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

[drgondog]

Something to consider when comparing ranges in the Pacific to ranges in Europe is that it was perfectly feasible to fly at long range cruise settings and optimum altitudes for long distances in the Pacific. No AA guns in the ocean, few if any spotters. OK, a few coast watchers

Over Europe at certain periods of time anytime you were over land you were in a "danger" area. Cruising heights and flight paths had to take flak concentrations into account. Your flight path was spotted and plotted as soon as you neared the coast on the way in. Cruise speeds had to be kept higher than optimum for range in order to keep from giving a defending/intercepting fighters too high a speed advantage in a surprise "bounce".

It was possible to cruise a MK V Spitfire at 225 true airspeed using 29 Imp gal of fuel an hour at 10,000ft but such a speed and altitude would be almost useless over enemy territory. Long range or ferry speeds were even lower. At a maximum continuous cruise speed of 331 mph true at 10,000 ft the Spit burned 70 imp gallons an hour. Obviously the Spitfire isn't going very far on the normal 88 Imp gal internal tanks. Full combat power (16lbs boost) used 150 gallons an hour.

A problem for fighters escorting bombers is that the at least some of the fighters had to fly higher than the bombers to keep the interceptors from climbing above the bombers and diving down through the formation/s. The fighters also had to be moving faster than the bombers in order to have speed in hand should the enemy show up. They flew a weaving course compared to the bombers so that they actually covered a greater distance at a higher speed than the bombers even though they were in sight of each other the whole time. At least they were supposed to be, clouds and all that
This weaving course and higher speed did absolutely nothing for fuel economy or radius of action.

It is something to consider when trying to figure radius of action for bomber escort compared to straight line range at optimum cruise settings.

The typical long range escort profile for target support (dominant P-51 and P-38 role until the very late model P-47D and M) was fast cruise to R/V point - either stooge around while waiting or throttle up to catch up- then is was Ess at ~ 225IAS BUT the actal plot speed was 150 IAS until bombas away, then 160+ returning to R/V with Withdrawal Support, then ~225 IAS back to let down point.

As you pointed out the entire chain is only moving as fast as the slowest bomber in formation. Two situations detracted greatly from optimal cruise - 1.) the Mustang optimal was usually around 18,000 feet and B-17's and B-24's weren't flying at that altitude in clear weather, 2.) while the 225IAS was a good cruise speed they were covering twice the ground 'relatively speaking' while Essing in escort.

Of course the 1650-7 at 67+'hg Emergency war power would soak up 220-240 gph while the cruise settings ranged from 46 gpm (opimal loiter/endurance) to 50-60gpm in optimal cruise depending on altitude.

 

[Milosh]

I find that difficult to believe.

Historical P-38 production.
I have omitted photo recon variants plus the single P-38K.
US Warplanes
527 x P-38F. 1942
1,082 x P-38G. 1942.
601 x P-38H. 1942.
2,970 x P-38J. 1943.
About 5,000 P-38 fighter variants were produced during 1942 and 1943.

Operation Torch OOB.
XII Fighter Command, Western Air Command, 08.11.1942
Six P-38 squadrons participated in Operation Torch. Why weren't they moved to Malta for the invasion of Sicily, then moved to Sicily prior to the Salerno invasion?

The P-38J only began arriving in Aug 1943.

P38s on hand in the MTO/Pacific Area:

Apr 1943 - 533/152
May 1943 - 551/151
June 1943 - 514/187
July 1943 - 448/274
Aug 1943 - 362/347
Sept 1943 - 296/333
Oct 1943 - 257/357
Nov 1943 - 253/357
Dec 1943 - 236/356

The total number of P-38s on hand overseas was between 800 and 862 from Apr to Oct 1943 when it jumped to 956 in Nov and 1123 in Dec.

 

[renrich]

Uhhhh, tailend charlie, your point about the ability to climb into the fight is well taken. If you can't be up there you can't be in the fight.

From Mike Williams site:
12 June 1940, MK1L Hurricane, Merlin 3 engine, Rotol constant speed prop, normal load( the Hurricane was the most numerous British fighter in BOB)
Service ceiling- 33750 feet
Time to climb to 10000 feet-3.7 minutes
Time to climb to 20000 feet-8.35 minutes

January 23, 1941, F4F3, normal load, service ceiling 38200
sea level rate of climb-3300 fpm
time to climb to 10000 feet-3.5 minutes
time to climb to 20000 feet-7.6 minutes

One can see that the Wildcat had a somewhat better rate of climb than the Hurricane and with a higher service ceiling!

 

[Milosh]

What are the numbers for 12lb boost instead of 6.24lb boost and using a Merlin XX?

 

[davebender]

I realize early model P-38s had some problems. However it was the only high endurance day fighter available to the Allies during mid 1943. So ready or not they should get the high endurance mission over Sicily and Salerno. Just as the not up to par Me-110 was used as a bomber escort during the Battle of Britain for lack of something better (i.e. Fw-187).

 

[tail end charlie]

Uhhhh, tailend charlie, your point about the ability to climb into the fight is well taken. If you can't be up there you can't be in the fight.

From Mike Williams site:
12 June 1940, MK1L Hurricane, Merlin 3 engine, Rotol constant speed prop, normal load( the Hurricane was the most numerous British fighter in BOB)
Service ceiling- 33750 feet
Time to climb to 10000 feet-3.7 minutes
Time to climb to 20000 feet-8.35 minutes

January 23, 1941, F4F3, normal load, service ceiling 38200
sea level rate of climb-3300 fpm
time to climb to 10000 feet-3.5 minutes
time to climb to 20000 feet-7.6 minutes

One can see that the Wildcat had a somewhat better rate of climb than the Hurricane and with a higher service ceiling!

One can see that the models you care to compare suit your argument perfectly.
I fail to see why you compare a BoB hurricane with a 1941 wildcat.The Hurricane MII with Merlin XX was introduced before the F4F3 saw combat in Europe so maybe it would be better to compare the MII hurricane with the Cyclone engined wildcats, and as you quote an aircrafts performance from 1941 you are quoting a plane that didnt reach the fight for 18 months.
The hurricane was obsolete when it was designed, being an uprated biplane that could easily and reliably produced, by 1941 it was being developed for night fighter and ground attack roles, it would be more useful to compare to the operating spitfires in 1941 I think.

 

[tail end charlie]

I realize early model P-38s had some problems. However it was the only high endurance day fighter available to the Allies during mid 1943. So ready or not they should get the high endurance mission over Sicily and Salerno. Just as the not up to par Me-110 was used as a bomber escort during the Battle of Britain for lack of something better (i.e. Fw-187).

The Me110 was as you say used over the north sea to escort bombers because of its range, however its use in the BoB (in the south) after the first engagements seems to have been a sort of Goering "pet" project. He insisted on their use when it was shown that they wernt up to the job, eventually the 109s were escorting the bombers and the 110s.

 

[NZTyphoon]

What are the numbers for 12lb boost instead of 6.24lb boost and using a Merlin XX?

From "Jane's All the World's Aircraft 1945-46" (Hurricane IIC)
Time to 10,000 ft = 3.4 minutes - climb rate = 2,941 ft/min
Time to 20,000 ft = 7.2 minutes - climb rate = 2,750 ft/min
Service ceiling = 35,000 ft.
Big difference is armament = 4 x 20mm Hispano v 6 x .50 Brownings

 

[NZTyphoon]

One can see that the models you care to compare suit your argument perfectly.
I fail to see why you compare a BoB hurricane with a 1941 wildcat.The Hurricane MII with Merlin XX was introduced before the F4F3 saw combat in Europe so maybe it would be better to compare the MII hurricane with the Cyclone engined wildcats, and as you quote an aircrafts performance from 1941 you are quoting a plane that didnt reach the fight for 18 months.
The hurricane was obsolete when it was designed, being an uprated biplane that could easily and reliably produced, by 1941 it was being developed for night fighter and ground attack roles, it would be more useful to compare to the operating spitfires in 1941 I think.

Spitfire VB (Price Spitfire Story) Merlin 45 Boost rpm not stated.
Time to 10,00 ft = 3.06 min - climb rate=3,250 ft/min - speed = 331 mph
Time to 20,000ft = 6 min 24 sec - climb rate = 2,440 ft/min - speed = 371 mph

 

[RCAFson]

Uhhhh, tailend charlie, your point about the ability to climb into the fight is well taken. If you can't be up there you can't be in the fight.

From Mike Williams site:
12 June 1940, MK1L Hurricane, Merlin 3 engine, Rotol constant speed prop, normal load( the Hurricane was the most numerous British fighter in BOB)
Service ceiling- 33750 feet
Time to climb to 10000 feet-3.7 minutes
Time to climb to 20000 feet-8.35 minutes

January 23, 1941, F4F3, normal load, service ceiling 38200
sea level rate of climb-3300 fpm
time to climb to 10000 feet-3.5 minutes
time to climb to 20000 feet-7.6 minutes

One can see that the Wildcat had a somewhat better rate of climb than the Hurricane and with a higher service ceiling!

The F4F-3 was built in very small numbers and not after late 1941, IIRC. Also IIRC the above figures were Grumman's estimates which were not achieved in USN testing and the F4F-3 gained a lot a weight due to service requirements for SS tanks, more armour and folding wings. FAA data cards state that even the FM-2 could not match the Hurricane climb performance with the time to 15k ft being 6.5 minutes using combat power, which is hardly better than the standard boost Hurricane I at 6.85 minutes and worse than the 5.9/6.4 minutes of the standard boost Hurricane IIB/IIC

Estimated RoC of the Hurricane I with 12lb boost was 3440fpm at SL and 2.9/6.5 minutes to 10k/20k ft. At 16lb boost, the times would probably (IMH estimation) drop by .4 minutes to 2.5/6.1 minutes and peak at well over 4000fpm. A Hurricane IIC with 4 x 20mm cannon had its max weight with internal fuel increase by 10% over a Hurricane I but available power increased by 40% over the Merlin III 6.25lb rating. A Hurricane IIc with 14 or 16lb boost and peak 1480hp should out climb the Hurricane I at 12lb boost with peak 1310hp. SL climb would be similar but the Merlin XX would maintain boost levels and climb rates to higher altitudes.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/Hurricane_Climb-HRuch.png

 

[tail end charlie]

Spitfire VB (Price Spitfire Story) Merlin 45 Boost rpm not stated.
Time to 10,00 ft = 3.06 min - climb rate=3,250 ft/min - speed = 331 mph
Time to 20,000ft = 6 min 24 sec - climb rate = 2,440 ft/min - speed = 371 mph

The bare figures themselves dont tell all the story, bearing in mind the situation in 1940, if the wildcat outperformed the hurricane why didnt they use it in the BoB the first arrived in July 1940?

 

[RCAFson]

Using combat power the RAAF recorded a Spit VIII as 5 minutes to 20k ft:
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/jf934time.jpg
which is about 2 minutes faster than the Spit VIII at 12lb boost.

Spit IX:
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spitfire-IX.html

4.75 minutes to 20k ft with 18lb boost.

 

[tail end charlie]

One can see that the models you care to compare suit your argument perfectly.
I fail to see why you compare a BoB hurricane with a 1941 wildcat.The Hurricane MII with Merlin XX was introduced before the F4F3 saw combat in Europe so maybe it would be better to compare the MII hurricane with the Cyclone engined wildcats, and as you quote an aircrafts performance from 1941 you are quoting a plane that didnt reach the fight for 18 months.
The hurricane was obsolete when it was designed, being an uprated biplane that could easily and reliably produced, by 1941 it was being developed for night fighter and ground attack roles, it would be more useful to compare to the operating spitfires in 1941 I think.

I think others have already answered.

RCAFson one of Canadas famous sons Andrew Charles Mynarski V.C. flew his last op from my local airfield.

 

[RCAFson]

I think others have already answered.

RCAFson one of Canadas famous sons Andrew Charles Mynarki flew his last op from my local airfield.

So you're in the UK?

 

[tail end charlie]

So you're in the UK?

Sure, there is a memorial to Mynarski at the airfireld and in the Airport hotel there is the Mynarki bar with a replica of his V.C. My Mothers second husband lived in the village during the war he said the noise made when there was an op on was absolutely deafening.

 

[tail end charlie]

So you're in the UK?

Here is a link showing the memorial statue although I am sure I read somewhere that he flew from Croft which is only a few miles away.

Andrew Mynarski

 

[Shortround6]

A couple of notes.

1. Many British climb figures use a continuous climb rating or 30 min rating. for Some early Merlins this was the the normal 6 or 6.5lbs of boost but only 2600rpm instead of the full throttle 3000rpm. Climb performance using 12lbs of boost and 3000rpm would obviously be better.

American Climb figures are often obtained using full military power for the first 5 minutes of the climb with max continuous power used for the rest of the climb.

2. The early Wildcats the British got were NOT F4F-3s. They were Martlets and this is NOT semantics. The Martlet I ( first delivery July 27, 1940 ) used a Wright Cyclone R-1820 9 Cylinder engine with a two speed SINGLE STAGE supercharger. The same engine used in the F2F-3 Buffalo.
The Martlet II ( first delivery March, 1941 )used a 14 cylinder P&W R-1830 but it was different model than the the F-F-3 used. It was the same two speed SINGLE stage engine the F4F-3A used. This was the same engine the 30 Martlet IIIs used (ex Greek aircraft). The Martlet IV reverted back to the Wright Cyclone engine with Deliveries starting July 1942.
The British don't get the two stage P&W R-1830 engine until Dec 1942 with the delivery of the Martlet V. This engine is the R-1830-86 instead of the R-1830-76 used in the American F4F-3s.

When comparing Wildcats/Martlets to either the Hurricane or the Spitfire it would be well to specify what Hurricane or Spitfire, what propeller is being used ( fixed pitch, two pitch or constant speed) and what power rating is being used and specify which Martlet is being used for the comparison.

Martlet VI/Wildcat VI were the same as the FM-2 and used the 1350hp Wright Cyclone engine but they don't show up in British service until 1944.

 

[renrich]

The performance figures for the F4F3 are from US Navy tests at the NAS, Anacostia, DC, and they were conducted around four months after the BOB ended. They are NOT manufacturer's figures. The Wildcats tested had armor which I am pretty sure the Hurricane tested did not. The argument comparing Hurricane and Wildcat has been had on this forum ad nauseum. Under the right circumstances,( if Grumman and the US had been on a war footing since before 1939, like the UK was) the F4F3 COULD have probably been ready for the BOB but it was not and that is the end of the story.

The reason that I posted the performance figures was that TEC said that the Wildcat did not climb well enough to be in the fight and seemed to imply that the Corsair and Hellcat did not either. I tried to pick the Hurricane that would be representative of the BOB knowing that the Hurri did most of the work in the BOB and did it well in spite of it's so so performance. If some don't think an F4F3 with four 50 BMGs would not have done very good service in the BOB, if available, then I can do nothing about it. The F4F3 was a remarkable airplane, just like the A6M. Shipboard fighters with the ability to go head to head with the best European landbased fighters.

In going through the Williams papers online I am fairly certain that the Hurricane tested had no armor and I am not certain that all the Hurris in the BOB had the constant speed prop. It seems that the armor was added between the end in France and before the BOB officially began. If that Hurri tested had no armor then a BOB Hurri would have had somewhat worse climb numbers than I posted.

The F4F4 was not as good a performer as was the F4F3, partly because of the stupid insistence by the British for six guns instead of four. The USN and it's pilots did not like the six gun configuration and a few F4F4s were built at the end of the production run with the four guns. Perhaps the Brits wanted the six guns because they knew their pilots were not, on the whole, good gunners like the US Navy pilots were.

 

[syscom3]

Perhaps the Brits wanted the six guns because they knew their pilots were not, on the whole, good gunners like the US Navy pilots were.

I think it was the British found that the more sturdily built German Bombers needed six MG's to bring them down.

 

[Glider]

The performance figures for the F4F3 are from US Navy tests at the NAS, Anacostia, DC, and they were conducted around four months after the BOB ended. They are NOT manufacturer's figures. The Wildcats tested had armor which I am pretty sure the Hurricane tested did not. The argument comparing Hurricane and Wildcat has been had on this forum ad nauseum. Under the right circumstances,( if Grumman and the US had been on a war footing since before 1939, like the UK was) the F4F3 COULD have probably been ready for the BOB but it was not and that is the end of the story.

The reason that I posted the performance figures was that TEC said that the Wildcat did not climb well enough to be in the fight and seemed to imply that the Corsair and Hellcat did not either. I tried to pick the Hurricane that would be representative of the BOB knowing that the Hurri did most of the work in the BOB and did it well in spite of it's so so performance. If some don't think an F4F3 with four 50 BMGs would not have done very good service in the BOB, if available, then I can do nothing about it. The F4F3 was a remarkable airplane, just like the A6M. Shipboard fighters with the ability to go head to head with the best European landbased fighters.

In going through the Williams papers online I am fairly certain that the Hurricane tested had no armor and I am not certain that all the Hurris in the BOB had the constant speed prop. It seems that the armor was added between the end in France and before the BOB officially began. If that Hurri tested had no armor then a BOB Hurri would have had somewhat worse climb numbers than I posted.

The F4F4 was not as good a performer as was the F4F3, partly because of the stupid insistence by the British for six guns instead of four. The USN and it's pilots did not like the six gun configuration and a few F4F4s were built at the end of the production run with the four guns. Perhaps the Brits wanted the six guns because they knew their pilots were not, on the whole, good gunners like the US Navy pilots were.

For what its worth I agree with the vast majority of the above. I have no doubt that the Wildcat would have done well in the BOB. The Hawk 75 did well in the battle of France and see no reason why the Wildcat wouldn't have done better. The 6 x LMG of the Hawk was on the light side and 4 x 0.5 would have been far more effective let alone the better performance.

The only observations I have are on the aircraft being used as a test. I believe that all the Huirricanes in the BOB had the Constant Speed Propeller and the 100 Octane fuel as well as the armour. Also the F4F3 didn't have armour or self sealing tanks as standard. These would need to be fitted before the RAF/FAA accepted them in numbers. The weight of these changes should be considered when comparing the Wildcat to the Hurricane.
The time period is interesting as the Wildcat wasn't ready for the BOB and any discussions around this are open to debate (which is half the fun). The Wildcat version a tested and quoted in the Mike WIlliams site would probably be better compared to the Hurricane IIA

The only section I have significant doubts about is the last paragraph. To blame the UK for the installation of 6 x 0.5 after the USN had considerable experience with the F4F3 lacks logic.
a) The UK considered the Wildcat with 4 x 0.5 to be better armed than the 8 x LMG fitted on BOB fighters
b) I understood that it was the French who first asked for a Wildcat with 6 x LMG
c) Why would the british insist on 6 x 0.5 when they had at that time no intention of using the 0.5 as a standard weapon?
d) I can understand the RN asking for 6 guns on a WIldcat if, they wanted to revert to the 0.303, maybe thats what happened.
e) It assumes that the USN had no influence on the design of an aircraft that was so important to them, which I cannot see happening.
f) To assume that its beacuse the RAF/FAA couldn't shoot straight is almost a joke. They were probably no better or worse than any other nation and had some experience with 4 gunned aircraft. Gladiators, Skua's, Defiant and Blenhiem spring to mind and the problem wasn't 'we cannot hit them',the problem was 'we cannot hit them hard enough with 4 x LMG'.

That said it important that I confirm what I said at the beginning, that I have no doubt that the Wildcat would have done well in the BOB. Its performance was similar to the Hurricane probably pros and cons to each but overall as good as each other, even with the weight of armour and sealing tanks. It was better armed than the Hurricane and the Germans wouldn't get far in using negative G to escape, something that I don't think has been mentioned before.