Wildcat during the Battle of Britain

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Elmas said:
"...how many Pokryshkin's wingmen got killed?".....
Click to expand...
Not as many as some want to believe, given that there were far more Soviet P-39 aces with scores of at least 15 kills in Pokryshkin's Regiment than there were USAAC P-38 or USN Wildcat aces, and definitely more than FAA Martlet aces. Indeed, were there any FAA Martlet aces? IIRC, the only FAA ace in the Pacific was Major Ronald Hay (Major 'cos he was a Royal Marine), and he scored his kills in the Skua (1940 Norway), Fulmar (Med 1940-41) and the Corsair (1944-45 Pacific).

Hey, another Martlet! Maybe this one ran into a Bf109?
 
Last edited:
Mad Dog said:
IIRC, the only FAA ace in the Pacific was Major Ronald Hay....
Click to expand...

According to Osprey Aircraft of the Aces 75: Royal Navy Aces of World War 2 (Thomas), there were many more FAA aces which saw service in the Pacific theater but Hay was the highest scoring of the group with a total of 13 (as with many FAA aces these include a number of shared victories).
 
Last edited:
DarrenW said:
According to Thomas the highest scoring Martlet/Wildcat pilot in the FAA was awarded four victories (2 + 2 shared), so no aces.
Click to expand...
Hey, didn't FAA pilot Richard "Dicky" Cork get to be an ace twice over? Once in the BoB in RAF Hurricanes, and then 5-in-a-day during the Pedestal convoy? Oh, but the latter achievement was after his unit upgraded from Martlets to the Hawker Sea Hurricane.
 

Yes he did. In fact he was the highest scoring FAA Sea Hurricane/Hurricane pilot with 11 victories, which was also the most awarded to a FAA pilot while flying a single type of aircraft.
 
Last edited:
That was very educational. The 20mm v. 50 cal thread mentioned the reliability and testing of aircraft armament. I wondered how they would test these weapons in peace time. Somehow spraying the sky with lead to see if the guns work seems a bit cavalier. But somehow they did it. I was also surprised that gun cameras were around in 1940. That was farsighted (unless we swiped that idea from our "cousins" too).
A very interesting post about a plane I'm interested in.
 
Sadly there was much more gun camera use than there was people with the foresight to keep the film for future use, and in any case on a deflection shot, it doesn't need a huge deflection before the camera shows nothing.
 
RCAFson said:
The above is not a test report. It's the manufacturer's specification that aircraft were supposed to meet. Unfortunately, AFAIK, no tested aircraft ever met the specs, and actual tests showed inferior performance.
Click to expand...
Here are actual tests. 331 mph at 21,000 to 22,000 feet. That's about 15 mph faster than a Mark I Hurricane. I didn't see a climb rate in this test but I imagine the 6,200 pound Wildcat probably climbed pretty good. Eric Brown mentions a 3,300 feet per minute initial climb rate for the F4F-3 he tested. Replace the 4 50's and 450 rounds per gun with 8 303's and 500 rounds per gun and you've saved 350 pounds right there. A Wildcat also carried 145 gallons of fuel so you could either put in less fuel or station them farther away from the channel. An F4F-3 would have done fine. The British didn't need a different fighter, as I said early on in this thread, they had 2 fine aircraft, what they needed was pilots with gunnery training.
 

It seems that even in late Aug 1940 the two-stage PW engine was having development issues.

The lighter aircraft has no armour or SS tanks: It's not really comparable to a BoB Hurricane but would have been similar to the aircraft that Brown mentions.. This test is for two F4F-4 aircraft at ~7370lb:
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4f/f4f-4-5262.pdf

results:

Gross weight (lbs)7369 / 7370
Airplane critical altitude (ft) 21100 / 19400
Vmax at critical altitude (mph) 318 / 319

so ~330mph seems a bit anomalous when several similar weight F4F-4s were tested (and spec was 318) to ~319mph.

This one at 7975lb managed only 316mph:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4f/f4f-4-02135.pdf

which met the revised spec for that weight. The F4F-4 specifications were revised downward when production aircraft could not meet the Aug 1941 specifications,.

Climb rate was measured using full throttle with the resulting high fuel consumption at high throttle yet climb was considerably worse than a BoB Hurricane 1 using normal climb power. With SS tanks the F4F-3/4 carried 120IG (F4F-3 at ~7550lb = full ammo and 120IG) versus 97 for a Hurricane 1 but it would burn more fuel during climb and combat while it's more economical low speed cruise would be less of an advantage during the BoB.
 
Last edited:
We've been through this. The F4F-4 was an overweight pig. The wing folding mechanism itself was several hundred pounds. The test I sent the pics of was the original 2 F4F-3's. Just changing from 4 50's to 8 303's saves 350-400 pounds. Armor? The Spitfire had a 73 pound sheet behind the pilot. The Hurricane with supposed self sealing tanks was notorious for drenching the pilot in fuel and then lighting him on fire. The F4F-3 with a 2 stage engine if employed at the BoB would have done fine. The test I sent the pic of showed an actual test of an actual F4F-3 with 4 50's that weighed 7,300 pounds at takeoff and did 331 mph at 21,000 feet on 981 hp. Actual test. The lighter F4F with 2 30's and 2 50's weighed 6,260 pounds and did 331 mph at 22,000 feet on 944 hp. Either of those are 15 mph faster than a Hurricane at that altitude. The F4F can bunt and follow a 109 down in a dive without rolling which neither the Spitfire or Hurricane can do.

The F4F-4 would probably have done poorly in the BOB because it was an overweight pig. It would have been good for waiting at altitude, making a single diving pass at the bombers and just keep right on diving as it left the area. At least that's how I would have flown it.
 

I quoted tested performance figures for the F4F-4 at ~7370lb. The F4F-3 with full fuel and armour weighed 7556lb
 
Top pic is an F4F-4 at 7,975 pounds.
Middle pic and bottom pic are FM2 at 7,418 pounds with up to 1,475 hp. So nearly 500 pounds lighter and 275 more hp would make an FM2 a bit better performer.
 
RCAFson said:
I quoted tested performance figures for the F4F-4 at ~7370lb. The F4F-3 with full fuel and armour weighed 7556lb
Click to expand...
And I'm showing a test at 7,300 pounds takeoff weight doing 331 mph at 21,000 feet. You could lose close to 400 pounds just changing from 4 50's and 450 rounds per gun to 8 303's and 500 rounds per gun, the same as the British fighters carried which would help on climb. I'm not sure how the F4F-3 1845 was setup that weighed 800 pounds less than F4F-3 1848. I know 1845 only had 2 50's and 2 30's instead of 4 50's but that wouldn't account for 800 pounds.
 

I'm saying that the F4F-3 tests were anomalous and F4F-4 production aircraft tested at similar weights were slower and had poorer climb resulting in continual downward revision of F4F-4 performance specs. Basically, the F4F-3 in service was really about 10-12mph slower at critical altitude than the Aug 1940 F4F-3 tests and this conforms with pilot comments regarding F4F-3 and -4 performance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

S
Battle of Britain:
Replies
15
Views
776
fubar57
France airforce FAF Order of Battle
Replies
3
Views
343
Barrett
B
Yak-9U during battle of berlin
Replies
0
Views
755
Demopan78
Italian contribution to the Battle of Britain
2 3
Replies
57
Views
4K
Andrew Arthy
A
A
The Myth of the British "Fixing" The Corsair
2 3
Replies
59
Views
1K
EwenS
E
Menu
Log in
Register