Best Twin-engined fighter (1 Viewer)

Best Twin Engined Fighter

  • Total voters
    154

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

RCAF 418 City of Edmonton Squadron was based in GB and spent most of the time flying Mosquito IIs and VIs.

RCAF 416 City of Oshawa Squadron flew Spitfires.

USAAF 416th NFS was based in Italy and ended up flying P-61s as the war in Europe ended.

USAAF 418th NFS was based in the PTO.
 
I read that many US pilots complained about the lower firing time of the F4F-4, and that they preferred the F4F-3. (not to mention the performance drop, which the folding wings didn't help either)

4x .50 cal BMG's would have been more than suficient aganst the lightly armoured Japanese fighters and the F4F-3 asnd F4F-4 had the same ammo load, just spread-out in 6 guns instead of 4. It was the Brits who requested the increase in firepower iirc, their European opponents being quite a bit more damage resistant than those the USN was facing.

Plus if you notice, all later Wildcats, FM-1 and FM-2, had 4x guns again... Coincidence?

The Hellcat and Corsair had six BMG (except for the cannon-armmed F4U's) but they were considderably larger too.

But the F4F was certainly important and was the best option the USN had, inless they were willing to use inline engined fighters... (the F2A was decent, but Brewster was in no position to produce it in the quantity and quality necessary, as Grumman was; rember that quite a few USN pilots preferred the Buffalo to the Wildcat, as long as it wasn't at max fuel load/overweight) And for the environment, the F4F was akin to the P-47 in ruggedness, though only by comparison to the Japanese. (overall, the F4F was probably about as tough as the P-40, except for the engine, which was inherantly more durrable)

On the same note the USAAF needed the P-40 and P-39 to stave off Japanese attacks untill better fighters arrived.


The only carrier based a/c in the PTO that could fight the zero in a turn-n'-burn dogfight and that saw significant service in WWII would have been the Supermarine Seafire.
 
The F6F Hellcat did have the highest kill to loss ratio of any allied fighter in the war though, right? (the Brewster B-239 with the Finns had the highest of the war)
 
R.Leonard,

Didn't the FM-2 come late in the war?
If so, that could explain its win-loss record, in the guise of the grade of pilot that was controlling that aircraft.

-----------------------------------------

renrich said:
In fact I have often postulated that the F4F3 or Martlet would have been a formidable fighter in the BOB.
Click to expand...
Forgive my ignorance, but, "BOB"?
What's that?







Elvis
 
I have floated this theory here before but of course the Wildcat came along just too late for the Battle of Britain,(BOB) By October of 1940 81 Martlets had been delivered to the RN and on Dec 25, 1940, a Martlet shot down a JU88 off Scapa Flow. If the F4F3 (Martlet) had been available for the BOB, it would have been a valuable addition to the British arsenal. Similar performance to the Hurricane, better armament against bombers with a longer ammo load, more range and more rugged than either Hurricane or Spitfire. I believe Thach said,"if you can't hit with four, you will miss with six." Alluding to the British mandated six gun change. I believe the F4F4 weighed at least 500 pounds more than the F4F3 which degraded it's performance but the rate of climb and shorter firing time were the major drawbacks since a Wildcat could not turn with a Zero any way except above 275 mph which a Wildcat was not going to exceed very often except in a dive.
 
...of course, if the Brits had the F4U, the whole world would be speaking with an English accent about now, eh?

;)


Yes, it's too bad we didn't place more F4's over there.
Seems the British were quite pleased with them.
In fact, probably moreso if we didn't deliver them with degraded engines.




Elvis
 
The early Martlets( the 81 AC earlier mentioned) were originally destined for the French but were taken over by the RN when France fell. They were powered by a Wright R1820 with a Hamilton Standard prop. I have some b&w photos of those factory fresh Martlets and for some reason they look less portly than the USN Wildcats. Must be the color scheme. Handsome little AC. I imagine the RN pilots were tickled to death to get them.
 
And it was the British export B-339E (Buffalo Mk-I) version of the F2A-2 that had been downgraded. (and made heavier with increased armor and bullet proof glass) They lacked the more powerful better supercharged engine of the F2A-2 as well as carrier equipment. They would have been quite useful if they'd been completed as the USN F2A-2's had and the F2A-2 was in service by the Battle of Britain too. Performance was generally better than that of the F4F-3 and the lower damage resistance was made up for somewhat by smaller size and better agility. (ie. harder to hit)

But the B-339E ordered by the Brits was worse performing than the F4F-3 (except in range) and had been redesigned for land use as well as the other downgrades so it couldn't be used on carriers if they wanted too, despite a breif attemt to engage the carrier arrestor wire with the main gear...

Though even with the lower performance of the Buffalo Mk-I it still would have been better than the Fulmar, and probably the Firefly, and had a larger combat radius than the F4F-3, or Sea Hurricane. (more than the Seafire too I think)

I wonder why they replaced the Marlets with Fulmars, why not Sea Hurricanes? They were available in 1941, right?
 
To be honest I don't know but at a guess the FAA were so short of aricraft they took anything that could fly.
The development of the Fulmar was a travesty that should never have happened. Using the resources to build licence copies of the Wildcat would have been far more beneficial.
Buffalo's were sent to Crete just before the invasion but couldn't take part due to reliability problems and a lack of spare parts. However I agree the Buffalo would have been a major improvement over the Fulmar.
 
The original Martlets were rated as unsuitable for combat because of the lack of self-sealing fuel tanks and armour. As a result those Martlets were shifted onto the first couple of escort carriers to be built where the only likely resistance was Fw 200s and possibly Ju 88s.

The Fulmar came about because of the spec. issued, not because the designers were incompetent. Hand them a spec. for a single engined carrier borne fighter and you'll see something like a dedicated Sea Hurricane instead of the Fulmar.
 
kool kitty,

I think the Brits got the same 950 HP G5 engine as the Finn's did.
Lack of performance could've, then, sprung from the additional weight of the thicker glass, armour, etc.



Elvis
 
red admiral said:
The original Martlets were rated as unsuitable for combat because of the lack of self-sealing fuel tanks and armour. As a result those Martlets were shifted onto the first couple of escort carriers to be built where the only likely resistance was Fw 200s and possibly Ju 88s.

The Fulmar came about because of the spec. issued, not because the designers were incompetent. Hand them a spec. for a single engined carrier borne fighter and you'll see something like a dedicated Sea Hurricane instead of the Fulmar.
Click to expand...

I am pretty sure that the British Martlets were fully combat ready and indeed the first success was over Scapa Flow on Christmas Day in 1940. The reason for putting them on escort carriers was because they were the best plane for the job. In spec they were very similar to the F4F3 but with Wright R-1820 "Cyclone 9" engines. They did have armour, self sealing tanks and 4 x 0.5.

As mentioned earlier the RN took almost anything that could fly and had ex French versions (the original Martlet 1), ex Greek versions, US versions all slightly different.

Re the Fulmar no one is blaming the designers who no doubt could have come up with a better design but either way, it was criminal to build such an aircraft despite all the experience that had been built up.
 
The Martlet Is lacked the self-sealing tanks and armour, the Mk II brought these improvements in.

it was criminal to build such an aircraft despite all the experience that had been built up.
Click to expand...

But the experience showed the need for a navigator...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)

Similar threads

A
Why no twin engined Griffon aircraft?
Replies
6
Views
1K
Howard Gibson
Howard Gibson
A
Yamato logic for single-engined, single seat fighter
2 3 4
Replies
61
Views
3K
Reluctant Poster
R
herman1rg
Best piston engined fighter of 1945?
7 8 9
Replies
168
Views
26K
PAT303
P
Thumpalumpacus
American fighter ops, 1944 and beyond
Replies
5
Views
2K
Barrett
B
C
Tricycle Training(?) for Fighter Directors
Replies
5
Views
2K
EAIAnalog
EAIAnalog
Back