1943: FAA's ideal combat trio

[Juha]

You're hijacking the thread now.

That's true, sorry Tomo, but IMHO Brits were incapable to produce a good allround carrier fighter during the WWII, not even with new engines instead of the historically installed. Griffon Barra was the only potentially good a/c for fleet carriers in 43 - 45 period. Even Seafire lacked robushness and range/endurance. And fortunately even RN/FAA understood that Wildcat was clearly better carrier fighter than Sea Hurricane.

You have to place each aircraft within it's proper timeframe and then consider what was available elsewhere at the time (G. Sea Gladiatior - F3F - A5M or Fulmar - F3F - A5M, for example). On Jan 1 1943, the USN wasn't flying the F4U from it's carriers, nor even the F6F, but was still flying the F4F-4. At this point in time the FAA was flying the Sea Hurricane IIc and Seafire II (along with the Martlet) while the Fulmar II was largely phased out. It is pretty easy to see that the Firefly I would have been a considerable advance over the Martlet or F4F-4. The Firefly could have been ready on Jan 1 1943 if given priority development whereas I doubt much could have been done to speed development of the F4U or F6F especially from the UK.

IMHO 1939-early 40 situation showed the distress in which FAA was in, 2 years older A5M was better in all categories but firepower than the hastily converted Sea Gladiator, Roc was useless as a fighter, Skua was more a dive-bomber than a fighter.

Juha

 

[ShVAK]

I don't understand why everyone glosses over the Sea Hurricane. It was no Corsair or Hellcat but it was miles better than the Seafire in at least one major area--carrier takeoffs/landings, along with being much easier to maintain. It was also far better than all other British-made fighters in terms of performance and armament at the time. It may not have been quite a match for G-series Bf 109's or Fw 190's but it would've still given the FAA a fighting chance in most engagements.

 

[RCAFson]

That's true, sorry Tomo, but IMHO Brits were incapable to produce a good allround carrier fighter during the WWII, not even with new engines instead of the historically installed. Griffon Barra was the only potentially good a/c for fleet carriers in 43 - 45 period. Even Seafire lacked robushness and range/endurance. And fortunately even RN/FAA understood that Wildcat was clearly better carrier fighter than Sea Hurricane.



IMHO 1939-early 40 situation showed the distress in which FAA was in, 2 years older A5M was better in all categories but firepower than the hastily converted Sea Gladiator, Roc was useless as a fighter, Skua was more a dive-bomber than a fighter.

Juha

The Sea Hurricane had a better combat record than the Martlet, when they flew together during Operation Pedestal. The Seafire had a decent record when flown from fleet carriers, and it had at least the same range as the F4F-4 when used with a 90gal DT. The Seafire III was a pretty good naval fighter. The Skua was a dive bomber that could be used as a fighter, and by naval standards it had excellent performance in 1939 and 1940.

The A5M had fixed wings and shorter range than the Fulmar, and it's 2 x .3in mgs would have been almost useless against heavily armoured Luftwaffe bombers. But what was the USN flying in Sept 1940? Why did the A5M persist on IJN CVs until May 1942?

 

[Juha]

I don't understand why everyone glosses over the Sea Hurricane. It was no Corsair or Hellcat but it was miles better than the Seafire in at least one major area--carrier takeoffs/landings, along with being much easier to maintain. It was also far better than all other British-made fighters in terms of performance and armament at the time. It may not have been quite a match for G-series Bf 109's or Fw 190's but it would've still given the FAA a fighting chance in most engagements.

While SeaHurricane ICs and IICs had very powerful armament, sturdy undercarriage etc but it had fixed wing and they were a poor ditcher. And IMHO they were not even match for 109E-7 or A6M-2. And FAA kept Wildcats longer than SeaHurris.

Juha

 

[RCAFson]

While SeaHurricane ICs and IICs had very powerful armament, sturdy undercarriage etc but it had fixed wing and they were a poor ditcher. And IMHO they were not even match for 109E-7 or A6M-2. And FAA kept Wildcats longer than SeaHurris.

Juha

And the F4F-4 was?

 

[Juha]

... The Seafire had a decent record when flown from fleet carriers, and it had at least the same range as the F4F-4 when used with a 90gal DT. The Seafire III was a pretty good naval fighter.

How often Seafires used 90 gal DTs in ops? At least RAF saw 90gal DT as ferry tank. And F4F-4 could also carry DTs

The Skua was a dive bomber that could be used as a fighter, and by naval standards it had excellent performance in 1939 and 1940.

It had endurance but was very slow, very poor roc, very poor ceiling, armament was adequate for that time frame. I have difficult to see what excellence you meant.

The A5M had fixed wings and shorter range than the Fulmar, and it's 2 x .3in mgs would have been almost useless against heavily armoured Luftwaffe bombers. But what was the USN flying in Sept 1940? Why did the A5M persist on IJN CVs until May 1942?

Sea Hurri also had fixed wings and greater span. A5M persisted for same reason why HMS Avenger had Sea Hurri IBs during PQ 18 battles, there were not enough newer planes around.

Juha

 

[Juha]

And the F4F-4 was?

No, but it had folding wing, was a good ditcher, had longer range than SH. FAA, Eric and David Brown were/are all very much impressed by Martels/Wildcats.

Juha

 

[RCAFson]

It had endurance but was very slow, very poor roc, very poor ceiling, armament was adequate for that time frame. I have difficult to see what excellence you meant.



Sea Hurri also had fixed wings and greater span. A5M persisted for same reason why HMS Avenger had Sea Hurri IBs during PQ 18 battles, there were not enough newer planes around.

Juha

Compare the Skua to other naval dive bombers in 1939.

 

[RCAFson]

How often Seafires used 90 gal DTs in ops? At least RAF saw 90gal DT as ferry tank. And F4F-4 could also carry DTs


Juha

A quick summary of the Seafire:

http://donaldnijboer.com/pdfs/kamakazikiller.pdf

but there's no reason that the 90 gal DT could not have been used sooner, as the Seafires themselves were no different.

 

[Juha]

Compare the Skua to other naval dive bombers in 1939.

None of the others were dive-bomber/fighters, they were pure dive-bombers and the fighter part of Skua's duties became more important because its pure fighter versionn, Roc, was a total failure. And for fighter operations Skua was very slow, had very poor roc and ceiling.

Juha

 

[Juha]

Thanks for the article, but it says what I'm have been saying, and the use of 90 gal DT began in summer 45 and there are usually reasons for not adapting improvements earlier, one reason for the late intro of the use of 90gal DT is mentioned in the article in the caption on the page 48.

Juha

 

[RCAFson]

None of the others were dive-bomber/fighters, they were pure dive-bombers and the fighter part of Skua's duties became more important because its pure fighter versionn, Roc, was a total failure. And for fighter operations Skua was very slow, had very poor roc and ceiling.

Juha

So the Skua was dive-bomber that also had fighter capabilities and proved it by downing a number of TE Luftwaffe aircraft - this is actually a very good argument for the superiority of the Skua. Skua capabilities as a fighter are somewhat misunderstood as the performance stats for the aircraft are given with it carrying a 500lb bomb.

Of course the FAA had the Sea Gladiator in service as well.

 

[RCAFson]

Thanks for the article, but it says what I'm have been saying, and the use of 90 gal DT began in summer 45 and there are usually reasons for not adapting improvements earlier, one reason for the late intro of the use of 90gal DT is mentioned in the article in the caption on the page 48.

Juha

All Seafires from the II version onward were equipped to carry the standard Spitfire/Seafire DT. There was never any physical changes to the Seafire III to allow it to carry the slipper tank. The 90 gal P40 DT was in production from before the US entry into the war, IIRC, and there's no reason why it couldn't have been adapted for use earlier, but in any event the 90gal Spitfire slipper tank was also used and was successful in service. These DTs were actually approved as a field mod in late 1944.

 

[Juha]

All Seafires from the II version onward were equipped to carry the standard Spitfire/Seafire DT. There was never any physical changes to the Seafire III to allow it to carry the slipper tank. The 90 gal P40 DT was in production from before the US entry into the war, IIRC, and there's no reason why it couldn't have been adapted for use earlier, but in any event the 90gal Spitfire slipper tank was also used and was successful in service. These DTs were actually approved as a field mod in late 1944.

The standard DT for P-40 was the 52 US gal DT, it is difficult to believe that a US DT had exactly a 90 Imp gal capacity. The tank in the photo on p. 48 might well be a 75 US gal DT

 

[Juha]

So the Skua was dive-bomber that also had fighter capabilities and proved it by downing a number of TE Luftwaffe aircraft - this is actually a very good argument for the superiority of the Skua.

Now the first kill in WWII was achieved by a Ju87 pilot, and it was against a SE fighter. I'd not draw from that any conclusions on the capacity of Ju 87 in air combat. Also SBD and Val crews made number of claims during early part of the Pacific war but that doesn't mean that they were good fighters.

Skua capabilities as a fighter are somewhat misunderstood as the performance stats for the aircraft are given with it carrying a 500lb bomb.

Not sure on that also David Brown in his Carrier Fighters gives 225mph as its max speed. Didn't bother to dig out Eric Brown's article on Skua to compare.

Of course the FAA had the Sea Gladiator in service as well.

Yes, RN acquired some SGs after they understood that Roc was a total failure and Skua could never been an interceptor because of its poor roc even if it could be used as a CAP fighter because it had a decent endurance. It was adequate against Do 18 flying boats, so and so against He 111s but Ju 88s were usually too fast to it. SG was a good example of stop gap solutions forced on FAA because it didn't have adequate proper carrier fighters, so it was forced to try to mod existing land based fighters. That was a stark contrast to situation in USN and IJN.

 

[RCAFson]

Now the first kill in WWII was achieved by a Ju87 pilot, and it was against a SE fighter. I'd not draw from that any conclusions on the capacity of Ju 87 in air combat. Also SBD and Val crews made number of claims during early part of the Pacific war but that doesn't mean that they were good fighters.



Not sure on that also David Brown in his Carrier Fighters gives 225mph as its max speed. Didn't bother to dig out Eric Brown's article on Skua to compare.



Yes, RN acquired some SGs after they understood that Roc was a total failure and Skua could never been an interceptor because of its poor roc even if it could be used as a CAP fighter because it had a decent endurance. It was adequate against Do 18 flying boats, so and so against He 111s but Ju 88s were usually too fast to it. SG was a good example of stop gap solutions forced on FAA because it didn't have adequate proper carrier fighters, so it was forced to try to mod existing land based fighters. That was a stark contrast to situation in USN and IJN.

The Skua had more firepower than the Val and was at least equal to the later appearing SBD, but these are certainly not arguments against the Skua.

That's 225mph at max TO weight of 8230lb which mean it was carrying a 500lb bomb. In any event, why the sidetrack into the Skua's ability as fighter when the FAA had the GSG and by mid 1940, the Fulmar?

The GSG was flying in squadron service before the first flight of the Roc.

 

[Juha]

The Skua had more firepower than the Val and was at least equal to the later appearing SBD, but these are certainly not arguments against the Skua.

Not as a dive bomber but as it was also a fighter, for ex it was the only figter type onboard the most modern RN carrier, HMS Ark Royal but 3 Rocs at the outbreak of WWII, Ark had that time 42 Swordfishes, 18 Skuas and 3 Rocs. And Ark was the only operational CV Home Fleet had at that time.

The GSG was flying in squadron service before the first flight of the Roc.

And Admiralty knew already in early 38 that Roc would be a failure and said that even to Charles Fairey in May 38.

 

[RCAFson]

Not as a dive bomber but as it was also a fighter, for ex it was the only figter type onboard the most modern RN carrier, HMS Ark Royal but 3 Rocs at the outbreak of WWII, Ark had that time 42 Swordfishes, 18 Skuas and 3 Rocs. And Ark was the only operational CV Home Fleet had at that time.


And Admiralty knew already in early 38 that Roc would be a failure and said that even to Charles Fairey in May 38.

The GSG wouldn't fit into Ark Royals elevators, the Fulmar being the first dedicated fighter that would.

The Roc wasn't a failure, it was just an aircraft that didn't have a purpose given the carrier losses suffered by the RN, but the Roc could still dive bomb with a 250lb bomb as it still had dive brakes and it could carry a 70 gal slipper tank. The Roc was actually the ideal recon aircraft and probably would have been used as such if Glorious and Courageous had survived longer.

 

[Juha]

The GSG wouldn't fit into Ark Royals elevators, the Fulmar being the first dedicated fighter that would.

The Roc wasn't a failure, it was just an aircraft that didn't have a purpose given the carrier losses suffered by the RN, but the Roc could still dive bomb with a 250lb bomb as it still had dive brakes and it could carry a 70 gal slipper tank. The Roc was actually the ideal recon aircraft and probably would have been used as such if Glorious and Courageous had survived longer.

Nice to see that Roc had at least one friend. Even Admiralty saw it as a failure as a fighter even before its first flight and tried to get RAF to accept the whole production run as a trainer but RAF said no thanks. There probably wasn't many fighters with first flight in late 38/early 39 which had max speed of 223mph/359km/h at FTH. As dive bomber it would have been handicapped with its light bombs and by the fact that its ailerons were almost unmoveable at high speeds. Even if it had good armament for self-protection for its time it had poor manoeuvrability, so probably a easy target if intercepted. And why Ark didn't utilise this ideal recon plane?

Juha

 

[tomo pauk]

Back to the topic, if I may:

- 2-seat fighter: a plane that would, from the side, looked like Defiant. Wings need to be of grater area (cca 300+ sq ft), since there half of the fuel tanks are going, along with all guns ammo; other half of the fuel goes under the crew compartment, much like it was the case for the Fw-190s; the heavy fighter needs a big wing anyway The fighter will be a long endurance one, so at least 170-180 rounds for each of the 4 cannons are needed. Either Griffon, or 2-stage Merlin aboard; Sabre sounds so tempting, yet sensitive as an option for the 1943 CV-capable bird Maybe a 2-stage R-2800, so an LMG bullet that hit home (from the bomber's return fire, maybe) does not mean that the fighter is lost 100-200 miles away from the carrier, shortcoming being less endurance on same fuel as the RR engined counterpart. Wing not too tick, featuring Fairey-Youngman flaps.