F4F's in Europe

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

Knegel said:
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.
Click to expand...
Could you give me a source for this?


The First FM-2 wasn't delivered until Sept. 1943. Just a little late to be comparing it to a MK I Hurricane.



another thing to consider is that American planes, when tested for time to altitude, were allowed to use military power for the first 5 minuted of the climb and then throttled back to "Normal" or max continuous power for the rest of the climb.

Most Merlin Powered British Planes were timed useing 2850 or less rpm instead of 3000rpm and using less than full boost. Their climb times used a 30 minute power setting for the entire climb.
 
Hi,

the FM-2 datas are here:
FM-2 Performance Trials

You be right regarding the FM-2, its a late war plane(mainly 1944/45).

Yes, the US tests are not always nice to compare them with other tests.

But on the other side specialy early german tests(109E/F/G) are made with combat/climb even at maximum speed, while many british tests are made with 5min all out level power.

On the page above you will also find plenty of Spitifre tests with varius combat power settings(also climb tests).

To compaire the different available plane performences to get an good idea of the relative performence is realy a pain in the ass.

Specialy for Axis and russian planes we badly miss complete tests, where the real power output etc is written down.
 

There is a painting of him in a uniform he put together on his own and it is stated in the text he did this all the time as well as wearing pajamas on the airfield with a greasy service cap. The fact is I DID NOT MAKE THIS UP!!!!

And what the HELL does the "the guys on the canal" have to do with this???? And yes, of course it was on Malta!!

There was absolutely NO disrespect towards him mentioned, as a matter of fact I put up a very old post about him where I stated "had he had another 30 days we would have wiped out the whole Italian Air Force!"

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/polls/greatest-fighter-pilot-wwii-finalized-1397-7.html#post76422
Post 100 PLEASE
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/italy-v-england-air-air-1104-2.html#post58815
Post 18 PLEASE

I stand behind my comments and proved my point - do you have the balls to stand behind yours?!?!
 
Last edited:
Where were we? Oh yes. How would the F4F have done in the ETO if it was available as a land based fighter. It looks as if the F4F and Hurricane had rather similar performance characteristics. The F4F may have had better armament, especially against bombers, if four fifties is compared with eight thirties. When the Hurricane got four 20 mms it was better armed except for firing time. The F4F with four fifties with 430 rounds per gun had a firing time of 28.7 seconds. The F4F because of it's radial air cooled engine was probably more resistant to battle damage.

Overall there looks like little to choose between the two fighters so given equal pilot skill the F4F probably would have done at least equally well as the Hurricane. The nettlesome combat result statistics which seem to show the Wildcat as being more effective than the Hurricane in the Pacific may be the result of better trained pilots and tactics in the Wildcat. The USN and Marine pilots in the Pacific were very well trained and they had developed good tactics.
 

Plus the speed-sapping Vokes filter on the Hurri and the tactical disadvantage during the 1942-43 period. I recently did a comparison of Hurri -vs- Mohawk kills/losses in Burma which showed that the Hurri was routinely heavily outnumbered and, due to lack of adequate warning, often at a tactical disadvantage when engagements commenced (against Ki-43s rather than A6Ms, although the latter did participate in one engagement, unusually as part of a combined Army/Navy air operation).
 

Vokes filters in '42/43, oh i've read from many people that vokes were quickly substituite with new and best design filters so what is the true history?
 
Vincenzo said:
Vokes filters in '42/43, oh i've read from many people that vokes were quickly substituite with new and best design filters so what is the true history?
Click to expand...

The ground staff at RAF Aboukir in Egypt developed a smaller and more streamlined filter (but I believe not quite as effective at filtration) that was fitted to some Spitfires but I believe this was only towards the end of the desert campaign. I have looked to see if there is any info on the Aboukir filter being fitted to Hurricanes but without any luck. It seems that the Hurricane was lumbered with the Vokes filter.

The poor old Hurri really didnt need the extra drag it must have been like driving a car with a large roof rack on.

A Spitfire fitted with a Aboukir filter
 
renrich said:
Where were we? Oh yes. How would the F4F have done in the ETO if it was available as a land based fighter.

Overall there looks like little to choose between the two fighters
Click to expand...

This is simply not true. The Hurricane had a performance edge over the F4F-3, especially after we add in armour and self sealing tanks. The Hurricane has a higher climb rate and far better ground handling:

I found this quote from America's Hundred thousand:


p491

The F4F was designed to land on carriers, where the ship is always steaming into the wind, unlike the Hurricane which was designed for rough field, cross wind landings as part of the design specs.
 
Glad to hear you are familiar with Dean. Just because the landing gear of the Wildcat made it a little difficult in a field landing doesn't mean it was not an effective fighter in the air. The Marines and Navy used landbased Wildcats quite effectively. I believe that the 109 was not a piece of cake on the ground also as well as the P40. The undebounced Corsair was a handfull to land on a field also which did not keep it from being one of the premier fighters of the war.
 
The summary seems to be that the Wildcat was slightly behind the Hurricane as a fighter. However I believe that the RAF would have taken as many as they could get if only because of the range. This would allow another area of defence namely interdiction.
Wildcats would be able to take off at night and be ready at first light for targets of opportunity. They may not have scored many kills but that would be a bonus. The potential distruption that could be caused and just giving the german pilots something else to worry about would be worth the effort. Losses would be low as they would be safe at night, any 109's diverted to intercepting them would be diverted from escort duties.
 
In the summer of 1940 the Wildcat just doesn't seem to over any advantage over the Hurricane II that is coming on line.

A. there aren't enough of them. Production is just getting started while production of the Hurricane MK II is pretty much prying enough Merlin XX engines away from bomber command to send to up and running production lines.

B. First versions of the F4F-3 don't have self sealing tanks or armor and so would not be considered combat ready.

C. The Martlet 1 (ex-French) used pretty much the same engine (Cyclone) as the Brewster Buffalo and so was less than likely to impress anyone with it's altitude capability.

D. The P&W R-1830 with the two stage super charger is not quite operating properly and is in short supply. So short that that a number of F4F-3 are built by early 1941 with single stage R-1830 engines as F4F-3As.

By the winter/ spring of 40/41 the supply situation improves a bit but still isn't great historically.
The Wildcat has started to pork up as has the MK II Hurricane with 12 guns. By Summer of 1941 the 4 cannon Hurricanes start to show up and while there is a performance penelty there isn't much question that this is a good anti-bomber armament for the time.

P-40s may have been more acceptable to the RAF because with Spitfires covering the high altitude section of the sky The P-40s were faster at 0-10,000ft than the wildcats and so were better performing at strafing, ground attack and low level fighter work. . The Ability to carry a 500lb on all but the earliest P-40s might not have hurt either.
 

Rather unneeded over England. The British radar could often detect the German formations right after take-off while they were still forming up (circling over their own bases) Once the Blitz shifted over to night attacks the Douglas Bostons were used at night to attack German bombers in their own landing patterns. And if single engine fighter interdiction was needed it could be performed by P-40s with drop tanks. Since the bombers didn't usually operate at the altitudes the fighters did ( or catching them climbing from or descending to their own airfields) the high altitude capability of the Wildcat wouldn't be needed.
 
It is interesting to compare the Sea Hurricane to the Martlet. IIRC, the top scoring FAA pilot during Operation Pedestal was lying a Sea Hurricane IC with 4 x 20mm cannon. The IC had a Merlin III engine modded to allow 16lb boost. He was credited with 6 kills including 5 in one day. Again, IIRC the top scoring Martlet pilot had 2 kills during that operation.
 
I wouldn't let kills in one day decide whether one plane was better than another. Butch O'Hare shot down, wasn't it 5 Betty bombers within a couple of minutes in a Wildcat. The RN wasn't exactly a steller performer when it came to shooting down enemy aircraft. I doubt throughout the entire war whether a Hurricane shot down 5 of anything in one flight. No offense.
 

No offence, but the Betty's nickname was the "flying lighter" The Hurricane in question shot down 4 armoured Axis bombers, including 3 Ju-88s and, IIRC, 2 x ME-110s. The point is that the Hurricane was flying alongside the Martlet, and it seems that the Sea Hurricane performed better in combat, albeit with 4 x 20mm cannon, when the aircraft were in the air together.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

Airwar Over Europe?
Replies
2
Views
564
Canaus
C
The data behind the bombing war in Europe
Replies
3
Views
991
GregP
M
Flying The B-26 Marauder Over Europe
Replies
0
Views
710
MIflyer
M
B-17E in Europe
Replies
17
Views
2K
Big Jake
B
J
Where US fighters failed over Europe
2 3
Replies
47
Views
4K
Geoffrey Sinclair
G
Menu
Log in
Register