Was Operation Pedestal a greater Axis air attack than any faced by the USN in 1942?

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

A lot of the range/radius figures are guide lines. And sometimes of less use than advertised mileage figures posted on new car windows.

Be careful that people read the conditions that were calculated when figuring out the numbers.
Some Countries/ air forces figured different reverse allowances for carrier planes vs land planes and sometimes changed them over time.
Sometimes they didn't figure any reserves at all and magically transported the plane to cruising altitude with a warmed up engine. Range calculation stopped when the hypothetical plane ran out of fuel at altitude.
This is way the US figured the fuel consumption of the Hurricane II is this test.

Multiply the fuel consumption per hour times the number of hours and you get the total fuel capacity of the plane.
as in
Range at 15,000ft at 196.5mph at 1700rpm is 680 miles on 112 gal of fuel (US gallons).
Endurance 3.47 hours, consumption 194lb/hr (32.3 gal/hr at 6.0lbs/gal
3.47 X 32.3 = 112.081

Now in 1941 the US Army was calculating all/most of their aircraft ranges the same way so they had an idea of what they were comparing.
Which was not operational radius for tactical planning.

Most range/radius numbers don't include descending on the return flight even if they count climb on the way in.
Sometime the British/Americans on landplanes figured 20 minutes to find the home field (or any friendly field)
The US navy figured a longer time. You not only had to find the carrier you had to take your turn to land. You can land more planes in the same period of time on a land airfield than on a carrier.
There were very few "magic" engines that gave much longer ranges than other engines, The Sakae was one and another was.....................................................Still looking.
And the Sakae only did that at low speed, increase the cruising speed 20kts or so the and fuel consumption was not that different than other engines.
You could have low drag airframes that need less power (fuel) to cruise at a given speed.
Nobody is claiming that the Hurricane was slow drag airplane, but let's face it, The F4F was not most svelte aircraft to be had in in WW II either. Since both planes did about the same speed with the same amount of power at top speed we can assume that both planes were going to use around the same power at cruise, had here is where things get tricky. A lot of the cruise speeds for the Hurricane are higher than the cruise speeds listed for the F4F.
The F4F held more fuel, it will go further, But pretty much in line with the extra fuel capacity.
Some aircraft "liked" to cruise a bit faster than others, because of rudders/vertical fins or other controls. They tended to hunt or wallow a bit even at close to twice landing speed and it was easier on the pilot to cruise a little faster where the plane could be trimmed to sort of fly hands off (mostly) rather than needing constant attention. A number of planes used climb speed 20-30m faster than "best" for that reason.
 
Thumpalumpacus said:
On 10 Mar 42, F4F-3s flew 125 miles, over the Owen-Stanley mountains, raided Lae and Salamaua, including several strafing runs, and flew back. On 4 Jun they did one mission of 175 mi radius. 105 miles was not their limit.
Click to expand...
105nm was the combat radius based upon this formula:



from the USN SAC data:


Lae and Salamaua
Thach (via Lundstrom):
"The use of fighters and torpedo planes posed special problems on this mission. There was worry over the short range of the F4F-3 Wildcats. The first thought was to stop briefly at Port Moresby to top off tanks, but the risk was too great that Japanese bombers might catch the F4Fs on the ground. Thus the task force would have to move in close to the shoreline to put the fighters within range of the target over the mountains. Brown and Sherman settled for a launch point 125 miles south of Lae and Salamaua. Thach worked out the fuel–distance equations and figured he had the fuel to reach the target area, fight for ten to twelve minutes, then return."

Based upon Lundstrom the F4F-3s were airborne for about 2 - 2.5 hours. These were also F4F-3s that had yet to receive their SS tank mods, and had about 10% more fuel than with SS tanks.

June 4th 1942 saw 10 F4F-4s ditch after being airborne for ~3.5 hrs, at loiter cruise settings the whole time.

Lundstrom (Thach on 4 June):
"Finally at 0905, the carrier depatched the escort, six F4Fs (see list). Happy finally to get into action after their long wait in the ready room, the fighter pilots set their throttles at the F4F-4's most economical cruise for maximum range, giving an airspeed of 140 knots. The target was thought to be perhaps 150 miles away, but the enemy could be much farther. Thach felt confident he could take his short-legged Wildcats out 175 miles, fight, and return. Even so, Leslie acknowledged gratefully that Thach was "really giving a lot."14 Yorktowners had no illusions as to the combat radius of the F4F-4.."

As best as I can determine Thach and his F4F-4 group were airborne for about 2.75 hours.

On 17 Sept 1942 a SH1A was launched from a CAM ship at 11:50, to intercept a torpedo bomber attack. PO Burr intercepted the raid, and made several firing passes to shoot down an HE111. After noting that he had 70IG of fuel left, Burr decided to try and make the Soviet airfield at Archangel, about 240nm away. Burr landed at the airfield at 14:15 with 5IG of fuel remaining. Total time airborne was 2.4 hours. Burr cruised at low altitudes, which probably cut his endurance somewhat, but using all his fuel, he would have had to ditch at about 2.6 hours. With no combat, Burr's endurance would have been about 3.25 hours.
 
Last edited:
RCAFson said:
The F4F-3 and F4F-4 specifications are not tests. Real world testing couldn't replicate those claims.
Click to expand...

That is not true. What is true is that different tests with aircraft have different outcomes, depending on engine setting, weight, external fixtures and even atmospheric conditions. There is variance. There are relatively few published tests of the Martlet and even fewer of the Hurricane let alone Sea Hurricane (at least that anyone has posted or linked that I can see). You are cherry picking every data point you can find to try to make the Sea Hurricane look better. This isn't how research works - you want to look for the average or mean result, so as to get an idea of the reality, or range of actual real world data, as opposed to attempting to verify what you prefer to believe by hiding what doesn't fit and over-emphasizing what you think does.


You are right on one thing, it's not quite precisely twice the range - according to the British data sheets:

Martlet I data sheet 1.89 times the range of a Sea Hurricane (internal fuel)
Martlet II data sheet 1.84 times the range of a Sea Hurricane (internal fuel)
Wildcat II data sheet 1.72 times the range of a Sea Hurricane (internal fuel)
Wildcat III data sheet 1.89 times the range of a Sea Hurricane (internal fuel)

RCAFson said:
The FM2 and SH2C (in carrier service) overlapped in time for almost a year.
Click to expand...
According to "Armored Carriers" which I trust as a source, the Sea Hurricane was being phased out with the last SH unit converting to Martlets in Sept 1944.

They also note that:

"Wildcat Mk VI (FM-2)
This was the final version of the Wildcat to see service with the Fleet Air Arm. The 340 machines delivered in late 1944 and early 1945 were essentially the same as the USN's FM-2."
This model had a 1350hp Wright R-1820-56 nine-cylinder, air-cooled, radial engine. It carried the by now standard four .50cal MGs and was plumbed for a 58gal (220litre) drop tank or 250lb (113kg) bomb under each wing.

Once again the type was destined for the growing number of escort carriers protecting convoys and supporting fleet operations in the Atlantic, Indian and Pacific oceans.

Many were too small for the new F6F Hellcat, which needed a significantly greater take-off run than the Wildcat. Therefore the type's ongoing operation was assured - at least for the time being.

This model took part in the FAA's last Wildcat combat: In the final week of the European war HMS Searcher's 882 Squadron tangled with eight Messerschmitt BF109G fighters off the Norwegian coast. Four 109s were claimed downed in the action."


Yes it certainly is. The Hurricane IIA ISN'T a SEA HURRICANE. In fact, it was barely used in service, representing less than 4% of total Hurricane production, and very quickly phased out by the slower and draggier Hurricane IIC. You keep bringing it up because it was the most sprightly Hurricane with the big engine and only the 8 light machine guns. That armament wasn't considered sufficient by the British any longer so they made the 12 gun IIB followed quickly by the four cannon IIC. As you well know.

Armoured carries notes of the Sea Hurricane IIC:

"At economical settings, internal fuel could take it some 460 miles. With two external 44 Imp gal drop tanks, this extended to 908 miles.

The high point of the IIC's operations would be Operation Torch in November 1942. Some 40 Sea Hurricanes were embarked aboard the escort carriers HMS Avenger, Biter and Dasher. Avenger was torpedoed by U-155 on November 15. She sank rapidly, taking with her the entire complement of aircraft and most of her crew.

The last Sea Hurricane deliveries were made in August 1943, but the type was already being withdrawn from front-line squadrons. From this point the Sea Hurricanes would steadily be to be supplanted by the more efficient folding-wing Martlets (suddenly available as the USN restocked on Hellcats) and the new - but 'difficult' - Corsair made its first appearances.

The last unit operating the Sea Hurricane was 835 Squadron, which converted to Martlets in September 1944."
 
Anyway, there is a thread for comparing the Sea Hurricane to the Wildcat / Martlet, here, so why don't we take the endless wrangling of one person's fantasy about the Sea Hurricane there where it belongs, because it's a continuous derail of this thread (and two or three others)

Was the Sea Hurricane a superior naval fighter than the F4F?

I would say no. Wildcat had greatly superior range and loiter time. Most of the Wildcats had folding wings. Their engines were less vulnerable because air cooled. They had a much greater ammunition capacity than most of the Hurricanes. Wildcat was also just a better fighter. Sea Hurricane...
ww2aircraft.net
 
Greg Boeser said:
And for the Lea mission, they were carrying bombs.
Click to expand...
30lb bombs.
SH1B range from the data card is 555 miles.

Your math is wrong.
 
Last edited:
Wild_Bill_Kelso said:
According to Armored Carriers, 460 miles is the actual range of the Sea Hurricane IIC, which I believe is correct.
Click to expand...
So compare the shortest range reference you can find for a fully armoured SH2C with SS tanks and then compare that to a Martlet 1 with no SS tanks or armour!!! Really? What kind of a game are you playing here?
 
I sense this thread is starting to heat up. I suggest you both take a breather. No need to get personal. And it takes two to tango, so don't think this singling one out.
 

Again, I was not addressing flight-time at all, but mileage. 105 miles is too low, compared with real-world experience, which I think we agree is regnant.
 
Thumpalumpacus said:
Again, I was not addressing flight-time at all, but mileage. 105 miles is too low, compared with real-world experience, which I think we agree is regnant.
Click to expand...
Sure, but the USN's combat radius formula returns a standardized method of assessing useful combat radius. We simply have to fill in the requisite fuel consumption numbers and cruise speeds to arrive at comparative figures.

However, when we look at the real world mission data we can see that ~175nm radius missions was considered to be at the outer limits of the F4F-4's capability, and that timely access to a flight deck was a key parameter.
 

Right. And the real world is what determines facts. Not data sheets, not formulas. So quoting formula and ignoring real-world results is ipso facto not factual. "105 miles" according to your data sheets, that's nice, but I'll take the real world any day of the week. In the real world, 175 miles was doable, as was 125 miles lugging two bombs flying over a big set of mountains.

Pun fully intended, your mileage varies, because paper doesn't fly. Planes do.
 
Any mission that requires the F4F-4 to be airborne more than ~3 hours means that the aircraft will return to base in a critical fuel state ( ~30 mins loiter time) even with no combat. I think we can agree on that. It seems that ~2.7 hours was a similar number for a SH1B.
 
Thumpalumpacus said:
On 10 Mar 42, F4F-3s flew 125 miles, over the Owen-Stanley mountains, raided Lae and Salamaua, including several strafing runs, and flew back. On 4 Jun they did one mission of 175 mi radius. 105 miles was not their limit.
Click to expand...

Statute miles or nautical miles? The 105 mile combat radius stated earlier is nautical miles, which equals about 121 statute miles.

Note that from that Airplane Characteristics and Performance document, with one 58-gallon drop tank the radius increased to 245 nautical miles (282 statute miles), and with two 58-gallon drop tanks it was 325 nautical miles (374 statute miles).

Cut the 20 minutes of warm-up and idling to 10 minutes, and the 60 minutes of rendezvous, landing, and reserve to 30 minutes, and of course the radius figure would be a little larger.
 
"
There are details in this article of how the raid was carried out. Note the F4F-3 were launched, then when the strike had assembled (which took 50 mins) they were landed, refuelled and relaunched. They then caught the strike force en route to the target.

So it seems this was not a typical mission as envisaged in the various data sheets.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

A
Was the Hispano-Suiza 12Y the worst ≥25L V-12 of WW2?
2 3
Replies
46
Views
2K
ThomasP
T
B
Was the AT-10 Wichita Used at Kelly Field 1942?
Replies
6
Views
1K
Popeye53
P
H
Why was the Barracuda so much slower than the Avenger?
3 4 5
Replies
92
Views
9K
EwenS
E
617th squadron and the bunkers in Ijmuiden.
2
Replies
23
Views
618
DerAdlerIstGelandet
How good was the soviet air force?
21 22 23
Replies
457
Views
35K
bf109xxl
Menu
Log in
Register