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

[PAT303]

while only holding about 40% more fuel (if they had protected tanks) in a bigger, heavier, higher drag airplane.
Stupid Germans.

Is the Wildcat fast enough to keep up with the bombers it would be escorting?.

 

[SaparotRob]

Is the Wildcat capable of getting to the altitude needed for bomber escort?

And I really like the Wildcat.

 

[Shortround6]

Writer was suggesting it would be useful for the Germans in 1940 as it had more range than the 109.
The Germans weren't flying any bombers in 1940-41 that were even near the speed of the F4F except the Do 217E and it was just abut equal to the F4F. It also cruised at just under 260mph at best.
In 1940 the fastest British bombers were the Blenheim's and few Marylanders and DB-7s

 

[Shortround6]

Is the Wildcat capable of getting to the altitude needed for bomber escort?

And I really like the Wildcat.

Again in 1940 the planes were nowhere near the level of performance that would be needed in 1942.

Most peoples bombers were lucky to hit 25,000ft with a load of bombs. Some were lucky to fly in formation at 20,000ft.

We are not talking about B-17s here

However there were several different Wildcats/Martlets in 1940/41 with rather different engines.
Some had two stage superchargers.
Some had single stage two speed superchargers.
Some had 9 cylinder Wright Cyclones and some had 14 cylinder P & W Twin Wasps.

What the US had in 1942 was somewhat different.

 

[SaparotRob]

The difference of altitude where combat usually took place in the ETO and the PTO comes up often. I know the topic period is 1940, mostly. I wanted you to know I was paying attention.

 

[PAT303]

Is the Wildcat capable of getting to the altitude needed for bomber escort?

And I really like the Wildcat.

The BOB was fought over 25,000ft and many times over 30,000, the Wildcat isn't getting that high.

 

[SaparotRob]

I said I was paying attention.

 

[Shortround6]

The BOB was fought over 25,000ft and many times over 30,000, the Wildcat isn't getting that high.

I tried to explain it so lets try again.

Martlet I Wright engine...........max speed 306mph at 15,000ft.............service ceiling 31,000ft (less than an early P-40)
F4F-3A, two speed P & W.......max speed 312mph at 16,000ft.............service ceiling 34,300ft
F4F-3, two stage P & W .........max speed 330mph at 21,100ft.............service ceiling 37,500ft
F4F-4, two stage P & W .........max speed 320mph at 18,800ft.............service ceiling 34,900ft

Original poster was talking about Germans using Wildcats (type not stated) as escorts for German bombers.
Now the Martlet I would have been in difficulties in the BoB, the other Wildcats not so much, except
The F4F-3 and 3A didn't have armor or protected tanks.
But they were roughly the equal of a Hurricane I as far as altitude goes.
The US range figures are rather bogus (fake). Plane is magically transported to cruising altitude with a warm engine and flown at a best cruise which for the early F4F was as low as 150mph.
If you are comparing other planes using the same criteria then it might have some validity. It is useless for trying to figure out actual radius of action or for comparing range to other air forces who didn't use the method.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

while only holding about 40% more fuel (if they had protected tanks) in a bigger, heavier, higher drag airplane.
Stupid Germans.

The facts are what they are, whether you like them or not old boy

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

Is the Wildcat fast enough to keep up with the bombers it would be escorting?.

Yes. It's theoretical, since the Wildcat that existed in 1940 was only a prototype, but I don't believe any of the German bombers of that vintage (Do 17, He 111, Ju 87) were faster. Optimal cruise speed could be debated, I've seen anything from 155 -200 mph for Wildcat, 186 for Do 17, 190 mph for He 111, 160 mph for Ju 87 (obviously depending on the variants and loads).

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

Again in 1940 the planes were nowhere near the level of performance that would be needed in 1942.

Most peoples bombers were lucky to hit 25,000ft with a load of bombs. Some were lucky to fly in formation at 20,000ft.

We are not talking about B-17s here

However there were several different Wildcats/Martlets in 1940/41 with rather different engines.
Some had two stage superchargers.
Some had single stage two speed superchargers.
Some had 9 cylinder Wright Cyclones and some had 14 cylinder P & W Twin Wasps.

What the US had in 1942 was somewhat different.

Yes, I agree, the Wildcat didn't really exist as a real combat plane at the time of the BoB, I was just making the comparison as a comment on the previous remark comparing Wildcat to Hurricane... but range was the big problem for the Luftwaffe during the BoB.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

The BOB was fought over 25,000ft and many times over 30,000, the Wildcat isn't getting that high.

Surely you jest? Ceiling for the F4F-3 was 39,500 ft / 12,000 m

Some Wildcat variants didn't have the high altitude supercharger configurations, but it was certainly available by the time the Wildcat was actually in combat (not in 1940)

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

I tried to explain it so lets try again.

Martlet I Wright engine...........max speed 306mph at 15,000ft.............service ceiling 31,000ft (less than an early P-40)
F4F-3A, two speed P & W.......max speed 312mph at 16,000ft.............service ceiling 34,300ft
F4F-3, two stage P & W .........max speed 330mph at 21,100ft.............service ceiling 37,500ft
F4F-4, two stage P & W .........max speed 320mph at 18,800ft.............service ceiling 34,900ft

Original poster was talking about Germans using Wildcats (type not stated) as escorts for German bombers.
Now the Martlet I would have been in difficulties in the BoB, the other Wildcats not so much, except
The F4F-3 and 3A didn't have armor or protected tanks.

F4F-3 had no armor at all? Are you certain about that "writer"? The specification for the F4F-3 calls for 155 lbs of armor plate and 164 lbs for fuel tanks "with tank protection".

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4f/f4f-3-detail-specification.pdf

But they were roughly the equal of a Hurricane I as far as altitude goes.
The US range figures are rather bogus (fake).

I call bullshit. Prove that those numbers are fake.

Plane is magically transported to cruising altitude with a warm engine and flown at a best cruise which for the early F4F was as low as 150mph.
If you are comparing other planes using the same criteria then it might have some validity. It is useless for trying to figure out actual radius of action or for comparing range to other air forces who didn't use the method.

Saying the test criteria are different is very different from 'fake', which itself is a fake statement.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Saying the test criteria are different is very different from 'fake', which itself is a fake statement.

The numbers are "fake" insofar as not counting fuel consumed during warmup, takeoff, and climb-to-altitude returns a figure for range which simply does not comport with reality.

 

[Vincenzo]

idk if this is the case but service ceiling and operational ceiling are not for different climb speed or are just a different name used in different country/air force?

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

idk if this is the case but service ceiling and operational ceiling are not for different climb speed or are just a different name used in different country/air force?

My understanding: "operational ceiling" is the altitude where a plane can no longer manage 500 feet per minute of climb, while "service ceiling" is where that same plane can no longer climb at 100 feet per minute.

 

[Greg Boeser]

F4F-3 had no armor at all? Are you certain about that "writer"? The specification for the F4F-3 calls for 155 lbs of armor plate and 164 lbs for fuel tanks "with tank protection".

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4f/f4f-3-detail-specification.pdf

Yes, the specification calls for armor and protected tanks. However, F4F-3s were delivered without them. The F4F-3s issued to VMF 211 just prior to their deployment to Wake Island, late production serials, had neither. They did have bulletproof windscreens installed. It is my belief that the armor was not installed due to peacetime desires to reduce fuel consumption. USN aircraft were scrambling to get armor installed in fleet based aircraft into early 1942.
And this peacetime thinking was evident in RAF squadrons in the Far East, where 67 Squadron, to their cost, still hadn't installed the armor in their Buffalos two full weeks after the Japanese launched their offensive.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

Aside from Wake Island I think the F4F-3s all had armor and armored windscreens, they were still in process of putting in the protected fuel tanks for a while though.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

According to Lundstrom The First Team p.13, "The original version [of the F4F-3 -- Thump] without armor or leakproof tanks was almost 400 lbs lighter and enjoyed a slightly higher performance." The same page, he writes that -3As were delivered with armor and a single-stage SC. And on the next page he gives a combat radius 200 miles for the F4F-3, and "slightly longer" for the -3A. The two variants served alongside each other until replaced by the F4F-4 around the middle of the year, though F4F-3s and -3As were still fighting at Guadalcanal,

R Leonard is the guy to ask for this stuff.

 

[RCAFson]

UK tests of the Martlet II (from Flying to the Limit)

"Performance testing took place at A&AEE in April 1942 using AM991 at a take-off weight of 7790 lb. The testing showed a maximum rate of climb of 1940 ft/min at 7600 ft in MS gear and 1570 ft/min at 13,700 ft in FS gear. Compared with most land-based fighters, the climb performance of the Martlet II was relatively sedate, taking 5.3 minutes to reach 10,000 ft and 12.5 minutes to reach 20,000 ft. For its naval role this was considered acceptable, but its climb rate deteriorated rather dramatically above this height, the aircraft taking a full 30.6 minutes to get to 30,000 ft. Its service ceiling (100 ft/min climb rate) was estimated at 31,000 ft. Level speed tests showed a maximum of 293 mph TAS at 5400 ft in MS gear, with an identical speed at 13,800 ft in FS gear. The recommended height to change supercharger gear was around 11,500 ft."


UK tests of the Martlet IV (from Flying to the Limit)

"Trials to assess the climb rate and maximum level speed were also made using FN111, which although capable of carrying two 100-lb bombs under the wings, did not have racks fitted. Take-off weight was 7740 lb. Its performance proved to be somewhat worse than the Martlet II, with a maximum rate of climb of 1580 ft/min at 6200 ft in MS gear and 1440 ft/min at 14,600 ft in FS gear. The times to height were: 10,000 ft – 6.6 minutes; 20,000 ft – 14.6 minutes; 28,000 ft –29.1 minutes. The estimated service ceiling was 30,100 ft. The maximum speed in MS gear was 278 mph TAS at 3400 ft and 298 mph TAS at 21,000 ft in FS gear."

USN Tests of the F4F-4 ( F4F Performance Trials ):

"U.S. Naval Air Station
Anacostia, D.C.
September 19, 1942
Miscellaneous Tests
(Droppable Fuel Tank. Performance at Military Power, Combat comparison)
Model F4F-4 Airplane

SUMMARY
The performance of the airplane (without auxiliary tanks) using the military power rating of the engine is shown in curves forming enclosure (A) and is tabulated as follows:

Gross Weight 7933
Critical altitude for 1100 H.P. (ft) 17200
Maximum Speed at airplane critical altitude (mph) 316
Service ceiling (ft) 33100
Rate of climb at sea level (ft/min) 1820
Rate of climb at 16300 feet altitude (ft/min) 1500
Take-off distance in a calm (ft) 875
Take-off distance in a 25 knot wind (ft) 342
Increase in indicated speed shifting from normal rating to military at 19000 feet altitude (knots) 2.5"

With full armour and SS fuel tanks the F4F-3 weighed ~400lb less than the F4F-4, and so would have had a slightly better ceiling and maybe a ~5-6% increase in climb rate and this would apply to the Martlet II/IV as well. As you can see these would have been distinctly underpowered and underperforming aircraft during the BoB.