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

[renrich]

When the War began in the Pacific the US carriers usually embarked four squadrons, one VF, Wildcats, one VT, TBDs and two VBs, SBDs, one designated a scout squadron and the other bombing. After Coral Sea, the USN realised that the one VF squadron was not sufficient to handle CAP and escort duties and they needed more VFs. During Coral Sea they even tried using SBDs as anti VT CAP.The F4F4 helped at Midway because it's folding wings allowed the ships to embark more fighters. As the war progressed, more and more fighters had to be embarked for escort and to protect the fleet. However, the space on carriers was limited so the more fighters carried, the fewer strike aircraft could be carried. A carrier with few strike aircraft was limited in it's usefulness. The problem was partially solved by using the fighters in a dual role, as fighters and fighter bombers. One good thing about those tactics was that the fighter bombers need little if any escort for after delivering their bombs they reverted to the fighter role. It was determined that the Corsair could be used as a dive bomber and in fact could actually dive steeper than the SBD and was almost as accurate as a dive bomber. By the time of the Iwo Jima invasion, for instance, the USS Bunker Hill, embarked 71 Corsairs. The Corsair was very capable in the anti kamikaze role and equally potent as a fighter bomber. Space was still limited on carriers and single role aircraft caused a diminuation of the carrier's capabilities. In addition, every operational accident diminished that capability and the more different types of AC carried, the more complicated maintenance and repair became.

Carrying a point defense fighter, even if it was equal or better at that job than other types(which it was not) made no sense and was a luxury the fast carriers could not afford.

 

[parsifal]

id agree that the limiting factor for the Seafire was always its limited multirole capability. However by 1945 it is actually incorrect to refer to the Seafire as a Point Defence Fighter. by various and colourful means its range had been extended to 195 miles, which was still less than either the Corsair operational radius of about 220 miles or the Hellcats 250 miles. There was little difference in the strike range of either the US or the british types though if you want to quote theoretical ferry ranges, it gets a bit silly.

The RNs answer to the multi-role aircraft was the firefly, and in this respect, not by design, but more by accident, the firefly was in my opinion the unsung hero of the war. Though its operations were miniscule compared to thoose being undertaken by the USN, they are still worth having a look at. In the Palembang raids (the were more than one) the single squadron managed to shoot down 6 enemy aircraft, and reduce the output of the palembang refineries by more than 80%. They wer of course assisted by the RN Corsairs, Hellcats and Avengers, and Seafirs emabarked on the BPF, but by all accounts that I have, the accuracy and weight of ordinance of the fireflies was decisive in those raids.

British carriers, if anything felt even more keenly the limited CAG issues that you are referring to, and this explains why in the early part of the war, thy opted for multi-role aircraft. Youve alluded to a similar problem for the USN by their use of the SBD as fighters, bombers and scout aircraft. IN the RNs case they combined the role of Fighterm, with recce plane in the Fulmar. This multi functionality was extended to include divebomber, nightfighter and ASW aircraft for the firefly. Their Swordfish aircraft combined the roles of torpedo bomber, divebomber, spotter and recce (hence the designation TSR). Illustrious class carriers went to sea designed to carry just 36 aircraft, this had been increased to 53 by great ingenuity and compromise by 1945. they often went to sea with less than that 36 in thearly part of the war (frequently about 33 a/c embarked) . So for the RN ther was never any choice about having specialised aircraft. A given aircraft had to be able to undertake more than one role. Seafires were less multi-skilled than Corsairs, but as a fighter they were shown to be superior in 1945, at least on the BPF wheree the lions share of kills against kamikazes were achieved by the low level Seafire CAP. Compared to Firefly, the Seafire was just too restrictive.

After the war the RN retained the Seafire for quite some time, because it was gradually adapted to undertake some multi role functions. Why, I dont know, since the Fury was afar better fighter and an FB, with none of the deck landing trickiness of the Seafire

 

[renrich]

"As a fighter they were shown to be superior in 1945" ? In what way? Are you saying that the Seafire was superior in a given campaign?

Quotes from Fighter Conference Seafire- "Just fair, it is surpassed by many others." "An outstanding plane at the time it was designed. Still a good fighter but naturally not equal to latest types" "Believe low Vmax performance and poor rate of climb would not be compensated for in the good maneuveribility of this ship." "Japs would knock it hard I believe." It is interesting that the comments on the Seafire are similar to the comments on the Zeke 52. Good maneuveribility but poor performance overall.

I have no idea why the RN would keep the Seafire in service when the Sea Fury was available except economics.

 

[Shortround6]

Which Seafire is being evaluated at the conference? a Seafire XV might have given a different impression.

Seafire 47 vs a Sea Fury may be an interesting comparison also, while the Fury has higher performance does the contra-rotating prop of the Seafire make take-off and landing easier?

 

[renrich]

There were two Seafires, L2C and L3C. The Firefly was a Mk4.
In browsing through the Williams site I find some interesting info on the F4U1D and C. Their performance is the same and in fighter configuration they have a combat radius of 555 miles. It goes into detail about the conditions defining the combat radius. That CR was with two 150 gallon external tanks for a total of 537 gallons of fuel. The conditions seem to be for carrier operations but it was eyeopening. I suspect that many of us just do not understand that they just did not jump in the plane and go. However, a CR of 555 miles is pretty hefty and would be of great use in the escort or CAP role.

 

[RCAFson]

There were two Seafires, L2C and L3C. The Firefly was a Mk4.

The Firefly MkIV didn't fly except as a single prototype, until the spring of 1944, with the 2nd prototype appearing in May 1945.

 

[renrich]

The Fighter Conference I am quoting from took place in October, 1944.Commander D R F Cambell, DSC, RN said " The Firefly Mark 4 is an airplane built to a specification I think especially for the Royal Navy-a two seater fighter with no rear defense." "It's performance is nothing to write home about." "The engine is a Mark II, Rolls Royce Griffon, 1725 HP 54. Performance is even more contemptible than I thought at 300 mph top speed and I think that is about all on that." To me, he did seem real fond of the airplane.

 

[RCAFson]

The Fighter Conference I am quoting from took place in October, 1944.Commander D R F Cambell, DSC, RN said " The Firefly Mark 4 is an airplane built to a specification I think especially for the Royal Navy-a two seater fighter with no rear defense." "It's performance is nothing to write home about." "The engine is a Mark II, Rolls Royce Griffon, 1725 HP 54. Performance is even more contemptible than I thought at 300 mph top speed and I think that is about all on that." To me, he did seem real fond of the airplane.

The Firefly Mk IV, including the prototype used a Griffon 70 series engine, typically the Griffon 74 with 2250 hp, resulting in a max speed of 386 mph. AFAIK, only the Mk1 used a Griffon II. The Mk III using a Griffon 71 resulted in a max speed of 347 mph in RAE testing.

 

[Trilisser]

Which Seafire is being evaluated at the conference? a Seafire XV might have given a different impression.

Seafire 47 vs a Sea Fury may be an interesting comparison also, while the Fury has higher performance does the contra-rotating prop of the Seafire make take-off and landing easier?

Yes, the contra-prop in the Seafire 47 made a significant improvement in handling. Not only did TO and landing improve a great deal, gunnery characteristiocs were also greatly improved as there were no more directional trim changes with varying speed and power. In Alfred Price's The Spitfire Story one can find a report of a Spit 21 fitted with a CR prop and the report is very favourable.

 

[renrich]

Oh well, I guess Commander Cambell was in error. Perhaps he had too many gins before making those statements at the Fighter Conference.

 

[parsifal]

"As a fighter they were shown to be superior in 1945" ? In what way? Are you saying that the Seafire was superior in a given campaign?

Quotes from Fighter Conference Seafire- "Just fair, it is surpassed by many others." "An outstanding plane at the time it was designed. Still a good fighter but naturally not equal to latest types" "Believe low Vmax performance and poor rate of climb would not be compensated for in the good maneuveribility of this ship." "Japs would knock it hard I believe." It is interesting that the comments on the Seafire are similar to the comments on the Zeke 52. Good maneuveribility but poor performance overall.

I have no idea why the RN would keep the Seafire in service when the Sea Fury was available except economics.

I cant make much judgement on the comments contained in the "Fighter Conference" you are referring to, but it is obvious that some of those comments are not well informed. The Seafire was optimised for low level performance. at sea level it had a climb rate of 4650 ft per min, and a time to 10000 ft of about 3.5 mins. I would be very doubtful that any aircraft could match that, but perhaps not. Its anything but poor or average however. Same can be said about its speed below 5000 ft.

I make the claim that it proved superior in the CAP role for the BPF in 1945, compared to the operations of the Hellcats and Corsairs also attached to that force, on the basis of Neil Nijboers Book "Duel - Seafire vs Zero; Operations of the Pacific Fleet April to August 1945" I cannot quote verbatim because the book is at home and Im not, but essentially it gives a blow by blow account of the operations of the entire TF throughout that period, and clearly demonstrates the superior results achieved by Nos 24 and 38 Wings (who operated the Seafires) compared to the other Groups (who operated the other types embarked). Some of this may be due to the fact that these two wings were the most experienced fighter wings in the RN at the time, some of it may also be due to the fact that the two wings were tasked specifically as the fleet defence wings. But then again, this wasnt just an accident....they were selected for this purpose because of the experience of the pilots, their proven ability to operate the type safely, and because the seafire was seen as the best type to undertake this important task. It also needs to be conceded that whereas the Hellcats/Corsairs were given the job of distant cover, above 10000 ft, the Seafire Wings were kept within 20 miles of the TG, and given the task of providing cover below 10000 ft. Since the overwhelming majority of contacts were below 5000 ft, and they broke through the outer screen repeatedly, but generally could not penetrate the inner screen, it is valid to claim that the Seafires were superior at this particular task for the RN than either of the other two fighter types. Even when the the US types wer pulled back to provide immediate topcover directly over the fleet, such as happened in late July, they still were found to be not as effective as the specialist Seafire wings at this particular task. By not as effective I mean they generally took longer to engage, and longer to incapacitate (either shoot or force to abort, or otherwise frive off) to attacking aircraft. they simply were not as efficient at stopping the threat as the Seafire. This was made very obvious in the various after action reports that deal with this issue, some of which are quoted in nijboers book

To my mind the Seafire was THE CAP fighter par excellance, but it simply was not multi-skilled enough to be considered a complete success for th RN.

 

[renrich]

I am trying to become more educated about Seafire and went to Wiki(understanding that Wiki is not always accurate.) I now know that BPF stands for British Pacific Fleet. A relief. According to Wiki, the L3 with folding wings was the most advanced Seafire to serve in WW2 in the Pacific. Is that correct? The L2 and L3 were both at the Fighter Conference. That Conference was oriented toward the Pacific Campaign. There were 13 British Reps at the Conference. The Seafires were flown by two Army pilots and nine contractor pilots and they were responsible for the remarks. Usually, the Navy pilots did not fly the Navy planes, the Army did not the Army planes and the British did not the British planes. I guess because they already knew about the planes not flown. Obviously this is not exceptionally scientific.

However there were a series of of characteristics which were voted on which included all pilots at the Conference. For each characteristic the percentage of voters voting is given and then the airplane's percentage of votes received. Following are some of the results for the Seafire:

Most comfortable cockpit with 92% voting-Seafire got 2%-P47 won.
Best for overload takeoff from a small area, 90% voting, 5% for Seafire, Hellcat won.
Best ailerons at 100 mph in landing, 88% voyting, Seafire-12%, Hellcat won.
Best elevator, 73% voting, Seafire 6%, F4U1 won.
Best characteristics at 5 MPH above stall, 87% voting, Seafire-7%, Hellcat won
Best all around fighter above and below 25000 feet-Seafire got no votes.

There were a lot of characteristics voted on, most of which the Seafire and Firefly did not receive any votes for. I just hit the highlights with my poor typing skills and the print is so small on that info(it is a copy) I can barely read it.

 

[RCAFson]

The Seafire III and Firefly I were the last versions to see combat, AFAIK, but the Seafire XV was in service before the end of the war. However, we have to remember that the Hellcat did not score its first kill until August 31, 1943, and the Seafire was operational well before then, but once the Hellcat and F4U show up in numbers the pressure is off the RN to rapidly improve the Seafire.

Regarding the comments and votes about the Seafire, you have to remember that voting for the "best" in each category is not the same as ranking them on a common scale. If every pilot thought that the Hellcat was 1% better in a category then the Seafire, it would get all the votes, even though they could have actually considered them nearly identical.

I found a copy of Guyton and he has this to say about the Seafire:

Of most interest to me in these evaluations was the light and agile British Seafire. Designed as a defensive interceptor, compared to our beefy multipurpose fighters it was like a toy, light and compact, with little fuel and short range. Roaming the sky for hours wasn't its purpose. Thinking of the tremendous role the Spitfire had played in the critical Battle of Britain, I put the little fighter through every acrobatic manoeuvre I knew, and some I didn't. I quickly understood why it was successful against the tough and capable German fighter (ME-109 and in destroying scores of Nazi bombers. I fit in the small cockpit like a packed sardine in a can (Guyton was quite tall) , but this was of small concern. It was an airplane you put on and wore, to get up fast, climb, intercept, kill, return. Then refuel and rearm and repeat.
After my second flight I understood why it fulfilled its mission so admirably. Its litheness, the easy effort by which any acrobatic manoeuvre could be deftly performed, was startling. It would remind me of the exemplary stunt performance of the Japanese Zero, which I was to fly within a year.)
Each of the competitive fighters had its desirable features and performance. along with those undesirable. Trade-offs were the name of the game. You couldn't have it all. And, of course, each pilot tended to extoll the virtues of his own fighter, and swear by it. Voila! Each of us had the best airplane, didn't we?

Whistling Death, p160-161.

 

[renrich]

Your quotes from Guyton's book are exactly why I said earlier that the remarks at the Fighter Conference about the Seafire and Zeke 52 were similar. Two small, light and good maneuvering fighters but somewhat outdated. Every American pilot I ever heard of that flew the Spitfire loved it. The AAF pilots who were flying Spits and were switched to the P47 almost revolted, until they got used to the Jug.

A quote from "Corsair" by Tillman, page 96, This is from Bob Dose a USN squadron commander. "During this period Bob Dose had a chance to fly a Spitfire( not a Seafire) courtesy of an Australian squadron leader. He found the British fighter a fun airplane; it turned inside the F4U at low speeds and while the Spit could make two vertical rolls the Corsair could only manage one. But for speed, range, endurance and versatility there was no beating the Vought."

As far as the ratings on characteristics of the fighters at the Fighter Conference is concerned, essentially what they meant was that if 90% voted and for example that might be 100 voters; if 35 % voted for the F6F, 25 % voted for the F4U and 10% voted for the P51D and so forth and 5% voted for the Seafire, that meant five people thought the Seafire was the best in that particular category. Those votes were very subjective but all of the voters were experienced pilots and some were Brits. Every airplane that got a vote was included in the list and ranked and there were often as many as a dozen AC that got votes.
Here is one of the categories
Best ailerons at 100 mph landing condition, 88% voted
F6F 36%
F4U1 18%
Seafire 12%
P47 6%
FM 5%
P51 5%
F8F 5%
Zeke 4%
P38 3%
F2G 2%
F7F 2%
P61 2%
In about half the categories the Seafire got no votes and the Firefly received only a little love, getting votes in only two categories, best characteristics 5 mph above stall and best instrument and night flying qualities with 3% in both categories.

 

[RCAFson]

I found this performance data for the Martlet IV which is basically the F4F-4B:

so we can get a direct comparison of the Fulmar II and F4F-4B.

This report:
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4f/f4f-4-02135.pdf
states that a comparison of the F4F-4 and the -4B found "...the F4F-4B being slightly superior at low altitudes and the F4F-4 being slightly superior at 15,000 ft and above."


.

 

[parsifal]

great find RCAF

 

[Glider]

I don't have access to my copy of the fighter conference but from memory they did make an observation that the Spitfire was well used and tired.

Certainly could be wrong on this memory but its worth tking into account

 

[RCAFson]

great find RCAF

Thanks. Apparently the Martlet II was a bit faster in low blower, but even slower in high blower.