- Thread starter
-
- #181
Wild_Bill_Kelso
Senior Master Sergeant
- 3,231
- Mar 18, 2022
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
So the Germans are better off with Wildcats, how would a Wildcat work in these reports of actual combat?, notice the heights and speeds?.
Perhaps, but they weren't in first line squadron service.Might have been some old Gauntlets and Fury's still kicking around too
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.While things did vary the USAAF heavy bombers normally used fast cruise in Europe. The B-17F at 150 to 160 mph IAS, the B-24D at 170 to 175 mph IAS. Roughly 150 IAS at 25,000 feet is 225 mph TAS, 160 IAS is 240 mph TAS. The fighters also used faster cruises, above 300 mph TAS, otherwise they were too vulnerable and had a longer times accelerating to combat speed, making interceptions harder.
USN figures for F4F-3 as of 14 August 1942. IFF Equipment in all loadings. S.S. Cells not removed for ferry (only rear tank fuel tight without cell, gain in capacity 3 gallons). Reissued from original date, range and endurance figures recomputed incorporating a suitable increase in specific fuel consumption to conform with past experience.
Engine Type R-1830-86
Engine Gear Ratio 3 to 2
Propeller Curtiss Elec. CS 3 Blade 9 ft 9 in, Bl. Des. No. 512
Engine Rating Take-Off BHP /RPM 1,200 / 2,900
Engine Ratings BHP/RPM/Feet
Normal 1,100 / 2,550 / 0-2,500
Normal 1,050 / 2,550 / 12,000
Normal 1,000 / 2,550 / 19,000
Military 1,200 / 2,700 / 0-1,800
Military 1,150 / 2,700 / 11,500
Military 1,000 / 2,550 / 19,000
Loading Condition Unit Fighter Fighter Fighter Bomber Ferry Gross Weight Pounds 7,556 7,556 8,361 7,809 7,350Empty Weight Pounds 5,381 5,381 5,381 5,381 5,228Fuel Gallons 144 144 260 144 260Fixed Guns number x calibre 4 x 0.50 inch 4 x 0.50 inch 4 x 0.50 inch 4 x 0.50 inch None Fixed Guns Ammunition Rounds 1,800 1,800 1,800 1,800 None Bomb load No. x Pounds 0 0 02 x 100 0Drop Tanks No. x Gallons 0 02 x 58 02 x 58 Engine Rating For Performance Military Normal Normal Normal Normal Wing Loading Pounds/sq. feet 29.1 29.1 32.2 30 28.3Power Loading (BHP, Crit. Alt.) Pounds/BHP 7.6 7.6 8.4 7.8 7.4VM Sea Level MPH 290 280 258 272 260VM MPH/Feet 295/1,800 288/2,500 264/2,500 288/2,500 266/2,500 VM MPH/Feet 294/3,100 287/4,200 VM MPH/Feet 316/11,500 310/12,000 283/12,000 298/12,000 285/12,000 VM MPH/Feet 311/15,100 307/13,300 VM MPH/Feet 323/19,000 323/19,000 295/19,000 312/19,000 298/19,000 VM (Critical Altitude) MPH/Feet 329/21,100 329/21,100 297/19,500 319/21,100 300/19,500 VG - Gross Weight, no power MPH 79.1 79.1 85.5 80.4 77.9VG - Less Fuel, no power MPH 74.4 74.4 77.1 75.8 69.1Time to 10,000 feet Minutes 4.6 4.9 6.7 5.3 5.6Time to 20,000 feet Minutes 10.3 10.6 16.3 11.5 12.6Service Ceiling Feet 36,400 36,400 30,200 35,900 32,300Take off - Calm - Land Feet n/a 550 736 612 530Take off - 15 knots - Land Feet n/a 350 480 393 330Take off - 25 knots - Land Feet n/a 234 330 265 223Climb Sea Level Feet/Minute 2,450 2,460 1,810 2,350 2,220Endurance - 60% VM Hours n/a 4.9 8.4 4.7 9.6Endurance - 60% VM Feet n/a 19,000 19,000 19,000 19,000Endurance - 75% VM Hours n/a 3.3 6 3.3 6.6Endurance - 75% VM Feet n/a 19,000 19,000 19,000 19,000Endurance - VM Hours n/a 1 1.8 1 1.8Endurance - VM Feet n/a 19,000 19,000 19,000 19,000Max Range Statute Miles n/a 940 1,420 880 1,635Max Range Average Speed MPH n/a 150 151 150 137Max Range Altitude Feet n/a 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500
RAF figures Grumman Martlet I, single seat single air cooled Cyclone G-205A engine rated at 1,000 HP at 13,500 feet, 4x0.50 inch machine guns in wings with 300 rpg, tare weight 4,967 pounds.
Normal Condition Weight (pounds) 6,835Take Off (Over 50 ft) (Yards) 520Landing (Over 50 ft) (Yards) 550Service Ceiling (Feet) 32,000Maximum Speed (m.p.h) 310Max Speed Height (Feet) 14,500Cruising Speed (m.p.h) 257Cruise Speed Height 15,00050 Minutes allowance Range (miles) 69050 Minutes allowance Endurance Hours 2.7Fuel (for range, gallons) 107Fuel (for allowance, gallons) 29Fuel (Total, gallons) 136Extended condition Overload Weight pounds 7,000Cruise Speed (m.p.h) 245Height (feet) 15,000Bomb Load (pounds) 330Range (50 mins allow.) (miles) 670Endurance (50 mins allow.) Hrs 2.75Fuel (for range, gallons) 107Fuel (for allowance, gallons) 29Fuel (Total, gallons) 136Extended condition economical Cruise Speed (m.p.h) 165-175 Height (feet) 15,000Range (50 mins allow.) (miles) 845Endurance (50 mins allow.) Hrs 5Fuel (for range, gallons) 107Fuel (for allowance, gallons) 29Fuel (Total, gallons) 136
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.
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 wrongWildcat could also already carry external tanks by the time F4F-3 was available.
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.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.
HiMike,
The seat armour for the RAF Buffalos was made at the RN shipyard in Singapore based on plans provided from Brewster. It was retrofitted to aircraft at the squadron level. I have an account from a member of 488 Sqn's groundcrew who cursed the task. Not only did it involve crawling into the rear fuselage (which was not only cramped but, in daytime was incredibly hot in the Far East), but the mounting holes in the armour plate often were not correctly aligned, meaning that the crew had a really hard time fixing it in place.
The situation for 67 Sqn in Burma was further complicated as they had the task of erecting most of the Buffalo airframes without any nearby MU. They prioritized getting all the aircraft erected so they could at least be flown . As it was, reports suggest Japanese bombing raids in December destroyed 2 airframes on the ground that were still in their packing crates. The 67 Sqn personnel were resource strapped and, sadly, it had lethal consequences for at least one of the Sqn's pilots.
It wasn't. Brewster shipped crated aircraft that had to be assembled. Perhaps armour was considered GFE.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
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
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.
Still to be seen in the East African campaign in 1941 though.Perhaps, but they weren't in first line squadron service.
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.
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.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.
Not Battle of Britain. The array of obsolete aircraft fielded by both sided during the East African campaign is absolutely breathtaking.Still to be seen in the East African campaign in 1941 though.
We are confusing efficiency.That is pretty close to what I was saying right out the gateGo 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
A veritable flying aviation museumNot Battle of Britain. The array of obsolete aircraft fielded by both sided during the East African campaign is absolutely breathtaking.
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.F4F-3 had a ceiling of 37,000 ft and top speed of 330 mph, which is certainly in the ballpark for the BoB
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.Blenheim, Defiant and Bf 110?
I'm kidding