FAA aircraft comparative performance

[dunmunro]

... The best way to test FAA aircraft capability is too imagine them being used by the USN or IJN in lieu of what they historically had during the Battle of Midway, for example. If the USN was equipped with Sea Hurricanes, Albacores and Fulmars could they have defeated the IJN at Midway? It seems very likely that they could have, and in fact would have probably done rather better than historically: The USN had about 225 aircraft on three carriers at Midway. If we give these carriers say a mix of 75 Sea Hurricanes and Fulmars and 150 Albacores does this degrade the USN's capability at Midway? The Albacore was fully capable of operating as a pure dive bomber and unlike the Dauntless also had a radar search capability, with which to find the IJN. It seems likely that flying the exact same mission profiles that more Albacore DBs would have found the KB and then sank all four carriers in the first strike wave, while the Albacore TBs would have suffered a similar fate to the Devastators, with the exception that they would have been dropping a much superior torpedo.

Well there is the problem of the range of the aircraft. Sea Hurricane is what 500 miles vs well over 700 for the F4F. The Albacore is also shorter ranged than the US bombers and a lot slower. The latter could have considerable impact as it would give the Japanese CAP a lot more time to react and indeed might allow for more evasive maneuvers of the carriers. Remember that the US dive bombers weren't really spotted until they were in or about to enter thier dives. Now if you start talking about torpedos indeed the RN ones were better at that point as were their release mechanisms I believe. Seem to recall several US torpedos were released when the arming switches were thrown well before they had any hope of doing anything.

The Sea Hurricane could carry drop tanks although when used as a point defence fighter, for which they were most famous, they had no need to do so.
Range with 2 x 45 ig drop tanks was 890nm for the Sea Hurricane 1 and 790nm for the IIC, according to Friedman and 480nm/400nm on internal fuel, respectively.

RAE testing under the same conditions as the Sea Hurricane showed the F4F-4 had a range of 600nm with internal fuel while range with one or two DTs would be about 900nm/1100nm (USN data at 5000ft and ~135 knots). RAE testing for the F4F tended to show somewhat less performance and range for the F4F and seem somewhat more in line with both FAA and USN pilot's comments on F4F-4 performance than the USN data.

The Fulmar II had a fighter range of 690nm or 930nm with a drop tank. Bussy states a combat radius of 195nm with a single 500lb bomb, in a DB configuration. Theoretically a Fulmar can carry a centreline drop tank and 2 x 250lb bombs for an extended range DB configuration:


(from Fairey Fulmar, 4+ Publication)
The Albacore had about twice the range of the TBD, and it's range with a torpedo was 800nm. With 2 x 500lb bombs and a drop tank range was probably over 1000nm. Range with maximum bomb load of 4 x 500lb bombs was 620nm. The cruise speed of the Albacore varied from 100 to 120knts at 6000ft, depending on mission, range, and load out. This was equal or better than the TBD and not much different from the SBD-3 which cruised at 150/152mph (~130 knots) with either a 500 or 1000lb bomb for a nominal range of 1140/1050nm at 5000ft. With a single 1600lb bomb the SBD-3 had a range of 740miles at 154mph or about 640nm at 135 knts, according to USN official figures.



Of course the combat radius for all these aircraft would be much less than these figures but it was still ample to meet the ranges required at Midway. It was several SBD-3 DBs that lost their bombs due to faulty arming switches.

I don't know why the Fulmar seems to cause so much controversy regarding its performance, especially when the USN's SBD-3 seemed to do OK against the A6M Zero when it encountered them as did the rather anaemic F4F-4 so I would suppose that the Fulmar would do somewhat better than the SBD-3 and not a lot worse than the F4F-4, so lets review Sea Hurricane, Fulmar II, SBD-3 and F4F-4 performance:

Speed:
Sea Hurricane IB: (normal/combat) 235/250 knts at SL, 259/285 knts at 11000ft and 268 knts at 18000ft (combat est with 12lb boost and hundred octane fuel. 14 or 16lb boost which was permitted in mid 1942 would add another 5-10 knots )
Sea Hurricane IIC 280 knts at 13500ft, 298 knts at 22000ft (these may be at the combat rating)
Fulmar: 230 knts at 1750ft and 231knts at 9600ft (These figures are probably not at the combat rating of the engine and I would estimate the combat rating to give another 10-15 knts at 1750/9600ft) The Fulmar II's Merlin 30 engine was highly optimized for low altitude performance and was well suited to escorting low altitude strikes, unlike the F4F-4.
F4F-4: (normal/combat) 242/250 knts at 1750ft and 261/264 knts at 9600 ft from official USN testing. RAE testing gives maximum speed as 286mph at 4000ft and 298 mph at 15000ft. Official USN data shows 310mph at 15000 ft and 320mph at 18800ft.
SBD-3: 201 knts at SL, 211 knts at 5000ft, 204 knts at 9600ft and 217 knts at 16000ft. (Engine had no additional combat rating )

Climb:
Sea Hurricane 1B: (normal/combat) 2250fpm/3100fpm(est - 14 or 16lb boost would add 10-20%) at SL.
Sea Hurricane IIC: 2010/3300fpm(est at 14lb) at SL. 9.1min to 22k ft
Fulmar II 1320/2000 (est) FPM at SL and 7min to 10k ft.(Friedman 7min to 10K ft which = ~1400fpm average) 12min to 15k ft (various) (Continuous rating was 9.75lb boost at 2850 RPM, combat rating was 12lb at 3000RPM up to 6000ft giving another 25% power and I would estimate that at the 5min combat rating that climb to 15k ft would be about 9min)
F4F-4 2200/2480(normal/military USN testing) at SL, 1760/2580fpm at SL(normal/combat RAE testing), 2030/2120fpm at 6k ft (normal/military USN testing), 1650/1650fpm at 13k ft (USN testing) and 5.6min to 10Kft (USN testing) 9.4 min to 15k ft (RAE testing). 12.4min to 20k ft (USN testing) The combat/miltary rating does not provide a great increase in climb performance above 3000ft and so I would estimate about a 20-10% reduction in time to 10 and 20k ft respectively at the military rating.
SBD-3 (clean with max internal fuel) 1190fpm at SL and 9min to 10k ft.

[lwd]

Let's take a look at some other factors however:
First the fighters
Size
The Fulmar is 40 ft long and 46 ft in wingspan.
The Sea Hurricane 32 ft long and wingspan 40. For the versions in service at the time of Midway I don't see any reference to folding wings.
F4F-4 (the main variant at Midway) 29 ft long 38 ft wingspan.

Not clear to me what the width is with wings foleded for either the Fulmar or the F4F. It is clear that the F4F however took up less room both in the hanger and on deck. So more planes could be carried and a bigger strike launched. The speeds seam to be close enough that they wouldn't be a major factor. The Fulmar's greater size might make a difference as far as spotting goes.

Now let's look at the bombers
Albecore 39l x 50w. No folding wings I believe.
Dauntless 33 x 41. No folding wings.
Avenger 41 x 54. Folding wings.
Devestator 35 x 50. Folding wings.
Again it looks like the US planes take up considerably less hanger space. Deck space the Avenger takes up a bit more and the Devistator a bit less. If a mixed strike is launched the advantage looks to be with the US mix.
Speed wise most of the stats I can find are for the SBD-5 but I can't seem to find when it entered service. It was faster.
How steep a dive could the Albecore take? It has been noted that the lower angle dives used by the Marine SBDs at Midway resulted in lower P(H) and higher casualties. The max speed on the US aircrft also seems to be more than that of the the Albecore but the latter could be more efficient at cruise with a load I suppose.

I suspect the size issues alone would have considerable impact on Midway.

As for range since the US lost some planes due to them running out of fuel it would seem to be an issue.

[RNfanDan]

There was no equivalent for the USN Dauntless SBD in the FAA ship-borne inventory. The Blackburn Skua was a fine dive-bomber but, IIRC, was incapable of launch and recovery by an aircraft carrier.

Given the success of the SBD --which remained in service throughout the war-- and its pivotal role at Midway, the substitution of RN/FAA aircraft for the F4 and TBD would not, in my opinion, have mattered a great deal.

[dunmunro]

Let's take a look at some other factors however:
First the fighters
Size
The Fulmar is 40 ft long and 46 ft in wingspan.
The Sea Hurricane 32 ft long and wingspan 40. For the versions in service at the time of Midway I don't see any reference to folding wings.
F4F-4 (the main variant at Midway) 29 ft long 38 ft wingspan.

Not clear to me what the width is with wings foleded for either the Fulmar or the F4F. It is clear that the F4F however took up less room both in the hanger and on deck. So more planes could be carried and a bigger strike launched. The speeds seam to be close enough that they wouldn't be a major factor. The Fulmar's greater size might make a difference as far as spotting goes.

Now let's look at the bombers
Albecore 39l x 50w. No folding wings I believe.
Dauntless 33 x 41. No folding wings.
Avenger 41 x 54. Folding wings.
Devestator 35 x 50. Folding wings.
Again it looks like the US planes take up considerably less hanger space. Deck space the Avenger takes up a bit more and the Devistator a bit less. If a mixed strike is launched the advantage looks to be with the US mix.
Speed wise most of the stats I can find are for the SBD-5 but I can't seem to find when it entered service. It was faster.
How steep a dive could the Albecore take? It has been noted that the lower angle dives used by the Marine SBDs at Midway resulted in lower P(H) and higher casualties. The max speed on the US aircrft also seems to be more than that of the the Albecore but the latter could be more efficient at cruise with a load I suppose.

I suspect the size issues alone would have considerable impact on Midway.

As for range since the US lost some planes due to them running out of fuel it would seem to be an issue.

The Albacore does have folding wings and the minimum width is then 17.75ft. Fulmar folded width is 18ft. The Devastator folding wing width is 26ft (IIRC, I've also read 25.5ft). The Avenger was not carried on USN CVs at Midway, and the 6 aircraft that were present were based upon Midway Island. The Sea Hurricane did not have folding wings, although a folding wing design was proposed it was then phased out by the Seafire.

deck area required:
Albacore = 18 x 39 = 702sqft
Fulmar = 18 x 40 = 702sqft
Sea Hurricane = 40 x 32 = 1280sqft
= 2684sqft for 1 of each.

Devastator = 26 x 35 = 910sqft
Dauntless = 33 x 41.5 = 1370sqft
F4F-4 = 14.5 x 29 = 420sq ft.
= 2700 sq ft for one of each.

[dunmunro]

There was no equivalent for the USN Dauntless SBD in the FAA ship-borne inventory. The Blackburn Skua was a fine dive-bomber but, IIRC, was incapable of launch and recovery by an aircraft carrier.

Given the success of the SBD --which remained in service throughout the war-- and its pivotal role at Midway, the substitution of RN/FAA aircraft for the F4 and TBD would not, in my opinion, have mattered a great deal.

The Skua was fully carrier capable and served upon several WW2 RN carriers including Ark Royal. Folded wing width was 15.6ft x 36ft. Range with a 500lb bomb was 680nm at 135 knots. The Fulmar II was fully stressed for dive bombing and could carry either 1 x 500lb or 2 x 250 lb bombs. (see the load out chart in my first post).

[dunmunro]

L
Speed wise most of the stats I can find are for the SBD-5 but I can't seem to find when it entered service. It was faster.
How steep a dive could the Albecore take? It has been noted that the lower angle dives used by the Marine SBDs at Midway resulted in lower P(H) and higher casualties. The max speed on the US aircrft also seems to be more than that of the the Albecore but the latter could be more efficient at cruise with a load I suppose.



As for range since the US lost some planes due to them running out of fuel it would seem to be an issue.

The SBD-4 entered service in Fall of 1942 and the SBD-5 in mid to late 1943.
The Albacore could dive bomb vertically when carrying wing mounted 500lb bombs. Compared to the Devastator the Albacore could trade off higher cruise speed and still retain a longer combat radius. In the attack phase the Albacore could drop its torpedo at max speed, since the Mk XII torpedo could be dropped at 150 knots. Like the Barracuda, the Albacore TB could approach the target at medium altitude, dive vertically to drop altitude, drop at max speed and then climb away. The Devastator had to hold its speed to 100 knots during the drop phase which necessitated a shallow, low speed attack run.

The USN had some problems at Midway in getting its large strikes away in timely manner, and there was some confusion (and controversy) amongst Hornet's Dauntless and F4F squadrons leading to some aircraft ditching, although some did so prematurely. It seems likely that radar equipped Albacores would have had a much higher probability of finding the IJN at Midway, given the existing cloud conditions.

[RNfanDan]

The Blackburn Skua was a fine dive-bomber but, IIRC, was incapable of launch and recovery by an aircraft carrier.

The Skua was fully carrier capable and served upon several WW2 RN carriers including Ark Royal. Folded wing width was 15.6ft x 36ft. Range with a 500lb bomb was 680nm at 135 knots.

Thank you for that correction, sir! I was under the impression that Skuas were only flown from FAA land bases (notably Hatston).

The Fulmar II was fully stressed for dive bombing and could carry either 1 x 500lb or 2 x 250 lb bombs. (see the load out chart in my first post).

The SBD was a highly mission-specialised aircraft and it is difficult to believe the Fulmar could equal the dive-bombing performance of either a Dauntless or Skua. It would have an individual advantage once its payload was delivered and its function switched to that of a fighter, but a flight of SBDs together were a formidable and dangerous target for the Zero fighter of Midway vintage.

For those reasons, I'd still say the SBD has the edge, among the three types.

Good posts so far, and an enjoyable thread!

[dunmunro]

The Blackburn Skua was a fine dive-bomber but, IIRC, was incapable of launch and recovery by an aircraft carrier.

The Skua was fully carrier capable and served upon several WW2 RN carriers including Ark Royal. Folded wing width was 15.6ft x 36ft. Range with a 500lb bomb was 680nm at 135 knots.

Thank you for that correction, sir! I was under the impression that Skuas were only flown from FAA land bases (notably Hatston).

The Fulmar II was fully stressed for dive bombing and could carry either 1 x 500lb or 2 x 250 lb bombs. (see the load out chart in my first post).

The SBD was a highly mission-specialised aircraft and it is difficult to believe the Fulmar could equal the dive-bombing performance of either a Dauntless or Skua. It would have an individual advantage once its payload was delivered and its function switched to that of a fighter, but a flight of SBDs together were a formidable and dangerous target for the Zero fighter of Midway vintage.

For those reasons, I'd still say the SBD has the edge, among the three types.

Good posts so far, and an enjoyable thread!

Thanks.

The SBD was a highly capable dive bomber, but like the Skua it was also designed for a multi-mission capability and served as the USN's primary recon aircraft and had a secondary role as a fleet fighter. The Fulmar was pressed into service with its primary mission being to provide CAP and fighter escort, with a secondary recon role but lack of numbers restricted this function. The Fulmar II was capable of acting as a Dive Bomber but like the Barracuda as Torpedo Bomber, by the time the FAA had sufficient decks it no longer had suitable targets. The Fulmar did not have a bomb crutch so could not dive vertically when carrying a 500lb bomb on the centre-line but it still had a potentially useful secondary role as a DB considering that the flight deck of a fleet carrier makes a very big target. The FAA was not able to realize the potential of the Fulmar as a strike aircraft because it simply never had enough Fulmars to take them off their primary task as fleet fighter.

[Bgile]

A recon Val at 30,000 ft would be impossible for a Fulmar to intercept. It could just tail the fleet, avoiding flak by manuever. There wasn't much speed difference at lower altitudes, either.

[dunmunro]

A recon Val at 30,000 ft would be impossible for a Fulmar to intercept. It could just tail the fleet, avoiding flak by manuever. There wasn't much speed difference at lower altitudes, either.

But no problem for a Sea Hurricane...the Fulmar was just one of the aircraft in the FAA inventory.

[lwd]

Indeed you've pretty much convinced me that the likely hood of a major difference would come down to command decisions related to the capabilities and possibly some relativly critical timeing issues. For instance is the strike held off an hour or so because of the Hurricanes shorter range? Or are a couple of Albecores used as scouts and others as leaders able to direct the attack formations in a more efficient maner effectivly negating any difference in range and allowing a coordinated strike? I'd exclude the use of British torpedos from the discussion as they aren't directly related to the aircraft.

[Bgile]

Did they actually put Hurricanes and Fullmars on the same ship? What would be a normal complement on Arc Royal, for example?

[dunmunro]

Did they actually put Hurricanes and Fullmars on the same ship? What would be a normal complement on Arc Royal, for example?

Ark Royal never carried Sea Hurricanes and carried something like 24 Fulmars and 30 Swordfish as her typical complement. In July 1941 Furious carried 4 Sea Hurricanes and 6 - 9 Fulmars and Indomitable carried a mix of 9 -12 Sea Hurricanes and 12 Fulmars in Dec 1941. During Pedestal, Eagle carried 16 Sea Hurricanes, Victorious carried 6 Sea Hurricanes, 16 Fulmars and 12 Albacores while Indomitable carried 10 Martlets, 24 Sea Hurricanes and 16 Albacores. The 3 three armoured carriers with small lifts could carry up to 6 Sea Hurricanes on outriggers, as a precursor to a permanent deck park.

[dunmunro]

Indeed you've pretty much convinced me that the likely hood of a major difference would come down to command decisions related to the capabilities and possibly some relativly critical timeing issues. For instance is the strike held off an hour or so because of the Hurricanes shorter range? Or are a couple of Albecores used as scouts and others as leaders able to direct the attack formations in a more efficient maner effectivly negating any difference in range and allowing a coordinated strike? I'd exclude the use of British torpedos from the discussion as they aren't directly related to the aircraft.

One alternative would be to assign the Fulmar to long range scout, strike and escort duty, and leave the Sea Hurricanes to act as point defence fighters. Another option is to use the Sea Hurricane (with Drop Tanks) as fighter escort for the DB strike while the Fulmars escort the torpedo bombers in a low altitude escort role.

If we use the Fulmar to its fullest capability and retain the Sea Hurricane for fleet defence, it would do most of the long range recon roles and then escort a TB strike consisting of Albacores while a separate DB strike also uses Albacores with 2 x 500lb bombs, while the escorting Fulmars also carry either a 500lb bomb or 2 x 250lb bombs and a DT. In this scenario with a mix 75 fighters and 150 strike aircraft aboard 3 carriers, about 2/3 of the fighters would Fulmars.

[lwd]

I haven't seen much to indicate that the USN used drop tanks at this point in the war. Likewise if the fighters were sent as escorts they didn't tend to carry bombs. Especially if you think you'll encounter enemy fighters bombs are rather a waste as you'll need to jetison them anyway and have burned up more fuel getting to that point.