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


I'm not arguing that the F4F had long legs. I'm arguing specifically that the number you touted of 105 miles is austere, to say the least.
 
33k in the air said:
Statute miles or nautical miles? The 105 mile combat radius stated earlier is nautical miles, which equals about 121 statute miles.
Click to expand...

I hadn't given thought to that and at Coral Sea such a discrepancy would be explanatory.

It doesn't explain the 175-mile radius at Midway, though, right? No drop tanks there, and that's 150 NM, which makes me wonder why "105 miles" was chosen to make the point upthread. It looks like cherry-picking to me as well. Dropping the "nautical" adjective only helped the confusion, and selecting the lowest radius looks pretty skeezy as well. Shades of "How was it actually tested?"

If there's an apples-and-oranges thing going on here, then either the apple-seller or the orange-seller should specify weight and nutritional value, rather than clutter the conversation with mixed metrics.

But even 105 NM radius is belied by facts.
 

Yes, and the Yorktown's planes did no such thing and still managed the flight.
 

And again -- I'm not talking time in the air, I am talking range. Those are two different things, as I suspect you already understand.
 

The 105 nautical mile radius was under specific conditions, as described in the document.

Regarding Midway, how many Wildcats had to ditch at sea due to running out of fuel? And how many had to turn back early due to low fuel?
 
33k in the air said:
The 105 nautical mile radius was under specific conditions, as described in the document.
Click to expand...

Of course. But picking such a low radius under such "specific conditions", out of all the missions Wildcats flew which ranged longer, is fishy. Many other missions ranged longer, and everyone reading knows it. It's not an accurate portrayal of the plane's range, special pleading aside. I draw your attention to the second denotation of the linked definition.

33k in the air said:
Regarding Midway, how many Wildcats had to ditch at sea due to running out of fuel? And how many had to turn back early due to low fuel?
Click to expand...

IIRC, 10 F4Fs from the flight to nowhere ditched, and six more (Yorktown?) reached KdB, orbited a bit, and then returned to flight decks after the SBDs were late. They were over 150 miles away -- that's 130 nautical miles, 25 NM beyond what RCAF said was their limit. Facts are facts.
 
Thumpalumpacus said:
. 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.
Click to expand...
Sometimes the combat radius is sort of a guide.
Like if every thing goes wrong the men can still get home. And sometimes it seems to be based on somebodies perception and not facts.
In England somebody decided you could fly Whirlwinds 20 miles further offshore than Spitfires or Hurricanes because they were twins and twins were safer to fly over water than single engine planes.

One minute at Military power could be worth 3-4 minutes at slow cruise. If a plane had WEP it might be worth around 5 minutes as slow cruise.
F4Fs didn't have WEP until the FM-2.
even at 3 times 8 minutes of combat time turns into 24 minutes a slow cruise (the 140 kt speed?) and that is worth about 55N miles or 27N miles of radius. Account says Thach allowed for 10-12 minutes of combat (military power)

Sort through some of the rest of "standard" allowances you can find some extra range, if things go well.

two 30lb bombs are not that big a deal. Nowhere near the drag of 250lb bomb and lets not forget that .50 cal ammo is 30lbs per 100 rounds.
However the USN was living in fantasy land in 1941/early 1942. Weight charts list reduced fuel and taking two guns (and ammo ) out of the plane when doing a bombing mission with two 100lbs bombs. I am not sure that ever happened.

If you were using F4F-3s to fly over mountains then it should not be a problem, You had a two stage supercharger, granted you need fuel but you had the best plane in the theater for flying over mountains.

Some of the charts/tables for the Wildcat do show the difference between max range and max endurance. Not by much but it is there, Max endurance has a bit shorter range than than max range. Max endurance was at about 160mph and max range was at about 180mph. difference was a couple of 10ths of an hour?

Most of the max ranges for the F4F seem like they are sliding a bit to the fantasy variety.

180mph into 880 miles gives 4.88 hours and with 147US gallons that should mean the plane is using 30.12 US gal per hour

They seem to be calling for a cruise at 19,000ft which will certainly help with fuel consumption with low drag but getting the plane to 19,000ft may suck up some fuel.

Now if we assume that the two planes use a similar amount of fuel to warm up and take off with and if we assume that both planes will need a similar amount of fuel to stooge around the carrier at 160mph waiting to land then difference in the fuel that is left is not longer proportional to the total fuel.
Just pulling numbers out of my A.....hat illustration. Both planes need 25 US gallons to start/warm up, take-off, and climb to 5000ft. Both planes need 15 gallons to fly in circles around the carrier after returning. 40 US gallons means 33.3 Imp so our Sea Hurricane actually has 63.7 imp gal to fly the mission with. Our Martlet (133 imp gallons) has 99.7 Imp gallons to fly the mission with. Wildcat IV with 120 Imp gallons has 86.7 Imp gallons to fly the mission with. A bit higher percentage than just comparing total fuel.
 
Thumpalumpacus said:
And again -- I'm not talking time in the air, I am talking range. Those are two different things, as I suspect you already understand.
Click to expand...
If you look at the Thach mission plan in post 263 you'll note that it was a low altitude mission flying at the F4F loiter speed (140 knots) so we get ~1.2 hours out, ~10min combat and then ~1.2 hours back and then more loiter waiting for a clear deck to total mission time of ~2.75 hours. If Thach had to make high power climbs to 20k ft, for example, he might well have run out fuel.
 
I think the only thing that really matters if you are trying to assess the viability of two aircraft types is to compare like with like.

When you are trying to reconstruct figures based on formulae etc. and insisting that this overrules what data from during the war says, I find that difficult to credit.

I'd also note, Eric Brown said specifically that he personally flew a sortie in a Martlet that went 4.5 hours, and I have no reason to take anyone else's word, or theories, or conjecture, over his stated experience:

"Leaving aside my emotional affection for the first of the Grumman shipboard fighter monoplanes, I would still assess the Wilcdat as the outstanding naval fighter of the early years of WWII. Its ruggedness meant that it had a much lower attrition rate on carrier operations than, say, the Sea Hurricane or the Seafire, and although it had neither the performance nor the aesthetic appeal of the latter, it was the perfect compromise solution designed specifically for the naval environment, to such a degree indeed that it was easier to take-off or land on an aircraft carrier than on a runway, where it was inclined to be fickle about the direction it took up. With its excellent patrol range – I actually flew one sortie of four-and-a-half hours in this fighter – and fine ditching characteristics, for which I can vouch as a matter of personal experience, this Grumman fighter was, for my money, one of the finest shipboard aeroplanes ever created."
— Capt. Eric 'Winkle' Brown, Wings of the Navy

This guy actually flew the plane, shot down enemy aircraft in it, had to ditch in it. I have no reason to doubt his word.
 

Except those flights did not include 20 minutes of combat at full military power, which is part of the radius calculations. According to the Pilot's Flight Operating Instructions manual for the FM-2, full military power consumed 147 gallons per hour, which would be 49 gallons for 20 minutes of combat (49 gallons is 34% of the aircraft's 144 gallons of internal fuel capacity). Operating at maximum air range engine settings, at 15,000 feet the FM-2 could travel 317 statute miles with those 49 gallons (246 mph TAS using 38 gallons per hour).

Granted, those figures are for the FM-2, but the F4F-4 should be similar.
 
Shortround6 said:
180mph into 880 miles gives 4.88 hours and with 147US gallons that should mean the plane is using 30.12 US gal per hour
Click to expand...

The cruise charts in the Pilot's Flight Operating Instructions manual for the FM-2, using engine settings for maximum air range, show it would get 6.5 statute air miles per gallon (with no external load items). At sea level it was consuming 30 gallons per hour at a TAS of 195 mph; at 15,000 feet it was using 38 gallons per hour at a TAS of 246 mph.

The F4F-4 manual is older and does not include the style of cruise charts later PFOI manuals used.
 
SaparotRob said:
So I guess we just proved that those raids didn't happen. The stuff I don't know has been increased.
Click to expand...

It's all about the parameters of the mission. If we cut the fuel allowance for combat from 20 to 10 minutes, for example, that frees up another 24 gallons for cruising, which translates into an additional 156 statute miles of distance at maximum air range engine settings, or 78 miles added to the combat radius, based on the FM-2 cruise charts.
 
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