Naval History Forums

nice find, D.

Any idea, why the top speed was that low?

best regards,
delc

delcyros wrote:nice find, D.

Any idea, why the top speed was that low?

best regards,
delc

The basic problem was that the Martlet was a heavy fighter (~7790lb) with only about 1050hp at FTH in high blower. The F4F-4 was about the same speed at the same altitudes but could do a littler better in high blower at FTH (~19000ft) due to its two stage SC.

The Martlet II (with folding wings) was even slower, 293mph at 5400 and 13800ft. The Fulmar II could do 268mph at 6600ft, while climb rate was only a little worse than the Martlet.

Generally speaking, UK and USN testing of the F4F showed much less performance than the official USN SAC data, especially during climb, which mirrored pilot complaints about it's low performance.