Fulmar II production began in Dec 1940. Deliveries in early 1941.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Kevin,
The Fulmar II began deliveries somewhere in 1942. The Martlet II October 1940, The F4F-3
4 December 1940. The USN VF-6 receives the first F4F-3As (Martlet III) in May 1941.
FYI: The Martlet II / Wilcat II
Maximum speed at Sea Level: 292 mph.
Maximum speed at 14,000 ft.: 317 mph.
Fulmar II production began in Dec 1940. Deliveries in early 1941.
The Martlet I entered service in August 1940 from land bases.
Just an interesting note:
Fairey Fulmar Mk.II: 1,320 hp., 9,672 lb. (combat weight),
Wing loading: 28.28 lb./sq. ft., Power loading: 7.112 lb./hp.
The Fairey Fulmar Mk.II N.F. last mission was on 8 February 1945.
The Mk.II was capable or 265 mph./1,750 ft., 272 mph./7,150 ft.,
260 mph./9,000 ft. and had an initial climb rate of 1320 fpm.
Douglas SBD-5: 1,200 hp., 9,352 lb. (Scout)
Wing loading: 28.78 lb./sq. ft., Power loading: 7.793 lb./hp.
The SBD-5 was capable of 247+ mph./S.L., 250 mph./3,281 ft.,
248 mph./7,150 ft., 249 mph./9,000 ft., 260-265 mph./13,800 ft.
and had an initial rate of climb of 1700-1950 fpm. depending on
its weight (with rear gunner, guns and ammo or without).
Fighter vs Scout dive bomber.
Just an FYI,
On 3 April with the Enterprise back in port, Fighting Six shifted back to NAS Pearl Harbor to install new gear and commission the factory-fresh planes. Three days later Gray shot off a rocket to Halsey offering his opinion of the Grumman F4F-4 fighter. The performance of the folding wing Wildcat was "exceedingly unsatisfactory." The weight, he felt, simply was too much for the available horsepower, a fact most detrimental to the aircraft's climb and maneuverability. He noted that the F4F-4 had the "feel of a fully loaded torpedo plane." In tests, VF-6 pilots discovered that the climb rate of a fully loaded F4F-4 was only 1,500 feet per minute up to 15,000 feet. Thereafter even that anemic climb rate fell off drastically to 600 feet per minute at 22,000 feet of altitude. Gray found it took almost forty minutes and nearly half of the fuel supply to coax an F4F-4 up to 32,000 feet. Certainly, he added, the fighter would be fine against unescorted bombers and other "cold meat," but what about the seemingly magical Zero in light of claims for the climb rate, speed, and maneuverability of the vaunted Mitsubishi product? Gray requested swift replacement of the F4F-4 with a version sporting a more powerful engine.
The Enterprise's veteran skipper George Murray fully agreed with the opinions of VF-6. He contributed an endorsement to Gray's letter that stated flatly: "The F4F-4 is greatly inferior to the latest Japanese fighters." Murray further delineated what was the dominant idea among U.S. naval fighter tacticians:
Under no circumstances should our fighter pilots in F4F-4 permit themselves to become engaged in tactics involving 'dog fights' with enemy fighters. Until a fighter of greatly increased performance becomes available, 'hit-and-run' tactics against any enemy opposition appear to offer the greatest probability of successful combat. Against Japanese 00 and 01 fighters, it is doubtful if the F4F-4 can ever obtain initial altitude advantage which is essential for 'hit-and-run' tactics.
These criticisms of the new fighter even before it saw combat certainly did not make the Bureau of Aeronautics happy.
(First Team Vol1, p140)
You should be comparing the Fulmar II against the Martlet II with folding wings, 20 mph top speed difference at 1000m / 2000m is no big deal. Maybe you should be comparing an Martlet I, land based only & no folding wings, against a Fulmar I?
The Fulmar II was retired from frontline carrier service in late 1942. The night fighter was used longer but in tiny numbers. There was only 600 Fulmars built.
Rated power for the Merlin 30 was 1360hp at 6500ft @ 12.75lb boost. After Jan 1942 Merlin 30 combat boost was increased to 16lb.
Max climb rate at 9lb boost and 2800rpm was 1440fps at 7200ft. Combat rating boost would increase climb rate to ~2000fps.
BWOC here's the measured climb rate of an F4F-4 using full military power:
View attachment 509740
The SAC data for both the F4F-3 and -4 doesn't match actual performance as measured in individual aircraft. For what ever reason the USN seems to have "sexed up" the SAC data:
They probably found that the performance was like the FAA encountered.
After the F4F-3 was fitted with full armour and self-sealing tanks, it was only 420lb lighter than the F4F-4 at 7556 to 7975lb.
^^^ Couldn't agree more.
Also I'm outraged at this whole sham of a poll/thread... I don't see the mighty Buffalo listed ergo I declare this poll null and void.
Also also, I may kid from time to time about hijacking any thread to talk about the P-51 but that was not my intention earlier and it seems to have come close to derailing this fine thread, which still has a sham of a poll considering what's NOT on it...
The two countries, Italy amd Germany, did have carriers and while not operational, had intentions to put them into service.I'm still trying to figure out how three aircraft from two countries that never had a carrier got onto the list.
The French laid down five Normandie class battleships in WWI and completed one as an aircraft carrier, the Bearn. The rest were scrapped and their guns used for the Maginot line.The two countries, Italy amd Germany, did have carriers and while not operational, had intentions to put them into service.
Poor planning, poor timing and a lack of defined leadership doomed the respective programs from the start.
Even the French lacked a clear goal in their carrier program, the WWI era Béarn being their only operational carrier during the war.
What I find interesting, is that the Netherlands did better with their two Merchant carriers (Gadila and Macoma) than Germany, Italy and France put together!
I forgot to add that the French Navy wanted five carriers at the time but only got one.The French laid down five Normandie class battleships in WWI and completed one as an aircraft carrier, the Bearn. The rest were scrapped and their guns used for the Maginot line.
The French were in the process of building 2 new carriers by the middle 30's, the Joffre was the first, the Painlevé was the second. The class was intended to carry a compliment of 15 D.790 fighters and 25 B.810 bomber-scouts.I forgot to add that the French Navy wanted five carriers at the time but only got one.
...what I'd like to know is why is there an arresting hook attached to a plane that's launched by seaborne catapult?View attachment 509783Technically not operating from carriers but the thought was there
from da web
Rejected by the Regia Aeronautica, the Italian navy acquired 12 Re.2000 Serie II fighters especially strengthened for catapult launching, followed by 24 Re.2000 Serie III aircraft with increased fuel capacity for deployment as long-range fighters
Because the Italians were preparing to put their carrier Aquila into service and the Regienne Re.2001-OR Serie II (the illustration in Geo's post) was the intended fighter compliment aboard the Aquila....what I'd like to know is why is there an arresting hook attached to a plane that's launched by seaborne catapult?
...what I'd like to know is why is there an arresting hook attached to a plane that's launched by seaborne catapult?
Ok, now that makes sense!Because the Italians were preparing to put their carrier Aquila into service and the Regienne Re.2001-OR Serie II (the illustration in Geo's post) was the intended fighter compliment aboard the Aquila.
There's something new I haven't seen before. I'm guessing the idea was to launch the Hurricanes to fend off incoming attackers then as you say they would try to make it to the nearest allied airbase or ditch.I don't know if the Italians were aware of Hurricanes operating from CAM(Catapult Armed Merchant) ships which were unable to be recovered owing to the lack of arresting hooks. They either made landfall if close enough or ditched
The two countries, Italy amd Germany, did have carriers and while not operational, had intentions to put them into service.
Poor planning, poor timing and a lack of defined leadership doomed the respective programs from the start.
Even the French lacked a clear goal in their carrier program, the WWI era Béarn being their only operational carrier during the war.
What I find interesting, is that the Netherlands did better with their two Merchant carriers (Gadila and Macoma) than Germany, Italy and France put together!
You're welcome!Ok, now that makes sense!
Thank you.
Elvis
The Grumman J2F was a mid-30's design that was to be a jack of all trades. Scouting, mapping, air-sea rescue and even ASW.Wasn't that the original intention of both the Kingfisher and The Duck?
To pluck catapulted pilots out of the drink after ditching their planes.....seems like I've heard/read that a few times in the past.
Elvis