Wildcat during the Battle of Britain

[stona]

If a squadron only had 12 pilots and 12 serviceable planes in the morning, by the time it had been scrambled 3 times what would be left for a fourth call?

Not much. By late August there were many occasions on which under strength squadrons were dispatched to patrol or to intercept the second or third raids of the day.
Aircraft were rarely an issue, the issue was maintaining sufficient operational pilots. Park wanted at least 21 per squadron in 11 Group, but on 7 September had to settle for 16. Before the war this number was 26.

For example, yesterday, 80 years ago, at 17.30 five raids totalling 100+ were plotted moving across the Channel. Five squadrons were scrambled, Nos. 79 (which could only field 7 Hurricanes), 54 (9 Spitfires), 85 (10 Hurricanes), 222 (10 Spitfires) and 603. Only No 603 could manage a full 12 aircraft (in fact 13 took off).

 

[pbehn]

Not much. By late August there were many occasions on which under strength squadrons were dispatched to patrol or to intercept the second or third raids of the day.
Aircraft were rarely an issue, the issue was maintaining sufficient operational pilots. Park wanted at least 21 per squadron in 11 Group, but on 7 September had to settle for 16. Before the war this number was 26.

For example, yesterday, 80 years ago, at 17.30 five raids totalling 100+ were plotted moving across the Channel. Five squadrons were scrambled, Nos. 79 (which could only field 7 Hurricanes), 54 (9 Spitfires), 85 (10 Hurricanes), 222 (10 Spitfires) and 603. Only No 603 could manage a full 12 aircraft (in fact 13 took off).

That was what I was alluding to. A group of 7 or smaller is vulnerable to being completely wiped out.

 

[SaparotRob]

Depends they have to be able to operate off the standard grass runways and be able to climb fast. I think either AV8Bs or F35s as long as they have cannon as an ASRAAM missile would be a bit overkill.

Might not be overkill if those ME-262's have license built J-79 engines.

 

[Shortround6]

If not the Wildcat, what US aircraft would Britain welcome in the BoB? Curtiss P-40?

From Joe Baugher's web site.

"The first of the French-ordered H81-A1s flew on June 6, 1940, and a few were actually completed with French markings. However, before any of their H81-A1s could be delivered, France had surrendered. Britain agreed to take over the entirety of the French order, and gave the H81-A1 the name Tomahawk I in RAF service. RAF serials were AH741/AH840 and AH841/AH880.

In September of 1940, the USAAC agreed to defer deliveries of their P-40s so that the Tomahawk Is could be supplied to Britain as soon as possible. The first Tomahawk Is reached England in September of 1940. The two 0.5-inch machine guns in the nose were retained, but they were supplemented by four wing-mounted 0.303-inch Browning machine guns in place of the 7.5-mm FN-Brownings originally specified by the French. Such was the urgency of their delivery to Britain that many of the 140 machines still had French instruments and bore cockpit lettering in French when they arrived."

The First US P-40 was delivered in April of 1940 and the 200th American production aircraft was delivered Oct 16th 1940. These P-40s had a single .30 cal gun in each wing(plus the two cowl .50 cal guns) , no armor, no self sealing fuel tanks.
Please remember that the Allison engine was far from trouble free in the summer/fall of 1940 and Allison had to rework quite a number of engines with new crankshafts and crankcases to get them up to the desired engine life at the orginal rated power. Until reworked the engines were limited to 2770 rpm and a lower boost limit.
There seems to be no mention of what kind of engines the ex french Hawk H81-A1s got.

 

[ThomasP]

The French H81A-1s were fitted with the V-1710-C15 engine (aka V-1710-33). I believe the ex-French AC that were taken over by the RAF were known as the Tomahawk I. Tomahawk I pilot's notes still listed the same engine.

 

[slaterat]

Going back to the original question of the post, Wildcats in the BoB, I am of the opinion that Martlets are too slow on the level and the climb to replace Hurricanes in the BoB. When it comes to Wildcats with the two stage , two speed P&W Twin Wasp, The F4F-4 , burdened by folding wings and the 6x.50s is too slow on the climb. However the earlier F4F-3 has almost the exact same performance as a rotol equipped Hurricane Mk 1 and provided that the four wing mouinted .50s work well, would be an adequate replacement for the Hurricane. There could be other problems like operating on grass airfields, ease of repair ect, and the F4F-3, could be lacking in armor and self sealing tanks.( not sure on when this was introduced on the F4F-3), but overall it should do the job.

 

[GrauGeist]

The Wildcat had a fairly robust maingear, so a grass field shouldn't be an issue.

 

[buffnut453]

Going back to the original question of the post, Wildcats in the BoB, I am of the opinion that Martlets are too slow on the level and the climb to replace Hurricanes in the BoB. When it comes to Wildcats with the two stage , two speed P&W Twin Wasp, The F4F-4 , burdened by folding wings and the 6x.50s is too slow on the climb. However the earlier F4F-3 has almost the exact same performance as a rotol equipped Hurricane Mk 1 and provided that the four wing mouinted .50s work well, would be an adequate replacement for the Hurricane. There could be other problems like operating on grass airfields, ease of repair ect, and the F4F-3, could be lacking in armor and self sealing tanks.( not sure on when this was introduced on the F4F-3), but overall it should do the job.

Getting 4x 50cals in wing installations to work well in the late summer of 1940 is a pretty big assumption. It also complicates the RAF's logistic chain.

The Wildcat had a fairly robust maingear, so a grass field shouldn't be an issue.

I suspect the narrow track of the undercarriage would the key issue.

 

[pinsog]

The F4F-3 with the 2 stage P&W was faster over the entire altitude range and climbed better than the BoB Hurricane with a constant speed prop according to tests. US Navy pilots at Coral Sea thought they gave up nothing in speed and climb to a Zero but were far less maneuverable. The F4F-4 was an overweight pig and the Martlet with a single stage engine would run out of breath at higher altitudes but the early F4F-3 performed well, Eric Brown called its initial climb rate of 3,300 fpm "sensational".

 

[GrauGeist]

I suspect the narrow track of the undercarriage would the key issue.

No more than the Spitfire and Bf109 were on grass fields.

 

[fastmongrel]

No more than the Spitfire and Bf109 were on grass fields.

Might need a new tail wheel, iirc it was a small solid rubber wheel. Probably not brilliant on grass.

 

[GrauGeist]

Might need a new tail wheel, iirc it was a small solid rubber wheel. Probably not brilliant on grass.

The F4F-3 operated well enough from rough fields in the PTO (like Guadalcanal during the Cactus Airforce days) as did the F2A, which had a similar tailwheel.
The Finns operated the B-239 (F2A-1) from some fairly primitive airfields, too.

 

[buffnut453]

No more than the Spitfire and Bf109 were on grass fields.

I don't disagree. It's just that you said the F4F had a robust maingear (which is correct) but the strength of the undercarriage wouldn't be the key challenge. I'm not saying the F4F would be any worse than the Spitfire or Me109 in this regard, simply pointing it out as a potential challenge.

 

[buffnut453]

The F4F-3 operated well enough from rough fields in the PTO (like Guadalcanal during the Cactus Airforce days) as did the F2A, which had a similar tailwheel.
The Finns operated the B-239 (F2A-1) from some fairly primitive airfields, too.

The tailwheels on the F2A-3s and F4Fs at Midway wore out very quickly...there was something of a shortage, leading to aircraft being rendered unserviceable.

 

[GrauGeist]

The coral on the Atolls and Islands in the PTO was a constant challenge for aircraft and vehicles.
Aside from rapid wear on tires, it choked air filters, permeated grease joints and on aircraft, the propwash sand-blasted perspex/glass and scoured paint.

Europe (while having it's own difficulties) was not as harsh as the Pacific or North Africa in that respect.

 

[wuzak]

The F4F-3 with the 2 stage P&W was faster over the entire altitude range and climbed better than the BoB Hurricane with a constant speed prop according to tests. US Navy pilots at Coral Sea thought they gave up nothing in speed and climb to a Zero but were far less maneuverable. The F4F-4 was an overweight pig and the Martlet with a single stage engine would run out of breath at higher altitudes but the early F4F-3 performed well, Eric Brown called its initial climb rate of 3,300 fpm "sensational".

When did the F4F-3 enter service?

 

[Shortround6]

The F4F did have a problem with the landing gear, not that it broke but it had a lot of travel (12.5in) and was somewhat soft, good for absorbing the shock of a carrier landing, not so good when taxiing and turning in crosswinds. About half the travel was used up just sitting at normal atitude but F4Fs were known to hit their wing tips on occasion while taxing in bad conditions.

 

[Shortround6]

When did the F4F-3 enter service?

Unfortunately F4F dates are rather confusing. Like 1st production F4F-3 example #1844 making it's first flight in Feb 1940, But the USN ordered the 3rd and 4th production aircraft to equipped with Wright R-1820 engines in April and they don't fly until June of 1940. Some how (?????) the 2nd production plane #1845 first flies in July of 1940 (problems with engine delivery?) By Dec of 1940 the USN has accepted 22 F4F-3s and the first plane/s go to VF-41 in Norfolk VA. depending on source 103-106 F4F/Martlets are completed by Dec 31st 1940.
By May of 1941 4 USN squadrons have received F4F-3s or F4F-3As, not sure if they all had full compliments.

AS of Oct 31st 1940 81 Martlets had been "delivered" to the Fleet Air Arm but I have no idea if that is in England or at the Grumman factory.

 

[wuzak]

AS of Oct 31st 1940 81 Martlets had been "delivered" to the Fleet Air Arm but I have no idea if that is in England or at the Grumman factory.

They would be the Martlet I with the R-1820, and not the equivalent of the F4F-3 (Martlet II?)?

 

[Shortround6]

Yes.