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

[A.G. Williams]

To return to the OP for a moment....

I'm not sure to what extent this happened in practice, but in principle the optimum way of meeting a requirement was surely to have the preferred, advanced model under intensive development, backed up by a model with inferior performance but immediate availability and zero risk, just in case.

In this context, the Sea Hurricane would be the obvious back-up for a carrier fighter, whatever was chosen as the preferred model. Fit it with folding wings and arm it with underwing RPs as the main hitting power against naval targets, and call it done.

 

[Shortround6]

I call bullshit. Prove that those numbers are fake.

See pages 598 through 601 in AHT.

The US was putting out numbers based on a formula developed by Louis Breguet.

Range was computed starting in mid air, ending in mid air and using all internal fuel.
Speed varies but is computed for best lift to drag ratio as the plane changes weight.
All propellers are assumed to operate at 0.80&% efficiency.
All planes are assumed to have the same wing span efficiency factors = 0.85
All aircraft are assumed to make have a fuel consumption of 0.5 lb/hp/hr

and a few more details. What numbers like this show is that while cruising plane A may have a "range" about 40% higher than plane B. Plane A being a P-47D with 370 gal and plane B being a P-40E with 147 gallons.
They are good for relative ranking but aren't close to actual ranges.

And then we have;

Wayback Machine

were they give a range of 940 miles but list an average speed of 150mph and an altitude of 2500ft.
If you divide the speed into the distance that gives you 6.26 hours of flight and if you divide the hours of flight into the fuel capacity you get an average consumption of 23 gph.

Yes some other sources give 845 miles as range for the F4F-3.
But they don't give either speed or altitude.

I have an old book that gives 3 different range cruising speeds for the 109E-3. 202mph at 1000 meters, 210mph at 2000 meters and 233mph at 7000 meters ( I converted the feet to meters to make it easier to type) However it gives a maximum range of 410 miles without giving either speed or altitude which really makes it hard to compare.

 

[BarnOwlLover]

And also remember that most IJA and IJN planes that had phenomenal range tended to get that range at very low speeds. Even the late war Ki-84 got a range of 1000+ miles on internal fuel, but that was at like 220 mph. That's a low cruising speed compared to like a Merlin powered P-51, which was typically up around 320-360 mph (or whatever the bombers were flying at).

 

[MikeMeech]

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.

Hi
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.

Mike

 

[Greg Boeser]

Hi
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.

Mike

Bloody Shambles, Volume 1, page 250, regarding the combat over Rangoon, 25 December, 1941.

Brandt and Sharp had been particularly lucky. Generally the Buffaloes were not fitted with any armor at this stage, although supplies had arrived and were to be installed as soon as ground crews had an opportunity to do the work.

Only Brandt's and Sharp's aircraft had been fitted with armor at this point. 67 Squadron lost four aircraft on this date.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

See pages 598 through 601 in AHT.

The US was putting out numbers based on a formula developed by Louis Breguet.

Range was computed starting in mid air, ending in mid air and using all internal fuel.
Speed varies but is computed for best lift to drag ratio as the plane changes weight.
All propellers are assumed to operate at 0.80&% efficiency.
All planes are assumed to have the same wing span efficiency factors = 0.85
All aircraft are assumed to make have a fuel consumption of 0.5 lb/hp/hr

and a few more details. What numbers like this show is that while cruising plane A may have a "range" about 40% higher than plane B. Plane A being a P-47D with 370 gal and plane B being a P-40E with 147 gallons.
They are good for relative ranking but aren't close to actual ranges.

And then we have;

Wayback Machine

were they give a range of 940 miles but list an average speed of 150mph and an altitude of 2500ft.
If you divide the speed into the distance that gives you 6.26 hours of flight and if you divide the hours of flight into the fuel capacity you get an average consumption of 23 gph.

Yes some other sources give 845 miles as range for the F4F-3.
But they don't give either speed or altitude.

I have an old book that gives 3 different range cruising speeds for the 109E-3. 202mph at 1000 meters, 210mph at 2000 meters and 233mph at 7000 meters ( I converted the feet to meters to make it easier to type) However it gives a maximum range of 410 miles without giving either speed or altitude which really makes it hard to compare.

Saying it [is] hard to compare with other methods of evaluating range is plausible, and also a far cry from saying the USN range estimate is 'fake'

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

And also remember that most IJA and IJN planes that had phenomenal range tended to get that range at very low speeds. Even the late war Ki-84 got a range of 1000+ miles on internal fuel, but that was at like 220 mph. That's a low cruising speed compared to like a Merlin powered P-51, which was typically up around 320-360 mph (or whatever the bombers were flying at).

B-17s and B-24s did not cruise at 320-360 mph. They couldn't even go that fast in most cases. Cruise speed was more like half that.

 

[PAT303]

B-17s and B-24s did not cruise at 320-360 mph. They couldn't even go that fast in most cases. Cruise speed was more like half that.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/B-24/B-24C_40-2378_PHQ-M-19-1326-A.pdf

I think your going to have a hard time keeping up let alone intercepting a B 24 in a Wildcat if it doesn't want to get caught.

 

[buffnut453]

Hi
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.

Mike

Mike,

The seat armour for the RAF Buffalos was made at the RN shipyard in Singapore based on plans provided from Brewster. It was retrofitted to aircraft at the squadron level. I have an account from a member of 488 Sqn's groundcrew who cursed the task. Not only did it involve crawling into the rear fuselage (which was not only cramped but, in daytime was incredibly hot in the Far East), but the mounting holes in the armour plate often were not correctly aligned, meaning that the crew had a really hard time fixing it in place.

The situation for 67 Sqn in Burma was further complicated as they had the task of erecting most of the Buffalo airframes without any nearby MU. They prioritized getting all the aircraft erected so they could at least be flown . As it was, reports suggest Japanese bombing raids in December destroyed 2 airframes on the ground that were still in their packing crates. The 67 Sqn personnel were resource strapped and, sadly, it had lethal consequences for at least one of the Sqn's pilots.

 

[Shortround6]

Saying it [is] hard to compare with other methods of evaluating range is plausible, and also a far cry from saying the USN range estimate is 'fake'

OK try to actually fly an F4F the range they give on that data sheet.

The Navy was not the only people doing it.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/P-40/P-40B_Official_Performance_Summary.jpg

You could fly a P-40B 1010 miles at 202mph using 120 US gallons of fuel????
2nd table.

You could, in theory., fly a 109E 540 miles if you just figured the range based on the minimum fuel burn per km. doesn't include warm up or take off though.

The US forces both knew the numbers were not real, they were for comparison only. But they find there way into charts and graphs (like AHT) that show an F4F-3 with a range of just under 900 miles using 110 gallons of fuel while flying at 19,000ft. No mention of how the Plane got 19,000ft (like burning 35-40 gallons of fuel?)

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

All that matters when comparing range, which is what we are doing here, is that the criteria are roughly comparable.

We want that in a forum here so we can have discussions like this.

That is what the US military had to do as well, albeit for much more serious reasons. Probably they should have halted all aircraft production, and the Norden bombsight and the Manhattan project, and instead poured every resource available to the nation into first building a time machine so that they could send someone 80 years into the future to see if the old guys on the forum were Ok with all their criteria for evaluating aircraft. Right? Then they could go back and establish their specs the way people like you want them to be, and start designing planes on that proper basis instead of the crazy method they did use. Which won the war but who cares about that if it don't add up to certain people.

This isn't the first discussion of the range of various aircraft either on this forum or here in this very thread. I am very, very well aware that the range on a data sheet isn't the same as say, operational fighting radius. Range is effected by many many things - load out of the aircraft (including both ordinance and fuel), altitude flown, speed flown, apparently things like RPM vs. boost, type of fuel, weather conditions, condition of the aircraft and condition of the engine. Whether it's a return trip or a ferry trip.

So the military needed then, as they need now, some yardstick which was basically consistent and which they could use especially at the design and spec level. This is what they decided to use - War Dept, US Navy, US Army Air Force etc. It seemed to work. Actual wartime combat radius with typical load-outs and fuel were also known (and known to be more tentative) but that varied by the Theater and the conditions and typical load out and so on.

But there is nothing 'fake' about it. It's just how they evaluated the range. It is 'fake' to complain about it, it just is what it is. If you want to say that the Bf 109 had equivalent range as the F4F (or better! Why stop there!), but I and everyone else reading this knows it's fake to suggest, or even imply it. And same for the Hurricane by the way.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/B-24/B-24C_40-2378_PHQ-M-19-1326-A.pdf

I think your going to have a hard time keeping up let alone intercepting a B 24 in a Wildcat if it doesn't want to get caught.

Who said anything about a Wildcat catching a B-24? Maybe you lost the plot somewhere along the line, here let me help.

Barnowllover wrote: "And also remember that most IJA and IJN planes that had phenomenal range tended to get that range at very low speeds. Even the late war Ki-84 got a range of 1000+ miles on internal fuel, but that was at like 220 mph. That's a low cruising speed compared to like a Merlin powered P-51, which was typically up around 320-360 mph (or whatever the bombers were flying at)."

And I pointed out that P-51s escorting 8th AF bombers were not cruising at 320-360 mph. More like half that. Because that's how fast those bombers flew on most of those bombing raids into Germany.

 

[PAT303]

So the Germans are better off with Wildcats, how would a Wildcat work in these reports of actual combat?, notice the heights and speeds?.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/74-morrison-2nov40.jpg

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/74-stephen-30nov40.jpg

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/74-mungo-park-30nov40.jpg

 

[Vincenzo]

And I pointed out that P-51s escorting 8th AF bombers were not cruising at 320-360 mph. More like half that. Because that's how fast those bombers flew on most of those bombing raids into Germany.

But the Mustang cruising at fastest speed of the bomber, they are flying S on the bomber route,

 

[Geoffrey Sinclair]

While things did vary the USAAF heavy bombers normally used fast cruise in Europe. The B-17F at 150 to 160 mph IAS, the B-24D at 170 to 175 mph IAS. Roughly 150 IAS at 25,000 feet is 225 mph TAS, 160 IAS is 240 mph TAS. The fighters also used faster cruises, above 300 mph TAS, otherwise they were too vulnerable and had a longer times accelerating to combat speed, making interceptions harder.

USN figures for F4F-3 as of 14 August 1942. IFF Equipment in all loadings. S.S. Cells not removed for ferry (only rear tank fuel tight without cell, gain in capacity 3 gallons). Reissued from original date, range and endurance figures recomputed incorporating a suitable increase in specific fuel consumption to conform with past experience.
Engine Type R-1830-86
Engine Gear Ratio 3 to 2
Propeller Curtiss Elec. CS 3 Blade 9 ft 9 in, Bl. Des. No. 512
Engine Rating Take-Off BHP /RPM 1,200 / 2,900
Engine Ratings BHP/RPM/Feet
Normal 1,100 / 2,550 / 0-2,500
Normal 1,050 / 2,550 / 12,000
Normal 1,000 / 2,550 / 19,000
Military 1,200 / 2,700 / 0-1,800
Military 1,150 / 2,700 / 11,500
Military 1,000 / 2,550 / 19,000

Loading Condition	Unit	Fighter	Fighter	Fighter	Bomber	Ferry
Gross Weight	Pounds	7,556	7,556	8,361​	7,809​	7,350​
Empty Weight	Pounds	5,381	5,381	5,381	5,381	5,228​
Fuel	Gallons	144	144	260​	144​	260​
Fixed Guns	number x calibre	4 x 0.50 inch	4 x 0.50 inch	4 x 0.50 inch	4 x 0.50 inch	None
Fixed Guns Ammunition	Rounds	1,800	1,800	1,800	1,800	None
Bomb load	No. x Pounds	0​	0​	0​	2 x 100	0​
Drop Tanks	No. x Gallons	0​	0​	2 x 58	0​	2 x 58
Engine Rating	For Performance	Military	Normal	Normal	Normal	Normal
Wing Loading	Pounds/sq. feet	29.1	29.1	32.2​	30​	28.3​
Power Loading (BHP, Crit. Alt.)	Pounds/BHP	7.6	7.6	8.4​	7.8​	7.4​
VM Sea Level	MPH	290​	280​	258​	272​	260​
VM	MPH/Feet	295/1,800	288/2,500	264/2,500	288/2,500	266/2,500
VM	MPH/Feet	294/3,100	287/4,200
VM	MPH/Feet	316/11,500	310/12,000	283/12,000	298/12,000	285/12,000
VM	MPH/Feet	311/15,100	307/13,300
VM	MPH/Feet	323/19,000	323/19,000	295/19,000	312/19,000	298/19,000
VM (Critical Altitude)	MPH/Feet	329/21,100	329/21,100	297/19,500	319/21,100	300/19,500
VG - Gross Weight, no power	MPH	79.1​	79.1​	85.5​	80.4​	77.9​
VG - Less Fuel, no power	MPH	74.4​	74.4​	77.1​	75.8​	69.1​
Time to 10,000 feet	Minutes	4.6​	4.9​	6.7​	5.3​	5.6​
Time to 20,000 feet	Minutes	10.3​	10.6​	16.3​	11.5​	12.6​
Service Ceiling	Feet	36,400​	36,400​	30,200​	35,900​	32,300​
Take off - Calm - Land	Feet	n/a	550​	736​	612​	530​
Take off - 15 knots - Land	Feet	n/a	350​	480​	393​	330​
Take off - 25 knots - Land	Feet	n/a	234​	330​	265​	223​
Climb Sea Level	Feet/Minute	2,450​	2,460​	1,810​	2,350​	2,220​
Endurance - 60% VM	Hours	n/a	4.9​	8.4​	4.7​	9.6​
Endurance - 60% VM	Feet	n/a	19,000​	19,000​	19,000​	19,000​
Endurance - 75% VM	Hours	n/a	3.3​	6​	3.3​	6.6​
Endurance - 75% VM	Feet	n/a	19,000​	19,000​	19,000​	19,000​
Endurance - VM	Hours	n/a	1​	1.8​	1​	1.8​
Endurance - VM	Feet	n/a	19,000​	19,000​	19,000​	19,000​
Max Range	Statute Miles	n/a	940​	1,420​	880​	1,635​
Max Range Average Speed	MPH	n/a	150​	151​	150​	137​
Max Range Altitude	Feet	n/a	2,500​	2,500​	2,500​	2,500​

RAF figures Grumman Martlet I, single seat single air cooled Cyclone G-205A engine rated at 1,000 HP at 13,500 feet, 4x0.50 inch machine guns in wings with 300 rpg, tare weight 4,967 pounds.

Normal Condition
Weight (pounds)	6,835​
Take Off (Over 50 ft) (Yards)	520​
Landing (Over 50 ft) (Yards)	550​
Service Ceiling (Feet)	32,000​
Maximum Speed (m.p.h)	310​
Max Speed Height (Feet)	14,500​
Cruising Speed (m.p.h)	257​
Cruise Speed Height	15,000​
50 Minutes allowance Range (miles)	690​
50 Minutes allowance Endurance Hours	2.7​
Fuel (for range, gallons)	107​
Fuel (for allowance, gallons)	29​
Fuel (Total, gallons)	136​
Extended condition
Overload Weight pounds	7,000​
Cruise Speed (m.p.h)	245​
Height (feet)	15,000​
Bomb Load (pounds)	330​
Range (50 mins allow.) (miles)	670​
Endurance (50 mins allow.) Hrs	2.75​
Fuel (for range, gallons)	107​
Fuel (for allowance, gallons)	29​
Fuel (Total, gallons)	136​
Extended condition economical
Cruise Speed (m.p.h)	165-175
Height (feet)	15,000​
Range (50 mins allow.) (miles)	845​
Endurance (50 mins allow.) Hrs	5​
Fuel (for range, gallons)	107​
Fuel (for allowance, gallons)	29​
Fuel (Total, gallons)	136​

 

[PAT303]

The three fighters that fought the BoB were the best three for the job, nothing else in 1940 was better.

 

[Clayton Magnet]

The three fighters that fought the BoB were the best three for the job, nothing else in 1940 was better.

Blenheim, Defiant and Bf 110?




I'm kidding

 

[Greg Boeser]

Blenheim, Defiant and Bf 110?




I'm kidding

The Gladiator gets no respect.

 

[special ed]

Nor the C.R. 42

 

[Clayton Magnet]

The Gladiator gets no respect.

Might have been some old Gauntlets and Fury's still kicking around too