Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
RAF Merlin 45-46's were approved for 16psi @ 3,000rpm in Feb 1942, the RAAF approved 12psi boost for their engines in Feb 1943 when LF MkV's were running at 18, the lack of boost cost the Darwin MkV's when compared to the equivalent models.Neither of those is true.
The reason I gave the data was your messages, #172 about US bomber (and fighter) speeds and #237 about German bomber speeds, they were not F4F economic cruise speeds, I was providing the correct information. I receive an editorial long on how you are right on topics I did not mention, now go away. I work on the principle the more editorial, the less accuracy.Whatever cruise rate they were using,
I suggest you stop developing it and address the problems you are ignoring.Somehow there seems to now be a myth developing that Wildcats were slower than any of these bombers, which is ridiculous.
Actually I read it as you are pretending that is what other people are saying.Everyone else is just kind of trying to pretend that Wildcats can't fly fast or that they suffer problems that a 109s does not.
The ranges the British tests give are economic cruise, not maximum weak mixture cruise. Unlike the data I posted which made clear the speeds involved. Next note the Wildcat II card of 6 February 1944 supersedes the Martlet II card of 22 August 1941, but they are very different aircraft. The Martlet I card is 22 August 1941, the IV is 6 February 1944, the V is 11 November 1944.For example, all of these are British tests by the way.
Martlet I "most economical" 167-175 mph, maximum weak mixture 257 mph. Range 870 miles. (no aux or loiter time indicated)
Martlet II "most economical" 170 mph, maximum weak mixture 260 mph. Range 850 miles (no aux or loiter time indicated)
Wildcat II "most economical" 213 mph, maximum weak mixture 246 mph, loiter 181 mph. Range 795 miles. Loiter 3.95 hours.
Wildcat IV "most economical" speed 213 mph. Maximum weak mixture 238 mph. Loiter 181 mph. Range 695 +452 aux tanks, 3.5 +2.3 hours loiter.
Wildcat V "most economical" speed 218 mph. Maximum weak mixture 262 mph. Loiter 185. Range not given.
I know you do not see despite so many people trying to explain. And the editorials show you are uninterested. After all I posted the Bf109 and Bf110 ranges noting they were economic cruise now apparently the requirement is 300 mph, an estimate is given above. Now remember, replying your idea is better requires some evidence, not an assertion. Otherwise I do not see any point here. I am sure someone with better knowledge of the DB601 could provide a more accurate idea of fuel consumption at different power levels. I do note Eric Brown quotes the Bf109G-6 range as 350 miles at 330 mph at 19,000 feet, implying the Bf109E range figures are at fast cruise.Unless you can show that the stated range limitation for the Bf 109 and Bf 110 were done at 300 mph, then I don't think there is any point here.
The Darwin Spitfires could have had double the internal fuel, and still struggled.Range was the single biggest issue.
More were probably lost to fuel starvation than mechanical failure, but the point still stands.
Neither of those is true.
Boost only effects speed below critical altitude. RAF testing shows speeds of 354-372 mph at +9 lbs of boost. RAAF testing of their tropicalised Spitfire Mk Vcs shows speeds between 354 and 365 mph at + 9 lbs. Poor condition of the aircraft surfaces, poor engine performance, the tropical filter and a few other issues were what sapped the Darwin Mk Vs of their performance.
RAAF tactical trials of the Mk Vc tropicalised vs an A6M3 specifically state that the Spitfire can loop more tightly than the Zero at high speeds. It recommends loops at high speed as a evasive tactic.
In testing at 17,000 ft the Mk V did have trouble in the loop when initial speed was 220 mph IAS, at which point the Spitfire would stall out at the top of the maneuver. However, it could be easily looped at higher speeds. A 280 mph IAS and 27,000 ft, the Mk V could do three consecutive loops.
RAAF's recommendation was to not loop the Spitfire in combat with the Zero at speeds blow 250 mph IAS.
The reason I gave the data was your messages, #172 about US bomber (and fighter) speeds and #237 about German bomber speeds, they were not F4F economic cruise speeds, I was providing the correct information. I receive an editorial long on how you are right on topics I did not mention, now go away. I work on the principle the more editorial, the less accuracy.
As for the bombers diving, London to Dover is around 70 miles, the bombers are 3 miles up, work out the slope assuming the bombers are at zero feet at the coast, or the lesser slope assuming they want to stay above light AA range, then work out the actual speed boost.
I suggest you stop developing it and address the problems you are ignoring.
Actually I read it as you are pretending that is what other people are saying.
The ranges the British tests give are economic cruise, not maximum weak mixture cruise. Unlike the data I posted which made clear the speeds involved. Next note the Wildcat II card of 6 February 1944 supersedes the Martlet II card of 22 August 1941, but they are very different aircraft. The Martlet I card is 22 August 1941, the IV is 6 February 1944, the V is 11 November 1944.
The USN says the F4F-3 had an endurance of 1 hour at maximum speed at 19,000 feet, that is around 323 miles, the Bf109E-3 economic cruise was 410 miles. No one is disputing the F4F had a greater range. The advantage decreases with speed, partly as 300 mph is around 91% of the F4F-3 top speed, it is 86% of the Bf109E, and that small percentage does make a difference
The F4F-3 is quoted as 940 miles at 150 mph at 2,500 feet using 144 gallons of fuel. The F4F-4 drops that to 830 miles at 161 mph at 5,000 feet. The rise in fuel consumption with speed, F4F-4 range/speed curve at 5,000 feet, 144 gallons of fuel.
161 mph, 830 miles
200 mph, 715 miles
220 mph, 625 miles
240 mph, 500 miles
285 mph, 280 miles
See the attached, condition 2 is fighter using normal power, condition 4 is fighter, normal power, 2x58 gallon external fuel tanks. The graph shows the trade off between speed, altitude and longest range.
The USN says at 195 mph the F4F-3 had a range of 930 miles at 19,000 feet, (4.8 hours times 0.6 times 323 mph) at 240 mph 800 miles (3.3 hours times 0.75 times 323 mph), at 323 mph 323 miles (1 hour times 323 mph), yet gives the maximum range as 940 miles at 150 mph at 2,500 feet. Somehow an extra 110 miles range advantage over the F4F-4 at 150-160 mph becomes an extra 235 miles at 200 mph and 250 more miles at 250 mph. Shall we say there is an issue here. Using the F4F-4 curve the F4F-3 would have twice the range of the Bf109E-3 at 200 mph.
The RAF reports the Spitfire I was good for 415 miles at 304 mph, to get the official 575 miles range cruise was 180 to 190 mph. The Hurricane I range around 275 mph was 340 miles, at 180 mph 600 miles.
Assume the B109E-3 range degrades in the same way as the Spitfire, given similar top speeds, 410 miles at 200 mph becomes 295 miles at 300 mph. The F4F-4 range advantage drops from 75% more to actually less. The F4F-3 range advantage drops from around twice as much to still better, given it could do 323 miles at 323 mph if the endurance chart is accurate and remembering it starts with a range advantage over the F4F-4.
Put it another way, flying beside a Do17Z the F4F-4 was good for 760 miles, beside a Ju88A-1 550 miles. At 180 mph the F4F-4 could out range the Hurricane by 200 miles, at 275 mph it had about the same range.
The F4F-4 rate of climb, normal power is 2,200 feet per minute at sea level, down to 2,050 feet per minute at 4,000 feet, holds that to 11,500 feet then it steadily degrades, 1,600 feet per minute at 16,000 feet, 1,200 feet per minute at 20,000 feet, 800 feet per minute at 25,000 feet. It costs the F4F more fuel than the Bf109E to climb given the longer duration, add that the F4F-3 took off at around 7,556 pounds, the Bf109E-3 was 5,875 pounds, raising a ton 5 miles costs, the F4F is almost 30% heavier.
I know you do not see despite so many people trying to explain. And the editorials show you are uninterested. After all I posted the Bf109 and Bf110 ranges noting they were economic cruise now apparently the requirement is 300 mph, an estimate is given above. Now remember, replying your idea is better requires some evidence, not an assertion. Otherwise I do not see any point here. I am sure someone with better knowledge of the DB601 could provide a more accurate idea of fuel consumption at different power levels. I do note Eric Brown quotes the Bf109G-6 range as 350 miles at 330 mph at 19,000 feet, implying the Bf109E range figures are at fast cruise.
On another point fundamentally for most of the Pacific air war the chances of interception away from a Japanese base were small so allied aircraft cruised at optimum for range and in loose formations.
I also don't see why F4F-4 ranges would be so drastically reduced from -3 [...]
And all these arguments that the Wildcat's range would be much less because it wasn't flying over the Pacific, are, IMO, ridiculous. Yes I dismiss that line of argument.
We have been down this road before. Knock it off with the snide comments.
It got old a long time ago.
Yes, to different degrees.Anything that affects or limits the range of the Bf 109 (or Spitfire, or Hurricane) would also affect the Wildcat and vice versa.
What I have is a simply statement of max range of 410 miles, speed and altitude not given from Green. However a (repeat A) range cruise at 3 different altitudes are given. 202mph at 1000 meters, 210mph at 2,000 meters and 236mph at 7,000 meters. Also a max continuous cruising of speed of 300mph at 4000 meters and max speed of 342mph at 13,120ft and 334mph at 6000 meters. The last two are just for reference and are using the DB 601A engine as used in most 109E-1s. Some (all) 109E-3s got DB 610Aa engines so speeds and altitudes are bit off. I doubt very much that the 410 miles was done bobbing and weaving at 300mph. The figures are from am old William Green book and are subject to doubt (he says the 109E-3 had the cannon in the prop hub).I have yet to see any evidence that the 400 mile range estimate of the 109 was calculated based on flying 300 mph dodging and weaving and engaging in combat.
From a data sheet for the 109E-1 and E-3 as printed in "Messerschmitt" Bf 109 A-E" by Willy Radinger & Walter SchickI believe, in fact, that the range of both Wildcat and Bf 109e were calculated the same way.
Outturn, maybe. Outclimb?
Please read and absorb the information, most importantly the attached documents. Given the original hypothetical idea was to give the Luftwaffe F4F because of its better range my post uses data from the F4F-3 and F4F-4 as the USN sheets have different ways of presenting range information, the F4F-3 has ranges at 19,000 feet for different power settings, the F4F-4 has a proper range curve, both have a low level "maximum range". The F4F-3 has some inconsistencies but states it had a longer range than the F4F-4, how much of that is due to different measuring criteria is unclear. The range curve gives a much better idea in the fall in air miles per gallon as speed goes up. At 180 to 190 mph the RAF reports the Spitfire I could make 575 miles, at 304 mph 415 miles. At 180 mph the USN says the F4F-4 range was around 790 miles, at 280 mph 300 miles, in other words going from around a third better to a third worse than the Spitfire.Well if it's true that a Bf 109 could fly 295 miles at 300 mph I'm pretty impressed, though it seems like F4F-3 still has an advantage. I would think the two stage supercharger on the Wildcat may help with efficiency somewhat at the higher altitudes.
I can't think why you would intentionally use F4F-4 instead of F4F-3 in a land based unit (unless your carrier was sunk and they had nowhere else to go), although the whole thing is a hypothetical just to make a point about range, so it only goes so far.
I also don't see why F4F-4 ranges would be so drastically reduced from -3, I would also be very surprised if it's true that F4F of any type has the same range as a Hurricane at 275 mph, how much of the above is calculated vs. actual reported numbers? If the latter then I concede defeat (and would be very surprised!)
The British tests of the various F4F variants quote 2 cruise speeds but only one range, without specifying which speed. The many Bf109E references give a cruise speed of around 202 mph, with a fast cruise at 300 mph and the reader's assumption the range of 410 miles is at economic cruise, backed up by the Battle of Britain stories. Two possibilities,
American pilots were complaining about the performance against the Zero, the Hurrican did no better and was less powerfully armed. The performance of the Wildcat and Sea Hurricane were about the same with either having advantages in certain areas. Both were inferior to Axis aircraft in 19421) So? Those aren't Sea Hurricanes and would need to be converted which costs money vs free FM2s.
2) I looked at the data from PQ18, IRONCLAD, and PEDESTAL and the SH seems to have had the lowest landing accident rate. The data card for the SH1B shows 315mph at 7500ft. The Seafire appeared in late 1942.
3) The early variants of the Martlet had no armour or self sealing tanks and 10% more fuel than the ~SS tank versions and these seem to be the basis for that rumour. The actual data shows the rumours to be unfounded.
4) The Zero had 60 rounds/gun. The SHIIC had 100RPG (Brown: Wings of the Navy).
5) I'm pretty certain that your average F4F-4 Wildcat pilot who was complaining about his aircraft's poor climb rate and manoeuvrability (and whose reports were passed up the line to Nimitz) would be quite happy to fly an aircraft that weighed ~10% less with the same wing area and had ~20% more power... This is hard truth here and we have to recognize it. Yes, the F4F-4 has some superior attributes like folding wings but why then did the FM2 design team spend countless hours and dollars to come up with a lightweight carrier fighter in 1944 that only just matched the mid 1941 SH1B in range and performance?