Merlin powered carrier fighter other than Seafire

tomo pauk said:

Again the chart with F4F-4 with Cyclone???

Click to expand...

It's a chart with Sea Hurricane IB performance curves but again compare the chart with these numbers from Oct 1942:

Detail Specification
For
Model F4F-4 Airplane

SUMMARY

(Normal) Fighter (Bomber) (Overload) Fighter

Fuel (gals.) 110 110 144
Gross weight (lbs.) 7426 7424 7972
High speed at sea level (MPH) 275.0 265.1 274.4
High speed at 2500 ft. (MPH)* 281.8 271.8 281.1
High speed at 4600 ft. (MPH)* 283.1 273.0 282.7
High speed at 12,000 ft. (MPH)* 303.2 293.2 302.4
High speed at 14,000 ft. (MPH)* 304.5 294.3 303.8
High speed at max. engine rated alt. 19,000 ft (MPH) 317.0 307.1 315.0
High speed at airplane critical alt. 19,400 ft. (MPH) 318.0 308.2 316.1
Stalling speed at sea level with
full load and without power (MPH) 78.7 78.5 77.4
Stalling speed at sea level with
full load less fuel (MPH) without power 70.7 70.7 81.3
Stalling speed at sea level less 1/2
fuel (MPH) without power 75.0 74.9 76.8
Initial rate of climb at sea level (ft./min.) 1920 1810 1690
Time to climb to 10000 ft. (min.) 5.7 6.0 6.5
Time to climb to 20000 ft. (min.) 12.7 13.1 14.7
Service ceiling (ft.) 34800 34600 33600
F4F Performance Trials

Click to expand...

Well it looks like the Hurricane IB is not much better than the F4F-4 in 'fighter' configuration. Based on the chart for the 4-gun fighter (Bu no. 4058) with a weight of 7,370 lbs, (presumably with reduced fuel(?), the light-weight -4 is capable of a 10.5 minute climb to 20,000 ft compared to 12 minutes for the Hurricane IB and 11.7 for the the IA. However, I don't know why they provide a weight of 7,370 lbs in the chart and 7,470 in the table, perhaps a reduction in fuel load?. I can't help wondering how a 100 lb reduction in GW improves time to climb by over 2 minutes. Even a full minute seems a stretch. Don't think I believe the chart but a 12.7 minute climb is in the general ball park of the HSH IB.

Seems the F4F-4 'fighter' configuration assumes 200 rpg and 110 gallons of internal fuel. How does this compare with HSH Mk IB and IIB? For the HSH IB, I have about ~116 us gal of fuel and 333 rpg for the 8 x .303. Does that correspond with your understanding?

In any event, the comparison with the fighter configured F4F-3 (110 gal and 300 rpg) is not favorable with its time of 10 minutes to 20,000 ft. I recognize that the time to climb is probably not so favorable considering that this model A/C (1848 ) still had to have SST installed in December 1941 which probably accounts for both an increase in GW and time to climb to be similar to the HSH IB, so the fixed wing F4F-3 becomes a marginally better option than the HSH Mk IA B for a number of reasons including a slight apparent edge performance. But of course as has been noted… different a.c different results.

It looks like the HSH IIB is in a different class. with a much superior climb rate than the IA IB and F4F-3, although it looks like the data for the -3 was based on a gross weight of 7,300 lbs heavier than the fighter config version (300 rpg and 110 US Gal) of this a/c by 150 lbs listed in AHT, so once again we have a discrepancy which might improve the -3's performance a tad. Without knowing exact configurations it's hard to make a judgment when performance is so close, unless we convince Lewis Air Legends museum in San Antonio to perform a test flight of their F4F-3.

Without knowing the F4F-4 configuration actually used for CAP at Santa Cruz or anywhere else for that matter, it seems impossible to really be certain about the contribution that might be made.

However, it seems to me that a squadron of RCAF or RCN Hurricanes or SH would be most welcome deployed anywhere in the Pacific Theater at this time. Break out the allied champagne stocks! But, I don't see even the better performing HSH IIA/B as changing the outcome in any substantial way and beyond what might be accomplished by an equal infusion of F4F-3s. JMHO.

Only way I can see HSHurricanes getting into US service is if a RN Fleet Carrier is loaned to the USN earlier than the USS Robin in 1943.

HMS Victorious (R38) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

HMS Victorious was equipped with Avengers and I think Martlets (equally could have been Wildcats not 100% sure either way) but if the need for a carrier was more urgent and an Illustrious with Hurricanes was all that was available with no time to modify for US planes then it might have happened.

Oops made a mistake in reading or typing my translation of data from the F4F-3 (7,300 lb fighter) chart. Looks like the climb to 20,000 feet was recorded as made in 10 minutes flat. Lundstrom lists 10.3 minutes for the climb a gross weight of 7,450 lbs for the -3. I would guess that a fully loaded F4F-3 (AHT 7,543 lb) would be able to climb to 20,000 in under 12 minutes. AHT lists a time to climb to 20,000 ft for the -3 at 7,150 lb (fighter-config with reduced fuel and ammo) to be about 7 minutes…. putting the -3 in the same class as a HSH IIB! I can't help but wonder if this value might not be a misread of the bureau no. 1845 test which had mixed .3 and .5 armament? AHT is awfully good but not perfect. I have yet to see a perfect performance source. This situation illustrates how such tests can either be misinterpreted or misunderstood and the considerable variability that may be common in aero-testing. Yet the best we have are test results when we can find them..

fastmongrel said:

Only way I can see HSHurricanes getting into US service is if a RN Fleet Carrier is loaned to the USN earlier than the USS Robin in 1943.

HMS Victorious (R38 ) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

HMS Victorious was equipped with Avengers and I think Martlets (equally could have been Wildcats not 100% sure either way) but if the need for a carrier was more urgent and an Illustrious with Hurricanes was all that was available with no time to modify for US planes then it might have happened.

Click to expand...

I was surprised to see the reported claim that US aircrew and aircraft were embarked. I have always assumed the aircrew and craft were FAA. A bit disappointed. I liked the idea of naval aviation allies working together in the air as well as on deck. Probably too prone to error to be effective. "The bloody yank controller said what?" "Blimey mate!"

Trying to find definitive answers to the weight of a Sea Hurricane is quite difficult. Mason states that the Sea Hurricane IIC weighed 7618 lbs (he gives a weight breakdown as well) while the Hurricane IIC weighed 7544lb, so there's only a 72lb difference. The small difference between the IIC and HSH IIC makes it rather surprising that there should be a 265lb difference HH I (6750lb per data card) and HSH IB (7015lb per data card) and some sources do list the HSH IB as ~6800lb. Mason gives the weight of the HSH IB as 7410lb but this is almost certainly when equipped with two x 44IG DTs and subtracting the probable weight of the tanks gives about 6750lb. Mason gives the HSH IA weight as 6589lb. Mason gives the weight of a HH IIB as 7233lb. I expect that HH IIB/C weights might vary somewhat depending on whether the aircraft is armoured for the ground attack role and/or tropicalized.

Historical examples of how the RN FAA operated with squadrons of dissimilar types in early WW2…

From the RN FAA 'Pink List' dated 5 PM, 3rd April, 1942:

Formidable: Air Wing comprised of 12 Martlet (888 Squadron) 21 Albacore

One second-hand source (Winton, Find Fix Strike) lists the total as 18 x Martlets.

Indomitable: Air Wing comprised of 12 Fulmar I (800 Squadron) , 9 Sea Hurricane !Bs (880 Squadron) 24 Albacore.

These Carriers were operating in the vicinity of the Maldives when the IJN Kido Butai (5 fleet carriers and one CVL) raided British possessions in the Indian Ocean.

FAA 'Pink List' dated 5 PM, 1st May, 1942:

Formidable: Air Wing comprised of 12 x Martlet (888 Squadron), 12 x Fulmar (803 Squadron) 12 Albacore

Indomitable: Air Wing comprised of 6 x Fulmar I (806 Squadron) , 9 x Sea Hurricane !Bs (880 Squadron) 24 Albacore.

This configuration preceded the Diego Suarez (Ironclad) operation where the two Indian Ocean RN Flat tops were joined by Illustrious which, according to Winton: possessed an air wing consisting of

12 x fixed wing Martlet Is (881 Squadron), 8 x folding wing Martlet IIs (882 Squadron) and 20 TBR Swordfish.

Sturdivant in Fleet Air Arm at War identifies with side number photo confirmation that at least some if not all of 881's a/c were Martlet IIs.

Finally, here are the composition of the carrier air wings during Torch in November, 1942..

Note in particular the composition of Victorious and Formidable

What I take from this collection of varied composition of mixed fighter types is that the RN FAA was doing pretty much just what RCAFson was advocating and doing it on a regular basis, including the unthinkable mixing of merlins and radial engines . Interesting contrast in the two allied naval air operations.

Been watching this thread for a while. Some good points, some rather silly ones as well, FWIW. my oppnion on this Sea Hurricane/Wildcat debate is that both aircraft had strengths and weaknesses. I think the Hurricane was probably a slightly better fighter, but I would think the Wildcat was better in terms of range.

In the pacific, however, the Wildcat had a better kill/ loss ratio to the hurricanes based in burma. however many of these hurris were either completely clapped out, or were operating as hurribombers. Its not really a fair comparison.

oldcrowcv63 said:

I was surprised to see the reported claim that US aircrew and aircraft were embarked. I have always assumed the aircrew and craft were FAA. A bit disappointed. I liked the idea of naval aviation allies working together in the air as well as on deck. Probably too prone to error to be effective. "The bloody yank controller said what?" "Blimey mate!"

Click to expand...

Victorious (as USS Robin) operated with an FAA air complement, but the aircraft were all US built. The plan was to ensure that Victorious's FAA and Saratoga's USN squadrons could operate from each other's carriers and in fact they did just that, but AFAIK, at no time was Victorious's air complement entirely USN. There's an interesting article here:
USS Robin part1 entitled: "USS Robin" : an account of the HMS Victorious' first mission to the Pacific which is drawn from a Master's thesis. During her deployment to the USN Victorious operated with FAA 882, 896, 898 fighter squadrons and FAA 832 strike squadron.

RCAFson said:

Victorious (as USS Robin) operated with an FAA air complement, but the aircraft were all US built. The plan was to ensure that Victorious's FAA and Saratoga's USN squadrons could operate from each other's carriers and in fact they did just that, but AFAIK, at no time was Victorious's air complement entirely USN. There's an interesting article here:
USS Robin part1 entitled: "USS Robin" : an account of the HMS Victorious' first mission to the Pacific which is drawn from a Master's thesis. During her deployment to the USN Victorious operated with FAA 882, 896, 898 fighter squadrons and FAA 832 strike squadron.

Click to expand...

Ahhhh… I am relieved to find it was as I imagined. This account was a revelation. Thanks mate. Do you suppose the Tarpons were being loaded with the US Mark 13 torpedo?

oldcrowcv63 said:

Ahhhh… I am relieved to find it was as I imagined. This account was a revelation. Thanks mate. Do you suppose the Tarpons were being loaded with the US Mark 13 torpedo?

Click to expand...

If they carried torpedoes it had to be the Mk 13, but I don't know what their load out was.

Did the FAA actually ever request the Sea Hurricane? And if they did, was it before they had their request for a Seafire knocked back?

wuzak said:

Did the FAA actually ever request the Sea Hurricane? And if they did, was it before they had their request for a Seafire knocked back?

Click to expand...

Obviously, they did request them after June 1940 but probably not prior to the initial discussions regarding the Seafire.

RCAFson said:

If they carried torpedoes it had to be the Mk 13, but I don't know what their load out was.

Click to expand...

I had read in Scrivner's In action on the TBM/TBF that the FAA had requested some modifications to be performed by Blackburn and wondered if the TBF's bomb bay could be and/or had been extended to accommodate the longer British torpedo. Seems a crying shame to handicap a good a/c with an inferior fish, although I understand the Mk 13 was improved later in the war, I don't know the time frame.

oldcrowcv63 said:

I had read in Scrivner's In action on the TBM/TBF that the FAA had requested some modifications to be performed by Blackburn and wondered if the TBF's bomb bay could be and/or had been extended to accommodate the longer British torpedo. Seems a crying shame to handicap a good a/c with an inferior fish, although I understand the Mk 13 was improved later in the war, I don't know the time frame.

Click to expand...

My understanding is that prior to Mid/late 1944 the Mk 13 was not very useful, and in fact, the FAA withdrew the TBF from CV operations until the torpedo issue was sorted out:

CAB 80/78/44 - "EXPANSION AND DISTRIBUTION OF FLEET AIR ARM SQUADRONS DURING THE FIRST QUARTER OF 1944" - says:

"2.The ineffectiveness of the American Torpedo has necessitated the withdrawal of Avenger squadrons from HMS VICTORIOUS and the substitution of Barracudas. This has resulted in more Avengers being available for A/S work in the North Atlantic.

Click to expand...

RCAFson said:

My understanding is that prior to Mid/late 1944 the Mk 13 was not very useful, and in fact, the FAA withdrew the TBF from CV operations until the torpedo issue was sorted out:

Click to expand...

Interesting! Not too surprising, considering… Here's our lend-lease superb carrier attack plane for you FAA, but, oh yea, you have to take our sh*t torpedo too… What a deal… It's a good thing the plane could carry depth charges.

The following is coped from the site NAVweapons re the mk 13 torpedo. In 1943 it was as bad as the FAA thought

These problems continued into the early war years, with a mid-1943 analysis of 105 torpedoes dropped at speeds in excess of 150 knots found that 36 percent ran cold (did not start), 20 percent sank, 20 percent had poor deflection performance, 18 percent gave unsatisfactory depth performance, 2 percent ran on the surface and only 31 percent gave a satisfactory run. The total exceeds 100 percent as many torpedoes had more than one defect. The early models were further handicapped by the need to drop them low and slow - typically 50 feet (15 m) and 110 knots - which made the torpedo planes carrying them vulnerable to attack.

Glider said:

The following is coped from the site NAVweapons re the mk 13 torpedo. In 1943 it was as bad as the FAA thought

These problems continued into the early war years, with a mid-1943 analysis of 105 torpedoes dropped at speeds in excess of 150 knots found that 36 percent ran cold (did not start), 20 percent sank, 20 percent had poor deflection performance, 18 percent gave unsatisfactory depth performance, 2 percent ran on the surface and only 31 percent gave a satisfactory run. The total exceeds 100 percent as many torpedoes had more than one defect. The early models were further handicapped by the need to drop them low and slow - typically 50 feet (15 m) and 110 knots - which made the torpedo planes carrying them vulnerable to attack.

Click to expand...

If navweapons say a US weapon was bad it really really stank. Whilst its not as bad as it once was the 50% bullsh*t factor on navweapons.com when it is talking about USN weapons still applies in many articles.

fastmongrel said:

If navweapons say a US weapon was bad it really really stank. Whilst its not as bad as it once was the 50% bullsh*t factor on navweapons.com when it is talking about USN weapons still applies in many articles.

Click to expand...

Talk all you want about Navweps BS factor but it's clear from the narrative provided by RCAFson that even after almost 4 years of war, the Royal navy may have gotten better torpedoes but it completely missed the importance of air conditioning and ice cream in war fighting! What a bunch of amateurs.

oldcrowcv63 said:

Talk all you want about Navweps BS factor but it's clear from the narrative provided by RCAFson that even after almost 4 years of war, the Royal navy may have gotten better torpedoes but it completely missed the importance of air conditioning and ice cream in war fighting! What a bunch of amateurs.

Click to expand...

Maybe, but we knew what was important....we had the rum tot whilst you guys were strictly dry ships. wheres the fun in that.....