Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Martlet Mk II - 472 km/h (293 mph) at 2,962m and 3965m. Range 1432 km (889 miles) [Four gun, two speed Twin Wasp engine, some had 'retro-fitted' folding wings. On Formidable and Illustrious]
Martlet Mk III - 502 km/h (311 mph) at 4,877m. Range 1328 km (825 miles) [aka Wildcat Mk III, two speed R-1830-90 Twin Wasp. Originally Greek order, went to 805 and 806 Sqn]
And the point?I believe he also flew a variety of other Martlet and Wildcat models in his capacity as test pilot didn't he?
See here the Sea Hurricane (= basically a hooked Hurricane I with drop tank facility) data sheet - 1100 miles with drop tanks at 208 mph and 20000 ft, after allowance of 22 gals is subtracted.
Slipper tanks on Hurricane - please, do tell.
This will provide a startig point to understand the British MartletsThank you.
Still have the 136 imp gal fuel tank/s unless it was a mistake in the data sheet?
Engine is a two speed single stage engine, not the two stage engines that most F4F-3 and F4F-4s got.
The US had some F4F-3As with the same engine engine. (65) and most went to the USMC.
AIUI it was during his time with 802 that he claimed his 4.5hr sortie, which is the subject of the dispute here.I believe he also flew a variety of other Martlet and Wildcat models in his capacity as test pilot didn't he?
Here.I did not see reference to the external tanks and 1100 mile range. Where is that precisely?
Something is way off. Way Way Way off.Sea Hurricanes carried only enough fuel to sustain themselves for 1 hour at combat power, and 4.5 hours at full-economical settings. The Fulmar and Martlet could stay aloft for 2 hours and 2 hours 45 minutes under combat power, and 6 hours economical.
Hurricane IIC/ Trop performance: ( K5083 - Technical Data Part II - Mk. II )
Power Loading | Wing Loading | speed | climb Performance |
Hurricane Mk. IIC | 6.47 | 29.8 | 334 | 21,500 | 2,780 |
Hurricane Mk. IIC Tropical | 6.65 | 30.2 | 328 | 18,000 | 2,650 |
Hurricane Mk. IIC Tropical Long-Range 2 x 45IG DTs | 7.20 | 33.1 | 306 | 18,000 | 2,280 |
The range of the IB was 555 miles at 208mph using 76IG ( 21IG allowance - 97IG internal fuel) and this equals an endurance of 2.7 hours at 20K ft (excluding time to climb). Using a more economical speed, and a lower altitude, we could probably stretch the endurance to ~3.5 hours. Minimum consumption on the Merlin III was about 25IG/hr at ~1800rpm, IIRC.Something is way off. Way Way Way off.
You could keep a Merlin running (economical settings) at a bit under 30 Imp gal an hour. which means 135 imp gallons for 4 .5 hours.(what kind of drop tanks on the Hurricane?)
Now the problem really comes in the the "combat power"
6lbs of boost?
9lbs of boost? 88inp gal an hour?
12lbs of boost?
16lbs of boost? (could be 150imp gallons an hour for a Merlin 45)
Hurricane IIC/ Trop performance: ( K5083 - Technical Data Part II - Mk. II )
Power Loading Wing Loading speed climb Performance
Hurricane Mk. IIC 6.47 29.8 334 21,500 2,780
Hurricane Mk. IIC Tropical 6.65 30.2 328 18,000 2,650
Hurricane Mk. IIC Tropical Long-Range 2 x 45IG DTs 7.20 33.1 306 18,000 2,280
I don't fully trust the max speed figures (they seem about 6-7 mph optimistic) but the key info is the delta between the IIC and IIC trop.
Something is way off. Way Way Way off.
You could keep a Merlin running (economical settings) at a bit under 30 Imp gal an hour. which means 135 imp gallons for 4 .5 hours.(what kind of drop tanks on the Hurricane?)
Now the problem really comes in the the "combat power"
6lbs of boost?
9lbs of boost? 88inp gal an hour?
12lbs of boost?
16lbs of boost? (could be 150imp gallons an hour for a Merlin 45)
The SH1B was assigned top cover at 20K ft and this cut into it's endurance and AFAIK, they didn't have DTs available during PEDESTAL.I mean... why would they lie about it? Why would the admiral complain so much to the prime minister about the difficulty in operating the Sea Hurricane compared to the other types? You would think heck, just put a couple of these ubiquitous external tanks on it, and it can fly for 1,000 miles right?
Yet, it doesn't seem to have been the wartime consensus on that aircraft, or on the land based Hurricanes.
Maybe it was all a conspiracy by the RAF and FAA in the early 1940s to annoy internet forum regulars in the 21st Century?
The data can be cross checked with actual performance tests and it checks out, except for minor variations.Yeah, I don't trust them either.
That doesn't look to me like a WW2 era document. It looks like a spreadsheet from the 1990s.
in fact i see on the bottom ... that is exactly what it is. Looks like amateur / enthusiast optimism.
View attachment 758008
I am pretty sure that no one is saying that the Hurricane or SeaHurricane had the same range as the F4F - I know I have never said so (or even thought so for the past 50 years or so since I became aware of the Hurricane and Wildcat). We are just saying that the range difference is not as much as some people (or documents) say it is.And just as obviously, range is considerably more than any version of the Hurricane, measured the same way.
The SH1B was assigned top cover at 20K ft and this cut into it's endurance and AFAIK, they didn't have DTs available during PEDESTAL.
Admiral Halsey April 1942:
"Limited range and endurance of F4F-4 type carrier VF is a serious defect in these new planes. Action looking to improvement in this regard has been initiated by dispatch, copy to Commander-in-Chief, U.S. Pacific Fleet"
HyperWar: USS Enterprise Action Report, Halsey-Doolittle Raid
Halsey-Doolittle Raid: USS Enterprise Action Report (Capt. G.D. Murray to Adm. Chester A. Nimitz)www.ibiblio.org
So this seems to indicate that despite the Zero beating range claimed by Grumman for the F4F-3/4 that it wasn't so.
You pointed to a Grumman spec sheet showing 1280 miles range on internal fuel for the F4F-3.Who pray tell, said that the F4F-3 or F4F-4 had "Zero beating range" ?
You pointed to a Grumman spec sheet showing 1280 miles range on internal fuel for the F4F-3.
Problem is that we have no idea of what the original writer meant by "combat power" or even what was meant by "full economical settings."I mean... why would they lie about it? Why would the admiral complain so much to the prime minister about the difficulty in operating the Sea Hurricane compared to the other types? You would think heck, just put a couple of these ubiquitous external tanks on it, and it can fly for 1,000 miles right?
Yet, it doesn't seem to have been the wartime consensus on that aircraft, or on the land based Hurricanes.
Maybe it was all a conspiracy by the RAF and FAA in the early 1940s to annoy internet forum regulars in the 21st Century?
Yeah,The difference is in testing parameters, load out, flying speed, etc.
Really, ~1280 miles on internal fuel?I mean... I didn't make it up. Various RAF sources for F4F aircraft also give ranges about that number. The difference is in testing parameters, load out, flying speed, etc.