March until October of 1940: fighters' ranking

[tomo pauk]

The Groundhog lost 40-50 gallons by the time they figured out decent self sealing tanks that would fit in the same space.

Unfortunately, the Groudhog was with 12 small tanks by the time of the C version. Each small tank now becoming a self-sealing tank (with the D version) cut the amount of fuel to a pitiful level for an Ameican fighter.

 

[Mike Williams]

I suspect that if the Germans, (or British) actually had 1940 era Zeros available in time for the BoB, both sides would have rejected them for service, until they could be fitted with standard equipment. Like pilot protection, bullet proof windscreen, self sealing tanks, emergency dingy, radios...etc

For example, pilot armour was a requirement for Spitfire units in order to participate in the fighting over Dunkirk in May 1940.

152 Squadron Spitfires fitted with armour plating 27 May 1940

609 Squadron Spitfires fitted with pilot armour 30 May 1940

 

[Shortround6]

Unfortunately, the Groudhog was with 12 small tanks by the time of the C version. Each small tank now becoming a self-sealing tank (with the D version) cut the amount of fuel to a pitiful level for an Ameican fighter.

A number of American planes had been designed with integral tanks at the end of of 1930s. The savings in weight became a major problem when the change to self sealing was adopted.
For example the F4U was designed with integral wing tanks and they were never adapted to self sealing.
The B-24 was originally designed for integral tanks. One of the reasons (but not the only one) that the first British ones were used for overwater patrol. There were a more planes.

There were also other protection systems for fuel tanks besides self sealing.
Like CO-2 or cooled exhaust gases.
Or heavier skins over the tanks or bulkheads.
" protection" covered quite a wide range.

 

[Mike Williams]

British were buying (with cash) during the BoB aircraft without the pilot protection and self sealing tanks: Mohawks, P-40s, Buffaloes, early Martlets, Model 322s from Lockheed... There was no pilot protection or s-s tanks on Gladiators, either.

Please see attached passage from Fox's Knights of the Skies regarding Gladiator armour.

 

[PAT303]

This obsession with self-sealing tanks and armor is interesting.

Why do you say that?, the fitting of protection was a direct result of combat experience. Look at this photo, three hits from cannon shells yet the pilot landed safely with only a piece of shrapnel in his heel that went under his seat armor, if that was a Zero the pilot wouldn't survive. I'm supprised at your post, why protection, to protect your most valuable asset which is your pilots, planes can be replaced, pilots can't.

 

[GrauGeist]

Why do you say that?, the fitting of protection was a direct result of combat experience. Look at this photo, three hits from cannon shells yet the pilot landed safely with only a piece of shrapnel in his heel that went under his seat armor, if that was a Zero the pilot wouldn't survive. I'm supprised at your post, why protection, to protect your most valuable asset which is your pilots, planes can be replaced, pilots can't.
View attachment 656476

Why would you be surprised at my post?

You aparently are not aware that pilot protection was an emerging feature by the late 30's, early 40's.

Same too, with self sealing fuel cells.

When the A6M was designed, very few aircraft in the world were equipped with them.

As I mentioned a few posts back, the Hurricane still had an unprotected fuel tank ahead of the pilot during the battle of britain.
It wasn't until late spring of 1940, that the Hurricane was equipped with pilot protection.
The Bf109E had a form of pilot protection, but inadequate fuel tank protection during the battle of Britain.

Many, and I mean many, fighters in 1940 did not have these features for several reasons, first off, was weight.
Next, fuel cell protection was an emerging technology and the Japanese in many cases, used a CO2 suppression system to arrest any fire caused by the tank being hit.

Maybe then, the F4U wasn't used in Europe because it didn't have self sealing cells in the wings?

 

[Greg Boeser]

Even when armor was designed for an aircraft, it wasn't always installed. Weight messes with fuel economy. Prior to the start of hostilities USN aircraft did not have armor installed. Aircraft aboard USS Enterprise were fitted with improvised armor made of boiler plate prior to the Marshall Islands raid, 1 Feb, 1942. In Burma, several RAF fighter pilots were lost because even two weeks into the fighting, they hadn't installed the pilot armor in their B-339Es.

 

[pbehn]

Why do you say that?, the fitting of protection was a direct result of combat experience. Look at this photo, three hits from cannon shells yet the pilot landed safely with only a piece of shrapnel in his heel that went under his seat armor, if that was a Zero the pilot wouldn't survive. I'm supprised at your post, why protection, to protect your most valuable asset which is your pilots, planes can be replaced, pilots can't.
View attachment 656476

I think it was only around the late 1930s that it started to dawn on those upstairs that the pilot was the most valuable asset, it took much longer to train a pilot than WW1, both the Germans and British were producing around 250 fighters a month at the time of Dunkerque, they couldnt dream of training top pilots at that rate, and fighter production increased for almost all parties.

 

[Mike Williams]

It wasn't until late spring of 1940, that the Hurricane was equipped with pilot protection.

Not exactly,

17 Squadron - 5 October 1939 "bullet-proof section in the windscreen".

1 Squadron - 12 March 1940 "All aircraft in squadron have been fitted with rear armour"

 

[slaterat]

It wasn't until late spring of 1940, that the Hurricane was equipped with pilot protection

You can check out this post for confirmation, but I will sum it up for you.

Introduction of pilot armor on the Hurricane and Spitfire

I posted some of this before and it seems to be a recurring question, so I thought I would provide some relevant documentation in an easy to find thread.

ww2aircraft.net

All Spitfires and Hurricanes that saw combat with the RAF had front armour protection for the pilot and engine.
Hurricanes were rolling off the production line with rear armour in early 1940. Good rule of thumb, if a Hurricane has a three bladed prop, it has rear armour.
Spitfire Is had rear armour fitted in the field but it was a slow process, most had only the head plate installed.
Spitfire IIs had rear armour fitted at the factory.

 

[slaterat]

Regarding self sealing tanks, it was an Air ministry decision not to make the reserve tank on the Hurricane I self sealing. After the rather horrid results of this during the BoB, the decision was reversed and the fire proof bulkhead was extended to encompass the reserve tank and the tank was made self sealing.
Hurricane IIs had all three tanks self sealing from the start as well as additional armour front and rear, all by Sept 1940. That's about, what three years ahead of the Zero?

 

[pinsog]

Test between Zero and Spitfire Mark V tropical

The son of the pilot of the Spitfire is on this forum and stated his dad bent the tail of the Spitfire 15 degrees during the test against the Zero. He first stated it was 9 degrees but he misread his dads writing, I believe in his flight log.

 

[pinsog]

Martlet/Wildcat vs Seafire IIc

 

[SaparotRob]

Good stuff!

 

[Shortround6]

I like the part about the stubby little wings on the Martlet

Wings were 1ft 2 in longer than the Spitfire wings and had another 18 sq ft of wing area

Seafire IIC's came with two different engines. Which were about as far apart as you could make a single stage Merlin.

Some had Merlin 46 engines which were the same high altitude single stage Merlin's the Australians got. Sucked at low altitude.
The others got Merlin 32s (same engines the Barracuda got?) with cropped impellers ( a 1/4 in larger than the cropped Merlin 45s got) and a lower gear ratio.
At 2000ft they had another 50-60hp over what the Merlin 45 had. The Merlin 46 used a larger impeller than any other single stage Merlin (Except the Merlin 47) and used the highest gear ratio (same as the Merlin 45)

The early Martlets also had several different engines. So we have a story about one pilot dog fighting (testing?) another pilot at an unknown altitude with unknown engines in both planes using unknown boost levels. So what did we actually learn?

 

[SaparotRob]

How much fun they had.

 

[Clayton Magnet]

I think Corky Meyer was having fun too;
"

Without argument, the Spitfire/Seafire configuration was probably the most beautiful fighter ever to emerge from a drawing board. Its elliptical wing and long, slim fuselage were visually most delightful, and its flight characteristics equalled its aerodynamic beauty.

The Seafire had such delightful upright flying qualities that, knowing it had an inverted fuel and oil system, I decided to try inverted 'figure-8s'. They were as easy as pie, even when hanging by the complicated, but comfortable, British pilot restraint harness.
Spins were like a training aircraft, with instant recovery as soon as the controls were released. Even if I couldn't find the trim tab controls handily, which I couldn't, I didn't need them. The stability about all three axes of the aircraft was low enough to be a fighter pilots dream and high enough to fly hands-off in mildly turbulent air, it was a great combination, acrobatics were a pleasure, the aircraft responded right after the thought came to the pilots mind, seemingly without effort.

I was surprised to hear myself laughing as if I were crazy.

I have never enjoyed a flight in a fighter as much before or since, or felt so comfortable in an aeroplane at any flight attitude. It was clear to see how so few exhausted, hastily trained, Battle of Britain pilots were able to fight off Hitler's hordes for so long, and so successfully, with it.

The Lend-Lease Royal Navy Wildcats, Hellcats and Corsair fighters were only workhorses. The Seafire III was a dashing stallion!

 

[SaparotRob]

It's great reading pilots' impressions. It gives a bit of the "feel" of an airplane to a ground bound guy like me rather than just a list of numbers.

 

[Escuadrilla Azul]

It's great reading pilots' impressions. It gives a bit of the "feel" of an airplane to a ground bound guy like me rather than just a list of numbers.

Yes, for us, armchair aviators, is really illustrative.

And somewhere over the... Internet, just found this magazine cover for all the armchair aviators (I must admit the plane in the cover wasn't coincidence, only that didn't found the elder brother).

 

[Howard Gibson]

Seafire IIC's came with two different engines. Which were about as far apart as you could make a single stage Merlin.

I am reluctant to apply the word "cropped" to something that rotates at 28,000rpm.

The low altitude Seafires featured engines with reduced superchargers. Engine power went to the propeller, not the supercharger. The LIICs and LIIICs had 1500 to 1600HP until the superchargers ran out at around 6,000ft. At low altitude, these aircraft had very high rates of acceleration and climb. They had four bladed props and six exhaust stacks on each side of the engine, making them look like they had Merlin_61s. Below 9,000ft, they were the world's fastest carrier borne aircraft, until they installed MW in the Corsairs in early 1945. Above 15,000ft, a Zero could easily out perform them. These Seafires were used as the final line of interception at the Battle of Okinawa.

The Fleet Air Arm definitely used the low altitude Seafires at Okinawa. I am not sure if they used the regular ones. The FAA had Corsairs, and I cannot think of a mission a medium altitude Seafire would have performed better than a Corsair.

The low altitude engines were also installed in some old, beat up, Spitfire_Vs after D-Day. The aircraft were not popular with the pilots. In France, you really wanted a Spitfire_IX or XIV.