Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
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.
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?
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!
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).
What are the numbers for 12lb boost instead of 6.24lb boost and using a Merlin XX?
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.
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!
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
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 Mynarki flew his last op from my local airfield.
So you're in the UK?
So you're in the UK?
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.
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.