fubar57
General
I thought our objective was a single seat Firefly
Was single seat Firefly possible?
- Thread starter Admiral Beez
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
That's the interesting thing about the F4F, it wasn't a horrible performer: It actually had a higher top speed than the Hurricane Mk.I (331 vs 310-320), and a higher critical altitude than some variants of the Mk.II (21500 vs 20800). At different periods of time Captain Brown has stated that the roll rate of the Hurricane was about equal to the F4F (requiring more muscle power to do it), or outright superior to it (I can think of two reasons for this: Memory fades with age; The UK has some seriously long duration secrecy laws, and as time went on, he was was no longer restricted).
It wouldn't be the best land-based plane when it first entered service in December of 1940, but it would have been able to successfully shoot up Luftwaffe bombers coming over the UK, like the Hurricane could. It was better than the other FAA designs in service (the Roc, Skua, and Fulmar), for comparison (that might not say too much).
That said, the A6M was fucking awesome in quite a number of ways
- It was faster
- It had a better rate of climb
- It could turn tighter
- It had 2 x 20mm in its armament that could really ruin your day
- Visibility up front might have been inferior to the F4F
- Roll control deteriorates, particularly to one side
- No pilot protection: Armor, self-sealing tanks, and even the engine firewall seemed to be omitted
Why were there so many errors?
I'd almost swear I remember seeing figures for the projected twin-seat Firefly that were only a few knots off the actual design capability, though that might have been later on as the design matured. Do you think the single-seat proposal with the smaller & thinner wing would have managed to get itself up to 360-380 mph with the engine variants used?
What was listed?
Why would you buy a carrier based airplane without carrier capability? At that point, they could have just bought more P-40's. They were faster and had a better roll rate...
swampyankee
Chief Master Sergeant
- 4,036
- Jun 25, 2013
If I recall my readings correctly, the first batch of F4Fs bought by the British were originally to be delivered to the French Air Force, not Aeronavale.
The F4F-3 really had no faults, it was competitive in speed at 330 ish, very good climb and good weapons for the time of 4 50's and 430 or 450 rounds per gun. Against the first Zero it only gave up low speed turn. I agree with you on the Zero as well, it climbed great and at a steep angle, fast, low speed turn was unmatched. I disagree on the 20 mm the Zero carried. They weren't very good as 20 mm go, low velocity, small bursting charge and only a 60 round drum.
The F4F-4 on the other hand was a pig. Terrible climb rate, around 315-318 mph, 6 50's with only 230 rounds per gun, loss of turn ability etc.
F4F-3 vs early P40 would have been interesting. P40 is faster down low but the F4F-3 would be superior at altitude. F4F-3 should outclimb the P40 and definitely outturn it while the P40 can outroll and outdive the F4F-3
Last edited:
If I may, the common held belief within the USN that none of the fore mentioned carriers would have been lost if they had been able to benefit from the improvements in damage control and gear that came about literally only a few months after their losses.
- Thread starter
- #126
Admiral Beez
Major
I think because they were available for immediate purchase, since the circumstances "canceled" the French transaction.
Postwar, lots of nations bought carrier based airplanes without carrier capability. Outside of the USN, USMC and Britain, did any other nation buy carrier capable McDonald Douglas Phantom IIs? No, they bought the land based version, bereft of the carrier fittings.
I wondered, with only one small carrier why the French Navy was ordering dozens of Wildcats. Now I understand they were for the French Airforce. It's too bad they didn't get intercepted and expropriated by the British for use in Malaya alongside the Buffaloes.
That is for the Lexington only. Yorktown absorbed 2 or 3 bombs and 2 air dropped torpedoes followed by 2 more submarine launched torpedoes. Hornet also absorbed a few bombs and 2 air dropped torpedoes followed by several US destroyer torpedoes, followed by several Japanese destroyer torpedoes. The main problem was that the Wildcat didn't have enough performance to stop the attackers in the first place.
I'm no shipwright, but "adjusting" your elevator size is going to require a wee bit of time in the yards as well. And to be a bit more annoying, what is the lift capacity? Can you fuel and arm in the hangar bay and still bring it up to the deck? Don't forget the designed load factor is usually 150% so you might as well plan on a 22K lift capability. (BTW, here is a great argument for deck edge elevators. You can shove the tail (Of a tricycle gear aircraft.) over the water if you have to. (Just chain it down, and make sure it's not your favorite brake rider.)
- Thread starter
- #129
Admiral Beez
Major
That's an interesting proposal. Though I wonder why the otherwise tricycle Airacobra was converted to taildragger for carrier trials? The Grumman F7F was, IIRC the first carrier fighter with tricycle configuration. Could our single seat FAA fighter have been the first, or is 1938/1939 too soon?
Here's the XFL-1 Airabonita" -- first flight on 13 May 1940.
I'd think a nose wheel would reduce the strong odds of a prop strike, as shown below.
Last edited:
Shortround6
Major General
The British got
81 Martlet Is starting at the end of July 1940, with Wright R-1820 engine 1 stage, 2 speed supercharger
100 Martlet IIs starting in March 1941, These are the F4F-3A equivalents with P & W R-1830 engines with single stage, 2 speed superchargers.
last 90 had folding wings.
30 Martlet IIIs which had been ordered by Greece, also starting delivery in March of 1941. Same P & W R-1830s with single stage, 2 speed superchargers. fixed wing?
Now please note both the ex French and ex Greek aircraft have fixed wings. it took Grumman from the end of July to the end of Oct 1940 to build the 81 ex French aircraft and delivery was at the Grumman Factory on Long Island NY. How many weeks to England?
The British do not get another Martlet (the IV) until July 15th 1942 and they have the Wright R-1820 engine 1 stage, 2 speed supercharger and not the one in the FM-2.
That is pretty much the history of the British Martlet supply until mid 1942. 211 planes, 90 with folding wings, none with a two stage supercharger and no six gun aircraft until the Martlet IV shows up in July 1942, The British got 220 Martlet IVs and 311 Martlet Vs (starting in Dec 1942) These have the folding wings and the MK Vs do get the P & W engine with the 2 stage supercharger.
81 Martlet Is starting at the end of July 1940, with Wright R-1820 engine 1 stage, 2 speed supercharger
100 Martlet IIs starting in March 1941, These are the F4F-3A equivalents with P & W R-1830 engines with single stage, 2 speed superchargers.
last 90 had folding wings.
30 Martlet IIIs which had been ordered by Greece, also starting delivery in March of 1941. Same P & W R-1830s with single stage, 2 speed superchargers. fixed wing?
Now please note both the ex French and ex Greek aircraft have fixed wings. it took Grumman from the end of July to the end of Oct 1940 to build the 81 ex French aircraft and delivery was at the Grumman Factory on Long Island NY. How many weeks to England?
The British do not get another Martlet (the IV) until July 15th 1942 and they have the Wright R-1820 engine 1 stage, 2 speed supercharger and not the one in the FM-2.
That is pretty much the history of the British Martlet supply until mid 1942. 211 planes, 90 with folding wings, none with a two stage supercharger and no six gun aircraft until the Martlet IV shows up in July 1942, The British got 220 Martlet IVs and 311 Martlet Vs (starting in Dec 1942) These have the folding wings and the MK Vs do get the P & W engine with the 2 stage supercharger.
Still, I'm curious as to why the French would have procured the F4F's and F2A's for land-base use? It's a strange thing to do -- the P-40 was a better performer, and the P-36 was already in their use.
The F-4 Phanton, however, had a top-speed comparable with front-line land-based fighter planes. The Hurricane was able to wrack up quite a bodycount in terms of bombers over the UK's skies, but the fact is, that it wasn't really as well suited as the Spitfire against the Me-109 which had higher top-speeds (but inferior turn rate).
My opinion is a "fly direct" opinion from several of the instructors who taught advanced shipboard DC at Farrier. Having seen the now declassified reports/photos of the Franklin and Bunker Hill as part of the class at the time? As a young kid, I agreed with them then and stand by it now 37 years later. (Especially after running multiple teams for three years on a CV Repair Locker (1F) later as the LPO and advanced DC instructor myself fourteen years later.) In each case it was a loss of either firemain or electrical that lead to the loss. At no time was there completely uncontrolled flooding or fires that could not be contained. The use of more pumps, more SCBA (Pardon the modern term) and ability to easily route electrical casualty cables all came on line by early to mid-1943.
I respectfully disagree on Yorktown and Hornet. Yorktown absorbed 2 air dropped torpedoes that damaged/flooded the engine room and took on a severe list. Thinking she would capsize, she was abandoned. When found still afloat the next day, salvage parties were put aboard, but a Japanese submarine put 2 more torpedoes into her resulting in her loss. I doubt an Essex class carrier could absorb 2 air launched and 2 Japanese submarine torpedoes and survive. Hornet also received multiple bombs and 2 air dropped torpedoes disabling her engine room. I don't believe she was in any danger of sinking but her engine room disabled she was unable to flee the area and US destroyers attempted to scuttle her. I think they hit her with 4 torpedoes of 8 fired at her and also received over 400 5 inch shells from point blank range and still refused to sink. Japanese destroyers finished her off with 4 more torpedoes.
Lexington absolutely would have been saved with better damage control.
Wasn't the Yorktown scuttled? Were there enough portable pumps, breathing apparatus and electrical power available?
If you read up on the Hornet, again it was loss of electrical power to her MMR's. Frankly, I do not remember of there was damage to the stream trunks or not, and even then it would have to have been to all of them in such a manner as to prevent cross-feed across all of the the MMR. Which again brings us right back to the huge increases in portable DC equipment just a few months later.
Why would you buy a carrier based airplane without carrier capability? At that point, they could have just bought more P-40's. They were faster and had a better roll rate...[/QUOTE]
When did catapults and arrester hooks come to define "carrier capable"? I have seen lots of footage of USA aircraft taking off without catapults and that is obviously after the UK and France were ordering what became known as Martlets.
No, Yorktown sank on her own after multiple bombs and a total of 4 torpedoes, 2 of which were heavy submarine torpedoes, plus the torpedo that sunk the destroyer Hammann tied up alongside also caused significant underwater damage to Yorktown as well.
Yorktown was actually doing well, under tow at 3 knots headed toward Pearl Harbor when the submarine torpedoes struck.
Shortround6
Major General
Maybe in an attempt to actually get an Airacobra to actually take-off from a carrier?
One chart has the P-39D-2 ranked 16th in take-off distance among American fighters. This is out of 20, (Many had more than one model in the chart)
taking off from a hard runway at sea level with zero wind and fuel ammo and internal fuel but no external stores the P-39D needed twice the runway off all but the worst Navy fighters. ANd the P-39D needed a mere 84% more runway than the worst Navy fighter.
The Airabonita also had a .50 cal gun through the prop in an attempt to lighten the plane and used a slightly bigger wing in an attempt to get the wing loading down even further.
The tail dragger landing gear was used to change the angle of incidence of the wing for more lift much like the Whitley's wing didn't line up with the fuselage, The Stirling had that really tall landing gear, and the later B-26s had their wings mounted at about 3 degrees more incidence.
Shortround6
Major General
The French were simply ordering something, anything they they thought they could get delivery on quick. A plane, no matter how wonderful, that gets delivered in the late fall of 1940 would do the French no good, The French had ordered 230 Hawk 81A-1 export fighters in Oct of 1939 but deliveries didn't start until June of 1940 and this is only after the US agrees to delay delivery of 324 of the fighters they had ordered in April of 1939 to allow the French and British orders to be completed first. But even late June/July deliveries would do the French no good.
I can see we're going to disagree. The Yorktown remained afloat for significant period of time after the second attack. Again, please allow me to repeat....the lack of portable gear to dewater and energize various parts of the ships caused their losses. (After the Coral Sea, the Navy pretty much started pulling all the nice flammables off the ships.)
To go slightly off the reservation, go read up on the loss of HMS Sheffield, buried deeply in the reports you will find that no one opchecked their pumps before they left for the Falklands.........turns out they didn't work. No pumps, meant no dewatering and no firefighting water after the firemains were cut.
Bye, bye Sheffield.
When your military sits in a Chateau waiting for news from a despatch rider, it doesn't matter whether your air force have bi planes or P-51s they will be over run by an opponent that advances almost as fast as your despatch rider.
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
