the F4F did have better performance over 20,000ft than the P-40 the real question is did it have enough better performance over the Spitfire or Hurricane MK II to really change the the air war over Europe at that time? Granted another several hundred fighters AND PILOTS might have made a difference but would changing the type of fighter in use make a real difference.? 
And again without a time line are we talking about F4Fs in the Battle of Britain or F4Fs on Rhubarbs in the Summer of 1941?


----------



## Glider (May 29, 2010)

vanir said:


> Probably didn't help the Brits had a habit through 41 of swapping .50's out of Tomahawks for .303's or just leaving the nose armament deleted (most, but not all Brit Tomahawks had either 4 or 6 .303 brownings, which isn't exactly sparkling armament for 1941 but good enough against Japs).



I admit thats the first time that I have heard of the British swopping 0.5 for 0.303. Have you any photo's or sources to back that up. I know that the P40C used in the desert had 4 x 303 and 2 x 0.5.
The RAF did order a small no of P40B which I thought had the same weapons but could be wrong on that.


----------



## Knegel (May 29, 2010)

The F4F was clearly disadvanced to the HurriII at all altitudes.

The FM-2 in 1944 had just a similar performence like the HurriII in 1941.

The F4F´s kill ratio in the pacific in big degrees was related to the advanced radar on the carriers where it did operte from. They could take off in time, while the Hurris and other land based fighters often got suprised. 
The P40 could do better there, due to its advanced dive speed and highspeed handling.
Vs the slow japanese planes it was a good plane to survive, the Hurri, with its rather bad dive and low level performence had more trouble.

Vs the german planes the Hurri was still less good, but at least it could turn better, so there was an advanatge. The F4F would have been a poor replacement for the HurriII and even more for the P40.


----------



## Vincenzo (May 29, 2010)

Knegel said:


> The F4F was clearly disadvanced to the HurriII at all altitudes.
> .



can you explain this point the speed of Hurry II and Wildcat are near, wing load are near


----------



## pinsog (May 29, 2010)

The reason the Hurricane did poorly against the Zero was because it could do NOTHING better than a Zero. It wasn't any faster, it couldn't outclimb it, certainly couldn't outturn it, and it couldn't outdive it either. A Wildcat at least had the ability to outdive the Zero if it had any altitude. In fact, the Wildcat could outdive a 109. Plus, the Wildcats armament of 4 or 6 50's was more than adequate against any axis fighter, certainly better than the 303.
The Hurricane held its own against the 109 because it could outturn it, the Wildcat would have had the same advantage plus the ability to outdive the 109 also.
I think the Wildcat would have done at least as well as the Hurricane against Germany.


----------



## tomo pauk (May 29, 2010)

A-ha, so a design 3-4 years older (Hurricane) lags in some categories vs. it's younger competitors (Zero, Wildcat). 

Now that's something new


----------



## renrich (May 29, 2010)

First flight of Hurricane was in 1935. First flight of F4F was in 1937. So the designs were around two years apart. And the F4F had the handicap from the beginning of being designed as a ship board fighter. That the Hurricane and Wildcat had similar performance seems somewhat surprising. Because the Wildcat was probably more resistant to battle damage and more heavily armed with four 50s versus eight 30s, it seems to me that the Wildcat, if available, which it was not, would have done at least as well as the Hurricane in 1940 against the LW. For what it is worth, Eric Brown seems to favor heavily the Wildcat over the Sea Hurricane, but the Sea Hurri did not have the performance of the land based Hurri.


----------



## Shortround6 (May 29, 2010)

the XF4F-3 first flew in late 1939, 2 years after the XF4F-2. 

While they used the same actual fuselage the -3 prototype had different wings with 4 feet more span and square instead of round tips, different tail surfaces, An engine with a 2 stage supercharger instead of a single speed single stage engine and it used a different propeller. Still kept the cowl guns though. 

Production F4Fs or even Martlet Is only show up 2-3 months before the MK II Hurricane which might be a better match-up time wise.


----------



## pinsog (May 29, 2010)

Tomo Pauk, I wasn't running down the Hurricane, I actually like it, I was just explaining in my opinion why it didn't do well against the Zero, but did ok against the 109. It's one advantage it had over the 109 was rate of turn, which didn't work against the Zero, so it was screwed.


----------



## Markus (May 29, 2010)

How come the Hurri could not dive faster than the Zero or manouver better at higher speeds? The Zero wasn´t good above 250mph if memory serves right.


----------



## Vincenzo (May 29, 2010)

i some doubt that hurry and 0 fightning most time over 250 mph (and this near sure a IAS)


----------



## pinsog (May 29, 2010)

I don't know why the Hurricane and Spitfire couldn't dive very well, but everything ever written says they couldn't. 
I would say there were 2 reasons the Hurricane didn't fight the Zero about 250 mph: 1. The Hurricane may not have had the power to maintain that amount of airspeed in a turning fight 2. British pilots were blooded against 109's and their best chance of survival against a 109 was a turning fight. When faced with the Zero they reverted back to their training and earlier experiences which was, if you want to survive against a 109 you turn with him, that was suicide with a Zero.


----------



## renrich (May 29, 2010)

The F4F had a very long gestation period which probably wou;d have been shortened if war had been imminent forthe US like it was for Britain.


----------



## Markus (May 29, 2010)

pinsog said:


> 2. British pilots were blooded against 109's and their best chance of survival against a 109 was a turning fight. When faced with the Zero they reverted back to their training and earlier experiences which was, if you want to survive against a 109 you turn with him, that was suicide with a Zero.



And here is one more piece of the puzzle explaining why the Hurricane did not do well vs. the Zero over Burma.


----------



## vanir (May 29, 2010)

Glider said:


> I admit thats the first time that I have heard of the British swopping 0.5 for 0.303. Have you any photo's or sources to back that up. I know that the P40C used in the desert had 4 x 303 and 2 x 0.5.
> The RAF did order a small no of P40B which I thought had the same weapons but could be wrong on that.


The 81A-1 was delivered with 7.5mm French guns in the wings and two .50 brownings in the nose. The British swapped the wing guns for .303 brownings and often (not always but often) deleted the nose guns. (source: Aircraft of WW2, Jim Winchester, the very first book in my collection I picked up, I've read this at dozens of sites/sources).

The reasoning was until through 1941 the British still felt the ~fairly-kinda new .50 browning was not relatively combat tested and preferred the .30 browning chambered for .303 (source for this tidbit: Worlds Greatest Fighters, Robert Jackson - citing British Air Ministry FO1 document signed SqnLdr Ralph Sorley)

In this photo of a MkIIa you can see the fuselage guns have been deleted (barrels normally protrude slightly).
tomahawk IIa

The 81A-2 was delivered to a British order and had .30 Brownings in the wings and .50 Brownings in the nose, the British went and swapped all the guns for .303 Brownings most of the time (again not always). The Tomahawks given to SAAF and RAAF forces in NA retained US armament.

In this photo of a MkIIb you can see the fuselage guns are a pair of .303 brownings in common with the wings
tomahawk IIb

Harder to see because distance but if you look close this photo of a preserved USAAC P-40B shows thicker barrel protrusions on the fuselage guns of the .50 Brownings.
USAAC P-40B

Importantly however all the initial P-40's used by the Flying Tigers were British supplied, so they had mostly (not all) 4-6 .303 Brownings fitted.

Here's one of a USAAC P-40C, I think you can see again, fairly thick barrels for the .50's which you should compare several times with the RAF 112-sqn DAF one pictured above, which I think are clearly .303.
USAAC P-40C


----------



## Shortround6 (May 29, 2010)

In no P-40 did the gun barrels protrude from the cowling or the fairings. 

The back of the gun receivers were about level with the instrument panel and the pilot could reach the guns in flight through cut outs in the instrument panel.

What do protrude from the fairings on the top of the cowl are blast tubes.


----------



## vanir (May 29, 2010)

On the Hurricane, I mentioned in another thread the MkII's sent to Burma, which were the ones in combat through 43 agianst the Japanese had infamously poor local fuel quality and were boost restricted, pilots complained this killed their performance (describing them as overweight MkI's for performance).

The Hurris in Singapore (very few) were MkI and these did poorly too but there are a lot of circumstances to consider for that battle.

Pound for pound the Hurricane isn't a bad show against a Zero. The Hurri's biggest problem is being so damn stable its thick wings bleed a lot of airspeed through sustained manoeuvres. The Zero's biggest bonus (also true for virtually any Japanese fighter really), is butterfly-like turn rates.

You'd use Hurri's like P-40's and I don't see why they wouldn't stand up just fine. P-40's dive better, Hurris climb better. Both need to use extending and avoid turn fights or sustaining vertical aerobatics without extending. The main difference is you'd have to make sure diving out of danger meant extending straight for some time before turning back in a climb, where with a P-40 you can dive to safety very quickly, circular if you want and go vertical for a head to head.

P-40 dive acceleration is great and it sustains manoeuvres well without bleeding too much airspeed, the Hurricane dives better than a Zero but bleeds airspeed quickly if you start making turns or trying flashy manoeuvres, so you need more distance after passes.


----------



## vanir (May 29, 2010)

Shortround6 said:


> In no P-40 did the gun barrels protrude from the cowling or the fairings.
> 
> The back of the gun receivers were about level with the instrument panel and the pilot could reach the guns in flight through cut outs in the instrument panel.
> 
> What do protrude from the fairings on the top of the cowl are blast tubes.



well which are nevertheless clearly larger diameter on some than others, makes sense if they are a larger diamter for a bigger gun and smaller one for a smaller gun, yes? And whilst an absence of blast tubes clearly infers an absence of fitted armament. Thanks for this info though, some development P-40's have really long looking barrels that always confused me, now I know they're blast tubes.

here's a clear picture lacking blast tubes on an RAF tomahawk




actually come to think of it that one looks like wing guns have been removed too. must've been one of the ones converted for training. nevermind.

compare the RAF 112-sqn picture above with the USAAC P-40B/C ones below it back and forth and really check out the blast tube diameters between them, it's a clear difference. Try this all over the web for pics in fact. Like I said I've read this at literally dozens of sources, but RAAF/SAAF and USAAC/F ones did use US armament and British deliveries mounted US weapons (only the French order mounted different guns at the factory).


----------



## buffnut453 (May 29, 2010)

Glider said:


> I admit thats the first time that I have heard of the British swopping 0.5 for 0.303. Have you any photo's or sources to back that up. I know that the P40C used in the desert had 4 x 303 and 2 x 0.5.
> The RAF did order a small no of P40B which I thought had the same weapons but could be wrong on that.



Glider,

IIRC, the problem was lack of availability of .50s in the RAF. When the first Buffalos arrived in Singapore, 151 MU was tasked with developing mounts for .303s in the wings because there weren't enough .50s to fit 4 to each airframe. This piece of work was used to good effect by 21/453 Sqn which opted to use the .303s from the end of Dec 41 onwards because it lightened the load on the rather overweight RAF Buffalos. 

I know this isn't P-40 specific but I'm pretty sure my memory isn't playing tricks on me re the insufficiency of .50s in the inventory.

Cheers,
Mark


----------



## fibus (May 30, 2010)

The 100 Tomahawks supplied to the AVG were not ex or surplus anything. In fact at the time they were the best aircraft in the area.
The Allison engines were rejects for one reason or another and were gathering dust. When the order came in for the AVG the engines were dusted off and modified by hand. Because they hand built and better than "blueprinted".
The reject engines when delivered by Curtiss to the Avg were 100 to 200 more horsepower than the standard delivered to the USAAF.
The Tomahawk in that year and in that place was the best fighter.
And by the way a Tomahawk could turn inside any german monoplane but always gave up the altitude advantage. And any model Mustang below 300 MPH.
Do a search for "Killer" Clive Caldwell.


----------



## fibus (May 30, 2010)

pinsog said:


> I don't know why the Hurricane and Spitfire couldn't dive very well, but everything ever written says they couldn't.
> I would say there were 2 reasons the Hurricane didn't fight the Zero about 250 mph: 1. The Hurricane may not have had the power to maintain that amount of airspeed in a turning fight 2. British pilots were blooded against 109's and their best chance of survival against a 109 was a turning fight. When faced with the Zero they reverted back to their training and earlier experiences which was, if you want to survive against a 109 you turn with him, that was suicide with a Zero.



BTW the Spitfire had the highest Mach number of any delivered piston fighter of WW2.


----------



## fastmongrel (May 30, 2010)

I have read that .50 guns were removed because there was a shortage of ammunition. All the .50 ammo had to be imported from the US as all UK ammunition production lines were working flat out to produce .303. 

I am no production expert but I imagine changing a prodution line from making one type of ammo to another much larger type would mean stopping production for quite a time. Not a good thing with the enemy at the gate and everything that could fire being in short supply.


----------



## JoeB (May 30, 2010)

Shortround6 said:


> I think we need an established time line.
> 
> Quoting results from the battle of France for the Hurricane (MK I without self sealing tanks or armor) vs the combat capabilities of the MK II in the fall winter of 1940 even though only 6-8 months apart aren't quite the same.
> Did the Hurricanes in the Far East have tropical filters which affected their performance slightly?
> ...


I'm talking about F4F instead of the 'second line' (ie. non-Spitfire, ie. Hurricane, Mohawk, Tomahawk etc) British fighters. So that's in many cases outside the North Europe theater. It clearly doesn't make sense IMHO, to say 'but the Hurricanes had tropical filters' when we're talking about the F4F standing in for them in the same real world combat situation where the Hurricane was fitted with such filters, as in Med theater.

And as far as exact timeline, again the timeline of Hurricane result v even Bf109E does not support the idea that relatively minor improvements to the Hurricane after mid-1940 made a big positive difference. It's the opposite actually. Malta 1941 was *a lot* worse for the Hurr v 109E than Battle of France. So was North Africa, even before the109F was introduced. In fairness in a relatively few combats in Greece Hurrs did better v 109E's than the typical ~1:2 ratio in 1940-41 in North Europe. 

Which is another point, the tendency to compare ~1:4-5 ratio's for Hurricane v Zero and Type 1 in Pacific, including Hurricane II's, all the way through 1943, with Hurricane's 'good' results v 109. But actual kill ratio parity of Hurricane v 109E was not the norm. On average the German fighter held a considerable advantage in actual combat result, no as much on average as the Zero/Type1 enjoyed over the Hurricane, though in some particular cases it was as great or greater (as over Malta in 1941). Again over Malta '41, how much worse than 0:35 does anyone propose the F4F would have done v 109? and why couldn't have F4F have done at least as well downing bombers and contending with Italian fighters? I don't see any good answer to those questions, except that the F4F was a credible subsitute, at least.

And, the specific Battle of France comparison I made was between H-75 (no protection, 6*7.5mm mg armament) to the Hurricane at the same time v same opponent: H-75 had better real ratio v 109E. And it was a fairly similar plane to the F4F (except for the H-75's markedly inferior armament, seat armor and tank protection was a trade off in any of those 3 planes originally designed without such features: it reduced the plane's performance, but reduced *pilot* not necessarily *plane*, losses in an attrition campaign, and besides preserving pilots, that gave pilots more confidence in combat).

Joe


----------



## Glider (May 30, 2010)

vanir said:


> The 81A-1 was delivered with 7.5mm French guns in the wings and two .50 brownings in the nose. The British swapped the wing guns for .303 brownings and often (not always but often) deleted the nose guns. (source: Aircraft of WW2, Jim Winchester, the very first book in my collection I picked up, I've read this at dozens of sites/sources).
> 
> The reasoning was until through 1941 the British still felt the ~fairly-kinda new .50 browning was not relatively combat tested and preferred the .30 browning chambered for .303 (source for this tidbit: Worlds Greatest Fighters, Robert Jackson - citing British Air Ministry FO1 document signed SqnLdr Ralph Sorley)
> 
> ...



I am sorry but I have looked at a number of sources and they all state that the 2 x 0.50 were retained. I cannot open your pictures apart from the one that has all its guns removed which doesn't prove anything.

Curtiss P-40 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Curtiss Tomahawk
Curtiss P-40 (B,C,G) Tomahawk
CURTISS P40A–P-40C (TOMAHAWK)
http://www.warbirdforum.com/p0402.htm
Wapedia - Wiki: Curtiss P-40.
Curtiss P-40C Tomahawk - The Air Combat Wiki
The following has a number of close up photos of the Tomahawk
Google Image Result for http://raf-112-squadron.org/images/P-40-tomahawk-MkII.jpg


----------



## Knegel (May 30, 2010)

Vincenzo said:


> can you explain this point the speed of Hurry II and Wildcat are near, wing load are near



Look to this page and compare the HurriII with the FM-2 and F4F, you will find that it was the FM-2, which did appear rather late(1943), that have a similar performence like the 1941 HurriII.

WWII Aircraft Performance

Greetings,

Knegel


----------



## Vincenzo (May 30, 2010)

Knegel said:


> Look to this page and compare the HurriII with the FM-2 and F4F, you will find that it was the FM-2, which did appear rather late(1943), that have a similar performence like the 1941 HurriII.
> 
> WWII Aircraft Performance
> 
> ...



ever there you can see that F4F-3 of '40 have similar performance of '40 Hurri II


i just checked and i saw that FM-2 has best speed&climb of Hurri II


----------



## Knegel (May 30, 2010)

pinsog said:


> The reason the Hurricane did poorly against the Zero was because it could do NOTHING better than a Zero. It wasn't any faster, it couldn't outclimb it, certainly couldn't outturn it, and it couldn't outdive it either. A Wildcat at least had the ability to outdive the Zero if it had any altitude. In fact, the Wildcat could outdive a 109. Plus, the Wildcats armament of 4 or 6 50's was more than adequate against any axis fighter, certainly better than the 303.
> The Hurricane held its own against the 109 because it could outturn it, the Wildcat would have had the same advantage plus the ability to outdive the 109 also.
> I think the Wildcat would have done at least as well as the Hurricane against Germany.



Hi,

i realy doubt that the F4F could outdive the 109, neighter the wingmounted 4 x 50cal did count as adequate against german planes. (the P51D got two more for a good reason).

Even in the pacific they reduced the guns in the FM2 for performence reasons, all planes with a better performce got 6 guns.

The F4F and Hurri must have had a similar dive speed/acceleration, what was not much better than that of the A6m3 and 5(if at all), the advantage was the Zeros problem to manouver at highspeed. Here the F4F and Hurri both did better, while the Hurris roll ratio was not that good.

The wing area of both planes was very similar, while the F4F had the big engine, tought it was 100km/g more heavy, still the maximum velocity in level flight was way better with the HurricaneIIc. Compared to the F4F, the FM-2 was similar and a little better close to the ground, though it came 2 years after the HurriII.

The HurriII, specialy the IIc would have been as good as the F4F or rather better, if operated from a carrier, cause here they had radar and seldom they got badly overwhelmed and suprised. 

The radar also what the Hurris luck while the battle of britain(and the Spit1a), how disadvanced the HurriII vs even the 109E was, you can see in the mediterranean area. Here even the P40 was badly outclassed. 

Greetings,

Knegel


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 30, 2010)

Knegel said:


> Hi,
> 
> i realy doubt that the F4F could outdive the 109,



Comparing it to the Bf 109E, the 109E had a dive speed of 466 MPH, the F4F-3 had a dive speed of 480.

Spitfire Mk I versus Me 109 E

The Pacific War Online Encyclopedia: F4F Wildcat, U.S. Carrier Fighter


----------



## renrich (May 30, 2010)

The FM2 finally got back to the performance level of the F4F3. The early F4F3 was a very sprightly performer with a Vmax of 335 mph at 22000 feet and a rate of climb at SL of more than 3300 feet per minute. The later models of F4F3 and the F4F4 kept gaining weight and losing performance. Page 473, "America's Hundred Thousand" by Dean. The F4F3 at 7150 pounds could climb to 20000 feet in around eight minutes according to MFR data.


----------



## RCAFson (May 30, 2010)

JoeB said:


> I'm talking about F4F instead of the 'second line' (ie. non-Spitfire, ie. Hurricane, Mohawk, Tomahawk etc) British fighters. So that's in many cases outside the North Europe theater. It clearly doesn't make sense IMHO, to say 'but the Hurricanes had tropical filters' when we're talking about the F4F standing in for them in the same real world combat situation where the Hurricane was fitted with such filters, as in Med theater.
> 
> And as far as exact timeline, again the timeline of Hurricane result v even Bf109E does not support the idea that relatively minor improvements to the Hurricane after mid-1940 made a big positive difference. It's the opposite actually. Malta 1941 was *a lot* worse for the Hurr v 109E than Battle of France. So was North Africa, even before the109F was introduced. In fairness in a relatively few combats in Greece Hurrs did better v 109E's than the typical ~1:2 ratio in 1940-41 in North Europe.
> 
> ...




This is all pretty hilarious. The Hurricane was typically outnumbered 3 to 1 <edit: 3 to 1 by Axis fighters!> during each mission over Malta, and was fighting the Axis AFs about 70 miles from their bases. Given its poor climb rate and abysmal ground handling, not to mention manual gear retraction, (that would really be fun, trying to fight an Axis raid while having to crank the LG up...) I would have expected the F4F to have gotten slaughtered over Malta, which is probably why the RAF and FAA never deployed Martlets to that Island.


----------



## RCAFson (May 30, 2010)

Knegel said:


> Hi,
> 
> i realy doubt that the F4F could outdive the 109, neighter the wingmounted 4 x 50cal did count as adequate against german planes. (the P51D got two more for a good reason).
> 
> ...



_



Dives, the Zeke 52 was slightly superior to the FM-2 in initial dive accleration, after which the dives were about the same. Zooms after dives were about equal for the Zeke 52 and FM-2

Click to expand...

_http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/japan/ptr-1111.pdf

This report says the dives were about equal, except that the Zeke engine briefly cut out when entering a dive:
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/japan/intelsum85-dec42.pdf


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 30, 2010)

RCAFson said:


> This is all pretty hilarious. *The Hurricane was typically outnumbered 3 to 1* during each mission over Malta, and was fighting the Axis AFs about 70 miles from their bases. Given its poor climb rate and abysmal ground handling, not to mention manual gear retraction, (that would really be fun, trying to fight an Axis raid while having to crank the LG up...) I would have expected the F4F to have gotten slaughtered over Malta, which is probably why the RAF and FAA never deployed Martlets to that Island.



Were the conditions any worse than Guadalcanal? Probably not, but yet look at what the F4F did there.


----------



## RCAFson (May 30, 2010)

Vincenzo said:


> ever there you can see that F4F-3 of '40 have similar performance of '40 Hurri II
> 
> 
> i just checked and i saw that FM-2 has best speed&climb of Hurri II



Speed for a 12lb boost Hurricane 1:
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/Hurricane_Speed-HRuch.png

Climb for a 12lb boost Hurricane 1:
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/Hurricane_Climb-HRuch.png

Speed FM-2:
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4f/16169-level.jpg
climb FM-2:
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4f/16169-climb.jpg
 
As you can see these aircraft, a 1940 BoB Hurricane 1 and a 1943-44 FM-2, are very close in performance. A Hurricane II in 1943 would be pulling at least 14lb boost. and even Sea Hurricane was pulling 16lb boost in Aug 1942. Peak HP for a Hurricane II would be nearly 1500hp. Most published performance figures for the Hurricane are with the aircraft pulling 6 or 9lb boost, which greatly underestimates combat performance.


----------



## BombTaxi (May 30, 2010)

The reason no Martlets went to Malta is simple - the RAF was defending the island and the FAA (which owned and operated the Martlets) was not. Several people have made the mistake of assuming and saying that the RAF flew Martlets - this is simply not the case. As I said, they were FAA operated and the RAF had nothing to do with them. The 81 French a/c that became Martlet Mk1 were built for the never completed carriers _Joffre_ and _Painleve_, and although used from land bases, were fully carrier-capable, albeit without folding wings, as the French had not ordered them. Given the lack of space on most British carriers, this was probably a major factor in the Mk1s staying ashore. 

Martlet MkII were 100 aircraft ordered by the FAA - so the RAF couldn't have got their hands on them if they wanted to. 90 of the 100 ordered had folding wings - specifically ordered because of the small hangar decks on British carriers, and so crucial that the FAA accepted late delivery (in August 1941) in order to get the folding wings.

Martlet MkIII were the 30 Greek aircraft, again these did not have folding wings so were again only used from land bases. 

So why did the RAF never operate Martlets? Firstly, they didn't need them, as the Spitfire was already doing a pretty good job, and in any case the armament was non-standard. On this note, the FAA actually had .50s fitted to the French planes, which were slated to have 6x 7.5mm installed - obviously the admiralty was not concerned about non-standard armament.

Secondly, the FAA desperately needed a powerful modern fighter for it's carriers, as the only true fighter in the inventory in August 1940 was the Fulmar, aided and abetted by the Skua 'multi-role' dive bomber and the abysmal Roc turret fighter.All of these also had the disadvantage of being twin-crew (the Fulmar carried an observer), and the FAA must have been keenly aware that they needed a modern single-seat fighter ASAP. The fact that the FAA ordered 100 F4Fs off their own bat shows that they were keenly aware of their shortage of a modern fighter, and they also knew that there would be no Sea Hurricane or Seafire until the RAF had had it's fill of these types. 

I also suspect that the F4F was intended as a stopgap until the FAA could get Spits and Hurris onto it's flight decks - it made more sense to use proven domestic designs that had known strengths and weaknesses than a mongrel batch of imports built to three different specifications.

Type origins, delivery dates and specs can be found here: F4F Wildcat - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## RCAFson (May 30, 2010)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Were the conditions any worse than Guadalcanal? Probably not, but yet look at what the F4F did there.



The nearest emergency landing strip for the IJNAF, was about 400 miles from Henderson field, while the main airfield for IJN attacks, at Rabaul, was almost 600 miles away.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 30, 2010)

RCAFson said:


> The nearest emergency landing strip for the IJNAF, was about 400 miles from Henderson field, while the main airfield for IJN attacks, at Rabaul, was almost 600 miles away.


While this is true, the F4Fs out of Guadalcanal were not only outnumbered but operated in probably one of the most hostile environments of the entire war. Considering what the F4F accomplished there, I don't see them "getting slaughtered" over Malta, although this is a highly variable "what if." Also consider pilot skill, determination and tactics.

Besides I'm sure the Marines on Guadalcanal realized that if they did not drive off the Japanese, their defeat would have meant torture and possibly death.


----------



## Knegel (May 30, 2010)

Vincenzo said:


> ever there you can see that F4F-3 of '40 have similar performance of '40 Hurri II
> 
> 
> i just checked and i saw that FM-2 has best speed&climb of Hurri II



The F4F-3 datas are calculated, the FM-2 datas and the HurriII datas are tested, though there is also a calculated Hurri speed curve with 340mph max. 

I coubt the F4F-3 was as fast as the FM-2, the latter had a better engine, but all i say is that the F4F wasnt realy better than the Hurri II, so in Europe it wasnt a good choise.


----------



## Knegel (May 30, 2010)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Comparing it to the Bf 109E, the 109E had a dive speed of 466 MPH, the F4F-3 had a dive speed of 480.
> 
> Spitfire Mk I versus Me 109 E
> 
> The Pacific War Online Encyclopedia: F4F Wildcat, U.S. Carrier Fighter



The F4F never had a official dive limit written down, the 466mph is written in the 109E3 hand book, later this limit got increased to 500mph, still there is no terminal limit known. This probably depends to the altitude, cause most destructive was critical mach related shockwaves.

The F4F was known not to dive like a land based plane and since the 109 did outdive even the Spitfire(up to the heavy 14), i doubt the F4F could do it much better than then Hurri.


----------



## Knegel (May 30, 2010)

RCAFson said:


> Speed for a 12lb boost Hurricane 1:
> http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/Hurricane_Speed-HRuch.png
> 
> Climb for a 12lb boost Hurricane 1:
> ...



This is a very bad comparison, cause 12lb was real WEP(extreme short period) for the MerlinIII, while the FM-2 datas are made with a real usable power setting. I often see the 12lb datas posted, only cause someone made some speed estimations with it(this dont got tested). Noone should forget that the F4F´s, same like the 109E also had a short edurance power, though, we miss good tests with this settings(for the 109E we have such a yugoslavian datas sheet, where the 109E made 500km/h at sea level). 

But for the F4F as possibility as RAF fighter 1943 dont matter anyway, time in question is 1941 to 42 and here the HurriII with 9lb is a good comparison to the combat power F4F-3 or 4.
Even with the highest boost, in 1943 the Hurri was extreme outdated as fighter, same we can say for the F4F/FM-2 in Europe. Since the IJNAF still did fly mainly Zeros in 1943/44/45, but already with less good pilot skill, the FM-2 was still a good carrier plane.


----------



## renrich (May 30, 2010)

Knegel, I don't know where you get your data but but the FM2 had a two speed single stage supercharger which caused it's climb rate to drop off earlier than the twin wasp engine which powered the F4F3. It is clear that the early F4F3 was the lightest and fastest of all the Widcats according to Dean which I have found to be very reliable. The main question, in my mind, when comparing performance numbers for the Hurri and the Wildcat was which model with which engine and at what weight. The conditions under which the Wildcats fought at Guadalcanal were abominable in 1942. Henderson Field was being bombed in the daytime by Japanese bombers, bombarded at night by Japanese warships and often shelled by Japanese artillery night and day. The pilots slept in tents or in trenches in the mud. Their rations were miserable including a lot of Jap rice. Most had tropical diseases. The ground crews had it even worse, if possible. Sometimes the pilots were issued 1903 Springfields and had to help fight off banzai attacks. The aircraft were beat up by the awful conditions and spare parts were scarce. Sometimes the takeoffs were subjected to enemy ground fire. Snipers were common. The Wildcats held the line against what Eric Brown called, " possibly the world's outstanding fighter at low and medium altitudes in 1941." Eric Brown was intimately acquainted with the Hurricane.

In 1941 and 1942, the Wildcat did not have combat power. All the numbers for it are at military power.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 30, 2010)

Knegel said:


> The F4F never had a official dive limit written down.



No - it never had a VNE - during flight testing it attained a dive speed of 480


----------



## BombTaxi (May 30, 2010)

In comparing Spit/Hurri dive performance to the 109, don't forget early Merlins had carburetors, while the 109s were direct injection. If a 109 flicked over into a negative G dive, and a Merlin-engined fighter followed, the Merlin would cut out, leaving the 109 to ecape. German pilots used this as a standard evasive tactic during the BoB. The F4F would have had the same problem.


----------



## RCAFson (May 30, 2010)

renrich said:


> Knegel, I don't know where you get your data but but the FM2 had a two speed single stage supercharger which caused it's climb rate to drop off earlier than the twin wasp engine which powered the F4F3. It is clear that the early F4F3 was the lightest and fastest of all the Widcats according to Dean which I have found to be very reliable. The main question, in my mind, when comparing performance numbers for the Hurri and the Wildcat was which model with which engine and at what weight. The conditions under which the Wildcats fought at Guadalcanal were abominable in 1942. Henderson Field was being bombed in the daytime by Japanese bombers, bombarded at night by Japanese warships and often shelled by Japanese artillery night and day. The pilots slept in tents or in trenches in the mud. Their rations were miserable including a lot of Jap rice. Most had tropical diseases. The ground crews had it even worse, if possible. Sometimes the pilots were issued 1903 Springfields and had to help fight off banzai attacks. The aircraft were beat up by the awful conditions and spare parts were scarce. Sometimes the takeoffs were subjected to enemy ground fire. Snipers were common. The Wildcats held the line against what Eric Brown called, " possibly the world's outstanding fighter at low and medium altitudes in 1941." Eric Brown was intimately acquainted with the Hurricane.
> 
> In 1941 and 1942, the Wildcat did not have combat power. All the numbers for it are at military power.



The F4F-3 was faster at very high altitude, but over Malta, for example, the FM-2 climb rate and low altitude speed would have been more advantageous. F4F-3 performance was also good because early models, (and the first Martlets) had no armour or self sealing tanks. At any stage of their development the Hurricane always had a performance advantage, if flown with overboost.

Over Henderson, the F4Fs typically had an hour or more warning time of IJNAF raids due to the service of the coastwatchers. The F4Fs were under real stress from Sept to Nov 1942, or about 3 months. The Malta Hurricanes were under siege for about two years, and Malta became the most heavily bombed place on earth during that time. Tropical disease and malnutrition effected most Hurricane pilots and aircrew who were fortunate enough to survive that long. Beurling was a relative short timer on Malta and yet:

_



The enervation of daily combat combined with the effects of the poor rations and dysentery were telling. Beurling was bedridden for much of August and September, gaining only 1½ victories in August.

Click to expand...

_George Beurling - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Vincenzo (May 30, 2010)

RCAFson said:


> Speed for a 12lb boost Hurricane 1:
> http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/Hurricane_Speed-HRuch.png
> 
> Climb for a 12lb boost Hurricane 1:
> ...



here hurri II at 16lb http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/hurricane-IIc-raechart-level.jpg
you can see that FM-2 was best


----------



## Vincenzo (May 30, 2010)

Knegel said:


> The F4F-3 datas are calculated, the FM-2 datas and the HurriII datas are tested, though there is also a calculated Hurri speed curve with 340mph max.
> 
> I coubt the F4F-3 was as fast as the FM-2, the latter had a better engine, but all i say is that the F4F wasnt realy better than the Hurri II, so in Europe it wasnt a good choise.



there are also test for F4F-34


----------



## RCAFson (May 30, 2010)

Knegel said:


> This is a very bad comparison, cause 12lb was real WEP(extreme short period) for the MerlinIII, while the FM-2 datas are made with a real usable power setting. I often see the 12lb datas posted, only cause someone made some speed estimations with it(this dont got tested). Noone should forget that the F4F´s, same like the 109E also had a short edurance power, though, we miss good tests with this settings(for the 109E we have such a yugoslavian datas sheet, where the 109E made 500km/h at sea level).
> 
> But for the F4F as possibility as RAF fighter 1943 dont matter anyway, time in question is 1941 to 42 and here the HurriII with 9lb is a good comparison to the combat power F4F-3 or 4.
> Even with the highest boost, in 1943 the Hurri was extreme outdated as fighter, same we can say for the F4F/FM-2 in Europe. Since the IJNAF still did fly mainly Zeros in 1943/44/45, but already with less good pilot skill, the FM-2 was still a good carrier plane.



12lb boost performance was measured:





and the results were used for the speed estimates. 12lb boost was available for unlimted time, although pilots were cautioned not to use it for more than 5 minutes. The FM-2 data includes WEP performance and this is the only reason it comes close to the Hurricane in performance. The later Merlin engines were enginnered to use higher boost and so 14lb-16lb on a 1942 merlin XX was equivalent to 12lb boost in 1940.
12lb boost was used regularly in combat:
Hurricane Mk I Performance

yet the data for the Hurricane II here:
Hurricane II Z-3564 Trials Report
is calculated at 9lb boost.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 30, 2010)

RCAFson said:


> Over Henderson, the F4Fs typically had an hour or more warning time of IJNAF raids due to the service of the coastwatchers. The F4Fs were under real stress from Sept to Nov 1942, or about 3 months.


Not always true. In the beginning of the conflict there were little or no cost watchers and the Marines were trying to conduct air operations while battling an enemy within the airfield perimeter.



RCAFson said:


> The Malta Hurricanes were under siege for about two years, and Malta became the most heavily bombed place on earth during that time. Tropical disease and malnutrition effected most Hurricane pilots and aircrew who were fortunate enough to survive that long.


Gee, I guess Guadalcanal didn't have things like tropical disease, malnutrition, and oh yes, dysentery, a popular favorite



RCAFson said:


> Beurling was a relative short timer on Malta and yet:
> 
> 
> George Beurling - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



OH PLEASE - spare us the Wikipedia reference on Beurling, we know who he was!!!!


----------



## Knegel (May 30, 2010)

renrich said:


> Knegel, I don't know where you get your data but but the FM2 had a two speed single stage supercharger which caused it's climb rate to drop off earlier than the twin wasp engine which powered the F4F3. It is clear that the early F4F3 was the lightest and fastest of all the Widcats according to Dean which I have found to be very reliable. The main question, in my mind, when comparing performance numbers for the Hurri and the Wildcat was which model with which engine and at what weight. The conditions under which the Wildcats fought at Guadalcanal were abominable in 1942. Henderson Field was being bombed in the daytime by Japanese bombers, bombarded at night by Japanese warships and often shelled by Japanese artillery night and day. The pilots slept in tents or in trenches in the mud. Their rations were miserable including a lot of Jap rice. Most had tropical diseases. The ground crews had it even worse, if possible. Sometimes the pilots were issued 1903 Springfields and had to help fight off banzai attacks. The aircraft were beat up by the awful conditions and spare parts were scarce. Sometimes the takeoffs were subjected to enemy ground fire. Snipers were common. The Wildcats held the line against what Eric Brown called, " possibly the world's outstanding fighter at low and medium altitudes in 1941." Eric Brown was intimately acquainted with the Hurricane.
> 
> In 1941 and 1942, the Wildcat did not have combat power. All the numbers for it are at military power.



The FM-2 was the late war F4F, it had 200HP more than the F4F-3. 
While the FM-2 had 200kg more weight, it did carry more amunition and plating and this it had a way better climb performence + additional WEP.
The FM-2 had a all over better performence than the F4F-3.

What the us pilots and personal did experience on Henderson airfield was absolut normal for russian and german crews at the east front and also in Africa. 

Eric Brown did say much, still he had no real dogfight experience with other fighters.

" possibly the world's outstanding fighter at low and medium altitudes in 1941."

Possible, yes, but probably not, cause in 1941 there was the 109F-2, 109F-4, FW190A2 and Yak-1. 

They all was way better fighters in low level, but possibly Mr.Brown never didnt understand the modern fightertactics when he made this statement, like many other British people in 1940/41, where WWI turfight still did count as the way to go(they didnt know what to do with the P38, same with the P39, Wirlwind and other fast but rather bad turning planes and they also thought the Hurri is better than the 109E, cause it made the aerobatics better).


----------



## Knegel (May 30, 2010)

RCAFson said:


> 12lb boost performance was measured:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Afaik the 12lb boost on the MerlinIII was absolut short period and only for emergency, they even had to report the usage to the mechianics. 

Surly the pilots did use it, cause vs the 109 they needed it, and its better to blow the engine than to get shot down anyway. Same the russians did and i bet also the german pilots did use their WEP if needed, even if it was not allowed according to the manual.

I bet the pilots avoided to use it if they was over enemy territory.

I agree that the HurriII was better than the F4F, still it was a poor fighter, even vs the 109E, not to talk about the 109F and FW190A.


----------



## RCAFson (May 30, 2010)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Not always true. In the beginning of the conflict there were little or no cost watchers and the Marines were trying to conduct air operations while battling an enemy within the airfield perimeter.
> 
> Gee, I guess Guadalcanal didn't have things like tropical disease, malnutrition, and oh yes, dysentery, a popular favorite
> 
> ...



The coast watchers were there from the beginning:

_



Coastwatchers proved extremely useful to U.S. Marine forces in providing reports on the number and movement of Japanese troops. Officers from the 1st Marine Division obtained accurate information on the location of enemy forces in their objective areas, and were provided vital reports on approaching Japanese bombing raids. *On 8 August 1942,* Coastwatcher Jack Reed on Bougainville alerted American forces to an upcoming raid by 40 Japanese bombers, which resulted in 36 of the enemy planes being destroyed. The "early warning system" provided by the Coastwatchers helped Marine forces on Guadalcanal to hold onto the Henderson Field airstrip.

Click to expand...

_First Offensive: The Marine Campaign for Guadalcanal (The Landing and August Battles)

Guadalcanal did have tropical disease but given the short time of the campaign things like malnutrition were less of an issue than on Malta. The reference to Beurling was to show you the conditions prevalent on Malta, and that sickness and malnutrition was a real factor, for everyone.


----------



## RCAFson (May 30, 2010)

Knegel said:


> Afaik the 12lb boost on the MerlinIII was absolut short period and only for emergency, they even had to report the usage to the mechianics.



Overboost was available until the emergency ended or the engine blew up; there was no mechanical time limit. IIRC, there are reports of pilots using it for 30min. Yes, pilots were supposed to log overboost use and to try and limit it to 5 min, but this wasn't always done.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 30, 2010)

RCAFson said:


> The coast watchers were there from the beginning:
> 
> First Offensive: The Marine Campaign for Guadalcanal (The Landing and August Battles)



He was among the first ones to support the campaign, there was still the matter of fighting Japanese just out side your perimeter.


RCAFson said:


> Guadalcanal did have tropical disease but given the short time of the campaign things like malnutrition were less of an issue than on Malta. The reference to Beurling was to show you the conditions prevalent on Malta, and that sickness and malnutrition was a real factor, for everyone.



Well aware of that - but again, would you pick a Japanese POW camp over a German one had either campaign failed?


----------



## RCAFson (May 30, 2010)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Well aware of that - but again, would you pick a Japanese POW camp over a German one had either campaign failed?



Yes a German PoW camp was preferable to being executed or imprisoned by the Japanese, but Malta endured a much longer siege than Guadalcanal.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 30, 2010)

RCAFson said:


> Yes a German PoW camp was preferable to being executed or imprisoned by the Japanese, but Malta endured a much longer siege than Guadalcanal.



Malta was able to be supplied - in the short campaign at Guadalcanal, that initially wasn't a luxury.


----------



## pbfoot (May 30, 2010)

I know you have a dislike for Buerling, Joe but I really think its unfounded .


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 30, 2010)

pbfoot said:


> I know you have a dislike for Buerling, Joe but I really think its unfounded .


Errrr, you show me ANYWHERE on this forum where I ever said ANYTHING negative about Buerling?!?!?!? If anything I've always had great admiration for the guy!!!

The point was bringing in a WIKIPEDIA reference about one of the most popular allied aces into this discussion. There was NOTHING negative said about Buerling!!!!


----------



## RCAFson (May 30, 2010)

Some basic facts about the siege of Malta:

296 – Number of tons of bombs dropped on Takali Airfield in 24 hours on 20-21 March 1942, making it the most bombed Allied airfield ever.

6,728 – Number of tons of bombs dropped on Malta in April, 1942 (36 times the size of the bombing of Coventry). 1,700 tons dropped on Dresden.

3,156 – Number of tons of bombs dropped on harbour areas in Malta in April, 1942.

841 – Number of tons of bombs dropped on Takali airfield in April, 1942.

805 – Number of tons of bombs dropped on Luqa airfield in April, 1942.

*18,000 – Number of tons of bombs dropped during entire Blitz of England*

3,340 – Number of air raid alerts over Malta during siege.
*
170 – The average number of enemy aircraft flying over Malta every day between December 1941 and April 1942.*

30,027 – Number of Maltese buildings destroyed and damaged during the siege.

*17 miles by 9 – approximate size of Malta.*

454 – Number of enemy aircraft destroyed or damaged by Malta’s anti-aircraft gunners during siege.

102 – Number of enemy aircraft confirmed shot down by Malta’s anti-aircraft gunners during April 1942.

65 – Number of destroyed or damaged enemy aircraft on 10 May, 1942

82 – Number of enemy aircraft destroyed between 10-14 October 1942

350 – Number of enemy aircraft destroyed or damaged during Axis blitz of October, 1942.

174 – Number of RAF fighter pilots killed in action over Malta between June194 and November 1942.

*In two months in 1942 – March and April – more bombs were dropped on Malta (an island a fraction of the size of London) than were dropped on London during the entire Blitz.*

Basically, if the entire IJNAF air offensive against Guadalcanal was added to Malta's attack it would not have even been noticed given the scale of attack against Malta: *170 – The average number of enemy aircraft flying over Malta every day between December 1941 and April 1942 = 26350 axis sorties in 5 months alone. *
Merlins Over Malta - The Defenders Returned!

From October 1941 to Oct 1942, only about 100,000 (10 average sized transports) tons of supplies arrived to sustain an Island with a total population ofabout 300,000.
Merlins Over Malta - The Defenders Returned!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 30, 2010)

RCAFson said:


> Some basic facts about the siege of Malta:
> 
> 296 – Number of tons of bombs dropped on Takali Airfield in 24 hours on 20-21 March 1942, making it the most bombed Allied airfield ever.
> 
> ...



And your point????


----------



## pbfoot (May 30, 2010)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Errrr, you show me ANYWHERE on this forum where I ever said ANYTHING negative about Buerling?!?!?!? If anything I've always had great admiration for the guy!!!
> 
> The point was bringing in a WIKIPEDIA reference about one of the most popular allied aces into this discussion. There was NOTHING negative said about Buerling!!!!


http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/stories/george-buzz-beurling-leading-canadian-ace-2281-2.html
The 3rd post , just off the hop


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 30, 2010)

pbfoot said:


> http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/stories/george-buzz-beurling-leading-canadian-ace-2281-2.html
> The 3rd post , just off the hop



*AND YOU TELL ME WHAT WAS SO BAD ABOUT THAT?!?!? *The man made his own uniform and it was obvious I made a joke about it!!!!

Please - pick and choose your battles, it's pretty friggin obvious there was no disrespect made about him!!!!


----------



## buffnut453 (May 30, 2010)

And his nickname was "Screwball" - nuff said, methinks!


----------



## RCAFson (May 30, 2010)

FLYBOYJ said:


> And your point????



My point is that the Hurricanes over Malta faced overwhelming odds, and were greatly outnumbered by an opponent that was 70 miles away and could fly several sorties a day and even loiter in the Hurricanes landing circuit. In contrast, the Wildcats over Henderson had a cakewalk against a very weak opponent that was based 600 miles away and averaged a weak attack a couple of times a week. Quoting F4F stats from Guadalcanal to try and prove the supposed superiority of the f4F over the Hurricane is complete bull.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 30, 2010)

RCAFson said:


> My point is that the Hurricanes over Malta faced overwhelming odds, and were greatly outnumbered by an opponent that was 70 miles away and could fly several sorties a day and even loiter in the Hurricanes land circuit. In contrast, the Wildcats over Henderson had a cakewalk against a very weak opponent that was based 600 miles away and averaged a weak attack a couple of times a week. Quoting F4F stats from Guadalcanal to try and prove the supposed superiority of the f4F over the Hurricane is complete bull.


Cakewalk? Guadalcanal? I guess your opinions carry more weight than your brains. At one time there were only 15 F4Fs to defend Henderson. Trying to compare the two campaigns is like comparing apples and oranges. Trying to down play one over the over is just ignorant.

I'm almost of the opinion that you're almost too stupid to be here....


----------



## RCAFson (May 30, 2010)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Cakewalk? Guadalcanal? I guess your opinions carry more weight than your brains. At one time there were only 15 F4Fs to defend Henderson. Trying to compare the two campaigns is like comparing apples and oranges. Trying to down play one over the over is just ignorant.



8 – Number of serviceable Spitfires on Malta on 1 April, 1942

19 – Number of serviceable Hurricanes on Malta on 1 April, 1942

1 – Number of serviceable fighters on Malta on five separate days in April, 1942

0 – Number of serviceable fighters on Malta on 14 April, 1942

47 – Number of newly arrived Spitfires on Malta on April 20, 1942

7 – Number of Spitfires available on Malta on April 30, 1942
Merlins Over Malta - The Defenders Returned!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 30, 2010)

RCAFson said:


> 8 – Number of serviceable Spitfires on Malta on 1 April, 1942
> 
> 19 – Number of serviceable Hurricanes on Malta on 1 April, 1942
> 
> ...


Again what's your point?

And was there ground fighting at the airfield? Did pilots have to fear being killed in the middle of the night by Japanese entering their perimeter?

Guadalcanal WAS NOT a cakewalk and I would say the same about Malta. Talk like that is just stupid at a bare minimum , and I'm being kind


----------



## pbfoot (May 30, 2010)

FLYBOYJ said:


> *AND YOU TELL ME WHAT WAS SO BAD ABOUT THAT?!?!? *The man made his own uniform and it was obvious I made a joke about it!!!!
> 
> Please - pick and choose your battles, it's pretty friggin obvious there was no disrespect made about him!!!!


Cuz its bullshit , you've made the same comment several times but are apparently the only one to ever see this supposed uniform.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 30, 2010)

pbfoot said:


> Cuz its bullshit , you've made the same comment several times but are apparently the only one to ever see this supposed uniform.


I'm going to find the photo and then I expect an apology.


----------



## pbfoot (May 30, 2010)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I'm going to find the photo and then I expect an apology.


you find it it and I'll apologize wholeheartedly .


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 30, 2010)

pbfoot said:


> you find it it and I'll apologize wholeheartedly .



Here's the photo, I'll find the caption.


----------



## Shortround6 (May 30, 2010)

JoeB said:


> I'm talking about F4F instead of the 'second line' (ie. non-Spitfire, ie. Hurricane, Mohawk, Tomahawk etc) British fighters. So that's in many cases outside the North Europe theater. It clearly doesn't make sense IMHO, to say 'but the Hurricanes had tropical filters' when we're talking about the F4F standing in for them in the same real world combat situation where the Hurricane was fitted with such filters, as in Med theater.



Just trying to keep things straight. And trying to figure out why combat results differ from "book" figures. One reference for the Hurricane (which may not be accurate) shows that the tropical MK I had a speed of 317mph at 16,000ft compared to a normal MK's 330mph at 17,500ft. Max climb is down 120fpm and time to 20,000ft is 30 seconds longer. Service ceiling is 3,000ft lower. The F4F would certainly show to a greater advantage against a Tropical Hurricane than a normal one even if it is superior to a normal MK I.


JoeB said:


> And as far as exact timeline, again the timeline of Hurricane result v even Bf109E does not support the idea that relatively minor improvements to the Hurricane after mid-1940 made a big positive difference. It's the opposite actually. Malta 1941 was *a lot* worse for the Hurr v 109E than Battle of France. So was North Africa, even before the109F was introduced. In fairness in a relatively few combats in Greece Hurrs did better v 109E's than the typical ~1:2 ratio in 1940-41 in North Europe.



I am not sure what you consider a minor improvement. While the fitting of the Merlin XX engine didn't transform the Hurricane the way fitting a two stage Merlin transformed the Mustang there was a noticeable difference in performance. Why it doesn't translate into better combat performance I don't know. For a non-tropical MK IIA the speed went up 10mph but more importantly it was achieved 4,000ft higher than the MK I.
Max climb went up 600ft per minute and climb to 20,000ft was cut by 2 full minutes. Service ceiling was 41,000ft and while this last was not particularly important in itself, since service ceiling is the altitude at which climb rate drops to 100ft per minute it is an indication of a planes performance or power at higher altitudes like 25,000 to 35,000ft. 
Fitting the extra 4 Mgs did knock a bit off the performance and fitting the tropical filter/gear knock a bit more off but a Tropical MK IIB was supposed to be good for 334mph at 18,200ft. Max climb 2,850fpm and 7.7 min to 20,000ft with a service ceiling of 35,500ft. 

How do these numbers compare to the F4F-3? 
would Four .50 cal guns be that much better than twelve .303s?


JoeB said:


> And, the specific Battle of France comparison I made was between H-75 (no protection, 6*7.5mm mg armament) to the Hurricane at the same time v same opponent: H-75 had better real ratio v 109E. And it was a fairly similar plane to the F4F (except for the H-75's markedly inferior armament, seat armor and tank protection was a trade off in any of those 3 planes originally designed without such features: it reduced the plane's performance, but reduced *pilot* not necessarily *plane*, losses in an attrition campaign, and besides preserving pilots, that gave pilots more confidence in combat).
> 
> Joe



The Hawk may have had the same basic engine (no 2 stage supercharger on the R-1830s) as some of the F4Fs but it was about 3/4 ton to 1 ton lighter than an F4F. While the drag and speed may have been close the climb and turning ability may have been rather different. Germans may have been more in a dog fight mode than over England. The fighting over France may have been at lower altitudes (on average)than over England due to both sides doing more low level ground support. 

Getting back to the time line thing, I notice in the last couple of pages references for both types of Hurricanes and F4Fs from the early -3 to the FM-2s. Different boost limits for the Merlin (which came at different times) and at least 2 different Cyclone engines in the Martlets and two different R-1830s in the P&W powered Wildcats/Martlets.

This is what I was afraid of to begin with. With a time line or point in time we could at least argue the versions available at a particular point in time or short period rather than planes that are several years apart. 

Respectfully
Steve


----------



## pinsog (May 30, 2010)

KNEGEL, The P39 could outturn a 109 or 190 down low, according to the Russians


----------



## pbfoot (May 31, 2010)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Here's the photo, I'll find the caption.


It was on Malta , , I believed he had lost near 40lbs at the time from diet and disease. He is wearing his RAF "winter" tunic with wings and DFC and a pair of shorts which look to be from RAF tropical . He is still a Flight Seargent . I bet the uniforms of the guys on the canal were just as much a mish mosh .


----------



## Knegel (May 31, 2010)

RCAFson said:


> Overboost was available until the emergency ended or the engine blew up; there was no mechanical time limit. IIRC, there are reports of pilots using it for 30min. Yes, pilots were supposed to log overboost use and to try and limit it to 5 min, but this wasn't always done.



Hi,

not a mechianical time limit, a time limit in the books. 
Sure that security limits and engines might stand this, but to compare planes, we cant use them for one plane, but not for the other. 
The F3F also had a short endurance take off power, same kike the 109E and later 109G and many other planes, if we use 12lb for the Hurri1a and Spit1a, we must use also this short edurance settings, then the Hurri1a look bad again.

Greetings,

Knegel


----------



## Knegel (May 31, 2010)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Cakewalk? Guadalcanal? I guess your opinions carry more weight than your brains. At one time there were only 15 F4Fs to defend Henderson. Trying to compare the two campaigns is like comparing apples and oranges. Trying to down play one over the over is just ignorant.
> 
> I'm almost of the opinion that you're almost too stupid to be here....





FLYBOYJ said:


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by RCAFson View Post
> 8 – Number of serviceable Spitfires on Malta on 1 April, 1942
> 
> ...




"I'm almost of the opinion that you're almost too stupid to be here......."

Who offer such a sentence should at 1st look into a mirror, normally what got written show up.


RCAFson just make clear that Guadalcanal was nothing special(still not easy). Malta is just a similar example, used cause its also an island. In Africa the war was so fast, many times the crews was in the ground battle fireline and sometimes had to fight as well in the ground battle.
At night there was enemy bombers on close bases, the "long range desert group" and the "Brandernburger" came at night and day, even far behind the frontline.

In russia it was even worse, there was partisans, temperatures from + 40°C down to -40°C and also a fast moving frontline with particular extreme bad support, this was so for the russians and germans.

The RAF at Malta for sure had a way harder life regarding the airbattle, the numbers shown by RCAFson, that you dont know what to do with, show how much the Luftwaffe was present there, EVERY DAY!


----------



## Glider (May 31, 2010)

Another one bites the dust.


----------



## RCAFson (May 31, 2010)

I should not have referred to the F4F campaign on Guadalcanal as a "cakewalk", it was a tough slog. 

The fact remains that the air campaign over Malta was much more intense than the aerial battles over Guadalcanal, in terms of the daily average sortie rate and the number of tons of bombs dropped.


----------



## fastmongrel (May 31, 2010)

Well that was fun wasnt it another thread destroyed just when it was getting interesting. 

Is there any chance this forum could stop descending into stupid nationalism of the my airforce is better than your airforce kind


----------



## Shortround6 (May 31, 2010)

Knegel said:


> Hi,
> 
> not a mechianical time limit, a time limit in the books.
> Sure that security limits and engines might stand this, but to compare planes, we cant use them for one plane, but not for the other.
> ...



"then the Hurri1a look bad again."

Not really, the 1200hp take off rating or the military ratings for whatever HP at altitude for the R-1830 were a 5min ratings. There were no higher ratings. First F4F-3 with the two stage supercharger isn't delivered until Aug of 1940. within a few weeks if not days of the MK II Hurricane. 

First Martlet I is delivered in July of 1940, but uses a single stage, 2 speed supercharged Wright R-1820 engine remarkably similar to the engine used in the last Buffaloes. 

The 1350 hp Cyclone engines in the FM-2 were not War Emergency rated 1200hp engines but engines that had revised crankshafts, forged cylinder heads instead of cast and a new type of cylinder finning among other changes.


----------



## Knegel (May 31, 2010)

Hi,

the FM-2 engine had also 1335hp military power in 3800ft and 1060HP in 15000ft.
Comat power was 1475HP in 1900ft and 1215HP in 10000ft.

The MerlinIII had just one powerpeak in 15000feet, where it had 1300HP.
And this was a real short edurance WEP, while the FM´2s combat power was a real usable 5min combat power, like that of the 109E. 
The 109E additionally had a similar WEP like the MerlinIII, with 1175PS sea level. This power even wasnt restricted somehow, it was fully usable as take off power. But this this was also realy meant only as short endurance power we miss tests with this. But we can look to the 109E4/N performence to get an idea.

The two stage supercharged F4F-3 datas are calculated with 1100HP sea level power, while takeoff power was 1200HP sea level, just like the Merlin III´s WEP.

WEP is just a real bad power to compare planes, specialy when it comes to the climb performence. Here the MerlinIII WEP was not usable without to risk a brake the engine in very short timespan.
Over england, with the back to the wall and with homeland below you, you would use such a power setting, not so if you fly far over sea or enemy territory and specialy not in the med, where the air temerature was way higher than over england.

btw. When they did test the BMW801D increased boost with C3 injection, on one plane the C3 injection didnt work, but they saw this only after all flight tests was done. So the engine made the high boost tests without the cooling effect of the C3 injection, still the engine didnt show any trouble.
So now we could say all 190A´s could run with 1900-2000PS, but the engeeners did know better. 
Reliability is one major factor for a squadron to be combat ready, and although pilots did use increased boosts, to gain a advantage, this for sure wasnt the norm and mainly belongs to critical situations and this was was made on all sides of the frontline. 

More important for the combat than the short endurance WEP was the combat/climb setting, cause this did determine the planes ability to intercept enemys and also the maximum cruise speed and altitude performence was related to this and the maximum cruise speed was most important for an initial advantage or disadvanatge at the beginning of the combat.


----------



## Shortround6 (May 31, 2010)

Knegel said:


> the FM-2 engine had also 1335hp military power in 3800ft and 1060HP in 15000ft.
> Comat power was 1475HP in 1900ft and 1215HP in 10000ft.


Could you give me a source for this?


The First FM-2 wasn't delivered until Sept. 1943. Just a little late to be comparing it to a MK I Hurricane. 




Knegel said:


> More important for the combat than the short endurance WEP was the combat/climb setting, cause this did determine the planes ability to intercept enemys and also the maximum cruise speed and altitude performence was related to this and the maximum cruise speed was most important for an initial advantage or disadvanatge at the beginning of the combat.



another thing to consider is that American planes, when tested for time to altitude, were allowed to use military power for the first 5 minuted of the climb and then throttled back to "Normal" or max continuous power for the rest of the climb. 

Most Merlin Powered British Planes were timed useing 2850 or less rpm instead of 3000rpm and using less than full boost. Their climb times used a 30 minute power setting for the entire climb.


----------



## Knegel (May 31, 2010)

Hi,

the FM-2 datas are here:
FM-2 Performance Trials

You be right regarding the FM-2, its a late war plane(mainly 1944/45).

Yes, the US tests are not always nice to compare them with other tests. 

But on the other side specialy early german tests(109E/F/G) are made with combat/climb even at maximum speed, while many british tests are made with 5min all out level power.

On the page above you will also find plenty of Spitifre tests with varius combat power settings(also climb tests).

To compaire the different available plane performences to get an good idea of the relative performence is realy a pain in the ass.

Specialy for Axis and russian planes we badly miss complete tests, where the real power output etc is written down.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 31, 2010)

Knegel said:


> "I'm almost of the opinion that you're almost too stupid to be here......."
> 
> Who offer such a sentence should at 1st look into a mirror, normally what got written show up.



Enjoy the rest of your life!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 31, 2010)

RCAFson said:


> I should not have referred to the F4F campaign on Guadalcanal as a "cakewalk", it was a tough slog.


Thank you


RCAFson said:


> The fact remains that the air campaign over Malta was much more intense than the aerial battles over Guadalcanal, in terms of the daily average sortie rate and the number of tons of bombs dropped.


Fair enough


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 31, 2010)

pbfoot said:


> It was on Malta , , I believed he had lost near 40lbs at the time from diet and disease. He is wearing his RAF "winter" tunic with wings and DFC and a pair of shorts which look to be from RAF tropical . He is still a Flight Seargent . I bet the uniforms of the guys on the canal were just as much a mish mosh .



There is a painting of him in a uniform he put together on his own and it is stated in the text he did this all the time as well as wearing pajamas on the airfield with a greasy service cap. The fact is I DID NOT MAKE THIS UP!!!!

And what the HELL does the "the guys on the canal" have to do with this???? And yes, of course it was on Malta!!

There was absolutely NO disrespect towards him mentioned, as a matter of fact I put up a very old post about him where I stated "had he had another 30 days we would have wiped out the whole Italian Air Force!" 

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/polls/greatest-fighter-pilot-wwii-finalized-1397-7.html#post76422
Post 100 PLEASE
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/italy-v-england-air-air-1104-2.html#post58815
Post 18 PLEASE

I stand behind my comments and proved my point - do you have the balls to stand behind yours?!?!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 31, 2010)

fastmongrel said:


> Well that was fun wasnt it another thread destroyed just when it was getting interesting.
> 
> Is there any chance this forum could stop descending into stupid nationalism of the my airforce is better than your airforce kind



Point taken...

so let's get this thread back on topic...


----------



## renrich (May 31, 2010)

Where were we? Oh yes. How would the F4F have done in the ETO if it was available as a land based fighter. It looks as if the F4F and Hurricane had rather similar performance characteristics. The F4F may have had better armament, especially against bombers, if four fifties is compared with eight thirties. When the Hurricane got four 20 mms it was better armed except for firing time. The F4F with four fifties with 430 rounds per gun had a firing time of 28.7 seconds. The F4F because of it's radial air cooled engine was probably more resistant to battle damage. 

Overall there looks like little to choose between the two fighters so given equal pilot skill the F4F probably would have done at least equally well as the Hurricane. The nettlesome combat result statistics which seem to show the Wildcat as being more effective than the Hurricane in the Pacific may be the result of better trained pilots and tactics in the Wildcat. The USN and Marine pilots in the Pacific were very well trained and they had developed good tactics.


----------



## buffnut453 (May 31, 2010)

renrich said:


> The nettlesome combat result statistics which seem to show the Wildcat as being more effective than the Hurricane in the Pacific may be the result of better trained pilots and tactics in the Wildcat. The USN and Marine pilots in the Pacific were very well trained and they had developed good tactics.



Plus the speed-sapping Vokes filter on the Hurri and the tactical disadvantage during the 1942-43 period. I recently did a comparison of Hurri -vs- Mohawk kills/losses in Burma which showed that the Hurri was routinely heavily outnumbered and, due to lack of adequate warning, often at a tactical disadvantage when engagements commenced (against Ki-43s rather than A6Ms, although the latter did participate in one engagement, unusually as part of a combined Army/Navy air operation).


----------



## Vincenzo (May 31, 2010)

buffnut453 said:


> Plus the speed-sapping Vokes filter on the Hurri and the tactical disadvantage during the 1942-43 period. I recently did a comparison of Hurri -vs- Mohawk kills/losses in Burma which showed that the Hurri was routinely heavily outnumbered and, due to lack of adequate warning, often at a tactical disadvantage when engagements commenced (against Ki-43s rather than A6Ms, although the latter did participate in one engagement, unusually as part of a combined Army/Navy air operation).



Vokes filters in '42/43, oh i've read from many people that vokes were quickly substituite with new and best design filters so what is the true history?


----------



## vikingBerserker (May 31, 2010)

wow


----------



## fastmongrel (May 31, 2010)

Vincenzo said:


> Vokes filters in '42/43, oh i've read from many people that vokes were quickly substituite with new and best design filters so what is the true history?



The ground staff at RAF Aboukir in Egypt developed a smaller and more streamlined filter (but I believe not quite as effective at filtration) that was fitted to some Spitfires but I believe this was only towards the end of the desert campaign. I have looked to see if there is any info on the Aboukir filter being fitted to Hurricanes but without any luck. It seems that the Hurricane was lumbered with the Vokes filter. 

The poor old Hurri really didnt need the extra drag it must have been like driving a car with a large roof rack on.

A Spitfire fitted with a Aboukir filter


----------



## RCAFson (May 31, 2010)

renrich said:


> Where were we? Oh yes. How would the F4F have done in the ETO if it was available as a land based fighter.
> 
> Overall there looks like little to choose between the two fighters



This is simply not true. The Hurricane had a performance edge over the F4F-3, especially after we add in armour and self sealing tanks. The Hurricane has a higher climb rate and far better ground handling:

I found this quote from America's Hundred thousand:




> "The soft narrow tread gear made the aircraft susceptible to ground looping One Navy Commander said *"The F4F- has long been known as the best ground looping plane we have. They say there are only two kinds of F4F- pilots, those who have ground looped, and those who are going to*". The British pilots had similar problems at times. During the landing run the aircraft could sway on its gear. Some pilots got into PIO (pilot-induced oscillations) in attempting to make corrections, which could worsen the situation. After the landing runout the tail wheel was unlocked to allow turning during taxi."


p491

The F4F was designed to land on carriers, where the ship is always steaming into the wind, unlike the Hurricane which was designed for rough field, cross wind landings as part of the design specs.


----------



## renrich (May 31, 2010)

Glad to hear you are familiar with Dean. Just because the landing gear of the Wildcat made it a little difficult in a field landing doesn't mean it was not an effective fighter in the air. The Marines and Navy used landbased Wildcats quite effectively. I believe that the 109 was not a piece of cake on the ground also as well as the P40. The undebounced Corsair was a handfull to land on a field also which did not keep it from being one of the premier fighters of the war.


----------



## Glider (May 31, 2010)

The summary seems to be that the Wildcat was slightly behind the Hurricane as a fighter. However I believe that the RAF would have taken as many as they could get if only because of the range. This would allow another area of defence namely interdiction. 
Wildcats would be able to take off at night and be ready at first light for targets of opportunity. They may not have scored many kills but that would be a bonus. The potential distruption that could be caused and just giving the german pilots something else to worry about would be worth the effort. Losses would be low as they would be safe at night, any 109's diverted to intercepting them would be diverted from escort duties.


----------



## Shortround6 (May 31, 2010)

In the summer of 1940 the Wildcat just doesn't seem to over any advantage over the Hurricane II that is coming on line.

A. there aren't enough of them. Production is just getting started while production of the Hurricane MK II is pretty much prying enough Merlin XX engines away from bomber command to send to up and running production lines.

B. First versions of the F4F-3 don't have self sealing tanks or armor and so would not be considered combat ready.

C. The Martlet 1 (ex-French) used pretty much the same engine (Cyclone) as the Brewster Buffalo and so was less than likely to impress anyone with it's altitude capability.

D. The P&W R-1830 with the two stage super charger is not quite operating properly and is in short supply. So short that that a number of F4F-3 are built by early 1941 with single stage R-1830 engines as F4F-3As. 

By the winter/ spring of 40/41 the supply situation improves a bit but still isn't great historically. 
The Wildcat has started to pork up as has the MK II Hurricane with 12 guns. By Summer of 1941 the 4 cannon Hurricanes start to show up and while there is a performance penelty there isn't much question that this is a good anti-bomber armament for the time. 

P-40s may have been more acceptable to the RAF because with Spitfires covering the high altitude section of the sky The P-40s were faster at 0-10,000ft than the wildcats and so were better performing at strafing, ground attack and low level fighter work. . The Ability to carry a 500lb on all but the earliest P-40s might not have hurt either.


----------



## Shortround6 (May 31, 2010)

Glider said:


> The summary seems to be that the Wildcat was slightly behind the Hurricane as a fighter. However I believe that the RAF would have taken as many as they could get if only because of the range. This would allow another area of defence namely interdiction.
> Wildcats would be able to take off at night and be ready at first light for targets of opportunity. They may not have scored many kills but that would be a bonus. The potential distruption that could be caused and just giving the german pilots something else to worry about would be worth the effort. Losses would be low as they would be safe at night, any 109's diverted to intercepting them would be diverted from escort duties.



Rather unneeded over England. The British radar could often detect the German formations right after take-off while they were still forming up (circling over their own bases) Once the Blitz shifted over to night attacks the Douglas Bostons were used at night to attack German bombers in their own landing patterns. And if single engine fighter interdiction was needed it could be performed by P-40s with drop tanks. Since the bombers didn't usually operate at the altitudes the fighters did ( or catching them climbing from or descending to their own airfields) the high altitude capability of the Wildcat wouldn't be needed.


----------



## RCAFson (May 31, 2010)

It is interesting to compare the Sea Hurricane to the Martlet. IIRC, the top scoring FAA pilot during Operation Pedestal was lying a Sea Hurricane IC with 4 x 20mm cannon. The IC had a Merlin III engine modded to allow 16lb boost. He was credited with 6 kills including 5 in one day. Again, IIRC the top scoring Martlet pilot had 2 kills during that operation.


----------



## pinsog (May 31, 2010)

I wouldn't let kills in one day decide whether one plane was better than another. Butch O'Hare shot down, wasn't it 5 Betty bombers within a couple of minutes in a Wildcat. The RN wasn't exactly a steller performer when it came to shooting down enemy aircraft. I doubt throughout the entire war whether a Hurricane shot down 5 of anything in one flight. No offense.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 31, 2010)

pinsog said:


> I wouldn't let kills in one day decide whether one plane was better than another.



YEP!


----------



## RCAFson (May 31, 2010)

pinsog said:


> I wouldn't let kills in one day decide whether one plane was better than another. Butch O'Hare shot down, wasn't it 5 Betty bombers within a couple of minutes in a Wildcat. The RN wasn't exactly a steller performer when it came to shooting down enemy aircraft. I doubt throughout the entire war whether a Hurricane shot down 5 of anything in one flight. No offense.



No offence, but the Betty's nickname was the "flying lighter" The Hurricane in question shot down 4 armoured Axis bombers, including 3 Ju-88s and, IIRC, 2 x ME-110s. The point is that the Hurricane was flying alongside the Martlet, and it seems that the Sea Hurricane performed better in combat, albeit with 4 x 20mm cannon, when the aircraft were in the air together.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 31, 2010)

RCAFson said:


> No offence, but the Betty's nickname was the "flying lighter" The Hurricane in question shot down 4 armoured Axis bombers, including 3 Ju-88s and, IIRC, 2 x ME-110s. The point is that the Hurricane was flying alongside the Martlet, and it seems that the Sea Hurricane performed better in combat, albeit with 4 x 20mm cannon, when the aircraft were in the air together.



Doesn't prove much - you also have to consider pilot skill...

and luck.


----------



## pinsog (May 31, 2010)

RCAFson: Now come on. You've had way too many good points today to secumb to the "1 pilot did this" syndrome. David McCampbell shot down 9 Japenese planes in 1 flight in a Hellcat while some other Hellcat pilots didn't shoot down any that day. Does that prove the Hellcat is better than the Hellcat. Of course not. 

Maybe the Hurricane pilot was good, lucky, stumbled into a bunch of Germans, who knows. But it doesn't prove the Hurricane was better than the Wildcat overall. By the way, 4 20mm would be devistating to the aircraft you mentioned. Whew, hate tobe on the receiving end of that!


----------



## RCAFson (May 31, 2010)

pinsog said:


> RCAFson: Now come on. You've had way too many good points today to secumb to the "1 pilot did this" syndrome. David McCampbell shot down 9 Japenese planes in 1 flight in a Hellcat while some other Hellcat pilots didn't shoot down any that day. Does that prove the Hellcat is better than the Hellcat. Of course not.
> 
> Maybe the Hurricane pilot was good, lucky, stumbled into a bunch of Germans, who knows. But it doesn't prove the Hurricane was better than the Wildcat overall. By the way, 4 20mm would be devistating to the aircraft you mentioned. Whew, hate tobe on the receiving end of that!



My point is that the Martlet and Sea Hurricane were flying side by side during Operation Pedestal, and this might have been the only occasion when they did so, in actual combat. I wish I knew the actual kill ratio between the two types during that Operation as we then have a direct comparison under identical conditions.

BTW, I sometime like to play around with IL-2, and an interesting scenario is to try and knock down an FW-200; with 8 x .303 very difficult, 6 x .5" not so bad, but with 4 x 20mm Hispanos, its almost easy, but you have to be a good shot with the limited ammo supply!


----------



## pinsog (Jun 1, 2010)

I personally think against single engine fighters in WW2, 6 50's was the perfect armament. I think 20's were overkill for use against single engine fighters, with the exception of the P47. Sort of like using buckshot to kill ducks, of course it kills them when you hit them but there are far fewer pellets in a shotgun loaded with buckshot. I would rather have 6 50's and a larger supply of ammo. 20's were great for heavy bombers, in fact they were absolutely necessary. If your aimwas perfect and every burst connected then 20's would be fine, but I think you would spend alot more time missing and trying to get on target against a turning fighter, and by the time you did "click" your out of ammo.


----------



## fastmongrel (Jun 1, 2010)

pinsog said:


> I personally think against single engine fighters in WW2, 6 50's was the perfect armament. I think 20's were overkill for use against single engine fighters, with the exception of the P47. Sort of like using buckshot to kill ducks, of course it kills them when you hit them but there are far fewer pellets in a shotgun loaded with buckshot. I would rather have 6 50's and a larger supply of ammo. 20's were great for heavy bombers, in fact they were absolutely necessary. If your aimwas perfect and every burst connected then 20's would be fine, but I think you would spend alot more time missing and trying to get on target against a turning fighter, and by the time you did "click" your out of ammo.



I always understood that shooting down bombers was the primary purpose of a fighter. 

If you shoot a bomber down in flames you have potentially killed up to 10 expensively trained men, destroyed 4 expensive engines and an expensive airframe. 

Shoot down a fighter and you have only killed 1 expensive man, 1 relatively cheap airframe and only 1 expensive engine.

I read a quote somewhere from a pilot that "shooting down fighters wins medals but shooting down bombers wins wars".


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 1, 2010)

In some cases you have to shoot down the fighters first


----------



## drgondog (Jun 1, 2010)

fastmongrel said:


> I always understood that shooting down bombers was the primary purpose of a fighter.
> 
> If you shoot a bomber down in flames you have potentially killed up to 10 expensively trained men, destroyed 4 expensive engines and an expensive airframe.
> 
> ...



Then there is the other side of the coin - 'shoot down enough LW fighters and only flak remains'..


----------



## drgondog (Jun 1, 2010)

fastmongrel said:


> I always understood that shooting down bombers was the primary purpose of a fighter.
> 
> *That was partially true only for the LW against the USAAF and RAF Bomber Command in 1943-1945 over Germany - and while they succeeded in killing a lot of bomber crews they failed to stop them. The primary purpose of Fighters was to gain air superiority and total control over the battlefield.*
> 
> ...



And shooting down fighters was the mission of 8th FC - and one can either say "as a result, the LW lost the air battle - or the 8th FC won the air battle"


----------



## drgondog (Jun 1, 2010)

RCAFson said:


> My point is that the Martlet and Sea Hurricane were flying side by side during Operation Pedestal, and this might have been the only occasion when they did so, in actual combat. I wish I knew the actual kill ratio between the two types during that Operation as we then have a direct comparison under identical conditions.
> 
> BTW, I sometime like to play around with IL-2, and an interesting scenario is to try and knock down an FW-200; with 8 x .303 very difficult, 6 x .5" not so bad, but with 4 x 20mm Hispanos, its almost easy, but you have to be a good shot with the limited ammo supply!



You would have to then prove identical conditions - like tactical position entering (or leaving) combat, pilot skill and leadership, shooting skills and philosophy (close before firing, shoot at anything), combat against bombers only, or against escorts and bombers, at the extent of one fighter's range while the other had time to loiter, altitude of the combats (in the strike zone of one fighter/a disadvantage for the other).. 

etc, etc.

As to "IL-2" as a determinant - well 50 cal not very effective in IL 2 but seemed most effective against real opponents... so perhaps 'designer bias' versus real life?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 1, 2010)

drgondog said:


> As to "IL-2" as a determinant - well 50 cal not very effective in IL 2 but seemed most effective against real opponents... so perhaps 'designer bias' versus real life?


The few times I messed around with IL2 I tend to agree, but then again it's just a game!


----------



## davparlr (Jun 1, 2010)

This has been an interesting spat on the F4F vs the Hurricane. It is interesting to note that these two aircraft certainly represent the evolution of the aircraft from biplane to monoplane. Both having their feet firmly mounted the biplane era. The Hurricane was based on the biplane Fury, and the unbuilt F4F-1 being a biplane. Both planes were limited in growth and were quickly surpassed by technology. In comparison, the next generation of fighters, the Spitfire, Bf-109, F4U, et.al., was adapted to be front line fighters throughout the war. However, both the Hurricane and F4F, crewed by brave and capable pilots, performed heroically when heroic deeds were needed.

My gut feeling is that you could have swapped the F4F-3 and the Hurricane Mk II at Malta and Guadalcanal and the outcome would have been approximately the same.


An interesting note, the first F4F kill was a Ju-88 by a Martlet.


----------



## pinsog (Jun 1, 2010)

fastmongrel said:


> I always understood that shooting down bombers was the primary purpose of a fighter.
> 
> If you shoot a bomber down in flames you have potentially killed up to 10 expensively trained men, destroyed 4 expensive engines and an expensive airframe.
> 
> ...



That is an interesting quote, but someone on the allied side would have had to have called and requested that either the Germans or Japanese build such a plane for the allies to shoot at. By 1944 there were virtually no bombers to shoot at in the Luftwaffe, and what few there were weren't 4 engine heavies. The only 4 engine planes the Japanese had that I'm aware of were a few flying boats, and those were dispatched rather quickly by Browning 50's.


----------



## drgondog (Jun 1, 2010)

I have read a lot of encounter reports in my research. The Do 217 and He 177 were pretty tough birds for a P-51B to dispatch quickly with just the 4x50 cal. Historically, a lot of the .33 and .2 and .25 credits were shared scores on those two types.


----------



## JoeB (Jun 1, 2010)

RCAFson said:


> My point is that the Hurricanes over Malta faced overwhelming odds, and were greatly outnumbered by an opponent that was 70 miles away and could fly several sorties a day and even loiter in the Hurricanes landing circuit. In contrast, the Wildcats over Henderson had a cakewalk against a very weak opponent that was based 600 miles away and averaged a weak attack a couple of times a week. Quoting F4F stats from Guadalcanal to try and prove the supposed superiority of the f4F over the Hurricane is complete bull.


Actually in the period I quote, when Bf109E's faced Hurricanes at Malta, Feb-May 1941, with 0:35 kill ration, most of the Bf109 victories were scored by one staffel, with less than 10 operational a/c, only occasionally supplemented by a couple of other staffeln. The Hurricanes were by not outnumbered in that period by German fighters, not outnumbered unless counting all the Axis bombers, and theless capable Italian fighters. In most of the rest of 1941, the Germans weren't operating single engine fighters against Malta at all. At times from late 1941 through 42 the German fighter force outnumbered the British, but that was Bf109F opposition, and mainly Spitfires on British side after the opending months of the year, which is not the period I'm referring to.

And you characterization of numbers over Gudalcanal is similarly inaccurate. The fighter numbers on each side tended to be around equal, but more often in Japanese favor than US. And just as with Malta you're ignoring significant twists and turns in the campaign. Only early in the Guadalcanal campaign were enemy fighters operating from 600 miles away (but obviously, they were *much* longer ranged fighters than a Bf109, and the Zero crushed other Allied fighter opposition operating from similarly long ranges). By October the Japanese began operating from Buin which is only around 1/2 as far, short range for a Zero. And the climactic battles in November and denoument of G'canal campaign (proper) to early '43, often involved F4F's escorting conovy attackers well north of Guadalcanal, or to suppress the airfield at Munda less than 200 miles from Henderson. And, many other F4F/Zero battles of 1942 involved carrier planes on one side or the other or both, operating at relatively short range. 

So in general your G'canal thumbnail is inaccurate, after posting a lot of general figures for Malta which aren't very relevant to the point I made about that campaign, either.

Re: Shortround:
1. I consider post 1940 mods to Hurricane relatively minor for the simple manifest reason they had little impact on its combat success. Hurricane success v Bf109E's generally deteriorated, didn't improve, after 1940, even before it met the 109F with which it just wasn't competitive at all. Also, the Hurricane's results v the Japanese Army Type 1 hardly changed from 1942 to 1943 (around 4-5:1 ratio in favor of the Japanese), with both the improved sub-models, and an apparently more favorable situation wrt security of bases, morale, etc which are often given as explanaion/excuse for the poor 1942 Hurricane results. If those had really been the reasons, rather than something more basic, the results would presumably have improved in 1943, but they actually got worse (though not a by a statistically significant amount).

2. F4F won both combats w/ H-75 over Morrocco, in which the F4F's were considerably outnumbered in the second; and the Mohawk/P-36 and F4F had similar results v the Japanese. In general I just don't see a plausible argument that H-75's superior record to Hurricane v Bf109E in Battle of France is invalidated as F4F proxy by claiming H-75 a superior a/c to the F4F, that's just seems more just seeking any possible counterpoint to throw up on the wall and see if it sticks.  The Hawk and F4F were quite similar planes in general design philosophy and performance parameters especially compared to the Hurricane, powered by the same or similar engine (depending on model), the main difference being the F4F's considerably superior armament (again stuff like seat armor or fuel tank liners could be fitted to either a/c, or the Hurricane, none of the three were designed with them, and the benefits and drawbacks of fitting them to any of the three were not greatly different, and probably not as significant an impact to combat results as is sometimes made out).

Joe


----------



## renrich (Jun 1, 2010)

In the "for what it is worth department" Eric Brown who I believe was a FAA pilot thought the Wildcat was superior to the Sea Hurricane.


----------



## Glider (Jun 1, 2010)

JoeB said:


> Actually in the period I quote, when Bf109E's faced Hurricanes at Malta, Feb-May 1941, with 0:35 kill ration, most of the Bf109 victories were scored by one staffel, with less than 10 operational a/c, only occasionally supplemented by a couple of other staffeln. The Hurricanes were by not outnumbered in that period by German fighters, not outnumbered unless counting all the Axis bombers, and theless capable Italian fighters. In most of the rest of 1941, the Germans weren't operating single engine fighters against Malta at all. At times from late 1941 through 42 the German fighter force outnumbered the British, but that was Bf109F opposition, and mainly Spitfires on British side after the opending months of the year, which is not the period I'm referring to.


In the period Feb-May 1941 the Hurricanes were often outnumbered. 
26/2/41 8 Hurricanes went up against 38 x Ju87, 10 x Do 215, 10 x He111 and apprix 25 fighters including 109E's from 7/JG26, MC 200's from 6 Gruppo and 12 x CR42. 
Your observation about the less capable Italian fighters may well be true compared to an ME109 but to a Hurricane the MC200 was not to be taken lightly. Its also true to point out that the bombers were the main target for the Hurricanes and should be taken into account. 
This also applies to the period from late 41 when the Germans did outnumber the Malta defences, the italians still took part and should not be discounted. The odds were heavily stacked against the RAF


----------



## RCAFson (Jun 1, 2010)

JoeB said:


> The Hurricanes were by not outnumbered in that period by German fighters, not outnumbered unless counting all the Axis bombers, and theless capable Italian fighters. In most of the rest of 1941, the Germans weren't operating single engine fighters against Malta at all. At times from late 1941 through 42 the German fighter force outnumbered the British, but that was Bf109F opposition, and mainly Spitfires on British side after the opending months of the year, which is not the period I'm referring to.



Yeah, so 10 Hurricanes , for example, when faced with 10 Me109s. 10 Mc202s and 10Cr42s, escorting 30 bombers, are not outnumbered? What nonsense.



> And you characterization of numbers over Gudalcanal is similarly inaccurate. The fighter numbers on each side tended to be around equal, but more often in Japanese favor than US. And just as with Malta you're ignoring significant twists and turns in the campaign. Only early in the Guadalcanal campaign were enemy fighters operating from 600 miles away (but obviously, they were *much* longer ranged fighters than a Bf109, and the Zero crushed other Allied fighter opposition operating from similarly long ranges). By October the Japanese began operating from Buin which is only around 1/2 as far, short range for a Zero. And the climactic battles in November and denoument of G'canal campaign (proper) to early '43, often involved F4F's escorting conovy attackers well north of Guadalcanal, or to suppress the airfield at Munda less than 200 miles from Henderson. And, many other F4F/Zero battles of 1942 involved carrier planes on one side or the other or both, operating at relatively short range.
> 
> So in general your G'canal thumbnail is inaccurate, after posting a lot of general figures for Malta which aren't very relevant to the point I made about that campaign, either.



I don't like using other people posts, but since I don't have the book referenced, I'll do it anyways:



> Some quotes from First Team:
> 
> 
> "The Imperial Navy faced immense problems prosecuting a successful air offensive against Guadalcanal, many of hs own making. The nearest fully operational airfields to the target remained the cluster of bases around Rabaul: Vunakanau Field ~Rabaul West) for the bombers and the fighter strip at Lakunai (Rabaul East) set beneath a massive volcano. All lay at least 560 miles from Guadalcanal, entailing strike missions of eight hours or more. The auxiliary field at Buka, 400 miles from Guadalcanal, was used only sporadically for lack of support facilities."
> ...



I found out the composition of the Air groups aboard HMS Eagle, Indomitable and Victorious, during Operation Pedestal and it works out to: 10 Martlets, 16 Fulmars, and 46 Sea Hurricanes. However Eagle was sunk by a sub and 12 Sea Hurricanes were lost before the fight began, leaving 34 Sea Hurricanes in Operation. According to Wildcat Aces of WW2, the Martlets only made 4 kill claims, out of 30; so that gives us:
10 Martlets = 4 claims, = .4 kills/aircraft
50 Fulmars and Hurricanes = 26 claims = .52 kills/aircraft.

From what I can tell, even the Fulmars made more kill claims than the Martlets.


----------



## gjs238 (Jun 2, 2010)

Returning to my original query...

The British wanted/needed American planes - as many as possible.
It wasn't so much an issue of quality but quantity - they needed more planes and lots of them.
Of course, they wanted the best they could get, but would take almost whatever they could get.
I imagine they would have appreciated receiving planes equivalent to or superior than the Hurricane Spitfire, but lacking that, they took what they could and used them where they could.

I'm wondering why F4F's weren't received/used in greater quantity.

There was an earlier post about production limitations...
If the F4F was desired, and production was limited, I imagine the British could/would have solicited license manufacture as they did with the P-40 (genesis of P-51.)

There was an earlier post about high altitude performance of double stage supercharged F4F's not being necessary, as Spitfires fulfilled that role.
Perhaps, but then why all the negative comments about P-39, P-40 and P-38 (sans turbo) altitude performance?
It seems there was a desire for good high altitude performance which was lacking in the US planes received.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 2, 2010)

gjs238 said:


> Returning to my original query...
> 
> I'm wondering why F4F's weren't received/used in greater quantity.
> 
> ...



It can take a year or more to tool up and start manufacture of an existing design, if the factory has to start from scratch. Ordering planes in the summer of 1940 would mean deliver in the summer of 1941 at best and into the spring of 1942 for first delivery if tooling up doesn't go well. Most American Manufacturers aside from Curtis and Boeing were rather small. For instance Lockheed had 7464 employees as of Jan 1 1940 and while that may sound large (mostly working on Hudson bombers) they had 40,307 employees by Nov 1941 at which time Lockheed had delivered about 100 P-38s (although many more were in progress) 


gjs238 said:


> There was an earlier post about high altitude performance of double stage supercharged F4F's not being necessary, as Spitfires fulfilled that role.
> Perhaps, but then why all the negative comments about P-39, P-40 and P-38 (sans turbo) altitude performance?
> It seems there was a desire for good high altitude performance which was lacking in the US planes received.



While the F4F did have better high altitude performance than the P-39 and P-40 that is damning with faint praise. The F4F was not as good as the Spitfire by a fair margin and at best was equal to a MK II Hurricane without tropical gear for use in Europe. The F4F's lower performance at low altitudes (sea level to 15,000) meant it would have trouble performing the missions the P-40 did perform in North Africa.

You are back to the F4F being too slow at low altitude to the low altitude role done by the P-40 and while better at high altitude it wasn't up to the performance thought to be needed against the Germans aircraft. 

While it could have performed a useful role in the far east or med the British thought they had that covered with the Hurricanes.


----------



## gjs238 (Jun 2, 2010)

Shortround6 said:


> It can take a year or more to tool up and start manufacture of an existing design, if the factory has to start from scratch. Ordering planes in the summer of 1940 would mean deliver in the summer of 1941 at best and into the spring of 1942 for first delivery if tooling up doesn't go well. Most American Manufacturers aside from Curtis and Boeing were rather small. For instance Lockheed had 7464 employees as of Jan 1 1940 and while that may sound large (mostly working on Hudson bombers) they had 40,307 employees by Nov 1941 at which time Lockheed had delivered about 100 P-38s (although many more were in progress) .



All that being said, North American was still asked to produce P-40's under license.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 2, 2010)

gjs238 said:


> All that being said, North American was still asked to produce P-40's under license.



Yes, they were and the whole thing about the Mustang being designed and built in 120 days was that if North American couldn't do it they would have to build P-40s so as not to delay things any further. 

The P-40 was a unknown quantity when the French/British ordered it but it was the only fighter that looked to available in quantity in a hurry. French order is placed Oct,9 1939, about 6 months after the US Army's first order. April of 1940 the US Army agrees to defer delivery of 324 P-40s so export orders can be filled first. First French contract plane flies June 6, 1940. Sept. 17 1940 British start testing the Hawk H81A in the US. The First Tomahawks reach England in Sept 1940. Note that these are ex-French aircraft. 

A brief history of the Mustang may help also.

Jan, 1940 talks open between the British and North American. 
April 24, 1940 the British accept the design proposal.
May4,1940 British approve preliminary design.
May 29, 1940 British order 320 NA-73 aircraft.
Sept. 9, 1940 prototype is rolled out of hanger without engine and with borrowed wheels.
oct, 26 first flight.
April 25, 1941 first flight by British plane.
Sept 1941, second British Mustang is sent by sea (via Panama canal) to England.
Nov 11, 1941 4 more Mustangs arrive in England making a total of 5. 

When should the decision to purchase F4F's have been made and what factory should have made them?


----------



## gjs238 (Jun 2, 2010)

Shortround6 said:


> When should the decision to purchase F4F's have been made and what factory should have made them?



My query was to explore the reason(s) for the small number of F4F's used in Europe, relative to P-39, P-40, P-38, and perhaps others.

One theory given was lack of production capacity.
But if overtures were being made for P-40 license production, then it seems feasible that license production of the F4F (or another plane) could have been pursued.

Now, the WANT for or NEED of the F4F is another matter.

BTW: Something that I don't think came up in this thread was the surging issues of the 2-stage supercharger in the F4F. I recall something about that in another thread. I don't think the issue was ever totally resolved. That right there may solve the whole "F4F high altitude in Europe" query.


----------



## renrich (Jun 2, 2010)

GJS, aside from the fact that F4Fs were not available, most aviation people thought in 1940, particularly in Europe, that no ship board fighter could compete with a fighter designed for use from land bases.


----------



## RCAFson (Jun 2, 2010)

The RAF and FAA had a central source of aircraft data, presumably from RAE test data, in the form of data cards and this is an interesting look at Hurricane and Martlet/Wildcat performance using data from a single source.

Hurricane, Martlet and Wildcat data from RAF and FAA data cards:


Hurricane 1 (6.8.41)
8 x .303mg with 334rpg
max weight = 6793lb (with armour and S.S.tanks)
Mean weight = 6440lb
wing area 258 sq ft
Engine = Merlin III 1030bhp @ 16250 
SC= single stage, single speed.
Max speed (mean weight) = 316mph @ 17750ft
MWM speed = 273mph
Time to 15k ft (max weight) = 6.8min (-est)
Time to 20k ft (max weight) = 9.7min
Climb rate (max weight) @ SL = 2080 fpm (continuous-est)
Climb rate (max weight) @ SL = 3450 fpm (combat power-est)
Service ceiling @ max weight = 32500
Service ceiling @ mean weight = 33500
Fuel = 97imp gals
range = 585 miles with a 20gal reserve @ 212mph
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/hurricane-I-ads.jpg
estimated data is from: Hurricane L-2026 Trials Report

Hurricane IIB (This data is all taken from Hurricane II. Z.3564. not from data card)
12 x .303mg with 334rpg
max weight = 7333lb (with armour and S.S.tanks)
Mean weight = 7000lb (-est)
wing area 258 sq ft
Engine = Merlin XX 1255bhp @ 10k ft, 1190bhp @ 18500ft 
SC= single stage, two speed.
Max speed (*Maximum weight*) = 330mph @ 20800ft 
MWM speed = 273mph (-est)
Time to 15k ft (max weight) = 5.9min 
Time to 20k ft (max weight) = 8.5min
Climb rate (max weight) @ SL = 2710 fpm (continuous)
Climb rate (max weight) @ SL = 3500 fpm (combat power-est)
Service ceiling @ max weight = 35900ft
Service ceiling @ mean weight = 38k ft (-est)
Fuel = 97imp gals
range = 540 miles with a 20gal reserve @ 212mph (-est)
Hurricane II Z-3564 Trials Report

Martlet 1 (6.8.41)
4 x .5"mg with 300rpg
max weight = 6811lb (Fixed wing, note IIRC, maybe no armour or S.S. tanks)
Mean weight = n/d
wing area 260 sq ft
Engine = Cyclone G205a 1200bhp @ 4200ft, 1000bhp at 14k ft
SC= single stage, two speed.
Max speed (mean weight) = 313mph @ 14500ft
MWM speed = 257mph
Time to 15k ft (max weight) = 6.7min 
Time to 20k ft (max weight) = n/d
Climb rate (max weight) @ SL = n/d
Climb rate (max weight) @ SL = n/d
Service ceiling @ max weight = 31500
Service ceiling @ mean weight = n/d
Fuel = 136imp gals (this suggests no S.S. tanks)
range = 870 miles with a 29gal reserve @ 167-175mph
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4f/martlet-I-ads.jpg 

Martlet II (22.8.41)
4 x .5"mg with 300rpg
max weight = 7255lb (note Folding wing, maybe with armour and/or S.S. tanks)
Mean weight = n/d
wing area 260 sq ft
Engine = Twin Wasp S304-G 1200bhp @ 4900ft, 1050bhp at 13.1k ft
SC= single stage, two speed.
Max speed (mean weight) = 317mph @ 14500ft
MWM speed = 260mph
Time to 15k ft (max weight) = 7.5min 
Time to 20k ft (max weight) = n/d
Climb rate (max weight) @ SL = n/d
Climb rate (max weight) @ SL = n/d
Service ceiling @ max weight = 30500
Service ceiling @ mean weight = n/d
Fuel = 136imp gals (this suggests no S.S. tanks)
range = 850 miles with a 29gal reserve @ 170mph
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4f/martlet-II-ads.jpg 

Wildcat II (6.2.44)
6 x .5"mg with 240rpg
max weight = 7745lb (note Folding wing with armour and S.S. tanks)
Mean weight = 7245lb
wing area 260 sq ft
Engine = PW R1830-90 1200bhp @ 4900ft, 1050bhp at 13.1k ft
SC= single stage, two speed.
Max speed (mean weight) = 300mph @ 14500ft
MWM speed = 246mph
Time to 15k ft (max weight) = 8 min 
Time to 20k ft (max weight) = n/d
Climb rate (max weight) @ SL = 2030fpm (normal)
Climb rate (max weight) @ SL = 2390fpm (combat)
Service ceiling @ max weight = 29000
Service ceiling @ mean weight = 30200
Fuel = 133imp gals
range = 795 miles with a 25gal reserve @ 213mph
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4f/wildcat-II-ads.jpg

Wildcat III (F4F-3A)(6.2.44)
4 x .5"mg with 240rpg
max weight = 7200lb (Fixed wing with armour and S.S. tanks)
Mean weight = 6700lb
wing area 260 sq ft
Engine = PW R1830-90 1200bhp @ 4900ft, 1050bhp at 13.1k ft
SC= single stage, two speed.
Max speed (mean weight) = 307mph @ 14kft
MWM speed = 255mph
Time to 15k ft (max weight) = 6.8 min 
Time to 20k ft (max weight) = n/d
Climb rate (max weight) @ SL = 2400fpm (normal)
Climb rate (max weight) @ SL = 2700fpm (combat)
Service ceiling @ max weight = 30600ft
Service ceiling @ mean weight = 32000ft
Fuel = 133imp gals
range = 890 miles with a 23gal reserve @ 208mph
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4f/wildcat-III-ads.jpg 

Wildcat IV (F4F-4b)(6.2.44)
6 x .5"mg with 240rpg
max weight = 7730lb (Folding wing with armour and S.S. tanks)
Mean weight = 7270lb
wing area 260 sq ft
Engine = Cyclone (G205A) R1820-87 1240bhp @ 2750ft, 1010bhp at 14k ft
SC= single stage, two speed.
Max speed (mean weight) = 298mph @ 15kft
MWM speed = 238mph
Time to 15k ft (max weight) = 9.4 min 
Time to 20k ft (max weight) = n/d
Climb rate (max weight) @ SL = 1760fpm (normal)
Climb rate (max weight) @ SL = 2570fpm (combat)
Service ceiling @ max weight = 28600ft
Service ceiling @ mean weight = 30000ft
Fuel = 120imp gals
range = 695 miles with a 25gal reserve @ 213mph
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4f/wildcat-IV-ads.jpg

Wildcat V (11.11.44)
4 x .5"mg with 430rpg
max weight = 7811lb (Folding wing with armour and S.S. tanks)
Mean weight = 7355lb
wing area 260 sq ft
Engine = PW (G7G) R1830-86 1200bhp @ 2250ft, 1100bhp @ 12k ft, 1050bhp at 20k ft
SC= single stage, three speed. (?)
Max speed (mean weight) = 332mph @ 21kft (313mph @ 13k ft)
MWM speed = 262mph
Time to 15k ft (max weight) = 7.7 min 
Time to 20k ft (max weight) = n/d
Climb rate (max weight) @ SL = 2170fpm (normal)
Climb rate (max weight) @ SL = 2420fpm (combat)
Service ceiling @ max weight = 32300ft
Service ceiling @ mean weight = 33400ft
Fuel = n/d
range = n/d
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4f/wildcat-V-ads.jpg 

Wildcat VI (FM2) (6.2.44)
4 x .5"mg with 240rpg
max weight = 7049lb (Folding wing with armour and S.S. tanks)
Mean weight = 6680lb
wing area 260 sq ft
Engine = Cyclone R1820-56 1300bhp @ 4000ft, 1000bhp @ 17.5k ft 
SC= single stage, two speed. (?)
Max speed (mean weight) = 307mph @ 18.5kft 
MWM speed = 247mph
Time to 15k ft (max weight) = 6.5 min 
Time to 20k ft (max weight) = n/d
Climb rate (max weight) @ SL = 2750fpm (normal)
Climb rate (max weight) @ SL = 3120fpm (combat)
Service ceiling @ max weight = 32400ft
Service ceiling @ mean weight = 33300ft
Fuel = 98imp gal 
range = 595 miles with a 22gal reserve @ 203mph
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4f/wildcat-VI-ads.jpg 

Wildcat VIa (FM2 w/o WI) (13.2.45)
4 x .5"mg with 400rpg
max weight = 7313lb (Folding wing with armour and S.S. tanks)
Mean weight = 6940lb
wing area 260 sq ft
Engine = Cyclone R1820-56a no.1 1300bhp @ 1500ft, 1000bhp @ 14.8k ft 
SC= single stage, two speed. 
Max speed (mean weight) = 319mph @ 16750ft (307mph @ 3500 ft)
MWM speed = 267mph
Time to 15k ft (max weight) = 6.6 min 
Time to 20k ft (max weight) = n/d
Climb rate (max weight) @ SL = 2800fpm (normal)
Climb rate (max weight) @ SL = 3040fpm (combat)
Service ceiling @ max weight = 32100ft
Service ceiling @ mean weight = 33000ft
Fuel = n/d
range = n/d
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4f/wildcat-VIa-ads.jpg 

Wildcat VI (FM2 with WI) (13.3.45)
4 x .5"mg with 400rpg
max weight = 7413lb (Folding wing with armour and S.S. tanks)
Mean weight = 6990lb
wing area 260 sq ft
Engine = Cyclone R1820-56b 1300bhp @ 1500ft, 1200bhp @ 10.8k ft 
SC= single stage, two speed. 
Max speed (mean weight) = 328mph @ 12800ft (307mph @ 3.5k ft)
MWM speed = 267mph
Time to 15k ft (max weight) = 6.7 min 
Time to 20k ft (max weight) = n/d
Climb rate (max weight) @ SL = 2760fpm (normal)
Climb rate (max weight) @ SL = 3010fpm (combat)
Service ceiling @ max weight = 31900ft
Service ceiling @ mean weight = 32800ft
Fuel = n/d
range = n/d
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4f/wildcat-VIb-ads.jpg 

Where noted, some of the data is estimated.


----------



## Glider (Jun 3, 2010)

first class information, many thanks


----------



## gjs238 (Jun 3, 2010)

renrich said:


> GJS, aside from the fact that F4Fs were not available, most aviation people thought in 1940, particularly in Europe, that no ship board fighter could compete with a fighter designed for use from land bases.



Again, availability is relative.
Evidently, not enough P-40's were available, hence the solicitation for license production.
If F4F's were desired, availability as we know it today may have turned out different.
Again, this is not advocating the F4F, but availability is not static, it can change with demand.

I suspect that, whether there were naval aircraft preconceptions or not, the F4F simply didn't provide the performance to make it desirable for use in larger numbers than it was. I'm just trying to flesh this out.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 3, 2010)

RCAFson said:


> Wildcat V (11.11.44)
> 4 x .5"mg with 430rpg
> max weight = 7811lb (Folding wing with armour and S.S. tanks)
> Mean weight = 7355lb
> ...



this is the Wildcat with the 2 stage supercharger and the good altitude performance. 

P&W two stage superchargers had the second stage (last before engine) fitted with one gear and it always turned the same speed in relation to the engine.
The 1st stage or auxiliary stage , and in the P&W case it was an auxiliary stage, had a 2 speed drive plus neutral. It was set up so that at low altitude it was not driven by the engine and used no power. Take off and low altitude boost was supplied by the second stage alone. In this case some where under 12,000ft the auxiliary supercharger drive was engaged in low gear and at just under 20,000ft the drive was shifted to high gear. I am not sure if neutral counts as a speed
Many spec sheets will show 3 gear ratios but one is for the second stage drive and two are for the Auxiliary supercharger drive.


----------



## Nikademus (Jun 3, 2010)

Comparing ratios for Malta and Guadalcanal is rather pointless IMO as the situations were very different, and not just re: numbers of planes or sorties. Still....the overall ratios are not unusual for either situation when looking at total estimated losses. Lundstrom calculated a 1.2:1 in favor of the Zero. Adding up the Hurricane vs enemy fighter losses in 1941, the ratio is 1.5:1 in favor of the Axis.

Fun with numbers!


----------



## Vincenzo (Jun 3, 2010)

US Data
F4F-3
4 x .5"mg 
gross weight = 6895lb (7432) (with armor plate and oil fuel protection)
wing area 260 sq ft
Engine = PW R1830-76 
SC= two stage, two speed.
Max speed = 330mph @ 19000ft (328mph @ 19000ft)
Max speed SL = 278mph (277mph)
Time to 10k ft = 3.5 min (4.2)
Time to 20k ft = 7.6 min (8.4)
Climb rate @ SL = 3300 fpm (3070)
Service ceiling = 31000 (30500)
Fuel = 110 gals (147)
range = 880 miles @ 180mph (1280 @ 185mph)
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4f/f4f-3-detail-specification.pdf

F4F-4
4 x .5"mg with 800 rnds (6x .5'' with 1440 rnds) 
gross weight = 7426lb (7972)
wing area 260 sq ft
Engine = PW R1830-76 
SC= two stage, two speed.
Max speed = 318mph @ 19400ft (316mph @ 19400ft)
Max speed SL = 275mph (274mph)
Time to 10k ft = 5.7 min (6.5)
Time to 20k ft = 12.7 min (14.7)
Climb rate @ SL = 1920 fpm (1690)
Service ceiling = 34800 (33600)
Fuel = 110 gals (144)
range = 765 miles @ 190mph (925 @ 192mph)
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4f/f4f-4-detail-specification.pdf

F4F-4 
gross weight = 7369lb (7370)
Max speed = 318mph @ 21100ft (319mph @ 19400ft)
Climb rate @ SL = 1850 fpm (1850)
Service ceiling = 34800 (33600)
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4f/f4f-4-5262.pdf

F4F-4
gross weight = 7933
Max speed = 316mph @ 17200ft
Climb rate @ SL = 1820 fpm 
Climb rate @ 16300ft = 1500 fpm
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4f/f4f-4-02135.pdf

F4F-4
6x .5" with 1440 rnds
gross weight = 7975
engine: P&W R-1830-86, 1040 @ 18400 ft (normal) 1150 @ 11500 ft (military)
Max speed = 320mph @ 18800ft
Max speed @ SL 284 mph (military) 274 mph (normal)
Time to 10k ft = 5.6 min (normal)
Time to 20k ft = 12.4 min (normal)
Service ceiling = 34000
fuel 144 gals
range 830 @ 161mph
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4f/f4f-4.pdf

FM-2
4x .5" with 1600 rnds
gross weight = 7418
engine: P&W R-1820-56
Max speed = 329mph @ 15300ft (military) 328mp @ 10800ft (WEP)
Max speed @ SL 312 mph (WEP) 
Climb max rate 3480 fpm (military) 3670 fpm (WEP)
fuel 117 gals
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4f/fm-2-16169.pdf

FM-2
4x .5" with 1600 rnds
Gross weight 7282 lbs
Max speed = 327mph @ 19500 (normal) 328mph @ 16600 (military)
Service ceiling = 35000ft (normal) 35100ft (military)
Climb rate @ sL = 3150 fpm (normal) 3600 fmp (military)
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4f/fm-2-15953.pdf


----------



## Vincenzo (Jun 3, 2010)

maybe usefeul lalso this chart for hurricane II
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/hurricane-II-raechart-level.jpg
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/hurricane-II-raechart-climb.jpg
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/hurricane-IIc-raechart-level.jpg
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/hurricane-IIc-raechart-climb.jpg


----------

