How did the Martlets rate against the European aircraft?

[Vincenzo]

For the FAA page the 802nd had Martlet I and III this squadron never get II. AFAIK had 4 operational Martlet idk if had desembarked the others Martlet (the 802nd was assigned to hms audacity with 8 planes)

 

[oldcrowcv63]

Well, see:
The Grumman Wildcat in FAA Service by Bruce Archer
and the entry for the Martlet III. Apparently the FAA received at least 40 Martlets with 4 x wing guns, a two stage, two speed engine, and fixed wings. However, even the F4F-3, after armour and SS tanks are added, weighed 7556lbs and still had only 1200hp. I'm not sure if any of the FAA F4F-3s saw combat, but these, prior to adding armour and SS tanks and the 6800lb Martlet I would have been quite spritely.

I don't know of any source that states the weight of an armoured F4F-3 as over about 7,450 lbs. I wonder Archer's source for the higher number?

 

[nuuumannn]

the 802nd was assigned to hms audacity with 8 planes

...but, as I said earlier Vincenzo, on Audacity's last cruise, departing the UK in mid December escorting a convoy of 32 vessels, there were only four Martlets aboard. I stand corrected on one point, only three Martlets went down with Audacity though; Sub Lt Fletcher was shot down and crashed in the sea whilst attacking U 131.

Several sources, including books I have and Mr Eric Brown himself have claimed that Martlet IIs equipped 802 Sqn aboard Audacity. I'm not so certain though and no one is able to give a definite answer from a reliable source.

 

[oldcrowcv63]

RCAFson, I believe I have found some on line sources for a gross weight of ~7550 lbs. Not sure yet of their provenance. I believe Lundstrom and Linn quote something like ~7,450 lbs for the fully armored bird but being away from my sources in North Jersey, research is difficult. Yet another F4F mystery?

 

[RCAFson]

RCAFson, I believe I have found some on line sources for a gross weight of ~7550 lbs. Not sure yet of their provenance. I believe Lundstrom and Linn quote something like ~7,450 lbs for the fully armored bird but being away from my sources in North Jersey, research is difficult. Yet another F4F mystery?

The FAA data on the F4F-3A:
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4f/wildcat-III-ads.jpg
gives a weight of 7200lbs, but this is with 240rpg instead of 430 and this aircraft doesn't have SS tanks. Note that the fuel capacity is 133IG or 160USG, when the SS tanks reduced it to 120IG or 144USG. So add in the weight for SS tanks, the dual stage engine and another 840 rounds of .5in ammo and the weight starts climbing.

The Standard Aircraft Characteristics data from Aug 1942 states 7556lb for the F4F-3 with full fuel and ammo, with armour and SS tanks.

 

[oldcrowcv63]

The FAA data on the F4F-3A:
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4f/wildcat-III-ads.jpg
gives a weight of 7200lbs, but this is with 240rpg instead of 430 and this aircraft doesn't have SS tanks. Note that the fuel capacity is 133IG or 160USG, when the SS tanks reduced it to 120IG or 144USG. So add in the weight for SS tanks, the dual stage engine and another 840 rounds of .5in ammo and the weight starts climbing.

The Standard Aircraft Characteristics data from Aug 1942 states 7556lb for the F4F-3 with full fuel and ammo, with armour and SS tanks.

My understanding from Lundstrom (only source I can access on a borrowed internet connect) is that the ~7,200 lb F4F-3A and F4F-3 at ~7450 lbs. includes armor and SS tanks. First team page 140. Same general section claims the armored and SS Tank equipped Martlet II weighed in at 7,512 lb. Guess I won't know details about the USN marks until I get home and can check my copy of AHT. AFAIK, the F4F-3A carried the same 430 rpg ammo load and had just the 4 x 0,50 guns. I don't believe the 240 rpg came into existence until there were 6 guns to feed. Likewise with the fuel capacity which you correctly point out is for an unprotected tank. Something just doesn't add up here. It seems to me you've uncovered yet another inconsistency in the 'official' records. Not that Lundstrom's history is 'official.' Given a choice I'd expect your sheet to be more accurate except that it appears to conflict with a lot of historical accounts and some fairly careful historians. Right now, I am not sure what to think.

 

[Glider]

I don't know if its any help but the Martlet IV when tested in the UK was weighted at 7,740 lb

 

[merlin]

The FAA had aircraft ordered for France and later for Greece passed on to them. The successful test flight of the aircraft was in Feb '39, and it wasn't until Aug that the USN placed an order, and allowed it to be made available for export.
Now seems to me that it's plausable for the British Purchasing Commission to get in before the French, therefore aircraft built would have equipment that would match Britain's. This would save time getting the aircraft into service without having the bother in time etc to convert the French spec. aircraft over.
The question that follows from that, is how useful would a FAA spec (and I don't mean with two seats) Martlet be in the BoB?

 

[Shortround6]

The question that follows from that, is how useful would a FAA spec (and I don't mean with two seats) Martlet be in the BoB?

The answer to that question is WHAT EXACTLY the FAA spec Martlet would be?

It took until Oct 31st of 1940 for the first 81 Martlets do be delivered to the FAA, and that does not mean delivered to England.

Assuming you could speed things up and get 80-100 Martlets delivered to England by July 31 1940, which version or spec would they be?

The US was NOT releasing the 2 stage supercharged engine for export at this time regardless of what the foreign purchasers wanted. It wasn't quite ready for service use in any case. That leaves the single stage R-1830 and R-1820 engines with their poorer altitude performance. A FAA Martlet would have self-sealing tanks of some sort and some sort of pilot protection.
Gun armament is a big question. Four guns or six? At some point in 1940 the M2 Brownings rate of fire changed from 500-600rpm to 750-850 rpm. DO the British accept four of slow firing guns or spec the six gun installation. The decision has to made months before first delivery. Wing folding is optional and of little consequence to the BoB except to lower performance.

Without the two stage supercharger performance is about 313-320mph at 14-14,500ft and Service ceilings are about 31,000ft. Performance is somewhat similar to a MK I Hurricane but not quite as good over 15,000ft. Hurricanes ability to use 12lb boost under 12,000ft may help there.

 

[Glider]

If only to replace the Defiant and Blenhiem fighters, the Martlet would be welcomed with open arms. There seems to be a general agreement that it was a rough equivalent to the Hurricane, which means that it would be more than capable of taking care of itself in the front line.

As to the version, if we are going for the July 1940 period then it would have to be as built for the US forces as time would not allow for any tinkering around. That would presumably mean 4 guns and if they are the slower ones, then so be it. The bit that would worry me more would be the lack of SS fuel tanks, which I would rate a higher priority than the faster firing guns. Armour can easily be installed in the field so that isn't so much of an issue.

If the RAF had to go without the SS tanks then to a degree the radial engine would possibly reduce the losses.

Again a personal view but I would rather replace the Blenhiem with anything P36's or even at a push, Gladiators.

 

[Shortround6]

If only to replace the Defiant and Blenhiem fighters, the Martlet would be welcomed with open arms. There seems to be a general agreement that it was a rough equivalent to the Hurricane, which means that it would be more than capable of taking care of itself in the front line.

"..general agreement that it was a rough equivalent to the Hurricane.."

While it was a rough equivalent it was lacking in altitude performance. It's service ceiling (altitude at which the plane can climb 100ft.min) was about 3,000ft lower than the Hurricane which means the operational ceiling (altitude as which a formation of planes can maneuver and keep formation and generally figured to be the altitude at which the planes could climb 500ft/min) was also about 3,000ft lower and the combat ceiling (altitude at which the planes could reasonable fight) was several thousand feet below that. A Hurricane, while slower than a 109, was within 100fpm climb of the 109 at both 25,000 and 30,000ft. The Martlet would a touch slower in level flight than the Hurricane but it would have a 3-4,000 ft height disadvantage.

It would be better than the Defiant or Blenheim but then they didn't operate that much during the day in the highly contested areas anyway after the first few weeks.
I bring up the guns because a 4 gun Martlet in 1940 might have about 70% of the fire power of a 4 gun Wildcat in 1942 making comparisons of combat operations difficult.

 

[VBF-13]

a 4 gun Martlet in 1940 might have about 70% of the fire power of a 4 gun Wildcat in 1942

Why would that be?

 

[Vincenzo]

read SR6 129th topic in this thread

 

[VBF-13]

I see.

 

[merlin]

Spec.? Well the aircraft would not have French equipement as per the French order, so time from arrival to Squadron use would be much quicker.

From Wiki:

Royal Navy Martlets
Martlet Mk I

At the end of 1939, Grumman received a French order for 81 aircraft of model G-36A, to equip their new Joffre-class aircraft carrier: Joffre and Painlevé. The main difference with the basic model G-36 was due to the unavailability for export of the two-stage supercharged engine of F4F-3. The G-36A was powered by the nine-cylinder, single-row R-1820-G205A radial engine, of 1,200 hp (890 kW) and with a single-stage two-speed supercharger.

A G-36A at Grumman, 1940
The G-36A had also French instrumentation, radio, and gunsight. The throttle was modified to conform to French pre-war practice: the throttle lever was moved towards the pilot, (i.e., backward), to increase engine power. The armament which was to be fitted in France was six 7.5 mm (.296 in) Darne machine guns (two in the fuselage and four in the wings). The first G-36A was flown on 11 May 1940.

After the defeat of France, all contracts were taken over by Britain. The throttle was modified again, four 0.50 in (12.7 mm) guns were installed in the wings, and most traces of the original ownership removed. The Martlets were modified for British use by Blackburn, which continued to do this for all later marks. British gunsights, catapult spools, and other items were installed.[40] After initial attempts to fit British radio sets, it was decided to use the much superior American equipment.
The first ones entered service in August 1940, with 804 Naval Air Squadron, then stationed at Hatson in the Orkney Islands. The Martlet Mk I did not have a wing folding mechanism, and was therefore only used from land bases.

In 1940, Belgium also placed an order for at least 10 Martlet Mk 1s. These were to be modified with the removal of the tailhook, however, after the surrender of Belgium, none were delivered and by May 10, 1940, the aircraft order was transferred to the Royal Navy.

 

[buffnut453]

DO the British accept four of slow firing guns or spec the six gun installation.

Given that it took until the latter end of 1942 to resolve gun issues in the Wildcat, P-40 and P-51, one wonders whether the 50 cal was a truly viable (ie combat reliable) weapon in 1940? Doesn't matter whether you have 4 or 6 guns if you can't count on them in combat.

 

[Glider]

"..general agreement that it was a rough equivalent to the Hurricane.."

While it was a rough equivalent it was lacking in altitude performance. It's service ceiling (altitude at which the plane can climb 100ft.min) was about 3,000ft lower than the Hurricane which means the operational ceiling (altitude as which a formation of planes can maneuver and keep formation and generally figured to be the altitude at which the planes could climb 500ft/min) was also about 3,000ft lower and the combat ceiling (altitude at which the planes could reasonable fight) was several thousand feet below that. A Hurricane, while slower than a 109, was within 100fpm climb of the 109 at both 25,000 and 30,000ft. The Martlet would a touch slower in level flight than the Hurricane but it would have a 3-4,000 ft height disadvantage.

It would be better than the Defiant or Blenheim but then they didn't operate that much during the day in the highly contested areas anyway after the first few weeks.
I bring up the guns because a 4 gun Martlet in 1940 might have about 70% of the fire power of a 4 gun Wildcat in 1942 making comparisons of combat operations difficult.

Your points are of course correct but few combats took place as 25-30,000 ft so that wouldn't be a huge problem. Re the Defiant they did operate during the day but were swiftly rmoved due to losses, I am pretty sure the Martlet would do a lot better than that, and Blenhiems tended to stay out of the fight due to there vulnerability again I am sure that the Martlet would do better. Few Blenhiem fighters were used in night fighting (happy to be corrected on that) partly because of the lack of suitably trained pilots.
The RAF had enough problems training fighter pilots for day fighters, training a load more for night fighting was asking too much.

 

[VBF-13]

The RAF had enough problems training fighter pilots for day fighters, training a load more for night fighting was asking too much.

We had Evelyn Trainers in the U.S. for night vision training, and those were really no big deal to complete. Our Navy and Marine Corps pilots were also instrument rated when they got their wings. Our training program in 1943 was 18 months. I'm thinking yours must have been a lot shorter.

 

[nuuumannn]

training a load more for night fighting was asking too much.

There wasn't seperate 'night fighter training' as such, there was instrument flying and procedural training, but, depending on aircraft type meant that some were more suitable than others. It was discovered early on that the Spit wasn't as suitable as a night fighter compared to the Hurricane or Blenheim or Defiant. The Blenheim and Defiant had an added extra set of eyes, which increased the probability of seeing their prey; the Blenheim's biggest fault was that it was too slow. Extra Martlets would have helped, but why instead of Blenheims and Defiants? The issue was not capability, but shortage of pilots and aircraft.

(As for the Defiant being withdrawn from Day fighter duties, this is because of Fighter Command's misallocation of resources and a knee jerk reaction to circumstance; by comparison to other types, Defiant losses were actually very low; it's just there was only ever two squadrons equipped with them and only one of those at any time was ever in combat. The highest number of Defiants lost in one day was six. There was not one instance where there was more than 10 to 12 Defiants in the air at once throughout the entire BoB, this at a time when the Germans were regularly fielding up to sixty Bf 109s in escort of bomber formations. Back to the Martlet...)

 

[VBF-13]

There wasn't seperate 'night fighter training' as such, there was instrument flying and procedural training, but, depending on aircraft type meant that some were more suitable than others.

This is what the Navy and Marine Corps pilots had to complete for their night vision training. It's basically a big box, a flight-simulator. I got this card from my friend. It's his Dad's card, and that's why it's redacted. You get the idea, though. Again, this is no big fuss, and one would think the British had trainers comparable to these, as well.