Wildcats in action in Europe 1945

[RCAFson]

So IIC is a bit slower than IIA, even at the higher boost. IIA was 8 .303 guns? Maybe they should have stuck to that, it seems much 'peppier'.

You can also see the harsh effect of tropicalization here...

HIIC is about 15mph slower in high blower and 12LB boost than the HIIA, but in 1942 this would have still have been the fastest carrier rated Allied fighter except for the Seafire (and SH2A/B). Here's another graph for the H2C:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/hurricane-IIc-raechart-level.jpg

and here's the IIC climb rate:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/hurricane-IIc-raechart-climb.jpg

Note how the H2C with normal climb power and two drop tanks can outclimb an F4F-4 (using full military power) to 20K ft.

 

[Clayton Magnet]

So IIC is a bit slower than IIA, even at the higher boost. IIA was 8 .303 guns? Maybe they should have stuck to that, it seems much 'peppier'.

IIA should be 8 guns, IIB should be 12 guns, and IIC should be 4 cannons. Although they may have also removed a pair of cannons to improve performance. At least they did occasionally on land based Hurricanes
in the far East.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

Yep just like 4 gun Wildcats or P-40s. It's still alot of firepower.

 

[Clayton Magnet]

If fighting the Japanese, I would think that 8x machine guns would be more than adequate, especially if loaded with Mk.VI or VII incendiary rounds. With a healthy bump in performance due to reduced weight and better aerodynamics

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

Plus more ammunition / shooting time

 

[Glider]

Oh wow that's cool! I so want to go to Duxford one day... are the airshows super crowded?

Yes is the simple answer. Either camp overnight before hand or get there very very early

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

Ah, such a shame. Seems to be the case everywhere these days.

 

[33k in the air]

If fighting the Japanese, I would think that 8x machine guns would be more than adequate, especially if loaded with Mk.VI or VII incendiary rounds. With a healthy bump in performance due to reduced weight and better aerodynamics

From what I recall reading, one of the reasons the F8F-1 was armed with only four .50-cal MGs was because that armament was deemed sufficient for dealing with Japanese fighters.

 

[Shortround6]

From what I recall reading, one of the reasons the F8F-1 was armed with only four .50-cal MGs was because that armament was deemed sufficient for dealing with Japanese fighters.

That or they were anticipating that the long (very long ) development of the fast firing .50 cal gun (1100-1200rpm) would finally come up with an acceptable gun?

They did around 8000 (?) of them in late 1944 or 45 under a "T" number before standardizing as the M3. The Actual F8F-1s may have gotten the M2s. I don't know how fast the M3s were introduced after the war ended. The M3s had to be built new and could not be converted with a parts kit as per the original design requirement, one reason the long development.
A bit like 100 octane fuel in 1939, everybody knew it was coming, they just didn't know when.

 

[yulzari]

If fighting the Japanese, I would think that 8x machine guns would be more than adequate, especially if loaded with Mk.VI or VII incendiary rounds. With a healthy bump in performance due to reduced weight and better aerodynamics

 

[Barrett]

Yep just like 4 gun Wildcats or P-40s. It's still alot of firepower.

Wild Bill is correct. Long ago as aces secretary I crunched The Numbers. Turned out that in WW II, four .50s was the optimum fighter armament. The two extra guns produced 50 percent more volume of fire but only 10 percent greater lethality.

 

[Greg Boeser]

So the Navy pilot who said, "If you can't hit 'em with four, you won't hit 'em with six." was right all along!

 

[glennasher]

So the Navy pilot who said, "If you can't hit 'em with four, you won't hit 'em with six." was right all along!

Yes, but I'd rather have six MGS that worked (P-51D) than 4 MGs that "might work" (P-51B,C), but that's got nothing to do with the naval aviators.

 

[pinehilljoe]

Later, it was figured out putting lights on the aircraft actually made them harder to spot until they were close.

the Leigh Light helped patrol bombers spot a U-Boat. Radar set were pulsed, and the the gap in the pulses was enough to loose contact with the aircraft was very close to the U-boat. Have a Leigh Light helped keep contact visually when very close.

 

[33k in the air]

the Leigh Light helped patrol bombers spot a U-Boat. Radar set were pulsed, and the the gap in the pulses was enough to loose contact with the aircraft was very close to the U-boat. Have a Leigh Light helped keep contact visually when very close.

Wasn't talking about the Leigh Light, but rather a technique developed for daytime anti-submarine/maritime patrol aircraft. Putting lights on them actually made them harder to spot, as counterintuitive as it might seem.

This Wikipedia entry describes the method.

 

[Greg Boeser]

The lights were mounted in the leading edges of the wing and hid the dark silhouette against the bright sky. I believe the intensity was adjustable.

 

[WAFU]

The Sea Hurricane suffered terribly from deterioration as it wasn't designed as a naval fighter.
any performance figures quickly went south once they started getting soaked with sea water on a constant basis.

 

[Clayton Magnet]

Turned out that in WW II, four .50s was the optimum fighter armament

You would calculate four heavy machine guns as superior to an array of auto cannons?
In my opinion, for what ever its worth, the closest to an "optimum" WWII fighter armament would be something similar to the trio of centrally mounted cannons on either a Fw190D-13 or a Yak 3P. Particularly the Berezin B-20 arrangement on the latter, which is an intriguing combination of low installed weight, with a relatively high burst mass. It is a shame the Russians didn't develop it earlier than they did.
I think the four 50 caliber armament on the F4F-3 and FM-2 was fine when used against poorly protected aircraft in the Pacific, but probably just adequate for use against Luftwaffe aircraft.

 

[Shortround6]

The four .50s was probably minimum.
Thach, who I believe the quote was from and I would love to hear the context, is pretty much correct. However he was a gunnery expert/master.
If he was telling his students that you cannot depend on just slinging a bunch of bullets into the sky and expect to get hits he was quite correct. Extra guns does not make up for poor accuracy/aim. British tried that one by pointing guns in different directions, it didn't work in either AA guns or wing mounted machine guns.
On the other had a good pilot can spend a shorter period of time on target and get decisive results. And here we get into the differences between Japanese and German aircraft and armor and self sealing fuel tanks and even the size of the targets. And our old friend, time. What was a successful shoot down in 1942 was not always a successful shoot down in 1945 in the Pacific. The Navy wanted the Japanese attack planes not only shot down they wanted them shot down RIGHT NOW. In fact they wanted them disintegrated in mid air. Incapable of forward motion. Aluminum confetti.
Now the problem for the Americans (and Thach) was that in 1942 they had a choice of 4 guns with just over 30 sec of firing time and six guns about 18-19 seconds of firing time.
O'Hare was pretty much on target with most of his shooting, I really doubt he would have finished off most of his targets with 6 guns and less time on target, (he was using less than 6 sec off firing time for the targets he did kill/damage) and in fact he may have run out of ammo before being able to engage the last one (or two?). Open to correction.
The F4U and F6F solved that problem by using 6 guns with about 30 seconds of firing time.
However the bulk of the pilots were not up to standards of Thach and O'Hare. They may have gotten on target for only 1 sec instead of 2-3 and sprayed the area before and after the target. Hitting the target with 50% more bullets may mean the difference between a kill and a damage. It won't turn a miss into a kill or even a miss into a damage.
The Navy did try "patterns" on least at least the F6F and the RAF tried it again (much more tightly grouped) with the cannon armed Spitfires.

Now from the other direction, if you can get away with four .50 cal guns you can have a lighter plane and can climb and turn better than the 6 gun plane in general. Once you build something the size and power of an F4U or F6F taking a pair of guns back out isn't going change things much.
The Japanese very kindly spent a lot of time doing not much of anything in regards to making large improvements to their aircraft which really helped the US out.
P-51 with 4 guns in Europe weren't facing much in the way of twin engine aircraft let alone 4 engine. If they had needed to shoot down B-17s they may have been screaming for 20mm cannon. The four gun P-51s may have been a little light on ammo?

 

[Greg Boeser]

Die Experten in the Luftwaffe flying 109s made do with twin lmgs and a 20mm. Good enough for taking down fighters and light bombers, but inadequate for mediums and heavies.