Was the Sea Hurricane a superior naval fighter than the F4F?

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

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.

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.


How fast does a bomb-laden Stuka, Do 17, or He 111P climb up to altitude? And what is their cruising altitude typically?
Click to expand...
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.
 
Last edited:
I think you should re-read what actually happened in the BoB, all those planes were gunned out of the sky by Spits and Hurricanes armed with pea shooters and it became so bad for the Stuka it was withdrawn from front line service and caused the He111's to switch to night bombing. Lets do a scenario and replace the Me109 with Wildcats, the bombers they are escorting come under attack at 16,000ft, they are too slow to fight, too slow to run, too slow to climb, what do they do?.
 
What do you call using performance figures with 1/2 the guns installed or 1/2 the planed ammo and/or under 70% of the fuel in the plane (at take-off, not burned in use).
Not counting the fuel used to warm up, take off and climb to altitude is a fantasy scenario. The US did it with all their planes so the "real" distances didn't change much but the numbers bore no resemblance to real world.
Wild_Bill_Kelso said:
The point here is that the Bf 109e couldn't fly for 3.5 hours, period.
Click to expand...
But we don't know
We know that a 109 could fly 265 kph/1000 meters at 0.45km/liter of fuel for an endurance of 3.35 hours using the same assumptions the the US used
It is in the Service manual, at least the parts about speed/altitude and liters per km. I did the math for the hours using the total fuel of 400 liters.

Not sure you couldn't tweak something to that last 0.15 hours and tow the plane into the air, Germans were good at that

Of course a 109 tootling along at 265kph (165mph ) at 1000 meters altitude in enemy territory is sure not escorting bombers.
 

Yes but the BoB was in 1940 (when biplanes were still very common as fighters) while the P-51 pilots flying into Germany was mostly 1944 when jets were already arriving on the battlefield. It was only 3 or 4 years but that's a long time in terms of technological development during World War 2.
 

F4F-3 is easily a match for the Hurricane Mk 1, which did fine during the Battle of Britain. So I call B.S. Again.
 

1) I am well aware of the history of the BoB and what happened to the German bombers, and who won it.
2) Part of the reason everything happened the way it did, was that the Bf 109s, while great fighters, were not able to always effectively protect those bombers.
3) I'm pointing out that a fighter with longer range and therefore better flight and combat endurance would have helped the Axis

As for the F4F-3 and your scenario per above, I don't believe they are too slow for anything. It was at least as fast as a Hurricane. And as we know F4F Wildcats held their own quite well against both Japanese Army (notably Ki-43) and Japanese Navy (notably A6M) fighters, both of which ate Hurricane IIs alive, let alone Hurricane I.

And the F4F, which changed fairly little during the war, didn't exactly get slaughtered by Bf 109s when they encountered them, though admittedly there are only a few examples of that. There were some examples as late as 1945 IIRC, and the Wildcats didn't come out on the losing end of it.
 
Wild_Bill_Kelso said:
F4F-3 is easily a match for the Hurricane Mk 1, which did fine during the Battle of Britain. So I call B.S. Again.
Click to expand...
The lightest F4F variant, with no armour or SS tanks, weighed the same as a Hurricane 1, but unlike the Hurricane 1 (12lb boost = 1300+ HP) it had no combat rating for the engine. Subsequently when we add armour and SS tanks it was ~20-30mph slower below 12K ft or so and it's max climb rate was nearly 1/2 that of the Hurricane 1.
 

This whole post is completely disingenuous. False. "Fantasy".

I wasted something like 20 pages arguing with you about your spurious claims regarding Pedestal, among other things, so I'm not going to descend into this one, except to point out the obvious.

When an aircraft is heading to the battle area, they will be flying at cruise speed.
When escorting a bomber, the fighter (especially per doctrine, in the BoB) had to fly relatively close to the bombers. Some will fly top cover, some may be allowed to roam a bit.
But in general, this meant, at a similar speed and pretty close altitude (at least close enough to see the bombers, often much closer).
Therefore, on the way to the target, they fly at cruise speed, i.e. slow. 150 -200 mph.
When they get closer to the point where they can expect to be intercepted, they likely speed up.
Once in combat, the fighters will often be flying at maximum combat speeds. Thus burning up fuel much faster.
This doesn't in fact put the Wildcat at any disadvantage. The Wildcat was just as fast as an early Hurricane, which did well in the BoB.

More importantly
Any restrictions on cruise speed vs. range suffered by one fighter (say, Wildcat) would also be suffered by the other (Bf 109, Hurricane, Spitfire, MC 200)
So this means that while the Wildcat's range would be reduced once they are going full throttle, so would any other fighter type
Which in turn means, the range / endurance advantage remains exactly what it would be if they were flying the whole way at cruise speed and never got into combat.

Unless you are trying to argue that Wildcat uses fuel at a higher rate once 'excited' than a Bf 109?
 

We went round and round on that. F4F-3, with armor and SS tanks, was not slower than a Hurricane I. It may not have had as good of a climb rate, but it also didn't have those big draggy fat wings either. It had a good combat record.
 
Wild_Bill_Kelso said:
F4F-3 is easily a match for the Hurricane Mk 1, which did fine during the Battle of Britain. So I call B.S. Again.
Click to expand...
Call BS all you want.

The F4F-3 is match for the Hurricane I at altitude. It may even be a match for the Hurricane II at least in speed, climb may be a somewhat less.
Now is it a Sept 1940 F4F-3 (no protection, no drop tanks) or a Sept 1942 F2F-3?
What is the gross weight?
You have been touting the range for the Martlet I and now you want to use the performance numbers for the F4F-3?
That is true B.S.
 
Wild_Bill_Kelso said:
There were some examples as late as 1945 IIRC, and the Wildcats didn't come out on the losing end of it.
Click to expand...
F4F-3s or FM-2s (Martlet/Wildcat VI)
Once again you change types of plane to suit the situation.

You also don't get to pick and chose which elements of the plane are draggy and ignore the rest.
Martlet V (basically an FM-1) was rated by the British at 332mph at 21,000ft with an engine that gave 1050hp at 20,000ft. at mean weight ( 7355lbs ?)
Hurricane IIB was measured at 330mph at 20,800ft (or 335mph in a different test but a lighter aircraft) engine was supposed to give 1070hp at 20,000ft (?)
Hurricane at 330mph had 12 guns as was 7333lbs.

Hurricane may have had thick wings but something was going on with Grumman.
Hurricane was 1.8 minutes quicker to 15,000ft.
 


Again: The fact that 10 F4F-4s ran out of fuel at Midway after ~3.5 hours isn't my "assertion" it's not " completely disingenuous or False or Fantasy" 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.

Escort fighters have to fly above the escorted bombers and at higher than econ cruise to be effective. If they can't or won't do that then they will not be effective as escorts regardless of their range. Luftwaffe fighters were liable to be engaged at anytime from slightly before to after crossing the UK coast; this is entirely different than 1942 in the Pacific where USN fighters were almost immune (except by chance) from interception except when within visual distance of IJN carriers.

The Wildcat's poorer climb rate and high fuel burn during climb did cut it's range more than other fighters, such as the 109E, Hurricane 1 and Spitfire 1. The poor F4F climb rate was a constant concern amongst USN aircrew and the higher command structures of the USN. The lower speed of the F4F (compared to the 109E) would mean that the F4F would have to fly at a relatively higher throttle setting to be effective as an escort but in any event would always be 25- 35mph slower than the 109E.
 
SaparotRob said:
I don't think Bf-109s having problems protecting the bombers was so much due to performance as it was due to doctrine.
Click to expand...
Agreed. Messerschmitts flying "frei Jagd" were able to engage and break off at will. When forced to basically fly formation with the bombers, they gave up initiative and were forced to fight at a lower initial speed, putting them at a disadvantage. This same problem plagued the Allies trying to fly close escort on cross-channel "circuses" as well as covering tactical missions in North Africa. It was only after 8th Air Force doctrine changed in early 1944 that the Allied fighters were allowed to seek, pursue, and destroy enemy fighters.
 
I don't understand your point
 
Wild_Bill_Kelso said:
Unless you are trying to argue that Wildcat uses fuel at a higher rate once 'excited' than a Bf 109?
Click to expand...
Define excited?

Once the Wildcat exceeds around 60-70% power it goes to rich mixture and takes a big jump.
The Merlin and Allison also take a big jump but two things happen here.
One is that the liqued cooled engines, due to better streamlining, use less power in cruise (at least P-40s and Spitfires) compared to round engine fighters (P-36s and Wildcats) and don't have to run rich mixture quite as soon. The other thing is that around 300mph or so even if they are using rich mixture, they aren't using as much power.
There was a reason they did 350mph on the same power the round engine plans did 320-330.
Hurricane II was supposed to do 302mph at 20,000ft at max weak mixture.
The liquid cooled engines used rich mixture for cooling and for detonation control, they just didn't use as much.
Please note the Liquid cooled engines had more problems with mixture distribution (one cylinder in the bank of 6 running leaner than the others) and that was also a reason for the rich mixture.

DB 601 and offspring were a lot different. The fuel injection took care of the mixture problems and the fuel injection also meant they didn't have use rich mixture for power quite as much.
DB 601 used from 210 grams per PH hour to 232 G/PH/H from around 800 ps to over 1000 ps. (including the 5 minute rating) at 1100PS (the one minute rating) it went to around 250/270 G/PH/H.
The 230 G/PH/H is about .51 lbs/hp/hr. so yes, the DB 610 sucks down a lot less fuel than any of the allied engines and especially the air (fuel) cooled radials even when it gets "excited".
This was about as bad as it got, most of the later DB engines have listings from 210 to 225 G/PH/H unless they are really operating in strange territory.

So yes, I am arguing that the Wildcat uses fuel at a higher rate, because that is what all the engine data sheets say.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

H
Why was the Barracuda so much slower than the Avenger?
3 4 5
Replies
92
Views
7K
EwenS
E
How good a plane was the P-40, really?
20 21 22
Replies
424
Views
26K
Just Schmidt
J
F
Just how good was the Mitsubishi F1M 'Pete'
Replies
12
Views
1K
cammerjeff
How good was the soviet air force?
20 21 22
Replies
420
Views
24K
bf109xxl
B
A
The Myth of the British "Fixing" The Corsair
2 3
Replies
52
Views
1K
Ambaryerno
A
Menu
Log in
Register