F4F's in Europe

The 100 Tomahawks supplied to the AVG were not ex or surplus anything. In fact at the time they were the best aircraft in the area.
The Allison engines were rejects for one reason or another and were gathering dust. When the order came in for the AVG the engines were dusted off and modified by hand. Because they hand built and better than "blueprinted".
The reject engines when delivered by Curtiss to the Avg were 100 to 200 more horsepower than the standard delivered to the USAAF.
The Tomahawk in that year and in that place was the best fighter.
And by the way a Tomahawk could turn inside any german monoplane but always gave up the altitude advantage. And any model Mustang below 300 MPH.
Do a search for "Killer" Clive Caldwell.

pinsog said:

I don't know why the Hurricane and Spitfire couldn't dive very well, but everything ever written says they couldn't.
I would say there were 2 reasons the Hurricane didn't fight the Zero about 250 mph: 1. The Hurricane may not have had the power to maintain that amount of airspeed in a turning fight 2. British pilots were blooded against 109's and their best chance of survival against a 109 was a turning fight. When faced with the Zero they reverted back to their training and earlier experiences which was, if you want to survive against a 109 you turn with him, that was suicide with a Zero.

Click to expand...

BTW the Spitfire had the highest Mach number of any delivered piston fighter of WW2.

I have read that .50 guns were removed because there was a shortage of ammunition. All the .50 ammo had to be imported from the US as all UK ammunition production lines were working flat out to produce .303.

I am no production expert but I imagine changing a prodution line from making one type of ammo to another much larger type would mean stopping production for quite a time. Not a good thing with the enemy at the gate and everything that could fire being in short supply.

Shortround6 said:

I think we need an established time line.

Quoting results from the battle of France for the Hurricane (MK I without self sealing tanks or armor) vs the combat capabilities of the MK II in the fall winter of 1940 even though only 6-8 months apart aren't quite the same.
Did the Hurricanes in the Far East have tropical filters which affected their performance slightly?

And for some reason combat over England and Europe tended to be at different altitudes than in North Africa/Med and Asia.

Click to expand...

I'm talking about F4F instead of the 'second line' (ie. non-Spitfire, ie. Hurricane, Mohawk, Tomahawk etc) British fighters. So that's in many cases outside the North Europe theater. It clearly doesn't make sense IMHO, to say 'but the Hurricanes had tropical filters' when we're talking about the F4F standing in for them in the same real world combat situation where the Hurricane was fitted with such filters, as in Med theater.

And as far as exact timeline, again the timeline of Hurricane result v even Bf109E does not support the idea that relatively minor improvements to the Hurricane after mid-1940 made a big positive difference. It's the opposite actually. Malta 1941 was *a lot* worse for the Hurr v 109E than Battle of France. So was North Africa, even before the109F was introduced. In fairness in a relatively few combats in Greece Hurrs did better v 109E's than the typical ~1:2 ratio in 1940-41 in North Europe.

Which is another point, the tendency to compare ~1:4-5 ratio's for Hurricane v Zero and Type 1 in Pacific, including Hurricane II's, all the way through 1943, with Hurricane's 'good' results v 109. But actual kill ratio parity of Hurricane v 109E was not the norm. On average the German fighter held a considerable advantage in actual combat result, no as much on average as the Zero/Type1 enjoyed over the Hurricane, though in some particular cases it was as great or greater (as over Malta in 1941). Again over Malta '41, how much worse than 0:35 does anyone propose the F4F would have done v 109? and why couldn't have F4F have done at least as well downing bombers and contending with Italian fighters? I don't see any good answer to those questions, except that the F4F was a credible subsitute, at least.

And, the specific Battle of France comparison I made was between H-75 (no protection, 6*7.5mm mg armament) to the Hurricane at the same time v same opponent: H-75 had better real ratio v 109E. And it was a fairly similar plane to the F4F (except for the H-75's markedly inferior armament, seat armor and tank protection was a trade off in any of those 3 planes originally designed without such features: it reduced the plane's performance, but reduced *pilot* not necessarily *plane*, losses in an attrition campaign, and besides preserving pilots, that gave pilots more confidence in combat).

Joe

vanir said:

The 81A-1 was delivered with 7.5mm French guns in the wings and two .50 brownings in the nose. The British swapped the wing guns for .303 brownings and often (not always but often) deleted the nose guns. (source: Aircraft of WW2, Jim Winchester, the very first book in my collection I picked up, I've read this at dozens of sites/sources).

The reasoning was until through 1941 the British still felt the ~fairly-kinda new .50 browning was not relatively combat tested and preferred the .30 browning chambered for .303 (source for this tidbit: Worlds Greatest Fighters, Robert Jackson - citing British Air Ministry FO1 document signed SqnLdr Ralph Sorley)

In this photo of a MkIIa you can see the fuselage guns have been deleted (barrels normally protrude slightly).
tomahawk IIa

The 81A-2 was delivered to a British order and had .30 Brownings in the wings and .50 Brownings in the nose, the British went and swapped all the guns for .303 Brownings most of the time (again not always). The Tomahawks given to SAAF and RAAF forces in NA retained US armament.

In this photo of a MkIIb you can see the fuselage guns are a pair of .303 brownings in common with the wings
tomahawk IIb

Harder to see because distance but if you look close this photo of a preserved USAAC P-40B shows thicker barrel protrusions on the fuselage guns of the .50 Brownings.
USAAC P-40B

Importantly however all the initial P-40's used by the Flying Tigers were British supplied, so they had mostly (not all) 4-6 .303 Brownings fitted.

Here's one of a USAAC P-40C, I think you can see again, fairly thick barrels for the .50's which you should compare several times with the RAF 112-sqn DAF one pictured above, which I think are clearly .303.
USAAC P-40C

Click to expand...

I am sorry but I have looked at a number of sources and they all state that the 2 x 0.50 were retained. I cannot open your pictures apart from the one that has all its guns removed which doesn't prove anything.

Curtiss P-40 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Curtiss Tomahawk
Curtiss P-40 (B,C,G) Tomahawk
CURTISS P40A–P-40C (TOMAHAWK)
http://www.warbirdforum.com/p0402.htm
Wapedia - Wiki: Curtiss P-40.
Curtiss P-40C Tomahawk - The Air Combat Wiki
The following has a number of close up photos of the Tomahawk
Google Image Result for http://raf-112-squadron.org/images/P-40-tomahawk-MkII.jpg

Vincenzo said:

can you explain this point the speed of Hurry II and Wildcat are near, wing load are near

Click to expand...

Look to this page and compare the HurriII with the FM-2 and F4F, you will find that it was the FM-2, which did appear rather late(1943), that have a similar performence like the 1941 HurriII.

WWII Aircraft Performance

Greetings,

Knegel

Knegel said:

Look to this page and compare the HurriII with the FM-2 and F4F, you will find that it was the FM-2, which did appear rather late(1943), that have a similar performence like the 1941 HurriII.

WWII Aircraft Performance

Greetings,

Knegel

Click to expand...

ever there you can see that F4F-3 of '40 have similar performance of '40 Hurri II


i just checked and i saw that FM-2 has best speed&climb of Hurri II

pinsog said:

The reason the Hurricane did poorly against the Zero was because it could do NOTHING better than a Zero. It wasn't any faster, it couldn't outclimb it, certainly couldn't outturn it, and it couldn't outdive it either. A Wildcat at least had the ability to outdive the Zero if it had any altitude. In fact, the Wildcat could outdive a 109. Plus, the Wildcats armament of 4 or 6 50's was more than adequate against any axis fighter, certainly better than the 303.
The Hurricane held its own against the 109 because it could outturn it, the Wildcat would have had the same advantage plus the ability to outdive the 109 also.
I think the Wildcat would have done at least as well as the Hurricane against Germany.

Click to expand...

Hi,

i realy doubt that the F4F could outdive the 109, neighter the wingmounted 4 x 50cal did count as adequate against german planes. (the P51D got two more for a good reason).

Even in the pacific they reduced the guns in the FM2 for performence reasons, all planes with a better performce got 6 guns.

The F4F and Hurri must have had a similar dive speed/acceleration, what was not much better than that of the A6m3 and 5(if at all), the advantage was the Zeros problem to manouver at highspeed. Here the F4F and Hurri both did better, while the Hurris roll ratio was not that good.

The wing area of both planes was very similar, while the F4F had the big engine, tought it was 100km/g more heavy, still the maximum velocity in level flight was way better with the HurricaneIIc. Compared to the F4F, the FM-2 was similar and a little better close to the ground, though it came 2 years after the HurriII.

The HurriII, specialy the IIc would have been as good as the F4F or rather better, if operated from a carrier, cause here they had radar and seldom they got badly overwhelmed and suprised.

The radar also what the Hurris luck while the battle of britain(and the Spit1a), how disadvanced the HurriII vs even the 109E was, you can see in the mediterranean area. Here even the P40 was badly outclassed.

Greetings,

Knegel

Knegel said:

Hi,

i realy doubt that the F4F could outdive the 109,

Click to expand...

Comparing it to the Bf 109E, the 109E had a dive speed of 466 MPH, the F4F-3 had a dive speed of 480.

Spitfire Mk I versus Me 109 E

The Pacific War Online Encyclopedia: F4F Wildcat, U.S. Carrier Fighter

The FM2 finally got back to the performance level of the F4F3. The early F4F3 was a very sprightly performer with a Vmax of 335 mph at 22000 feet and a rate of climb at SL of more than 3300 feet per minute. The later models of F4F3 and the F4F4 kept gaining weight and losing performance. Page 473, "America's Hundred Thousand" by Dean. The F4F3 at 7150 pounds could climb to 20000 feet in around eight minutes according to MFR data.

JoeB said:

I'm talking about F4F instead of the 'second line' (ie. non-Spitfire, ie. Hurricane, Mohawk, Tomahawk etc) British fighters. So that's in many cases outside the North Europe theater. It clearly doesn't make sense IMHO, to say 'but the Hurricanes had tropical filters' when we're talking about the F4F standing in for them in the same real world combat situation where the Hurricane was fitted with such filters, as in Med theater.

And as far as exact timeline, again the timeline of Hurricane result v even Bf109E does not support the idea that relatively minor improvements to the Hurricane after mid-1940 made a big positive difference. It's the opposite actually. Malta 1941 was *a lot* worse for the Hurr v 109E than Battle of France. So was North Africa, even before the109F was introduced. In fairness in a relatively few combats in Greece Hurrs did better v 109E's than the typical ~1:2 ratio in 1940-41 in North Europe.

Which is another point, the tendency to compare ~1:4-5 ratio's for Hurricane v Zero and Type 1 in Pacific, including Hurricane II's, all the way through 1943, with Hurricane's 'good' results v 109. But actual kill ratio parity of Hurricane v 109E was not the norm. On average the German fighter held a considerable advantage in actual combat result, no as much on average as the Zero/Type1 enjoyed over the Hurricane, though in some particular cases it was as great or greater (as over Malta in 1941). Again over Malta '41, how much worse than 0:35 does anyone propose the F4F would have done v 109? and why couldn't have F4F have done at least as well downing bombers and contending with Italian fighters? I don't see any good answer to those questions, except that the F4F was a credible subsitute, at least.



Joe

Click to expand...

This is all pretty hilarious. The Hurricane was typically outnumbered 3 to 1 <edit: 3 to 1 by Axis fighters!> during each mission over Malta, and was fighting the Axis AFs about 70 miles from their bases. Given its poor climb rate and abysmal ground handling, not to mention manual gear retraction, (that would really be fun, trying to fight an Axis raid while having to crank the LG up...) I would have expected the F4F to have gotten slaughtered over Malta, which is probably why the RAF and FAA never deployed Martlets to that Island.

Knegel said:

Hi,

i realy doubt that the F4F could outdive the 109, neighter the wingmounted 4 x 50cal did count as adequate against german planes. (the P51D got two more for a good reason).

Even in the pacific they reduced the guns in the FM2 for performence reasons, all planes with a better performce got 6 guns.


Knegel

Click to expand...

Dives, the Zeke 52 was slightly superior to the FM-2 in initial dive accleration, after which the dives were about the same. Zooms after dives were about equal for the Zeke 52 and FM-2

Click to expand...

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/japan/ptr-1111.pdf

This report says the dives were about equal, except that the Zeke engine briefly cut out when entering a dive:
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/japan/intelsum85-dec42.pdf

RCAFson said:

This is all pretty hilarious. The Hurricane was typically outnumbered 3 to 1 during each mission over Malta, and was fighting the Axis AFs about 70 miles from their bases. Given its poor climb rate and abysmal ground handling, not to mention manual gear retraction, (that would really be fun, trying to fight an Axis raid while having to crank the LG up...) I would have expected the F4F to have gotten slaughtered over Malta, which is probably why the RAF and FAA never deployed Martlets to that Island.

Click to expand...

Were the conditions any worse than Guadalcanal? Probably not, but yet look at what the F4F did there.

Vincenzo said:

ever there you can see that F4F-3 of '40 have similar performance of '40 Hurri II


i just checked and i saw that FM-2 has best speed&climb of Hurri II

Click to expand...

Speed for a 12lb boost Hurricane 1:
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/Hurricane_Speed-HRuch.png

Climb for a 12lb boost Hurricane 1:
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/Hurricane_Climb-HRuch.png

Speed FM-2:
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4f/16169-level.jpg
climb FM-2:
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4f/16169-climb.jpg

As you can see these aircraft, a 1940 BoB Hurricane 1 and a 1943-44 FM-2, are very close in performance. A Hurricane II in 1943 would be pulling at least 14lb boost. and even Sea Hurricane was pulling 16lb boost in Aug 1942. Peak HP for a Hurricane II would be nearly 1500hp. Most published performance figures for the Hurricane are with the aircraft pulling 6 or 9lb boost, which greatly underestimates combat performance.

The reason no Martlets went to Malta is simple - the RAF was defending the island and the FAA (which owned and operated the Martlets) was not. Several people have made the mistake of assuming and saying that the RAF flew Martlets - this is simply not the case. As I said, they were FAA operated and the RAF had nothing to do with them. The 81 French a/c that became Martlet Mk1 were built for the never completed carriers Joffre and Painleve, and although used from land bases, were fully carrier-capable, albeit without folding wings, as the French had not ordered them. Given the lack of space on most British carriers, this was probably a major factor in the Mk1s staying ashore.

Martlet MkII were 100 aircraft ordered by the FAA - so the RAF couldn't have got their hands on them if they wanted to. 90 of the 100 ordered had folding wings - specifically ordered because of the small hangar decks on British carriers, and so crucial that the FAA accepted late delivery (in August 1941) in order to get the folding wings.

Martlet MkIII were the 30 Greek aircraft, again these did not have folding wings so were again only used from land bases.

So why did the RAF never operate Martlets? Firstly, they didn't need them, as the Spitfire was already doing a pretty good job, and in any case the armament was non-standard. On this note, the FAA actually had .50s fitted to the French planes, which were slated to have 6x 7.5mm installed - obviously the admiralty was not concerned about non-standard armament.

Secondly, the FAA desperately needed a powerful modern fighter for it's carriers, as the only true fighter in the inventory in August 1940 was the Fulmar, aided and abetted by the Skua 'multi-role' dive bomber and the abysmal Roc turret fighter.All of these also had the disadvantage of being twin-crew (the Fulmar carried an observer), and the FAA must have been keenly aware that they needed a modern single-seat fighter ASAP. The fact that the FAA ordered 100 F4Fs off their own bat shows that they were keenly aware of their shortage of a modern fighter, and they also knew that there would be no Sea Hurricane or Seafire until the RAF had had it's fill of these types.

I also suspect that the F4F was intended as a stopgap until the FAA could get Spits and Hurris onto it's flight decks - it made more sense to use proven domestic designs that had known strengths and weaknesses than a mongrel batch of imports built to three different specifications.

Type origins, delivery dates and specs can be found here: F4F Wildcat - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

FLYBOYJ said:

Were the conditions any worse than Guadalcanal? Probably not, but yet look at what the F4F did there.

Click to expand...

The nearest emergency landing strip for the IJNAF, was about 400 miles from Henderson field, while the main airfield for IJN attacks, at Rabaul, was almost 600 miles away.

RCAFson said:

The nearest emergency landing strip for the IJNAF, was about 400 miles from Henderson field, while the main airfield for IJN attacks, at Rabaul, was almost 600 miles away.

Click to expand...

While this is true, the F4Fs out of Guadalcanal were not only outnumbered but operated in probably one of the most hostile environments of the entire war. Considering what the F4F accomplished there, I don't see them "getting slaughtered" over Malta, although this is a highly variable "what if." Also consider pilot skill, determination and tactics.

Besides I'm sure the Marines on Guadalcanal realized that if they did not drive off the Japanese, their defeat would have meant torture and possibly death.

Vincenzo said:

ever there you can see that F4F-3 of '40 have similar performance of '40 Hurri II


i just checked and i saw that FM-2 has best speed&climb of Hurri II

Click to expand...

The F4F-3 datas are calculated, the FM-2 datas and the HurriII datas are tested, though there is also a calculated Hurri speed curve with 340mph max.

I coubt the F4F-3 was as fast as the FM-2, the latter had a better engine, but all i say is that the F4F wasnt realy better than the Hurri II, so in Europe it wasnt a good choise.

FLYBOYJ said:

Comparing it to the Bf 109E, the 109E had a dive speed of 466 MPH, the F4F-3 had a dive speed of 480.

Spitfire Mk I versus Me 109 E

The Pacific War Online Encyclopedia: F4F Wildcat, U.S. Carrier Fighter

Click to expand...

The F4F never had a official dive limit written down, the 466mph is written in the 109E3 hand book, later this limit got increased to 500mph, still there is no terminal limit known. This probably depends to the altitude, cause most destructive was critical mach related shockwaves.

The F4F was known not to dive like a land based plane and since the 109 did outdive even the Spitfire(up to the heavy 14), i doubt the F4F could do it much better than then Hurri.

RCAFson said:

Speed for a 12lb boost Hurricane 1:
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/Hurricane_Speed-HRuch.png

Climb for a 12lb boost Hurricane 1:
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/Hurricane_Climb-HRuch.png

Speed FM-2:
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4f/16169-level.jpg
climb FM-2:
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4f/16169-climb.jpg

As you can see these aircraft, a 1940 BoB Hurricane 1 and a 1943-44 FM-2, are very close in performance. A Hurricane II in 1943 would be pulling at least 14lb boost. and even Sea Hurricane was pulling 16lb boost in Aug 1942. Peak HP for a Hurricane II would be nearly 1500hp. Most published performance figures for the Hurricane are with the aircraft pulling 6 or 9lb boost, which greatly underestimates combat performance.

Click to expand...

This is a very bad comparison, cause 12lb was real WEP(extreme short period) for the MerlinIII, while the FM-2 datas are made with a real usable power setting. I often see the 12lb datas posted, only cause someone made some speed estimations with it(this dont got tested). Noone should forget that the F4F´s, same like the 109E also had a short edurance power, though, we miss good tests with this settings(for the 109E we have such a yugoslavian datas sheet, where the 109E made 500km/h at sea level).

But for the F4F as possibility as RAF fighter 1943 dont matter anyway, time in question is 1941 to 42 and here the HurriII with 9lb is a good comparison to the combat power F4F-3 or 4.
Even with the highest boost, in 1943 the Hurri was extreme outdated as fighter, same we can say for the F4F/FM-2 in Europe. Since the IJNAF still did fly mainly Zeros in 1943/44/45, but already with less good pilot skill, the FM-2 was still a good carrier plane.