- Thread starter
- #181
Wild_Bill_Kelso
Senior Master Sergeant
- 3,231
- Mar 18, 2022
F4F-3 had a ceiling of 37,000 ft and top speed of 330 mph, which is certainly in the ballpark for the BoB
Was the Sea Hurricane a superior naval fighter than the F4F?
- Thread starter Wild_Bill_Kelso
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
F4F-3 had a ceiling of 37,000 ft and top speed of 330 mph, which is certainly in the ballpark for the BoB
Greg Boeser
1st Sergeant
Perhaps, but they weren't in first line squadron service.
The Martlet 1 would not have been accepted for combat by the Luftwaffe until it received armour and SS tanks. The performance stats for the F4F-3 are 'sexed up' somewhat based upon actual flight test data of it and the F4F-4 at reduced weight.
Again, at Midway, we have 10 F4F-4s that TO, cruise climbed to 20Kft, flew at their most econ power settings for the entire flight, didn't engage in combat, and they all ran out of fuel in ~3.5 hours.
- Thread starter
- #184
Wild_Bill_Kelso
Senior Master Sergeant
- 3,231
- Mar 18, 2022
I don't think that is true at all. But let's assume for the sake of argument that it is. Do you have any evidence that these numbers were more 'sexed up' or in some other way distorted than the numbers for the Bf 109 (or the Hurricane? or the Spitfire I)
The thing is, a Bf 109e couldn't fly for 3.5 hours as far as I know.
And that is the whole reason I brought up the comparison, not to say that Wildcats were available to either side for the BoB, since they certainly were not.
It was just to emphasize the point that range / endurance was a major factor that the Luftwaffe pilots themselves claimed caused them the most problems during the BoB. Depending on where the raid took place precisely and where they took off from, they could often only engage for a few minutes before they were 'bingo' and had to return to base. This was an issue with all the fighters configured for short range interception and battlefield air superiority.
Wildcat, especially the F4F-3 type, had capabilities (notably performance at altitude) good enough to fight in BoB, but with twice the range of a 109. That actually mattered. It certainly was a factor later in the war as well.
- Thread starter
- #185
Wild_Bill_Kelso
Senior Master Sergeant
- 3,231
- Mar 18, 2022
Wildcat could also already carry external tanks by the time F4F-3 was available.
Clayton Magnet
Staff Sergeant
- 854
- Feb 16, 2013
And Bf109's were starting to be fitted with external tanks by Sept 1940, with the E7. I think they then retrofitted the E4's, but I may be wrong
But the idea of the Wildcat/Martlet participating in the Battle of Britain was beat to death in this lengthy thread Wildcat during the Battle of Britain
Look at the actual test data of actual aircraft, not the manufacturer's estimates and you won't find any data that matches the speed and climb rate estimates for the F4F-3 when it was fitted with full armour, ammo, fuel and SS tanks (7550lb). It's already been discussed how the USN/USAAC calculated range based upon a fantasy scenario where the aircraft magically arrives at a given altitude and speed with no prior fuel use.
The F4F-4 couldn't fly for 3.5 hrs in a BoB scenario either!!! They'd be flying over enemy territory at a high speed cruise weaving around their bomber formation, after a higher power climb to altitude, under constant radar surveillance. and threat of interception, where the cruise settings used at Midway would be tantamount to suicide!
It takes an F4F-3/4 12-13 min to 20K ft and ~25-30mins (all at full military power) to reach 30K ft. That will result in a staggering fuel burn. An Me109e will do those same climbs in ~7 - ~16min at it's rated climb power with a fuel injected engine and use far less fuel during the climb; this will have an equalizing effect on actual range as will the greater efficiency of the 109E during high speed cruise.
Shortround6
Major General
Going by "America's Hundred Thousand" it seems there was a lot of confusion and overlap on the Martlet/Wildcat.
Dean (author) claims that the F4F-3 did not have drop tanks. The Aug 1942 Performance data sheets says they did. Perhaps they were refitted?
They built 285 F4F-3s
They built 65 F4F-3As (most to the Marines) with the single stage engines.
They built 5 F4F-4s in Dec of 1941.
The Martlet I's with the same engine used in the F2A-3 Buffalo started building in July 1940, 81 built?
Marlet II's used the same engine as the F4F-3A. They built 10 and then waited for months for the folding wing.
As I have said before you have 3 different engines which are going to affect the service ceiling considerably.
The US Navy did "sex up" the Performance numbers. Just look at any of the weight tables where they either list a "light fighter" or "standard" fighter with a "overload fighter" in next column. Less than full ammo and less than full internal tanks. This goes for the F2A, the F4F and the F4U. The "overload fighter" seems to have gone away once the shooting started.
You can also look at things like the "bomber" columns were they took out a .50 cal machine gun from each side in addition to less than full internal fuel.
Anybody have any accounts of the men at Wake Island take out half of their guns when they dive bombed the Japanese destroyers?
External fuel was listed in a separate line in the weight charts and the tanks had their own line.
Some of the stuff from
wwiiaircraftperformance
Doesn't quite line up with AHT.
But some of the stuff in the navy documents don't add up.
524.5lbs for the .50 cal "installation"
The guns went about 286lb (according to AHT)
430rpg was 516lbs.
If we fudge the weight of guns a little bit we can get 240lbs for ammo which is 200rpg. I am not going to argue about 2lbs or even 10lbs
When you are over 240lbs light on ammo somebody was playing with the numbers.
This is a "what if"
The Germans don't have the fuel to run F4Fs without using 96 octane and a bit of forgiveness.
The 900 mile range for the F4F is fantasy.
If you can put tanks on a 109 they could have put tanks on a "German Wildcat", keeping them supplied is other matter. German drop tank was 300 liters, F4F tanks were 196 liters (round them up to 200.)
The 136 gallons of fuel listed is the British equivalent of 160 US gallons for unprotected tanks (or darn close) and cruising about trying to Escort bombers at 167-175mh is not going to work very well.
It will do better than the 109, perhaps as much as 40% better, perhaps not.
The German fuel injected engines do much better at high speed cruise than the allied engines for SFC.
The R-1830 engine may stay in the 0.46-0.50 lb/hp/hr range until you get to to 65-70% power?
After that you are in the 0.60lb/hp/hr range and that is for a single stage supercharger. Granted you can use low blower for cruising thousands of feet higher than you would use for combat, but you are going to have trouble using neutral at the altitudes most of the He 111s are flying at.
Just as a benchmark, A P-36A at 10,000ft flying at 270mph and using 0.46 lb/hp/hr was burning 53 US gallons per hour. If you left it in rich mixture you would burn 69 GPH of the same speed. At 88% power it would burn 100gph. This is for the 1050hp version of the R-1830.
Maybe the F4F can do better.
Dean (author) claims that the F4F-3 did not have drop tanks. The Aug 1942 Performance data sheets says they did. Perhaps they were refitted?
They built 285 F4F-3s
They built 65 F4F-3As (most to the Marines) with the single stage engines.
They built 5 F4F-4s in Dec of 1941.
The Martlet I's with the same engine used in the F2A-3 Buffalo started building in July 1940, 81 built?
Marlet II's used the same engine as the F4F-3A. They built 10 and then waited for months for the folding wing.
As I have said before you have 3 different engines which are going to affect the service ceiling considerably.
The US Navy did "sex up" the Performance numbers. Just look at any of the weight tables where they either list a "light fighter" or "standard" fighter with a "overload fighter" in next column. Less than full ammo and less than full internal tanks. This goes for the F2A, the F4F and the F4U. The "overload fighter" seems to have gone away once the shooting started.
You can also look at things like the "bomber" columns were they took out a .50 cal machine gun from each side in addition to less than full internal fuel.
Anybody have any accounts of the men at Wake Island take out half of their guns when they dive bombed the Japanese destroyers?
External fuel was listed in a separate line in the weight charts and the tanks had their own line.
Some of the stuff from
wwiiaircraftperformance
Doesn't quite line up with AHT.
But some of the stuff in the navy documents don't add up.
524.5lbs for the .50 cal "installation"
The guns went about 286lb (according to AHT)
430rpg was 516lbs.
If we fudge the weight of guns a little bit we can get 240lbs for ammo which is 200rpg. I am not going to argue about 2lbs or even 10lbs
When you are over 240lbs light on ammo somebody was playing with the numbers.
This is a "what if"
The Germans don't have the fuel to run F4Fs without using 96 octane and a bit of forgiveness.
The 900 mile range for the F4F is fantasy.
If you can put tanks on a 109 they could have put tanks on a "German Wildcat", keeping them supplied is other matter. German drop tank was 300 liters, F4F tanks were 196 liters (round them up to 200.)
The 136 gallons of fuel listed is the British equivalent of 160 US gallons for unprotected tanks (or darn close) and cruising about trying to Escort bombers at 167-175mh is not going to work very well.
It will do better than the 109, perhaps as much as 40% better, perhaps not.
The German fuel injected engines do much better at high speed cruise than the allied engines for SFC.
The R-1830 engine may stay in the 0.46-0.50 lb/hp/hr range until you get to to 65-70% power?
After that you are in the 0.60lb/hp/hr range and that is for a single stage supercharger. Granted you can use low blower for cruising thousands of feet higher than you would use for combat, but you are going to have trouble using neutral at the altitudes most of the He 111s are flying at.
Just as a benchmark, A P-36A at 10,000ft flying at 270mph and using 0.46 lb/hp/hr was burning 53 US gallons per hour. If you left it in rich mixture you would burn 69 GPH of the same speed. At 88% power it would burn 100gph. This is for the 1050hp version of the R-1830.
Maybe the F4F can do better.
Hi
So they must have been rather miffed at removing the armour from the two PR Buffalos. So what was the armour that had been fitted by Brewster in the factory prior to sending by sea to Singapore?
Mike
Greg Boeser
1st Sergeant
It wasn't. Brewster shipped crated aircraft that had to be assembled. Perhaps armour was considered GFE.
buffnut453
Captain
The 2 PR Buffalos were never issued to fighter squadrons and so probably never have had the armour installed. A great many spare RAF Buffalos were parked at Seletar and Tengah and not distributed to squadrons until needed as casualty replacements.
I believe the RAF Buffalos had some armour protection for the fuel tanks in the wings, probably just front and rear, not all-round protection. I think the armoured windscreen was also a factory install.
- Thread starter
- #192
Wild_Bill_Kelso
Senior Master Sergeant
- 3,231
- Mar 18, 2022
RCAFson: I find your assertions odd, because I know these aircraft were used in many strikes which required that long or longer flight time, and they weren't flying at sea level or at stall speed.
I have yet to see any evidence that the USN or USAAC engaged in "fantasy scenario" or used "fake" data when estimating the range of their aircraft. I would propose an alternative theory - certain people construct "fantasy scenarios" to explain away data that they find distressing or at variance with their own fantasies
Kinda like certain people crying "Fake news" when they see something they don't like.
Really? "High speed"? How fast would you say the Do 17s, Ju 87s and early mark He 111s were cruising exactly? Both before and after bomb release...
And are you suggesting that conditions would be different for the Bf 109s than they would be for any other aircraft?
The point here is that the Bf 109e couldn't fly for 3.5 hours, period.
Again, what was the cruise speed of a Ju 87? you must be getting much different numbers than I am. I am seeing 160 mph.
Boscombe Down tested one Martlet I and found that it had a range of 773 nautical miles (889 statute miles, or 1432 km) flying at 143 knots (164 mph / 265 kph) and 5,000 ft. Which seems very close to the US spec. In fact it's 9 miles further than the US spec for the F4F-3. Were the gentlemen at Boscombe Down part of the same "fantasy"? Was it a conspiracy concocted in the 1940s to upset the forums in the 21st Century? How prescient of them.
For your claim to be accurate, Eric Brown would definitely have needed to be part of the conspiracy too, because he notes QUOTE: "With its excellent patrol range – I actually flew one sortie of four-and-a-half hours in this fighter". Which seems at sharp variance with your claims that it couldn't fly 3.5 hours while say, escorting a Stuka.
Needless to say, the "fake" "Fantasy" based range estimations (and I'm sure, many other things) by the cadres of very sober wartime military personnel who had to know the reality to conduct the war, look very suspect to some people today.
But alas, I am forced to believe the word of a combat veteran who actually flew the aircraft in question, over the insistent assertions I've read so far, even when they are very strongly felt.
So it seems like you are suggesting here that due to (unquantified) comparative advantage in "fuel efficiency" and a higher climb rate Bf 109 had equivalent range to a Wildcat? I really love this if it's what you are claiming. But before this goes any further, I want to be clear. Is that what you are saying?
How fast does a bomb-laden Stuka, Do 17, or He 111P climb up to altitude? And what is their cruising altitude typically?
I have yet to see any evidence that the USN or USAAC engaged in "fantasy scenario" or used "fake" data when estimating the range of their aircraft. I would propose an alternative theory - certain people construct "fantasy scenarios" to explain away data that they find distressing or at variance with their own fantasies
Kinda like certain people crying "Fake news" when they see something they don't like.Really? "High speed"? How fast would you say the Do 17s, Ju 87s and early mark He 111s were cruising exactly? Both before and after bomb release...
And are you suggesting that conditions would be different for the Bf 109s than they would be for any other aircraft?
The point here is that the Bf 109e couldn't fly for 3.5 hours, period.
Again, what was the cruise speed of a Ju 87? you must be getting much different numbers than I am. I am seeing 160 mph.
Boscombe Down tested one Martlet I and found that it had a range of 773 nautical miles (889 statute miles, or 1432 km) flying at 143 knots (164 mph / 265 kph) and 5,000 ft. Which seems very close to the US spec. In fact it's 9 miles further than the US spec for the F4F-3. Were the gentlemen at Boscombe Down part of the same "fantasy"? Was it a conspiracy concocted in the 1940s to upset the forums in the 21st Century? How prescient of them.
For your claim to be accurate, Eric Brown would definitely have needed to be part of the conspiracy too, because he notes QUOTE: "With its excellent patrol range – I actually flew one sortie of four-and-a-half hours in this fighter". Which seems at sharp variance with your claims that it couldn't fly 3.5 hours while say, escorting a Stuka.
Needless to say, the "fake" "Fantasy" based range estimations (and I'm sure, many other things) by the cadres of very sober wartime military personnel who had to know the reality to conduct the war, look very suspect to some people today.
But alas, I am forced to believe the word of a combat veteran who actually flew the aircraft in question, over the insistent assertions I've read so far, even when they are very strongly felt.
So it seems like you are suggesting here that due to (unquantified) comparative advantage in "fuel efficiency" and a higher climb rate Bf 109 had equivalent range to a Wildcat? I really love this if it's what you are claiming. But before this goes any further, I want to be clear. Is that what you are saying?
How fast does a bomb-laden Stuka, Do 17, or He 111P climb up to altitude? And what is their cruising altitude typically?
yulzari
Staff Sergeant
Still to be seen in the East African campaign in 1941 though.
- Thread starter
- #194
Wild_Bill_Kelso
Senior Master Sergeant
- 3,231
- Mar 18, 2022
That is pretty close to what I was saying right out the gate
Go up 10% more and you got it.The Boscombe Down test I mentioned was done cruising at 143 knots at full throttle in weak mixture and MS gear, at 15,000 ft / 4574m..
The Wildcat engines with the two stage or two speed supercharger were more efficient at higher altitude (and in the thinner air) than what was in a P-36
Now you put R-1830 with two speed or two stage s/c into a P-36 and you might have something pretty interesting
Reluctant Poster
Staff Sergeant
- 1,381
- Dec 6, 2006
Ammo tended to be the limiting factor in length of engagements. One thing the Luftwaffe seemed to be really good at was making excuses for under performance. The distance they were flying in the B of B was peanuts compared to the distances the Allies had to fly to reach Germany. I can't imagine a P 51 pilot over Berlin had more time for combat than a 109 over London.
Greg Boeser
1st Sergeant
Not Battle of Britain. The array of obsolete aircraft fielded by both sided during the East African campaign is absolutely breathtaking.
Shortround6
Major General
We are confusing efficiency.That is pretty close to what I was saying right out the gate
The Boscombe Down test I mentioned was done cruising at 143 knots at full throttle in weak mixture and MS gear, at 15,000 ft / 4574m..
The Wildcat engines with the two stage or two speed supercharger were more efficient at higher altitude (and in the thinner air) than what was in a P-36
Now you put R-1830 with two speed or two stage s/c into a P-36 and you might have something pretty interesting
In the the thinner air at high altitude the airplane may cruise more efficiently (less drag).
However the engine may not be more efficient from a SFC point of view.
The P-36A was using a single speed supercharger (7.15 ratio) and was over the FTH of the engine (6500ft). Ir couldn't make power at high altitude (20,000ft) for sour apples.
We are also confusing Martlets.
The MK I used the Wright Cyclone engine as used in the F2A-3.
Great for tootling along at 14,000-15,000ft in low gear. two speed supercharger had M gear (medium supercharge) and F gear (full supercharge) but those are just diffrent names for low and high. For combat they would have shifted into F or high gear several thousand feet lower. This is the 2nd worst performing version of the Wildcat both in level speed and at altitude that they ever built.
Engine in the F4F-3 used a 8.08 supercharger gear ratio on the engine and the aux supercharger had 6.43 ratio in low gear and an 8.48 gear ratio in in gear. at 15-20,000ft may not need the aux supercharger in high gear but you need it in low gear and now you are driving two superchargers and your SFC is going to take something of a hit, even if you still in lean condition.
The Martlet I also had no fuel tank protection or rather ineffective. Put in the protected tanks and you loose about 1/2 hour of cruise.
Martlet I was slower than Hurricane and couldn't climb as well and had a lower ceiling, At least the Bf 110 had speed
The Martlet I was 500-700lb lighter than the F4F-3, in part because they had 300rpg. or about 150lbs ammo than less than the fully loaded F4F-3.
Just showing up isn't going to cut it. You have to able to fight as well as the British fighters and you don't have the performance above 20,000ft due the lower performing engines and you don't have the performance if the fight descends because nether the Wright or the P & W were ever rated at WEP.
If you try for the two stage supercharger it is operating slightly over it's limit. Most of the time they didn't use the full 2700rpm in high gear at altitude. They rarely used more than 2550rpm because of heating issues, both the engine itself and the air temperature going into the carb after the intercooler.
Shortround6
Major General
A veritable flying aviation museum
No it's not, the F4 was holding onto it's socks over 20,000ft and as per FAA tests did 300mph at 14,000ft, it's not in the ballpark for the BoB, it's not even the same game.
Okay good comeback, I'll give you that. Actually the Me110 did well when it caught Spits and Hurri's unaware, like when they were focused on attacking a bomber.
