# Fulmar II versus F4F-4 under 10,000 ft.



## RCAFson (May 29, 2011)

This is a comparison of the Fulmar II and F4F-4, under 10,000ft. Obviously above that altitude the Merlin 30 rapidly runs out of power, but since much of WW2 naval air combat took place under 10,000ft (which was the FAA's rational for low altitude rated engines) it is useful to compare these two aircraft under 10,000 ft. I think the comparison helps to place the Fulmar and Fulmar II's performance in perspective when we realize just how well the F4F-4 did given its rather marginal advantage over the Fulmar under 10,000ft. 


Power:
normal: ~1100/1090hp to aprox 11000ft 
WEP: 1360hp at 6000ft / 1200hp at 1800ft, 1135hp at 3500 ft, 1150 hp at 11,500ft 

weight: 9672lb / 7975lb
wing area: 342sq ft / 260 sq ft
wing loading: 28.3lb / 30.7lb
Fuel: 190usgals / 144usgals
8 x .303, 1000rpg / 6 x .5", 240 rpg

climb:
Initial:
Normal:1538** / 1690 fpm
Combat: ???? / 1850 fpm
normal time to:
5000ft: 3.25min / 3.25min*
10000ft: 7.17min / 6.5min
15000ft: 12min / 10.6min*
20000ft: 20min / 14.7min
combat climb to: 
5000ft: ???? / 2.9min
10000ft: ???? / 5.9min
15000ft: ???? / 9.1min*
20000ft: ???? / 12.7min
Power:
WEP: 1360hp at 6000ft / 1200hp at 1800ft 
1 hr limit: ~1200/1090hp (aprox under 10000ft)

Normal Max speed 
SL: ???? / 274
1750ft: 264 / 280mph*
5000ft: 265 / 283*
7250ft: 272 / 290*
9600ft 265 / 296*

Combat max speed:
SL: ???? / ????
1750ft: ???? / ????
5000ft: ???? / ????
9600ft: ???? / ????



* interpolated
** based upon time to 5000ft
data from WWII Aircraft Performance especially:
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4f/f4f-4-02135-performance.jpg
and various sources for the Fulmar, including wikipedia, Warpaint 41, and data from British Carrier Aviation. Data on the Fulmar/Fulmar II is often contradictory and I had to make some choices between the data sets, especially for max weight. Also it appears that the Fulmar II had a tropical filter in some models and this caused a reduction in max speed, which might account for the variation in Fulmar II performance stats.

Edit: the fuel consumption for the Merlin 30 goes from 105 igals/hr at 9.75lb boost/2850 rpm to 130 igal/hr at 12lb boost/3000rpm, so this suggests 1100hp and 1360 hp.


----------



## Greyman (May 29, 2011)

Comparing the speed and climb curves here http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4f/f4f-4.pdf with Fulmar II flight test data I have, it's not even close. The Wildcat is far superior.

Actually the Wildcat vs the Firefly or Sea Hurricane appears to be a more even matchup.


----------



## RCAFson (May 30, 2011)

Greyman said:


> Comparing the speed and climb curves here http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4f/f4f-4.pdf with Fulmar II flight test data I have, it's not even close. The Wildcat is far superior.
> 
> Actually the Wildcat vs the Firefly or Sea Hurricane appears to be a more even matchup.



OK, but compare the above with:
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4f/f4f-4-4058-performance.jpg (at 7370lbs)
and 
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4f/f4f-4-02135-performance.jpg (7933lbs)
and
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4f/f4f-4-detail-specification.pdf
and note how the detail specification matches the performance of the 1st two references.

I just don't see how there can be such a wide variation between actual aircraft and the Standard Aircraft Characteristics (SAC), and pilot comments seem to invalidate the SAC figures.


----------



## RCAFson (May 30, 2011)

sorry DP.


----------



## Greyman (May 30, 2011)

I'm not sure how to get speed figures in the first two .jpgs

The speed in the .pdf roughly matches up with the .pdf I linked and while slightly slower, still crushes the Fulmar II.


----------



## RCAFson (May 30, 2011)

Greyman said:


> I'm not sure how to get speed figures in the first two .jpgs
> 
> The speed in the .pdf roughly matches up with the .pdf I linked and while slightly slower, still crushes the Fulmar II.



Remember that this is a comparison *below 10,000 ft*. 

The climb rate figures seem to match the Detailed Specifications (DS) figures and at critical altitude:

Max speed
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4f/f4f-4-4058-performance.jpg (at 7370lbs) = 318 mph at 19400 ft
and
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4f/f4f-4-02135-performance.jpg (7933lbs = 316 mph 17200 ft

DS = 318 at 7426 lb and 316 mph at 7970lb. ( http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4f/f4f-4-detail-specification.pdf )

The Detailed Specifications (DS) were based upon an actual aircraft's performance (see the bottom of page 5) and at 4600ft the DS states 283mph where the SAC states 294 mph at 5000ft, both with normal power. The SAC figures cannot be met by four different actual aircraft and again seem hopelessly optimistic.


----------



## Greyman (May 30, 2011)

Well, the 17,000 and 19,000 foot figures don't really help us.. that's why I like the http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4f/f4f-4.pdf document. While not a real flight test report it still gives a good idea what the F4F can do at X altitude.

Still, with 283 mph at 4,600 feet - the F4F has over 20 mph on the Fulmar II at the same height.


----------



## RCAFson (May 30, 2011)

Greyman said:


> Still, with 283 mph at 4,600 feet - the F4F has over 20 mph on the Fulmar II at the same height.



That's true but the F4F-4 normal power is about 1090 hp at 4600ft, and WEP = 1150 are about another 5.5%, OTOH the Fulmar probably goes from about 1100 (9.75 lb boost at 2850rpm to 12lb at 3000rpm) to 1360hp or about a 23% gain. I would guess that with both aircraft at WEP and 5000ft, that the speeds would be nearly identical, as would the climb rates.


----------



## Greyman (May 30, 2011)

For the Fulmar II (9,980 lb) I have:

249.5 mph at 5,000 feet (+9¾ boost, 2,960 rpm)
263.0 mph at 5,000 feet (+12½ boost, 2,960 rpm)


----------



## RCAFson (May 30, 2011)

OK, what is the source?


----------



## Greyman (May 30, 2011)

A&AEE Report from Boscombe Down.

Exact same type of report that the boys at wwiiaircraftperformance.org have for all of the RAF aircraft (and some US aircraft).


----------



## RCAFson (May 30, 2011)

Cool. Does it have the climb rate? 

I wonder if you could post the performance curves somewhere?

Also. is that with the tropical cowling?


----------



## Greyman (May 30, 2011)

Can't really post anything at the moment unfortunately. A graph can be drawn faily easily for climb rate though since it just involves straight lines.

point #1 - 1,415 feet per minute at 1,000 feet
point #2 - 1,440 feet per minute at 7,200 feet
point #3 - 200 feet per minute at 23,000 feet

Fulmar II (9,980 lb) +9¾ boost 2,850 rpm


----------



## Greyman (May 30, 2011)

Also, for the sake of comparison, don't forget many Fulmar II aircraft had four Browning .50s with 370 rounds per gun instead of the .303s...

EDIT: actually conflicting data here. Another (much more in-depth) report says 415 rounds for the inboard guns and 450 rounds for the outboard.


----------



## RCAFson (May 30, 2011)

Greyman said:


> Can't really post anything at the moment unfortunately. A graph can be drawn faily easily for climb rate though since it just involves straight lines.
> 
> point #1 - 1,415 feet per minute at 1,000 feet
> point #2 - 1,440 feet per minute at 7,200 feet
> ...


 
Fantastic!!

So it's fair to say that climb performance at the combat rating would have been substantially better given that WEP gives considerably more power, about 23% more up to 6000ft by my reckoning.

Do you have max speed at normal and WEP?

Thanks for this info, BTW.


----------



## Greyman (May 30, 2011)

Again, you can draw lines with these to get a good idea as to what's on the tests. In other words, you can basically draw a line from the critical alt point through the low point I list down to sea level.

+9¾ boost, 2,960 rpm
246 at 4,000
264 at 9,600 (critical alt)

+12½ boost, 2,960 rpm
260 at 4,000
268 at 6,600 (critical alt)

Above the critical altitudes it starts curving back similar to all Merlins.

I don't think the full boost climb would be too much better. Looking at the graphs I would estimate around 1,700 ish.
Could be wrong though... just extrapolating.


EDIT: actually I guess your +23% would be right around the mark (1,740 to 1,771 feet per minute)


----------



## RCAFson (May 30, 2011)

Sorry to ask again, but do you know if this performance was with the tropical cowling?


----------



## Greyman (May 30, 2011)

Temperate cowling. Tropical cowling without air cleaner elements fitted costs roughly 7 mph, and the tropical cowling with cleaner elements subtracts about 8 mph.


----------



## RCAFson (May 30, 2011)

OK thanks. So we can see that, with WEP, the F4F-4 was about 25 to 35 mph faster than the Fulmar II from SL to 10000ft, but the Fulmar probably had a slighter better climb rate up to 10k ft:

Fulmar II/ F4F-4 combat climb to: 
5000ft 2.85* / 2.9min
10000ft 5.8* / 5.9min
15000ft ???? / 9.1min*
20000ft ???? / 14.7min

*estimates


----------



## davebender (May 30, 2011)

Pretty bad for a CV based fighter aircraft. After attacking an enemy torpedo bomber at 300 feet you are out of the fight. You are also dead meat for any enemy aircraft with a bit of an altitude advantage.


----------



## Shortround6 (May 30, 2011)

A point or two about climb ratings and power.
The R-1830 never had a WEP rating. It had a Military rating. They are not the same thing. Military rating is usually using the take-off power limit at a higher altitude. WEP is pushing the engine beyond it's normal take-off rating. In many cases the suggested time limit for use is the same, in some cases they are not, with 5 min being the limit for WEP and 15M min being the limit for military power on SOME engines. 

Many American fighters were rated for their time to altitude by using military power for the first 5 minutes and "normal" power for the rest of the climb. "Normal" power almost never had a time limit. If it did there was a temperature condition attached to it. 

Many British fighters were rated for their time to altitude by using a SPECIFIED climb power setting. This is less than full throttle but still with a time limit, usually 30min. 

This does make comparisons of actual combat capability rather difficult.


----------



## renrich (May 30, 2011)

SR, very good post and many thanks. Was looking lately at the Williams site and there was a report on the last FM2 which had the water injection. The climb rate at SL with normal power was 3100 fpm where at military power( no WEP) it was 3650 fpm. Pretty stout!


----------



## davebender (May 30, 2011)

US Warplanes
*FM-2*
GM built version of the XF4F-8, tall tail, lower
observation windows deleted, 4 wing guns,
engine upgrade.
Produced 1943 - 1945
General Motors Linden, New Jersey

3,650 fpm would be ok during 1941. IMO it's rather weak for 1943 to 1945.


----------



## RCAFson (May 30, 2011)

davebender said:


> Pretty bad for a CV based fighter aircraft. After attacking an enemy torpedo bomber at 300 feet you are out of the fight. You are also dead meat for any enemy aircraft with a bit of an altitude advantage.


 
True it is poor climb performance, but the corresponding figure for the F4F-4 was about 1600fpm, and as you can see from the time to 5min, at WEP/MP the Fulmar could outclimb the F4F-4. Neither aircraft proved to be "dead meat" when faced with superior performing foes.


----------



## renrich (May 30, 2011)

Well, lets see. The FM2 at military power could get to 20000 feet in about 8 minutes. That is equal to the F4U1D and better than the F6F5. Also better than the P51D.


----------



## RCAFson (May 31, 2011)

OK, I'v been able to fill in some of the blanks, thanks to Greyman:

FulmarII/F4F-4

Power:
normal: ~1100/1090hp to aprox 11000ft
WEP: 1360hp at 6000ft / 1200hp at 1800ft, 1135hp at 3500 ft, 1150 hp at 

11,500ft

weight: 9980lb / 7975lb
wing area: 342sq ft / 260 sq ft
wing loading: 28.3lb / 30.7lb
Fuel: 190usgals / 144usgals
8 x .303, 1000rpg / 6 x .5", 240 rpg

climb:
Initial:
Normal:1400* / 1690 fpm
Combat: 1722* / 1850 fpm
5000ft: 1770* / 1650

normal time to:
5000ft: 3.5min / 3.25min*
10000ft: 7.17min / 6.5min
15000ft: 12min / 10.6min*
20000ft: 20min / 14.7min
combat climb to:
5000ft: 2.85 / 2.9min
10000ft: 5.8 / 5.9min
15000ft: ???? / 9.1min*
20000ft: ???? / 12.7min


Normal Max speed
SL: 235 / 274.4
1750ft: 240 / 278mph*
2500ft: 242 /281.8
4600ft: 248 /283.1
5000ft: 249.5 / 285*
7250ft: 257 / 288*
9600ft 264 / 297*
12000ft: ???? /303.2
14000ft: ???? /304.5

Combat max speed:
SL: 247 / ????
1750ft: 252 / ????
4000ft: 260 /????
5000ft: 263 / ????
6600ft: 268 /????
9600ft: 264 / ????



* estimated


----------



## RCAFson (Jun 1, 2011)

After a bit of calculation, based upon the increase in performance of the F4F-3 using normal and military power here: 
http://www.alternatewars.com/SAC/F4F-3_Wildcat_(Land)_PD_-_14_August_1942.pdf
I came up with these numbers for the combat speeds of the F4F-4 versus Fulmar II:

Fulmar II / F4F-4

Power:
normal: ~1100/1090hp to aprox 11000ft
WEP: 1360hp at 6000ft / 1200hp at 1800ft, 1135hp at 3500 ft, 1150 hp at

11,500ft

weight: 9980lb / 7975lb
wing area: 342sq ft / 260 sq ft
wing loading: 28.3lb / 30.7lb
Fuel: 190usgals / 144usgals
8 x .303, 1000rpg / 6 x .5", 240 rpg

climb:
Initial:
Normal:1400* / 1690 fpm
Combat: 1722* / 1850 fpm
5000ft: 1770* / 1650

normal time to:
5000ft: 3.5min / 3.25min*
10000ft: 7.17min / 6.5min
15000ft: 12min / 10.6min*
20000ft: 20min / 14.7min
combat climb to:
5000ft: 2.85 / 2.9min
10000ft: 5.8 / 5.9min
15000ft: ???? / 9.1min*
20000ft: ???? / 12.7min


Normal Max speed
SL: 235 / 274.4
1750ft: 240 / 278mph*
2500ft: 242 /281.8
4600ft: 248 /283.1
5000ft: 249.5 / 285*
7250ft: 257 / 288*
9600ft 264 / 297*
12000ft: ???? /303.2
14000ft: ???? /304.5

Combat max speed:
SL: 247 / 284* 
1750ft: 252 / 288* 
4000ft: 260 / 289* 
5000ft: 263 / 290* 
6600ft: 268 / 293* 
9600ft: 264 / 302* 

* estimated and these estimates may be optimistic:
XF4F-8 @ 7850lb with 1200hp:
SL = 263 mph
5500FT = 281 mph
and these numbers are based upon an actual aircraft's performance: 
http://www.alternatewars.com/SAC/XF4F-8_Wildcat_PD_-_1_November_1942_(Tommy).pdf
and applying these numbers to an F4F-4 would imply SL speeds of ~255 mph with normal power, 1100 - 1050 hp up to 12000ft. This particular aircraft climbed to 10000ft in 6.9min at normal power @ 7850lb, so again we have a climb rate which approximates the Fulmar II.
F4F performance is a very complex subject with actual aircraft performance figures varying greatly from official or manufacturers numbers in many cases.

One of the reasons that I made this comparison was to help explore the impact of greater availability of the Martlet on the FAA, but the first thing to consider, is just what is the performance increase of the Martlet/F4F over existing FAA fighters? The other thing to consider is that the F4F-3/4 had more powerful engines than the Martlet, over about 5000ft, so the Martlet's edge over the Fulmar would probably be even less, for a folding wing version with Armour and SS tanks.


----------



## Freebird (Jun 2, 2011)

davebender said:


> Pretty bad for a CV based fighter aircraft.



But then again, it's not a CV fighter, it's a CV Recon that _can be used_ as a fighter in a secondary role.
I know the distinction might be lost, but it would be more proper to compare the Fulmar's performance to the Dauntless (or more accurately the BT-1) as both were used as fleet defence fighters, but had another primary role.

In 1942 the US carriers would have:
1.) Wildcat - fighter
2.) Dauntless - DB (recon) 
3.) Devastator or Avenger - TB

In 1940 the British carriers had:
1.) Sea Gladiator - fighter (replaced with SeaHurri in 1941)
2.) Fulmar - Recon (replaced the Sea Skua - DB/Recon from 1939)
3.) Swordfish - TB

The Fulmar was ordered in 1938 under O.8/38, *not* F.8/38 for example.
"F" signifies fighter, while the letter "O" (Observation) signifies naval reconnaissance aircraft.

The British didn't think that the Fulmar would need good performance or agility as a fighter, but they did require a second crewmember as spotter, navigator wireless operator.

Obviously if performance as a fighter was considered as the primary function they wouldn't have the second crewmember there.


----------



## RCAFson (Jun 2, 2011)

Some more data on F4F-4 performance:

Comparison test of F4F-4 versus A6M:

A6M speeds:
SL: 270 mph
5000 ft: 287 mph
10000 ft: 305

Result: aircraft equal in speed at SL, Zero superior at all other altitudes. This report also tested the Zero against the P39 and it reported the use of WEP and military power for the P39, so it is reasonable to assume the same for the F4F-4.
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/japan/intelsum85-dec42.pdf

These reports specifically report the use of WEP in an FM-2 at 7410lbs that was tested against a Zeke-52:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/japan/ptr-1111.pdf
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/japan/zeke52-taic38.pdf
results:
SL: FM2 6mpg faster= 297 mph
5000ft: FM2 4 mph slower = 297 mph
10000 FM2 12 mph slower = 301 mph. (zeke speeds from 2nd report)

These numbers further constrain F4F-4 performance, and it seems likely that under 10000ft, that the F4F-4numbers should be reduced by about 10 - 15mph:

Fulmar / F4F-4
Combat max speed:
SL: 247 / 270*
1750ft: 252 / 274*
4000ft: 260 / 275*
5000ft: 263 / 276*
6600ft: 268 / 289*
9600ft: 264 / 288* 

If this is the case, then the F4F-4 speed margin is further reduced under 10,000ft and the efficacy of replacing the Fulmar II with the F4F-4 is also reduced, given that they have nearly identical climb rates.


----------



## parsifal (Jun 6, 2011)

freebird said:


> But then again, it's not a CV fighter, it's a CV Recon that _can be used_ as a fighter in a secondary role.
> I know the distinction might be lost, but it would be more proper to compare the Fulmar's performance to the Dauntless (or more accurately the BT-1) as both were used as fleet defence fighters, but had another primary role.
> 
> In 1942 the US carriers would have:
> ...


 


With regard to this comment, I was always led to believe the Fulmar was designed as a multi-role aircraft. 

With regard to its capabilities, I think it was optimised to shoot down unprotected bombers. it was never intended to operate so close inshore as to need to take on high performance fighters.

By combining two roles into one, the british were able to maximise the number of fighter airframes onboard a carrier with limited aircraft capacity. By being available as combat ready from June 1940, it was able to fulfil a niche that the the martlet could not until the following April (in any measurable degree). The two seat configuration also had a long term spinoff....it allowed conversion of the successor Firefly to a night fight4r and fighter bomber role with a minm of fuss. 

In terms of effectiveness, I would say that pound for pound the Fulmar was more effective than the Martlet as a Bomber destroyer and fleet air defence weapon. But as a fighter vs fighter....an air superiority weapon if you like, the Martlet was the superior mount.

I say the Fulmar was optimised as a bomber destroyer, because against unarmoured targets, its broadside of rifle calibre mgs was superior to the hmgs of the F-4. The hmgs could put a heavier weight of shell but the the lmgs put more shells into the enemy aircraft, and could do it for longer. In the type of combat the Fulmar found itself in 1940, this was a decided advantage....it coud put moree shells into an unprotected target more quickly, and engage more targets because its ammunition would last longer and it could bring down these sorts of targets quicker. 

In this combat parametyer, the Fulmar was superior, but as a performer, th wildcat was a better overall performer. The achievements of the Fulmar are testament to its abilities. In 6 months of more or less continuous combat, the fighter component aboard the Ark Royal shot down something in excess of 70 aircraft, and lost to combat causes less than 5 aircraft (will check tonite). The standing strength abord this carrier Fwas about 15 fighters at any given time. that must be a pretty good record by any standard in my book.


----------



## renrich (Jun 6, 2011)

According to Eric Brown the British Admiralty issued specification 0.8/38 calling for a two seat naval fighter which resulted in the Fulmar. His description of a combat between a Fulmar against a Me110C indicates a three to one advantage for the ME110. He says that in Fulmar against HE 111H-6 that the HE111H-6 should be a comparatively easy kill for the Fulmar in spite of the little difference in performance of the two aircraft.( Fulmar more maneuverable and better firepower). In contrast he says that Wildcat against ME110 that ME would be unlikely to survive an encounter with Wildcat and that the HE111 would be no match for the agile Wildcat with it's considerable advantage in speed and heavy firepower.


----------



## RCAFson (Jun 6, 2011)

I know that the Fulmar met the Me110 on several occasions but didn't suffer a 3-1 kill/loss rate. But look at the numbers, at all altitudes the me110 can outclimb and outrun the Wildcat, just as it can the Fulmar. The Wildcat can turn better than a Me110, but a Fulmar can turn even better yet. If a Me110 had a 3-1 edge over the Fulmar, then it seems likely that the F4f-4 would be at something like a 2.5 or 2-1 disadvantage by the same reckoning.


----------



## renrich (Jun 6, 2011)

There you go again. All I am doing is quoting a world famous RN pilot who said, " The ME110C, with it's inferior performance, would find it difficult to escape the Wildcat's attentions. A beam or flat astern attack by the powerfully armed Wildcat was likely to meet with success, the German forced to rely on the rear gunner for survival."
"Verdict: The ME110C would be unlikely to survive an encounter with a Wildcat and only a lucky hit could stop the latter." I think we all know that Brown flew the Wildcat in real world combat and actually had at least two kills in a Wildcat. You believe that your numbers indicate that the Wildcat was a rather puny performer. Brown apparently believes differently. The Wildcat was credited with 1408 kills in the Pacific, 26 kills in the Med and 2 kills in the ETO. I don't have the number of kills the Fullmar was credited with. Do you?


----------



## parsifal (Jun 6, 2011)

I dont have the full details, but according to one source for the fighter group of the Ark Royal, June to December 1940, the fulmar armed fighter group (about 15 aircraft) managed to shoot down about 70 aircraft whilst losing about 3-5 of their own number. Thats not a bad combat performance in anybody's bok, surely.
Edit: However, this appears to be spurious. In fact recorded victories of most sources for the Fulmar May 1940 to June 1942 is either 112 or 132 aircraft, depending on the source. top scoring individual was SG Orr, who shot down at least 12 enemy aircraft in the type


----------



## Greyman (Jun 6, 2011)

From the start of the war to 6 November 1941 the score (according to the Admiralty) was:

2 x Bf 110s destroyed, 2 x Bf 110s damaged to 1 x Fulmar damaged
3 x He 111s destroyed, 1 x He 111 probable, 1 x He 111 damaged to 0 x Fulmars damaged


----------



## Freebird (Jun 7, 2011)

renrich said:


> According to Eric Brown the British Admiralty issued specification 0.8/38 *calling for a two seat naval fighter which resulted in the Fulmar*. His description of a combat between a Fulmar against a Me110C indicates a three to one advantage for the ME110.



Brown is simply incorrect in this instance. He wasn't in the Admiralty at the time, and is relying on after-the-fact accounts, some of which were wrong in their assumptions. If the Admiralty had indeed issued specifications for a "two seat naval fighter" it would have issued something like F.8/38 (fighter) or even M.8/38 (for multi-role aircraft.)
The fact of the matter is that it was indeed intended as a 2 seat Recon plane, with a secondary capability as a fleet defence fighter.
This is similar to the Dauntless, which also operated occasionally in the fleet defence role. (such as at Coral Sea.)
So the Fulmar could more reasonably be compared to the Dauntless as a fighter, but nobody would ever mistake the Dauntless's primary role.



renrich said:


> You believe that your numbers indicate that the Wildcat was a rather puny performer. Brown apparently believes differently.



In my mind there's not much doubt that the Wildcat would be better as a fighter, it would be pretty tough to find a two seat multi-role aircraft that would be better than the best single seat fighters of it's era.



parsifal said:


> With regard to this comment, I was always led to believe the Fulmar was designed as a multi-role aircraft.
> 
> With regard to its capabilities, I think it was optimised to shoot down unprotected bombers. it was never intended to operate so close inshore as to need to take on high performance fighters.



Correct on both counts.



> By combining two roles into one, the british were able to maximise the number of fighter airframes onboard a carrier with limited aircraft capacity. By being available as combat ready from June 1940, it was able to fulfil a niche that the the martlet could not until the following April (in any measurable degree).



Agreed.
There are also two major events in WWII that made a radical change to the Fulmar's operations.
First: The admiralty expected that the Fulmar would fulfil a vital role as "eyes ears" of the fleet, which is why it had a greater range and a second crewman as observer/radio operator. 
The Allies huge windfall with "Enigma" allowed the Admiralty to keep tabs on Axis naval operations locations, and lessened the need to have recon aircraft hunt out Axis positions intentions, meaning that the recon role wasn't as critical as it might have been.

Second: The capitulation of France threw a huge wrench in British plans, as they didn't expect to be responsible for operations in the central Med, nor did they expect to be operating without French bases in Tunisia, Algeria Corsica.

Despite the Fulmar being used more as a fighter than as it's intended role as an FAA recon aircraft, it still did pretty well.


----------



## RCAFson (Jun 7, 2011)

renrich said:


> The Wildcat was credited with 1408 kills in the Pacific, 26 kills in the Med and 2 kills in the ETO. I don't have the number of kills the Fullmar was credited with. Do you?


 
7,860 Wildcats and variants were produced versus 600 Fulmars. The Fulmars were credited with 112 to 132 kills, as per Parsifal's post so the kill rate per Fulmar was higher than per Wildcat, even using the 112 kill figure. 600/7860 Wildcats x 1436 = 109.6 kill claims versus 112 for 600 Fulmars.


----------



## parsifal (Jun 7, 2011)

to be fair, I think the wildcat was better in the fighter v fighter role. Against a zero the fulmar had virtually no chance, whereas, in an F4F, the fight was at least survivable though some of the more bombastic claims made about the Wildcat in this thread and others are a little hard to swallow


----------



## renrich (Jun 8, 2011)

Here goes some more "bombastic" claims about the F4F which hopefully will go down without too much heartburn. The F4F3 when gun feed problems were worked out, when pilot armor was added and when protected tanks were added which did not cause fuel feed problems was a decent ship board fighter and on balance, the best in the world, in the Allied quiver in 1942 early 1943. Compared to the A6M, the F4F was short ranged, did not climb as well, not as maneuverable except at higher speeds but it was more heavily armed and more rugged. The F4F was relatively hard to shoot down with only rifle caliber ammunition. Butch O Hare claimed six Betties in one engagement at least in part because of the F4F3's large ammo capacity, heavy armament and good gunnery skills. That total has now been reduced to four but shooting down four twin engined bombers and damaging several more in one fight is good work. Especially with a bomber as fast and heavily armed as the Betty.

At least in part because of British insistence on six guns, the F4F4 was substantially more heavy than the F4F3 and the ammo supply was reduced so the pilots of the F4F4 did not like it as well as the F4F3. The F4F4 did have folding wings which allowed the carriers to increase fighter stowage. Joe Foss, a Marine aviator, had 26 kills in an F4F4 and although it's performance on paper was inferior to the A6M, the Navy and Marine pilots at worst achieved parity with it. Was the Wildcat a world beater? Absolutely not! Was it more effective overall as a ship board fighter than the Fullmar, Sea Gladiator, Sea Hurricane, or Seafire. Probably.

The F6F came along and largely replaced the Wildcat although Wildcats were still serving all the way through the end of the war, especially on "Jeep" carriers. The F6F was a big improvement although it did not have as big a performance edge over the A6M as hoped for by some Navy and Marine pilots.

The Wildcat was what the USN had when war broke out and it had to suffice until better planes came along. It held the line at Coral Sea, Midway and Guadalcanal and did good service with the RN. In a way, the Wildcat, P40 and Hurricane kind of had similar roles. They were the best the US and British had in numbers enough to make a difference in the early going and without them it would have been more of a struggle.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 8, 2011)

renrich said:


> The Wildcat was what the USN had when war broke out and it had to suffice until better planes came along. It held the line at Coral Sea, Midway and Guadalcanal and did good service with the RN. In a way, the Wildcat, P40 and Hurricane kind of had similar roles. They were the best the US and British had in numbers enough to make a difference in the early going and without them it would have been more of a struggle.



I agree with this. Try to Imagine an alternative or two. One, that the US and Britain made more ''existing" fighters like P-35s, P-36s, Buffaloes and Gladiators to put up against historical foes. Or production waits for better types to make it through testing and the US and Britain try to fight in 1939-42 with 1/2 -1/3 the number of squadrons they did have. Either scenario shows the importance of these fighters.


----------



## parsifal (Jun 8, 2011)

what you guys are saying about wildcat are pefectly valid, but are equally so for the Fulmar. The Fulmar made possible some rather desperate battles which, had they not been fought, may well have changed the war. They frequently fought at odds of eight or 10:1 against them, and whilst they could not claim the numbers shot down of enemy aircraft as the wildcat can rightly claim, they can claim to have been there on time, and to have achieved "mission accomplished". Without the Fulmar, Malta could not have been held, and the troops on Crete would have been lost...both these battles were critical in their own particular ways. Without the Fulmar, the British could not have mounted successful challenges to Mussolinis Mare Nostrum, and because this WAS the key to North Africa, the whole middle east was at risk without these plucky fighters. 

I do not believe the Wildcat can be claimed to be supoerior to the A6M at least for the first six months of the wart, but it could hold its own. By sheer grit and determination it was able to achieve its mission in the same style as the Fulmar. What I dont subscribe to, and never will, is that either fighter, or the crews that flew them had an essentially easy time of it, because they were superior in performance and/or numbers to their opponents. They were not superior to their foes, and in the beginning, neither did they enjoy any numerical advantage. Two myths about the allied victories in the first part of the war. The numerical advantages flowed after the critical victories had been won. This was true for most of the actions that the RAF and the FAA fought in until well into 1942 by which time defeat at least had been staved off


----------



## Freebird (Jun 8, 2011)

renrich said:


> Compared to the A6M, the F4F was short ranged, did not climb as well, not as maneuverable except at higher speeds but it was more heavily armed and more rugged. The F4F was relatively hard to shoot down with only rifle caliber ammunition.



Good post Renrich I think you summed it up well.



renrich said:


> Was the Wildcat a world beater? Absolutely not! Was it more effective overall as a ship board fighter than the Fullmar, Sea Gladiator, Sea Hurricane, or Seafire. Probably.



More effective than a Fulmar or Sea Gladiator? Yes 
Sea Hurricane? Probably.
Seafire? Doubtful, but of course the Martlet (wildcat) was available earlier



parsifal said:


> what you guys are saying about wildcat are pefectly valid, but are equally so for the Fulmar. The Fulmar made possible some rather desperate battles which, had they not been fought, may well have changed the war.



Yes indeed. The Fulmar wasn't a great fighter. (It wasn't really a fighter at all)
But it was what was available, and it got the job done


----------



## RCAFson (Jun 8, 2011)

freebird said:


> More effective than a Fulmar or Sea Gladiator? Yes
> Sea Hurricane? Probably.
> Seafire? Debatable, but of course the Martlet (wildcat) was available earlier



"Effective"?


----------



## renrich (Jun 8, 2011)

Please read my post carefully as I worded it carefully. I am not putting down the beloved Spitfire. It is one of my favorite AC of all time. When I see film or a picture of one my pulse races. I believe it is the most beautiful airplane ever built. The Seafire, of course, did not have the performance of the Spitfire but still outclassed the Wildcat in most areas of performance. But, it was not designed as a ship board fighter and it had lousy landing chracteristics on carriers which the Wildcat handled with aplomb. The Seafire also was not rugged enough to withstand concentrated shipboard use. Deck landing accidents and the other hazards of shipboard operations kept the availability of Seafires low at sea. Thus my careful use of the words, "overall effectiveness" If a fighter can't leave the hangar deck because it is being repaired or is U/S for maintenance, it is not effective.


----------



## parsifal (Jun 8, 2011)

Seafire accident rates are amongst the worst understood and misused stats of the war.

There can be no denying that the type was a lash up conversion of a type that was never intended for the role of shipboard fighter. Principally the narrow track landing gear and the poor forward vision contributed to a high accident rate, particulalry in Deck landings and takeoffs. However this is only part of the problem. According to some reports I have read, a much bigger problem was the small deck size of the carriers they were made to operate from, and the slow speed of these carriers. A big part of the poor reputation arose from the operations off Salerno, when 39 Seafires were written off due to deck landing accidents, whilst shooting down just 2 enemy aircarft (though they did manage to force back over 160 enemy attackers). 

I should also say that the very reason the Seafire was adopted....its relative "torqueiness" also gave it unpleasant takeoff characteristics.

These inherent weaknesses all need to be acknowledged, but it a complete bogus claim to try and say the airframe was not strong enough or that the Seafire was not effective. In terms of performance, the Seafire was arguably superior in flight performance to even an F6F and certainly comparable to an A6M5, and definately superior at altitude to both. These qualities were much appreciated and effective in combatting the greatest threat faced by the allied navies in 1945, the Kamikaze strikes.

So, a big reason for the types failure and poor record of attrition, arises from putting what was perhaps the highest performance aircraft of any of the combatants, on escort carriers. you do not see F6Fs or F4Us being asked to operate from carriers the size and speed the Seafires were asked to operate from. Moreover, crews did eventually work out operating procedures to try and cope with some of these obvious weknesses, but these took time, and at the time of its introduction there simply wasnt time to develop these techniques. In the case of the escort carriers operating the type off Salerno, most of the crews were experienced, but only operating from the Fleet carriers of the RN, which had flight decks roughly 50% larger and top speeds about 50% greater than the escort carriers. These pilots were given no flight conversion training, so were in effect asked to fly a new and unknown type on flat tops that they had never operated from. The results were predictable and disastrous, but does this make the Seafire a failure. No, not in my book, it does however make the FAA alamost cupable in its treatment of its aircraew at that time. 

The soundness of the design cannot be found better than to look at the lsafety record of the later Seafires. in particulalr, the Seafire 47 had probably the best safety record of any propellor driven carrier based aircraft, except for the Sea Fury. By the time of their introduction, crews had worked out a few basic tricks and procedures that greatly reduced the accident rates....for example, not to increase boost on takeoff to more than 7lbs, to limit the takeoff effects by Torque, and to actually stick their heads out of the cockpit to improve forward views on landing.

I can find no better example of how small, slow carriers can affect safety than in the case of our own HMAS Melbourne. A very small carrier, about 18000 tons, with a small wrinkly deck and a max speed of about 20 knots, it had a hard time keeping its Skyhawks in the air. Though the A4 could not be judged a hot performer at the time of its use by the RAN, for the diminuative carrier we were using, it was a very hot aircraft, analogous to the Seafires operating from jeep carriers. In a little over ten years of carrier operations, operating under peacetime conditions, we managed to lose over 50% of the aircraft on strength, due to gear failures and overshoots. Does this make the A4 an unsatisfactory or unsafe aircraft, or inneffective......not a bit. The a4 was a fine aircraft, but putting it on a WWII Light Carrier was a very big ask 

So, was the seafire less effective than the F4F, well maybe, but then the Seafire fulfilled roles in 1943-45 that the F4F could no longer do...


For the record, this is a prime example of promoting F4F bombast.......

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## renrich (Jun 9, 2011)

For the record, Brown on Seafire IIC; " It was in the critical area of deck landing that the Seafire had significant shortcomings. The view on approach was poor. Speed control was difficult because the airplane was underflapped and too clean aerodynamically. Furthermore, landing gear had too high a rebound ratio and was not robust enough to withstand the high vertical velocities of deck landing." " Never designed for shipboard use, the Seafire was difficult to deck land and it acted like a submarine when ditched." " The Seafire had a top speed of 365 mph at 21500 feet, a service ceiling of 32000 feet and a range of 493 statute miles and carried eight 303 Mgs."

Compare to the Wildcat II by Brown: " For deck landing the Wildcat was superlative. With an approach speed of 90 knots, it offered good forward vision and excellent slow flying characteristics. Robust landing gear was fully capable of absorbing the most punishing vertical velocities and the arresting hook was intelligently located." " Ditching characteristics were excellent and hydrostatically operated flotation bags were fitted in each wing." " The Wildcat II was speedier with a maximum of 328 mph at 19500 feet. Service ceiling was 28000 feet and range was 1150 miles." The Wildcat II carried six 50 cal MGs.

All of the above by the pilot with the most carrier landings of anyone in the world.

For the record, in 1944, 45, many Marine squadrons operated F4Us off of CVEs that had an overall length of 495 feet, a beam of 69 feet and a top speed of 18 knots. In fact, in the final trials to determine the suitability of the Corsair for carrier ops, all the trials were flown on a CVE.


----------



## parsifal (Jun 9, 2011)

I dont think that I can argue that in 1943-5, the Seafire did not suffer a high accident rate, and that this in part was due to its origins. However, there was nothing inherently wrong with the Seafire conversion, once there was time to iron out its various bugs, and get it off escort carriers. This was demonstrated in spades with the post war experiences with the Seafire 47.

I also have no argument in accepting that the F4F had far superior takeoff and landing capabilities, though I wonder why the Seafire is often criticised for its narrow track undercarriage, and the F4F never gets such criticism for its similarly configured undercart. However, the F4F could not do the jobs that the Seafire was givenm in 1943-5, in anything like the same level of efficiency. At the end of the day, what the Seafire excelled at was just one thing, point defence over the carrier. This was too limited, and the job could be fulfilled, as well as many other roles by the post war Sea Fury. The F4F in the context of 1944-5 was labouring under the same difficulties as the Fulmar had in 1942, being challenged by enemy aircraft of increasing performance and protection. In this regard the high performance of the Seafire, coupled with its heavy 20mm cannon armament meant it could despatch enemy attackers threatening the task group, in very short order. The Wildcat, in 1944-5 could no longer undertake that mission effectively, and so, from the point of view of defending against fast moving kamikazes, was less than ideal. The two squadrons aboard Formidable showed just how well the seafire was at fulfilling this role in April '45 (I think) by despatching well over 30 enemy attackers in less than 30 minutes. No other CAG, American or British ever came close to that level of efficiency. If the CAG had been F4Fs, we would be reading in the history books how, despite valiant efforts by the defending fighters, the carrier was either sunk or disabled by multiple Kamikaze hits.


----------



## RCAFson (Jun 9, 2011)

parsifal said:


> though I wonder why the Seafire is often criticised for its narrow track undercarriage, and the F4F never gets such criticism for its similarly configured undercart.



I am not sure that the F4F escaped criticism:



> _"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."
> _
> Dean, AHT, p491.


----------



## Greyman (Jun 10, 2011)

Figured I'd do up a little graph.

blue = Fulmar II
red = F4F-4


----------



## renrich (Jun 10, 2011)

There is no doubt, according to Dean, that the Wildcat was a very fine ground looping AC in field operations. However, it's primary occupation and where it's reputation was earned was as a shipboard fighter. Bill Leonard talked about his F4F anti ground looping tactic for field landings. There is also no doubt that the USN needed higher performance fighters to defend the fleet under the Kamikaze threat which is one reason it was recommended to replace the Hellcat with Corsairs as soon as practicable. To me, it is debatable about whether four 20 mms would overall be more effective against Kamikazes than four fifties with much larger ammo capacity, firing time, but that is really irrelevant because the Seafire in 1941, 42, which is when I was referring to the Wildcat as probably the best overall carrier borne Allied fighter, was armed with eight 303s.

Comparison of the 1941-42 Seafire and the Wildcat seems to me to be a fairly straightforward exercise, going by Brown's numbers:
Seafire IIC was somewhat faster by 365 mph versus 328 mph.
Wildcat II was much easier and safer to land.
Wildcat II was more heavily armed
Wildcat II had around twice the range, 1150 miles versus 493 miles
Wildcat II was undoubtedlty more resistant to battle damage, mainly because of air cooled engine
Wildcat II was much more likely to save it's pilot's life in a ditching

As an aside, I once spent a good bit of time with a retired USN pilot, Jim Swope. He was flying Wildcats when the war broke out and was credited with either 9.5 or 10 kills. I believe those kills were in a Hellcat. His last job in the Navy was the project officer of the F111B, 
"McNamara's Folly" I asked Jim which airplanes were the toughest to land on a carrier, the Wildcats he first operated from carriers or the modern jets? He said the WW2 airplanes were much more difficult.


----------



## RCAFson (Jun 10, 2011)

Greyman said:


> Figured I'd do up a little graph.
> 
> blue = Fulmar II
> red = F4F-4



Thanks for that, but I just don't believe those speeds for the F4F-4 at 7900lbs.

Looking back again at the comparison with the A6M:


> _
> Result: aircraft equal in speed at SL, Zero superior at all other altitudes. This report also tested the Zero against the P39 and it reported the use of WEP and military power for the P39, so it is reasonable to assume the same for the F4F-4.
> A6M speeds:
> SL: 270 mph
> ...



so I would suggest that the numbers should look like this:







since all the test data on actual F4F-4 aircraft shows that they fall considerably short of the SAC figures.


----------



## parsifal (Jun 10, 2011)

renrich said:


> To me, it is debatable about whether four 20 mms would overall be more effective against Kamikazes than four fifties with much larger ammo capacity, firing time, but that is really irrelevant because the Seafire in 1941, 42, which is when I was referring to the Wildcat as probably the best overall carrier borne Allied fighter, was armed with eight 303s.
> 
> Comparison of the 1941-42 Seafire and the Wildcat seems to me to be a fairly straightforward exercise, going by Brown's numbers:
> Seafire IIC was somewhat faster by 365 mph versus 328 mph.
> ...


 

In relation to your first paragraph, Seafires that were used operationally were never armed with 8 x 303s. The so-called Seafire I, introduced in February 1942, was only ever used for training, and was a straight adaption of a Spit Mk Va and some Vbs, but most of the trainer versions actually caried 4 x 20mm cannon. These were found unsuitable for the first operational type, and also the main operational types, the Mks II and III, which carried 2 x 20mm Hispano Suiza cannon, and 4 x 303 mg. The MkIII s carried Type V cannon, the Mk IIs carried MkII. 

Here is a link to an intersting website that does a pretty good analysis of various aircraft armaments. It gives a "score", to each of the weapon types

WORLD WAR 2 FIGHTER GUN EFFECTIVENESS

In summary, it rates the firepower of the Seafires 2 x 20mm cannons and 4 x 303 Brownings at 480 for the early mks and 580 for the later marks. In comparison the F4F4 with its 6 x 50s has a firepower rating of 360, considerably less than the Seafire. The F4f-3 with only four guns (but admittedly more ammo per gun) will be even worse....I estimate about half the firepower of the Seafire. And this tremendous firepower shows in the rapidity that the Seafire could undetake carry out its mission 

I am not sure about Dean as a source, but I used Tony Williams contemporary flight test data sheets (these are the actual fight tests done at the time....in other words the primary sources). If we look at the two key performace indicators, level speed and time to height (10000 ft which is a much better way of looking at climb performance), we find the F4f coming off a very poor second.

The time to heights are particularly revealing, the Wilcat needs 5.7 minutes to reach 10000 feet, whilst the Seafire II needs just 3.25 minutes. In terms of level speed at various altitudes there are similar disparities. The F4f level speed capabilities in a fully armed, fully fuelled fighter configuration had the following level flight characteristics:

High speed at sea level (MPH) 278 
High speed at 5500 ft. (MPH)* 295 
High speed at 6800 ft. (MPH)* 294 
High speed at 13,000 ft. (MPH)* 313 
High speed at 14,200 ft. (MPH)* 312 
High speed at max. engine rated alt. 19,000 ft (MPH) 330 
High speed at airplane critical alt. 22,000 ft. (MPH) 326 


The roughly compartable figures for the Seafire II are: 

0 315 
2,000 324.5 
5,100 342.5 
8,000 338.5 
12,000 336.5 

At the relevant altitudes, there is a roughly 40mph difference in top level speeds. Moreover that high speed, I will wager the Spitfire will be much more manouverable in the horizontal plane, because of its much better aerodynamic shape, and large wing. And bear in mind that the Seafire II was not the main operational type. Only 230 were built, and by early '43 had been replaced by the Seafire Mk III (with an extra 400hp), which was the main type used in all the main campaigns that the Seafire was used. The performance differential is about 30% worse for the climb data, and the level speeds differences increases to about 70 mph difference. In terms of dive speed, whilst the Wildcat did have a good divespeed, I will again wager it could not match the diving capabilities of the Spit. Some land based spits were able to touch the sound barrier in a dive, the Seafire could not have been far behind that. I very much doubt the Wildcat could come even close to that.. 

Put another way, we are comparing a donkey to a racehorse by 1944....... 

Your figures for range dont stack up either. The Seafire II had an maximum mrange of 710 miles to 790 for the Wildcat, with the Wildcat supposedly having a ferry range of 1150miles, though I cant find any instances of that range ever being used, wheras I can find some instances of the Spits 710 being used. The 493 mile figure you are quoting appears more akin to the Spit I figure. 

In terms of max operational range, ther was actually very little difference between the two types. Wildcats could not escort SBDs beyond 200 miles, whereas, the Seafire IIIs at the end of the war were escorting strikes as far away as 195miles from their carriers. This was achieved by switching to the US type Drop tanks , which the Seafire had the power to do. A wildcat did not have the horsepower to carry these larger tanks. 

And dont forget also that the Seafire was rated to at least carry a 500 lb bomb, whilst the Wildcat could mange a measely 100 under the centreline and 2 x 60lb under the wings.Thats 500:220lb .

There is no evidence to support the F4f resisting battle damage better than the spit. In terms of armouring, there was actually a lot less armour fitted to the Wildcat than there was in the Seafire. I can give you the figures if you need them. I am unsure about the armour distribution....which one was better I dont know...


----------



## Greyman (Jun 10, 2011)

RCAFson said:


> I just don't believe those speeds for the F4F-4 at 7900lbs.



Well, the data is what it is. The Bureau of Aeronautics - Navy Department performance test is missing a lot of key information (unlike the Fulmar II performance data) but it's the closest we have at the moment.


----------



## renrich (Jun 10, 2011)

To begin with I qualified my post by saying I am going by Brown,(Eric). All I am doing is quoting him and he said that the Seafire IIC was armed with eight 303s. He also gave the Vmax and range numbers. He also said the IIC had an initial rate of climb of 2950 fpm. He also said the Seafire IIC entered operational service in mid 1942. 

The figures on the Wildcat II also came from Brown and he said the Wildcat had a rate of climb of 3300 FPM. To me, that sounds better than the Seafire II but I do not know where he got those numbers and which Wildcat it was or what load it had so I initially did not quote them.

We have had discussions, debates, arguments, ad nauseum about the F4F and it's performance. There are a lot of conflicting data out there and I am weary of quoting them and reading about them. . I said that the F4F was overall the best shipboard fighter the Allies had in their quiver in 1941, 1942, early 1943, probably, including the Sea Gladiator, Sea Hurricane, Fulmar and Seafire. Notice I said-overall and probably. All things considered, I stick by that. If one wants to argue that a liquid cooled engined fighter not noted for being particularly rugged is more survivable than an air cooled engined fighter that was noted for being very rugged, so be it. But I believe that goes against common sense. There was a darned good reason the USN did not use liquid cooled engines. I will take their judgment about that matter as reliable all day.

As far as arguing about performance or firepower is concerned, I would rather compare the record of Wildcats against A6Ms and Spitfires( not Seafires) against A6Ms. I believe the Wildcat held up well against the A6M, and perhaps even better than the Spitfire. As far as comparing a donkey to a race horse in 1944, that was not the period being talked about by me. If you want to compare the Seafire to the Hellcat and Corsair, as a ship board fighter, go to it and Good Luck!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## RCAFson (Jun 11, 2011)

renrich said:


> To begin with I qualified my post by saying I am going by Brown,(Eric). All I am doing is quoting him and he said that the Seafire IIC was armed with eight 303s.
> The figures on the Wildcat II also came from Brown and he said the Wildcat had a rate of climb of 3300 FPM. To me, that sounds better than the Seafire II but I do not know where he got those numbers and which Wildcat it was or what load it had so I initially did not quote them.
> 
> We have had discussions, debates, arguments, ad nauseum about the F4F and it's performance. There are a lot of conflicting data out there and I am weary of quoting them and reading about them. .



In Duels in the Sky, Brown does state that the Seafire IIC has 8 x .303mgs but he also stats that it was a straight conversion from a Spit VC, and we all know that typically the VC has a 2 x 20mm and 4 x .303 armament, but in wings of the Navy he does state that it has the 20mm/.303 armament. 

This data is from The Secret years : flight testing at boscombe down 1939-1945.

Flight tests of the F4F-4 (R1830-86) @ 7350lb = 298mph @ 14600ft, 14.6min to 20000 ft, max climb rate = 1580fpm @ 6200 ft


----------



## Readie (Jun 11, 2011)

Interesting thread. I had always thought that the Americans had rather cornered the market where carrier borne aircraft were concerned by making them tough, reliable and, with the exception of the Corsair, easy to land on a moving piece of metal.
WW2 US Navy Aircraft
And, much as I admire the Spitfire I would not begin to suggest that the SeaFire was a truly succcessfull carrier borne fighter.
I'll have to go and sit down now having typed the last sentence through gritted teeth....
Cheers
John


----------



## renrich (Jun 11, 2011)

Nice post, John. Don't grind your teeth too much or you will have to have caps I know all about that. I have little doubt that a one v one between a Seafire and any Wildcat would have the Wildcat as an underdog. Unless they started out on internal fuel and they were more than 150 miles from the carrier and no alternate available. Then, if the Wildcat could avoid for a little while, the Seafire would run out of fuel and the Wildcat could go home.


----------



## parsifal (Jun 11, 2011)

Hi Ren

I thought your original statement was that the Wildcat was more effective than the Seafire, period. Perhaps I misunderstood you. Comparing Wildcat to Seafire in 1942 is a bit of a nonsense, since the Seafire, though declared operational in June 1942, was not really used on operations until November 1942, at Torch. 

To properly compare the Seafire to the Wildcat, one really has to compare the best of one, with the best of the other, surely: the best of the Wildcat surely has to be its performance at Midway, whilst the best of the Seafire has to be its operations off Okinawa and the coast of Japan in 1945. If you compare the best of one with the best of the other, take out the emotion, and jingoism, and simply compare performnance and effectiveness AT THE ROLES THEY WERE DESIDNED FOR, and the Spitfire does its job with deadly efficiency. The Wildcat, not so much. But the problem for the Seafire is that it was really too restrictred in role capabaility. It really was a point defence aircraft, though its range issues were addressed to a degree by field mods that saw a larger drop tank than was authorised fitted to their underbelly.

This then brings me to your next post and your comment about what do you do if you are 150 miles from the nearest flattop. Well if we are comparing best to best, then, nothing much happens really....both types had such similar operational ranges,that they must both turn for their alternate bases and just land. In 1945 Seafires were being used to escort strikes as far out as 195 miles range, whilst as far as I know the Wildcat was never used operationally (in a combat role) beyond 200 miles. Your range issue just doesnt hold any water. They are pretty much the same...

Returning to your comment about how the Wildcat was the best naval fighter available to the Allies in 1941-2, I would qualify that by saying it was the best allround fighter available to the allies until well into 1943. There is a subtle, but significant difference to note here. I am basically saying the naval fighter has a number of roles it must fulfil. Obviously it must be able to defend the carrier that it is based on, but it must also be able to escort its own strike aircraft to maximise the threat to enemy carriers (anb other surface forces). For the british, the issue was complicated even further. Because of the limited capacities of its carriers (and the limited number as well), and the need to have extensive recon capabilities (because the possibility of surface raiders was much greater) the ability to undertake the spotter role was also considered important. Finally, though not apparent in 1942,as the war progressed and the allies switched from a purely defensive role, to an offensive posture and the threat from enemy air attack receded, the ability to support amphibious operations by providing CAS becomes an issue as well. But CAS was less important than the others in 1942.

The Wildcat was probably the best compromise available to the USN in 1942, which had more opportunity to operate both defensively and offensively in '42, but the same cannot be said for the RN. The RN in 1942 was much more on the defensive, at least in ETO and MTO, and laboured greatly with a very limited number of carriers and billets to fighters over their ships. That and the nature of their operations meant that the defensive role was far more important to them than the offensive role. And in the defensive role, frankly, the Wildcat was not the best available for the British. In the context of the challenges being faced by the RN, the most important role in 1942 was the ability to kill bombers, and not kill enemy fighters. Against unarmoured targets, it was simply the number of guns being carried rather than the overall firepower, and in this, 8, or even 12 303s is better than 6, or possibly only even 4 50s. The 50s had better armour piercing capabilities, but against an unarmoured target this was not required. A 20mm cannon trumps both, with approximately 5 times the destructive power per round compared to the 50cal, and about double that compared to the 303. Outright performance was a "nice to have" feature in the bomber destroyer role, but not essential. The ability to regain altitude quickly, to despatch a large number of attacking waves of bombers was also very important. As for manouverability, well not so important, and to a degree counterproductive. The overwhelming technique used by the allies in CAP roles was the diving pass, foolwed by another diving pass and so on. The ability to manouvre in the horizontal plan might be important in engaging enemy fighters, but in the context of engaging large numbers of attacking bombers it was not so important. The tactics used by the allies in the latter half of 1942 emphasised the diving pass, so manouvre in the horizontal is just not so important. The ability to dive and climb is more important. 

So, if the role is defensive, and the targtets are unprotected bombers, or possibly some armoured ones as well I would rate, in the context of RN needs of the time the following attributes from most important to least

1) Firepower 20mm was probably a better allround weapon
2) The ability to dive and climb
3) Good or reasonable endurance
4) The ability to undertake other roles, principally spotting, ground support and ASW
5) The ability to manouvre in the horizontal
6) Armour and self sealing tanks


If you mull through all of that, you are not led necessarily to the Wilcat. It becomes a toss up between the Sea Hurricane or the Fulmar II. I personally think the Sea Hurricane is the best, follwed by the Wildcat, with the Fulmar offering serious chanllenge to that


----------



## parsifal (Jun 11, 2011)

Readie said:


> Interesting thread. I had always thought that the Americans had rather cornered the market where carrier borne aircraft were concerned by making them tough, reliable and, with the exception of the Corsair, easy to land on a moving piece of metal.
> WW2 US Navy Aircraft
> And, much as I admire the Spitfire I would not begin to suggest that the SeaFire was a truly succcessfull carrier borne fighter.
> I'll have to go and sit down now having typed the last sentence through gritted teeth....
> ...


----------



## RCAFson (Jun 11, 2011)

In 1940, the Fulmar I was probably the all round best "available" Allied carrier fighter. 

In 1941/42 the Sea Hurricane was the all round best, having superior speed, climb and manoeuvrability compared to the F4F-3/4. The -4 had the useful addition of folding wings and nominally longer range. I say nominally because the the F4F-4's poor climb rate probably meant a lot of time spent at military power during it's extended climbs to altitude.

In 1942 the Fulmar II had a longer range than the F4F-4, slightly better climb to 10,000 ft and an extra pair of eyes. The Fulmar II could double as a dive bomber, but had the disadvantage of being ~20 mph slower under 10,000 ft and had much poorer performance above 12000ft. There is an abundance of material available that suggests that the F4F-4's performance advantage over the Fulmar II was marginal, under 10000ft, and that actual F4F-4 performance was much lower than official USN figures. 

The Seafire II had all the advantages of the Sea Hurricane but was not suited to escort carrier operations, and did not have folding wings. The Seafire's range was equal to the F4F-4 and its performance was still vastly superior when equipped with the SS 30 gallon slipper tank. The Seafire III was a better all round naval fighter, but with a weak landing gear, yet the F4F-4's LG, while not weak was tricky to master and also resulted in a high accident rate and the F4F-4's poor power to weight ratio and small wing must have made TO on a CVE exiting.

Reactions: Disagree Disagree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Freebird (Jun 11, 2011)

RCAFson said:


> 7,860 Wildcats and variants were produced versus 600 Fulmars. The Fulmars were credited with 112 to 132 kills, as per Parsifal's post


 
Do we know how many Fulmar's were lost in air combat?


----------



## Greyman (Jun 12, 2011)

freebird said:


> Do we know how many Fulmar's were lost in air combat?



I only have figures up until 6 November 1941:

73 kills
10 probables
37 damaged

16 fulmars shot down
5 fulmars damaged
11 fulmars slightly damaged


----------



## Freebird (Jun 12, 2011)

Greyman said:


> I only have figures up until 6 November 1941:
> 
> 73 kills
> 10 probables
> ...


 
Where is that data from?
Have the 73 claims been compared to Axis loss records?
Any breakdown of the 73 into German/Italian or Fighter/Bomber?

(Thanks!)


----------



## Greyman (Jun 12, 2011)

They're Admiralty figures from 28 Nov '41. 

So no doubt are actually somewhat lower.

Fulmar Kills
3 x Cant 501
10 x Cant 506
1 x Cant 1007
1 x Cant ?
22 x Sm 79
2 x SM 83
1 x Do 18
1 x Do 24
3 x He 111
6 x Ju 88
5 x Ju 52
6 x Ju 87
1 x BR 20
1 x Cap 133
2 x Me 110
1 x Me 109
2 x CR 42

Fulmars Destroyed
2 x Me 109
5 x SM 79
1 x SM 83
1 x Cant 506
1 x Cant 1007
1 x Ju88
1 x Ju52
1 x Ju87
1 x CR 42
1 x unknown (CR42 or Ju 87)
1 x unknown


----------



## parsifal (Jun 12, 2011)

The 73 kills to 28 November 1941 is consistent with one of my sources. But the Fulmarts are credited with another 39 or 59 additional kills, depending on who you believe.

I actually think the claimed kills are going to be fairly close to the mark, because I am reasonably certain these kills were recorded after confirmation by intelligence. Moreover, if we are going to check the claims by the Fulmars, why would we also not need to check the claims by the Wildcat?


----------



## renrich (Jun 12, 2011)

Michael, thanks for reading my original statement about overall most effective Allied ship board fighter, 1941-early 1943. I believe we are pretty much on the same page.

As far as most effective Allied shipboard fighter in 1940: From "Aircraft of World War Two" by Kenneth Munson, Page 71, Fairey Fulmar. "First announced in action in September, 1940 after it had been in service for three months."
Fulmar Mk I-Vmax 280 mph, service ceiling-26000 feet, normal range 800 miles.
Same source, page 82, Grumman Wildcat
F4F3-Vmax-328 mph at 21000 feet, service ceiling-37500 feet, max. range 1150 miles

From Dean, By October 31, 1940, 81 Martlets had been delivered to the RN. December 25, 1940, a Martlet on patrol near Scapa Flow shot down a JU88. Eric Brown said that the Fulmar would have a very difficult time even catching a JU88 unless the JU88 was carrying external stores.

Enough said about Wildcat-Fulmar in 1940.

Look at the numbers from Munson on F4F3 and now from Munson on Seafire, Page 147.
Seafire F. Mk III- Vmax-352 mph at 12250 feet, service ceiling 33800 feet, normal range 465 miles.
Dean also says that the F4F3 could achieve ranges of around 1100 miles.

Now I know those ranges are so called "yardstick" ranges but for comparison it looks like the Wildcat with internal fuel could get about twice as far as the Seafire. Thus my comment about the Wildcat running the Seafire out of fuel.

I just received my copy of the Fighter Conference Records in 1944 and there was a Seafire and Firefly there. The comments on the Firefly by the British representative at the beginning of the conference are interesting but I have not gotten into the Seafire info yet. More later.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## RCAFson (Jun 12, 2011)

renrich said:


> From Dean, By October 31, 1940, 81 Martlets had been delivered to the RN. December 25, 1940, a Martlet on patrol near Scapa Flow shot down a JU88. Eric Brown said that the Fulmar would have a very difficult time even catching a JU88 unless the JU88 was carrying external stores.
> 
> Enough said about Wildcat-Fulmar in 1940.
> 
> ...



Its true that a high altitude Ju-88 would present major problems for a Fulmar, but they certainly shot down a number of Ju-88s. Under 10K ft Fulmar II could probably catch an early JU-88.

Most, if not all of these early Martlet acquisitions were not carrier capable, and even if they were, a fixed wing Martlet was inferior to the Sea Hurricane which is probably why the Sea Hurricane commenced operations (July 1941) from CVs before Martlets. 

Fuel capacity: 
Fulmar 155 ig, Fulmar II 155ig + 60ig DT
Sea Hurricane IB, 97ig, Sea Hurricane II 97ig + 2 x 45 ig DTs
Seafire 85ig + 30ig SS combat stressed DT or larger non SS DT.
F4F-3, 120ig no DTs
F4F-4, 120ig no DT in early and mid 1942 (IIRC) 2 x 49ig in later models.
all above with SS tanks. Some early Martlets and F4F-3s had non SS tanks with 133 - 136ig capacity.


----------



## Readie (Jun 12, 2011)

parsifal said:


> Readie said:
> 
> 
> > Interesting thread. I had always thought that the Americans had rather cornered the market where carrier borne aircraft were concerned by making them tough, reliable and, with the exception of the Corsair, easy to land on a moving piece of metal.
> ...


----------



## parsifal (Jun 12, 2011)

I did read your posts, and may have missed what you were trying to say, but the comments made were also somewhat unclear as well. It seemed that you were trying to say the Wildcat was superior to the Seafire in all years, and under all conditions. 

Facts are that under some conditions the Seafire would outshine the Wildcat by a considerable margin. For example, much has been made of the poor deck handling capabilities of the Seafire, yet this was not the fault of the aircraft, but the circumstances that it was forced to fight under. On board escort carriers, with no standard operating procedures worked out it suffered heavy atrition. The operations off Salerno perhaps best illustrate this. To fight off 160 enemy aircraft, losing just three in combat, they lost a further 39 in accidents. Not a great record. 


However, whilst people are quick to point to this embarraassing situation as proof of the types failure, they conveniently overlook the types performance off Okinawa and Kyushu in April-August 1945. here there were two groups operating Seafire L-IIIs with a total of 88 aircraft. During the course of 1578 sorties, these two wings lost just 9 aircraft to all causes including deck landing accidents. this is actually a much lower attrition rate than that suffered by the Hellcats and Corsairs of the USN. The Hellcats, for example were suffering about 20 losses per 1000 sorties due to deck accidents. Given that the Seafires lost 3 aircraft in combat, their adjusted accident rate is about 4 per 1000 compared to 20 for the vaunted American types. People dont quote these numbers because it doesnt fit the preconceived notions about the Seafire failings, failings that in fact in 1945 did not exist.

As far as the range issue is concerned, I dont doubt that the "official" ranges are those that you are quoting. Again I challenge you to find even a single instance where that often quoted 1150 nm range was actually used.You wont find any. In fact, fully equipped and ready for battle, the Wildcat had an effective range of about 220 nm, and no more.

In the case of the Seafire, Donald Nijboer in his book "Seafire Operations in the Pacific - 1945" gives a very good explanation as to why those officieal figures are just no good. "Whilst ashore (in Sydney), attention was turned to the limited endurance of the Seafire. Both wings found interesting ways to fit larger than standard drop tanks to their aircraft which lifted the endurance of the aircraft significantly. In the case of No 24 Wing, 90 Imp Gallon slipper tanks were appropriated from RAAF stocks. In the Case of No 37 Wing, similar sized tanks were obtained from the USAAC warhawk stocks in exchange for two full cases of fine scotch whisky. 

So equipped, the Seafires maximum range was increased to 710 miles, and its operational range to 195nm. This was used to full effect in the upcoming campaign, with strikes out to the 195nm mark being escorted by Seafires in June and July. at last, the Seafires could undertake offensive operations in the same manner as the Hellcats and Corsairs of the USN...." 

Again, for mainly political reasons, this is an unbcomfortable fact never acknowledged in the post war wash up. To the Americans, they wanted history to read that it was their air force, their navy, their aircraft that brought Japan to its knees, and refuse to acknowledge any useful contribution made by any of its allies. This explains why they sent the RAAF 1st TAF abd the 1 Aus Corps off to that pointless sideshow Borneo and viewed the operations of the BPF with barely concealed hostility, even refusing the british anchorage rights to any US fleet base. This I would suggest, is why the histories you are reading are giving you the results that they are. I can assure you they are wrong...

With regard to the F4Fs received by the RN, those first 88 that you mention were never used from carriers, and suffered numerous teething troubles that were never fully ironed out until the following April. The lists of faults were alarming....the fuel tanks leaked, the guns froze up and continually jammed, landing gears gave trouble, ther was no armour, and the list goes on and on. AFAIK, Martlets were never used afloat in the RN until either November or August 1941. It comesas a bit of a shock to Americans that their vaunted Wildcat was a total dog at the time of its service delivery. I cant speak for the USN copies, but the RN copies were not combat ready. As for Fulmars not being able to catch a Ju88, , hardly, they managed to shoot down 6 out of a total force of 42 (in FK-X). When fully loaded, a Ju88 was nearly as vulnerable as a He111, though its manouverability and armour did make it a tough opponent. Plus the Fulmar in Septemeber 1940 carried armour, and was a fully operational type

Reactions: Disagree Disagree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fastmongrel (Jun 12, 2011)

I have often wondered why the Fulmar II didnt get the 1,640hp Merlin 32 and 4 blade prop fitted to the Barracuda II. The extra 340 hp must surely have been useful or were there reasons why it wasnt used, possibly it was in short supply and the heavier Barracuda needed it more.


----------



## Greyman (Jun 13, 2011)

No sense burning calories upgrading the Fulmar when the Firefly was in town.


----------



## fastmongrel (Jun 13, 2011)

Didnt mean upgrade the Fulmar II I just wondered why it didnt get the Merlin 32 in the first place. They must have known the Fulmar needed all the oomph it could get, anyway the Firefly was a long way off in 1941.


----------



## Greyman (Jun 13, 2011)

I think the Merlin 32 was too late in the game for the Fulmar II. Merlin 32 aircraft were coming into service in 1943 and the Fulmar II had been in service for two years by that time.


----------



## fastmongrel (Jun 13, 2011)

That explains it thanks. I thought the 32 was available earlier.


----------



## renrich (Jun 13, 2011)

For the record, I said, referring to the F4F3 "was a decent shipboard fighter and on balance was the best in the world in the Allied quiver in 1942-early43." I apologise that I was not more clear in my statement


As for the Fulmar and Wildcat versus the Ju88, Brown could not be more clear that the Ju88A-4 was faster than the Fulmar and he could not be more clear than that the Wildcat was a better opponent versus the Ju88 than the Fulmar.

As for range of Seafire versus Wildcat in 1942 early 43, if one cannot believe that the combat radius of an AC with twice the "yardstick" range of another does not have a substantially better combat radius, then I guess logic does not prevail. The Seafire carried 102 gallons of fuel. The F4F3 carried 147 gallons and the F4F4 144 gallons in protected tanks

From Commander D R F Campbell, DSC, RN at the Fighter Conference, 1944. The Firefly Mark 4 "The performance is nothing to write home about." "The engine is a Mark II RR Griffon, 1725 HP 54. Performance is even more contemptible than I thought at 300 mph top speed and I think that is about all on that." Looks like the Firefly carried on where the Fulmar left off


----------



## Readie (Jun 13, 2011)

'Again, for mainly political reasons, this is an unbcomfortable fact never acknowledged in the post war wash up. To the Americans, they wanted history to read that it was their air force, their navy, their aircraft that brought Japan to its knees, and refuse to acknowledge any useful contribution made by any of its allies. This explains why they sent the RAAF 1st TAF abd the 1 Aus Corps off to that pointless sideshow Borneo and viewed the operations of the BPF with barely concealed hostility, even refusing the british anchorage rights to any US fleet base. This I would suggest, is why the histories you are reading are giving you the results that they are. I can assure you they are wrong...'

This is interesting Parsifal....While we are all grateful for the late American involvement in both WW's it did come with a price attached. In our case a generation of debt and Au bitterness over Borneo. If its any consolation my Dad was in the Western Desert - Italian campaign and to the day he died he never forgave the American dismissal of the British Commonwealth effort at Mount Casino and in Italy generally. 
'A side show to D day?' Hardly....
Cheers
John


----------



## RCAFson (Jun 13, 2011)

renrich said:


> As for the Fulmar and Wildcat versus the Ju88, Brown could not be more clear that the Ju88A-4 was faster than the Fulmar and he could not be more clear than that the Wildcat was a better opponent versus the Ju88 than the Fulmar.
> 
> As for range of Seafire versus Wildcat in 1942 early 43, if one cannot believe that the combat radius of an AC with twice the "yardstick" range of another does not have a substantially better combat radius, then I guess logic does not prevail. The Seafire carried 102 gallons of fuel. The F4F3 carried 147 gallons and the F4F4 144 gallons in protected tanks
> 
> From Commander D R F Campbell, DSC, RN at the Fighter Conference, 1944. The Firefly Mark 4 "The performance is nothing to write home about." "The engine is a Mark II RR Griffon, 1725 HP 54. Performance is even more contemptible than I thought at 300 mph top speed and I think that is about all on that." Looks like the Firefly carried on where the Fulmar left off


 
It's hard to find performance curves for the Ju-88, especially since there were so many variants. Here's the data from IL-2 Compare for a Ju-88 A-4:






The Seafire had the option to use a combat stressed, SS, 36 usgal DT, and with that tank it still outperformed the F4F and had equal range. 

According to Mason and The Secret years, the Firefly I @ 11830lbs had a max speed of 315 mph at 16800 ft, a max climb of 2140 fpm at 3800ft, and could climb to 20000ft in 12.4 min. It seem likely that combat climb figures would be somewhat better.



> _ In fact, Firefly F.l Z1908 was sent to the US for such trials at a Joint Fighter Conference, where it was flown against various British and American fighters, including a captured Japanese Mitsubishi A6M2 Type O "Zero" When its flaps were lowered to the mid-position, the Firefly could out-turn the Zero._
> 
> Fairey Firefly in Action, p5.



Edit: That reminded me of something else that I read regarding the Fulmar II:



> Rupert Brabner: _"This was the first time I had been in combat with the CR.42 and was under the impression that they could outmanoevere the heavy Fulmar. With flaps partly lowered, I was able to turn inside the the second aircraft and gave it a long burst. The pilot turned over his aircraft and baled out."_
> RN Aces, page 35. (Operation Harpoon)


----------



## renrich (Jun 13, 2011)

Just turning does not win fights. Lowering those flaps and turning well was mentioned by Campbell but he obviously was not enamored of the Firefly. I don't even understand why the British even built the darn thing and it seems he was a little puzzled about that too.


----------



## parsifal (Jun 13, 2011)

I should also make a quick note concerning Brownss thoughts ideas on the Seafire. Ren posted a quote from him about the unsuitability of the types. True enough, but he also made plenty of comment about how enthusiastic he was about getting the type on board ship. I will dig them out when I get home tonite.

With regard to my comments about the the re-writing of history. In general US versions of history are accurate and balanced. Their burden is light on us lesser mortals. However in regards to the naval campaigns, and in particular that which occurred in the pacific, one has to remember the personalities. Specifically one Ernest J King. His hatred of the British is legendary. I would go so far as to say that he allowed this hatred to rule his thinking so much, that he almost lost the war over it. Small wonder then, if he rejected offerss of British help in '42 when he really did need their help, how much less would he be prepared to accept help in '45, when the excercise was more about re-establishing british prestige and reputation than it was driven by necessity. Do not under-estimate the anglophobia contained within this man.


----------



## RCAFson (Jun 13, 2011)

renrich said:


> Just turning does not win fights. Lowering those flaps and turning well was mentioned by Campbell but he obviously was not enamored of the Firefly. I don't even understand why the British even built the darn thing and it seems he was a little puzzled about that too.



The Firefly/Griffon engine was slated to be the RN's standard carrier recon/fighter/DB by 1942, but its development was badly delayed due to RAF aircraft and engines being given priority. The Griffon engine was originally an RN project, for example, and was nearly cancelled during the BofB. As it was it was still a useful strike fighter in 1944/45 but was overshadowed by aircraft that had nominally higher performance. In 1942 it would have decimated the IJNAF.


----------



## Greyman (Jun 13, 2011)

RCAFson said:


> It's hard to find performance curves for the Ju-88



For sure. But I do have a brief trial done by the British:

Main Curve
Ju 88 A-6, 19 870 lb, 1.35 ata, gills closed, 2400 rpm (no external bombs, bomb racks removed, inner wing tanks half full)

Partial Curve
Ju 88 A-6, 24 350 lb, 1.35 ata, gills closed, 2400 rpm (external bombs fitted, inner wing tanks full)

The A-6 in the tests had all of the balloon fenders removed, so they're essentially A-5s.

Jumo 211Gs fitted


----------



## renrich (Jun 13, 2011)

The Firefly would have decimated the IJN in 1942? I have now heard it all. With a Vmax of 300 mph? Where are the smelling salts?

Remarks from 1944 Fighter Conference;
"Do not see a spot for it in Pacific or elsewhere." " Japs could out fight it and Firefly could not run away."
"Do not consider it adaptable as a night fighter."
"Very similar in all respects to the Fairey Battle although many improvements add to it's suitablity."
"Performance believed too low for modern warfare." "Too slow and clumsy"
"Would make a fair dive bomber if fitted with dive brakes."
"Vision aft is not good enough, performance not good enough. Too much changing of lateral and directional trim required."

Oh well, maybe it could be used to tow targets.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## RCAFson (Jun 13, 2011)

Greyman said:


> For sure. But I do have a brief trial done by the British:
> 
> Main Curve
> Ju 88 A-6, 19 870 lb, 1.35 ata, gills closed, 2400 rpm (no external bombs, bomb racks removed, inner wing tanks half full)
> ...


 

Thanks, so it seems that a loaded Ju-88 would be in some trouble at low altitude versus the Fulmar II, but with bombs gone it might escape at SL or over 8000ft.


----------



## RCAFson (Jun 13, 2011)

renrich said:


> The Firefly would have decimated the IJN in 1942? I have now heard it all. With a Vmax of 300 mph? Where are the smelling salts?


 
The Vmax is 315mph, as I posted earlier. But compare the Firefly I to the F4F-4. It is probably faster, climbs better, dives better, can outturn a Zero and has a 4 x 20mm cannon armament and better range. The Griffon IIb produced 1720hp at low altitude. If the F4F-4 could hold its own against a Zero the Firefly would do considerably better.


----------



## renrich (Jun 13, 2011)

A RN Commander says the Vmax is 300 MPH at the fighter conference. Apparently you either did not read the comments or don't believe them. The F4F4 had a Vmax of 320 mph and a service ceiling of 37500 where as the Firefly could only get to 28000 feet. Turning is no way to win a fight and there is more to maneuverabilty than turning. Besides that the IJN pilots in the A6M did not use dogfighting tactics. They used what you might call boom and zoom tactics. They would get in a high astern position and make a gunnery run. With the poor visibility astern in the Firefly or Fulmar, they would have a tough time avoiding. The A6M would then use the speed gained in the diving attack to zoom and then get to another firing position. The A6M would be faster than either the Firefly, Fulmar or F4F4. The Fulmar and Firefly with either eight 303s or four 20 mms would have plenty of fire power against a Japanese fighter but they would have a hard time getting there guns to bear. Most of the advantage would be with the A6M. Just as Eric Brown says; " In Fulmar versus Zeke 22, this would be a totally one sided combat, the initiative always lying with the Zeke and the outcome a foregone conclusion." The Firefly was too clumsy and slow to fight and too slow to run away.


----------



## slaterat (Jun 14, 2011)

I have to agree with Renrich on this one. To me the Firefly reflected the sheer stubbornness of the FAA to give up on the two seat fighter concept. The Firefly is a waste of a good Griffon engine. The Sea Hurricane, which is the equivalent of an F4F-3/4, was brought to the table because the Fulmar wasn't up to snuff when facing land based fighters.

Slaterat


----------



## RCAFson (Jun 14, 2011)

renrich said:


> A RN Commander says the Vmax is 300 MPH at the fighter conference. Apparently you either did not read the comments or don't believe them. The F4F4 had a Vmax of 320 mph and a service ceiling of 37500 where as the Firefly could only get to 28000 feet. Turning is no way to win a fight and there is more to maneuverabilty than turning. Besides that the IJN pilots in the A6M did not use dogfighting tactics. They used what you might call boom and zoom tactics. They would get in a high astern position and make a gunnery run. With the poor visibility astern in the Firefly or Fulmar, they would have a tough time avoiding. The A6M would then use the speed gained in the diving attack to zoom and then get to another firing position. The A6M would be faster than either the Firefly, Fulmar or F4F4. The Fulmar and Firefly with either eight 303s or four 20 mms would have plenty of fire power against a Japanese fighter but they would have a hard time getting there guns to bear. Most of the advantage would be with the A6M. Just as Eric Brown says; " In Fulmar versus Zeke 22, this would be a totally one sided combat, the initiative always lying with the Zeke and the outcome a foregone conclusion." The Firefly was too clumsy and slow to fight and too slow to run away.


 
According to Mason and The Secret years: 
RAE Flight tests of the F4F-4 (R1830-86) @ 7350lb = 298mph @ 14600ft, 14.6min to 20000 ft, max climb rate = 1580fpm @ 6200 ft, 30100ft ceiling. 
The Firefly I @ 11830lbs had a max speed of 315 mph at 16800 ft, a max climb of 2140 fpm at 3800ft, and could climb to 20000ft in 12.4 min, 30100 ceiling. It seem likely that combat climb figures would be somewhat better and I would estimate about 2450fpm and 10 min to 20000ft. 
Brown gives his assessment of the Firefly on pages 158-160 of Duels in the sky, and it is quite favourable. He states 317mph at 17000ft with a 2000fpm climb rate and he repeatedly praises the manoeuvrability, he also states that any aircraft that got into a turning fight with the Firefly would soon end up on the wrong end of its 4 x 20mm cannon. 

I'm not sure how you can claim that a two seat fighter has poorer rear visibility than a single seat fighter. 

Brown says this about the F4F-4 versus the Zeke 22, after acknowledging the completely superior performance of the Zeke: "_In single combat the Wildcat was outclassed by the Zeke but could handle it by assiduously avoiding dogfights and sticking to tactical two-plane formations._" But of course the Fulmar could have done the same, and if a Fulmar could out turn a CR-42 it should be able to out turn the Zeke.

The F4F-4 did not achieve a Vmax of 320 mph in any actual test of an aircraft, that I have seen, and its service ceiling was far below 37500ft. If we use a 200fpm climb rate as the ceiling, the service ceiling of two actual aircraft was about 33000ft here:
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4f/f4f-4-4058-performance.jpg at 7370lb
and about 32000ft here:
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4f/f4f-4-4058-performance.jpg
at 7970lb and military power. The effective ceiling (500fpm) was about 30000 and 26000ft, respectively.

Reactions: Disagree Disagree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fastmongrel (Jun 14, 2011)

renrich said:


> The F4F4 had a Vmax of 320 mph and a service ceiling of 37500



Even that fountain of impeccable truth wikipedia only claims a ceiling of 34,000 feet for the F4F-4. Maybe a stripped and prepped recon version could get up that high but no way would a normal carrier squadron version. 

I am not in any way denigrating the guys who flew at the pointy end in WWII but I wouldnt believe what a fighter pilot told me about his aircraft performance unless it was backed up by a professional and strictly neutral test pilot meaning any figures from the company brochure also need to be viewed with caution. Pilot claims about performance are like fishermans stories My plane goes this fast (holds arms wide open) his plane only goes this fast (holds up thumb and forefinger)


----------



## renrich (Jun 14, 2011)

I stand corrected. On the Williams site, the F4F4 tests show a service ceiling of only 35000 feet. The Vmax of all the tests are around 319 and 318 mph. Individual aircraft are going to have different results. Two identically loaded F4F4s had a critical altitude difference of around 1000 feet. The Firefly had a service ceiling of 28000 feet, some 7000 feet less than the F4F4. Obviously the Fulmar and the Firefly, if deployed against the IJN would have to adopt the same tactics as the US pilots did with the Wildcat. From memory I can only recall one occasion when Fulmars fought Zekes. That was in the Indian Ocean? If they did I seem to remember they had little success.

As far as turning goes the FM2 was ranked the best of all late war US fighters in turning without flaps. So what? No one would claim that the FM2 in 1944 was the best US fighter. Turning does not win fights. USN and Marine pilots were told to never get into a turning fight with a Zeke in any plane. Just because a Firefly with those monster flaps could "outturn" some Italian airplane does not prove anything. The FM2 in turning without flaps was ranked best of all US fighters. The F4U1D was ranked worst(8th) Guess which one, with equal pilot skill is most likely to win in ACM.

I am not claiming anything about visibility in the Firefly. I am reporting what the pilots said who flew the Firefly at the fighter meet . Many of those pilots were combat experienced.

As far as the 4-20mm cannon are concerned, the SB2C had a VMax of 294 mph @ 16700 feet, a service ceiling of 29300 feet, carried a crew of two, had two forward firing 20 mm cannon AND a 50 cal in the rear cockpit. Reportedly, if flown aggressively it was equal or better than a P47 in a dogfight, ( a turning fight) The SB2C ( Look it up) was remarkedly similar in size and configuration and performance to the Firefly and it had a higher loss rate than the elderly SBD. By no stretch of the imagination was the SB2C or Firefly going to have an equal chance with a Zeke in ACM.


----------



## parsifal (Jun 14, 2011)

Firefly was an extension of the two seat multi role aircraft that had led to the Fulmar. It was conceived and developed in the late '30s, with amuch wider mission capability than the Fulmar.

Tactical trials were carried out by the Naval Air Fighting Development Unit, at RAF Wittering, late in 1943. These revealed that the Firefly would not be a great daytime naval interceptor in the same way as the Seafire could. its speed and rate of climb were in the same class as the Martlets, and this was just too slow to react to fast moving strike aircraft. However its high dive speed and manouverability suggested it had considerable potential as an offensive strike fighter. With a range of 1300nm it had excellent range and endurance. It carried a very heavy fixed armamanert, and could carry nearly 2000lb bombload with maximum fuel. The patented Fairey Youngman flaps meant that it could opt for high speed as a fighters, controlled dives with a divespeed of less than 200mph. Though not designed as a divebomber, it turned out to be the most effective divebomber the RN produced during the war. Replacing the youngman Flaps was a totally unneccessary requirement, these flaps could and were used very effectively as dive brakes when so needed. There was nothing quite comparable in the US inventory to these pieces of equipment, and they are a big part of the key to understanding why the Firefly was a remarkable multi role aircraft. It could undertake attacks at angles of up to 80 degrees, but the flaps that it caried meant it could do so very controllably. Further trials undertaken in 1943 suggested ordinance delivery within 50 feet of the aiming point for well over 70% of attacks. By any stretch that is accurate bombing. Its great weight meant that it could fly with a high degree of stability, which explains why postwar it was adopted as the RNs and CW chief ASW aircraft afloat. 

In 1945, a number of aircraft were taken in hand for conversion to a NF configuration. Again the conversion was completely successful, so i am at a loss as to why it would be described as unsuccessful or unsuitable for this role. They remained the RNs chief night fighter asircraft until 1954 as i understand it. Guess the RN was happy to keep flying them in a role they were allegedly unsuited to.... The capacious cockpit allowed a proper outfit for the detection gear, 42 were so converted, and provided vital interception capabilitiies over the North Sea in 1945, where I believe a number of German intruders were intercepted and shot down, along with some scores of V-1 bombs. Not bad for an aircraft that is now being alleged as a failure as a fighter, indeed, as an aircraft. 

The first front line squadron to receive the Firefly was No.1770 Squadron at RNAS Yeovilton, which received its first aircraft on 27 September 1943; it's second on 5 October and built up to a strength of sixteen aircraft and fourteen crews over the next two months. The squadron deployed to HMS Indefatigable for its combat debut, taking part in the 17 July 1944 attack on the Tirpitz. The main attack was to be made by a force of Fairey Barracudas, supported by Fireflies, Hellcats, Corsairs and Seafires. The Fireflies opened the entire attack, diving in to attack anti-aircraft guns around the Tirpitz, but the overall attack was foiled by German smoke. 

No.1770 Squadron began a second tour off Norway on 7 August, using its Fireflies to fighter escorts and minelayers: they were also tasked for hazardous flak suppression. Evidently they didnt get the memo they were flying a failure, bwecause the crews were enthusiastic about the types performance... The squadron returned to the Tirpitz on 22 August, taking part in two attacks, again on 24 August and a fourth time of 29 August. The Tirpitz was hit, but survived these attacks, eventually being sunk by RAF 12,000lb Tallboy bombs on 12 November 1944. 

No.1770 Squadron's last mission off Norway came on 19 September 1944. The Indefatigable then departed for the Pacific, and her role off Norway was taken on by No.1771 Squadron and HMS Implacable. No.1771 Squadron's first mission came on 18 October and was a reconnaissance flight that discovered the Tirpitz off Haakoy Island. This first tour ended on 7 November and was followed by a second tour, which started on 22 November, and by a third (5-9 December). The squadron then spent three months on shore before going to join the Pacific Fleet. 

No.1770 Squadron was the first Firefly squadron to reach the Far East, arriving in Ceylon in December, and rejoined the Indefatigable on 24 December. Once there she joined the fleet carriers Victorious and Indomitable for the attacks on oil refineries on Sumatra on 4 January 1945, where the Fireflies were used to attack anti-aircraft batteries, although they also claimed two Ki-42 Hayabusas, not a bad effort for a proven failure as a fighter......guess they didnt get the memo either. The Illustrious then joined the fleet, and all four carriers took part in a series of attacks on south-east Sumatra, beginning with an attack on Palembang on 24 January 1945. This saw the fighter escort of Corsairs and Hellcats become separated from the strike force, forcing the Fireflies to act as fighters in a dogfight with Ki-43 Hayabusas (Oscar) and Ki-44 Shokis (Tojo). More successes as a fighter came during the 29 January attack on Soengi Gerong, when one Ki-44 and one Ki-43 were claimed. In the attacks against Palembang, the FAA demonstrated a high degre of accuracy, with the Fireflies demonstrating their adaptability and effectiveness in both the fighter and the divebomber role in spades. 

In mid-March 1945 the British Pacific Fleet joined the American 5th Fleet as Task Force 57. The British carriers were used to attack the Sakashima Gunto islands to prevent the Japanese from using their airfields to ferry aircraft to Okinawa. The Fireflies were again selected for the most hazardous part of the mission, that of flak suppression. Why would they be selected for the hardest mission if they were not considered a successful type??????? Meanwhile other aircraft attacked the airfields. These attacks began on 26 March and ran through to 7 April.

On 18 March No.1772 Squadron reached Australia with its Fireflies. These would be used to reinforce the existing squadron, with one flight joining No.1770 on the Indefatigable, arriving in time to take part in an attack on Kiirun harbour on Formosa on 12 April. The fleet then returned to the Sakashima Gunto islands, carrying out raids between 16 April and 25 May, before returning to Australia for replenishment. 

This also saw No.1770 Squadron's war come to an end. It was replaced by No.1771 Squadron and a section from No.1772 Squadron, both on HMS Implacable. Their first mission was a rocket attack on Truk in the Carolines on 14 June. The British Pacific Fleet then moved to the American base at Manus, where it joined the US 3rd Fleet as Task Force 37, to take part in the final attacks on the Japanese homeland. These began on 17 July with a series of rocket attacks on Japanese airfields, and continued on to 15 August, when six Avengers, eight Seafires and four Fireflies attacked Kizarazu airfield in the last British combat sortie of the Second World War. 

After the end of the fighting the Fireflies were used to locate POW camps and to drop supplies, but by mid-September they were all back in Australia. The three Firefly squadrons were soon disbanded - No.1770 on 30 September, No. 1771 on 16 October and No.1772 on 10 March 1946 on its return to Britain.

The Fireflies continued in RN Canadian, Dutch and quite a few others service until 1954, in Australia they were not retired until 1957. Again, begs the question if they were so unsuccessful as a type, why did they remain in frontline service with so many for so long.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jun 14, 2011)

Don't think that anyone can dispute that Firefly was an useful combat plane, but, stating out the fact that it claimed one of the most obsolete slow planes in 1945 is hardly a proof of it's capability in fighter role. And this thread is about fighter vs. fighter, IIRC. Post-war Fireflies were all but fighters anyway, and FAA itself fielded other planes as fighters.

It would've been cool if someone has good data about Firefly I scoring hits on V-1.


----------



## Readie (Jun 14, 2011)

[QUOTE
It would've been cool if someone has good data about Firefly I scoring hits on V-1.[/QUOTE]

Could the Firefly catch a buzzbomb? 
Cheers
John


----------



## parsifal (Jun 14, 2011)

It was from a single source, and I am doubtful myself. However, it is possible, since whilst ther maximum speed of the V-1 was over 400mph, launched at range it could travel as slow as 160 mph. 

Perhaps more likley the missiles were lost before they could be launched. However the results of the north sea interceptions were mixed, the launch aircraft proving highly evasive, and most interceptions relying on guidance from the worlds first AEW aircraft, specially modified Wellingtons.

A minor correction, most sources quotye the top speed of the type as 315 or 316mph. In fact the Firefly could reach 319mph at a slightly higher altitude.

As an interceptor, the Firefly was too slow, but in most other roles it was either adequate (as an offensive fighter) or excellent (as a strike aircraft). This was because in fully loaded condition, there was not a large loss of performance.


----------



## Greyman (Jun 14, 2011)

Firefly I Z1828 - 10,800 pounds
Griffon IIb engine
Rotol propeller
individual ejector exhausts
ice guards removed
Hispano cannons unfaired, muzzles sealed, ejection chutes unsealed
standard type arrestor hook
gun camera fitted
IFF and VHF aerials fitted
larger type tail wheel oleo housing bulge
radiator flap in closed position






+12.2 lb sq in boost, 2750 rpm ('MS' gear) - 304 mph at 3,600 feet
+11.8 lb sq in boost, 2750 rpm ('FS' gear) - 315 mph at 16,800 feet

A&AEE Report from Boscombe Down

I don't do the _Biff's Big Book of WWII Aircraft_ thing anymore when looking for plane particulars.


----------



## RCAFson (Jun 14, 2011)

Very interesting. Is that with the 5min rating of the Griffon engine? Any info on climb rate?

This would have been a deadly naval fighter for mid 1942.


----------



## Greyman (Jun 15, 2011)

I assume it's the 5 minute combat limit setting. I don't know for sure but the Spitfire XII says +12 boost.
I have climb information but as usual in A&AEE trials, it's the one hour climbing limit (+9 boost, 2600 rpm) and not really a good indicator of what the Firefly could probably do in combat.


----------



## parsifal (Jun 15, 2011)

I found a little quirk of history on the net today. An article that says the Fireflies of the ethiopian air force were only just recently retired from frontline service.

Has got to be the last WWII fighter in frontline service, surely.....a 68 year old fighter.....


----------



## Readie (Jun 15, 2011)

parsifal said:


> It was from a single source, and I am doubtful myself. However, it is possible, since whilst ther maximum speed of the V-1 was over 400mph, launched at range it could travel as slow as 160 mph.
> 
> Perhaps more likley the missiles were lost before they could be launched. However the results of the north sea interceptions were mixed, the launch aircraft proving highly evasive, and most interceptions relying on guidance from the worlds first AEW aircraft, specially modified Wellingtons.
> 
> ...




Maybe if we had reached the stage of quiet desperation where anything that could reasonably catch a V1 would be ordered to attack we would have used the Firefly. Thankfully that was not the case so, we'll never know.
Cheers
John


----------



## Readie (Jun 15, 2011)

parsifal said:


> I found a little quirk of history on the net today. An article that says the Fireflies of the ethiopian air force were only just recently retired from frontline service.
> 
> Has got to be the last WWII fighter in frontline service, surely.....a 68 year old fighter.....


 
Ummm.. I caught with my trousers down over the RAF Liberators still flying in 1968. There were ex RAF flown by the Indian airforce. 

Fireflies are a rare sight. So, if that article is true there may be some serviceable / re-storable planes available.

Cheers
John


----------



## Glider (Jun 15, 2011)

renrich said:


> I am not claiming anything about visibility in the Firefly. I am reporting what the pilots said who flew the Firefly at the fighter meet . Many of those pilots were combat experienced.
> 
> .


 
I have received the book on the fighter meet and its very interesting, but I admit some of the statements made me raise my eyebrows. If should be remembered that the other aircraft in the discussion were new and a lot of them had bubble cockpits so almost anything without a bubble would be considered second best. At least the Firefly had a second pair of eyes which must count for something. Also the Firefly they had was admitted to be well worn after nine months of intensive flying in the USA (this was mentioned in the part on the brakes).


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Jun 15, 2011)

Regarding the Seafire, I remember reading about a conversation between Corwin Meyer and Eric Brown. Noting that the British put the Corsair aboard carriers a year before the US Navy did, Meyer asked why the RN was so set on getting the Corsair aboard ship. Consider that at times, there were ideas about partially deflating tires to make the folded wings of the Corsair fit in the RN Hangar decks. Eventually, the wingtips were clipped. Remember this was era of uneven stalls and bouncy landing gear, so Corsairs were certainly not well behaved.

The reply from Eric Brown was that the Seafires were basically junk. That surprised me also when I first read this. I can't seem to find the exact text at the moment. Perhaps someone else knows where it might be found online?

Did Seafires have flaps that were useable for Take-Off?

- Ivan.


----------



## Greyman (Jun 15, 2011)

There was a modification (number 63) available that allowed an intermediate position for take-off (18 degrees specified for the Seafire), but I have no idea to what extend this was carried out.

The more common method I believe was to have the pilot lower the flaps and have the flight deck crew insert wooden blocks, then raise the flaps (the blocks stopping the flaps at a midway position). After take off the flaps were fully lowered, the blocks dropped out, and the flaps were raised fully for flight.


----------



## RCAFson (Jun 15, 2011)

Prior to LL the UK was spendings its gold reserves to buy US aircraft of questionable combat efficiency, probably as much to encourage US aircraft production and development as to obtain aircraft but had that money been invested in FAA aircraft development...

The issue of the Corsair (and other carrier fighters available via LL) versus the Seafire/Sea Hurricane/Fulmar is interesting, and complicated. Development of FAA aircraft was expensive and required scarce resource allocations, which were hard to justify when the USA was offering fighters, basically, for free via LL. As a result FAA aircraft development was deprived of funding and lagged but also it removed much of the rationale for "making do" with UK designs, as exemplified by the Sea Hurricane (developed because the Martlet/F4F was both scarce and low performing) and early Seafires, and the Sea Hurricane turned out to be the outstanding Allied carrier fighter of 1942. However when the USA caught up in performance with the F4U/F6F, and offered the F4U in quantity, the pressure was off the UK to develop an indigenous carrier fighter of equal or better performance. The Griffon engine was prioritized to the RAF and Griffon engined Fireflys and Seafires were delayed till late 43/44, with the Griffon engine Seafire XV missing the war entirely, even though it was undergoing successful flight testing in mid 1944. The impetus to find ways to extend the Seafire III's range also lagged, but by late war it become useful for medium range escort duties. The Firefly is criticised as a heavy clumsy fighter, but in reality it weighed about the same as the F4U, and was really hampered by lack of engine power, again due to lack of FAA aircraft development priority. The later variants featured much improved top speeds, using Griffon engines available to the Spitfire in 43/44. A Griffon 60/70 powered Firefly had roughly comparable performance to the F4U (since it had similar engine output) and vastly superior landing characteristics and strike capabilities, but these were all post war aircraft.

Reactions: Disagree Disagree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Jun 15, 2011)

Ivan1GFP said:


> Regarding the Seafire, I remember reading about a conversation between Corwin Meyer and Eric Brown. Noting that the British put the Corsair aboard carriers a year before the US Navy did, Meyer asked why the RN was so set on getting the Corsair aboard ship. Consider that at times, there were ideas about partially deflating tires to make the folded wings of the Corsair fit in the RN Hangar decks. Eventually, the wingtips were clipped. Remember this was era of uneven stalls and bouncy landing gear, so Corsairs were certainly not well behaved.
> 
> The reply from Eric Brown was that the Seafires were basically junk. That surprised me also when I first read this. I can't seem to find the exact text at the moment. Perhaps someone else knows where it might be found online?
> 
> ...



hi ivan

I would like to see that interview if possible. I have a number of records of interview with Brown. His comments are in fact exactly the opposite to what you are saying. He was critical of the Seafire I, which lacked a lot of basic navalisation mods, like wing folding, and a daggie arrester hook. He was enthusastic about the later wartime marks of Seafire. 

He may have given contradictory statements, or more likley, he may have been referring to the early versions of the type, which was never suited to frontline operations (though the british attempted it, with no success)

Proof that Brown either was not referring to the later marks, or didnt know what he was talking about, is that the british retained the Seafire, in a later configuration as a frontline fighter, until 1954. The Canadians also made use of it I understand.

As I said, the main criticism that has been levelled against the Seafire was its high accident rate. This problem had been addressed by 1945, and the type went from a real problem, to having a lower accident rate than either of the main US types. It had adequate range, and outstanding interceptor qualities (acceleration and climb). It was one of the fastest carrier fighters in 1943-5, and carried a very heavy armament. 

whats not to like about the machine?


----------



## Readie (Jun 18, 2011)

It was a case of the pilots getting used to / being trained to deal with the torque reaction / swing of the Seafire. This was the case with other aircraft like the Mossie.
It must have been an alarming experiance to be heading to the control tower on the carrier when you open the throttle to take off !
Cheers
John


----------



## parsifal (Jun 18, 2011)

The Torque swing issue really was not that big a problem until until the arrival of the first griffon engined versions. The aircraft hadf a tendency to crab walk down the flight deck, which was a definite control problem, since applying even maximum rudder would not rectify the problem. The initial "fix" was to limit boost on takeoff to a maximum of 7 lbs. Later, in the Seafire 47, the rotation of the engine was reversed, which made the problem disappear. 

AFAIK, the Merlin engined versions did not have this problem, or at least its effects were controllable.


----------



## Readie (Jun 18, 2011)

parsifal said:


> The Torque swing issue really was not that big a problem until until the arrival of the first griffon engined versions. The aircraft hadf a tendency to crab walk down the flight deck, which was a definite control problem, since applying even maximum rudder would not rectify the problem. The initial "fix" was to limit boost on takeoff to a maximum of 7 lbs. Later, in the Seafire 47, the rotation of the engine was reversed, which made the problem disappear.
> 
> AFAIK, the Merlin engined versions did not have this problem, or at least its effects were controllable.



The Griffon rotated the opposite way to the Merlin.The torque swing effect of the huge single propellor was evenually countered by contra rotating propellors, an ungainly but effective solution. There is a Mk47 flying in the USA, its on you tube 'The one and only'. I cant post the link at the moment.

I must admit that I have been under the impression that the torque swing effect was an issue for Merlin engined Spitfires as well as taxi'ing visibility with the high nose.

Cheers
John


----------



## Freebird (Jun 18, 2011)

renrich said:


> For the record, I said, referring to the F4F3 "was a decent shipboard fighter and on balance was the *best in the world in the Allied quiver in 1942-early43*." I apologise that I was not more clear in my statement



Generally I agree with that statement Renrich.
First off, I think we are talking about the British FAA here.
For the Americans the Wildcat is the best (it's all they have) from 1941 - mid '43
For the British, RCAF is correct, the Fulmar is the best in 1940.(nothing better available.) I would agree with Parsifal, with all the Martlet I problems (no sealing tanks, guns jamming, no folding wings etc) it was an inferior choice in early 1941. So the SeaHurri would be the better option from Feb - Aug 1941. When the Martlet II is available from Sept 1941 it would be the best option IMO. Of course it won't replace all FAA SeaHurris because there are not enough Martlets available as the USN urgently needs them too.



> As for the Fulmar and Wildcat versus the Ju88, Brown could not be more clear that the Ju88A-4 was faster than the Fulmar and he could not be more clear than that the Wildcat was a better opponent versus the Ju88 than the Fulmar.



And not only the Ju88, I think considering the combat results of Fulmar vs both Zeros Me109, the F4F is the better fighter. 
Not really surprising either, I don't know of any WWII two-seat fighter-bomber or multi-role aircraft that could outperform the latest single seat fighter in a fighter role. Me110 couldn't, Pe-3 couldn't, Beaufighter couldn't.


----------



## Freebird (Jun 18, 2011)

renrich said:


> A RN Commander says the Vmax is 300 MPH at the fighter conference. Apparently you either did not read the comments or don't believe them.



Frankly no I don't believe them. The comments are wildly inaccurate in at least a half dozen ways.
The commander was either confused, misinformed by his staff or had an axe to grind, because it's obvious that he's not well informed about the Firefly, and has never flown one. 

His comments:
From Commander D R F Campbell, DSC, RN at the Fighter Conference, 1944. The Firefly Mark 4 
1.) "Would make a fair dive bomber if fitted with dive brakes."
2.) "The engine is a Mark II RR Griffon, 1725 HP 54. Performance is even more contemptible than I thought." 
3.) "Japs could out fight it and Firefly could not run away."
4.) "Do not consider it adaptable as a night fighter."
5.) "Very similar in all respects to the Fairey Battle although many improvements add to it's suitablity."
6.) "Do not see a spot for it in Pacific or elsewhere." 
7.) "Too slow and clumsy"
8.) "Performance believed too low for modern warfare."
9.) "Vision aft is not good enough, performance not good enough. Too much changing of lateral and directional trim required."
10.) "The performance is nothing to write home about." 

1.) The Firefly would never need (nor could it be fitted with) dive brakes, as *every Firefly already has* retractable Fairey-Youngman flaps, which are used both as dive brakes and to provide low speed lift manouverability.
The comment makes no sense. 

2.) The Firefly mk 4 was not in service in Oct 1944, and never had a 1725 hp Griffon, it had the 2245 hp Griffon 74.

3.) As a fighter bomber it was never meant to dogfight other fighters, but to intercept provide carrier defence against bombers. 
The Firefly's 316 -319 mph is at least 10 mph faster than a Helen, Sally, or Jill, and at least 45mph faster than the common mid-war bombers Betty, Val, Kate or Nell.
Certainly none of these bombers could outfight a Firefly
(Though they are all faster than the Fulmar except for the Kate Nell)

4.) As of Oct 1944 the Firefly night fighter *is already in service*, so this comment also makes no sense. 

5.) Hardly similar, as the Battle is 60 mph slower, lacks dive capability, much less manouverable and cant be used to intercept bombers. 

6.) It's already in service on British carriers, and the choice of whether to send RN carriers to the Pacific is far, far above his pay grade. The decision to send British carriers to the Pacific was a very contentious question that went right up to the PM's Presidents desk. An RN commander who made comments like that while delicate negotiaions were going on would be lucky not to get sacked.

7.) At 316 mph it is only a couple mph slower than the Wildcat. The Firefly is far from "clumsy", it is more agile than other fighter bomber or DB.

8.) Believed by who? Lord Haw-Haw?  Name me another fighter-bomber capable of dive bombing, with a 316 mph top speed, ASW capable and search radar equipped.  

9.) The visibility from the Firefly is as good as a Wildcat or Hellcat 

10.) Is he trying to say that a fighter-bomber fully loaded with 2,000+ lb payload doesn't dogfight very well against late-model Japanese fighters? Seems to verge on the bleedin' obvious.  

There are so many errors in the quoted comments that you would have to question how competant he is,

However Renrich, wha_t I suspect_ is that he may be describing the Firefly NF mk II. 
Fairey Firefly NF.II

The addition of the massive air-intercept radar gear along with the lengthened fuselage had a major impact on performance. 

It dropped Vmax to about 300 mph
It made pilot visibility much worse 
NF Radar performed poorly
The added mass changed center-of-gravity and badly affected handling.
So while the Firefly was a huge success, the NF mk II was not, and was cancelled.


Here is a comparison of a Hellcat Firefly mk I.
Both pilots have similar vision, but cannot see directly behind.
The firefly pilot however sits closer to the wing's leading edge than trailing, so has better view forward below. 
The Firefly pilot cannot see as well aft below. (But the observer/WO can)


----------



## RCAFson (Jun 18, 2011)

parsifal said:


> hi ivan
> 
> I would like to see that interview if possible. I have a number of records of interview with Brown. His comments are in fact exactly the opposite to what you are saying. He was critical of the Seafire I, which lacked a lot of basic navalisation mods, like wing folding, and a daggie arrester hook. He was enthusastic about the later wartime marks of Seafire.


 
Brown does not give an assessment of the Seafire III, but for the IIC he states:



> p115
> _Seafire in the forthcoming Operation Torch and operate it from two
> old carriers, as the elevators in British fleet carriers could not accom-
> modate the nonfolding fighter. Trials were successful, and the Seafire
> ...



Of course the 2nd fastest naval fighter in 1942, was the Sea Hurricane IIC, according to Brown.


----------



## Glider (Jun 18, 2011)

Freebird
I agree with what you say but think you have the wrong Firefly photo


----------



## Freebird (Jun 18, 2011)

Glider said:


> Freebird
> I agree with what you say but think you have the wrong Firefly photo


 

Oops! right you are!
Thats a mk 6 or 7

Same fuselage canopy as a Mk 1 IIRC


----------



## renrich (Jun 18, 2011)

Free bird, you have confused Campbell's remarks with the remarks of pilots who flew the Firefly. Campbell in his remarks to the conference during the opening only made statements #2 and #10(in your post) One Navy pilot flew the Firefly and nine contractor pilots, no Army and no British. The Navy and contractor pilots were responsible for the other points made in your post. However, it is apparent that Campbell did not care for the Firefly or at least the one they had there. One wonders why the British sent a "dud" example if that is what it was to the fighter meet. However, one can also see that the pilots at the "Fighter Meet" would hardly be impressed by the Firefly.


----------



## parsifal (Jun 18, 2011)

RCAFson said:


> Brown does not give an assessment of the Seafire III, but for the IIC he states:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course the 2nd fastest naval fighter in 1942, was the Sea Hurricane IIC, according to Brown.




Thanks for bringing the details of those comments to the thread. I think what he says is entirely consistent with the statements I have made, and totally debunks the claim that the Seafire was a total failure. In fact, if I can paraphrase him, what he is saying is that the nonfolding Seafires (the Seafire I and II), there was no wing folding, and this caused a lot of problems. What he doesnt say is that throughout 1942 and 1943, when the Seafire I and II were the main types, there was a very heavy accident rate. In large measure this was due to putting a high performance aircraft with difficicult deck handling characteristics on escort carriers, but throughout 1944 methoids were worked out that overcame these dificulties. 

The problem for the reputation of the Seafire is that all this adverse comment arises from those first months of operations. People conveniently forget, or overlook or deliberately ignore that these problems were overcome, and the type returned quite successful service in 1944 and 45. The comparison to the Wildcat, so often held up as a pillar of dependability, also forgets the initial teething problems that dogged the American type as well, and in no less disastrous fashion. The Wildcat was first intoduced to the RN in September 1940, but it really was of limited value to the RN until the following September. I suspect, but am unsure, that it had similar teeting issues for the USN as well, which I believe introduced the type from December 1939. If we take the service delivery date as December 1939, and its first effective operational deployment as Septmber 1941, then the Wildcat was undergoing field mods to make it a useful type for 21 months. If we look at the Seafire, it was introduced in June 1942, and assume its date of effective service as say 1/44, it took 19 months to render the Sefire an effective type. In other words, it took longer to iron out the kinks with the Wildcat than it did with the Seafire.......


----------



## parsifal (Jun 18, 2011)

renrich said:


> Free bird, you have confused Campbell's remarks with the remarks of pilots who flew the Firefly. Campbell in his remarks to the conference during the opening only made statements #2 and #10(in your post) One Navy pilot flew the Firefly and nine contractor pilots, no Army and no British. The Navy and contractor pilots were responsible for the other points made in your post. However, it is apparent that Campbell did not care for the Firefly or at least the one they had there. One wonders why the British sent a "dud" example if that is what it was to the fighter meet. However, one can also see that the pilots at the "Fighter Meet" would hardly be impressed by the Firefly.



Evidently those pilots that flew the type in the Pacific and Europe didnt get this message either. I think it was the raids over Palembang, where, despite being configured for a bombing mission, and having lost their Cosair and Hellcat escort, and being confronted with Japanese interceptors (Ki43s and Ki44s mostly), the aircraft of a single squadron (No 1770) managed to shoot down at least 6 enemy fighters. This squadron had already carried out strikes on the Tirpitz (as flak suppressors), and sank a U-Boat. 

Its usual role was as armed advance scouts. They would fly ahead of the main force, reporting enemy fighters, and over the target engaging enemy defences with rockets and/or cannons.....

I fail to see how an aircraft so demonstaby successful at a wide range of different roles, can then be labelled a failure. It beggars all rational assessment in my opinion


----------



## RCAFson (Jun 19, 2011)

parsifal said:


> Thanks for bringing the details of those comments to the thread. I think what he says is entirely consistent with the statements I have made, and totally debunks the claim that the Seafire was a total failure. In fact, if I can paraphrase him, what he is saying is that the nonfolding Seafires (the Seafire I and II), there was no wing folding, and this caused a lot of problems. What he doesnt say is that throughout 1942 and 1943, when the Seafire I and II were the main types, there was a very heavy accident rate. In large measure this was due to putting a high performance aircraft with difficicult deck handling characteristics on escort carriers, but throughout 1944 methoids were worked out that overcame these dificulties.



In fact Brown does explain the high accident in early Seafires as a consequence of flying onto Escort carriers in very light wind conditions. Brown was involved in type testing and certifying the Seafire for use on escort carriers, but he experienced higher winds than were typical in the Med. Brown was very laudatory regarding the Seafire LIIc and it's 4600fpm initial climb rate.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jun 19, 2011)

Were ever F4U F6F served aboard of escort carriers (think not?) - so we can compare high performance planes in a fair fashion?


----------



## parsifal (Jun 19, 2011)

F4us did operate to a limited extent. I dont think Hellcats ever did. I do not know Corsair operational loss rates when operating from escort carriers, and I dont know how frequently they were used .


----------



## renrich (Jun 19, 2011)

Many Marine squadrons operated Corsairs from CVEs in 1944-45. Hellcats operated from CVEs also. It was not limited at all. For references, go to Pages 520, 523, 521 and 560 in Dean, "America's Hundred Thousand" In fact Hellcats operated off of CVEs in the Med in support of the landings in Southern France.

Marine F4Us and FGs had 21 operational losses in all carrier operations in WW2.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Jun 19, 2011)

I'll accept that, was not real certain about CVE deployment of these two types. But I then wonder why they would keep the Wildcat in production as the FM-2 if the Corsair and Hellcat could operate satisfactorily from the baby flat tops. One wonders if they too suffered heavy attrition aboard such carriers, or otherwise had some operating difficulties


----------



## RCAFson (Jun 19, 2011)

parsifal said:


> I'll accept that, was not real certain about CVE deployment of these two types. But I then wonder why they would keep the Wildcat in production as the FM-2 if the Corsair and Hellcat could operate satisfactorily from the baby flat tops. One wonders if they too suffered heavy attrition aboard such carriers, or otherwise had some operating difficulties



The F6F and especially the F4U could not operate efficiently from a CVE.

The TO distance for an F4U-1 with 15/25 knot wind = 475ft/340ft @ 12039lbs; with full fuel @ 12835lb = 555ft/408ft; with one external tank @ 13259 = 835ft/625ft.
The most common USN escort carrier had a 475ft flight deck. 
It is pretty easy to see that these aircraft will struggle to TO under windless conditions on an 18 knot CVE (which might not be able to make 18 knots, depending on its state of repair). OTOH if there is insufficient wind to TO, they won't and thus won't be exposed to landing accidents.
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4u/f4u-1-acp.pdf
So they could operate from CVEs but with many restrictions, including no external stores.
The f6F-3 was somewhat better: The TO distance for an F6F-3 with 15/25 knot wind = 418ft/294ft @ 12575lbs; with one external tank @ 13632lb= 519ft/372ft.
The Seafire LIIc was better yet, The TO distance for an LIIC with 20/30 knot wind = 330ft/220ft @ 7006lbs. I would suspect that the Seafire III would be somewhat worse.


----------



## parsifal (Jun 19, 2011)

This is a commentary I found with regard to the F4U:

_The Ensign Eliminator

The first production F4U-1 made its first flight on 25 June 1942. The USN received its first aircraft on 31 July. 

Overall handling of the F4U-1 was acceptable, but not very good. In level flight the Corsair was stable enough to be flown hands-off. The ailerons were light and effective, and the high roll rate was used with good effect in combat with the A6M, which suffered from bad aileron response at high speeds. The elevators were heavy, but effective. Only the rudder really stiffened with increasing speed. For combat maneuvering, the flaps could be deployed 20 degrees. 

After the first delivery of an F4U-1 on 31 July 1942, more than two years passed before the US Navy cleared the type for shipboard operations. The Corsair was found to be much too difficult to land on a carrier deck. First of all, the pilot could hardly see the deck, because he sat so far aft of the bulky engine. The F4U tended to stall without warning, and was then certain to drop the starboard wing. Quick action had to be taken to prevent a spin. Spin recovery was difficult. In landing configuration, the F4U-1 would stall at 141km/h. A warning light would light at 148km/h. On touchdown, the F4U-1 had sluggish controls and insufficient directional stability. It also was prone to "bounce" because of overly stiff landing gear oleo legs. 

These characteristics had already been there on the XF4U-1, and if anything they were worse on the production type. Carrier qualification trials on the escort carrier USS Sangamon Bay, on 25 September 1942, caused the US Navy to release the type to the US Marine Corps. After all, the US Navy still had the Grumman F6F Hellcat, which did not have the performance of the F4U but was a far better deck landing aircraft. The Marines needed a better fighter than the F4F Wildcat. For them it was important that the F4U could be put on a carrier, but they usually flew from land bases. 

Marines

During the Pacific war, the strategy of "island hopping" turned islands into forward operating bases for the aircraft of the US Marine Corps, the US Navy and the Army Air Force. Essential to this strategy was that no attempt was made to conquer all Japanese strongholds in the Pacific. Instead, they were neutralized by attacks, cut off from the main Japanese forces, and left behind. 

The islands from which the advanced units operated were often very small. If they were larger, they were often covered with a dense jungle, and only a small part of the island was used by the combatants. The climate was often unhealthy, both for people and aircraft, and standards of living were primitive. Missions often involved long over water flights. The island group of the Eastern Solomons, for example, extends over more than 1000km. 

The first USMC unit to equip with the F4U was VMF-124, which was declared operational on 28 December 1942. VMF-124 was quickly deployed to Guadalcanal, where it flew its first combat mission, also the first of the F4U, on 11 February 1943. Fighting over Guadalcanal was intense. The first air-to-air combat took place on the 14th, when a mixed force of P-38s, P-40s, PB4Ys and F4Us lost ten aircraft to the Japanese, and claimed four A6M "Zero" fighters. 

As on this first mission, the aircraft involved in an operation were often of different types, belonged to different services, and belonged to different bases. The coordination between them was not always what it should have been. _

The first Narine F4U equipped marine unit to be embarked was VMF 124, which was attached to USS Essex. This was in the latter half of 1944. I cannot find examples of it being embarked on the "standard" escort carrier before then. Perhaps it was done unnofficially, but the USN was pretty steadfast in not allowing it to be shipped aboard until the bounce issue had been solved, and this did not occur until the latter part of 1944. The fact that service trials were undertaken from the Sangamon is significant. This class of four ships were by far the largest, fastest, and most capacious of escort carriers ever built. The fact that the USN rejected their use even from these large carriers is significant. 

For the RN, the first carrier to embark the F4U operationally was the Illustrious, in July 1943. I am unsure yet whether they were ever deployed onto any Brit CVEs but hazard to think that they may have.

All of this circumspection at best suggests that it had difficulties, at the very least, to deployment onto the short runways, and slow speeds of the Jeep carriers. It was anything but an unqualified success, I agree.


----------



## parsifal (Jun 19, 2011)

Further to the above, this online source I am looking says "_in one respect the F4U must be considered a partial failure: More than two years passed before the Corsair became an acceptable deck-landing aircraft. Of the 64051 combat missions flown by the type in World War II, 54470 were flown from land bases. If Grumman had not hastily produced the F6F Hellcat, the US Navy could have been in serious trouble_"

Moreover, I have read somewhere that the Corsair suffered over 900 serious landing/TO stacks. Thats an acident rate of 1.5% of the total missions flown. Compared to the Seafire Operations off Okinawa, where 9 aircraft suffered serious damage operational accidents, over 900 sorties flown, the Seafire suffered a 1% attrition rate. These attrition rates are probably not completely comparable, but it at least gives an indication about how maligned the Seafire III is in its so-called poor landing characteristics. The safety record of the Corsair is not much better than the Seafire. seems the myth is starting to unravel rather quickly.....

With over 85% of its missions flown from land bases, and not being cleared for carrier operations for more than two years after its service entry, its hard to see how the type can be seen as an unqualified success. Successful, yes, but is its service afloat that much superior to that of the Seafire?????


----------



## Readie (Jun 20, 2011)

parsifal said:


> The safety record of the Corsair is not much better than the Seafire. seems the myth is starting to unravel rather quickly.....


 
You are spot on parsifal. One pilots had learned the characteristics of the Seafire it was a superb additional to any naval air force. The Corsair, while a formidable aircraft ,was not in the same league.

There are no theatres of war where the Spitfire/ Seafire were significantly bettered by allied or Axis fighters.

Cheers
John


----------



## parsifal (Jun 20, 2011)

Oh the Corsair was exceptional, and the quote I posted has to be treated as a little on the cheeky side. However, to view the Corsair as a some kind of panacea to which all other types taken to sea must bow down in fealty is just a bit rich in my opinion. It was a great aircraft, but it was not an invincible aircraft. That image has been built up by post war propaganda


----------



## renrich (Jun 20, 2011)

Fortunately for the Allies and unfortunately for the Axis, the USN did not understand that Hellcats and "especially" Corsairs could not operate "efficiently" from CVEs. For instance, during the invasion of the Gilberts, three CVEs carried FM-1s, the other five CVEs carried Hellcats. During the Marshall's campaign also many CVEs carried Hellcats. Interestingly, I have always associated the Wildcat with Grumman while knowing that Eastern produced a lot of FM-1s and 2s. The fact is that of the 7905 Wildcats produced, Eastern produced more than 5000. The USN credited the Wildcat, in 1941-1943, with 905 kills with 178 losses. A victory to loss ratio of 6.9 to 1. Not too bad.

The Corsair was the most used US naval aircraft by the British in WW2 with 2012 Corsairs going to the FAA. Rex Barber, a highly successful AAF P38 pilot said that if the US had to only produce one fighter bomber, in WW2 "it should have been the F4U." Because of it's superior performance, the USN strived to replace all fighters in the Pacific Fleet with Corsairs as quickly as possible when the Kamikaze threat manifested itself. The F8F, when it became available, was supposed to be the Navy's pure fighter, while the Corsair was to be the fighter bomber but before the Korean War began, the F8F, because it was not well suited to the fighter bomber role, was replaced by the Corsair, the all around best piston engined fighter the USN ever had and probably one of the top two or three best piston engined fighters ever built.


----------



## parsifal (Jun 20, 2011)

I dont think the comments were that the later US types did not, or could not operate from escort carriers, just that when they did, there were restrictions on their opereational uses. Further my comment was that with 85% of the Corsairs flying time as a shore based aircraft and a two year delay in its carrier acceptance, it cannot be viewed as a complete success. The fact that it was taken aboard some escort carriers before that date, does not necessarily mean they were embarked. Many escort carriers were used as floating reserves, as aircraft transports and the like. What you would need to show is that they were being used operationally, and with no restrictions on their usage.

And whilst I am the first to applaud the Corsair and its record, the comments you are posting are cleverly dodging the issue. The Corsair was not ideal to operate from escort carriers, it also suffered a non combat loss rate at least as big as that of the Seafire in 1945. It was not the panacea to solve all problems. It had a terrific kill loss ratio, it was a very effective fighter bomber, it was rugged, but it had its weaknesses, no less so than the Seafire did.


----------



## Glider (Jun 20, 2011)

Its worth noting that if you look at the USN order of Battle at the end of the war, Corsairs were only on the Essex Class carriers. I do not doubt that they could and did operate on other carriers hen needed but as an indication of preference I believe that is an interesting observation.


----------



## Readie (Jun 20, 2011)

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_YioXYhbVPA_


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eyktbHPgvWI_


Here's that Seafire links I referred to earlier.
Cheers
John


----------



## Juha (Jun 20, 2011)

Hello
at Leyte in Oct 44 only 3 of the longer Sangamon class CVEs carried F6F-3s, the 4th, Santee, carried FM-2s as did all the shorter Casablanca class CVEs. But that was not a problem, FM-2 was quite capable to handle Japanese planes and as was shown off Norway, at low level it could handle 109G too.

Juha


----------



## parsifal (Jun 20, 2011)

Readie said:


> _View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_YioXYhbVPA_
> 
> 
> _View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eyktbHPgvWI_
> ...




Thanks for sharing John....a fantastic sound IMO


----------



## renrich (Jun 20, 2011)

Much of the "information" posted above about the Corsair is incorrect. For example, the left wing of the Corsair stalled first, not the right wing. Comparing operational losses of the Corsair versus the Seafire is ridiculous because you are not comparing comparable missions. If you want to continue to insist that the Seafire was as safe or safer to operate from carriers, you ignore reality. The British operated Corsairs from carriers in spite of the plane's early shortcomings. They liked it because it was rugged, long ranged, fast, survivable in combat and at least gave the pilot a chance in a ditching. 

From the official Naval Aviation Combat Statistics:
USN Corsairs flew 6488 action sorties from carriers and had 48 operational losses. Many of those losses were caused by weather and navigational problems.
As quoted before Marines flew 3093 action sorties from carriers and had 21 operational losses. Same issues as above. Many of those sorties were flown from CVEs.
By the end of the war, Marine squadrons were flying combat from CVEs Block Island, Gilbert islands, Vella Gulf, Cape Gloucester and Suwanee. Corsairs were operated from CVEs in the Korean War also.
In WW2, Marines flew 52852 action sorties in Corsairs from land bases and had 157 operational losses.

All of the above losses were on action sorties.

Initially the Corsair had characteristics which made it a difficult deck landing aircraft. Those characteristics were poor visibility over the nose, the bouncy landing gear and the left wing drop when stalled. The FAA went on and used the Corsair with those characteristics because they had nothing better or as good. One USN squadron, VF17, in September, 1943, had the Corsair ready for operations on carriers and was eqipped with the factory built F4U1A with the right wing spoiler and the debounced landing gear as well as the raised seat but was substituted for by VF18 flying Hellcats primarily because Corsair parts and equipment were not in the supply line to the Pacific. Earlier VF12 had begun to receive it's Corsairs in January, 1943, and was switched to Hellcats in the summer of 1943 because of the parts and supplies problems. The commanders of these squadrons knew the Corsair was a winner and was superior to the Hellcat in performance but they had to wait until later to use that winner off of carriers.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Jun 21, 2011)

Well, on the basis of your figures, for carrier non-combat losses in carrier based operations, the Corsair in USN service flew 9581 sorties off carriers, and lost 69 aircraft. Thats a loss rate of 0.7%. Seafire III operations off Okinawa and Japan in 1945 flew 990 sorties and lost either 6 or 9 aircraft permanently written off. Thats a loss rate of 0.61% to 0.91%. Now, you can protest all you like, but they are numbers. Seafire (for 1945) and Corsair operational loss rates were very similar (infact during the hectic operations off Okinawa, Corsair loss rates were about 20 aircraft per 1000 sorties, or roughly 3 times that of the Seafire) . Moreover, whilst the British were forced to push the Seafire into carrier service early, and on the wrong ships, the Americans had the luxury of not authorizing the embarkation of the Corsair for more than two years. As you say they also pushed the Corsair into service afloat, a year before the Americans did. This doesnt help to determine the Corsair loss rate in the RN, it just underlines that the RN saw it as a necessary expedient in the same light as they saw the Seafire deployment as a necessary expedient. 

Evidence that the Seafire after its initial problems was at least as succesful as the Corsair can be derived from its postwar service. Seafires remained in frontline sertviuce with the RN until 1950, and in other airforces until 1954. AFAIK the Corsair was retired from the USN in 1952, so their service records are at least similar. That tells you the RN was happy with the Seafire.

I put it to you the literature you are relying on is too biased and tainted by "King-itis" to be relied upon......


----------



## Jabberwocky (Jun 21, 2011)

Readie said:


> You are spot on parsifal. One pilots had learned the characteristics of the Seafire it was a superb additional to any naval air force.



It took significant changes to the landing gear struts to make the Seafire acceptable - just barely - for carrier operations



> The Corsair, while a formidable aircraft ,was not in the same league.



In what respects was the Corsair "not in the same league?"

Speed, turn performance, range, armament, combat load?



> There are no theatres of war where the Spitfire/ Seafire were significantly bettered by allied or Axis fighters.



Spitfires were significantly bettered by the Zero over Darwin... losing out at a rate of about 3:1

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Jun 21, 2011)

_It took significant changes to the landing gear struts to make the Seafire acceptable - just barely - for carrier operations_

In what respects was it "just barely" adequate. What is your basis for a statement like that. Please table information that shows it to be "Just barely" adequate. In fact, if you research the issue even a little, you will find the British viewed it as essential in their integrated defence arrangements. It was by far the best CAP aircraft that they possessed below 5000 feet, which is where it mattered against the Kamikazes, and by far the most important weapon system available to the BPF in its battle against this threat. 

_In what respects was the Corsair "not in the same league?"_

In the sense of having far superior climb , far heavier and effective armament (20mm are acknowledged by all except those diehard Americans who think 6x 50s are better than anything except 8 x 50s) higher accelaration and better speed below 5000 ft. Turn radius was better as well. "Not in the same league" is not the same as trying to say "superior to"...more "better at certtain things".... 


Speed, turn performance, range, armament, combat load?

Sppeed below 5000 ft was superiuor in the Seafire, turn performance far superior in the Seafire, armament was far heavier in the Seafire (though I will never have that acknowledged I know, but its a fact, I assure you) , range was superior in the Corsair, but not greatly so, if effctive combat radii are being talked about, combat load, well, the Corsair had it all over the Seafire in that regard.



_Spitfires were significantly bettered by the Zero over Darwin... losing out at a rate of about 3:1_

And this is different to the Corsair in what respects????? In their first encounters with zeroes they lost about twice as many of their number as the zeroes lost. The Spits over Darwin used the wrong tacticws, lost more aircraft to running out of fuel, and overall were poorly used. their combat records are not that much worse than other types like the P-40 at the time and in any event, the defence at Darwin was a difficult target to defend. To say nothing of comparing apples to oranges


----------



## tomo pauk (Jun 21, 2011)

Great thread, to say at least.


----------



## Readie (Jun 21, 2011)

The Spitfire was not significantly bettered by any aircraft...

It seems accepted 'wisdom on line' that the Zero easily mastered the Spitfire throughout 1943, winning the air war over Australian skys. I've always been curious why a fighter that did so well in every other theater could be so badly beaten there.

The post war, confirmed records show the Japanese lost 65 aircraft over Darwin. They shot down 16 Spitfires. I'm not a researcher and I don't read Japanese, but I accept the official history of the RAF. Their account of the Battle of Britain was the first modern work to confess that they'd overclaimed by almost three times the number of losses the Germans actually sustained. Their European numbers have stood the test of time and numerous assaults by revisionist historians, I see no reason why their Pacific account should be any different. Below is an account of the RAAFs brave defence of Darwin, the victories are those claimed during the war. Please remember that the Japanese habitually overclaimed, while the Australians were painfully open about their own losses. Consider too, that our modern perception may be slanted by General MacArthurs staff releasing a highly questionable report on the air battle fought on the 2nd May...

After Darwin was bombed repeatedly in 1942 the British Prime Minister dispatched a Wing of Spitfires to defend the city. The squadrons became known as the 'Churchill Wing', although they were almost entirely Australians. They benefited from experience gained over Britain, France, Malta and North Africa, and counted a number of aces in their number. The difficulties inherent in getting 54 modern, high performance aircraft, aircrew and supplies operational on the other side of the world, 10,500 miles away, were considerable. It would be February 1943 before they went into action.

On the 6th Feb '43 they drew first blood, shooting down a Ki-46 Dinah recce bomber, but it was to be the 2nd Mar that they first faced Zeros. 21 A6Ms of the 202nd Kokutai escorted 9 G4M Bettys of the 753rd on a raid against Darwin. 20 miles off the coast, low on fuel, a flight of 6, 54 squadron Mk Vc Spitfires caught the raiders. A swift, confused, 8 minute dogfight ensued. Both sides claimed to have shot down several enemys, but in fact only one Spitfire and two Zeros were damaged. 
Wg Cdr Caldwell noted that in tight, 160 mph turns, the Zero didn't get dangerously close until after the Spitfires' speed had begun to wash off after the second turn. He "easily evaded" the Zero with a downward break.

On the 15th Mar '43, returning from night ops and with their oxygen supply depleted, 452 sqn attacked a force of 50 Japanese aircraft, split evenly between fighters and bombers. Four Spitfires were lost, but four Zeros were shot down, three of the bombers destroyed and a further seven Japanese aircraft were damaged. It was a cold comfort, two of the Spitfire pilots downed were killed, including seven 'kill' ace Sqn Ldr Thorold-Smith, 452s CO.

Worse was to come. On the 2nd May'43 another 50 'plane Japanese raid was met by all 33 of the Wings operational fighters. In a gruelling twenty five minute running battle the Spitfires had five of their number shot down, but took ten enemy aircraft in return, with many more damaged. However, a further ten Spitfires were lost to fuel shortages and mechanical failures! The press release from Gen. MacArthurs office stated they had suffered a "severe reverse". With no way of knowing how many of their damaged foes made it back to base there was no way to refute the report. Mud sticks. When the air war over Darwin is mentioned today, the loss of 15 Spitfires for just 10 enemy aircraft inevitably surfaces. Usually with a snide comment about the accuracy of the 10 claimed by the Australians. 

On 9th May '43 Spitfires operating out of a satelite field destroyed two Zeros and damaged a third. The victory was mared when they lost a Spitfire in a landing accident. 

28 May '43 six Spitfires met thirteen Japanese aircraft. They lost two fighters, but shot down two bombers and damaged a third.

20th June '43 the JAAF decided to try their luck. 30 bombers and 22 Ki-43 Oscars were met by 46 Spitfires. 9 bombers were destroyed, 8 more damaged, 5 fighters were shot down, 2 damaged without the Wing losing a single Spitfire.

28 June '43 a mixed bag of 18 Zeros and Bettys were bounced by 457 sqn. 3 Zeros were destroyed, 2 bombers probably joined them, for no Australian loss.

30 June '43 Fenton, the base of the USAAF 380th BG, was attacked by 27 Bettys and 20 Zeros. 4 bombers were destroyed, 4 more probably destroyed, 3 Zeros were destroyed with 6 probables, for no Spitfires lost.

6 July '43 saw 26 bombers and 21 fighters being engaged by the Wing. 9 Japanese aircraft were destroyed, 2 Spitfires were shot down, but 6 more were lost to mechanical defects. 

The Japanese had finally had enough. They switched to night bombing. The Spitfires, almost 11,000 miles from their supporting factories, often heavily outnumbered and suffering from conditions that their desert fighters were never designed to cope with, had achieved the task Churchill set them. Far from being defeated by the Zeros, they doggedly ground them down until they could no longer support further attacks. They might not have been the magic bullet an adoring public wanted, but skill, courage and a superb fighter carried the day.

Cheers
John


----------



## renrich (Jun 22, 2011)

From "Aircraft of WW2" by Kenneth Munson
Page 147 Supermarine Seafire (F.MkIII)-Max speed-352 mph at 12250 feet, service ceiling 33800 feet, normal range 465 miles, armament two 20mm cannon and four 303 Mgs, one 500 pound bomb or two 250 pound bombs optional

Page 50 F4U4 Corsair- Max speed 447 mph at 26000 feet, service ceiling 41000 feet, max range 1562 miles( normal from me, 1000miles), armament, six 50 cal Mgs, two 1000 pound bombs or eight RPs.

The F4U4 could do 380 mph at SL so was almost 30 mph faster at SL than was the Seafire at it's best altitude. The F4U had one of the best roll rates of any fighter in WW2, much better than any Spit or Seafire. The F4U carried enough ammo for 26.7 seconds of firing time, probably twice the firing time of the Seafire. One can argue all day about which plane was most heavily armed but the six fifties was more than adequate against Japanese fighters, bombers and kamakazes and the longer firing time was indispensable. So the Corsair in action during the last months of the war in the Pacific was almost 100 mph faster than the Seafire at best altitude and was faster at SL than the Seafire was at best altitude. It could fly higher and that Corsair could climb to 20000 feet in 6.8 minutes and had an initial rate of climb of 3870 fpm. The initial rate of climb of the Seafire IIC was 2950 fpm. I can't find the ROC of the III C.

So the Corsair could climb faster, was much faster in level speed, could get higher, carry a lot more bombs, a lot more ammo, roll better, was a lot more rugged( it could not be brought down by a single rifle caliber bullet in the cooling system) was built for carrier use at the outset and was more survivable in a ditching.

The only reason the RN continued to use Seafires after WW2 was that the Corsairs and Hellcats they had needed to be returned since they were lend leased.

Don't let nationalism stand in the way of common sense.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Jun 22, 2011)

Theres only one problem with your last statement. i'm not british, never have been, and have as much affinity and allegiance to US aircraft as I do to British aorcraft

Care to retract that statement about nationalism (implying I am British), as it is offensive to me, or do I start calling you "that blasted mexican"


----------



## fastmongrel (Jun 22, 2011)

renrich said:


> The F4U4 could do 380 mph at SL



That must have been an awesome ride for the pilot not much room for error one hiccup or sneeze and you turn into a big heap of spray


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 22, 2011)

While technically the Seafire MK III was the last one to see combat in WW II it might be interesting to compare when the MK III Seafire went into production and service with when the F4U-4 went into production and service. 

For instance the F4U-4 first saw combat in May of 1945. As of August 1945 4 FAA squadrons were in the process of converting to the MK XV Seafire and some 250 or so of the Griffon engine planes had been built.


----------



## parsifal (Jun 22, 2011)

SR yopu beat me to it...Mk XV had a top speed of 383 mph, whilst the Seafire 47 had a top speed of 456 mph. It was wrong of me to claim superior speed for the Seafire in the wartime context, but i was thinking of these post war developments. To set the record straight, theres no question in my mind that the Corsair was the best all round performer furing the war, but it was overtaken by the Seafire in the perior soon after the war. 

As far as rate of climb, turn performance and general accelaration and all round performance below 5000 feet, i stand by my comments. The problem with the Seafire was not its performance, not even its reliability. Its problem was that its usefulness was too narrow. Aircraft like the Corsair could do a lot of different things, pretty good, the Seafire could do a few things very good, but most things only so so. thats why the Sea Fury was a much better propect post war.


----------



## RCAFson (Jun 22, 2011)

renrich said:


> From "Aircraft of WW2" by Kenneth Munson
> Page 147 Supermarine Seafire (F.MkIII)-Max speed-352 mph at 12250 feet, service ceiling 33800 feet, normal range 465 miles, armament two 20mm cannon and four 303 Mgs, one 500 pound bomb or two 250 pound bombs optional
> 
> Page 50 F4U4 Corsair- Max speed 447 mph at 26000 feet, service ceiling 41000 feet, max range 1562 miles( normal from me, 1000miles), armament, six 50 cal Mgs, two 1000 pound bombs or eight RPs.
> ...



The F4U-4 did not enter combat until late May 1945 and when it did it could not meet the performance figures you state:

Max speed at SL was 303 knots or 349 mph.
Max speed = 443 mph at 29000ft
max climb at military rating = 3760 fpm at SL
Time to 20,000ft = aprox 7.8 mins with Mil power. 
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4u/f4u-4-80765.pdf. 
The above report notes that engine cooling was inadequate which maybe why they could not obtain more power.
The nearest equivalent Seafire was the Mk XV which was on its way to the Pacific when the war ended. It had:

max speed of 356mph at SL. 
max speed = 395 mph at 14000ft (F4U-4 = 387mph at same altitude)
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/ns493.html (reported dated June 1944)
Max climb rate was 4340 fpm at 2000 ft. (From The Secret Years by Mason; RAE test report)
I would guesstimate about 5.5 to 6min to 20000ft at the combat rating.

The Seafire III entered service in late 1943.


----------



## slaterat (Jun 23, 2011)

This has been a very informative thread. I have learned a lot about the Fairy Firefly and I'm impressed with its performance over Sumatra, something I will have to read up on. I haven't ever found much good reading on late war RN/FAA operations in the Pacific.

Regarding the initial topic of this thread, below 10,000 ft the Fulmar proved adequate as a fighter and was close to the performance of the F4F/Martlet and the Sea Hurricane. Above that height though the Fulmar is outperformed by both. Imho the Sea Hurricane is the best point defence/intercepter of the three, the Fulmar the most versatile and the best escort fighter, while the F4F/Martlet is capable of fulfilling both roles.

Slaterat


----------



## slaterat (Jun 23, 2011)

If I had to pick one type to equip a carrier with I would have to pick the F4F/Martlet. The Fulmar's performance is too slow above 10,000 ft and the Sea Hurricane has too short of a range without drop tanks and lacks folding wings.

Slaterat

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Jun 23, 2011)

I think that is a good assessment, but bear in mind the availability dates of the types. The Fulmar was operational before th F4f, but after 1941, justifying the Fulmar against the F4f becomes hard work


----------



## fastmongrel (Jun 23, 2011)

Just been reading the performance chart posted by RCAFson very interesting but I am probably being stupid what does the acronym ACA mean 

page 4 (1) Normal rated power
(a) max speed in level flight
(1) At ACA  High blower


----------



## renrich (Jun 23, 2011)

I don't care what you call me, just as long as you call me
Page 595, Dean, "America's Hundred Thousand" Graph 78B, F4U4 at 12420 pounds-380 mph TAS at SL at combat power.
Pge 594-"At very low altitudes the early Corsair was fastest at about 340 to 350 mph." That would be at military power. So the F4U1 was as fast or faster at SL as the later Seafire was at best altitude.
Page 596, Dean, and this is wise for all of us to understand:"One has to be very specific in talking about fighter maximum speed, being careful to define aircraft configuration, specific variant, altitude, weight condition and engine power setting as well as the condition of both airplane and engine."

Page 187, "Whistling Death," by Boone Guyton, main test pilot for the Corsair, " We began a series of engine cooling and carburetor tests, finally inching up to an incredible 75 inches MP. I approched this awesome power with due apprehension and vivid remembrance. The violence of those overheated, disintegrating engines, the crashes and the long hospital days were stark reminders of an earlier unpleasantness."" The trepidation was unwarranted. The new engine ran with satisfying smoothness at all power conditions-cause for celebration. Along with the second F4U-4X, No. 50301, which was soon ready for tests, performance data were obtained that exceeded estimates. Top speed was now 450 mph at 26600 feet, versus the F4U1D's 425 mph at 20000 feet. Rate of climb was extended to almost 4000 feet per minute from 3100 feet per minute." 

The Corsair was also an excellent diving airplane and very stable in dive, undoubtedly a better diver than any Spitfire variant. The interesting thing about the Corsair was that as the airplane evolved each new model was a nicer handling airplane. This was not often true with other WW2 fighters. An example would be the P51, where the early Allison powered model was considered a much nicer handling aiplane than the later P51D.

Back to the armament issue. If the 20 mms are the determinant, the F4U1C and the F4U4B were armed with four 20 mms with 225 rounds of ammo for each gun. The later F4U5 was exclusively armed with the four 20 mms and it could reach 465 to 470 mph at critical altitude.

The fact remains though that the Allies achieved air supremacy in WW2 over Germany and Japan, predominately with US fighters armed with the 50 BMG.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Jun 23, 2011)

> The fact remains though that the Allies achieved air supremacy in WW2 over Germany and Japan, predominately with US fighters armed with the 50 BMG.



Air supremacy over Germany Japan was a product of the hard work sacrifice by many allied AFs efforts.


----------



## RCAFson (Jun 23, 2011)

fastmongrel said:


> Just been reading the performance chart posted by RCAFson very interesting but I am probably being stupid what does the acronym ACA mean
> 
> page 4 (1) Normal rated power
> (a) max speed in level flight
> (1) At ACA  High blower


 
ACA = Airplane Critical Altitude, which is equivalent to the Commonwealth FTH or Full Throttle height


----------



## renrich (Jun 23, 2011)

No question that the air war was won by an overall effort of all the arms of all the Allies. Army, Navy, Air Force. I meant however that when the war was nearing it's end the Allied aircraft that roamed the skies over Germany and Japan were predominately US AC armed with the 50 BMG. Most of the Japanese aircraft shot down by Allied aircraft in WW2 were shot down by AC armed with the 50 BMG. The daylight precision bombing of the AAF was enabled by Mustangs with either four or six 50 BMGs. The Mustangs and Thunderbolts that roamed the skies of Germany in 44-45 were in the majority and were armed with the 50 BMG. Perhaps the US fighters would have been more effective with cannon, perhaps not but the fact remains. They got the job done.


----------



## RCAFson (Jun 23, 2011)

renrich said:


> I don't care what you call me, just as long as you call me
> Page 595, Dean, "America's Hundred Thousand" Graph 78B, F4U4 at 12420 pounds-380 mph TAS at SL at combat power.
> Pge 594-"At very low altitudes the early Corsair was fastest at about 340 to 350 mph." That would be at military power. So the F4U1 was as fast or faster at SL as the later Seafire was at best altitude.
> Page 596, Dean, and this is wise for all of us to understand:"One has to be very specific in talking about fighter maximum speed, being careful to define aircraft configuration, specific variant, altitude, weight condition and engine power setting as well as the condition of both airplane and engine."
> ...


 
Trying to unravel the mystery of F4U-1/4 performance isn't easy. The wartime F4U-4 used the R2800-18w engine, but post war variants were fitted with the more powerful R2800-42w. 

The F4U-1/4 only had 10- 13.5 usgals of water for injection, which, AFAIK was only good for 5 - 6 minutes before exhaustion. So, unlike overboost on the Merlin or Griffon. 6 minutes was the limit for WEP on the F4U with WI, and if exceeded the engine would self destruct in very short order, with almost certain loss of the aircraft. The R1800-18w aircraft used 115/145 octane fuel as well. So the performance claims of the F4U-1/4 on WI are very misleading since there is a hard limit on how long the engine can run at these powers, rather than an advisory notice on the Merlin/Griffon, that could be, and often was ignored in combat, and could be used repeatedly on a single sortie, even within the 5 minute advisory limit.

Also, AFAIK the Spitfire (and probably the Seafire) had the highest limiting mach number of any WW2 aircraft and would be able to outdive almost any WW2 aircraft.


----------



## Jabberwocky (Jun 24, 2011)

parsifal said:


> _It took significant changes to the landing gear struts to make the Seafire acceptable - just barely - for carrier operations_
> 
> In what respects was it "just barely" adequate. What is your basis for a statement like that. Please table information that shows it to be "Just barely" adequate. In fact, if you research the issue even a little, you will find the British viewed it as essential in their integrated defence arrangements. It was by far the best CAP aircraft that they possessed below 5000 feet, which is where it mattered against the Kamikazes, and by far the most important weapon system available to the BPF in its battle against this threat.



Response on landing gear to come in a few hours. I've got some interesting RN pilot commentary on the Seafire's landing tendencies, all the way up to the Mk 47.



> _In what respects was the Corsair "not in the same league?"_
> 
> In the sense of having far superior climb , far heavier and effective armament (20mm are acknowledged by all except those diehard Americans who think 6x 50s are better than anything except 8 x 50s) higher accelaration and better speed below 5000 ft. Turn radius was better as well. "Not in the same league" is not the same as trying to say "superior to"...more "better at certtain things"....
> 
> ...



Wartime Seafires of all stripes (Merlin engines) were outpaced by contemporary Corsair's all the way from sea level through to 30,000 ft. Typical advantage was in the region of 20-30 mph at any given height until the post-war Griffon Mks.

RoC was only better in Seafires with engines tuned for low altitude performance, although it was significantly better in the L Mk III. Even then, climb superiority disappeared over 14,000 feet compared to Corsairs. RN Corsairs fitted with water injection were generally better above 10,000 ft in RoC. 

Seafires were anywhere from 1 minute to 5 minutes quicker to 20,000 ft than contemporary Mks of Corsair. Typically a Seafire took 8-9 minutes to get to 20,000 ft, a Corsair to 10-13

Low alt turn performance may not have been as good in the Corsair, but the aircraft was increasingly competitive as altitude increased. The Corsair had better roll performance than the Seafire, as was its dive and zoom performance. 

Maneuverability is not just about turn radius - witness the 1942 Channel front battles.

As for range, according to RN data sheets range in a Corsair Mk I was 25% better on internal fuel and 33% better with overload D/Ts than a Seafire Mk III - the longest ranged of the Seafires

Corsair Mk II had a 65% advantage on internal fuel, and a 105% range advantage with overload D/Ts.





> _Spitfires were significantly bettered by the Zero over Darwin... losing out at a rate of about 3:1_
> 
> And this is different to the Corsair in what respects????? In their first encounters with zeroes they lost about twice as many of their number as the zeroes lost. The Spits over Darwin used the wrong tacticws, lost more aircraft to running out of fuel, and overall were poorly used. their combat records are not that much worse than other types like the P-40 at the time and in any event, the defence at Darwin was a difficult target to defend. To say nothing of comparing apples to oranges


 
Actually, the recently published 'Darwin Spitfires' by A.Cooper, the P-40 was only slightly bested by the Zero in the defence of Darwin in fighter v fighter engagements, about 1.1-1.2:1. On the other hand, the Spitfires of the RAAF and RAF - excluding mechanical and fuel related losses - still lost out in fighter v fighter combat by about 3:1

I don't have any Zero vs Corsair loss stats to hand. The USN really lies outside my sphere of interest

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## renrich (Jun 24, 2011)

I have reported on this before so will not bother to copy the entire quote from Boone Guyton's book. During the Fighter Conference in January, 1944, Guyton did a simulated-combat against Ken Walsh, a Marine Ace in the Corsair. Guyton was in the latest production F4U1 with a 60 GALLON WING WATER TANK(my caps) and Walsh was in a brand new F3A with a tank of only 10.3 gallons. So you see there were some Corsairs with more than ten gallons of water. Incidently, Guyton with more hours in a Corsair than anyone in the world and a former Navy pilot was strummed by Walsh three times.

Diving ability refers to the ability of the airplane to go into a dive quickly and pick up speed quickly, not the limiting Mach number. Bob Johnson in his book mentions in his mock dogfights with Spitfires that the Spitfire could not dive quickly or fast compared to his Thunderbolt and he used that to win those exercises. His tactics were, if a Spit was on his tail, to begin to roll violently left and right. The Spit could not stay in the same plane with him while rolling. Then he would roll into a dive and the P47 would rapidly pull away from the Spit. The Spit from level flight could outclimb the early P47 but after picking up much speed in a dive the P47 would zoom climb and leave the Spit far behind, stuggling to catch up. At the top of the P47's zoom climb, Johnson would hammerhead stall the Jug and suddenly the Spit would find himself confronting head on a P47 with eight fifties pointing at him. The Corsair could almost pick up speed in a dive as fast as the Jug and was very stable in that dive(no constant retrimming.)

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## RCAFson (Jun 24, 2011)

renrich said:


> I have reported on this before so will not bother to copy the entire quote from Boone Guyton's book. During the Fighter Conference in January, 1944, Guyton did a simulated-combat against Ken Walsh, a Marine Ace in the Corsair. Guyton was in the latest production F4U1 with a 60 GALLON WING WATER TANK(my caps) and Walsh was in a brand new F3A with a tank of only 10.3 gallons. So you see there were some Corsairs with more than ten gallons of water. Incidently, Guyton with more hours in a Corsair than anyone in the world and a former Navy pilot was strummed by Walsh three times.
> 
> Diving ability refers to the ability of the airplane to go into a dive quickly and pick up speed quickly, not the limiting Mach number. Bob Johnson in his book mentions in his mock dogfights with Spitfires that the Spitfire could not dive quickly or fast compared to his Thunderbolt and he used that to win those exercises. His tactics were, if a Spit was on his tail, to begin to roll violently left and right. The Spit could not stay in the same plane with him while rolling. Then he would roll into a dive and the P47 would rapidly pull away from the Spit. The Spit from level flight could outclimb the early P47 but after picking up much speed in a dive the P47 would zoom climb and leave the Spit far behind, stuggling to catch up. At the top of the P47's zoom climb, Johnson would hammerhead stall the Jug and suddenly the Spit would find himself confronting head on a P47 with eight fifties pointing at him. The Corsair could almost pick up speed in a dive as fast as the Jug and was very stable in that dive(no constant retrimming.)


 
I suspect Guyton was flying a factory modded F4U with an increased WI tank, to facilitate testing. Both the F4U-1D and F4U-4 detail specs state 10/13.5 gallons:
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4u/f4u-1d-detail-specification.pdf
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4u/f4u-1d-detail-specification.pdf
which would give both the same time for WEP, given the greater consumption of the 2800-18.

No doubt a Thunderbolt had an edge in dive over a Spit V, but the late mark Seafires were heavier and more powerful (over the Spit v), especially in combat where the pilots could use overboost freely. I really doubt that diving away from a Seafire XV, for example would have been a successful tactic, especially given its superior power to weight ratio and if the Seafire forced the F4U to use up its WI, then the F4U would be at a severe disadvantage. I don't think that any Seafires had clipped wings, but this could have been done to increase the roll rate, if it was felt to be necessary.


----------



## Juha (Jun 24, 2011)

IMHO Spitfires/Seafires were not great diver, they did not pick up speed as fast as some of the heavier fighters, for ex P-47. Of course in long deep dives Spit didn’t run to compression problems easily because of its critical Mach number was very high for a WWII plane thanks to its very thin wing, again contrary to P-47 and P-38, both of which had low critical Mach number for WWII fighter.

As airplane Seafire LIII handled very well, as one can read from Corky Mayer’s (Grumman’s test pilot) writings. He was almost in ecstasy after his first flight in it, probably just at Fighter Meeting 1944. 

Juha


----------



## Kryten (Jun 25, 2011)

you have to bear in mind the seafire was an adaption to carrier operations not designed for it like the planes it is being compared to, thats bound to create shortcomings, but as a fleet defence fighter it was without doubt very good and if you had to choose a fighter for that role it was a good option, for the fighter bomber role however the heavier carrier types would be a perferred option I would have thought!!


----------



## renrich (Jun 25, 2011)

The fact remains though that no WW2 Seafire was as fast or faster than even the F6F3 or especially the F6F5. Speed was important when acting as a CAP for the fleet, expecially against Kamikazes. Many Kamikazes were fighters with a bomb attached and they could get to the target a lot faster than VBs or VTs so the CAP needed to have all the speed they could muster. That is why the USN issued the mandate to replace all VFs in the fleet with the Corsair because it had a significant edge in Vmax over the Hellcats. Range was important in a CAP as well as ammo capacity. The CAP being refueled or rearmed on the deck was not doing any good. The IJN experienced this at Midway because the cannon in the A6Ms at that time only carried 90 rounds per gun and the rifle caliber weapons mounted over the engine were not very effective against the US attackers. Consequently the A6Ms kept the flight decks of the IJN carriers tied up during the US attacks being rearmed even though the IJN VFs had very good endurance. The Seafires had good climb and good firepower but not good endurance, not a lot of firing time and were a little deficient in Vmax, much like the Hellcat. The Spitfire was, in 1940 and even later, a fine interceptor, especially against he LW and in ACM at least held it's own against the BF109. The Spit and BF109 were similar AC, small, short ranged, maneuverable, good firepower for that time, fast climbers but not particularly resistant to battle damage. Neither were designed as shipboard aircraft though. As great a design as the P51 was it would not have made a good shipboard fighter. It probably would have been better than the F4F if it had been adapted for shipboard use but would have been lacking compared to the Hellcat and Corsair.


----------



## renrich (Jun 25, 2011)

Here are some interesting "facts" or statistics about fighters operating off of carriers in WW2.
Navy Hellcats flew 62240 action sorties from US carriers in WW2
Hellcats flying from carriers were credited with 1387 bombers and 3568 fighters shot down. 
If you divide the total number of planes credited with the number of sorties, then you get .08 kills per sortie
Navy Corsairs flew 6488 action sorties from carriers during WW2
Navy Corsairs were credited with 100 bombers and 260 fighters when flying from carriers which gives .06 kills per sortie.
without doing the numbers it looks like the ratio of bomber to fighter kills is about the same so the Hellcat looks a little more lethal than the Corsair
But Marines flew 3093 action sorties from carriers in Corsairs in WW2
Marines flying from carriers were credited with 59 bombers and 159 fighters which gives .07 kills per sortie. 
So Marine pilots in Corsairs were a little more lethal than Navy pilots in Corsairs but not as lethal as Navy pilots in Hellcats. At least that is what the statistics say.

Points to consider:
Hellcats got a lot of kills during the Marianas Turkey Shoot and in other carrier versus carrier battles when some of the IJN pilots were barely carrier qualified.
Most or all of the carrier based Corsair kills were against land based attackers.
Were Zekes or other VFs carrying a bomb in the Kamikaze attacks considered a bomber or fighter.
During the last months of the war, Navy fighters were going up against very late model Japanese fighters.
Many of the Marine fighter kills were off of CVEs.
Many of the Kamikaze pilots were low time pilots

My conclusion is that you cannot draw many very accurate conclusions from these "Facts"


----------



## RCAFson (Jun 25, 2011)

renrich said:


> The fact remains though that no WW2 Seafire was as fast or faster than even the F6F3 or especially the F6F5. Speed was important when acting as a CAP for the fleet, expecially against Kamikazes. Many Kamikazes were fighters with a bomb attached and they could get to the target a lot faster than VBs or VTs so the CAP needed to have all the speed they could muster. That is why the USN issued the mandate to replace all VFs in the fleet with the Corsair because it had a significant edge in Vmax over the Hellcats. Range was important in a CAP as well as ammo capacity. The CAP being refueled or rearmed on the deck was not doing any good. The IJN experienced this at Midway because the cannon in the A6Ms at that time only carried 90 rounds per gun and the rifle caliber weapons mounted over the engine were not very effective against the US attackers. Consequently the A6Ms kept the flight decks of the IJN carriers tied up during the US attacks being rearmed even though the IJN VFs had very good endurance. The Seafires had good climb and good firepower but not good endurance, not a lot of firing time and were a little deficient in Vmax, much like the Hellcat. The Spitfire was, in 1940 and even later, a fine interceptor, especially against he LW and in ACM at least held it's own against the BF109. The Spit and BF109 were similar AC, small, short ranged, maneuverable, good firepower for that time, fast climbers but not particularly resistant to battle damage. Neither were designed as shipboard aircraft though. As great a design as the P51 was it would not have made a good shipboard fighter. It probably would have been better than the F4F if it had been adapted for shipboard use but would have been lacking compared to the Hellcat and Corsair.


 
The Mk XV was a WW2 variant, but it is a lot longer from the UK to Japan, than from the USA, and it never saw combat. The RN was fighting "kamikaze" attacks in the form of Luftwaffe FW-190 tip and run attacks from mid 1943, and as a result Seafires were highly optimized for low altitude performance, and a high climb rate to allow successful intercepts and altitude superiority for high speed diving attacks. The loiter times of the Seafire with its SS drop tank is not far off the Hellcat on internal fuel:











The Seafire III was produced in medium and low altitude versions which had similar range and performance to the LIIC:
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/lf3.jpg


----------



## renrich (Jun 28, 2011)

When the War began in the Pacific the US carriers usually embarked four squadrons, one VF, Wildcats, one VT, TBDs and two VBs, SBDs, one designated a scout squadron and the other bombing. After Coral Sea, the USN realised that the one VF squadron was not sufficient to handle CAP and escort duties and they needed more VFs. During Coral Sea they even tried using SBDs as anti VT CAP.The F4F4 helped at Midway because it's folding wings allowed the ships to embark more fighters. As the war progressed, more and more fighters had to be embarked for escort and to protect the fleet. However, the space on carriers was limited so the more fighters carried, the fewer strike aircraft could be carried. A carrier with few strike aircraft was limited in it's usefulness. The problem was partially solved by using the fighters in a dual role, as fighters and fighter bombers. One good thing about those tactics was that the fighter bombers need little if any escort for after delivering their bombs they reverted to the fighter role. It was determined that the Corsair could be used as a dive bomber and in fact could actually dive steeper than the SBD and was almost as accurate as a dive bomber. By the time of the Iwo Jima invasion, for instance, the USS Bunker Hill, embarked 71 Corsairs. The Corsair was very capable in the anti kamikaze role and equally potent as a fighter bomber. Space was still limited on carriers and single role aircraft caused a diminuation of the carrier's capabilities. In addition, every operational accident diminished that capability and the more different types of AC carried, the more complicated maintenance and repair became.

Carrying a point defense fighter, even if it was equal or better at that job than other types(which it was not) made no sense and was a luxury the fast carriers could not afford.


----------



## parsifal (Jun 29, 2011)

id agree that the limiting factor for the Seafire was always its limited multirole capability. However by 1945 it is actually incorrect to refer to the Seafire as a Point Defence Fighter. by various and colourful means its range had been extended to 195 miles, which was still less than either the Corsair operational radius of about 220 miles or the Hellcats 250 miles. There was little difference in the strike range of either the US or the british types though if you want to quote theoretical ferry ranges, it gets a bit silly. 

The RNs answer to the multi-role aircraft was the firefly, and in this respect, not by design, but more by accident, the firefly was in my opinion the unsung hero of the war. Though its operations were miniscule compared to thoose being undertaken by the USN, they are still worth having a look at. In the Palembang raids (the were more than one) the single squadron managed to shoot down 6 enemy aircraft, and reduce the output of the palembang refineries by more than 80%. They wer of course assisted by the RN Corsairs, Hellcats and Avengers, and Seafirs emabarked on the BPF, but by all accounts that I have, the accuracy and weight of ordinance of the fireflies was decisive in those raids. 

British carriers, if anything felt even more keenly the limited CAG issues that you are referring to, and this explains why in the early part of the war, thy opted for multi-role aircraft. Youve alluded to a similar problem for the USN by their use of the SBD as fighters, bombers and scout aircraft. IN the RNs case they combined the role of Fighterm, with recce plane in the Fulmar. This multi functionality was extended to include divebomber, nightfighter and ASW aircraft for the firefly. Their Swordfish aircraft combined the roles of torpedo bomber, divebomber, spotter and recce (hence the designation TSR). Illustrious class carriers went to sea designed to carry just 36 aircraft, this had been increased to 53 by great ingenuity and compromise by 1945. they often went to sea with less than that 36 in thearly part of the war (frequently about 33 a/c embarked) . So for the RN ther was never any choice about having specialised aircraft. A given aircraft had to be able to undertake more than one role. Seafires were less multi-skilled than Corsairs, but as a fighter they were shown to be superior in 1945, at least on the BPF wheree the lions share of kills against kamikazes were achieved by the low level Seafire CAP. Compared to Firefly, the Seafire was just too restrictive. 

After the war the RN retained the Seafire for quite some time, because it was gradually adapted to undertake some multi role functions. Why, I dont know, since the Fury was afar better fighter and an FB, with none of the deck landing trickiness of the Seafire


----------



## renrich (Jun 29, 2011)

"As a fighter they were shown to be superior in 1945" ? In what way? Are you saying that the Seafire was superior in a given campaign?

Quotes from Fighter Conference Seafire- "Just fair, it is surpassed by many others." "An outstanding plane at the time it was designed. Still a good fighter but naturally not equal to latest types" "Believe low Vmax performance and poor rate of climb would not be compensated for in the good maneuveribility of this ship." "Japs would knock it hard I believe." It is interesting that the comments on the Seafire are similar to the comments on the Zeke 52. Good maneuveribility but poor performance overall.

I have no idea why the RN would keep the Seafire in service when the Sea Fury was available except economics.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 29, 2011)

Which Seafire is being evaluated at the conference? a Seafire XV might have given a different impression. 

Seafire 47 vs a Sea Fury may be an interesting comparison also, while the Fury has higher performance does the contra-rotating prop of the Seafire make take-off and landing easier?


----------



## renrich (Jun 29, 2011)

There were two Seafires, L2C and L3C. The Firefly was a Mk4.
In browsing through the Williams site I find some interesting info on the F4U1D and C. Their performance is the same and in fighter configuration they have a combat radius of 555 miles. It goes into detail about the conditions defining the combat radius. That CR was with two 150 gallon external tanks for a total of 537 gallons of fuel. The conditions seem to be for carrier operations but it was eyeopening. I suspect that many of us just do not understand that they just did not jump in the plane and go. However, a CR of 555 miles is pretty hefty and would be of great use in the escort or CAP role.


----------



## RCAFson (Jun 29, 2011)

renrich said:


> There were two Seafires, L2C and L3C. The Firefly was a Mk4.


 
The Firefly MkIV didn't fly except as a single prototype, until the spring of 1944, with the 2nd prototype appearing in May 1945.


----------



## renrich (Jun 29, 2011)

The Fighter Conference I am quoting from took place in October, 1944.Commander D R F Cambell, DSC, RN said " The Firefly Mark 4 is an airplane built to a specification I think especially for the Royal Navy-a two seater fighter with no rear defense." "It's performance is nothing to write home about." "The engine is a Mark II, Rolls Royce Griffon, 1725 HP 54. Performance is even more contemptible than I thought at 300 mph top speed and I think that is about all on that." To me, he did seem real fond of the airplane.


----------



## RCAFson (Jun 29, 2011)

renrich said:


> The Fighter Conference I am quoting from took place in October, 1944.Commander D R F Cambell, DSC, RN said " The Firefly Mark 4 is an airplane built to a specification I think especially for the Royal Navy-a two seater fighter with no rear defense." "It's performance is nothing to write home about." "The engine is a Mark II, Rolls Royce Griffon, 1725 HP 54. Performance is even more contemptible than I thought at 300 mph top speed and I think that is about all on that." To me, he did seem real fond of the airplane.


 
The Firefly Mk IV, including the prototype used a Griffon 70 series engine, typically the Griffon 74 with 2250 hp, resulting in a max speed of 386 mph. AFAIK, only the Mk1 used a Griffon II. The Mk III using a Griffon 71 resulted in a max speed of 347 mph in RAE testing.


----------



## Trilisser (Jun 29, 2011)

Shortround6 said:


> Which Seafire is being evaluated at the conference? a Seafire XV might have given a different impression.
> 
> Seafire 47 vs a Sea Fury may be an interesting comparison also, while the Fury has higher performance does the contra-rotating prop of the Seafire make take-off and landing easier?



Yes, the contra-prop in the Seafire 47 made a significant improvement in handling. Not only did TO and landing improve a great deal, gunnery characteristiocs were also greatly improved as there were no more directional trim changes with varying speed and power. In Alfred Price's The Spitfire Story one can find a report of a Spit 21 fitted with a CR prop and the report is very favourable.


----------



## renrich (Jun 29, 2011)

Oh well, I guess Commander Cambell was in error. Perhaps he had too many gins before making those statements at the Fighter Conference.


----------



## parsifal (Jun 29, 2011)

renrich said:


> "As a fighter they were shown to be superior in 1945" ? In what way? Are you saying that the Seafire was superior in a given campaign?
> 
> Quotes from Fighter Conference Seafire- "Just fair, it is surpassed by many others." "An outstanding plane at the time it was designed. Still a good fighter but naturally not equal to latest types" "Believe low Vmax performance and poor rate of climb would not be compensated for in the good maneuveribility of this ship." "Japs would knock it hard I believe." It is interesting that the comments on the Seafire are similar to the comments on the Zeke 52. Good maneuveribility but poor performance overall.
> 
> I have no idea why the RN would keep the Seafire in service when the Sea Fury was available except economics.



I cant make much judgement on the comments contained in the "Fighter Conference" you are referring to, but it is obvious that some of those comments are not well informed. The Seafire was optimised for low level performance. at sea level it had a climb rate of 4650 ft per min, and a time to 10000 ft of about 3.5 mins. I would be very doubtful that any aircraft could match that, but perhaps not. Its anything but poor or average however. Same can be said about its speed below 5000 ft.

I make the claim that it proved superior in the CAP role for the BPF in 1945, compared to the operations of the Hellcats and Corsairs also attached to that force, on the basis of Neil Nijboers Book "Duel - Seafire vs Zero; Operations of the Pacific Fleet April to August 1945" I cannot quote verbatim because the book is at home and Im not, but essentially it gives a blow by blow account of the operations of the entire TF throughout that period, and clearly demonstrates the superior results achieved by Nos 24 and 38 Wings (who operated the Seafires) compared to the other Groups (who operated the other types embarked). Some of this may be due to the fact that these two wings were the most experienced fighter wings in the RN at the time, some of it may also be due to the fact that the two wings were tasked specifically as the fleet defence wings. But then again, this wasnt just an accident....they were selected for this purpose because of the experience of the pilots, their proven ability to operate the type safely, and because the seafire was seen as the best type to undertake this important task. It also needs to be conceded that whereas the Hellcats/Corsairs were given the job of distant cover, above 10000 ft, the Seafire Wings were kept within 20 miles of the TG, and given the task of providing cover below 10000 ft. Since the overwhelming majority of contacts were below 5000 ft, and they broke through the outer screen repeatedly, but generally could not penetrate the inner screen, it is valid to claim that the Seafires were superior at this particular task for the RN than either of the other two fighter types. Even when the the US types wer pulled back to provide immediate topcover directly over the fleet, such as happened in late July, they still were found to be not as effective as the specialist Seafire wings at this particular task. By not as effective I mean they generally took longer to engage, and longer to incapacitate (either shoot or force to abort, or otherwise frive off) to attacking aircraft. they simply were not as efficient at stopping the threat as the Seafire. This was made very obvious in the various after action reports that deal with this issue, some of which are quoted in nijboers book 

To my mind the Seafire was THE CAP fighter par excellance, but it simply was not multi-skilled enough to be considered a complete success for th RN.


----------



## renrich (Jun 30, 2011)

I am trying to become more educated about Seafire and went to Wiki(understanding that Wiki is not always accurate.) I now know that BPF stands for British Pacific Fleet. A relief. According to Wiki, the L3 with folding wings was the most advanced Seafire to serve in WW2 in the Pacific. Is that correct? The L2 and L3 were both at the Fighter Conference. That Conference was oriented toward the Pacific Campaign. There were 13 British Reps at the Conference. The Seafires were flown by two Army pilots and nine contractor pilots and they were responsible for the remarks. Usually, the Navy pilots did not fly the Navy planes, the Army did not the Army planes and the British did not the British planes. I guess because they already knew about the planes not flown. Obviously this is not exceptionally scientific.

However there were a series of of characteristics which were voted on which included all pilots at the Conference. For each characteristic the percentage of voters voting is given and then the airplane's percentage of votes received. Following are some of the results for the Seafire:

Most comfortable cockpit with 92% voting-Seafire got 2%-P47 won.
Best for overload takeoff from a small area, 90% voting, 5% for Seafire, Hellcat won.
Best ailerons at 100 mph in landing, 88% voyting, Seafire-12%, Hellcat won.
Best elevator, 73% voting, Seafire 6%, F4U1 won.
Best characteristics at 5 MPH above stall, 87% voting, Seafire-7%, Hellcat won
Best all around fighter above and below 25000 feet-Seafire got no votes.

There were a lot of characteristics voted on, most of which the Seafire and Firefly did not receive any votes for. I just hit the highlights with my poor typing skills and the print is so small on that info(it is a copy) I can barely read it.


----------



## RCAFson (Jul 1, 2011)

The Seafire III and Firefly I were the last versions to see combat, AFAIK, but the Seafire XV was in service before the end of the war. However, we have to remember that the Hellcat did not score its first kill until August 31, 1943, and the Seafire was operational well before then, but once the Hellcat and F4U show up in numbers the pressure is off the RN to rapidly improve the Seafire.

Regarding the comments and votes about the Seafire, you have to remember that voting for the "best" in each category is not the same as ranking them on a common scale. If every pilot thought that the Hellcat was 1% better in a category then the Seafire, it would get all the votes, even though they could have actually considered them nearly identical. 

I found a copy of Guyton and he has this to say about the Seafire:



> _Of most interest to me in these evaluations was the light and agile British Seafire. Designed as a defensive interceptor, compared to our beefy multipurpose fighters it was like a toy, light and compact, with little fuel and short range. Roaming the sky for hours wasn't its purpose. Thinking of the tremendous role the Spitfire had played in the critical Battle of Britain, I put the little fighter through every acrobatic manoeuvre I knew, and some I didn't. I quickly understood why it was successful against the tough and capable German fighter (ME-109 and in destroying scores of Nazi bombers. I fit in the small cockpit like a packed sardine in a can (Guyton was quite tall) , but this was of small concern. It was an airplane you put on and wore, to get up fast, climb, intercept, kill, return. Then refuel and rearm and repeat.
> After my second flight I understood why it fulfilled its mission so admirably. Its litheness, the easy effort by which any acrobatic manoeuvre could be deftly performed, was startling. It would remind me of the exemplary stunt performance of the Japanese Zero, which I was to fly within a year.)
> Each of the competitive fighters had its desirable features and performance. along with those undesirable. Trade-offs were the name of the game. You couldn't have it all. And, of course, each pilot tended to extoll the virtues of his own fighter, and swear by it. Voila! Each of us had the best airplane, didn't we?_
> 
> Whistling Death, p160-161.


----------



## renrich (Jul 2, 2011)

Your quotes from Guyton's book are exactly why I said earlier that the remarks at the Fighter Conference about the Seafire and Zeke 52 were similar. Two small, light and good maneuvering fighters but somewhat outdated. Every American pilot I ever heard of that flew the Spitfire loved it. The AAF pilots who were flying Spits and were switched to the P47 almost revolted, until they got used to the Jug.

A quote from "Corsair" by Tillman, page 96, This is from Bob Dose a USN squadron commander. "During this period Bob Dose had a chance to fly a Spitfire( not a Seafire) courtesy of an Australian squadron leader. He found the British fighter a fun airplane; it turned inside the F4U at low speeds and while the Spit could make two vertical rolls the Corsair could only manage one. But for speed, range, endurance and versatility there was no beating the Vought."

As far as the ratings on characteristics of the fighters at the Fighter Conference is concerned, essentially what they meant was that if 90% voted and for example that might be 100 voters; if 35 % voted for the F6F, 25 % voted for the F4U and 10% voted for the P51D and so forth and 5% voted for the Seafire, that meant five people thought the Seafire was the best in that particular category. Those votes were very subjective but all of the voters were experienced pilots and some were Brits. Every airplane that got a vote was included in the list and ranked and there were often as many as a dozen AC that got votes.
Here is one of the categories
Best ailerons at 100 mph landing condition, 88% voted
F6F 36%
F4U1 18%
Seafire 12%
P47 6%
FM 5%
P51 5%
F8F 5%
Zeke 4%
P38 3%
F2G 2%
F7F 2%
P61 2%
In about half the categories the Seafire got no votes and the Firefly received only a little love, getting votes in only two categories, best characteristics 5 mph above stall and best instrument and night flying qualities with 3% in both categories.


----------



## RCAFson (Apr 19, 2013)

I found this performance data for the Martlet IV which is basically the F4F-4B:









so we can get a direct comparison of the Fulmar II and F4F-4B.

This report:
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4f/f4f-4-02135.pdf
states that a comparison of the F4F-4 and the -4B found "_...the F4F-4B being slightly superior at low altitudes and the F4F-4 being slightly superior at 15,000 ft and above_."


.


----------



## parsifal (Apr 21, 2013)

great find RCAF


----------



## Glider (Apr 22, 2013)

I don't have access to my copy of the fighter conference but from memory they did make an observation that the Spitfire was well used and tired. 

Certainly could be wrong on this memory but its worth tking into account


----------



## RCAFson (Apr 22, 2013)

parsifal said:


> great find RCAF



Thanks. Apparently the Martlet II was a bit faster in low blower, but even slower in high blower.


----------

