Allied Fighter vs Fighter: Is it really necessary ???

[Glider]

I read somewhere a line that described the Seafire as Just About Good Enough as a naval fighter which is a pretty fair statement. Its true that the FAA were keener on the Hellcat and Corsiar.

 

[davebender]

Apparently not too much. Or else Germany would have placed the Jumo004A jet engine into mass production during 1943 rather then beginning the massive Type XXI submarine program.

 

[RCAFson]

Timmy, if one checks the record, the F4F Wildcat had much more success in the Pacific in 1942 than did the Spitfire. There may have been reasons for that other than the performance of the Spitfire but the fact remains that, based on results, the Spitfire was not as good a fighter as the F4F in 1942, early 1943, in the Pacific.

The USN and IMO correctly, was prejudiced against liquid cooled engines for reliability reasons. In Shores' books, time and time again British fighters were U/S because of glycol leaks and were brought down by minor damage. In fact the Japanese were said to, being aware of the cooling system vulnerability of the liquid cooled engines, have specifically aimed at the areas where cooling system damage would disable the British fighters.

The Seafire offered no substantial performance advantage over the A6M and, in several areas, was significantly inferior to the Zeke. This was not true in comparison to the Hellcat and Corsair. In fact in many respects, the Seafire was inferior to the Wildcat (Martlet.) If the Allies had to depend on a prewar design for it's carrier fighter, the Pacific War would have been lengthened if that design was the Spitfire. Every modification to the Spitfire to make it more suitable as a shipboard fighter robbed it of some of the characteristics which made it a great design. The last model of the Wildcat, the F2M, was a pretty good airplane and soldiered on through the whole war both in the PTO and ETO.

The first combat encounters between the Spitfire and IJN/IJAAF aircraft did not occur until mid 1943. The first encounters between the Seafire and the IJNAF did not occur until 1944-45.

The Seafire III/F4F-4/F6F-3, for example had the following performance (from Oct42 and Sept 1943 reports):

Time to 20K ft: 6.5min/12.7/10
Time to 10K ft 2.5min/5.7/4.6
Speed:
SL: 302mph/275/
5000ft: 325mph/285/315
10000ft: 350mph/300/333
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/lr765speed.jpg (sept 43)
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4f/f4f-4-detail-specification.pdf (oct 1942)
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f6f/fn322.pdf (sept 43)

 

[renrich]

Whether or not the Spitfire did poorly against the Zeke in 42 or 43 is beside the point as it did not do as well as the F4F did in 1942 and early 43.

According to Eric Brown who was well acquainted with the Spitfire and Seafire, the Seafire was not a good carrier plane because it was not robust enough, did not have good slow speed handling characteristics and acted like a submarine in a ditching. It was quite often U/S because of it's fragility and poor deck landing abilities. If it can't fly it is of no use.

 

[RCAFson]

Whether or not the Spitfire did poorly against the Zeke in 42 or 43 is beside the point as it did not do as well as the F4F did in 1942 and early 43.

According to Eric Brown who was well acquainted with the Spitfire and Seafire, the Seafire was not a good carrier plane because it was not robust enough, did not have good slow speed handling characteristics and acted like a submarine in a ditching. It was quite often U/S because of it's fragility and poor deck landing abilities. If it can't fly it is of no use.

I don't know what you are referring to in terms of F4F versus Seafire. as the Seafire did not encounter IJNAF aircraft till 44/45.

I read Wings of the Navy, and IIRC, Brown states that it was the good low speed handling characteristics. low stall speed and short take off run, of the Hurricane and Spitfire that allowed these fighters to be adapted to carrier operation. The Sea Hurricane and Seafire were operated off escort carriers with 450ft decks and did so successfully, however the Seafire did have problems off the Italian coast when the escort carriers operated in windless conditions. The Seafires had great difficulty landing on such short decks as the escort carriers could only make 17 knots. Certainly the Seafire was not as robust as purpose built types, but it was not as bad as many believe, especially when being operated from fleet carriers, with longer decks and higher speeds. The Hurricane and Spitfire were reputed to have poor ditching qualities but for the catapult launched Hurricane, which often had to ditch. only one pilot was lost and he may have been killed by bomber defensive fire. IIRC, an RAF Spitfire that took off from USS Wasp for a flight to Malta was actually able to land on the carrier again with no arrestor gear , after developing mechanical problems. The LG problems were progressively engineered out of the Seafire showing that it was development time and effort that was key to the transformation to naval fighter.

 

[The Basket]

Whether or not the Spitfire did poorly against the Zeke in 42 or 43 is beside the point as it did not do as well as the F4F did in 1942 and early 43.

According to Eric Brown who was well acquainted with the Spitfire and Seafire, the Seafire was not a good carrier plane because it was not robust enough, did not have good slow speed handling characteristics and acted like a submarine in a ditching. It was quite often U/S because of it's fragility and poor deck landing abilities. If it can't fly it is of no use.

The Seafires weaknesses are the narrow track undercarriage...range...not robust enough...ditching qualities...

Just what you need at sea.

 

[tail end charlie]

The Seafires weaknesses are the narrow track undercarriage...range...not robust enough...ditching qualities...

Just what you need at sea.

I am surprised that the Hurricane wasnt developed more for carrier operations addrssing performance and range issues, it had a wide track and robust construction. Maybe they had enough on their plate as it was.

 

[The Basket]

Making the Spitfire into a naval fighter was a case of best effort. The FAA was a very poor relation and made do. I am not saying it was rubbish...but it wasnt good either...just best of a bad situation.

Hurricane was already obsolete by 1940.... making it heavier for naval use is just taking the urine.

Don't mean it don't have uses but fighter v fighter won't be on its list.

 

[Colin1]

I am surprised that the Hurricane wasn't developed more for carrier operations addressing performance and range issues, it had a wide track and robust construction. Maybe they had enough on their plate as it was

The Hurricane
went through its development life cycle being equipped with successively more powerful versions of the Merlin. Unfortunately, with structural changes it kept getting heavier too so never really ended up being meaningfully any faster than the original Mk I and I'm not talking solely about performance at altitude.

How would the range issue be resolved unless we're talking about drop tanks and if we are, what capacity drop tanks before the Hurricane stops being able to depart the flight deck? Even if it still can, it's going to fly further than it normally does and - not drop anything on anyone. Alot of risk and distance just to beat someone's airstrip up with your machine guns...

Hurricanes and Spitfires were designed as interceptors, nobody envisaged traversing large expanses of ocean.

By 1942-43 the Hurricane was a museum piece that got work doing North African ground attack. It also got work on CAM ships because it was just the disposable fighter they needed.

 

[renrich]

The statement was in one of Timmy's posts that the Allies had only one good fighter, the Spitfire, until 1943. My post in reply to that was that the F4F pretty much fought the A6M to a draw in 1942 and early 1943, before the Corsair and Hellcat got to the Pacific to give the Allies a clear advantage over the Zeke. Based on that record and the later experiece that the Spitfires had in the Pacific and the CBI with the A6M, the statement about the Allies having only one good fighter until 1943 was in error, IMO.

I never mentioned anything about the Seafire and Zekes. From "Duels in the Sky" by Eric Brown, page 114. "It was in the critical area of deck landing that the Sea Fire 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." " The Seafire's performance fell below that of the land based Spitfire because navalisation incurred the penalties of weight and drag. Never designed for shipboard use the Seafire was difficult to deck land and it acted like a submarine when ditched."

Page 211, " The Seafire, the shipboard version of the Spitfire, was extensively used in the Med and in the later stages of the war on a limited scale in the Far East, but it's short range limited it to the CAP role. Unfortunately, it's deck landing disadvantages probably resulted in more operational losses than combat successes."

My summing up- The Seafire was too fragile, too short ranged, did not have much or any performance advantage over first class opposition and had many deck landing problems which decreased the number of fighters available for operations. It could not remain on CAP very long because it ran out of fuel and it could not escort Vbs or Vts. It was obviously better than nothing but the F4F(Martlet) was more effective as a shipboard fighter.

 

[tail end charlie]

The Hurricane
went through its development life cycle being equipped with successively more powerful versions of the Merlin. Unfortunately, with structural changes it kept getting heavier too so never really ended up being meaningfully any faster than the original Mk I and I'm not talking solely about performance at altitude.

How would the range issue be resolved unless we're talking about drop tanks and if we are, what capacity drop tanks before the Hurricane stops being able to depart the flight deck? Even if it still can, it's going to fly further than it normally does and - not drop anything on anyone. Alot of risk and distance just to beat someone's airstrip up with your machine guns...

Hurricanes and Spitfires were designed as interceptors, nobody envisaged traversing large expanses of ocean.

By 1942-43 the Hurricane was a museum piece that got work doing North African ground attack. It also got work on CAM ships because it was just the disposable fighter they needed.

I didnt mean fiddling about I meant starting with the good points (wide track and robust constuction) and making a purpose designed carrier fighter. I suppose the FAA almost always got cast offs. Maybe if the Typhoon hadnt had the problems it had it would have been a good carrier plane after all via the tempest the Sea Fury wasnt bad.

 

[davebender]

Blohm Voss BV 155 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Did Britain consider a more comprehensive CV conversion of the Spitfire like Germany did with the Me-109? I'm referring to a completely new wing with wide track landing gear and lower stall speed.

 

[Milosh]

Did Britain consider a more comprehensive CV conversion of the Spitfire like Germany did with the Me-109? I'm referring to a completely new wing with wide track landing gear and lower stall speed.

That would be the Seafang, the naval version of the Spiteful.

 

[RCAFson]

That would be the Seafang, the naval version of the Spiteful.

The Griffon engined Seafire Mk. XVII did receive a stronger wing and LG with longer struts and a wider track, and this was a first version that was probably equivalent to a purpose built naval fighter in terms of strength. However, if the FAA and/or the USN had decided to mod the Spitfire for carrier work, say in 1939, a fully navalized version could have been ready by 1942, or sooner depending on the resources committed to the project.

Considering that 10 RAF Hurricanes landed successfully on HMS Glorious in 1940. I would suspect that the Sea Hurricane could have been available to the FAA much sooner, but it still made its first carrier based kill in late July 1941.

 

[RCAFson]

The Hurricane
went through its development life cycle being equipped with successively more powerful versions of the Merlin. Unfortunately, with structural changes it kept getting heavier too so never really ended up being meaningfully any faster than the original Mk I and I'm not talking solely about performance at altitude.

How would the range issue be resolved unless we're talking about drop tanks and if we are, what capacity drop tanks before the Hurricane stops being able to depart the flight deck? Even if it still can, it's going to fly further than it normally does and - not drop anything on anyone. Alot of risk and distance just to beat someone's airstrip up with your machine guns...

Hurricanes and Spitfires were designed as interceptors, nobody envisaged traversing large expanses of ocean.

By 1942-43 the Hurricane was a museum piece that got work doing North African ground, attack. It also got work on CAM ships because it was just the disposable fighter they needed.

The Hurricane IIB featured 2 more MGs in the outer sections of each wing. It seems to me that these could have been removed and extra fuel tanks substituted in their place. An armament of 4 x .5" BMGs would have been sufficient IMHO, in place of the 8 x .303" MGs and lighter than the 4 x 20mm cannon armament of the successful Sea Hurricane IC. So with moderate development a longer ranged Sea Hurricane could have been developed and by 1942 the Merlin was cleared for 14 -16lb boost allowing the Sea Hurricane to retain a very lively low altitude performance. At full combat rating the IC with Merlin III could probably climb at over 3500fpm, while a 4 x .5" variant would probably have exceeded 4000fpm which would be tops amongst carrier fighters in Aug 1942. These charts tell us the combat ratings of the Hurricane I with only 12lb boost:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/Hurricane_Climb-HRuch.png (3500fpm at SL)
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/Hurricane_Speed-HRuch.png (290mph at SL)

The Hurricane and Spitfire had enough lift and power that TO from a fleet carrier would not have been a problem at any feasible weight.

 

[RCAFson]

Making the Spitfire into a naval fighter was a case of best effort. The FAA was a very poor relation and made do. I am not saying it was rubbish...but it wasnt good either...just best of a bad situation.

Hurricane was already obsolete by 1940.... .

The Sea Hurricane seems to have done rather better than the Martlet (F4F), when both types flew against the Luftwaffe during Operation Pedestal, in Aug 1942, and in Aug 1942 what other choices for naval fighters were there?

 

[timmy]

The statement was in one of Timmy's posts that the Allies had only one good fighter, the Spitfire, until 1943. My post in reply to that was that the F4F pretty much fought the A6M to a draw in 1942 and early 1943, before the Corsair and Hellcat got to the Pacific to give the Allies a clear advantage over the Zeke. Based on that record and the later experiece that the Spitfires had in the Pacific and the CBI with the A6M, the statement about the Allies having only one good fighter until 1943 was in error, IMO.

I never mentioned anything about the Seafire and Zekes. From "Duels in the Sky" by Eric Brown, page 114. "It was in the critical area of deck landing that the Sea Fire 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." " The Seafire's performance fell below that of the land based Spitfire because navalisation incurred the penalties of weight and drag. Never designed for shipboard use the Seafire was difficult to deck land and it acted like a submarine when ditched."

Page 211, " The Seafire, the shipboard version of the Spitfire, was extensively used in the Med and in the later stages of the war on a limited scale in the Far East, but it's short range limited it to the CAP role. Unfortunately, it's deck landing disadvantages probably resulted in more operational losses than combat successes."

My summing up- The Seafire was too fragile, too short ranged, did not have much or any performance advantage over first class opposition and had many deck landing problems which decreased the number of fighters available for operations. It could not remain on CAP very long because it ran out of fuel and it could not escort Vbs or Vts. It was obviously better than nothing but the F4F(Martlet) was more effective as a shipboard fighter.

There has always been debates about how we should look back at the F4F wildcat
Was it a great carrier fighter ??? In the end its combat record stood at 6.9:1 for the entire war
So that should be the end of the argument right...but is it ???

The allies only carrier friendly aircraft was said to be out classed by the Zeke in every performance
category, climb, speed and range.The only advantages it had was armer and in a dive.
I really don't think we give enough credit to the U.S navy pilots training in combating the Zeke
The 'Thach weave', dive to escape and learning not to dogfiight with the Zero paid big dividends
I also believed that even before the Hellcat appeared the Japanese was already running out of
experience Pilots which might explain how the combat record of the wildcat greatly improved as
the War progressed

To back that argument the f6f Hellcat while a good naval fighter, I don't it was That much better
to warrant a 13 to 1 combat record against the Zeke. Which is really a bloodbath!
U.S pilot training should get some credit....just my 2 cents Timmy

 

[Colin1]

...the F4F Wildcat
Was it a great carrier fighter? In the end its combat record stood at 6.9:1 for the entire war

The Allies only carrier-friendly aircraft was said to be outclassed by the Zeke in every performance
category, climb, speed and range.The only advantages it had were armour and in a dive.

To back that argument the F6F Hellcat while a good naval fighter, I don't think it was that much better
to warrant a 13:1 combat record against the Zeke

U.S pilot training should get some credit

If USN pilots were achieving 6.9:1 in an aircraft outclassed by the Zeke in every performance category bar armour and dive, their excellence is, for me, implied

If they can achieve 6.9:1 in an outclassed F4F why is 13:1 in an F6F designed specifically to deal with the Zeke so difficult to believe? F4F pilots would transition to the F6F, bringing all their Zeke combat experience with them and exploiting it in a bigger, better bird.

The F6F went into the ring with the Japanese mid-1943; I'm not that certain the IJN were a spent force by then, there was still a long way to go in the Pacific war so can I ask what the basis is for your argument that most of the IJN experience was eliminated prior to the F6F showing up?

 

[davebender]

What about all the U.S. Army Air Corps aircraft that supported Gen MacArthur's offensive to re-take New Guinea and the Philippines? Probably quite a few Australian aircraft also. I suspect Gen MacArthur's air force flew a lot more sorties against Japan then CV based USN aircraft.

 

[Colin1]

What about all the U.S. Army Air Corps aircraft that supported Gen MacArthur's offensive to re-take New Guinea and the Philippines? Probably quite a few Australian aircraft also. I suspect Gen MacArthur's air force flew a lot more sorties against Japan then CV based USN aircraft.

Dave
I'm not sure what your point is