Good answer, like the RAF I can't for the life of me understand why the Luftwaffe didn't fit say a 20G tank internally or use drop tanks during the BoB.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Good answer, like the RAF I can't for the life of me understand why the Luftwaffe didn't fit say a 20G tank internally or use drop tanks during the BoB.I don't think Bf-109s having problems protecting the bombers was so much due to performance as it was due to doctrine.
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.
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.
Good answer, like the RAF I can't for the life of me understand why the Luftwaffe didn't fit say a 20G tank internally or use drop tanks during the BoB.
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.
HiThe 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.
You can lead the horse to water but you can't make him drink.Interesting comparison of the engines but I don't think you have made the case for (or quantified in any way) the idea that the Wildcat would have an inferior, or even comparable combat endurance + range to the 109. Engine fuel rate isn't the whole picture. I suspect the Wildcat did have more drag though as it had a bigger wing and stubby fuselage + radial engine. But I don't know that it means it matters that much, and I still think it had more than an 800 mile range while the 109 had ~ 400 mile range.
| Month | Martlet I | Martlet I imports | F4F-3 | Martlet II/III | Martlet III | F4F-3A |
Jul-40 | 1 | |||||
Aug-40 | 30 | 6 | 2 | |||
Sep-40 | 29 | 38 | ||||
Oct-40 | 21 | 6 | ||||
Nov-40 | 0 | 15 | 1 | |||
Dec-40 | 0 | 6 | 19 | |||
Jan-41 | 0 | 0 | 31 | |||
Feb-41 | 0 | 0 | 25 | |||
Mar-41 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 30 | 15 |
Apr-41 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 17 |
May-41 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 33 |
Jun-41 | 0 | 0 | 28 | 1 | ||
| Total | 81 | 71 | 109 | 11 | 30 | 65 |
Am I reading this right? Actual armor-plated fuel tanks, not just self-sealing ones? Was that usual?As far as I can see from photographs of RAF (RAAF, RNZAF) Buffalos in the Far East they were fitted with armoured windscreens (internally fitted). Also mentions about armour appear to stress the weight of it affecting its performance. In addition when two Buffalos were converted for PR work, Sgt. Charlie Wareham (formally of 243 Sqn. and then 4 PRU) mentions that:
"All the guns were taken out of my aircraft - and all the armour plating from around the petrol tanks and around the wings, so as to make the aircraft lighter."
All these British ordered Buffalos were delivered direct from the USA, so presumably the armour was fitted at the factory, unless the MU in the Far East had the awkward job of retro-fitting it from stocks (from where?). (info 'Bloody Shambles' Volume One). Some sources state the Buffalo had an armoured seat, if so that must have been a factory fit.
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.
IIRC, the 109E was being fitted with DTs by Sept/Oct 1940.Good answer, like the RAF I can't for the life of me understand why the Luftwaffe didn't fit say a 20G tank internally or use drop tanks during the BoB.
Outturn, maybe. Outclimb?Am I reading this right? Actual armor-plated fuel tanks, not just self-sealing ones? Was that usual?
Isn't part of the problem that while free-hunting Messers can force a fight, opposing Spitfires can simply out-turn and out-climb them, thus preventing any decisive result, while the unescorted bombers simply get punished...?
You can lead the horse to water but you can't make him drink.
I am done here.
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.
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?.
Yes! Then they can attack the bombers.Thach Weave, of course.
That seems like a great way to find an early grave over the UK in 1940.
Yes! Then they can attack the bombers.
Fuel / range wasn't the problem over Darwin. Once the higher speed tactics were followed the Spitfire was easily able to match the Zero.Well, let me put it this way.... Wildcats were able to hold their own against Zeros, Thach Weave indeed being part of it. They did not attack their own bombers. In fact, they did a lot better against the A6M than the Spitfire Mk Vs did over Darwin. And guess what one of the main issues was with the Spitfires?
Fuel. Range.
Fuel / range wasn't the problem over Darwin. Once the higher speed tactics were followed the Spitfire was easily able to match the Zero.
When the Spitfire VIII arrived it was the end of the line for the Zero.