The fact that 10 F4F-4s ran out of fuel at Midway after ~3.5 hours isn't my "assertion", it's a plain and simple fact that is well documented! We know the TO time, we know the mission cruise and altitude parameters and we know the time of forced landing due to fuel starvation. I wish you would stop engaging in trying to create 'alternative facts' whilst ignoring real world data. If you have well documented accounts of F4F-3/4 fighters flying longer duration missions please present the data.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?
You have seen evidence of 'fantasy scenarios' regarding USN/USAAC range estimates because the evidence has been shown to you, and explained to you, but you simply refuse to accept it.
The Martlet 1 had no armour and no SS tanks. Consequently, It had more fuel (162usg) and less weight than any other variant; the fact that Brown might have gotten more range out of a Martlet 1 than an F4F-3/4 isn't surprising, in fact it would be amazing if he didn't! However, if it flew the same mission profile as the aforementioned F4F-4s at Midway, we would expect that Brown would have run out of fuel after ~ 4 hours or so. I really shouldn't have to explain this to you when it is so obvious.
Cruising at 15k ft @165mph during the BoB would be suicidal because the intercepting RAF fighters would be flying at up to double that speed. For the escort fighter to be effective it has to fly above the escorted bombers at a speed high enough to enable interception of RAF fighters and also avoid being shot down before it can actually perform as an escort.
I stated:
"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."
A 'equalizing effect' means that the disparity between the two data points (max range) will be reduced (not equal!) due to the effect of the variable (fuel use during high power climbs and high power cruise). The F4F-3/4 uses 2usg/minute at full throttle (as per Grumman's specs), if it takes the F4F-3 another 5 to 15 minutes to climb to 20/30k ft, then it will use 10 to 30usg more fuel during the climb than another aircraft that has the same fuel consumption per minute but climbs to altitude that much faster.
see my bolded comments above. As an aside, there were comparatively few Stuka sorties flown over the UK during the BofB. Typical TE bomber formation altitude was 15 to 20K ft, but both the intercepting and escorting fighters would be flying somewhat higher. However, rather than me explaining this to you, it is really up to you to know the the typical bomber sortie and fighter escort combat altitudes.How fast does a bomb-laden Stuka, Do 17, or He 111P climb up to altitude? And what is their cruising altitude typically?
Last edited: