F4F's in Europe

[FLYBOYJ]

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/stories/george-buzz-beurling-leading-canadian-ace-2281-2.html
The 3rd post , just off the hop

AND YOU TELL ME WHAT WAS SO BAD ABOUT THAT?!?!? The man made his own uniform and it was obvious I made a joke about it!!!!

Please - pick and choose your battles, it's pretty friggin obvious there was no disrespect made about him!!!!

 

[buffnut453]

And his nickname was "Screwball" - nuff said, methinks!

 

[RCAFson]

And your point????

My point is that the Hurricanes over Malta faced overwhelming odds, and were greatly outnumbered by an opponent that was 70 miles away and could fly several sorties a day and even loiter in the Hurricanes landing circuit. In contrast, the Wildcats over Henderson had a cakewalk against a very weak opponent that was based 600 miles away and averaged a weak attack a couple of times a week. Quoting F4F stats from Guadalcanal to try and prove the supposed superiority of the f4F over the Hurricane is complete bull.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

My point is that the Hurricanes over Malta faced overwhelming odds, and were greatly outnumbered by an opponent that was 70 miles away and could fly several sorties a day and even loiter in the Hurricanes land circuit. In contrast, the Wildcats over Henderson had a cakewalk against a very weak opponent that was based 600 miles away and averaged a weak attack a couple of times a week. Quoting F4F stats from Guadalcanal to try and prove the supposed superiority of the f4F over the Hurricane is complete bull.

Cakewalk? Guadalcanal? I guess your opinions carry more weight than your brains. At one time there were only 15 F4Fs to defend Henderson. Trying to compare the two campaigns is like comparing apples and oranges. Trying to down play one over the over is just ignorant.

I'm almost of the opinion that you're almost too stupid to be here....

 

[RCAFson]

Cakewalk? Guadalcanal? I guess your opinions carry more weight than your brains. At one time there were only 15 F4Fs to defend Henderson. Trying to compare the two campaigns is like comparing apples and oranges. Trying to down play one over the over is just ignorant.

8 – Number of serviceable Spitfires on Malta on 1 April, 1942

19 – Number of serviceable Hurricanes on Malta on 1 April, 1942

1 – Number of serviceable fighters on Malta on five separate days in April, 1942

0 – Number of serviceable fighters on Malta on 14 April, 1942

47 – Number of newly arrived Spitfires on Malta on April 20, 1942

7 – Number of Spitfires available on Malta on April 30, 1942
Merlins Over Malta - The Defenders Returned!

 

[FLYBOYJ]

8 – Number of serviceable Spitfires on Malta on 1 April, 1942

19 – Number of serviceable Hurricanes on Malta on 1 April, 1942

1 – Number of serviceable fighters on Malta on five separate days in April, 1942

0 – Number of serviceable fighters on Malta on 14 April, 1942

47 – Number of newly arrived Spitfires on Malta on April 20, 1942

7 – Number of Spitfires available on Malta on April 30, 1942
Merlins Over Malta - The Defenders Returned!

Again what's your point?

And was there ground fighting at the airfield? Did pilots have to fear being killed in the middle of the night by Japanese entering their perimeter?

Guadalcanal WAS NOT a cakewalk and I would say the same about Malta. Talk like that is just stupid at a bare minimum , and I'm being kind

 

[pbfoot]

AND YOU TELL ME WHAT WAS SO BAD ABOUT THAT?!?!? The man made his own uniform and it was obvious I made a joke about it!!!!

Please - pick and choose your battles, it's pretty friggin obvious there was no disrespect made about him!!!!

Cuz its bullshit , you've made the same comment several times but are apparently the only one to ever see this supposed uniform.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Cuz its bullshit , you've made the same comment several times but are apparently the only one to ever see this supposed uniform.

I'm going to find the photo and then I expect an apology.

 

[pbfoot]

I'm going to find the photo and then I expect an apology.

you find it it and I'll apologize wholeheartedly .

 

[FLYBOYJ]

you find it it and I'll apologize wholeheartedly .

Here's the photo, I'll find the caption.

 

[Shortround6]

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.

Just trying to keep things straight. And trying to figure out why combat results differ from "book" figures. One reference for the Hurricane (which may not be accurate) shows that the tropical MK I had a speed of 317mph at 16,000ft compared to a normal MK's 330mph at 17,500ft. Max climb is down 120fpm and time to 20,000ft is 30 seconds longer. Service ceiling is 3,000ft lower. The F4F would certainly show to a greater advantage against a Tropical Hurricane than a normal one even if it is superior to a normal MK I.

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.

I am not sure what you consider a minor improvement. While the fitting of the Merlin XX engine didn't transform the Hurricane the way fitting a two stage Merlin transformed the Mustang there was a noticeable difference in performance. Why it doesn't translate into better combat performance I don't know. For a non-tropical MK IIA the speed went up 10mph but more importantly it was achieved 4,000ft higher than the MK I.
Max climb went up 600ft per minute and climb to 20,000ft was cut by 2 full minutes. Service ceiling was 41,000ft and while this last was not particularly important in itself, since service ceiling is the altitude at which climb rate drops to 100ft per minute it is an indication of a planes performance or power at higher altitudes like 25,000 to 35,000ft.
Fitting the extra 4 Mgs did knock a bit off the performance and fitting the tropical filter/gear knock a bit more off but a Tropical MK IIB was supposed to be good for 334mph at 18,200ft. Max climb 2,850fpm and 7.7 min to 20,000ft with a service ceiling of 35,500ft.

How do these numbers compare to the F4F-3?
would Four .50 cal guns be that much better than twelve .303s?

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

The Hawk may have had the same basic engine (no 2 stage supercharger on the R-1830s) as some of the F4Fs but it was about 3/4 ton to 1 ton lighter than an F4F. While the drag and speed may have been close the climb and turning ability may have been rather different. Germans may have been more in a dog fight mode than over England. The fighting over France may have been at lower altitudes (on average)than over England due to both sides doing more low level ground support.

Getting back to the time line thing, I notice in the last couple of pages references for both types of Hurricanes and F4Fs from the early -3 to the FM-2s. Different boost limits for the Merlin (which came at different times) and at least 2 different Cyclone engines in the Martlets and two different R-1830s in the P&W powered Wildcats/Martlets.

This is what I was afraid of to begin with. With a time line or point in time we could at least argue the versions available at a particular point in time or short period rather than planes that are several years apart.

Respectfully
Steve

 

[pinsog]

KNEGEL, The P39 could outturn a 109 or 190 down low, according to the Russians

 

[pbfoot]

Here's the photo, I'll find the caption.

It was on Malta , , I believed he had lost near 40lbs at the time from diet and disease. He is wearing his RAF "winter" tunic with wings and DFC and a pair of shorts which look to be from RAF tropical . He is still a Flight Seargent . I bet the uniforms of the guys on the canal were just as much a mish mosh .

 

[Knegel]

Overboost was available until the emergency ended or the engine blew up; there was no mechanical time limit. IIRC, there are reports of pilots using it for 30min. Yes, pilots were supposed to log overboost use and to try and limit it to 5 min, but this wasn't always done.

Hi,

not a mechianical time limit, a time limit in the books.
Sure that security limits and engines might stand this, but to compare planes, we cant use them for one plane, but not for the other.
The F3F also had a short endurance take off power, same kike the 109E and later 109G and many other planes, if we use 12lb for the Hurri1a and Spit1a, we must use also this short edurance settings, then the Hurri1a look bad again.

Greetings,

Knegel

 

[Knegel]

Cakewalk? Guadalcanal? I guess your opinions carry more weight than your brains. At one time there were only 15 F4Fs to defend Henderson. Trying to compare the two campaigns is like comparing apples and oranges. Trying to down play one over the over is just ignorant.

I'm almost of the opinion that you're almost too stupid to be here....

Quote:
Originally Posted by RCAFson View Post
8 – Number of serviceable Spitfires on Malta on 1 April, 1942

19 – Number of serviceable Hurricanes on Malta on 1 April, 1942

1 – Number of serviceable fighters on Malta on five separate days in April, 1942

0 – Number of serviceable fighters on Malta on 14 April, 1942

47 – Number of newly arrived Spitfires on Malta on April 20, 1942

7 – Number of Spitfires available on Malta on April 30, 1942
Merlins Over Malta - The Defenders Returned!
Again what's your point?

And was there ground fighting at the airfield? Did pilots have to fear being killed in the middle of the night by Japanese entering their perimeter?

Guadalcanal WAS NOT a cakewalk and I would say the same about Malta. Talk like that is just stupid at a bare minimum , and I'm being kind

"I'm almost of the opinion that you're almost too stupid to be here......."

Who offer such a sentence should at 1st look into a mirror, normally what got written show up.


RCAFson just make clear that Guadalcanal was nothing special(still not easy). Malta is just a similar example, used cause its also an island. In Africa the war was so fast, many times the crews was in the ground battle fireline and sometimes had to fight as well in the ground battle.
At night there was enemy bombers on close bases, the "long range desert group" and the "Brandernburger" came at night and day, even far behind the frontline.

In russia it was even worse, there was partisans, temperatures from + 40°C down to -40°C and also a fast moving frontline with particular extreme bad support, this was so for the russians and germans.

The RAF at Malta for sure had a way harder life regarding the airbattle, the numbers shown by RCAFson, that you dont know what to do with, show how much the Luftwaffe was present there, EVERY DAY!

 

[Glider]

Another one bites the dust.

 

[RCAFson]

I should not have referred to the F4F campaign on Guadalcanal as a "cakewalk", it was a tough slog.

The fact remains that the air campaign over Malta was much more intense than the aerial battles over Guadalcanal, in terms of the daily average sortie rate and the number of tons of bombs dropped.

 

[fastmongrel]

Well that was fun wasnt it another thread destroyed just when it was getting interesting.

Is there any chance this forum could stop descending into stupid nationalism of the my airforce is better than your airforce kind

 

[Shortround6]

Hi,

not a mechianical time limit, a time limit in the books.
Sure that security limits and engines might stand this, but to compare planes, we cant use them for one plane, but not for the other.
The F3F also had a short endurance take off power, same kike the 109E and later 109G and many other planes, if we use 12lb for the Hurri1a and Spit1a, we must use also this short edurance settings, then the Hurri1a look bad again.

Greetings,

Knegel

"then the Hurri1a look bad again."

Not really, the 1200hp take off rating or the military ratings for whatever HP at altitude for the R-1830 were a 5min ratings. There were no higher ratings. First F4F-3 with the two stage supercharger isn't delivered until Aug of 1940. within a few weeks if not days of the MK II Hurricane.

First Martlet I is delivered in July of 1940, but uses a single stage, 2 speed supercharged Wright R-1820 engine remarkably similar to the engine used in the last Buffaloes.

The 1350 hp Cyclone engines in the FM-2 were not War Emergency rated 1200hp engines but engines that had revised crankshafts, forged cylinder heads instead of cast and a new type of cylinder finning among other changes.

 

[Knegel]

Hi,

the FM-2 engine had also 1335hp military power in 3800ft and 1060HP in 15000ft.
Comat power was 1475HP in 1900ft and 1215HP in 10000ft.

The MerlinIII had just one powerpeak in 15000feet, where it had 1300HP.
And this was a real short edurance WEP, while the FM´2s combat power was a real usable 5min combat power, like that of the 109E.
The 109E additionally had a similar WEP like the MerlinIII, with 1175PS sea level. This power even wasnt restricted somehow, it was fully usable as take off power. But this this was also realy meant only as short endurance power we miss tests with this. But we can look to the 109E4/N performence to get an idea.

The two stage supercharged F4F-3 datas are calculated with 1100HP sea level power, while takeoff power was 1200HP sea level, just like the Merlin III´s WEP.

WEP is just a real bad power to compare planes, specialy when it comes to the climb performence. Here the MerlinIII WEP was not usable without to risk a brake the engine in very short timespan.
Over england, with the back to the wall and with homeland below you, you would use such a power setting, not so if you fly far over sea or enemy territory and specialy not in the med, where the air temerature was way higher than over england.

btw. When they did test the BMW801D increased boost with C3 injection, on one plane the C3 injection didnt work, but they saw this only after all flight tests was done. So the engine made the high boost tests without the cooling effect of the C3 injection, still the engine didnt show any trouble.
So now we could say all 190A´s could run with 1900-2000PS, but the engeeners did know better.
Reliability is one major factor for a squadron to be combat ready, and although pilots did use increased boosts, to gain a advantage, this for sure wasnt the norm and mainly belongs to critical situations and this was was made on all sides of the frontline.

More important for the combat than the short endurance WEP was the combat/climb setting, cause this did determine the planes ability to intercept enemys and also the maximum cruise speed and altitude performence was related to this and the maximum cruise speed was most important for an initial advantage or disadvanatge at the beginning of the combat.