Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
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".
No more than the Spitfire and Bf109 were on grass fields.
1.You need to read that whole report. The engine conked out after the speed tests and had to be replaced for the climbing tests. Might not have been in the best shape.
2 The revised PEC boosts the Hurricanes speed a bit, up to 324 mph.
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/hurricane-I-raechart.jpg
3 That test was flown at 6.25 lbs boost. The Hurricane Mk 1 was cleared for 12 lbs in the spring of 1940. That gives the Hurri Mk 1, 325 mph from 10 k to 18k
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/hurricane-I-level.jpg
Once you add some armor and self sealing tanks to the Wildcat the climb rate goes down.
That may be from the specifications, and not from an actual test.View attachment 593724ThIs is from the test I posted, notice the Wildcat had armor plate (155 pounds) full fuel and oil protection and still does 336 mph at 22,000 feet. That would have been extremely competitive in the BoB. 109's trying to bunt (shove stick forward and diving away) wouldn't work on a Wildcat. That would be a nasty surprise for a German pilot used to doing that to Spitfires and Hurricanes.
Yes, but the Gladiator actually had a much better rate of climb than the Hurricane, making it at least a viable interceptor away from the ME109s.So, if you were planning on defending your country against attack and you had F4Fs, would you just leave them on the ground and just give up? No! You'd use them and the most sensible way of doing that would be getting them in a situation where their assets could be put to use. The RAF had Gladiators, Defiants and Blenheims tackling the Luftwaffe. They used whatever they could to defend the country. The Royal Navy used the Roc! If the Wildcats were there, they'd use them and find an advantage.
IIRC, de Havilland offered the Leopard Moth as a STOL ASW aircraft to operate from MACs, but the Admiralty decided the really pressing need was fighters (Hurricanes) to take on the FW200s.....The Japanese army, not wanting to rely on the IJN decided to make their own IJA escort carriers, focused on ASW. Imagine the British army deciding to do the same. Similar the the IJA carrier's Kokusai Ki-76, the British Army Air Corp operated the Taylorcraft Auster. Of course, like the Martlet in the Battle of Britain, we must fiddle with the timeline as both the Army Air Corp and the Auster did not exist until 1942.....]
Well, only the Curtiss P-36 would be available in any numbers (provided the French and US were persuaded to let the RAF grab an order), or the Seversky P-35. You could have got the first turbocharged Republic P-43s by September 1940, but those were without armour or self-sealing tanks, and whilst they had good altitude performance the rate of climb and firepower were not exactly sparkling. The unarmoured P-35 would not have stood the comparison with the Hurri I, but the P-36 might have done well.If not the Wildcat, what US aircraft would Britain welcome in the BoB? Curtiss P-40?
The Wildcat had a fairly robust maingear, so a grass field shouldn't be an issue.
That may be from the specifications, and not from an actual test.
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.
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4f/f4f-3-detail-specification.pdf
This is the full report showing the specs of the actual F4F-3 used in the test. It was armed, armored and had self sealing tanks
I didn't start the thread, but IF the F4F-3 was ready in squadron numbers for the BoB I would probably request that Grumman fix the guns before delivery. I'm a practical guy that way. OR the British could have requested 8 303's be mounted instead, which would save a couple hundred pounds in weight meaning it climbed even better.If your 1941 era Wildcat was available in 1939 and squadron service aircraft hit those numbers you still have the issue posted back on page 1 reply no. 14, the guns didn't work and neither did the ammunition.
Interesting. I had already figured the lower speed for the lighter plane was a typo.and on page 5 at the top line 113A it says.
"The performance is estimated to be as follows"
Bolding by me.
I am also wondering (unless it is a typo) how the overloaded fighter (3rd column) is 10mph faster than than "normal" fighter at 22,000ft when it was 2mph slower at 19,000ft.
and was 537lbs heavier. (full fuel tanks/oil and ammo)
Except that the heavier plane is 1-2mph slower at all listed lower altitudes.Interesting. I had already figured the lower speed for the lighter plane was a typo.
The original thread starter says he understands the Wildcat was a year too late for the BoB but how would it have done if it was there. I agree 100% that the Wildcat wasn't going to make the BoB as well. I also know of the engine shortage and why they used the single stage engines. If we are going to assume it was there for the battle we can assume it had the 2 stage engine it was designed for in the first place. I'm fine with 331 mph as the top speed from a different test as well.Except that the heavier plane is 1-2mph slower at all listed lower altitudes.
Please see the test above this report on the site which gives actual test results from 4 different aircraft including No 1848.
Top speed was 331mph after taking off at 7300lbs. how much fuel was burned getting to 21,000ft?
I would also note that as of Dec 1940 there were only about 22 F4F-3s built. There seems to have been a shortage of engines, otherwise why would the US Navy (and Marines) accept 65 F4F-3A with single stage superchargers in 1941? BTW this was the engine used in the Martlet II. 1000hp at 14,500ft in high gear. British data sheet claims 317mph at 14,000ft.
You need a considerable time shift to get F4F-3s with two stage engines in numbers for the BoB. You need 3-6 months just to get a few squadrons of Martlet Is and IIs.
But by the time the Brits got the French order the Battle was over, and it was decided to send them overseas where their air-cooled engines were a distinct advantage.
I didn't start the thread, but IF the F4F-3 was ready in squadron numbers for the BoB I would probably request that Grumman fix the guns before delivery. I'm a practical guy that way.
Did you read what I typed? I said make Grumman fix the guns OR replace them with 8 303's.Curtis couldn't get them to work in the P40 and North American couldn't get them to work in the P51 as late as 1943 yet Grumman would have them sorted in 1940 loaded with tracer and API that took until 1942 and 1944 to develop?.