Fulmar II versus F4F-4 under 10,000 ft.

[Shortround6]

A point or two about climb ratings and power.
The R-1830 never had a WEP rating. It had a Military rating. They are not the same thing. Military rating is usually using the take-off power limit at a higher altitude. WEP is pushing the engine beyond it's normal take-off rating. In many cases the suggested time limit for use is the same, in some cases they are not, with 5 min being the limit for WEP and 15M min being the limit for military power on SOME engines.

Many American fighters were rated for their time to altitude by using military power for the first 5 minutes and "normal" power for the rest of the climb. "Normal" power almost never had a time limit. If it did there was a temperature condition attached to it.

Many British fighters were rated for their time to altitude by using a SPECIFIED climb power setting. This is less than full throttle but still with a time limit, usually 30min.

This does make comparisons of actual combat capability rather difficult.

 

[renrich]

SR, very good post and many thanks. Was looking lately at the Williams site and there was a report on the last FM2 which had the water injection. The climb rate at SL with normal power was 3100 fpm where at military power( no WEP) it was 3650 fpm. Pretty stout!

 

[davebender]

US Warplanes
FM-2
GM built version of the XF4F-8, tall tail, lower
observation windows deleted, 4 wing guns,
engine upgrade.
Produced 1943 - 1945
General Motors Linden, New Jersey

3,650 fpm would be ok during 1941. IMO it's rather weak for 1943 to 1945.

 

[RCAFson]

Pretty bad for a CV based fighter aircraft. After attacking an enemy torpedo bomber at 300 feet you are out of the fight. You are also dead meat for any enemy aircraft with a bit of an altitude advantage.

True it is poor climb performance, but the corresponding figure for the F4F-4 was about 1600fpm, and as you can see from the time to 5min, at WEP/MP the Fulmar could outclimb the F4F-4. Neither aircraft proved to be "dead meat" when faced with superior performing foes.

 

[renrich]

Well, lets see. The FM2 at military power could get to 20000 feet in about 8 minutes. That is equal to the F4U1D and better than the F6F5. Also better than the P51D.

 

[RCAFson]

OK, I'v been able to fill in some of the blanks, thanks to Greyman:

FulmarII/F4F-4

Power:
normal: ~1100/1090hp to aprox 11000ft
WEP: 1360hp at 6000ft / 1200hp at 1800ft, 1135hp at 3500 ft, 1150 hp at

11,500ft

weight: 9980lb / 7975lb
wing area: 342sq ft / 260 sq ft
wing loading: 28.3lb / 30.7lb
Fuel: 190usgals / 144usgals
8 x .303, 1000rpg / 6 x .5", 240 rpg

climb:
Initial:
Normal:1400* / 1690 fpm
Combat: 1722* / 1850 fpm
5000ft: 1770* / 1650

normal time to:
5000ft: 3.5min / 3.25min*
10000ft: 7.17min / 6.5min
15000ft: 12min / 10.6min*
20000ft: 20min / 14.7min
combat climb to:
5000ft: 2.85 / 2.9min
10000ft: 5.8 / 5.9min
15000ft: ???? / 9.1min*
20000ft: ???? / 12.7min


Normal Max speed
SL: 235 / 274.4
1750ft: 240 / 278mph*
2500ft: 242 /281.8
4600ft: 248 /283.1
5000ft: 249.5 / 285*
7250ft: 257 / 288*
9600ft 264 / 297*
12000ft: ???? /303.2
14000ft: ???? /304.5

Combat max speed:
SL: 247 / ????
1750ft: 252 / ????
4000ft: 260 /????
5000ft: 263 / ????
6600ft: 268 /????
9600ft: 264 / ????



* estimated

 

[RCAFson]

After a bit of calculation, based upon the increase in performance of the F4F-3 using normal and military power here:
http://www.alternatewars.com/SAC/F4F-3_Wildcat_(Land)_PD_-_14_August_1942.pdf
I came up with these numbers for the combat speeds of the F4F-4 versus Fulmar II:

Fulmar II / F4F-4

Power:
normal: ~1100/1090hp to aprox 11000ft
WEP: 1360hp at 6000ft / 1200hp at 1800ft, 1135hp at 3500 ft, 1150 hp at

11,500ft

weight: 9980lb / 7975lb
wing area: 342sq ft / 260 sq ft
wing loading: 28.3lb / 30.7lb
Fuel: 190usgals / 144usgals
8 x .303, 1000rpg / 6 x .5", 240 rpg

climb:
Initial:
Normal:1400* / 1690 fpm
Combat: 1722* / 1850 fpm
5000ft: 1770* / 1650

normal time to:
5000ft: 3.5min / 3.25min*
10000ft: 7.17min / 6.5min
15000ft: 12min / 10.6min*
20000ft: 20min / 14.7min
combat climb to:
5000ft: 2.85 / 2.9min
10000ft: 5.8 / 5.9min
15000ft: ???? / 9.1min*
20000ft: ???? / 12.7min


Normal Max speed
SL: 235 / 274.4
1750ft: 240 / 278mph*
2500ft: 242 /281.8
4600ft: 248 /283.1
5000ft: 249.5 / 285*
7250ft: 257 / 288*
9600ft 264 / 297*
12000ft: ???? /303.2
14000ft: ???? /304.5

Combat max speed:
SL: 247 / 284*
1750ft: 252 / 288*
4000ft: 260 / 289*
5000ft: 263 / 290*
6600ft: 268 / 293*
9600ft: 264 / 302*

* estimated and these estimates may be optimistic:
XF4F-8 @ 7850lb with 1200hp:
SL = 263 mph
5500FT = 281 mph
and these numbers are based upon an actual aircraft's performance:
http://www.alternatewars.com/SAC/XF4F-8_Wildcat_PD_-_1_November_1942_(Tommy).pdf
and applying these numbers to an F4F-4 would imply SL speeds of ~255 mph with normal power, 1100 - 1050 hp up to 12000ft. This particular aircraft climbed to 10000ft in 6.9min at normal power @ 7850lb, so again we have a climb rate which approximates the Fulmar II.
F4F performance is a very complex subject with actual aircraft performance figures varying greatly from official or manufacturers numbers in many cases.

One of the reasons that I made this comparison was to help explore the impact of greater availability of the Martlet on the FAA, but the first thing to consider, is just what is the performance increase of the Martlet/F4F over existing FAA fighters? The other thing to consider is that the F4F-3/4 had more powerful engines than the Martlet, over about 5000ft, so the Martlet's edge over the Fulmar would probably be even less, for a folding wing version with Armour and SS tanks.

 

[Freebird]

Pretty bad for a CV based fighter aircraft.

But then again, it's not a CV fighter, it's a CV Recon that can be used as a fighter in a secondary role.
I know the distinction might be lost, but it would be more proper to compare the Fulmar's performance to the Dauntless (or more accurately the BT-1) as both were used as fleet defence fighters, but had another primary role.

In 1942 the US carriers would have:
1.) Wildcat - fighter
2.) Dauntless - DB (recon)
3.) Devastator or Avenger - TB

In 1940 the British carriers had:
1.) Sea Gladiator - fighter (replaced with SeaHurri in 1941)
2.) Fulmar - Recon (replaced the Sea Skua - DB/Recon from 1939)
3.) Swordfish - TB

The Fulmar was ordered in 1938 under O.8/38, not F.8/38 for example.
"F" signifies fighter, while the letter "O" (Observation) signifies naval reconnaissance aircraft.

The British didn't think that the Fulmar would need good performance or agility as a fighter, but they did require a second crewmember as spotter, navigator wireless operator.

Obviously if performance as a fighter was considered as the primary function they wouldn't have the second crewmember there.

 

[RCAFson]

Some more data on F4F-4 performance:

Comparison test of F4F-4 versus A6M:

A6M speeds:
SL: 270 mph
5000 ft: 287 mph
10000 ft: 305

Result: aircraft equal in speed at SL, Zero superior at all other altitudes. This report also tested the Zero against the P39 and it reported the use of WEP and military power for the P39, so it is reasonable to assume the same for the F4F-4.
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/japan/intelsum85-dec42.pdf

These reports specifically report the use of WEP in an FM-2 at 7410lbs that was tested against a Zeke-52:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/japan/ptr-1111.pdf
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/japan/zeke52-taic38.pdf
results:
SL: FM2 6mpg faster= 297 mph
5000ft: FM2 4 mph slower = 297 mph
10000 FM2 12 mph slower = 301 mph. (zeke speeds from 2nd report)

These numbers further constrain F4F-4 performance, and it seems likely that under 10000ft, that the F4F-4numbers should be reduced by about 10 - 15mph:

Fulmar / F4F-4
Combat max speed:
SL: 247 / 270*
1750ft: 252 / 274*
4000ft: 260 / 275*
5000ft: 263 / 276*
6600ft: 268 / 289*
9600ft: 264 / 288*

If this is the case, then the F4F-4 speed margin is further reduced under 10,000ft and the efficacy of replacing the Fulmar II with the F4F-4 is also reduced, given that they have nearly identical climb rates.

 

[parsifal]

But then again, it's not a CV fighter, it's a CV Recon that can be used as a fighter in a secondary role.
I know the distinction might be lost, but it would be more proper to compare the Fulmar's performance to the Dauntless (or more accurately the BT-1) as both were used as fleet defence fighters, but had another primary role.

In 1942 the US carriers would have:
1.) Wildcat - fighter
2.) Dauntless - DB (recon)
3.) Devastator or Avenger - TB

In 1940 the British carriers had:
1.) Sea Gladiator - fighter (replaced with SeaHurri in 1941)
2.) Fulmar - Recon (replaced the Sea Skua - DB/Recon from 1939)
3.) Swordfish - TB

The Fulmar was ordered in 1938 under O.8/38, not F.8/38 for example.
"F" signifies fighter, while the letter "O" (Observation) signifies naval reconnaissance aircraft.

The British didn't think that the Fulmar would need good performance or agility as a fighter, but they did require a second crewmember as spotter, navigator wireless operator.

Obviously if performance as a fighter was considered as the primary function they wouldn't have the second crewmember there.

With regard to this comment, I was always led to believe the Fulmar was designed as a multi-role aircraft.

With regard to its capabilities, I think it was optimised to shoot down unprotected bombers. it was never intended to operate so close inshore as to need to take on high performance fighters.

By combining two roles into one, the british were able to maximise the number of fighter airframes onboard a carrier with limited aircraft capacity. By being available as combat ready from June 1940, it was able to fulfil a niche that the the martlet could not until the following April (in any measurable degree). The two seat configuration also had a long term spinoff....it allowed conversion of the successor Firefly to a night fight4r and fighter bomber role with a minm of fuss.

In terms of effectiveness, I would say that pound for pound the Fulmar was more effective than the Martlet as a Bomber destroyer and fleet air defence weapon. But as a fighter vs fighter....an air superiority weapon if you like, the Martlet was the superior mount.

I say the Fulmar was optimised as a bomber destroyer, because against unarmoured targets, its broadside of rifle calibre mgs was superior to the hmgs of the F-4. The hmgs could put a heavier weight of shell but the the lmgs put more shells into the enemy aircraft, and could do it for longer. In the type of combat the Fulmar found itself in 1940, this was a decided advantage....it coud put moree shells into an unprotected target more quickly, and engage more targets because its ammunition would last longer and it could bring down these sorts of targets quicker.

In this combat parametyer, the Fulmar was superior, but as a performer, th wildcat was a better overall performer. The achievements of the Fulmar are testament to its abilities. In 6 months of more or less continuous combat, the fighter component aboard the Ark Royal shot down something in excess of 70 aircraft, and lost to combat causes less than 5 aircraft (will check tonite). The standing strength abord this carrier Fwas about 15 fighters at any given time. that must be a pretty good record by any standard in my book.

 

[renrich]

According to Eric Brown the British Admiralty issued specification 0.8/38 calling for a two seat naval fighter which resulted in the Fulmar. His description of a combat between a Fulmar against a Me110C indicates a three to one advantage for the ME110. He says that in Fulmar against HE 111H-6 that the HE111H-6 should be a comparatively easy kill for the Fulmar in spite of the little difference in performance of the two aircraft.( Fulmar more maneuverable and better firepower). In contrast he says that Wildcat against ME110 that ME would be unlikely to survive an encounter with Wildcat and that the HE111 would be no match for the agile Wildcat with it's considerable advantage in speed and heavy firepower.

 

[RCAFson]

I know that the Fulmar met the Me110 on several occasions but didn't suffer a 3-1 kill/loss rate. But look at the numbers, at all altitudes the me110 can outclimb and outrun the Wildcat, just as it can the Fulmar. The Wildcat can turn better than a Me110, but a Fulmar can turn even better yet. If a Me110 had a 3-1 edge over the Fulmar, then it seems likely that the F4f-4 would be at something like a 2.5 or 2-1 disadvantage by the same reckoning.

 

[renrich]

There you go again. All I am doing is quoting a world famous RN pilot who said, " The ME110C, with it's inferior performance, would find it difficult to escape the Wildcat's attentions. A beam or flat astern attack by the powerfully armed Wildcat was likely to meet with success, the German forced to rely on the rear gunner for survival."
"Verdict: The ME110C would be unlikely to survive an encounter with a Wildcat and only a lucky hit could stop the latter." I think we all know that Brown flew the Wildcat in real world combat and actually had at least two kills in a Wildcat. You believe that your numbers indicate that the Wildcat was a rather puny performer. Brown apparently believes differently. The Wildcat was credited with 1408 kills in the Pacific, 26 kills in the Med and 2 kills in the ETO. I don't have the number of kills the Fullmar was credited with. Do you?

 

[parsifal]

I dont have the full details, but according to one source for the fighter group of the Ark Royal, June to December 1940, the fulmar armed fighter group (about 15 aircraft) managed to shoot down about 70 aircraft whilst losing about 3-5 of their own number. Thats not a bad combat performance in anybody's bok, surely.
Edit: However, this appears to be spurious. In fact recorded victories of most sources for the Fulmar May 1940 to June 1942 is either 112 or 132 aircraft, depending on the source. top scoring individual was SG Orr, who shot down at least 12 enemy aircraft in the type

 

[Greyman]

From the start of the war to 6 November 1941 the score (according to the Admiralty) was:

2 x Bf 110s destroyed, 2 x Bf 110s damaged to 1 x Fulmar damaged
3 x He 111s destroyed, 1 x He 111 probable, 1 x He 111 damaged to 0 x Fulmars damaged

 

[Freebird]

According to Eric Brown the British Admiralty issued specification 0.8/38 calling for a two seat naval fighter which resulted in the Fulmar. His description of a combat between a Fulmar against a Me110C indicates a three to one advantage for the ME110.

Brown is simply incorrect in this instance. He wasn't in the Admiralty at the time, and is relying on after-the-fact accounts, some of which were wrong in their assumptions. If the Admiralty had indeed issued specifications for a "two seat naval fighter" it would have issued something like F.8/38 (fighter) or even M.8/38 (for multi-role aircraft.)
The fact of the matter is that it was indeed intended as a 2 seat Recon plane, with a secondary capability as a fleet defence fighter.
This is similar to the Dauntless, which also operated occasionally in the fleet defence role. (such as at Coral Sea.)
So the Fulmar could more reasonably be compared to the Dauntless as a fighter, but nobody would ever mistake the Dauntless's primary role.

You believe that your numbers indicate that the Wildcat was a rather puny performer. Brown apparently believes differently.

In my mind there's not much doubt that the Wildcat would be better as a fighter, it would be pretty tough to find a two seat multi-role aircraft that would be better than the best single seat fighters of it's era.

With regard to this comment, I was always led to believe the Fulmar was designed as a multi-role aircraft.

With regard to its capabilities, I think it was optimised to shoot down unprotected bombers. it was never intended to operate so close inshore as to need to take on high performance fighters.

Correct on both counts.

By combining two roles into one, the british were able to maximise the number of fighter airframes onboard a carrier with limited aircraft capacity. By being available as combat ready from June 1940, it was able to fulfil a niche that the the martlet could not until the following April (in any measurable degree).

Agreed.
There are also two major events in WWII that made a radical change to the Fulmar's operations.
First: The admiralty expected that the Fulmar would fulfil a vital role as "eyes ears" of the fleet, which is why it had a greater range and a second crewman as observer/radio operator.
The Allies huge windfall with "Enigma" allowed the Admiralty to keep tabs on Axis naval operations locations, and lessened the need to have recon aircraft hunt out Axis positions intentions, meaning that the recon role wasn't as critical as it might have been.

Second: The capitulation of France threw a huge wrench in British plans, as they didn't expect to be responsible for operations in the central Med, nor did they expect to be operating without French bases in Tunisia, Algeria Corsica.

Despite the Fulmar being used more as a fighter than as it's intended role as an FAA recon aircraft, it still did pretty well.

 

[RCAFson]

The Wildcat was credited with 1408 kills in the Pacific, 26 kills in the Med and 2 kills in the ETO. I don't have the number of kills the Fullmar was credited with. Do you?

7,860 Wildcats and variants were produced versus 600 Fulmars. The Fulmars were credited with 112 to 132 kills, as per Parsifal's post so the kill rate per Fulmar was higher than per Wildcat, even using the 112 kill figure. 600/7860 Wildcats x 1436 = 109.6 kill claims versus 112 for 600 Fulmars.

 

[parsifal]

to be fair, I think the wildcat was better in the fighter v fighter role. Against a zero the fulmar had virtually no chance, whereas, in an F4F, the fight was at least survivable though some of the more bombastic claims made about the Wildcat in this thread and others are a little hard to swallow

 

[renrich]

Here goes some more "bombastic" claims about the F4F which hopefully will go down without too much heartburn. The F4F3 when gun feed problems were worked out, when pilot armor was added and when protected tanks were added which did not cause fuel feed problems was a decent ship board fighter and on balance, the best in the world, in the Allied quiver in 1942 early 1943. Compared to the A6M, the F4F was short ranged, did not climb as well, not as maneuverable except at higher speeds but it was more heavily armed and more rugged. The F4F was relatively hard to shoot down with only rifle caliber ammunition. Butch O Hare claimed six Betties in one engagement at least in part because of the F4F3's large ammo capacity, heavy armament and good gunnery skills. That total has now been reduced to four but shooting down four twin engined bombers and damaging several more in one fight is good work. Especially with a bomber as fast and heavily armed as the Betty.

At least in part because of British insistence on six guns, the F4F4 was substantially more heavy than the F4F3 and the ammo supply was reduced so the pilots of the F4F4 did not like it as well as the F4F3. The F4F4 did have folding wings which allowed the carriers to increase fighter stowage. Joe Foss, a Marine aviator, had 26 kills in an F4F4 and although it's performance on paper was inferior to the A6M, the Navy and Marine pilots at worst achieved parity with it. Was the Wildcat a world beater? Absolutely not! Was it more effective overall as a ship board fighter than the Fullmar, Sea Gladiator, Sea Hurricane, or Seafire. Probably.

The F6F came along and largely replaced the Wildcat although Wildcats were still serving all the way through the end of the war, especially on "Jeep" carriers. The F6F was a big improvement although it did not have as big a performance edge over the A6M as hoped for by some Navy and Marine pilots.

The Wildcat was what the USN had when war broke out and it had to suffice until better planes came along. It held the line at Coral Sea, Midway and Guadalcanal and did good service with the RN. In a way, the Wildcat, P40 and Hurricane kind of had similar roles. They were the best the US and British had in numbers enough to make a difference in the early going and without them it would have been more of a struggle.

 

[Shortround6]

The Wildcat was what the USN had when war broke out and it had to suffice until better planes came along. It held the line at Coral Sea, Midway and Guadalcanal and did good service with the RN. In a way, the Wildcat, P40 and Hurricane kind of had similar roles. They were the best the US and British had in numbers enough to make a difference in the early going and without them it would have been more of a struggle.

I agree with this. Try to Imagine an alternative or two. One, that the US and Britain made more ''existing" fighters like P-35s, P-36s, Buffaloes and Gladiators to put up against historical foes. Or production waits for better types to make it through testing and the US and Britain try to fight in 1939-42 with 1/2 -1/3 the number of squadrons they did have. Either scenario shows the importance of these fighters.