# Battle of Britain Hurricane or Wildcat



## pinsog (Mar 9, 2010)

If you were running the RAF during the BoB and you had a choice between the Hurricane or F4F3 Wildcat in addition to the Spitfire, which would you have chosen? As a pilot, which would you have chosen to fight in?


----------



## Colin1 (Mar 9, 2010)

Not an easy one
better ceiling for the Hurricane but I'd give the F4F the call as a better bomber-killer; radial engine for durability and 4 x .50cals that would mess things up in a Heinkel's glasshouse but that's assuming the Luftwaffe were obliging enough to come in at a decent height for it.
Hurricane possibly shades it on manoeuvrabiity but I don't think either plane was all that in the vertical.


----------



## Markus (Mar 9, 2010)

Wildcat is is! Compared to the Hurricane I the F4F-3 had a better high-altitude performance due to her two-speed supercharger and her armament was vasty more powerful.


----------



## buffnut453 (Mar 9, 2010)

Markus said:


> Wildcat is is! Compared to the Hurricane I the F4F-3 had a better high-altitude performance due to her two-speed supercharger and her armament was vasty more powerful.



Are we talking about relative performance or historical timeline reality? The first production F4F-3s were only available in Feb 40 so producing sufficient numbers to equip all the Hurricane squadrons employed during the BoB was improbable at best.

If we're talking just about relative performance, I agree that the Wildcat had superior altitude performance although I'd hardly consider 4x50cals being "vastly more powerful" than 8x303s. It would also be interesting to consider other factors like time-to-altitude climbing performance and ease of turnaround between missions as both were vital in the BoB. Don't have answers to these questions but I'd be interested to learn the answers.


----------



## vanir (Mar 9, 2010)

I'd have chosen a MiG. FTW.

Fury monoplane or converted biplane is otherwise difficult choice. Both are pretty good second echelon models from leading design nations. I'd probably go for the Wildcat because of better equipment and range for similar performance. It did reportedly very well in comparative mock dogfights against P-40s in the Pacific, winning usually. Fuel tank is very well protected, reliability is great, armament is good, etc.
Hurricane loses energy quickly in sustained manoeuvres, Wildcat loses it in the vertical. Both are very stable platforms and easy to fly and land. The fifties have extra range and penetration but double the amount of .303s has equivalent damage at normal conditions and better chances of hits. The fifties really only to draw way ahead when the targets became more heavily armoured which didn't happen 'till later. Also consider that if the Wildcat was adopted on a large scale as a ground based fighter it probably would've been swapped for .303s anyway, like the P-40 (this was not due to ammunition availability so much as the fact the Browning .50 was considered relatively untested in terms of reliability by the British ministry, which is the original reason they weren't placed in Spits and Hurricanes instead of the 8-gun armament).


----------



## Markus (Mar 9, 2010)

buffnut453 said:


> If we're talking just about relative performance, I agree that the Wildcat had superior altitude performance although I'd hardly consider 4x50cals being "vastly more powerful" than 8x303s.



Here´s a bit of info from Tony Williams website:



> The problem was that the small bullets fired by the RCMGs could not carry enough incendiary or explosive to guarantee success, and also had insufficient penetration to defeat armour reliably. A series of ground tests carried out by the British, firing at a redundant Bristol Blenheim from 180 m to the rear with various British and German guns and ammunition, ... Similarly, while both German and British steel-cored armour-piercing (AP) rounds could penetrate up to 12 mm of armour plate if fired directly at it from 180 m, most of the bullets were deflected or tumbled by first passing through the fuselage skin or structure. *In consequence, only a quarter to a third of the bullets reached the Blenheim's 4 mm-thick armour plate at all, and very few penetrated it.*



The RAF was also very short of AP-rounds during the BoB, replacing them with FMJ-rounds and reducing the already meager firepower of the cal.303 even more. I pressume that was not a problem any more a year later but even than Hurricanes with 12*.303 were having a lot of trouble bringing down Ju88. Cal.50 machine guns are vastly superior to rifle caliber machine guns because a cal.50 Browning bullet is more than four times havier than a cal.303. IMO RCMG are useful only against single engine A/C or unprotected ones. 




> It would also be interesting to consider other factors like time-to-altitude climbing performance and ease of turnaround between missions as both were vital in the BoB.



Sea level climb rate was 3,300ft/min, time to 20,000ft eight minutes.


----------



## buffnut453 (Mar 9, 2010)

Good points, Markus, but if the RAF was short of AP .303 rounds in 1940, where on earth would they have acquired sufficient .50 cal rounds? Remember, the question was which aircraft would we have chosen "in addition to the Spitfire". Operating a mix of weapons calibres would have presented logistic and operational issues. Also, with .50 cals you get fewer rounds per weapon in a given space so, under dogfight conditions, you run out of ammo faster. Don't disagree that the .50 cal is, one for one, better than a .303 (4x20mm cannon are better still!) and there were difficulties with the Ju-88 (catching the buggers was hard enough) but many German aircraft were not extensively armoured - the glass nose of the He111 springs to mind. 

I maintain that the F4F-3 wouldn't have been available in sufficient numbers, unless we're speaking hypothetically. I'm also interested where you get 3,303 ft/min for the climb rate as the figure I've seen is 2,303 which is rather less than that of the Hurricane. It's a tough call. Perhaps the F4F-3 does edge it, but not by much.


----------



## vanir (Mar 9, 2010)

Nevertheless consider the bulk of aircraft on both sides were only in the process of having their armouring increased through the BoB period, the Hurricane had only just received self sealing tanks and all fighters were only just starting to receive pilot or vitals armouring. The Blenheim was designed to escort medium bombers (in attack or light bomber configuration as a dual role escort and attack aircraft) so was unusual for its time in terms of armouring, designed to sustain fire other aircraft were considered unlikely to have to worry about.
The 109E-4 is basically the armament of an E-3 with the armouring of an E-1/B, whilst the Spit didn't change designation for its armour increase but this happened at the same time in practise, so that E-3's and unarmoured Spit/Hurricanes fought the beginning bouts of the BoB for the most part.
Basically ground attack models were the only ones armoured as such before the BoB. This changed during the course of the conflict, but reflected prewar thinking on all sides. Traditionally speaking and by anecdote the lighter calibres weren't inadequate when enough of them were equipped, but that fact changed by the end of the BoB as aircraft generally had become more heavily armoured during production. That brought more issues of engine power and weight of course.


----------



## davebender (Mar 9, 2010)

*F4F-3*
F4F Wildcat - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
331 mph max speed.
2,303 ft/min climb.
4 x .50cal MG

*Hurricane Mk I.*
www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org - British Aviation Resource Center - Fighter Specifications
318 mph max speed.
2,520 ft/min climb.
8 x .303 MG

Personally I'd prefer the F4F due to superior firepower and being slightly faster. However both aircraft had marginal performance by 1940 standards. Even the much maligned Me-110C is probably overall superior to the F4F and Hurricane.


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 9, 2010)

davebender said:


> *F4F-3*. Even the much maligned Me-110C is probably overall superior to the F4F and Hurricane.




In speed yes, but climb, turn, and probably roll are all inferior. Fire power probably goes to the 110 but even that gets iffy after the first 8 seconds or so, depends on how good the rear gunner is at changing the drums on the 20mm cannon.


----------



## pinsog (Mar 9, 2010)

This is a hypothetical question so we shall assume 2 things 
1. there were enough F4F3's to supply the RAF and
2. There were enough .50 caliber bullets in Britain to feed them

How many of you that say 8 .303 are as effective as 4 .50's have ever held them side by side in your hands? A .303 barely edges out the old 30/30 in ballistics and is around 400 fps slower than a 3006 with the same weight bullet. If you were firing at an automobile with a .303, something as small as an altenator or battery will stop that round, while a .50 would pass through the battery AND the altenator AND on through the engine block. Lets face it guys, the .303 was a stop-gap weapon and a poor one at that. I know, I know, "there were alot of aircraft brought down by .303's during WW2", well there are alot of deer killed at night, under a spotlight with a .22 magnum, doesn't make it a deer caliber though.

The F4F3 has 2 main advantages that matter over the Hurricane, because for the most part, they were very equal
1. weapons
If the Hurricane and Spitfire would have had 4 .50's I believe ALOT more Germans would have not made it back across the channel
2. range
With nearly double the range of the Hurricane, groups of F4F3's could have come in behind the German strike force and orbited until the Germans were heading back home short of fuel and attacked them when they essentially couldnt defend themselves. I believe that could have been a slaughter.


----------



## Markus (Mar 9, 2010)

buffnut453 said:


> Good points, Markus, but if the RAF was short of AP .303 rounds in 1940, where on earth would they have acquired sufficient .50 cal rounds?



What kind of cal.50 rounds? ... IF that matters? 50´s have five to six times the kinetic energy, so I´m taking a leap of faith here and assume even cal.50 FMJ-rounds are more destructive than cal.303 AP-rounds. IF that is a leap of faith, against poorly armoured A/C cal.50 FMJ was actually more destructive(see: Fire in the Sky by E. M. Bergerud).




> Remember, the question was which aircraft would we have chosen "in addition to the Spitfire". Operating a mix of weapons calibres would have presented logistic and operational issues. Also, with .50 cals you get fewer rounds per weapon in a given space so, under dogfight conditions, you run out of ammo faster.



Logistical problem I can accept in exchange for a weapon that does real damage. With regard to firing time. 430 rds/gun translate to 28.7 seconds. The six gun Wildcats had just 16 seconds, so I guess 28.7 is ok. 



> I maintain that the F4F-3 wouldn't have been available in sufficient numbers, unless we're speaking hypothetically. I'm also interested where you get 3,303 ft/min for the climb rate as the figure I've seen is 2,303 which is rather less than that of the Hurricane. It's a tough call. Perhaps the F4F-3 does edge it, but not by much.



The OP did not specify that, but I assume it´s hypothetically for Grumman build just 106 Wildcats in 1940. The info is from "America´s 100,000". 2,303 ft/min looks like the F4F-4´s climb rate.


----------



## timmo (Mar 10, 2010)

Another consideration - could you smoke in the Wildcat??

= Tim


----------



## herman1rg (Mar 10, 2010)

How about a poll for this?


----------



## vanir (Mar 10, 2010)

timmo said:


> Another consideration - could you smoke in the Wildcat??
> 
> = Tim



Actually funny you should mention I heard about a guy who did. Unfortunately the bomber he was escorting was shot down as he lit up. Dude cried during the interview recording.

True story, he was on the return leg, quite some distance from the target zone and had the plane trimmed for cruise, thought he was close enough to the airfield to take it easy and light up. By the time he got the plane back into combat condition it was too late, 8 lives lost in the bomber. I really felt for the guy.


----------



## Colin1 (Mar 10, 2010)

buffnut453 said:


> If we're talking just about relative performance, I agree that the Wildcat had superior altitude performance
> 
> although I'd hardly consider 4x50cals being "vastly more powerful" than 8x303s.
> 
> It would also be interesting to consider other factors like time-to-altitude climbing performance


I'm not seeing anything to suggest the F4F was better than the Hurricane at altitude.

Give me the penetration power of 4 x .50cals over the spraying power of 8 x .303s any day

The Hurricane would climb faster by some 500ft/min which would make a difference over a comparatively small combat arena like SE England in terms of getting to altitude quickly enough, or not and getting bounced


----------



## timmo (Mar 10, 2010)

Performance aside - attrition rate - replacements - mods??

= Tim


----------



## davebender (Mar 10, 2010)

Battle of Britain - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


> By September, standard tactics for raids had become an amalgam of techniques. A Freie Jagd would precede the main attack formations. The bombers would fly in at altitudes between 16,000 feet (4,900 m) and 20,000 feet (6,100 m),



Aircraft attacking the German bombers should be flying at about 20,000 feet. How did the Hurricane and F4F compare at this altitude?


----------



## vanir (Mar 10, 2010)

> I'm not seeing anything to suggest the F4F was better than the Hurricane at altitude.



Single speed blower is tuned for max output at 2000m (in the case of the Spit and Hurri). Two speed blowers are tuned for max output at 1000m and 4000m (for example). Ergo the two speed blower has better altitude performance irrespective of maximum comparative bench performance of the engines. I'm not sure the terminology but I guess you'd call it the pressure altitude curves. Maximum level speed figures are not indicative of overall altitude performance obviously.

Hurri with Merlin 20 would kick butt on the Wildcat, especially given the Hispano option, even though level speeds are again barely affected.

Just for interest sake the Allison was tuned for 1500m and so was considered to have inadequate altitude performance when compared with single speed Hurris and Spits or the Emil. By the same token the Allison which is in the same class as the Merlin has a much better maximum take off output within tolerances, although Allison division guidelines were conservative at first and designed for a variety of fuel grades. The F-series Allison was cleared for 1650hp under 5000 feet which is right alongside the Merlin 45/50, but the Merlin couldn't manage it at sea level and the Allison couldn't manage it above 5000 feet without some ram effect.


----------



## Jerry W. Loper (Mar 10, 2010)

pinsog said:


> If you were running the RAF during the BoB and you had a choice between the Hurricane or F4F3 Wildcat in addition to the Spitfire, which would you have chosen? As a pilot, which would you have chosen to fight in?



IMO, the fact that the Hurricane used the same engine and ammunition as the Spitfire made up for any slight difference in performance.


----------



## Markus (Mar 10, 2010)

timmo said:


> Another consideration - could you smoke in the Wildcat??
> 
> = Tim



Smoking is bad for your health; it distracts you, the smoke reduces visibility ...




davebender said:


> Aircraft attacking the German bombers should be flying at about 20,000 feet. How did the Hurricane and F4F compare at this altitude?



Very well, because the F4F-3 did not have a two-speed but a two-stage supercharger. Thus she could operate at up to 30,000ft. 




Colin1 said:


> The Hurricane would climb faster by some 500ft/min which would make a difference over a comparatively small combat arena like SE England in terms of getting to altitude quickly enough, or not and getting bounced



 Her initial climb rate is app. 1,000ft lower than a Wildcats. How much time did she need to 20,000ft? I found info on two websides and they say at least 9 minutes. That would make her a slower climber than the -3 Wildcat.

K5083 - Technical Data Part II - Mk. I
Hawker Hurricane Mk IA - The Air Combat Wiki


----------



## Vincenzo (Mar 10, 2010)

the FTH altitude for F4F-3 was higher of that Hurricane I (the best speed are at 22000" and a 17500")


----------



## herman1rg (Mar 10, 2010)

As someone said earlier in the the thread I don't think there would be enough Wildcats produced in time.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 10, 2010)

herman1rg said:


> As someone said earlier in the the thread I don't think there would be enough Wildcats produced in time.



Depends where and when production would be fully engaged to support this hypothetical effort. After Pearl Harbor and after the first batch of F4F-3As were delivered, up to 1943, 1169 examples of the F4F-4 were built, that averages 390 units per year, as a comparison there were about 500 Hurricanes built from when production started in October 1937 through September 1939.


----------



## Hop (Mar 10, 2010)

In the first 12 months of the war, 3 September 1939 to 3 September 1940, the RAF took delivery of 1,782 Hurricanes.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 10, 2010)

Hop said:


> In the first 12 months of the war, 3 September 1939 to 3 September 1940, the RAF took delivery of 1,782 Hurricanes.



And in 1944 3103 FM-3s were built for the USN and the RN. The point is just as many, if not more F4Fs' could have been built as Hurricanes under the same given time.


----------



## Colin1 (Mar 10, 2010)

Markus said:


> Her initial climb rate is app. 1,000ft lower than a Wildcats. How much time did she need to 20,000ft? I found info on two websides and they say at least 9 minutes. That would make her a slower climber than the -3 Wildcat


I'm showing initial climb rates of 2,000ft/min for the early (read lighter) versions of the F4F and 2,529ft/min for the Hurricane I. Service ceiling of 35,000ft for the F4F (more for the earlier, lighter versions) and 36,000ft for the Hurricane I.

As far as the two-stage supercharging issue: Pratt Witney started work on two-stage supercharging for the R-1830 in 1935 and bumped into alot of problems, so many in fact that a reasonable model wasn't available for testing until 1939. This was the R-1830SB-2/R-1830SC-2G which made its maiden flight in February of that year. It suffered badly from surging and P&W took the supercharger design all the way back to the drawing board. The R-1830-19 was the first all-Pratt Witney two-stage supercharged powerplant, it featured C-type cylinder heads, new-type cylinders, an NA-V12A carburettor and lead-coated silver master-rod bearings. It had an air intercooler but none of the technology resolved the high-altitude surging. The -76 and -86 followed but neither was completely satisfactory.

Rolls-Royce Merlin II__________1,[email protected],[email protected],250ft (delivered August 1937)
Pratt Witney R-1830-19_____1,[email protected],[email protected],500ft (delivered late 1939)


----------



## parsifal (Mar 10, 2010)

Wilcats had numerous teething problems throughout 1940, that continued to plague the type until early 1941. Its a fact often overlooked by many such comparisons.

The hurricane was a type that had been ready for service since before the war. To adequately compare the hurricane to the Wildcat, and remain in a contemporary time line, one has to go to the hurricane II series really.


----------



## Hop (Mar 10, 2010)

> And in 1944 3103 FM-3s were built for the USN and the RAN. The point is just as many, if not more F4Fs' could have been built as Hurricanes under the same given time.



In time for the BoB? With the pre-war production, about 2,300 Hurricanes had been built by the start of September 1940. With the best will in the world, I can't see 2,300 Wildcats being built in the first few months of production.

It takes time to go from prototype to production to large scale deployment. The Wildcat might have been ready to play a large role in 1941, but not in the summer of 1940.


----------



## Colin1 (Mar 10, 2010)

Hop said:


> In time for the BoB? ... ...The Wildcat might have been ready to play a large role in 1941, but not in the summer of 1940.


The F4F wasn't accepted by the USN until July 1940
Even if F4Fs were ready to ship in time for the battle, the logistic lines would have proved a near-insurmountable headache; Britain had no real answer to the Atlantic problem in 1940, if F4Fs were to replace Hurricanes plane for plane then roughly 2/3 of RAF Fighter Command would have been decorating the ocean floor between Ireland and the eastern seaboard of the US.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 10, 2010)

Hop said:


> In time for the BoB? With the pre-war production, about 2,300 Hurricanes had been built by the start of September 1940. With the best will in the world, I can't see 2,300 Wildcats being built in the first few months of production.
> 
> It takes time to go from prototype to production to large scale deployment. The Wildcat might have been ready to play a large role in 1941, but not in the summer of 1940.



But had the first production model flown in 1937 like the Hurricane? That's my point - read my earlier post...



> Depends where and when production would be fully engaged to support this hypothetical effort



From 1937 to 1939 there were 500 Hurricanes. From 1939 to 1940, you had 2300 Hurricanes. As stated, in 1944 3103 FM-3s were built for the USN and the RN...

Had a


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 10, 2010)

Colin1 said:


> The F4F wasn't accepted by the USN until July 1940
> Even if F4Fs were ready to ship in time for the battle, the logistic lines would have proved a near-insurmountable headache; Britain had no real answer to the Atlantic problem in 1940, if F4Fs were to replace Hurricanes plane for plane then roughly 2/3 of RAF Fighter Command would have been decorating the ocean floor between Ireland and the eastern seaboard of the US.



That's another secenrio to look at. Also consider the FAA had Wildcats operational by Dec 1940.


----------



## Markus (Mar 10, 2010)

Colin1 said:


> I'm showing initial climb rates of 2,000ft/min for the early (read lighter) versions of the F4F and 2,529ft/min for the Hurricane I. Service ceiling of 35,000ft for the F4F (more for the earlier, lighter versions) and 36,000ft for the Hurricane I.



What a mere 2,000ft/min for an early Wildcat? No way, "America´s 100,000" says even the heavier F4F-4 could almost make 2,500ft/min at sea level. Climb rates rapidly decreased with altitude but 8 minuts to 20,000ft still beats the Hurricane´s time. 

@parsifal, Colin1, Hop and herman1rg

Valid points IOTL but pinsog stated:



> This is a hypothetical question so we shall assume 2 things
> 1. there were enough F4F3's to supply the RAF and


----------



## proton45 (Mar 10, 2010)

It was my understanding that another advantage of the Hurricane was ease of repair...

It was possible to repair them more quickly and keep them in the air, for the fight. Also it took less skilled repairmen.


----------



## pbfoot (Mar 10, 2010)

The range of the Wildcat gives it an advantage over the Hurricane because it would the ability to pursue the German birds back to base . Something that wasn't attempted by the RAF because of the limited range of their birds


----------



## JoeB (Mar 10, 2010)

The F4F was a later plane, but any what-if has to assume accelerating its production, otherwise it's a simple, wasn't available. As mentioned truly operational USN F4F sdns as well as the FAA's first Martlets, from the diverted Greek order post dated the BoB, let alone considering comparable numbers to Hurricanes as of BoB.

As we've gone over several times and controversially each time but worth remembering, against the same oppostion in the Pacific the F4F had a much better fighter combat record than the Hurricane. The Hurricane struggled against the Zero and Type 1 all the way through 1943, several:1 kill ratio's against it. F4F fought them at parity pretty much immediately, and has been covered ad nauseum F4F's in 1942 didn't usually use special anti-Zero tactics, and Zeroes themselves preferred hit and run tactics by late 1942 v F4F's, not tail chasing, so the quick hand wave of 'tactics' doesn't explain it alone. There are many other variables in those outcomes as there always are, and it's impossible to prove how much of that discrepancy in record was due to subtle or intangible performance differences that made the the F4F the superior fighter combat a/c, but it would seem that some probably was, IMO. And survival rate v escorting fighters is important even though not the direct objective in such a combat scenario. As far as attacking bombers it would seem the F4F was superior and nothing from Pacific suggests otherwise on that point either: .50's v RCMG's, no radiator vulnerable to RCMG return fire from bombers, basically similar capability to intercept. I can't see preferring the Hurricane to F4F in pretty much any scenario unless you got fewer planes choosing F4F or some other penalty. But, the F4F was a later airplane, not in actual history available as soon.

Joe


----------



## parsifal (Mar 11, 2010)

Joe I accept your position of the hurricane vis a viz Japanese fighters, but against the european axis aircraft, the Hurricane was quite effective. The obvious comparison has to be Hurricane versus Me 109e. I would suggest the Me 109 had the advantage overall, but the margin was not as great as the straight up performance figures might suggest. the hurri remained a competitive fighter well into 1941. Perhaps the Hurri was inneffective against the jap fighters but effective against the German fighters for precisely the reason that the hurricanes main asset....its manouverability, it held an advantage over the german types, but not the jap types.

Hurricanes continued to be effective bomber destroyers and fighter bombers well into 1943, and I believe that they were never really intended to be pure or dedicated fighters in any TO, including the SEAC area, after the end of 1942. I believe it unfairly and unneccessarily casts them in a bad light to judge them as apure fighter when they were anything but by 1943

Some (not you) are also saying the F4f had the range advantage over the hurricane, and this would allow them to take the battle to the germans in France....bad idea, and a fundamental misunderstanding about what the essntials of the battle really were. The BoB for the RAF was not about defeating the LW outright.....to pursue the LW, continue the engagement and seek to destroy the LW was an objective quite beyond the RAFs capabilities in 1940. It fails, in a fundamental way to appreciate the brilliance of Dowdings strategy, and merely mouths that idiots mallorys concepts of the big wing. All the RAF could hope to do in 1940 was to remain in the fight and deny outright air sup[eriority to the Germans. any deviation from that objective would have destroyed the RAF. Keeping the engagement going after that defensive mission had been achieved was simply going to fatigue the pilots even more and lead to losses that would worsen the balance against the RAF even more than it was.


----------



## pbfoot (Mar 11, 2010)

parsifal said:


> Some (not you) are also saying the F4f had the range advantage over the hurricane, and this would allow them to take the battle to the germans in France....bad idea, and a fundamental misunderstanding about what the essntials of the battle really were. The BoB for the RAF was not about defeating the LW outright.....to pursue the LW, continue the engagement and seek to destroy the LW was an objective quite beyond the RAFs capabilities in 1940. It fails, in a fundamental way to appreciate the brilliance of Dowdings strategy, and merely mouths that idiots mallorys concepts of the big wing. All the RAF could hope to do in 1940 was to remain in the fight and deny outright air sup[eriority to the Germans. any deviation from that objective would have destroyed the RAF. Keeping the engagement going after that defensive mission had been achieved was simply going to fatigue the pilots even more and lead to losses that would worsen the balance against the RAF even more than it was.


T hank you for the voice from on high , however it sounds like a good plan to me harrassing aircraft that are low on fuel , as for beyond the capabilities of tha RAF it was beyond the capabilities for the whole war


----------



## Colin1 (Mar 11, 2010)

parsifal said:


> Some (not you) are also saying the F4F had the range advantage over the Hurricane, and this would allow them to take the battle to the germans in France....bad idea... ...Keeping the engagement going after that defensive mission had been achieved was simply going to fatigue the pilots even more and lead to losses that would worsen the balance against the RAF even more than it was.


I would agree
rhubarbs cost the RAF pilots and machines for next to zero gain in the months after the battle, and these were organised sorties. 

Hot-headed pursuits back in to occupied France would play straight into the Luftwaffe's hands - it wouldn't take long for them to organise 'welcoming committees' - another avenue for bleeding the RAF to death and this one would have the distinction of almost certainly depriving the RAF of a surviving pilot.


----------



## pbfoot (Mar 11, 2010)

Colin1 said:


> I would agree
> rhubarbs cost the RAF pilots and machines for next to zero gain in the months after the battle, and these were organised sorties.
> 
> Hot-headed pursuits back in to occupied France would play straight into the Luftwaffe's hands - it wouldn't take long for them to organising 'welcoming committees' - another avenue for bleeding the RAF to death and this one would have the distinction of almost certainly depriving the RAF of a surviving pilot.


yes there would be welcoming committees but those same committes would not be swanning about the UK , but to have the ability could not fail to change the application of resources


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 11, 2010)

proton45 said:


> It was my understanding that another advantage of the Hurricane was ease of repair...
> 
> It was possible to repair them more quickly and keep them in the air, for the fight. Also it took less skilled repairmen.


For the most part yes, if you're talking patching holes in fabric. If you have to start repairing any of the tube structure of the fuselage, that could be difficult in the field.


----------



## Glider (Mar 11, 2010)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Depends where and when production would be fully engaged to support this hypothetical effort. After Pearl Harbor and after the first batch of F4F-3As were delivered, up to 1943, 1169 examples of the F4F-4 were built, that averages 390 units per year, as a comparison there were about 500 Hurricanes built from when production started in October 1937 through September 1939.



The figures here are accurate but if I may say misleading. 500 Hurricanes were built in this period but we were at peace although rearming. To build 390 ish F4F-4 a year when at war isn't that impressive. 

We seem to be bringing the F4F-3 development cycle forward by around 6 months, do that with the Hurricane and we are looking at the Hurricane IIA/B. Personally my choice would be the Hurricane for the extra performance but if I could bribe my ground crew to fit 4 or 6 x 0.5 into the gun bay then life would be sweet.


----------



## parsifal (Mar 12, 2010)

pbfoot said:


> T hank you for the voice from on high , however it sounds like a good plan to me harrassing aircraft that are low on fuel , as for beyond the capabilities of tha RAF it was beyond the capabilities for the whole war



I didnt intend to come across "mightier than thou", but the points I am making are well founded. Lots of people espouse the brilliance of Dowding without understanding what that brilliance entailed. It was his ability not to overextend the RAF during the battle, and remain focussed on the task at hand. That meant exercising the utmost discipline in the execution of the battle plan. Even so it was hard not to succumb to the temptation of trying to run down the LW over france.

The RAF did attempt this in early 1941, and generally came off worse for wear. After Barbarossa, they met with greater success, such that there was a general pullout of German air assets from the coastal zones by late 42, and henceforward the LW concentrated on Reich defence. This did not occur as a result of US action. The US was responsible for the destruction of the LW in late 43 and '44, but through 1942 and the first half of '43 there were just a handful of US fighter (and bomber) formations in western europe. The forcing of the germans onto the defensive in western europe did not come cheaply, or freely, and was the result almpost in its entirety, of RAF tactical actions...something often discounted and unnappreciated in amny circles.


----------



## timmo (Mar 12, 2010)

Did we still have fabric in '40? How one forgets!

.5s? Oh, yes - then my one hit would have had better effect!!

= Tim

PS - isn't it just amazing, the wealth of information out there??


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 12, 2010)

Glider said:


> The figures here are accurate but if I may say misleading. 500 Hurricanes were built in this period but we were at peace although rearming. To build 390 ish F4F-4 a year when at war isn't that impressive.


Actaully that was an average and I believe most were built in 1943


----------



## fastmongrel (Mar 12, 2010)

Wasnt it just the rear fuselage that was fabric covered over a welded tubular skeleton. I think Hurris had metal wings by the BoB


----------



## pinsog (Mar 12, 2010)

I dont see how it could be a bad thing to have a squadron of Wildcats sweep in behind a German raid, waiting at high altitude for all the 109's heading back toward the French coast, low on fuel, low or out of ammunition, low fuel light blinking ominously on the instrument panel. How would you like to be that poor 109 pilot? The Wildcats wouldnt have had to pursue them all the way to the French coast, or for that matter even shoot them down, just forcing them to make 1 or 2 turns and they wont make it home. They could even jump them before the 109's made it to the English Channel, or perhaps right at the beach. I think they would have had a field day. If the Germans had to start sending flights of 109's to cover the escape of the escorts, that is more 109's they wouldnt have had for escorts in the first place, kind of a viscious circle.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 12, 2010)

fastmongrel said:


> Wasnt it just the rear fuselage that was fabric covered over a welded tubular skeleton. I think Hurris had metal wings by the BoB


Correct



pinsog said:


> I dont see how it could be a bad thing to have a squadron of Wildcats sweep in behind a German raid, waiting at high altitude for all the 109's heading back toward the French coast, low on fuel, low or out of ammunition, low fuel light blinking ominously on the instrument panel. How would you like to be that poor 109 pilot? The Wildcats wouldnt have had to pursue them all the way to the French coast, or for that matter even shoot them down, just forcing them to make 1 or 2 turns and they wont make it home. They could even jump them before the 109's made it to the English Channel, or perhaps right at the beach. I think they would have had a field day. If the Germans had to start sending flights of 109's to cover the escape of the escorts, that is more 109's they wouldnt have had for escorts in the first place, kind of a viscious circle.



I think the greatest advantage the Wildcat would of had over the hurricane was endurance that could had been used in a number of operational advantages. Wildcats took on Me 190Es and I think the Wildcat would had put up a good fight aganst the -109E if faced in large scale combat and flown with proper tactics.


----------



## Jerry W. Loper (Mar 12, 2010)

fastmongrel said:


> Wasnt it just the rear fuselage that was fabric covered over a welded tubular skeleton. I think Hurris had metal wings by the BoB



I think I read somewhere that at the time of the Battle of Britain, Hurricane squadrons were equipped with metal-winged planes, but there were some fabric wing planes in reserve, so that when losses were really acute, some fabric wing fighters were issued to squadrons as replacements.


----------



## pbfoot (Mar 12, 2010)

parsifal said:


> The RAF did attempt this in early 1941, and generally came off worse for wear. After Barbarossa, they met with greater success, such that there was a general pullout of German air assets from the coastal zones by late 42, and henceforward the LW concentrated on Reich defence. This did not occur as a result of US action. The US was responsible for the destruction of the LW in late 43 and '44, but through 1942 and the first half of '43 there were just a handful of US fighter (and bomber) formations in western europe. The forcing of the germans onto the defensive in western europe did not come cheaply, or freely, and was the result almpost in its entirety, of RAF tactical actions...something often discounted and unnappreciated in amny circles.


Maybe if they had a fighter with longer legs they wouldn't always be fighting from the disadvantage , where the LW knew the endurance and meted out the response accordingly. Remember that it was Portal of the RAF that said the long range fighter was impractable and would cease to be a fighter


----------



## Cromwell (Mar 12, 2010)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Correct I think the greatest advantage the Wildcat would of had over the hurricane was endurance that could had been used in a number of operational advantages. Wildcats took on Me 190Es and I think the Wildcat would had put up a good fight against the -109E if faced in large scale combat and flown with proper tactics.



The very odd thing about the Wildcat is that in Navy testing it was quite significantly out-performed by, yes you guessed it, the Buffalo !

Which is why the Navy Marines purchased lots of Brewsters as you know, and which were no match for the 109 allegedly, well certainly not the Zero.

So what happened between testing and real combat ? Where did it all go wrong ? Its a puzzle to me.


----------



## Cromwell (Mar 12, 2010)

Jerry W. Loper said:


> I think I read somewhere that at the time of the Battle of Britain, Hurricane squadrons were equipped with metal-winged planes, but there were some fabric wing planes in reserve, so that when losses were really acute, some fabric wing fighters were issued to squadrons as replacements.



I was digging through some of my old Aeroplane mags, and came across a special on the Hurricane from October 2007 (see also www.aeroplanemonthly.com for back issues - you might still be able to get a copy, I am not sure).

It mentions that covering the wings with Metal (LA or light alloy) increased diving speed by 80mph over fabric.

Apparently, the metal wing although the same geometry was actually internally very different. Later when the cannons were added, torsion boxes replaced the diagonal bracing to make room for the bigger guns.

See also the Universal Wing that could mount 40mm cannon, 60lb rockets, 250 or 500lb bombs - also frag bomb containers, smoke curtain devices and ferry or drop tanks !

So, although the shape remained the same or similar the wing inside was very different from early production / prototype to late production (the prototype also had external struts for the tail but these were canned before production).

Note. I think you will find part of the German 'problem' in the BoB was that they had based their combat tactics on meeting earlier model Hurris in France

The Hurricanes they crossed swords with over the Channel and England had 

- *Merlin XX* with 2 speed charger at 1,260HP 

- *3 blade variable Rotol *props allowing diving speeds of 460 mph plus

- *Metal wings *(mostly) in production from about July 39 on wards

and_ NON-flammable Glycol Water mix coolant _which made them less easy to 'flame'

So, they were a much tougher proposition - Plus which we had the home advantage in some ways, and many of the squadron leaders were by now more experienced and even battle experienced if they had lived long enough.


----------



## Colin1 (Mar 12, 2010)

pinsog said:


> I don't see how it could be a bad thing to have a squadron of Wildcats sweep in behind a German raid, waiting at high altitude for all the 109s heading back toward the French coast, low on fuel, low or out of ammunition, low fuel light blinking ominously on the instrument panel.
> 
> They could even jump them before the 109s made it to the English Channel, or perhaps right at the beach. I think they would have had a field day.
> 
> If the Germans had to start sending flights of 109s to cover the escape of the escorts, that is more 109s they wouldn't have had for escorts in the first place, kind of a vicious circle.


Mainly
because the F4F wasn't that much faster than the Hurricane, the Bf109E would have enjoyed a close to 30mph speed differential over it; it would need a couple of conditions in its favour in order to make it happen and remember, by this stage of the mission the Bf109 would have a reduced fuel and combat load to haul.

A gaggle of Bf109s streaking out of area at ground level would be difficult for a squadron of F4Fs at high altitude to deal with, even if they were vectored onto them in time.

I'm not entirely sure I understand you but any staffel providing this cover would not be pulled from the day's escort roster. If the Luftwaffe were to be pressed in this manner, staffeln who would previously have had a rest day would likely be flying CAP for the returning mission aircraft. At a guess.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 12, 2010)

Cromwell said:


> The very odd thing about the Wildcat is that in Navy testing it was quite significantly out-performed by, yes you guessed it, the Buffalo !


The F4F-2 which was the very first model.



Cromwell said:


> Which is why the Navy Marines purchased lots of Brewsters as you know, and which were no match for the 109 allegedly, well certainly not the Zero.


True, see post above...


Cromwell said:


> So what happened between testing and real combat ? Where did it all go wrong ? Its a puzzle to me.



_"The original Grumman F4F-1 design was a biplane, which proved inferior to rival designs, necessitating a complete redesign as a monoplane named the F4F-2. This design was still not competitive with the Brewster F2A Buffalo which won initial US Navy orders, *but when the F4F-3 development was fitted with a more powerful version of the engine, a Pratt Whitney Twin Wasp R-1830-76, featuring a two-stage supercharger, it showed its true potential*"_

_"On 26 March 1945, in a last action, FM-2's from 882 Squadron Lieut Comdr. GAM Flood, RNVR) off Searcher, escorting a flight of Avengers along the coast of Norway, was attacked by a flight of eight III Gruppe JG 5 Me-109Gs. The Wildcats (now called “Wildcat” instead of “Martlet” as the FAA adopts the USN names for carrier aircraft) *shot down four of the Me-109Gs at a cost of one Wildcat damaged. A fifth 109 was claimed as damaged*."_


----------



## Cromwell (Mar 12, 2010)

Markus said:


> Wildcat is is! Compared to the Hurricane I the F4F-3 had a better high-altitude performance due to her two-speed supercharger and her armament was vastly more powerful.



Well it is still partly a time-line issue (as others have commented on already for sure).

Later IIC Hurricanes had 4 x 20mm Cannon - if only they had been around in the BoB - or even the 12 gun variant.

Also, later Hurricanes had 2 Stage Merlins too, so again that sort of cancels out your point in all honesty (maybe not happy to be challenged on this one if you can show me a different story).

Undercarriage - Hurricane was much easier and safer to land for novice pilots like we had during the BoB 

So, when it comes to the 'Landing Accidents War' then the Hurricane wins I think versus the Wildcat's anachronistic hand-cranked narrow-scooter undercarriage.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 12, 2010)

Cromwell said:


> Well it is still partly a time-line issue (as others have commented on already for sure).
> 
> Later IIC Hurricanes had 4 x 20mm Cannon - if only they had been around in the BoB - or even the 12 gun variant.
> 
> ...


Can you know for sure the Hurricane was easier to land than the Wildcat?

Until you could show some accurate data to substantiate that claim, I don't think you have much of an argument. Rich L could probably come up with some non combat mishap data that would probably show the Wildcat with a similar attrition rate as the Hurricane.


----------



## Cromwell (Mar 12, 2010)

FLYBOYJ said:


> _"On 26 March 1945, in a last action, FM-2's from 882 Squadron Lieut Comdr. GAM Flood, RNVR) off Searcher, escorting a flight of Avengers along the coast of Norway, was attacked by a flight of eight III Gruppe JG 5 Me-109Gs. The Wildcats (now called “Wildcat” instead of “Martlet” as the FAA adopts the USN names for carrier aircraft) *shot down four of the Me-109Gs at a cost of one Wildcat damaged. A fifth 109 was claimed as damaged*."_



It was quite some action for sure (with Brit pilots when we more often think of USN or Marine Corp).

Don't get me wrong, I am quite a fan of the Pugnacious little fighter and I think it is one of WW2's unsung heroes actually. In fact even the Japanese were not in a hurry to go head to head with a set of 4 or 6 Fifties.

Fantasy : Wildcat with 2 x 20mm cannon and 2x 50 Cal - and a modernized, electrically cranked or hydraulic wider track cart.

Malcolm hood with lowered rear deck for better all-round vis.

Maybe more powerful or smoother engine, and some unecessary weight pruned off - now that would have been one pocket rocket for sure ! mmmmmm tasty.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 12, 2010)

Cromwell said:


> Fantasy : Wildcat with 2 x 20mm cannon and 2x 50 Cal - and a modernized, electrically cranked or hydraulic wider track cart.
> 
> Maybe better more powerful engine too - now that would have been one pocket rocket for sure !


----------



## pinsog (Mar 12, 2010)

COLIN1 

THe Wildcat could outdive the 109 or the Hurricane, a Wildcat plunging down from medium or high altitude would have NO problem overtaking a 109 in level flight. Plus, a 109 that is low on fuel would not really be in a position to operate at full power to outrun, or enough fuel to begin a turning fight with an aircraft that has twice the range of the 109 to begin with. I believe it would have been a slaughter. Also, I would tell the Wildcat pilots to ignore the bombers and concentrate on the 109s since, being low on fuel, they would be the most vulnerable.


----------



## Cromwell (Mar 12, 2010)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Can you know for sure the Hurricane was easier to land than the Wildcat?
> 
> Until you could show some accurate data to substantiate that claim, I don't think you have much of an argument. Rich L could probably come up with some non combat mishap data that would probably show the Wildcat with a similar attrition rate as the Hurricane.



OK, fair comment - I deserve that. Data ? yes please do by all means.

I found this at Grumman F4F Wildcat - carrier-borne fighter-bomber 

" Francis W Peak, 10881fwp(@)gmmail.com, 25.04.2008

_My first operational aircraft was the "Wildcat" in 1944 at Green Cove Springs, Florida. I graduated from Pensacola in June '44. My most vivid remembrance of the "Wildcat" was the Landing gear which had to be retracted by a hand crank on the right side of the cockpit, hold on tight because many wrists were injured by letting it freefall. But what a fun airplane to fly,the narrow landing gear made landing tricky.Thanks for the memories FWP_ "

Read this from Wikipedia about the Hellcat as an advance from the Wildcat in terms of the Cart :-

_" Instead of the Wildcat's narrow-track undercarriage retracting into the fuselage requiring awkward hand-cranking by the pilot, the Hellcat had hydraulically-actuated undercarriage struts set wider and retracting backward, twisting through 90° into the wings,[12] exactly as the Chance Vought F4U Corsair's landing gear did. "_


----------



## Cromwell (Mar 12, 2010)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Ah yes - that would be the Wildcat for sure !!  - I think you got me twice in one evening
> 
> Perhaps maybe a hotted-up Hellcat would have been better suited to smaller carriers - jeep carriers for example
> 
> Just a thought. Possibly not a good one ahem.


----------



## Colin1 (Mar 12, 2010)

pinsog said:


> THe Wildcat could outdive the 109 or the Hurricane, a Wildcat plunging down from medium or high altitude would have NO problem overtaking a 109 in level flight. Plus, a 109 that is low on fuel would not really be in a position to operate at full power to outrun, or enough fuel to begin a turning fight with an aircraft that has twice the range of the 109 to begin with. I believe it would have been a slaughter.
> 
> Also, I would tell the Wildcat pilots to ignore the bombers and concentrate on the 109s since, being low on fuel, they would be the most vulnerable.


They still have to be vectored onto them in time. This isn't some steady-stream formation giving you a nice, fat radar plot coming in with the bombers, they will be staying low and jinking their way out. For the most part, they will have allowed themselves a fuel margin to make a high-power exit.

Strange. I would have told the F4Fs to do the exact opposite; bring your heavier weapons to bear on the bombers and let the faster Spitfires take care of the Bf109s.


----------



## pbfoot (Mar 12, 2010)

Colin1 said:


> They still have to be vectored onto them in time. This isn't some steady-stream formation giving you a nice, fat radar plot coming in with the bombers, they will be staying low and jinking their way out. For the most part, they will have allowed themselves a fuel margin to make a high-power exit.
> 
> Strange. I would have told the F4Fs to do the exact opposite; bring your heavier weapons to bear on the bombers and let the faster Spitfires take care of the Bf109s.


yes but the destination of the 109's is a known , and that tough little unit with the radial might be just the thing to make an interdiction .and a longer range or endurance is a feature that trumps many others .


----------



## Colin1 (Mar 12, 2010)

pbfoot said:


> yes but the destination of the 109s is a known and that tough little unit with the radial might be just the thing to make an interdiction and a longer range or endurance is a feature that trumps many others


If we're talking about hitting them over the target
why are we talking about F4Fs to the exclusion of all else? It still brings the Spitfires back into the equation as the best platform to tackle the escorts. The 'tough little unit with the radial' (and the punchier armament) would be best employed tackling the bombers.

As proved with the historically correct Spitfire and Hurricane combination, the lines between who tackled what got a little blurry in the heat of battle, so I'm not suggesting the F4F was a sitting duck by any means; if the Bf109 could be forced to engage (protecting bombers) the F4F would acquit itself.

There is no condition where the F4F would be generally preferable over the Spitfire for tackling the Bf109s, simply because the 109s wouldn't have to engage the F4Fs if they didn't want to. Sending the F4Fs after the fuel and ammo-depleted mission aircraft would be folly, at some stage they too would need to return and they would not be able to outrun any Axis CAP put up to protect the returning mission aircraft.


----------



## pbfoot (Mar 12, 2010)

Colin1 said:


> If we're talking about hitting them over the target
> why are we talking about F4Fs to the exclusion of all else? It still brings the Spitfires back into the equation as the best platform to tackle the escorts. The 'tough little unit with the radial' (and the punchier armament) would be best employed tackling the bombers.
> 
> As proved with the historically correct Spitfire and Hurricane combination, the lines between who tackled what got a little blurry in the heat of battle, so I'm not suggesting the F4F was a sitting duck by any means; if the Bf109 could be forced to engage (protecting bombers) the F4F would acquit itself.
> ...


 What is the matter with putting range into play its an option neither the Brits or Germans actually figured out during the war. I can't recall mentioning the Wildcat surperceding the Spit .But why not the Wildcat over the Hurricane range adds a whole new set of options in your tactics


----------



## Colin1 (Mar 12, 2010)

pbfoot said:


> What is the matter with putting range into play its an option neither the Brits or Germans actually figured out during the war.
> 
> I can't recall mentioning the Wildcat superceding the Spit .But why not the Wildcat over the Hurricane range adds a whole new set of options in your tactics


If we're still talking about chasing fuel and ammo-depleted Axis mission aircraft back over the channel, then what's your exit strategy when the F4Fs eventually do run low on fuel? Because they'll need one.

You didn't. But you (and a couple others) seem to be precluding the Spitfire from any of the activities whilst tossing the F4F into those that would suit the Spitfire better; the radial-engined, heavier-hitting, slower F4F would excel at bomber-killing. It would not excel at running after fleeing escorts with a 30mph margin over them and it certainly wouldn't excel at running away from them.

Best bet for the F4Fs tackling the escorts is, ironically enough, by tackling the bombers and forcing the 109s to engage them.

The F4F as an escort itself would make use of its superior range, penetrating deeper into France than either the Hurricane or Spitfire could but you still have the issue of extraction vs a faster opponent who's on his side of the channel and so also has the numbers.


----------



## pbfoot (Mar 12, 2010)

Colin1 said:


> If we're still talking about chasing fuel and ammo-depleted Axis mission aircraft back over the channel, then what's your exit strategy when the F4Fs eventually do run low on fuel? Because they'll need one.
> 
> You didn't. But you (and a couple others) seem to be precluding the Spitfire from any of the activities whilst tossing the F4F into those that would suit the Spitfire better; the radial-engined, heavier-hitting, slower F4F would excel at bomber-killing. It would not excel at running after fleeing escorts with a 30mph margin over them and it certainly wouldn't excel at running away from them.
> 
> ...


 Not talking about Balboas of aircraft maybe a Squadron or 2 to penetrate the French coast and create a little havoc amongst returning aircraft . I'm quite sure the Germans would be hard pressed to discriminate between friend and foe . Its a tactic I've not heard about prior to mid 41


----------



## vanir (Mar 12, 2010)

Considering the first Martlets were a diverted French order, the second batch diverted from Greek deliveries it seems to me all else aside the Wildcat was considered good by some officials of the time at least for European operations with a land based air force in 1940.
I don't think the OP was trying to start an argument between Hurricane and Wildcat afficionadoes. Obviously they were contemporary between each other with varied benefits and weaknesses.
Good range and equipment is certainly a strength of the Wildcat. Light weight and tested design manufacture is certainly a strength of the Hurri.
Why wasn't the Hurri engineered like a Wildcat? Because the design requirements and industrial complex to be used were different. Hence my initial statement I would've picked a MiG, which is an interceptor type like a Hurri and has range benefits a bit like a Wildcat, with specialised altitude performance I think it would've been very interesting to see in the BoB.
MiG problems are armament (you need the gunpods that were eventually developed) and fighter performance at low alt (you need Spits). Also you need to push MiG development back about six months to be good for BoB, but there is really nothing prohibiting this if there were say, strong British relations and interest in the prototypes. As a purpose built interceptor in 1940 though I think it's hard to beat the MiG.


----------



## Markus (Mar 13, 2010)

Cromwell said:


> The very odd thing about the Wildcat is that in Navy testing it was quite significantly out-performed by, yes you guessed it, the Buffalo !
> 
> Which is why the Navy Marines purchased lots of Brewsters as you know, and which were no match for the 109 allegedly, well certainly not the Zero.
> 
> So what happened between testing and real combat ? Where did it all go wrong ? Its a puzzle to me.



The XF4F-2 monoplane crashed, Grumman came up with the XF4F-3 which had a new wing, engine and tail.
The F2A gained app. 1,000lb in armour and armament between testing and combat, the F4F less since she had 4*.50 right away. 




> Also, later Hurricanes had 2 Stage Merlins too, so again that sort of cancels out your point in all honesty (maybe not happy to be challenged on this one if you can show me a different story).



The emphasis is on later Hurricane but the OP stated this is a hypotethical scenario where the F4F-3 is already available and the Mk.II isn´t.


----------



## proton45 (Mar 13, 2010)

I hate to sound out on this...But didn't the UK win the BoB? Are we wondering if it could have been won "better"? 


I'm just kidd'in around.... 

* ON a second point...I think that in the long run it would have been a bad idea to take the fight "over France" (at this time)...another advantage that the English had was that they didnt loose pilots that had to "bail out" over England. They where able to keep more qualified trained pilots in the air...*


----------



## claidemore (Mar 13, 2010)

While there may be a certain tactical advantage in attacking planes on the homeward leg of their sortie, the emphasis generally should be to attack them *before *they get to their target. This would be particularly true during the early part of BoB when fighter airfields were the target. 

For a fighter to be used in an offensive role over France, it should have performance parity (mainly speed), and preferably performance superiority, against it's principle opponents (109s), and this was lacking in both the Hurricane and Wildcat/Martlet.

I kinda think that waiting to catch returning bombers with a couple squadrons of Wildcat fighters over the channel or over France would work once. The second time 'Jerry' would counter with a few Gruppes of nicely timed 109s and the slower Wildcats would have a hard time making it home. 

Best option for this question, Wildcat/Marlet vs Huricane, would seem to me to be a comprimise, a domesticlaly produced already available plane (the Hurricane) with two or more .50 Brownings replacing .303s. Even a mix of .50 and .303 would have been an improvement.


----------



## claidemore (Mar 13, 2010)

oops, double post, system hang up.


----------



## slaterat (Mar 13, 2010)

In this time frame you would be comparing the Hurricane I to the Martlet I or II as the Martlet I was operational with the FAA in Sept 1940. The key difference is the Martlet I had the Wright cyclone and fixed wings, while the Martlet II had t he P&W Twin Wasp and folding wings. The top speeds are 313 and 317 respectively,at about 15,000ft . Initial climb rates at 2000 ft per min or slightly less . These fighters take about 7 to 8 minutes to 15,000 ft and 12 minutes to 20,000 ft. These are the performance numbers of combat ready aircraft, as tested by A&AEE .

Compared to a Hurricane I with a constant speed prop , the Hurricane has a top speed of about 320 mph at 20,000 ft and an initial climb rate of 2600 ft/min.Time to 20,000 ft is about 8 minutes.

Both of these fighters were considered rugged ,well armoured and manoeuvrable.

The Hurricanes role in the BoB was that of a short range interceptor, Climbrate is probably the most important performance factor as an interceptor and the Hurricane has a very significant advantage over the Martlet/Wildcat.

Other essential factors to wining the BoB where the Hurricane was superior to the wildcat include:
-repair of battle damage aircraft
-wide track under carriage
-the probability of hitting the target is greater with 8x .303 vs 4x .50

The last two are particularly important with the pilot training and shortages that occurred during the battle.

Slaterat


----------



## Vincenzo (Mar 13, 2010)

slaterat said:


> In this time frame you would be comparing the Hurricane I to the Martlet I or II as the Martlet I was operational with the FAA in Sept 1940. The key difference is the Martlet I had the Wright cyclone and fixed wings, while the Martlet II had t he P&W Twin Wasp and folding wings. The top speeds are 313 and 317 respectively,at about 15,000ft . Initial climb rates at 2000 ft per min or slightly less . These fighters take about 7 to 8 minutes to 15,000 ft and 12 minutes to 20,000 ft. These are the performance numbers of combat ready aircraft, as tested by A&AEE .
> 
> Compared to a Hurricane I with a constant speed prop , the Hurricane has a top speed of about 320 mph at 20,000 ft and an initial climb rate of 2600 ft/min.Time to 20,000 ft is about 8 minutes.
> 
> ...



afai i've understand reading the FAA archive pages martlet II was delivered much later, the martlet III (greek) were delivered before of II and have R1830 single stage, for plane with 1830 two stage need spring '42.
afaik early US F4F-3 were not with ss tank and armour but with the best performance of wildcat family

on weaponry you've sure more hitting probability around three times but also a round that less of six times the damage so i'm agree with people that tell it's best 4 .50


----------



## Markus (Mar 13, 2010)

slaterat said:


> The Hurricanes role in the BoB was that of a short range interceptor, Climbrate is probably the most important performance factor as an interceptor and the Hurricane has a very significant advantage over the Martlet/Wildcat.
> 
> -the probability of hitting the target is greater with 8x .303 vs 4x .50



- an F4F-3 could climb to 20,000ft in *eight* minutes. Twelve minutes to 20kft is the climb time of the heavier F4F-4.
- what is the point of hitting a target with bullets that are too weak to do real damage?


----------



## renrich (Mar 13, 2010)

No question that an early model F4F3, if available would have been superior. Faster, much better rate of climb, more heavily armed and much more durable in an attack on the six of an HE111 or DO17. In addition much better visibility for gunnery. From Dean, "Americas' Hundred Thousand" "The fastest and lightest Wildcat was the early F4F3 which touched 335 mph at 22000 feet. In addition the climb rate was over 3200 feet per minute at sea level." The throw weight of the F4F3 four 50 cals was 6.36 pound per second whereas, the throw eight of the eight 30 cals of the Hurricane was around five pounds per second. The firing time of the wildcat was 28.7 seconds whereas I believe the Hurricane's firing time was 17 seconds. The 50 cal round's lethality was far higher than the rifle caliber weapons of the Hurricane.


----------



## buffnut453 (Mar 13, 2010)

To be honest, I'm starting to wonder why we're even discussing this comparison when the F4F-3 wasn't even available during the BoB. By the time of the BoB, the Hurri had already been extensively blooded (and bloodied) in combat over France so any alternative had to be available in large numbers well before May 1940. 

Matching up the Hurri MkI to the F4F-3 is, as the originator of the thread stated, merely hypothetical so why not compare the Hurri MkI to the P-51D or Tempest or Spit XIV? It's a general trend of aviation that older designs perform less well than newer designs (there are exceptions but I did say "general trend") so it should come as no surprise that an aircraft which entered service 2.5 years after the Hurri MkI has better performance, particularly given the rapid advance of techology that was occurring during this period. We really ought to compare apples and apples, at least in a temporal context.

No doubt others will disagree but this thread is starting to seem rather pointless unless we take some hypotheticals out of the equation. To quote the immortal Scottie, "Ye canna change the laws of physics" and we all know what problems ensue when you dick around with the space-time continuum!


----------



## Colin1 (Mar 13, 2010)

renrich said:


> much better rate of climb


Yep
got my data wrong, rate of climb for the F4F-3 was 3,300ft/min but to be fair my source wasn't that clearly laid out; the rate of climb I offered was for the -4 (in brackets, next to the -3 data).
Apologies for that

It would have been quite a bomber-killer.

To the earlier point from another poster about greater probability of 8 x .303s hitting the target over 4 x .50s, well, if both sets of guns are harmonised the way you want them, what's the difference between missing the target with one set over the other? If you've missed, you've missed.

In the absence of a reliable Hispano installation, .50 cal-armed fighters would have been of immeasurable value over SE England in summer 1940.


----------



## renrich (Mar 13, 2010)

One way of looking at it, though, was that the production contract for the first batch of F4F3s was awarded in August 1939 If the US had been at war then, like the UK was, there is little doubt that the Wildcat could have been operational in late summer 1940. That is a stretch but the two AC were somewhat contemporaneous. Another point is that the F4F3 with all protected tanks carried 147 gallons of internal fuel. I don't believe the Hurricane carried that much and all tanks were not protected. If I had been a pilot, that point alone would have made me choose the Wildcat.


----------



## Waynos (Mar 13, 2010)

I agree with buffnut and was going to post the same myself but didn't want to look like a stick in the mud. At least not the first, lol.

If we are choosing an alternative to the Hurricane for RAF fighter command int he summer of 1940 we should be looking at aircraft that would have been available for the RAF to buy instead, which the F4F-3 definitely was not. Having flown in 1935, the first service Hurricanes were being delivered to the RAF in 1937, two years BEFORE the F4F-3 contract mentioned above was signed. This is what enabled the Hurricane to be the primary defensive fighter in the BoB. So whats the real alternative to that

Many decisions were taken during rearmament that proved incorrect - but in procuring the Hurricane and Spitfire I honestly don't think that any better choice could have possibly been made. 

I also don't necessarily see that an F4F-3 purchase that early would have brought 50 cals with it. Too many obstacles are simply being overlooked and it seems to me that, in overlooking all the problems with an F4F-3 buy, but at the same time taking into account every percieved failing of the Hurricane I, the deck is being rather obviously and unfairly stacked in this comparison.


----------



## pbfoot (Mar 13, 2010)

renrich said:


> One way of looking at it, though, was that the production contract for the first batch of F4F3s was awarded in August 1939 If the US had been at war then, like the UK was, there is little doubt that the Wildcat could have been operational in late summer 1940. That is a stretch but the two AC were somewhat contemporaneous. Another point is that the F4F3 with all protected tanks carried 147 gallons of internal fuel. I don't believe the Hurricane carried that much and all tanks were not protected. If I had been a pilot, that point alone would have made me choose the Wildcat.


 But how are you getting the things to the UK , none of the Ferry route airstrips were operational


----------



## buffnut453 (Mar 13, 2010)

Thanks for covering my 6 Waynos. 

The other factor that must be considered is that pilots don't get to choose the aircraft that are procured (this is linked to Renrich's comment). To do so would ignore a host of logistics issues that have to be factored into the procurement process. The aircraft itself may be a world-beater but if it's permanently grounded because it's too hard to maintain, then it ain't much use. I'm not saying this was the case with the F4F but some of the potential logistic challenges have already been identified in this thread. At risk of re-stating:

1. Different weapons unless the Spit was also to be armed with 50 cals(although, again, there was a sweeping assumption that there would be enough 50cals in the UK - again, a huge hypothetical)
2. Different tools - US and UK imperial measures are different, presenting niggling problems for maintainers trying to support both aircraft types (with resultant flight safety issues)
3. Different engines which complicate interoperability, including different starting mechanisms
4. Deep repair of aircraft - the Hurri and Spit could be rebuilt at various factories, even when considerably damaged, whereas no such provision would exist for the Wildcat
5. Resupply of replacement airframes - as with #4, new Wildcats would be delivered at the end of an extremely long and fragile resupply route whereas Hurris were built on the island (or are we now to assume, hypothetically, that British factories would licence-build US aircraft - something that has absolutely no precedent!)

A couple of final points that haven't yet been raised related to the Wildcat's undercarriage. I wonder whether the Wildcat's undercarriage would have presented issues on the RAF's grass airfields. I know it was designed to take a lot of stress from carrier landings but it's rather narrow and the aircraft's CofG is relatively high which would suggest a risk of ground-looping. It's probably a trivial point but I still wonder...also, I wouldn't want to be a pilot taking off in the middle of a bombing raid and having to hand crank my undercarriage. The infamous "Wildcat Wobble" would have a whole new connotation!

I don't doubt that having 50cals in the BoB would have been a huge advantage, and I don't doubt that the F4F-3 was a better aircraft than the Hurri MkI but I still have issues with the sweeping hypotheticals that make the entire comparison irrelevant.


----------



## buffnut453 (Mar 13, 2010)

renrich said:


> In addition much better visibility for gunnery



Renrich, methinks you're stretching a point here. How did the F4F offer "much better visibility" than the Hurricane? Both had framed canopies that were faired into spines along the top of the fuselage. Sounds like they were much of a muchness when it came to pilot visibility.


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 13, 2010)

The Martlet first showed up in squadron service about 2 months before the MK II Hurricane which might balance out the performance a bit. Some web sites claim the early versions had feed troubles with the .50 cal guns.


----------



## buffnut453 (Mar 13, 2010)

renrich said:


> One way of looking at it, though, was that the production contract for the first batch of F4F3s was awarded in August 1939 If the US had been at war then, like the UK was, there is little doubt that the Wildcat could have been operational in late summer 1940. That is a stretch but the two AC were somewhat contemporaneous. Another point is that the F4F3 with all protected tanks carried 147 gallons of internal fuel. I don't believe the Hurricane carried that much and all tanks were not protected. If I had been a pilot, that point alone would have made me choose the Wildcat.



Sorry, Renrich...I'm not picking on you but, again, some of these statements are simply not justifiable. From first contract award to delviery of the first F4F-3 prototype was about 6 months which is damned fast by anyone's measure - it would be hard to improve on that even if the US was at war. If the Wildcat could have been operational in the summer of 1940, surely the USN would have made it so? As it was, at least according to Wikipedia (so probably not true...but it illustrates my point), there was only one fully equipped squadron of F4F-3s at the time of Pearl Harbor. While the Hurricane and Wildcat had overlapping periods of operational effectiveness, one must also consider the pace of technological development...and the fact that the Hurricane was in combat before the Wildcat even entered service. The first prototype Wildcat wasn't finished until Feb 40 - there's no way it could become a viable operational aircraft across more than half of Fighter Command in the time available.

I'd also like to re-engage on the subject of armament. According to 'Cactus Air Force', the early F4Fs suffered frequent gun stoppages during air combat manoeuvring. Heavier theoretical firepower is no use if it fails you in combat. In addition, according to Kinney (who flew the aircraft at Wake), the aircraft assigned to VMF-211 had neither armour plate nor self-sealing fuel tanks - and that was in Nov 41! 

So, was the performance advantage that great? It sounds like the figures for the F4F-3 are for an airframe unburdened by armour plate or self-sealing fuel tanks, and the theoretical advantage of 50cals was undone by the stoppages caused by combat manouevres in the early aircraft.


----------



## vanir (Mar 13, 2010)

Shortround is a much better expert on guns than me, so correct me if I'm wrong but weren't the 8-gun armament considered to have the same take down ability, upon a relatively unarmoured aircraft as four fifties in terms of projectile weight laid on the target in a given time? The documentation I have is clear in providing the British reasoning of reliability, at the time the decision was made the .50 was considered relatively untested. Also the preferred armament was always going to be four Hispanos but I don't know, something about the feed systems.

Also noteworthy once again is that improved armouring happened during the course of the BoB, Hurricanes had no trouble shooting down Heinkells for the most part, it was towards the end of the conflict that German bombers were more heavily armoured and subsequent Hurris were upgunned to compensate. I've seen people post timeframes on the addition of increased cockpit floor armour on the He-111 before, for example, can't remember if it was at this site.

And with hits, more guns gives a better spread to a larger degree outside convergence would appear the obvious argument. I'm sure I've read somewhere the Hurri was particularly useful in hitting targets hard well inside convergence range, whilst it was actually difficult not to hit something or other with at least a few rounds from a Spit. It was a matter of aim at the wing root a little outside convergence and hit the pilot, the engine, the tailplane, the aircraft behind him...


----------



## JoeB (Mar 13, 2010)

parsifal said:


> Joe I accept your position of the hurricane vis a viz Japanese fighters, but against the european axis aircraft, the Hurricane was quite effective. The obvious comparison has to be Hurricane versus Me 109e. I would suggest the Me 109 had the advantage overall, but the margin was not as great as the straight up performance figures might suggest. the hurri remained a competitive fighter well into 1941. .


The Hurricane didn't necessarily do as poorly on average v Bf109 but distinctly less than 1 kill ratio, and some periods and episodes much worse. Also complicating the comparison is the Spitfire/Hurricane team in many cases in ETO v Hurricane by itself in Far East. So again the overall Hurricane record v Type 1 in 1942 and 43 was around 1:4 against the Hurricane (19:81), and actually showed no trend of improvement between those two years (slightly worse in 1943). But the Hurricane's record v Bf109E in Battle of France,mainly on its own, was worse than [1:3 (54:171, SORRY THAT'S A TYPO, IT'S 74:151 SO 1:2]). In the period of Bf109E operations over Malta in early 1941 v Hurricane only it was 30:0 in favor of the 109's in fighter-fighter combat. An obviously exceptional unit was involved (7./JG26, single staffel <10 a/c strong responsible for most of those kills) but that's still a remarkable result. The kill ratio in North Africa in Hurricane v 109E period was also in favor of 109 more than somewhat, though not as onesided as Malta. So the Far East results aren't actually that far out of line with Hurricane on-own statsv Bf109E in Europe, though probably worse on average overall.

OTOH though a fairly indirect comparison, Hawk 75, a relatively similar a/c to the F4F, had a much better ratio in the Battle of France v the Bf109E than the Hurricane (23:38 ). Source of BoF stats is the new book "Battle of France Then and Now". The Hawk (Mowhawk) also did notably better in Burma than the Hurricane v Type 1, 8 kills for 7 losses, smaller sample but enough of a discrepancy v Hurricane's result to indicate a difference. F4F v Hawk of course occurred over Morocco in Nov 1942 and was distinctly in F4F's favor, too few combats to draw much conclusion quantitatively, but I can't see an argument that the Hawk was a much better a/c than the F4F.

I still don't see any reason to go for the Hurricane over F4F in pretty much any situation, assuming you can have the same number of each (a big if for mid 1940, no doubt). The basic stats (and F4F was also highly manueverable) are not in the Hurricane's favor particularly, and the combat records suggest a strong intangibles advantage to the F4F. I don't see any reason that would play out radically differently in case of opponent like Bf109E than the Japanese a/c, and the proxy evidence of Hawk 75 doesn't indicate it.

Joe


----------



## Cromwell (Mar 14, 2010)

buffnut453 said:


> I'd also like to re-engage on the subject of armament. According to 'Cactus Air Force', the early F4Fs suffered frequent gun stoppages during air combat manoeuvring. Heavier theoretical firepower is no use if it fails you in combat. In addition, according to Kinney (who flew the aircraft at Wake), the aircraft assigned to VMF-211 had neither armour plate nor self-sealing fuel tanks - and that was in Nov 41! .



I think the .50 cal had a problem with jamming in other planes too - like the Mustang

I found this on P-51 Mustang - The Call of Duty Wiki - Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2, Call of Duty 4, Call of Duty 2, characters, and more :-

_"Unfortunately, the 50's were placed at an angle in the wings, causing jamming problems after heavy maneuverings. Most of the Mustangs A's were shipped to the CBI, where they performed escort to the B-24 Bombers stationed there. "_


----------



## Markus (Mar 14, 2010)

vanir said:


> Shortround is a much better expert on guns than me, so correct me if I'm wrong but weren't the 8-gun armament considered to have the same take down ability, upon a relatively unarmoured aircraft as four fifties in terms of projectile weight laid on the target in a given time? The documentation I have is clear in providing the British reasoning of reliability, at the time the decision was made the .50 was considered relatively untested. Also the preferred armament was always going to be four Hispanos but I don't know, something about the feed systems.



That is the problem. RCMG are fine for shooting at ill-protected A/C but once the war began A/C got better and better protection. As the test showed a 4mm armour plate could stop an AP round and the RAF was short of AP rounds by the time of the BoB. 

@renrich: IIRC a Hurricane carried just under 90 gallons of fuel.


----------



## Vincenzo (Mar 14, 2010)

Colin1 said:


> Yep
> 
> 
> To the earlier point from another poster about greater probability of 8 x .303s hitting the target over 4 x .50s, well, if both sets of guns are harmonised the way you want them, what's the difference between missing the target with one set over the other? If you've missed, you've missed.



hitting probability it's different and for me higher for 8 .303s because you've 160 rounds on air a second in this case and 52 rounds a second with 4 .50s, but sure the efficency it's a favour to .50s set because the energy of round it's more high (over 6 times higher for AP, much more for API)


----------



## Colin1 (Mar 14, 2010)

Vincenzo said:


> hitting probability it's different and for me higher for 8 .303s because you've 160 rounds on air a second in this case and 52 rounds a second with 4 .50s, but sure the efficency it's a favour to .50s set because the energy of round it's more high (over 6 times higher for AP, much more for API)


Agree with you generally
still think if you're a lousy shot you're a lousy shot; spraying the point in space where the aircraft used to be won't be helped by greater weight of fire. The advantage of going after bombers is that they are limited in their evasive manoeuvres, the efficiency of the .50s would tell significantly. Bombers that made it back to France with 'thousands of .303 bullet holes in them' very likely wouldn't have under an assault from .50s.

I'm not the ballistics man on here but don't .50 cal rounds travel faster at a flatter trajectory? That might solve alot of deflection issues for novice pilots.


----------



## buffnut453 (Mar 14, 2010)

Cromwell said:


> I think the .50 cal had a problem with jamming in other planes too - like the Mustang[/I]



There were problems with 50cals jamming in several aircraft installations immediately following US entry into the war. Examples include the P-51 you cite above, the P-36, P-40 and, of course, the Buffalo.


----------



## renrich (Mar 14, 2010)

It is all a fantasy since the F4F3 was not in Britain at the time of the BOB. Could it have been? Possibly. Would it have been effective if it had been? Probably. On paper would it have been more effective than the Hurricane? Seems so.

The F4F3 was more heavily armed. See Eric Brown for comparison between Wildcat and Hurricane. It had a better rate of climb and at least a good performance at altitude. I said it had better visibility for gunnery. One reason that the RAF did not train their pilots for full deflection shooting was because of poor visibility over the nose. The USN did train for full deflection shooting because the Wildcat did have good visibility over the nose. See Lundstrom for a discussion of deflection shooting in "The First Team." The Wildcat with protected tanks was much more survivable than the Hurricane. The Wildcat had much longer firing time with it's guns. The Wildcat could have gotten to Britain the same way the SB2Us (French V-156) got to France in August, 1939. On board ships. The spares could have come on the ships just like the V-156 spares.

Early Wildcats in WW2 and also P51Bs did have jamming problems with the 50 BMGs but it was not a problem with the guns but with the feed system. The P51 problems were not as easily remedied as those with the Wildcats. The Wildcat problems had not shown up earlier because they had not flown with full ammo trays. 

Still a fantasy. The Wildcat was not available. The BOB was won with Hurricanes and Spitfires. Britain was saved because the German commanders knew that they could not invade successfully in 1940 because of the RN and Hitler had no real appetite for the invasion anyway. Too bad the Wildcat could not have been available in a few squadrons at least. Maybe more RAF pilots survive and more LW crew die.


----------



## buffnut453 (Mar 14, 2010)

Sorry, Renrich, but I'm going to disagree again. The Wildcat could not have been ready in time for the BoB. There's no "possibly" about it, which is why I fail to understand the point of this thread.

As for the question about armament reliability, it's largely irrelevant whether it was the guns or the ammo chutes that were at fault. The problem was not discovered until much later in the service life of the F4F.

Again, the Wildcat didn't have protected fuel tanks until much later in its life - the back end of 1941 at the earliest. 

Finally, I'm wondering about your statement "Maybe more RAF pilots survive and more LW crew die." I hope it's just a function of rapid typing rather than a statement to be taken at face value - it it's the latter, then it's a pretty crass thing to say on an international forum.


----------



## pbfoot (Mar 14, 2010)

renrich said:


> . One reason that the RAF did not train their pilots for full deflection shooting was because of poor visibility over the nose. The USN did train for full deflection shooting because the Wildcat did have good visibility over the nose. See Lundstrom for a discussion of deflection shooting in "The First Team."


Bull S**T where do you think you learnt the art of deflection shooting , I 've seen you post this many times and the US forces were taught deflection shooting and aerial combat by the RFC in Texas in 1917-18 and by the RFCIC in Canada during the same period. Now i gotta go to library to get my references.


----------



## buffnut453 (Mar 14, 2010)

Thanks PBFoot, you reminded me of another point I wanted to make. 

I think the "Fighting Area Tactics" had more impact on training of RAF fighter pilots than anything else. I've certainly never seen any statements to support your assertion that the RAF didn't go in for deflection shooting or that it was the aircraft that prompted such a tactical approach. Can Renrich cite some sources, please, to justify his statement?


----------



## Markus (Mar 14, 2010)

Colin1 said:


> I'm not the ballistics man on here but don't .50 cal rounds travel faster at a flatter trajectory? That might solve alot of deflection issues for novice pilots.



The muzzle velocity of a 40´s cal.50 was 840 to 860 m/s, that of a a cal.303 was 760 m/s.


----------



## renrich (Mar 14, 2010)

No need for expletives. What was taught in WW1 has nothing to do with the training and AC in WW2. Go to page 458 Lundstrom, "The First Team" and read the Appendix 2, "Fundamentals of Fixed Aerial Gunnery" Especially read the second paragraph on page 467. I had sore wrists after trying to maneuver my hands in a 90 degree deflection run.


----------



## buffnut453 (Mar 14, 2010)

Oh, and while I'm at it, one final point which I missed in Renrich's earlier post:



renrich said:


> The Wildcat could have gotten to Britain the same way the SB2Us (French V-156) got to France in August, 1939. On board ships. The spares could have come on the ships just like the V-156 spares.



How many ships would be required to provide sufficient Wildcats and spares to equip and sustain more than 60% of Fighter Command? That's around 35 squadrons each with at least 18 aircraft at the front line. On top of that, the RAF needed an reserve of airframes to replace operational losses which probably amounted to 50% (give or take) of the front-line strength, and you'd need to factor in aircraft in deep maintanance or undergoing depot- or factory-level repairs (typically around 20-30% depending on flying hours). Then you've got to keep replacement airframes flowing to the UK despite the U-boat threat, and that's not factoring in provision of spares (every nut, bolt, component to keep the aircraft flying) or aircraft in Operational Training Units. Sustaining a force of this size is a vastly different proposition to your cited example of the V-156 (which amounted to just 24 airframes and no enduring spares provision).


----------



## buffnut453 (Mar 14, 2010)

renrich said:


> No need for expletives. What was taught in WW1 has nothing to do with the training and AC in WW2. Go to page 458 Lundstrom, "The First Team" and read the Appendix 2, "Fundamentals of Fixed Aerial Gunnery" Especially read the second paragraph on page 467. I had sore wrists after trying to maneuver my hands in a 90 degree deflection run.



Don't disagree the USN trained hard in deflection shooting but where's your source to justify the statement that the length of the Hurricane's nose prevented deflection shooting (oh, and if you're deflection shooting then you're in a turning fight which would cause your 50cal ammo trays to jam in a Wildcat!). Please can we have some sources to back up these statements about RAF air gunnery?


----------



## Markus (Mar 14, 2010)

buffnut453 said:


> Don't disagree the USN trained hard in deflection shooting but where's your source to justify the statement that the length of the Hurricane's nose prevented deflection shooting (oh, and if you're deflection shooting then you're in a turning fight which would cause your 50cal ammo trays to jam in a Wildcat!). Please can we have some sources to back up these statements about RAF air gunnery?



The source is Lundstrom´s book. I have it too and Lundstrom says *full *deflection shooting was not possible with a Zero due to the limited view over the nose. IIRC the IJN pilots had to literally struggle to pull of half deflection runs. He goes on to say its virtually impossible with long-nose army fighters. Virtually for Joachim Marsaille did it with a Me109 but he seems to have been the proverbial exception to the rule.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 14, 2010)

Markus said:


> The source is Lundstrom´s book. I have it too and Lundstrom says *full **deflection shooting was not possible with a Zero due to the limited view over the nose*. IIRC the IJN pilots had to literally struggle to pull of half deflection runs. He goes on to say its virtually impossible with long-nose army fighters. Virtually for Joachim Marsaille did it with a Me109 but he seems to have been the proverbial exception to the rule.



I know John B. Lundstrom wrote several books about the airwar in the Pacific. I don't know his background, but I don't know where he is getting his information from. I've had the opportunity to sit in several WW2 fighters and fly several aircraft where you can't see over the nose. From a Zero, to a P-40, to a P-51 to an Bf-109, I see no difference in the length of the nose with regards to deflection shooting, as a matter of fact, if I remember correctly, the Mustang I sat in seemed to have the "worse" view over the nose, at least to the perspective of sitting in the cockpit with just a cushion on my butt.

I hope to get to sit in a P-47 in a few weeks - I'll see how that "over the nose" view seems.


----------



## pbfoot (Mar 14, 2010)

Markus said:


> The source is Lundstrom´s book. I have it too and Lundstrom says *full *deflection shooting was not possible with a Zero due to the limited view over the nose. IIRC the IJN pilots had to literally struggle to pull of half deflection runs. He goes on to say its virtually impossible with long-nose army fighters. Virtually for Joachim Marsaille did it with a Me109 but he seems to have been the proverbial exception to the rule.


well another exception to the rule would have been Beurling he didn't have much trouble either


----------



## renrich (Mar 14, 2010)

Thanks Markus. The great thing about this forum is that so much can be learned from other members who are more knowledgeable and because in an effort to research a subject, we force ourselves to learn. I have owned both of Lundstrom's books for years, long before joining this forum. The books are seeminly highly authoritative but pretty complicated to read. I had read both of them but since joining this forum I have reread them both and parts of them many times. Upon the first reading I skimmed appendix 2 without really understanding what I read. Since then I have gone back several times to try to understand the mysteries of full deflection shooting. Trying to maneuver in three dimensions with two AC strains the mind and the wrists. I played golf Friday with a former Marine pilot who was demonstrating his first gunnery run on a sleeve in an F9F and his wrists would not work that way either.

Anyway, lack of instruction in full deflection shooting is no knock on the UK's pilots or training. Lundstrom explains that it is a lengthy process and requires better visibility over the nose than most inline engined fighters provided and only the USN in WW2 really worked at it. He further states that full deflection shots were normally not used against an opposing fighter in WW2 but were of great use on an enemy bomber. Once one studies his explanation and diagrams thoroughly, it is easy to understand why a 90 degree deflection shot on a bomber was desirable and why it required better visibility over the nose than many fighters provided. Incidently, I believe he states that the full deflection shot requires a 6.5 down angle over the nose for the pilot's vision.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 14, 2010)

slaterat said:


> Other essential factors to wining the BoB where the Hurricane was superior to the wildcat include:
> -repair of battle damage aircraft



Only if you're talking about holes through the fabric with limited damage to the forming structure. If the steel tubing is damaged the repair can be a bit time consuming to either straighten out the tubing or cut away damaged sections and re-weld. Although the mild steel the Hurricane's tube structure was made from (4130 or 4140) is easily welded, this adds another skill to the maintainer's resume to keep up with the repair of the aircraft.



buffnut453 said:


> Thanks for covering my 6 Waynos.
> 
> The other factor that must be considered is that pilots don't get to choose the aircraft that are procured (this is linked to Renrich's comment). To do so would ignore a host of logistics issues that have to be factored into the procurement process. The aircraft itself may be a world-beater but if it's permanently grounded because it's too hard to maintain, then it ain't much use. I'm not saying this was the case with the F4F but some of the potential logistic challenges have already been identified in this thread. At risk of re-stating:
> 
> ...



For the most part nonsense - the RAF operated other US made aircraft with little or no problems with tools and support.

There is no doubt the logistic mountain this "would have" presented. There were some advantages the Wildcat "would have" offered. In the end the Hurricane did the job it had to and IMO was the most important aircraft used in the BoB as well as the most under-rated.


----------



## buffnut453 (Mar 14, 2010)

Markus said:


> The source is Lundstrom´s book. I have it too and Lundstrom says *full *deflection shooting was not possible with a Zero due to the limited view over the nose. IIRC the IJN pilots had to literally struggle to pull of half deflection runs. He goes on to say its virtually impossible with long-nose army fighters. Virtually for Joachim Marsaille did it with a Me109 but he seems to have been the proverbial exception to the rule.



But that still doesn't answer the question. Just because Lundstrom said it doesn't make it right. What was it about the Zero that prevented full-deflection shooting and what was it about the Wildcat that enabled it? To me, deflection shooting is a function of distance, speed, rate of angular displacement and crossing rates. Part of that equation is the ability of the pilot to judge where the enemy aircraft is when he can't physically see him (because the engine is in the way). I don't see that the Wildcat offered any significant advantage over other types - it still had a socking great engine in front of the pilot. Was the view over the nose really that much better? Particularly when the area of a radial engine is so much larger than that of an in-line type. 'Fraid I just don't see the "massive advantage" that the Wildcat brought in the field of deflection shooting.

Also, given the "more art than science" nature of deflection shooting in 1940, I'm struggling to understand why full deflection shooting is such a vital attribute. It was as much luck as it was judgement (although, granted, some pilots were better shots than others). From my reading of air combat in WWII, most kills were obtained by pilots sneaking up on unsuspecting adversaries and shooting them down before the victor was seen.


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 14, 2010)

I guess it depends on what is meant by "deflection shooting" 

A target flying at a full 90 degrees to the shooters flight (or bullet path) is going to be a most difficult target. 

Bur even a target flying a path 20 degrees to the shooters flight path is going to require placing the aiming mark of an early gun sight ahead of the target aircraft and the greater the distance between the two planes the greater the lead that is going to be needed. 

I find it a little hard to believe that everybody except the US NAVY taught ONLY dead astern 0 angle defection shooting. Now perhaps they didn't spend the hours per pilot that the USN did or only practiced at more shallow angles than the USN did but some element of deflection shooting must have been covered if only a few diagrams in training manual.


----------



## buffnut453 (Mar 14, 2010)

FLYBOYJ said:


> For the most part nonsense - the RAF operated other US made aircraft with little or no problems with tools and support.



Flyboy,

I probably over-stated the impact of that particular point. I wasn't stating that the RAF couldn't and didn't operate US-built aircraft with success, merely that differences in measurement systems could have introduced additional logistic factors that are not present if all aircraft are from the same country of origin. The Battle of Britain was perhaps unique in that a nation's entire defence rested upon an individual Command within single Armed Service. Under these conditions, where aircraft availability and speed of turnaround were of paramount importance, any major difference between fighter aircraft could have impacted operational efficiency, particularly where different types had to operate side-by-side on an airfield. As the RAF expanded rapidly in the late 1930s, they were able to raise a new generation of groundcrew for fighters on the understanding that virtually all of them would support aircraft powered by Merlin engines (Hurricanes, Spitfires and Defiants). This drastically reduced training time and increased efficiency. This would not have been the case had the majority of Fighter Command been equipped with a radial-engined type.

Sorry for overstating but I think it still had an impact.

Cheers
Mark


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 14, 2010)

buffnut453 said:


> Flyboy,
> 
> I probably over-stated the impact of that particular point. I wasn't stating that the RAF couldn't and didn't operate US-built aircraft with success, merely that differences in measurement systems could have introduced additional logistic factors that are not present if all aircraft are from the same country of origin. The Battle of Britain was perhaps unique in that a nation's entire defence rested upon an individual Command within single Armed Service. Under these conditions, where aircraft availability and speed of turnaround were of paramount importance, any major difference between fighter aircraft could have impacted operational efficiency, particularly where different types had to operate side-by-side on an airfield. As the RAF expanded rapidly in the late 1930s, they were able to raise a new generation of groundcrew for fighters on the understanding that virtually all of them would support aircraft powered by Merlin engines (Hurricanes, Spitfires and Defiants). This drastically reduced training time and increased efficiency. This would not have been the case had the majority of Fighter Command been equipped with a radial-engined type.
> 
> ...



Mark - I understand your point, however comparing most of the fighters of the period, you'll find that most of them had very similar features with regards to line operations and maintenance. IMO if you had a maintainer with some experience working Spits, the transition to say a P-40 would not be too great. Even throw a radial into play and as long as you're not trying to rebuild engines at the squadron level, the process to remove, replace and rig a radial could be no more or less complicated than doing it on an inline engine, in fact with an inline you have another system (coolant) to worry about in the day to day maintenance. Now to introduce a "switch" in the middle of a major campaign can bring some problems, especially in troubleshooting systems problems.


----------



## buffnut453 (Mar 14, 2010)

Flyboy,

I entirely agree that there weren't major differences - suck, squeeze, bang, blow was pretty much a constant! I guess I've just been on the receiving end of too many "Murphy's Law" events. I had visions of a new erk, fresh out of training, being sent to a Wildcat unit and being told to drain and refill the oil. Being a clever chap, he checks the company manual which says "Oil capacity 2 gallons" but nobody's told him those are US and not Imperial gallons so the aircraft runs out of oil mid-scrap. In reality, the impact was probably manageable, certainly so if the RAF had time to work up its processes and get used to the idiosyncracies of a US-built aircraft. 

Guess I should stop thinking so hard....


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 14, 2010)

buffnut453 said:


> Flyboy,
> 
> I entirely agree that there weren't major differences - suck, squeeze, bang, blow was pretty much a constant! I guess I've just been on the receiving end of too many "Murphy's Law" events. I had visions of a new erk, fresh out of training, being sent to a Wildcat unit and being told to drain and refill the oil. Being a clever chap, he checks the company manual which says "Oil capacity 2 gallons" but nobody's told him those are US and not Imperial gallons so the aircraft runs out of oil mid-scrap. In reality, the impact was probably manageable, certainly so if the RAF had time to work up its processes and get used to the idiosyncracies of a US-built aircraft.


All true but at the same time I think many of those maintenance nightmare stories were a bit over-emphasised, and probably rightfully so considering the large amounts of "new-bees" entering the trade.


buffnut453 said:


> Guess I should stop thinking so hard....


----------



## buffnut453 (Mar 14, 2010)

FLYBOYJ said:


> All true but at the same time I think many of those maintenance nightmare stories were a bit over-emphasised, and probably rightfully so considering the large amounts of "new-bees" entering the trade.



You say that, but I know of a recent system acquired by the MOD which came with contractor logistics support. A particular component had to be removed because of an electrical issue. It was then found that the bolts holding said component onto the aircraft were one-use items and, you've guessed it, the bolts weren't included as part of the spares catalogue. You couldn't make this stuff up...!


----------



## renrich (Mar 14, 2010)

The reason why full deflection gunnery runs were desirable against bombers was mainly because it presented a very difficult firing solution for the bomber's defensive armament. A low deflection run from high astern gave the bomber gunners the best chance to score hits and those type of hits against an inline engined fighter were more likely to be lethal than against a radial engined fighter. The headon low deflection attack did not allow a great deal of firing time.

The reason why the visibility over the nose was so important was; " When executing overhead and side runs from a full deflection angle (60 to 90 degrees) the attacker had to place his point of aim well ahead of the target, the distance depending on the target's speed. To shoot accurately and obviate the risk of collision, ideally the fighter pilot had to see both the target and where his tracers were going; thus both the target and the aiming point should appear in his gunsight. This required excellent visibility over the nose of the attacker's aircraft. Otherwise when allotting sufficient lead for full deflection, the pilot would lose sight of his target when it disappeared under the nose of his own plane."

"Landbased planes often sacrifised visibility for streamlining. Their pilots sat so low and so far back in the aircraft that visibility over the nose was very poor, making deflection shooting extremely difficult even if the pilots knew how to do it." The quotes are all from Lundstrom. Lundstrom is a well thought of historian whose research for his two books on the early Pacific war took more than a decade. Much of his knowledge about gunnery, I believe, came from conversations with Admiral William N. Leonard, a veteran of combat at Coral Sea and Midway. I believe that Admiral Leonard's son is a member of this forum and sometimes contributes valuable insight.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 14, 2010)

renrich said:


> "Landbased planes often sacrifised visibility for streamlining. Their pilots sat so low and so far back in the aircraft that visibility over the nose was very poor, making deflection shooting extremely difficult even if the pilots knew how to do it." The quotes are all from Lundstrom. Lundstrom is a well thought of historian whose research for his two books on the early Pacific war took more than a decade. Much of his knowledge about gunnery, I believe, came from conversations with Admiral William N. Leonard, a veteran of combat at Coral Sea and Midway. I believe that Admiral Leonard's son is a member of this forum and sometimes contributes valuable insight.


Admiral Leonard's son is a member on this forum, he might have more info on this as he is usually a wealth of information. With all due respect to Admiral Leonard, if he did provide that information to Lundstrom, I'd like to know his basis or making such a comment. I believe he did fly some in line fighters during his career.

With that said, we have many a Mustang or T-bolt pilot talking about deflection shooting. Again, compare their noses to the nose of a Wildcat and then a Zero. I can't see how much more difficult deflection shooting could be in a Zero when compared to say a P-51.


----------



## buffnut453 (Mar 14, 2010)

renrich said:


> The reason why the visibility over the nose was so important was; " When executing overhead and side runs from a full deflection angle (60 to 90 degrees) the attacker had to place his point of aim well ahead of the target, the distance depending on the target's speed. To shoot accurately and obviate the risk of collision, ideally the fighter pilot had to see both the target and where his tracers were going; thus both the target and the aiming point should appear in his gunsight. This required excellent visibility over the nose of the attacker's aircraft. Otherwise when allotting sufficient lead for full deflection, the pilot would lose sight of his target when it disappeared under the nose of his own plane."



I get all that, I just don't see the massive advantage that a Wildcat brings to the situation. It's a question of eyeline angle and a hulking great radial in front of you is still going to block visibility of the target and/or where the tracers were going.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 14, 2010)

buffnut453 said:


> I get all that, I just don't see the massive advantage that a Wildcat brings to the situation. It's a question of eyeline angle and a hulking great radial in front of you is still going to block visibility of the target and/or where the tracers were going.



Not really - when straight and level the visibility is quite good to the front and side to side and this can include long nosed in line engine fighters. Even in the -109 straight in front and side to side was clear. 

Where the most difficulty rises is in a "nose up" attitude while landing during the flare.


----------



## buffnut453 (Mar 14, 2010)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Not really - when straight and level the visibility is quite good to the front and side to side and this can include long nosed in line engine fighters. Even in the -109 straight in front and side to side was clear.
> 
> Where the most difficulty rises is in a "nose up" attitude while landing during the flare.



That's what I was trying to say. Obviously my language failed me. A couple of individuals keep insisting that the Wildcat offered a "massive improvement" in visibility and was therefore more able to undertake deflection shooting. For my part, I just don't see where that advantage comes from. I don't see the Wildcat as offering any substantive improvement over other types, radial or in-line, in terms of forward visibility during combat. Agree landing and taxying are different matters, but even then does the Wildcat offer a substantive advantage - while taxying, a radial necessitates wider swings to see forward than is the case with a narrower in-line.


----------



## RCAFson (Mar 14, 2010)

JoeB said:


> But the Hurricane's record v Bf109E in Battle of France,mainly on its own, was worse than 1:3 (54:171).



The vast majority of Hurricanes were lost on the ground when their bases were overrun. Aerial combat losses were not 171 and of the Hurricanes lost on air operations many were lost to bomber gunners, ground fire and some to Me-110s. There is a brief thread on this board about Hurricane losses:

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/hurricane-losses-france-1940-a-16414.html

And there is another article here:

The Battle of Britain 1940

Where they state:

"At one stage, it is recorded that over 900 aircraft were either lost or destroyed in six weeks, and what mattered most was that of this, 386 were Hurricanes and 67 were Spitfires. Another important factor to be taken into consideration was that, less than a hundred were destroyed in actual combat, the rest, some 350 aircraft were destroyed on the ground. "


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 14, 2010)

buffnut453 said:


> That's what I was trying to say. Obviously my language failed me. A couple of individuals keep insisting that the Wildcat offered a "massive improvement" in visibility and was therefore more able to undertake deflection shooting. For my part, I just don't see where that advantage comes from. I don't see the Wildcat as offering any substantive improvement over other types, radial or in-line, in terms of forward visibility during combat. Agree landing and taxying are different matters, but even then does the Wildcat offer a substantive advantage - while taxying, a radial necessitates wider swings to see forward than is the case with a narrower in-line.



For the most part yes - I think if going back to the original discussion, if the Wildcat was used in lieu of the Hurricane during the BoB, the two areas of advantages I see are endurance and survivability as the Wildcat had a radial engine.


----------



## buffnut453 (Mar 14, 2010)

FLYBOYJ said:


> For the most part yes - I think if going back to the original discussion, if the Wildcat was used in lieu of the Hurricane during the BoB, the two areas of advantages I see are endurance and survivability as the Wildcat had a radial engine.



All other things being equal, aircraft-for-aircraft, I entirely agree. How you'd get Wildcats to Britain and sustain them operationally in sufficient numbers to replace the Hurricane remain knotty problems that are far more difficult to resolve.


----------



## Waynos (Mar 14, 2010)

If the RAF entered the BoB having chosen the Wildcat instead of the Hurricane, I see the Spitfires being overrun and lots of British airmen dying in Gauntlets, Furies and the odd Bulldog in an increasingly desperate defence.


----------



## The Basket (Mar 14, 2010)

Why not choose the P-36 instead?

Remember...some people in the Air ministry were thinking the Spitfire was obsolete so buying in bulk a lesser machine would be nutty.

Just wait until the Whirlwind comes...20mm cannon and lots of speed.


----------



## RCAFson (Mar 14, 2010)

The Hurricane's performance was also considerably enhanced through the use of 100 octane fuel and 12 lb boost. This added 20 to 30 mph to the Hurricane's low altitude speed and greatly increased it's climb rate:













http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/hurricane-I.ht


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 14, 2010)

buffnut453 said:


> All other things being equal, aircraft-for-aircraft, I entirely agree. How you'd get Wildcats to Britain and sustain them operationally in sufficient numbers to replace the Hurricane remain knotty problems that are far more difficult to resolve.


Agree...



The Basket said:


> Why not choose the P-36 instead?
> 
> Remember...some people in the Air ministry were thinking the Spitfire was obsolete so buying in bulk a lesser machine would be nutty.
> 
> Just wait until the Whirlwind comes...20mm cannon and lots of speed.



As mentioned, the Hawk 75 did well in the Battle of France. Although slower than the -109 it seems this aircraft was a lot more maneuverable. I think this aircraft was another under rated fighter that was always looked to being obsolete well before its time.


----------



## JoeB (Mar 14, 2010)

RCAFson said:


> The vast majority of Hurricanes were lost on the ground when their bases were overrun. Aerial combat losses were not 171 and of the Hurricanes lost on air operations many were lost to bomber gunners, ground fire and some to Me-110s.


My source is a landmark new book ("The Battle of France Then and Now") that has details of almost every loss in every AF involved in the BoF period, including also Britain based Fighter Command units in the same period, with details, so it only includes air combat losses of Hurricanes to 109's and vice versa, counted up in the book. That said I realize I mistyped my own notes then calced wrong ratio in the last post, its' 151 Hurricane and 74 Bf109's not 171 and 54, sorry about that. Hurricanes downed 37 Bf110's v 63 Hurricanes lost to 110's. And again ratio's later on as at Malta and Western Desert were less favorable for Hurricane, sometimes worse than the Hurricane did in the Far East. So it's not clear to me the Far East situation was so completely special, and I think the F4F' far better record there should probably factor in somewhat in estimating its possible outcome v Bf109E's, as should the Hawk's relatively good record v 109 in BoF 23:38 in BoF. The Spitfire's record v 109 in BoF period was 24:32, D520's 14:30, for further comparative reference. 

Joe


----------



## Cromwell (Mar 14, 2010)

The Basket said:


> Why not choose the P-36 instead? Remember...some people in the Air ministry were thinking the Spitfire was obsolete so buying in bulk a lesser machine would be nutty. Just wait until the Whirlwind comes...20mm cannon and lots of speed.




The Whirlwind was another "could-a should-a" IMHO, just failed for want of a decent engine (or rather the availability of a decent engine i.e.. the Merlin). Shame also our US cousins sent over Castrated P38s [no superchargers] - Decent P38s with handed-engines, and decent cockpit heaters, would have been a major contribution during the Bob I think.

Actually I think if a reliable 20mm had been around during the BoB for the Hurricane then LW bombers would have just blown up mostly, as they did later on when attacked by Beaufighters.

Note : If the Hurricane was so Dismal as we seem to be saying in this thread, then why was it produced until 44/45 ? Ground-attack ?

I know the IIC and later the IID was very effective against Tanks, a bit like the Cannon Stuka, so I suppose that is one argument. 

Care to comment anyone ?


----------



## Cromwell (Mar 14, 2010)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Even throw a radial into play and as long as you're not trying to rebuild engines at the squadron level, the process to remove, replace and rig a radial could be no more or less complicated than doing it on an inline engine, in fact with an inline you have another system (coolant) to worry about in the day to day maintenance.



Of course the RAF had Radial engines too - Lots of them

So most Erks would have potentially been exposed to maintaining radials on planes like Blenheims, Gladiators, Wimpeys

Also US vs Imperial Gallons - 1 US gallon = 0.833 Imperial gallons (rounded to 3 figs)

So, even there, not such a biggy maybe ? If you put in 2 Imp Galls instead of 2 US Galls, it would actually be slightly over-filled not under filled. Oil up a few plugs maybe ? maybe not, just burn off the excess.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 14, 2010)

Cromwell said:


> Shame also our US cousins sent over Castrated P38s [no superchargers] - Decent P38s with handed-engines, and decenc cockpit heaters, would have been a major contribution during the BoB I think.



I think you'd better research the full facts why those aircraft were delivered that way...

Although I take Wikipedia with a grain of salt, somtimes they get it right...

*In March 1940, the French and the British ordered a total of 667 P-38s for US$100M,[37] designated Model 322F for the French and Model 322B for the British. The aircraft would be a variant of the P-38E. The overseas Allies wished for complete commonality of Allison engines with the large numbers of Curtiss P-40 Tomahawks both nations had on order, and thus ordered for the Model 322 twin right-handed engines instead of counter-rotating ones, and without turbo-superchargers.[38] After the fall of France in June 1940, the British took over the entire order and christened the plane "Lightning". By June 1941, the War Ministry had cause to reconsider their earlier aircraft specifications, based on experience gathered in the Battle of Britain and The Blitz.[39] British displeasure with the Lockheed order came to the fore in July, and on 5 August 1941 they modified the contract such that 143 aircraft would be delivered as previously ordered, to be known as "Lightning (Mark) I", and 524 would be upgraded to US-standard P-38E specifications, to be called "Lightning II" for British service.[39] Later that summer, an RAF test pilot reported back from Burbank with a poor assessment of the 'tail flutter' situation, bringing the British to cancel all but three of the 143 Lightning Is.[39] Because a loss of approximately US$15M was involved, Lockheed reviewed their contracts and decided to hold the British to the original order. Negotiations grew bitter and stalled.[39] Everything changed after December 7, 1941 when the United States government seized some 40 of the Model 322s for West Coast defense,[40] subsequently all British Lightnings were delivered to the USAAF starting in January 1942. The USAAF loaned the RAF three of the aircraft which were delivered by sea in March 1942[41] and were test flown no earlier than May[42] at Swaythling, Boscombe Down and Farnborough.[39] These three were subsequently returned to the USAAF; one in December 1942 and the others in July 1943.[41] Of the remaining 140 Lightning Is, 19 were not modified and were designated the USAAF as RP-322-I ('R' for 'Restricted', because non-counter-rotating props were considered more dangerous at takeoff), while 121 were converted to non-turbo-supercharged counter-rotating V-1710F-2 engines and were designated P-322-II. All 121 were used as advanced trainers; a few were still serving that role in 1945.[42] A few RP-322s were later used as test modification platforms such as for smoke-laying canisters. The RP-322 was a fairly fast aircraft under 16,000 ft (4,900 m) and well-behaved as a trainer. Some of the fastest post-war racing P-38s were virtually identical in layout to the P-322-II.[42]

One positive result of the failed British/French order was to give the aircraft its name. Lockheed had originally dubbed the aircraft Atalanta in the company tradition of naming planes after mythological and celestial figures, but the RAF name won out*


----------



## Colin1 (Mar 14, 2010)

Cromwell said:


> The Whirlwind was another "could-a should-a" IMHO, just failed for want of a decent engine (or rather the availability of a decent engine i.e. the Merlin).
> 
> Shame also our US cousins sent over castrated P38s [no superchargers] - Decent P38s with handed-engines, and decenc cockpit heaters, would have been a major contribution during the BoB I think.
> 
> ...


There was a bit more to the Whirlwind story than the powerplant, a little procrastination from Westland and a lot of unreasonable requirements and behaviour from the Air Ministry.

We can only speculate at what was going on at Burbank with the Lightning I. The best rumour seems to be along the lines of Gen Arnold looking for a way to get the Lightning into serial production with a big order for the RAF, whom he 'let off the hook' further down the line if the RAF didn't want them. On paper at least, the RAF order accelerated the P-38 program by 5 months, the USAAF ordering 673 machines in August 1940.

The Hispano 20mm wasn't inherently unreliable, it simply hadn't been created with life in the wing of an aeroplane in mind, it was normally engine-mounted. The flexure of the wing during high-g combat manoeuvres frequently jammed the weapon.

I don't believe anyone is calling the Hurricane dismal, it is a reasonably informed debate over which would have proven the better machine during the Battle of Britain. It was still in production during the dates you specify but another way of looking at it is that it was relegated to ground-attack duties during those dates; its days as a front-line fighter were over at the close of the Battle.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 14, 2010)

Cromwell said:


> Of course the RAF had Radial engines too - Lots of them
> 
> So most Erks would have potentially been exposed to maintaining radials on planes like Blenheims, Gladiators, Wimpeys



That comment was made with regards to the RAF operating US Equipment



Cromwell said:


> Also US vs Imperial Gallons - 1 US gallon = 0.833 Imperial gallons (rounded to 3 figs)
> 
> So, even there, not such a biggy maybe ? If you put in 2 Imp Galls instead of 2 US Galls, it would actually be slightly over-filled not under filled. Oil up a few plugs maybe ? maybe not, just burn off the excess.



Not really - depending on the engine you would have to drain the excess oil if you over service the engine. If not you could blow out the excess oil through breather tubes or even build up pressures within the engine that could rupture seals.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 14, 2010)

Colin1 said:


> We can only speculate at what was going on at Burbank with the Lightning I. The best rumour seems to be along the lines of Gen Arnold looking for a way to get the Lightning into serial production with a big order for the RAF, whom he 'let off the hook' further down the line if the RAF didn't want them. On paper at least, the RAF order accelerated the P-38 program by 5 months, the USAAF ordering 673 machines in August 1940.



Heard the same as well....


----------



## Colin1 (Mar 14, 2010)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Heard the same as well....


Hap was a creative boy when it came to forming his air force, heard he turned a few tricks to get the B-17 program up and running too.


----------



## Maestro (Mar 14, 2010)

Personnaly, I would choose the Hurricane... As it took time for Radar operators/ground observers to spot the enemy planes, calculate their probable targets, forward the info the the closest airfield and get the fighters in the air, a good climb rate was essential.

Also, the Hurricane was more maneuvrable than the Wildcat, which is vital in a fight where you could easily end up with a 109 on your tail.

I also remember one of our forum members (Plan_D), stating that the main goal of the RAF was to prevent the targets from being bombed. In order to acheive that goal, it wasn't nessesary to destroy the planes (although doing so was a good thing), but just to put enough bullet holes in them to force them to abort their mission. He did make a good point.


----------



## Cromwell (Mar 14, 2010)

FLYBOYJ said:


> That comment was made with regards to the RAF operating US Equipment
> 
> Not really - depending on the engine you would have to drain the excess oil if you over service the engine. If not you could blow out the excess oil through breather tubes or even build up pressures within the engine that could rupture seals.



OK to answer your 2 points :-

1. My comment was made in response to yours regarding radial engines, in other words the RAF had experience of air-cooled radials already albeit mostly British ones (not all though - Wright engines did make their way over the Atlantic in the 30s and not just courtesy of Mr Lindbergh esquire).

2. There was a point made earlier that could be read to say that US Gals were half Imperial Gallons - but actually it was not 50% - actually nearer to 83%


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 14, 2010)

Cromwell said:


> OK to answer your 2 points :-
> 
> 1. My comment was made in response to yours regarding radial engines, in other words the RAF had experience of air-cooled radials already albeit mostly British ones (not all though - Wright engines did make their way over the Atlantic in the 30s and not just courtesy of Mr Lindbergh esquire).


Read the original post - there was never anything said about the British operating radials in general, it had to do with operating "US" equipment...

here's the exchange...

_


buffnut453 said:



Flyboy,

I probably over-stated the impact of that particular point. I wasn't stating that the RAF couldn't and didn't operate US-built aircraft with success, merely that differences in measurement systems could have introduced additional logistic factors that are not present if all aircraft are from the same country of origin. The Battle of Britain was perhaps unique in that a nation's entire defence rested upon an individual Command within single Armed Service. Under these conditions, where aircraft availability and speed of turnaround were of paramount importance, any major difference between fighter aircraft could have impacted operational efficiency, particularly where different types had to operate side-by-side on an airfield. *As the RAF expanded rapidly in the late 1930s, they were able to raise a new generation of groundcrew for fighters on the understanding that virtually all of them would support aircraft powered by Merlin engines (Hurricanes, Spitfires and Defiants). This drastically reduced training time and increased efficiency. This would not have been the case had the majority of Fighter Command been equipped with a radial-engined type.*

Sorry for overstating but I think it still had an impact.

Cheers
Mark

Click to expand...

_
And my response...

_


FLYBOYJ said:



Mark - I understand your point, however comparing most of the fighters of the period, you'll find that most of them had very similar features with regards to line operations and maintenance. IMO if you had a maintainer with some experience working Spits, the transition to say a P-40 would not be too great. Even throw a radial into play and as long as you're not trying to rebuild engines at the squadron level, the process to remove, replace and rig a radial could be no more or less complicated than doing it on an inline engine, in fact with an inline you have another system (coolant) to worry about in the day to day maintenance. Now to introduce a "switch" in the middle of a major campaign can bring some problems, especially in troubleshooting systems problems.

Click to expand...

_


Cromwell said:


> 2. There was a point made earlier that could be read to say that US Gals were half Imperial Gallons - but actually it was not 50% - actually nearer to 83%


OK point made. The issue here is there were reported maintenance errors based on the difference between the US and UK system.


----------



## Cromwell (Mar 14, 2010)

Colin1 said:


> There was a bit more to the Whirlwind story than the powerplant, a little procrastination from Westland and a lot of unreasonable requirements and behaviour from the Air Ministry.
> 
> We can only speculate at what was going on at Burbank with the Lightning I. The best rumour seems to be along the lines of Gen Arnold looking for a way to get the Lightning into serial production with a big order for the RAF, whom he 'let off the hook' further down the line if the RAF didn't want them. On paper at least, the RAF order accelerated the P-38 program by 5 months, the USAAF ordering 673 machines in August 1940.
> 
> ...



1. OK - so what was the deal with the Whirlwind ? Was it just another unlucky might-have-been great WW2 plane and if so what was the problem(s) ? You read often that it was the Peregrine engine which was the main issue, do you disagree ?

2. I do know that the 20mm was originally a 'Motor' type cannon, but I also know that when it was first tried in Spits in combat during BoB the pilots were clamouring for their MGs back (I am fairly certain on that one).

I grant however that the jamming may have been due to wing flexing as well as belt feed problems. Either way, it was still jamming - as was the .50 cal as discussed earlier etc etc

3. The figures quoted on this thread for the Hurricane do not make great reading do they ? It could not even achieve parity against the 109E could it - if the Stats are to be believed, and I do not see any reason to doubt their veracity with certain limits of error.

As discussed several times this may have been due to deployment and lack of good (meaning experienced) pilots.

Again, either way, it did not seem to be holding its own against the main fighter opposition meaning the early marks of 109. Do you agree ? if not why not ?

Equally, I am not sure Wildcats would have performed any better if we had them on board at that time. But it is fun to speculate.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 14, 2010)

Cromwell said:


> 3. The figures quoted on this thread for the Hurricane do not make great reading do they ? It could not even achieve parity against the 109E could it - if the Stats are to be believed, and I do not see any reason to doubt their veracity with certain limits of error.



I also think one must explore how many bombers the Hurricane brought down, to me that was its real mission during the BoB and if we hypothetically inserted the Wildcat into the Hurricane's mission during the BoB, that would have been its mission as well.


----------



## Cromwell (Mar 14, 2010)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Read the original post - there was never anything said about the British operating radials in general, it had to do with operating "US" equipment... .




Well when I read the exchanges they seemed to suggest that the ground crew were schooled to work with a glycol cooled inline engines - the Merlin particular. This was not your suggestion by the way. See below for quote from Mark :-


_ " As the RAF expanded rapidly in the late 1930s, they were able to raise a new generation of groundcrew for fighters on the understanding that virtually all of them would support aircraft powered by Merlin engines (Hurricanes, Spitfires and Defiants). This drastically reduced training time and increased efficiency. This would not have been the case had the majority of Fighter Command been equipped with a radial-engined type. Sorry for overstating but I think it still had an impact. Cheers Mark " _


Radials would have caused confusion, was the suggestion in part - I was merely pointing out that the RAF had air-cooled radials in service too, at that time. Quite a lot of them, including Fighter Command not just Bomber or Transport types.

I agree with you that US or not US was not really such a deal. In fact a lot of US equipment was already coming over the pond I do believe.

I know my Dad had a set of US Standard pre-war tools for many years - My mother gave them away when he died [shame but I don't think she knew their value really]


----------



## Cromwell (Mar 14, 2010)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I also think one must explore how many bombers the Hurricane brought down, to me that was its real mission during the BoB and if we hypothetically inserted the Wildcat into the Hurricane's mission during the BoB, that would have been its mission as well.



OK, so Hurricane vs 109E is really something of a red-herring.

What we need is stats on Hurricane vs He 111 and Ju87 88, Dorniers. Bf110 etc. Anyone got thest stats ?

I suppose the question is then whether or not the Wildcat could have done any better in the same type of role right ?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 14, 2010)

Cromwell said:


> Well when I read the exchanges they seemed to suggest that the ground crew were schooled to work with a glycol cooled inline engines - the Merlin particular. This was not your suggestion by the way. See below for quote from Mark :-
> 
> _ " As the RAF expanded rapidly in the late 1930s, they were able to raise a new generation of groundcrew for fighters on the understanding that virtually all of them would support aircraft powered by Merlin engines (Hurricanes, Spitfires and Defiants). This drastically reduced training time and increased efficiency. This would not have been the case had the majority of Fighter Command been equipped with a radial-engined type. Sorry for overstating but I think it still had an impact. Cheers Mark " _
> 
> ...





Cromwell said:


> Radials would have caused confusion, was the suggestion in part



Why would you say that?

Ok - going full circle here, the point is that ground crews, even with limited experience should not have had issues servicing and maintaining either a British built or US built aircraft at the squadron level, and the differences in tools and hardware sizes would not make a big difference either.


----------



## Cromwell (Mar 14, 2010)

buffnut453 said:


> You say that, but I know of a recent system acquired by the MOD which came with contractor logistics support. A particular component had to be removed because of an electrical issue. It was then found that the bolts holding said component onto the aircraft were one-use items and, you've guessed it, the bolts weren't included as part of the spares catalogue. You couldn't make this stuff up...!



One of my acquaintances is an ex-Navy flight maintenance rating and he says that the number of one-shot, don't re-use parts in planes drove him round the twist - especially with choppers and jump-jets where you dare not take chances.

Why ? Because every new part required a requisition order signed by his senior officer and then the stores master and in any case they often had to wait until they got back to port to get the bits anyhow.

You would be amazed how many Sea-Harriers spent an entire 3 month tour tied up in a hanger because one bolt holding on something minor could not be re-used.

Note. if the Falklands blows up again we are stuffed - no Sea-Harriers and no F35s yet. Just some tired old Sea Kings (probably the same ones as last time).


----------



## Cromwell (Mar 14, 2010)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Why would you say that? QUOTE]
> 
> Only because Mark / Buffnut 453 said .....
> 
> ...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 14, 2010)

Cromwell said:


> FLYBOYJ said:
> 
> 
> > Why would you say that? QUOTE]
> ...


----------



## JoeB (Mar 14, 2010)

Cromwell said:


> OK, so Hurricane vs 109E is really something of a red-herring.
> 
> What we need is stats on Hurricane vs He 111 and Ju87 88, Dorniers. Bf110 etc. Anyone got thest stats ?
> 
> I suppose the question is then whether or not the Wildcat could have done any better in the same type of role right ?


I don't think it is a red herring, because one role of escorts is to attrite the interceptor force* and a poor kill ratio indicates that's easier to do. OTOH I can see no reason to think, nor operational evidence F4F's were less capable downing bombers, unmolested by escorts, than Hurricans. The fighter v fighter issue is hard to nail down, that's why we should look far and wide for real combat results IMO to gain more perspective. But most basically comparable fighters had similar capaibility to shoot down bombers when completely left alone. On a fundamental basis of armament and radial v liquid cooled the F4F would seem the better bomber destroyer. And F4F's achieved similarly excellent results compared to other Allied fighters in Pacific in 1942 against bombers in part *because* they could contend with Zero escorts on an equal basis. Gun gams were not a major factor limiting F4F's.

*though one German mistake was not to realize that sooner. Aiming to protect bombers per se with close escort only is unsound strategy, unless the bombers can achieve their goal in very few missions (like say against a few irreplaceable ships). Otherwise the escorts can almost always accomplish more by acting offensively v the interceptors seking to destroy them and/or disrupt their operations. Everybody realized that eventually, but some escorts were less capable of it because of range restrictions, especially.

Joe


----------



## pinsog (Mar 14, 2010)

A couple of things,

1. Could British mechanics have worked on the Wildcat? Do you guys realize about 6 threads have been dedicated to whether British mechanics could have put the right amount of oil in a radial engine. You gotta be kidding me. Come on guys. With the exception of radar, the was nothing technological about any plane of WW2. My friend at home with a 350 Chevy V8 swinging from his tree by a chain is more than qualifide to work on any WW2 aircraft. They were a motor, some steel or aluminum sticks with sheetmetal covering them. My 8 year old can pull a dipstick and fill it to the mark with oil, she could also put air in the tires. 

2. Performance differences between the Hurricane and Wildcat F4F-3 were probably very slim, probably so close that a good Wildcat would outperforma poor Hurricane, and a good Hurricane would outperform a poor Wildcat.

3. I think the only worthwhile diffences in the 2 aircraft are, FIREPOWER and RANGE

FIREPOWER is the most important of the 2. I keep seeing "Weight of fire per second" thrown around alot when discussing aircraft weopons. I think that is a poor platform of comparison. For instance if you have a pissed off grizzly bear 20 yards from you and a 12 guage shotgun to defend yourself, do you wants a slug or #9 birdshot? You actually have more weight in the birdshot load than in the slug, but if the bullet cant penetrate to the vitals, it doesnt matter. I'll take the slug, thank you.

Same thing with the .303 versus the .50. The .303 didnt have the power to do damage to vital systems once it passed through the skin of the aircraft. What good does it do to hit an aircraft in the engine if the bullet wont damage or destroy the engine block. How many German bombers and fighters made it home because that pathetic .303 stopped in the seat if the pilot instead of passing through like a .50 would or it stopped when it hit the engine block instead or damaging or destroying the engine? Case in point, Saburu Sakai was struck in the head by a 3006 bullet fired from a Dauntless rear gunner, he lived and later shot down a couple more American planes. If that had been a .50, he would not have survived.

I also see people say"well they shot down German planes with 8 .303 so it must have been an adequate setup". Well the Sherman destroyed some Tiger and Panther tanks with the short 75mm but it was still dreadfully undergunned, so was the Hurricane and Spitfire. 

RANGE would have given the British more flexibility in defence. I'm NOT talking about cross channel raids. I'm talking about taking the fight to the Germans on the British side of the channel and possibly out to the middle of the channel. I believe with a longer legged fighter, the British could have brought more aircraft into defend areas from farther away.


----------



## parsifal (Mar 15, 2010)

JoeB said:


> I don't think it is a red herring, because one role of escorts is to attrite the interceptor force* and a poor kill ratio indicates that's easier to do. OTOH I can see no reason to think, nor operational evidence F4F's were less capable downing bombers, unmolested by escorts, than Hurricans. The fighter v fighter issue is hard to nail down, that's why we should look far and wide for real combat results IMO to gain more perspective. But most basically comparable fighters had similar capaibility to shoot down bombers when completely left alone. On a fundamental basis of armament and radial v liquid cooled the F4F would seem the better bomber destroyer. And F4F's achieved similarly excellent results compared to other Allied fighters in Pacific in 1942 against bombers in part *because* they could contend with Zero escorts on an equal basis. Gun gams were not a major factor limiting F4F's.
> 
> *though one German mistake was not to realize that sooner. Aiming to protect bombers per se with close escort only is unsound strategy, unless the bombers can achieve their goal in very few missions (like say against a few irreplaceable ships). Otherwise the escorts can almost always accomplish more by acting offensively v the interceptors seking to destroy them and/or disrupt their operations. Everybody realized that eventually, but some escorts were less capable of it because of range restrictions, especially.
> 
> Joe



Joe I may be able to give some assistance regarding the effectiveness of the hurricane versus fighter in NW Europe, though my answer may have to wait a couple of weeks. I am moving house at the moment, and cannot get access to my library, however I have a book that gives daily returns of losses for both sides, by type and date in the Northwest theatre, from January 1941 through to September. The exchange rate given in this book is at times depressing, however overall, the hurricane did much better than the sample you are drawing upon. The exchange rates for the hurricane was much closer to 1:1 in this period than your figures suggest. 

As I said, I cannot confirm until I get access to my reference material again. Should be able to do that in about two weeks or so


----------



## Colin1 (Mar 15, 2010)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I also think one must explore how many bombers the Hurricane brought down, to me that was its real mission during the BoB and if we hypothetically inserted the Wildcat into the Hurricane's mission during the BoB, that would have been its mission as well.


Exactly
Hurricanes did outnumber Spitfires roughly 2:1
but brought down more enemy aircraft than all other defences combined ie Spitfires, Defiants, Blenheims, anti-aircraft guns and barrage balloons. In my opinion, the F4F would have done an exemplary job of shooting down bombers whilst faring no worse than the Hurricane in a furball with the escorts.


----------



## Waynos (Mar 15, 2010)

FBJ, I think you have been misreading Cromwells points about the radial, he has been agreeing with you all the way buddy 

I think it was Buffnut who said that having all Merlins in fighter command was easier and it would have complicated things having radials too, Cromwell is saying 'no it wouldn't, they already had them anyway'. Hope that helps.

Pinsog made some great points, especially about competency of mechanics, except for one thing. Range was never an issue for the RAF during the BoB, the existing fighters could have been brought into the battle from anywhere in England if required. The fact that they were not was out of choice and a great source of frustration for the commanders of those other fighter groups.

From what I have read the 50 cal was jamming quite a lot in 1940. Given that the Spitfire pilots who had cannon armed Spitfires begged for their 303's back due to frequent jamming, why should we assume that the Wildcats point 50's would be any different? Jammed guns are no good at all and definitely inferior to a working 303.

In any case I think that argument is a bit of a red herring anyway regarding the Wildcat as the RAF's chose to go from the 303 straight to the 20mm cannon, so Wildcats orderd for the RAF would have been fitted with 303's anyway imo and therefore been no different to the Hurri in firepower.

Notwithstanding my earlier post regarding the point that they would not have been operational anyway.


----------



## Hop (Mar 15, 2010)

> RANGE would have given the British more flexibility in defence. I'm NOT talking about cross channel raids. I'm talking about taking the fight to the Germans on the British side of the channel and possibly out to the middle of the channel.



The RAF didn't want pilots fighting over the Channel because if they were shot down, they were much more likely to be lost.

Park's instructions to controllers, 19 August:



> a) Despatch fighters to engage large enemy formations over land or within gliding distance of the coast. During the next two or three weeks, we cannot afford to lose pilots through forced landings in the sea.
> 
> b) Avoid sending fighters out over the sea to chase reconnaissance aircraft or small formations of enemy fighters





> I believe with a longer legged fighter, the British could have brought more aircraft into defend areas from farther away.



There were a lot of squadrons just north of London that didn't get in to the battle as often as they'd like. It was nothing to do with range, it was because they couldn't be effectively controlled from the ground when in another Group's area.

I think there's some misunderstanding about range here. From the centre of London to the German fighter bases in the Pas de Calais is just under 100 miles. From 10 Group bases north of London to the south coast is around 50 - 70 miles. 



> OK, so Hurricane vs 109E is really something of a red-herring.
> 
> What we need is stats on Hurricane vs He 111 and Ju87 88, Dorniers. Bf110 etc. Anyone got thest stats ?



Bungay in Most Dangerous Enemy says the Hurricanes shot down around 1,000 German aircraft. Hurricane losses, according to Wood and Dempster, were just under 600.

I don't think fighter - fighter "scores" are particularly illuminating. German fighter pilots put great store by them. The RAF were generally under much tighter control from above and focused on getting a particular job done. 

It's especially so in cases where the RAF fighters were ordered to attack bombers in preference to fighters, as they were in the BoB.


----------



## Waynos (Mar 15, 2010)

Good stuff hop, reading your post I could hear the movie line "ignore the fighters, its the bloody bombers we want!"


----------



## Markus (Mar 15, 2010)

Shortround6 said:


> I guess it depends on what is meant by "deflection shooting"
> 
> A target flying at a full 90 degrees to the shooters flight (or bullet path) is going to be a most difficult target.
> 
> ...



Lundstrom says the USN was the only one to be abe to use full deflection shooting(90°angle), the IJN pilots struggled with a 45° degree angle and smaller angle must have been possible with fighters like the P-40 and Me109 but the smaller the angle the bigger the chance of being hit by counterfire is. 


Regarding the jamming of cal.50 machine guns; it happened ... very briefly. Before the war the magazines were never fully loaded, when they were for the first time the -now much heavier- ammo belt shifted and the guns jammed. The defect was identified and fixed in no time.


----------



## magnu (Mar 15, 2010)

Hurricane or Wildcat it doesn't really matter. You will get bounced just as hard if you are flying in idiot rows (German term for standard Vic. formation)


----------



## renrich (Mar 15, 2010)

IMO, the F4F3 would have done a somewhat better job in the BOB than the Hurricane for reasons sliced and diced ad infinitum earlier in the thread. However, Wildcats, although operational during that period, were not available for that job. Hurricanes were and the LW was unable to suppress the RAF.

Another fighter, operational during that period, though unavailable for action in Europe might have made an even bigger difference than the Wildcat. If the LW had been using A6Ms instead of BF109s the HE111s and DO17s would have had escorts all the way to the target and for much longer. The A6M was similarly armed to the 109 and although not as well protected, results in the Pacific seem to suggest the A6M would have at least held it's own against the RAF, like the 109 did.

Ironic that the two fighters that theoretically could have been available for the BOB were both designed from the start as shipboard fighters with radial engines. During the gestation period of the Wildcat and Zero, many AC designers in the world did not think a shipboard fighter could be designed that could compete with landbased fighters.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 15, 2010)

pinsog said:


> A couple of things,
> 
> 1. Could British mechanics have worked on the Wildcat? Do you guys realize about 6 threads have been dedicated to whether British mechanics could have put the right amount of oil in a radial engine. You gotta be kidding me. Come on guys. With the exception of radar, the was nothing technological about any plane of WW2. *My friend at home with a 350 Chevy V8 swinging from his tree by a chain is more than qualifide to work on any WW2 aircraft.* They were a motor, some steel or aluminum sticks with sheetmetal covering them. My 8 year old can pull a dipstick and fill it to the mark with oil, she could also put air in the tires.
> .


Your friend can be TRAINED to work on a WW2 engines - generaly any auto mechanic who thinks they could just work on a WW2 recip is in for a rude awakening.

Does your friend know how to time a magneto or pull a master rod on a radial? Does he know how to set up a pressure carb or rig a propeller?

And we just covered propulsion systems - throw in sheet metal, hydraulic and electrical systems, dope and fabric and woodworking and now you have the basics of a typical WW2 line mechainc.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 15, 2010)

Waynos said:


> FBJ, I think you have been misreading Cromwells points about the radial, he has been agreeing with you all the way buddy


 I got ya now - 

[


----------



## Colin1 (Mar 15, 2010)

Cromwell said:


> 1. OK - so what was the deal with the Whirlwind ? Was it just another unlucky might-have-been great WW2 plane and if so what was the problem(s) ? You read often that it was the Peregrine engine which was the main issue, do you disagree ?
> 
> 2. I do know that the 20mm was originally a 'Motor' type cannon, but I also know that when it was first tried in Spits in combat during BoB the pilots were clamouring for their MGs back (I am fairly certain on that one).
> 
> ...


1. 
Failure to control requirements
Failure to give an early production order
Failure by the manufacturer to produce on time
Failure by the manufacturer to accept the need for improvements and quickly
Failure of the engine manufacturer to have a developed engine
Failure by the MAP to ensure mass production of the aircraft
Failure by the Air Staff to foresee the possibility of the design
Failure by Fighter Command chiefs to see the potential in the design , mainly because of 'single-engined fighter complex'.

2. May have been? It was. The Hispano suffered no show-stopper problems that I can trace whilst in operational service mounted on the engine. 19 Sqn (Spitfires) had half a dozen cannon-armed Spitfires during the Battle; these were returned in short order as they were plagued with jamming issues. By the time belt-feed cannons were being installed, the jamming issues had been resolved.

3. The Hurricane is regarded as being generally outclassed by the Bf109E, whilst more than a match in a turn, the Hurricane could not evade (or compete with) the Messerschmitt in the vertical; diving or climbing usually resulted in rapid loss of the initiative. However it should be noted that the Hurricane accounted for more enemy aircraft during the Battle than all other means combined whilst accounting for roughly 2/3 of Fighter Command's front-line fighter strength.

What do you mean by 'due to deployment' ?


----------



## The Basket (Mar 15, 2010)

The Gloster fighters had radials and also the British had a 300mph prototype which had a radial....F.5/34.

So the radial issue is not an issue.

The P-36 could have certainly been flown in big numbers for the RAF during 1940...a far more realistic scenario.


----------



## pinsog (Mar 15, 2010)

FLYBOYJ

You are correct, he could be trained. Any mechanic that could pull apart an automotive V8 and put it back together could also, with a very minimum of training, do the same with a diesel, inline, or radial. My slightly sarcastic point was that it wouldn't bring a halt to the war on the British side of the channel for an American fighter with a radial engine to show up at the airfield.

I always wondered why they didnt vector in aircraft from farther away such as London. Were they simply holding them in reserve? Training them? Or was there simply not enough time for them to intercept?


----------



## Colin1 (Mar 15, 2010)

pinsog said:


> I always wondered why they didn't vector in aircraft from farther away such as London. Were they simply holding them in reserve? Training them? Or was there simply not enough time for them to intercept?


What do you regard as being London? There was plenty of activity out of RAF Northolt and Biggin Hill

They did vector in aircraft from farther way, eventually. Bader's big wing operated out of 12 Group.


----------



## buffnut453 (Mar 15, 2010)

pinsog said:


> FLYBOYJ
> 
> You are correct, he could be trained. Any mechanic that could pull apart an automotive V8 and put it back together could also, with a very minimum of training, do the same with a diesel, inline, or radial. My slightly sarcastic point was that it wouldn't bring a halt to the war on the British side of the channel for an American fighter with a radial engine to show up at the airfield.
> 
> I always wondered why they didnt vector in aircraft from farther away such as London. Were they simply holding them in reserve? Training them? Or was there simply not enough time for them to intercept?



Dear All,

Can I please, PLEASE repeat my observation that I overstated the impact of operating types with dissimilar engines. I never said it would bring to a halt the British war effort, merely that it would create another layer of logistical complexity that was not present with both Spits and Hurris using the same engine. Now can we stop flogging this well-dead horse (it's starting to hurt!)?

Humbly.....


----------



## Colin1 (Mar 15, 2010)

buffnut453 said:


> Now can we stop flogging this well-dead horse (it's starting to hurt!)?


Nobody's keeping you here...


----------



## buffnut453 (Mar 15, 2010)

No they aren't, but if people actually read posts others place we'd spend much less time going over things that have already been resolved. 

Thanks for your sympathetic vote of confidence (and, yes, I do know where sympathy comes in the dictionary)


----------



## Cromwell (Mar 15, 2010)

Colin1 said:


> 1.
> 
> What do you mean by 'due to deployment' ?



Deployment was (from www.Freedictionary.com) derived from the French _deployed_, from Old French despleier, from Latin displicre, _to scatter_ )

a. To position (troops) in readiness for combat, as along a front or line.
b. To bring (forces or material) into action.
c. To base (a weapons system) in the field.
2. To distribute (persons or forces) systematically or strategically.

*The AVG vs the Brits in China - an Example :-*


For example Claire Chenault in his biographies (auto) said that he was let down by the Brits in China who failed to co-operate effectively, maintain their planes (many of them were grounded due to maintenance) and a general laissez-fare attitude.

Many of the Brits radars were not properly positioned or even working due to lack of maintenance, not so much lack of parts.

They would not work alongside the AVG who actually offered to lend their own trained Chinese maintenance crews in return for sharing other resources (Radar, Planes, Fuel).

He believes that his Volunteer group were effective because they worked with the Chinese, kept as many of their planes air-worthy as they could at any one time and made sure they maximised on local knowledge and communication including ye olde telephone and runners.

They tried to keep their planes in air fields / strips where they would be most effective too - whereas the RAF tended to be mis-placed.

So, in other words, the AVG were effective due to careful intelligent deployment of limited resources - not necessarily because they had better planes, materials, support and so on .

Footnote : I say the above as a Brit and not to disrespect the RAF far-Eastern command, but we really did mess up in China, Singapore etc I am afraid.


----------



## Cromwell (Mar 15, 2010)

Waynos said:


> FBJ, I think you have been misreading Cromwells points about the radial, he has been agreeing with you all the way buddy
> 
> I think it was Buffnut who said that having all Merlins in fighter command was easier and it would have complicated things having radials too, Cromwell is saying 'no it wouldn't, they already had them anyway'. Hope that helps.
> 
> ...




I Love You Man ! - at last someone has understood me ! Cool 8) (nuff respect)

Next time you are in the UK we can take a look at Duxford and/or Shuttleworth no probs !

.


----------



## Cromwell (Mar 15, 2010)

JoeB said:


> *though one German mistake was not to realize that sooner. Aiming to protect bombers per se with close escort only is unsound strategy, unless the bombers can achieve their goal in very few missions (like say against a few irreplaceable ships). Otherwise the escorts can almost always accomplish more by acting offensively v the interceptors seking to destroy them and/or disrupt their operations. Everybody realized that eventually, but some escorts were less capable of it because of range restrictions, especially.
> 
> Joe



If you watch the 1969 (please check) film 'Battle of Britain' it shows a scene wherein Goering castigates his Fighter pilots for not sticking closer to the Bombers and orders them to do so.

Its a film, but I think it matches what Len Deighton also says in his book about the BoB quite closely.

So, it might have been the fault of Goering who restricted the freedom of the fighters. God Bless him.

BTW cracking film, Caine, Howard, McShane and Olivier all in one cast


----------



## buffnut453 (Mar 15, 2010)

Markus said:


> Lundstrom says the USN was the only one to be abe to use full deflection shooting(90°angle), the IJN pilots struggled with a 45° degree angle and smaller angle must have been possible with fighters like the P-40 and Me109 but the smaller the angle the bigger the chance of being hit by counterfire is.



Markus, can you please say WHY fighters like the P-40 and Me109 could only shoot at smaller angles of deflection? The USN was NOT "the only one able to use full deflection shooting". Anyone can do it - the USN may have expended more training than other air forces in that particular tactic but they certainly were not the only ones who could do it. You make it sound like it's something "extra special" when, in reality, it was used by all air forces.



Markus said:


> Regarding the jamming of cal.50 machine guns; it happened ... very briefly. Before the war the magazines were never fully loaded, when they were for the first time the -now much heavier- ammo belt shifted and the guns jammed. The defect was identified and fixed in no time.



O'Hare's wingman at Midway suffered a complete gun failure because of this problem. That was 6 months after America's entry into the war. Hardly "fixed in no time".


----------



## Colin1 (Mar 15, 2010)

Cromwell said:


> Deployment was (from www.Freedictionary.com)


Umm, well, thanks
I know what deployment means, I was wondering what you meant wrt Fighter Command; so what do you think was wrong with their deployment and what would you have seen done differently?


----------



## buffnut453 (Mar 15, 2010)

Cromwell said:


> If you watch the 1969 (please check) film 'Battle of Britain' it shows a scene wherein Goering castigates his Fighter pilots for not sticking closer to the Bombers and orders them to do so.
> 
> Its a film, but I think it matches what Len Deighton also says in his book about the BoB quite closely.
> 
> ...




You can teach MONKEYS to fly better than that!

Spring-chicken to Shitehawk in one easy lesson.

Sticky undercarriage lever was it, Sir?
Yes, actually, it was.
Well I wouldn't tell the CO that, Sir. Not if I were you.

Takka, takka, takka, takka, takka!


----------



## Cromwell (Mar 15, 2010)

Colin1 said:


> 2. May have been? It was.
> 
> The Hispano suffered no show-stopper problems that I can trace whilst in operational service mounted on the engine. 19 Sqn (Spitfires) had half a dozen cannon-armed Spitfires during the Battle; these were returned in short order as they were plagued with jamming issues. By the time belt-feed cannons were being installed, the jamming issues had been resolved.



Firstly I actually did not say 'may have been' I also said 'It was' - please read my post again, honestly

Second, you are agreeing with me again - The cannon-armed Spits experienced jamming. That was the problem - at that time - so they were not suitable for active deployment were they ?


----------



## Colin1 (Mar 15, 2010)

buffnut453 said:


> No they aren't, but if people actually read posts others place we'd spend much less time going over things that have already been resolved.
> 
> Thanks for your sympathetic vote of confidence (and, yes, I do know where sympathy comes in the dictionary)


You don't need a vote of confidence
you certainly don't need any sympathy, not from me anyway. It happens, people jump into a thread without reading it all and things get repeated. The bigger the thread, the greater the probability and this one's beginning to grow.


----------



## Cromwell (Mar 15, 2010)

buffnut453 said:


> You can teach MONKEYS to fly better than that!
> 
> Spring-chicken to Shitehawk in one easy lesson.
> 
> ...



"Shitehawk" ! - I am sitting here sniggering to myself, and it takes a lot I can tell you ! There was also a bit about don't do victory rolls or you will end up spread over the fleld like strawberry jam.

Wasn't one of the CO / squadron leaders called _Colin ?_ (the chap with the rather decourous blond wife who got upset when she found out he had a bit of a burn-up)

... is this just a coincidence or is there something going on here ?


----------



## Cromwell (Mar 15, 2010)

Colin1 said:


> Umm, well, thanks
> I know what deployment means, I was wondering what you meant wrt Fighter Command; so what do you think was wrong with their deployment and what would you have seen done differently?



OK I *apologize* for any sarcasm (and it was intended a little bit) - I almost never apologize but sorry  - and that really hurt I can tell you !

However, I am no so sure Fighter Command were so very wrong during the BoB

Maybe the Far East and before that Battle of France was not so hot though .. but then we were really quite unprepared

Good Book : In the Footsteps of Churchill by Richard Holmes - it covers how really so very unprepared we were. In fact Churchill was bolstered / saved by the co-operation of Labour and the Unions almost more than his own side of the house literally and metaphorically, so to speak.

It talks about how he used to sit in the upstairs Galleries of Ops Rooms and go down and shake hands when the heat was off.

Note. I don't think Churchill was a terribly nice person, but then being a wartime leader is no job for a wimp. Not that anyone has asked me to take up the reins recently.


----------



## buffnut453 (Mar 15, 2010)

Cromwell said:


> "Shitehawk" ! - I am sitting here sniggering to myself, and it takes a lot I can tell you ! There was also a bit about don't do victory rolls or you will end up spread over the fleld like strawberry jam.
> 
> Wasn't one of the CO / squadron leaders called _Colin ?_ (the chap with the rather decourous blond wife who got upset when she found out he had a bit of a burn-up)
> 
> ... is this just a coincidence or is there something going on here ?



Yes, we're both thinking about Susannah York in the bedroom scene!!!!


----------



## Cromwell (Mar 15, 2010)

buffnut453 said:


> Markus, can you please say WHY fighters like the P-40 and Me109 could only shoot at smaller angles of deflection? The USN was NOT "the only one able to use full deflection shooting". Anyone can do it - the USN may have expended more training than other air forces in that particular tactic but they certainly were not the only ones who could do it. You make it sound like it's something "extra special" when, in reality, it was used by all air forces.
> 
> O'Hare's wingman at Midway suffered a complete gun failure because of this problem. That was 6 months after America's entry into the war. Hardly "fixed in no time".



They also used to Jam / Freeze-up at Altitude over Germany - 1944 - about 3 years after the US entry into the war. Also the USN and AAF/AF never did manage to stop 20mm Cannons from Jamming which is odd really (even in Sabres in Korea)

My Dad said that one of his projects was organizing the re-machining of Cannons sent over from the US when they started manufacturing licensed versions of the Hispano.

Apparently, we used to strip down the breach and shave off about 1/64th" and this seemed to do the trick - oddly enough.*

* Note. This was personal here-say so anyone care to comment please do. Open to suggestions.


----------



## Cromwell (Mar 15, 2010)

buffnut453 said:


> Yes, we're both thinking about Susannah York in the bedroom scene!!!!



She really was quite nice in her earlier years - Looked good in uniform too !


----------



## buffnut453 (Mar 15, 2010)

And not so bad (partially) out of it, either! <SIGH> Shame I'm much too young for her...


----------



## Cromwell (Mar 15, 2010)

buffnut453 said:


> Now can we stop flogging this well-dead horse (it's starting to hurt!)?
> 
> Humbly.....



That is Sadism, Necrophilia and Bestiality all in one !


----------



## buffnut453 (Mar 15, 2010)

Everyone's got to have a hobby...luckily, mine is making model aircraft!


----------



## Cromwell (Mar 15, 2010)

buffnut453 said:


> Everyone's got to have a hobby...luckily, mine is making model aircraft!



Yes, true, me too - that is only because I am too decrepit physically and mentally to do anything else.

( I am thinking specifically of Ms York for example, in her prime  )

I must sign off for the night and stop getting carried away and before I offend too many people.


----------



## renrich (Mar 15, 2010)

BuffNut, you mentioned earlier that people don't read posts carefully and you also question why Lundstrom said what he did about full deflection shooting. Go back and read my post that quotes Lundstrom exactly about the long nose of most fighters covering up the target when the attacker needs to have the target in sight. I really don't believe that you, like almost all of us on this forum, really understnd the maneuvers that a fighter has to go through in order to perform the full deflection high side gunnery run. It is too lengthy for me to type and I cannot reproduce the drawings in Lundtrom's book. If you can lay your hands on his book, "The First Team," and go to that appendix and study it thoroughly, you will readily understand the problem. Most public libraries can probably round up the book for you.


----------



## Cromwell (Mar 15, 2010)

Question for Flyboy : Is it true that some WW2 Radial Engined planes would take off before all the cylinders were firing properly (e.g. the ones at 180 straight down, and to each side of those which used to get oiled-up at rest)

- and that it was often minutes, maybe half an hour into the flight before all cylinders were firing evenly, at full power and operating temperature ?

It seems incredible, but if you have 18 big cylinders with large tolerances I guess it can work (how they ever figured out the timing, or ground all those valves I will never know)


----------



## Cromwell (Mar 15, 2010)

renrich said:


> BuffNut, you mentioned earlier that people don't read posts carefully and you also question why Lundstrom said what he did about full deflection shooting. Go back and read my post that quotes Lundstrom exactly about the long nose of most fighters covering up the target when the attacker needs to have the target in sight. I really don't believe that you, like almost all of us on this forum, really understand the maneuvers that a fighter has to go through in order to perform the full deflection high side gunnery run. It is too lengthy for me to type and I cannot reproduce the drawings in Lundtrom's book. If you can lay your hands on his book, "The First Team," and go to that appendix and study it thoroughly, you will readily understand the problem. Most public libraries can probably round up the book for you.



*Antithesis*


You can also employ No-Deflection shooting as typified by Schräge Musik, for example. If you understand this, then you might better understand the antithesis which is, of course, deflection shooting.


The following website has some interesting ideas on this front :-


No allowance shooting, a principle of air combat, an overview.



It seems the Brits were very keen on it, then gave up on it, only to be getting it thrown back at them by German night-fighters who discovered it operationally (almost accidentally) you might say.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 15, 2010)

Cromwell said:


> Question for Flyboy : Is it true that some WW2 Radial Engined planes would take off before all the cylinders were firing properly (e.g. the ones at 180 straight down, and to each side of those which used to get oiled-up at rest)
> 
> - and that it was often minutes, maybe half an hour into the flight before all cylinders were firing evenly, at full power and operating temperature ?
> 
> It seems incredible, but if you have 18 big cylinders with large tolerances I guess it can work (how they ever figured out the timing, or ground all those valves I will never know)



Not true - All cylinders would have to be firing and if one wasn't, more than likely you'd notice it when you did a "mag check" at run up. On an R-2800 I believe the maximum mag drop is 150 RPM.

Now, warming up a large radial engine to operating temperatures may take a while (20 minutes to a half hour).


----------



## Cromwell (Mar 15, 2010)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Not true - All cylinders would have to be firing and if one wasn't, more than likely you'd notice it when you did a "mag check" at run up. On an R-2800 I believe the maximum mag drop is 150 RPM.
> 
> Now, warming up a large radial engine to operating temperatures may take a while (20 minutes to a half hour).



So this is just some sort of apocryphal military humor at play then ?

I know when I have seen a radial engine on the Gladiator run up by ground crew, at the Shuttleworth collection, it does seem to take a long time before the pilot appears to take over.

So, when a radial starts, it is only some of the pistons that are firing initially and the momentum of the prop keeps it chugging over until the others join the chorus so to speak over the next 20-30 minutes.

I am surprised with all that oil in the lower cylinders these type of engines don't just lock hydraulically, or worse blow the seals or wrench the cylinder off at the base.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 15, 2010)

Cromwell said:


> So this is just some sort of apocryphal military humor at play then ?


maybe?


Cromwell said:


> I know when I have seen a radial engine on the Gladiator run up by ground crew, at the Shuttleworth collection, it does seem to take a long time before the pilot appears to take over.
> 
> So, when a radial starts, it is only some of the pistons that are firing initially and the momentum of the prop keeps it chugging over until the others join the chorus so to speak over the next 20-30 minutes.


No - all the cylinders will or should fire immediately in their respective firing order. During the warm up the only thing you're doing is getting the oil and cylinder heads to a specified operating temperature.


Cromwell said:


> I am surprised with all that oil in the lower cylinders these type of engines don't just lock hydraulically, or worse blow the seals or wrench the cylinder off at the base.


They do - and if a radial sits for a while you have to pull spark plugs from the lower cylinders and pull the prop by hand to remove the oil that had drained into the lower cylinders.


----------



## gumbyk (Mar 15, 2010)

> I am surprised with all that oil in the lower cylinders these type of engines don't just lock hydraulically, or worse blow the seals or wrench the cylinder off at the base.



During pre-flight, of most (all?) radials, you have to pull the engine through a certain number of rotations. This is to check for hydraulic locking. If the prop gets harder than usual to turn, then its time to pull the lower spark plugs and drain oil from the lower cylinders.


----------



## buffnut453 (Mar 16, 2010)

renrich said:


> BuffNut, you mentioned earlier that people don't read posts carefully and you also question why Lundstrom said what he did about full deflection shooting. Go back and read my post that quotes Lundstrom exactly about the long nose of most fighters covering up the target when the attacker needs to have the target in sight. I really don't believe that you, like almost all of us on this forum, really understnd the maneuvers that a fighter has to go through in order to perform the full deflection high side gunnery run. It is too lengthy for me to type and I cannot reproduce the drawings in Lundtrom's book. If you can lay your hands on his book, "The First Team," and go to that appendix and study it thoroughly, you will readily understand the problem. Most public libraries can probably round up the book for you.



Renrich,

I am well aware of the visibility problems when flying an aircraft. If the attacking aircraft is straight and level (or in a similar relative position to the target) when making a 90-degree deflection shot then the length of the nose is irrelevant - both target and aiming point are visible to the pilot, it's merely a question of pilot judgement not one of aircraft design. The greater the angle of bank, the harder it is to see both the target aircraft and the aiming point depicted by the tracers. Under such conditions, it's the target aircraft which disappears from the field of vision but it's as much due to the wing and other aircraft components blocking the line of sight - the pilot can still see where the tracers are going because that's what he sees through the gunsight. An extreme example, if the pilot is at 90 degrees of bank at the same altitude as the target, then the target aircraft is on a line that leads through the floor of the aircraft. Under such conditions, neither a Wildcat and a Hurricane pilot would be able to see the target but both would be able to see their aim-point.

I'll check out Lundstrom's book when I get home from my current business travel. I was simply asking for a summary of why a long-nosed fighter made such a huge difference (and, once more with feeling, disagreeing that USN pilots were the only ones who could undertake deflection shooting). I'm afraid I just don't buy that statement, based on reading many non-USN testimonies of combat.

Cheers,
Mark


----------



## Hop (Mar 16, 2010)

> I always wondered why they didn't vector in aircraft from farther away such as London. Were they simply holding them in reserve? Training them? Or was there simply not enough time for them to intercept?



Fighters from around London did see a lot of action during the BoB. However, 12 Group fighters based north of London weren't used as often as those in 11 Group, south of London.

Partly that was due to a desire to keep them in reserve, but it was mainly because 11 Group couldn't properly control 12 Group fighters, due to the way the command system was set up. Park could call for 12 Group fighters as reinforcements to patrol certain of his airfields, but he couldn't direct them in battle the way he could his own fighters. 



> If you watch the 1969 (please check) film 'Battle of Britain' it shows a scene wherein Goering castigates his Fighter pilots for not sticking closer to the Bombers and orders them to do so.
> 
> Its a film, but I think it matches what Len Deighton also says in his book about the BoB quite closely.
> 
> So, it might have been the fault of Goering who restricted the freedom of the fighters. God Bless him.



At the start of the battle Goering stressed that the fighters must be commanded by their own group leaders. Orders issued by Goering, 19 August:



> In the actual conduct of operations, commanders of fighter units must be given as free a hand as possible. Only part of the fighters are to be employed as direct escorts to our bombers. The aim must be to employ the strongest possible fighter forces on free-lance operations, in which they can indirectly protect the bombers, and at the same time come to grips under favourable conditions with the enemy fighters.



He changed those orders later on because of the horrific losses the bombers were suffering. From 5 August to 1 September, the Germans flew 3,850 bomber sorties and lost 303 bombers (in daylight). That's a loss rate of almost 8%.

The German fighter pilots complained bitterly, but bomber losses went down, 2 - 29 September they flew 4,125 bomber sorties and lost 192 bombers, a loss rate of less than 5% (again in daylight).

Something Caldwell wrote in his history of JG 26 might suggest one of the reasons why the Frei Jagd's weren't successful:



> The Second Gruppe's first mission of the battle was a disaster. Their orders were to fly a freie Jagd ahead of the bomber formation, but only ten aircraft were ready at the designated time of 1225. Hptm. Erich Noack took off leading only four aircraft of the 5th Staffel and five of the 6th. While approaching Dover, Noack saw "thirty Spitfires"—actually nine, from No. 610 Squadron—above them, aborted the mission, and turned back for France.



It also shows why I don't think fighter "scores" are a good benchmark. Refusing to engage unless you have the upper hand is good for fighter - fighter scores, but not a lot of use to the bombers following behind.


----------



## buffnut453 (Mar 16, 2010)

And another thing...if the USN was the only force that could undertake deflection shooting, why did the RAF invest so heavily in target tug aircraft? The whole purpose of a target tug is to tow a drogue which fighters shoot at from a deflection angle - see the account, I think in Bloody Shambles, of on tug pilot's impressions of seeing a fighter aircraft aiming at the tug aircraft in order to hit the drogue being towed behind. The RAF still uses target tugs, only now they're Hawks. However, the principle was well established before WWII.


----------



## The Basket (Mar 16, 2010)

I can't think of a realistic scenario where Britain buys an American fighter...P-36...over the Hurricane.

However...I can see a realistic scenario over the Spitfire.

Spitfire is cancelled due to production difficulties...promise of the Whirlwind...cost...and panic buys from Uncle Sam.

Here is a noodles scratcher...why not base all your Spits in 11 group...where the combat is? Put your best where most needed. 

Leave the Hurricanes...wildcat...P-36...where they fill gaps and less likely to run into Emils.


----------



## Waynos (Mar 16, 2010)

buffnut453 said:


> - see the account, I think in Bloody Shambles, of on tug pilot's impressions of seeing a fighter aircraft aiming at the tug aircraft in order to hit the drogue being towed behind.



Is this the origin of the old RAF quote "please be reminded that we are pulling the target, not pushing it!" 

I have also thought of another possible reason why this theoretical switch probably would not happen, the Hurricanes traditional construction methods were a deliberate contrast to the Spits stressed skin with compound curves etc, from the MAP's point of view if not Hawkers, who just built the best they could at the time. The Spit was a high risk buy, the Hurricane was a 'safe bet'. Maybe the Wildcat was too close to the Spitfire in this respect?


----------



## The Basket (Mar 16, 2010)

Buying an American machine would harldy be a good Political choice.

The construction of the Hurricane was becasue Hawker believed the 1000bhp fighters would be soon obsolete which is why they considered the Tempest/Typhoon/Tornado 2000bhp fighters far more important.

The Hurricane was a stop gap,


----------



## Njaco (Mar 16, 2010)

The Basket said:


> I can't think of a realistic scenario where Britain buys an American fighter...P-36...over the Hurricane.
> 
> However...I can see a realistic scenario over the Spitfire.
> 
> ...



Because 11 Group wasn't the only area being attacked. One disasterous mission for the LW was the attack by Luftflotte 5 to the north (August 15). They flew with bare escort, mostly Bf 110s and were decimated. The LW believed all the Spits and Hurris were south. There were also attacks on west coast areas and near Scotland.

http://www.raf.mod.uk/bob1940/august15.html


----------



## Waynos (Mar 16, 2010)

The Basket said:


> Buying an American machine would harldy be a good Political choice.
> 
> The construction of the Hurricane was becasue Hawker believed the 1000bhp fighters would be soon obsolete which is why they considered the Tempest/Typhoon/Tornado 2000bhp fighters far more important.
> 
> The Hurricane was a stop gap,



Not true. The Tornado/Typhoon (not Tempest) were designed to meet F.18/37, issued after production of the Hurricane began. The Hurricane's structure was chosen because it was what Hawkers knew and were confident with at the time, they never considered it a stopgap design.


----------



## parsifal (Mar 16, 2010)

The critique of th Hurricane as a total loser in both europe and the far east has not convinced me totally quite yet. I have a book, currently in storage that gives the individual combats that occurred over northwestern europe from early to mid 1941. it gives losses on a daily basis, by type in that period. I can tell you, that whilst the hurricane weas increasingly outclassed, the loss rates were better than have been posted in this place. i will post daily combat reports for both sides in that period as soon as i can unpack my books.


----------



## The Basket (Mar 16, 2010)

The Hurricane was excellent in the narrow timeframe in which it was competent. It wasn't a loser...it was exactly what was needed.

The Hurricane was a stop gap Design.

The Spitfire was our best fighter and you put your best front row centre. The survival of the UK was going to be fought by 11 group. Not over Scotland.


----------



## Glider (Mar 16, 2010)

I think people forget the pace of development in Aviation during the late 30's. The Hurricane when it entered production was simply the best fighter in the air, and with the Spitfire in 1938 the RAF had two fighters head and shoulders ahead of anything in service anywhere.
The 109E came along soon after when the mantle of best fighter passed to the Spitfire or 109 depending on your point of view.

Does that make the Hurricane a stopgap, clearly no it doesn't, its still a formidable fighter capble of defending itself against the 109E in 1940 and better than any other axis fighter. Also it was quite common to move the design team to start a replacement when the previous design entered full production. The Wildcat/Hellcat is a similar set up. It was the pace of development that caught up with the Hurricane as so many other types designed in the mid 30's.

When comparing it to the Wildcat its worth remembering that the Wildcat was still only in limited service at Pearl Harbour December 1941, by which time the Hurricane was seen as obsolete as a fighter in Europe.


----------



## Waynos (Mar 16, 2010)

Basket, the Hurricane was our main fighter until after the BoB. In the months leading up to the start of the war the Spitfire came close to cancellation on more than one occasion, the Hurricane was never threatened in that way.

As Glider says, maybe you are not taking into account the pace of development? In that regard everything flown before 1938 might be regarded as a stop gap, but they were definitely not intended as such.

Genuine 'stop gaps' were the Tiger Moth bomber and the Miles M.20.


----------



## buffnut453 (Mar 16, 2010)

Probably fair to say that, with the benefit of hindsight, the Hurri was a stop-gap in the sense that its construction really bridged the chasm between the Hawker Fury and Gloster Gladiator and truly modern designs exemplified by the Spitfire. Was it designed as a stop-gap? Absolutely not, and comments about the rate of technological advance are entirely valid (as I've posted previously in this thread). Thank heavens the Hurricane was available - it was one of the best fighters operational in substantial numbers in 1940 and without it the BoB would have been lost.


----------



## renrich (Mar 16, 2010)

Mark, Based on your posts, I believe you will very much enjoy Lundstrom's book. In appendix 3 of the same book there are side views of Wildcats showing the various insignias in 1941-42. Those side views make it clear why the Wildcat had decent over the nose visibility compared to many other fighters. Of course you are correct that when the attacker has wings level in a full deflection run, extraordinary visibility over the nose is not necessary, except in an overhead run. However, depending on the speed of the target, in a high side, flat side and low side run, that wings level attitude can only occur for a split second as the attacker must be in a bank in order to maintain lead. Also, and I am not quoting exactly. Lundstrom said something like the USN, of all the air forces except for the IJN, (in a limited way) that spent an extensive amount of time teaching full deflection gunnery. He also stated that some individual pilots in the other air forces taught themselves to be effective full deflection shooters. I have read, in evaluations of the FW190 and P47, if memory serves, that those AC did not have sufficient over the nose visibility for good full deflection shooting. I believe those mentions were on the Williams site.


----------



## The Basket (Mar 16, 2010)

I'm not talking about the Hurricane in 1940...I'm talking about the Hurricane in 1936.

The Spitfire and the 109 were both far more modern designs. Even Hawker called the design the monoplane Fury. Of course...the war came in 1940 just as the Hurricane was at its peak...if the war came in 1942 then the Hurricane would have already been used in ground attack. Hurricanes against Fw190s? 

You can say that Camm made the right design at the right time.


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 16, 2010)

A few thoughts on some of the proceeding posts.

1. Training mechanics: The world of 1937-1940 was very different from today. The number of cars per 100 people of population was no where near as great as even the 1950s and varied quite widely even among western nations. training men who had used a horse for plowing (or pulling the milk wagon) to be aircraft mechanics or armorers is a little harder than training men who had owned or at least driven cars in private life. Most armies even had a shortage of truck drivers let alone enough men who could work on aircraft engines. The US probably had the highest percentage of recruits who were familiar with engines before entering service. 

2. Standardizing of types: while a competent mechanic can figure out what to do with a strange engine based on principles, working on a familiar engine goes faster. The mechanic sometimes knows what size wrench or socket he needs for a particular nut or bolt before hand and in some cases even knows what length extension may be needed or if a special tool is needed to begin with. trying to service planes for several flights per day may make this speed of service important. Even if it just changing spark plugs every few days on each airplane. Or checking valve lash every so many hours. Squadron mechanics often exceeded the expectations of the higher command but here wasn't much sense in making things harder than they needed to be. 

3. the 20mm hispano: Few complaints seem to come from the Beaufighter squadrons either. The lack of stiffness in the initial Spitfire wing mountings were a problem. Turning the gun 90 degrees to lay on it's side to help bury the drum magazine in the wing didn't help either. The first Spitfires with 20mm guns also didn't have any .303 guns which meant that if ONE 20mm jammed the plane was basically unarmed. The Recoil of a single 20mm would slew the plane too much to keep on target. 

4. the Whirlwind was held back by the procedure of ordering a single prototype as well as some of the other factors already mentioned. R-R overwork with both the Merlin and the Vulture meant the Perrigine never got the attention it needed but the fact that it was still being flown in combat several years after production stopped tells me it couldn't have been all that bad. 

5. deflection shooting: I guess it kind of depends on how many "G"s the firing plane is pulling. If the shooter is flying level and shooting at a target that is crossing it's path at 90 degrees then vision isn't much of a problem although hitting the target aircraft with more than a few bullets is.
If the shooter is banked 90 degrees in a tight turn trying to cut the corner on a turning target aircraft then vision becomes a much bigger problem. To pull numbers out of thin air if a plane is going 300mph in a tight turn how many degrees a second is it turning? What is the time of flight of the bullets to the target plane? How fast is the target plane actually going and or turning? How far ahead of the target does the shooter have to aim?
In the steep bank if the shooter has to aim more than 5-8 degrees ahead of the target the shooter maybe in trouble. How many degrees of downward vision does the pilot have in some of these aircraft? The higher cockpit/ more angled slope of the fuselage of the F4F may offer a better view in this case.


----------



## pbfoot (Mar 16, 2010)

renrich said:


> Mark, Based on your posts, I believe you will very much enjoy Lundstrom's book. In appendix 3 of the same book there are side views of Wildcats showing the various insignias in 1941-42. Those side views make it clear why the Wildcat had decent over the nose visibility compared to many other fighters. Of course you are correct that when the attacker has wings level in a full deflection run, extraordinary visibility over the nose is not necessary, except in an overhead run. However, depending on the speed of the target, in a high side, flat side and low side run, that wings level attitude can only occur for a split second as the attacker must be in a bank in order to maintain lead. Also, and I am not quoting exactly. Lundstrom said something like the USN, of all the air forces except for the IJN, (in a limited way) that spent an extensive amount of time teaching full deflection gunnery. He also stated that some individual pilots in the other air forces taught themselves to be effective full deflection shooters. I have read, in evaluations of the FW190 and P47, if memory serves, that those AC did not have sufficient over the nose visibility for good full deflection shooting. I believe those mentions were on the Williams site.


I'm gonna say that Lundstoms opinion is one but others like Slick Goodlin and I'll paraphrase said training in most facets of flying were better in the Commonwealth Forces , Goodlin if your not familiar was trained in Canada and transferred to USN after Pearl becoming a Naval test pilot . I'm going to have to go to library to grab the book


----------



## Waynos (Mar 16, 2010)

The Basket said:


> I'm not talking about the Hurricane in 1940...I'm talking about the Hurricane in 1936.
> 
> The Spitfire and the 109 were both far more modern designs. Even Hawker called the design the monoplane Fury. Of course...the war came in 1940 just as the Hurricane was at its peak...if the war came in 1942 then the Hurricane would have already been used in ground attack. Hurricanes against Fw190s?
> 
> You can say that Camm made the right design at the right time.



All of which I agree with, but none of which shows the Hurricane was ordered as a stop gap. When it was ordered it was the best we could get. It was far from clear whether the Spitfire could even be produced at all at that time. If anything was in production as a stop gap at that time I would say it was the Gladiator, which entered service in the same year as the Hurricane.

Unless of course you can show something I am unaware of that shows the Huirricane was ordered into production as a stopgap?


----------



## The Basket (Mar 16, 2010)

Nope...the air ministry ordered the Hurricane ok.

I is saying Hawker designed the Hurricane to be a stop gap as it wasn't a new design but an evolution of an existing one.


----------



## timmo (Mar 16, 2010)

Deflection et al! Been there, done it. SO glad that I was not told all the theories at that time.

1. Towed targets fired at them. Much better at towing!!
2. What % of WWII kills were deflection? All mine were stern chase.
3. Hurricane = 1 wing Fury? Indeed - that's why I converted without thinking.

=Tim


----------



## Waynos (Mar 16, 2010)

It depends how you define stop gap I suppose.

If you mean 'we'll build this for now until our other design is ready' as you referred to with the Typhoon earlier, then it would be. But that was not the case. As I said F.18/37 had not been issued and the other designs did not exist.

It was simply a case of 'this is the very best we can build to meet the requirement, then when complete we will look at the next requirement'. If this is 'stop gap' then every military plane ever made is a stop gap.


----------



## Cromwell (Mar 16, 2010)

The Basket said:


> The Hurricane was excellent in the narrow timeframe in which it was competent. It wasn't a loser...it was exactly what was needed.
> 
> The Hurricane was a stop gap Design.
> 
> The Spitfire was our best fighter and you put your best front row centre. The survival of the UK was going to be fought by 11 group. Not over Scotland.



Yes, Exactly - Sydney Camm deliberately chose to make use of the piles of tubing, fabric and dope lying around - and the people (fitters and factory workers) who knew how to use it. He even said as much in his memoirs / biog - go and take a look if you wish.

From an old Aeroplane Mag October 2007 'Database' on the Hurricane :-

_"For the Hurricane Camm retained the tubular frame construction of the biplane ere - a wise decisions... "_

Basically if you look at the back end of any 30s biplane it is also the back-end of the Hurricane 

Literally put your hand over the front half of a pic of the Hurricane - do the same with, say, the Fury or the Gauntlet (Gloster and Hawkers were hand-in-glove)

Then, you will see it is the same technology - in fact even the Engine Cowlings look remarkably similar for say the Fury and the Hurricane, especially the Hurri K5083 the prototype, which also had tail struts, fabric wings, and a nice and clear-view canopy that kept collapsing in test dives ! *

* that is why the canopy of the Hurricane became such a Greenhouse in the end, to bolster it up.


----------



## buffnut453 (Mar 16, 2010)

It's a question of risk. Making the leap from fabric-wrapped metal skeletons to stressed-skin cantilever monoplane fighters was a considerable undertaking in 1936 given the required performance (speed, altitude, firepower) improvements. While an evolutionary approach like the Hurricane may suffer performance and growth penalties in the long run, it hits the near-term target of being easy to produce using existing processes and workforce skill sets. Perhaps the term "generation bridge" is better than stop-gap?


----------



## Cromwell (Mar 16, 2010)

Shortround6 said:


> A few thoughts on some of the proceeding posts.
> 
> 
> 3. the 20mm hispano: Few complaints seem to come from the Beaufighter squadrons either. The lack of stiffness in the initial Spitfire wing mountings were a problem. Turning the gun 90 degrees to lay on it's side to help bury the drum magazine in the wing didn't help either. The first Spitfires with 20mm guns also didn't have any .303 guns which meant that if ONE 20mm jammed the plane was basically unarmed. The Recoil of a single 20mm would slew the plane too much to keep on target.



Actually, the early 20mm Hispanos in the 'Beau were a pain to reload especially at High-Gs

They used cassette-style ammo cans initially that the Navigator / Co-Pilot had to physically load as well as take out the empty ones, during combat whilst thrashing about on a winter night chasing a Ju88 or 111. 

Later on they had belt feed it is true (ditto Mossie, Tempest, IIC Hurricane and so on)

Note also (as I mentiond earlier) the later Hurricane 'Universal Wing' may have had the same _planform_ as the earlier Brownings-wing, but it was totally different inside. 

It had a rigid Box structure to prevent the flexing you are talking about from the 20mm Cannons (and later the 40mm cannon, and other heavy loads like bombs and rocket projectiles etc)

In some ways the Hurricane mirrored the later Stuka developments to a remarkably close extent. From MG to Cannon to Anti-tank Cannon pods, and much higher power and load carrying and range etc.


----------



## Cromwell (Mar 16, 2010)

Waynos said:


> It depends how you define stop gap I suppose.
> 
> If you mean 'we'll build this for now until our other design is ready' as you referred to with the Typhoon earlier, then it would be. But that was not the case. As I said F.18/37 had not been issued and the other designs did not exist.
> 
> It was simply a case of 'this is the very best we can build to meet the requirement, then when complete we will look at the next requirement'. If this is 'stop gap' then every military plane ever made is a stop gap.



Very true - I am also not convinced that the real-life performance was so poor as we seem to be saying on some posts. Don't forget we were on the defensive for 39-41 (more or less) and perhaps lacked the mentaility to aggressively attack, putting our guys on the back foot in some ways.

It also made an excellent Navy plane, and really the Navy should have not wasted time and money on silly beurocratic specifications that produced the Fulmar, and spoiled the Firefly to an extent - and the awful Barracuda most of which were simply rolled off the deck once war was over.

In fact I often think that the Defiant - sans Turret - would have made an excellent Navy attack plane, with the rear gunner given a set of Twin MGs like the Douglas Dauntless


----------



## Cromwell (Mar 16, 2010)

The Basket said:


> Nope...the air ministry ordered the Hurricane ok.
> 
> I is saying Hawker designed the Hurricane to be a stop gap as it wasn't a new design but an evolution of an existing one.



BTW - side issue - but is there some Ali G creeping in there ( for real ? )

"I is saying.."


----------



## The Basket (Mar 16, 2010)

I'm typing on my phone.
Which means typos and the spell thingy brings up strange words.

Poor grammer is the price for progress.

All metal machines were certainly about so the use of wood and fabric meant that Hawker Hurricane was always a short termer. 

It wasn't the air ministry or fashion or even my good self which made the Hurricane an obsolete fighter. But the good old Bf 109. And aint that the truth.


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 16, 2010)

The Basket said:


> All metal machines were certainly about so the use of wood and fabric meant that Hawker Hurricane was always a short termer.
> 
> It wasn't the air ministry or fashion or even my good self which made the Hurricane an obsolete fighter. But the good old Bf 109. And aint that the truth.



Whatever wood there was in a Hurricane was used to fair out the rear fuselage to shape. It provided no structural strength. 

Other "short termers" of the time include the French MS 406 with it's fabric covered rear fuselage, and the American Vought Vindicator dive bomber. A number of other planes of the 30s also used fabric covering so hawker was by no means alone. 

What did help doom the Hurricane to second rate status was opinion of British researchers that there was little difference in drag between the thick wing used on the Hurricane and the thin wing used on the Spitfire. Mitchell didn't believe the researchers but without large and/or high speed wind tunnels everybody in England was relying on guess work or gut feelings. 

The Hurricane didn't go through as many permutations as the 109 did. 109A-Ds weren't quite in the Hurricanes league.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 16, 2010)

Shortround6 said:


> 2. Standardizing of types: while a competent mechanic can figure out what to do with a strange engine based on principles, working on a familiar engine goes faster. The mechanic sometimes knows what size wrench or socket he needs for a particular nut or bolt before hand and in some cases even knows what length extension may be needed or if a special tool is needed to begin with. trying to service planes for several flights per day may make this speed of service important. Even if it just changing spark plugs every few days on each airplane. Or checking valve lash every so many hours. Squadron mechanics often exceeded the expectations of the higher command but here wasn't much sense in making things harder than they needed to be.


Keep in mind that there was a lot more to be done than attending to the powerplant. Additionally at the squadron level, line mechanics rarely tore into engines, at least under normal circumstances, from what I was told. That was left to an "intermediate" maintenance" organization (a dedicated engine shop).


----------



## Waynos (Mar 17, 2010)

The Basket said:


> I'm typing on my phone.
> Which means typos and the spell thingy brings up strange words.
> 
> Poor grammer is the price for progress.
> ...



I think that more and more we are arguing on semantics only, but I'm game if you are 

The Hurricane had an all metal structure, Hawkers had been using steel tube structure for a decade already by the time they built the Hurricane. The Fury and Hart families also had all steel structures. Hawkers simply continued with the method for which they had all the expertise and for which the factory was kitted out. There was no element of 'choice' about it. Camm started looking at the Hurricanes possible replacement in 1937, by this time Hawkers were having a new factory built at Langley and the new aircraft could be built there and so monocoque construction was considered *for the first time*. This does not make the Hurri a stop gap, it is just a natural progression for Hawkers.

Supermarine and Messerschmitt, by contrast, were both making their first real forays into fighter design (after the formers failure with the 224 Spitfire) and had nothing to lose by going for broke with stressed skin designs.


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 17, 2010)

Deciding between 1936 and 1939 (= Hurricane vs. F-4F) planes is pretty silly (no offense) - every time the later design would win in one-on-one competition. But since there is like 600 x of '36 design, or 60 x of '39 desing available for BoB, the choice is clear.


----------



## Waynos (Mar 17, 2010)

Just as an antitdote for the apparent general feeling that the Hurricane was a bit of a dog that was ok for the BoB. The book 'Hawker Aircraft Since 1920' by F K Mason makes the point that during the *whole* of WW2 the Hurricane accounted for 55% of all RAF and FAA fighter kills, 33% for the Spitfire and 12% ascribed to 'other types'. Some dog!

I always feel uneasy reading threads, on any type, that draw empirical conclusions on which type is best from the analysis of data regarding aircraft performance figures, common sense should tell us that 'doing the maths' (why do Americans leave the 's' off?) is only a part of the story.


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 17, 2010)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Keep in mind that there was a lot more to be done than attending to the powerplant. Additionally at the squadron level, line mechanics rarely tore into engines, at least under normal circumstances, from what I was told. That was left to an "intermediate" maintenance" organization (a dedicated engine shop).



there may be quite a bit that was done at squadron level without tearing into the the engine. As mentioned, spark plug changes and valve checks. Replacement of accessories, such as generators, pumps of various types, starters as I am sure you are more aware of than I am. 
Special tools may be little more than an open ended wrench that has been cut off and had a piece of rod welded to it so as to get into a hard to reach area to keep a nut or bolt from turning while the force is applied from the other side. 

A rapidly expanding air force also has to supply trained men for those "intermediate maintenance" organizations

You are quite right about there being more than just engines. Even without getting into the actual airframe there are instruments (dealt with at squadron level by replacement ?), hydraulic and electrical systems, landing gear and brakes and of course the flying controls. These, of course will vary more from plane to plane ( Fairey Battle to Spitfire to Whitley) than the engine but in a peace time expansion PLAN standardization might not have been a bad thing.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 17, 2010)

Shortround6 said:


> there may be quite a bit that was done at squadron level without tearing into the the engine. As mentioned, spark plug changes and valve checks. Replacement of accessories, such as generators, pumps of various types, starters as I am sure you are more aware of than I am.


Yep - usually things that were "bolted" on the engine were "R&Rd" at the squadron level. Tearing into them were usally done at a specialized shop.


Shortround6 said:


> Special tools may be little more than an open ended wrench that has been cut off and had a piece of rod welded to it so as to get into a hard to reach area to keep a nut or bolt from turning while the force is applied from the other side.


agree...


Shortround6 said:


> A rapidly expanding air force also has to supply trained men for those "intermediate maintenance" organizations


Agree as well - working the basckshop can be a bit boaring but many times the conditions are a lot better.


Shortround6 said:


> You are quite right about there being more than just engines. Even without getting into the actual airframe there are instruments (dealt with at squadron level by replacement ?), hydraulic and electrical systems, landing gear and brakes and of course the flying controls. These, of course will vary more from plane to plane ( Fairey Battle to Spitfire to Whitley) than the engine but in a peace time expansion PLAN standardization might not have been a bad thing.


All very true - and even in today's worls that's done in all armed services


----------



## RCAFson (Mar 17, 2010)

tomo pauk said:


> Deciding between 1936 and 1939 (= Hurricane vs. F-4F) planes is pretty silly (no offense) - every time the later design would win in one-on-one competition. But since there is like 600 x of '36 design, or 60 x of '39 desing available for BoB, the choice is clear.



I ran across this info while browsing the web:

All the Fine Young Eagles by David L. Bashow
ISBN; 0-7737-2976-3

Page 248-9.

_After a few rounds from the bar, a discussion developed regarding the merits of the Wildcat versus the Hurricane. It continued until the American issued a challenge they would have four Wildcats at Torbay the following morning. The tactics were simple. Four pairs, each consisting of a Wildcat and a Hurricane, would meet at an agreed upon altitude, in each of the four quadrants of the sky, North. West. South and East of the airport. They would meet, fly in formation for a minute or two, then break up and approach each other head on. From then on it was a straight dogfight, with each pilot trying to get on the other fellow's tail. Flight Commanders were not allowed to fly on either side. We were part of the large audience assembled on the ground to see the show. Everything went according to plan. The aircraft met. flew in formation for a minute or two, and then began dog fighting. In a couple of minutes there were four Hurricanes on the tails of four Wildcats, and they stayed there, to great applause and shouts from the audience below.

After landing, everyone adjourned to the hangar to hash over the situation. The Americans seemed completely nonplused by the turn of events. They could not understand how things could have turned out the way they had. It must have been some kind of aberration that could never happen again, so they issued another challenge for the following afternoon. This time, they announced. Flight Commanders could fly, so I decided to get in on the fun in Hurricane 5485. That afternoon the two readiness aircraft: equipped with depth charges, were sitting on the tarmac. "Butch" Washburn and "Gibby" Gibbs were the readiness pilots that day and Butch said to me. "You know Bill, I think we can take on these buggers with those readiness aircraft." "Why not?" I replied ... "Have a go." We lined up a fourth pilot and the exercise was carried out all over again with four Hurricanes on the tails of four Wildcats once again. Butch Washburn was so keen that he stayed on the Wildcat's tail until it landed on the runway. The Americans were forced to admit that the Hurricane was the better aircraft. Even when it was ladened with depth charges. We had a party in the Mess that night with the Americans becoming more generous and more lavish with their praise as the evening wore on. According to some of them, if 128 Squadron, complete with aircraft and personnel. could suddenly be transported to the Pacific Theater, we would make short work of the Japanese Air Force. Yes, it was a great party ...
_


The Hurricane I with a CS prop, armour and self sealing tanks, when using 12lb boost was generally equal or superior in climb rate and speed to the F4F-3 except above 20,000 ft:

Grumman Aircraft Engineering Corporation
Report No. 1469A
August 12, 1941

Detail Specification ForModel F4F-3 Airplane (this is the non armoured initial version - overload version shown is roughly equal to armoured version)

SUMMARY

Normal-Fighter, Bomber, Overload-Fighter, (Hurricane 12lb boost)

Fuel (gals.)	110	110	147 (116usgal)
Gross weight (lbs.)	6895 6891 7432 (6735lb)
High speed at sea level (MPH) 278	264	277 (290mph)
High speed at 5500 ft. (MPH)*	295	281	294 (304mph)
High speed at 6800 ft. (MPH)*	294	280	293 (310mph)
High speed at 13,000 ft. (MPH)*	313	297	312 (325mph)
High speed at 14,200 ft. (MPH)*	312	296	310 ( 322mph)
High speed at max. engine rated alt. 19,000 ft (MPH)	330	314	328 (319mph)
High speed at airplane critical alt. 22,000 ft. (MPH)	326	320	336(?) (316mph)
Initial rate of climb at sea level (ft./min.)	3300	3180 3070 (3435fps)
Time to climb to 10000 ft. (min.) 3.5 4.1 4.2 ( 2.9min)
Time to climb to 20000 ft. (min.) 7.6 8.1 8.4 (6.5min- est may not be possible due to boost time limitations but overboost should end at 16500 ft and so total overboost time should = 5min)
Hurricane Mk I Performance
and
F4F Performance Trials


----------



## renrich (Mar 17, 2010)

That story had been discussed before on this forum and the consensus is that it is fiction.


----------



## RCAFson (Mar 17, 2010)

renrich said:


> That story had been discussed before on this forum and the consensus is that it is fiction.



I'm sorry I haven't read that thread. I considered that it might be embellished a bit, but when you look at the performance stats of a Hurricane II versus an F4F-4 with 6 guns, the Hurricane, without overboost, has a huge performance advantage, climbing to 20k ft, with 2 x 50 usgal drop tanks in 11.5 min, which is faster than the 12.7min of the F4F-4 clean:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/hurricane-II-raechart-climb.jpg
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4f/f4f-4-detail-specification.pdf


----------



## Colin1 (Mar 17, 2010)

RCAFson said:


> According to some of them, if 128 Squadron, complete with aircraft and personnel. could suddenly be transported to the Pacific Theater, we would make short work of the Japanese Air Force


Someone forgot to tell the Japanese
the Hurricane had a less than stellar performance vs the Ki43 in the CBI


----------



## pbfoot (Mar 17, 2010)

renrich said:


> That story had been discussed before on this forum and the consensus is that it is fiction.



I think the consensus was that the F4F guys weren't as advertised or better put there were no combat seasoned F4F sqns pm on the east coast IIRC


----------



## Cromwell (Mar 17, 2010)

The Basket said:


> I'm typing on my phone. Which means typos and the spell thingy brings up strange words. Poor grammer is the price for progress.
> 
> All metal machines were certainly about so the use of wood and fabric meant that Hawker Hurricane was always a short termer. It wasn't the air ministry or fashion or even my good self which made the Hurricane an obsolete fighter. But the good old Bf 109. And aint that the truth.



Grammar : Don't apologise I was enjoying it (for real innit)

Fabric coverings were often used on control surfaces - The Corsair for example, which saw action later in Korea too, so that was at least a 50s use you could say.

Later versions of the 109 had wooden tail units - and, oh, yes, let't not forget that Johnny-come-lately the Mosquito which was made of Balsa sandwiched between Ply and stuck using an early version of Cascamite (which also inspired early versions of Epoxy)


----------



## JoeB (Mar 17, 2010)

I think the key point was that that's one mock combat anecdote. On the other side of the ledger is bad combat record of the Hurricane not only in 1942 but 1943 v a/c the F4F had an even kill ratio with in '42 and better in '43. Hurricane wasn't just 'not a stellar performer' v Japanese Army Type 1 Fighter (aka Oscar, neither Allies nor its Japanese operators called it Ki-43 though admittedlt that's succinct and often used even in otherwise good books) but a 19:81 record from early '42 through end of '43 (as counted in Bloody Shambles 2 vols plus Air War over Burma). We can always 'explain' that with the tactics, situations, blah blah but then *one*, *supposed* *mock combat*, tips the scales back?!!, that's what's so ridiculous about bringing up that story, not the story itself, but that it usually comes in threads where people have waved away fairly extensive and much different real combat records, with 'oh that was because of X, that doesn't really mean anything' 

I found tooling around the web a story Brit pilot of being outdone in mock combat in a Spitfire by an F4F, (from Wasp during her operations in European/Med in '42, not just 'a carrier'), could consistently out turn him. Then he says, well maybe it didn't count since I later realized those USN blokes often had a lot of flying hours... I don't link it because it doesn't prove anything. 

The Hurricane's record in combat in Pac was so much worse than F4F's, and record in Battle of France signficantly worse than Hawk 75's, that I think that much more strongly indicates, though you can never *prove* that it was not strong in intangible factors as practical air combat fighter. This is obviously difficult because it's going head on v Brit/Commonwealth pride in a big national achievement, the period of stand alone v German after fall of France, and the Hurricane is a hero a/c in Brit mythology (much more than the F4F, or really any airplane, figures in American national mythology). But I still can't see any non emotional reason you'd take a Hurricane when you could have an F4F. Of course again it's questionable you can have (enough) F4F's in summer 1940, and you obviously couldn't in say 1939. The fact that the F4F was the better fighter doesn't mean the Brits were behind in fighter development, Hurricane was an earlier airplane.

Joe


----------



## Cromwell (Mar 17, 2010)

Colin1 said:


> Someone forgot to tell the Japanese the Hurricane had a less than stellar performance vs the Ki43 in the CBI



You should read what Claire Lee Chennault said about the use of the Hurricane against the Japs - get a copy of his autobiography, it makes disturbing reading I can tell you _"Way of a Fighter"_ New York Putnams 1949 - (Look how successful he was with the Tomahawk P40C)

Actually Claire was not particularly Anglophobic, nothing like Vinegar Joe, and was only wanting to make things work for the Chinese Allies more or less.

What did he get for his work ? - _Forced retirement_ 

(Sounds a bit like Dowding who was canned in Nov 1940, just after BoB and Park was packaged off to Malta)

From http://www.warbirdforum.com/clc2.htm

_As commander of the U.S. Army's 14th Air Force, Chennault continued to work miracles of ingenuity and determination in China. Despite its imposing name, the 14th suffered a logistical poverty as great as that of the AVG. Its pilots were still celebrated in the American press as "Flying Tigers," and like the original Tigers they outfought the Japanese air units almost every time they met. 

Meanwhile, Chennault continued to battle his own superiors -- Stilwell, chief of staff George Marshall, and air force commander H. H. Arnold. He lost, of course. He was promoted to major general, and he even forced Stilwell's recall. In the end, however, he accepted Hap Arnold's pointed suggestion that he "take advantage of the retirement privileges now available to physically disqualified officers." He understood that if he did not go, he would be reduced to his permanent rank of colonel, then forcibly sent into retirement. _


----------



## Cromwell (Mar 17, 2010)

JoeB said:


> The Hurricane's record in combat in Pac was so much worse than F4F's, and record in Battle of France significantly worse than Hawk 75's, that I think that much more strongly indicates, though you can never *prove* that it was not strong in intangible factors as practical air combat fighter. This is obviously difficult because it's going head on v Brit/Commonwealth pride in a big national achievement, the period of stand alone v German after fall of France, and the Hurricane is a hero a/c in Brit mythology (much more than the F4F, or really any airplane, figures in American national mythology). But I still can't see any non emotional reason you'd take a Hurricane when you could have an F4F. Of course again it's questionable you can have (enough) F4F's in summer 1940, and you obviously couldn't in say 1939. The fact that the F4F was the better fighter doesn't mean the Brits were behind in fighter development, Hurricane was an earlier airplane.
> 
> Joe



Well, as discussed ad infinitum, the Hurricane in the BoFrance was far less capable than the one mostly used in the BoB which had the CS / VP prop, metal wings, and more experienced pilots - at least to lead as CO's 

I still maintain that _If_ the IIc Hurricane with its 4 x 20mm Cannon (and stronger wing and more powerful engine) _Had_ been available during the BoB it would have proved itself a supreme Bomber-Killer.

Which is what we wanted / needed at that time more than anything else. However, we shall never know, so it is all hypothesis in the realm of 'what if pondering'

Later on Beaufighter crews reported that He111s just flew apart with 1-2 seconds of 4x20mm fire (I think the Beau had MGs too, in the wings - the NF Mossie had 4 of each in the nose as you know)

No limping home with colander holes and some injured crews - it was break-up or fire-ball almost every time.


----------



## pinsog (Mar 17, 2010)

A hypothesis on why the Hurricane did poorly against the Japanese: The Hurricane held its own against the German aircraft because of its rate of turn. 1v1 against a 109, the Hurricane could do well because it could simply outturn the 109. But, its one trump card against the 109 was a death sentence against a Japanese fighter, any Japanese fighter. Since all British pilots learned to fight the Germans, when facing the Japanese they went back to what worked against the Germans and paid for it with their lives.

The F4F had 1 trump card against the Japanese, the dive. American pilots learned to fight Japanese aircraft and kept fighting Japanese aircraft. They didn't have to "unlearn" any tactics like the Hurricane pilots would have. Plus, the Hurricane didnt dive that well, so it didnt have that advantage over Japanese aircraft like the F4F did.

A good analogy would be Vietnam. Imagine spending allof your training fighting an F4 Phantom and then being thrown into combat against a Mig17. None of your tactics would work.

I believe this is what happened to the Hurricane against Japan. Doesnt make it any less of a fighter. It was still a good aircraft, at least against the Germans.


----------



## renrich (Mar 17, 2010)

The F4F4 was not the F4F3. The F4F4 had folding wings and six guns and weighed considerably more than early F4F3s. The problem was that when a fighter with around 1000 HP had five or six hundred pounds added to it, it's performance was significantly downgraded. The FM2, a much later model than the early F4F3 and with more power and only four guns finally got back the performance of the early F4F3. To be honest about it, it is kind of hard comparing performance of the F4F3 because even that airplane gained weight and some had Wright Cyclone single row engines and some had P&W twin row engines and some, F4F3A had only a single stage supercharger. Some had protected tanks and armor and some did not so performance figures are a little iffy. Interestingly, the F4F4, which many of the Navy pilots disliked because of its degraded performance compared to the F4F3, held up well against the A6M flown by crack IJN pilots, at least holding it's own. 

I believe in the anecdote about Hurricanes outdueling Wildcats it was said that the Hurricane could best the Wildcat with depth charges on board. That sounds a little like an overreach to me and destroys any credibility the story might have had.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 17, 2010)

RCAFson said:


> I'm sorry I haven't read that thread. I considered that it might be embellished a bit



With research you would have found out that the carrier carrying the Wildcats that participated in this event was halfway across the world.


----------



## RCAFson (Mar 18, 2010)

renrich said:


> The F4F4 was not the F4F3. The F4F4 had folding wings and six guns and weighed considerably more than early F4F3s. The problem was that when a fighter with around 1000 HP had five or six hundred pounds added to it, it's performance was significantly downgraded. The FM2, a much later model than the early F4F3 and with more power and only four guns finally got back the performance of the early F4F3. To be honest about it, it is kind of hard comparing performance of the F4F3 because even that airplane gained weight and some had Wright Cyclone single row engines and some had P&W twin row engines and some, F4F3A had only a single stage supercharger. Some had protected tanks and armor and some did not so performance figures are a little iffy. Interestingly, the F4F4, which many of the Navy pilots disliked because of its degraded performance compared to the F4F3, held up well against the A6M flown by crack IJN pilots, at least holding it's own.
> 
> I believe in the anecdote about Hurricanes outdueling Wildcats it was said that the Hurricane could best the Wildcat with depth charges on board. That sounds a little like an overreach to me and destroys any credibility the story might have had.



I provided comparative performance figures for the F4F-3 and Hurricane I here:

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/battle-britain-hurricane-wildcat-23666-15.html#post648745

The story may well be false. but would it be possible for a Hurricane with depth charges to outmanoeuvre an F4F-4?

The wing loading tells the story and both aircraft have nearly the same wing area, 260 sq ft for F4F and 257 sq ft for the Hurricane. The F4F-4 gross weight can be as high as 7970 lbs. A Hurricane IIA, or a IIB with the outer guns removed, weighs 6850lbs and two 350lb depth charges would add 700 lbs, so the gross weight could be 7550lbs. The wing load then would be 30.65 lb/sq ft for the F4F-4 and 29.38lb for the Hurricane. Additionally, the late model Hurricane II was cleared for 14lb boost and would be developing over 1300hp with full overboost, so while the story might be false, the basic physics makes it plausible.


----------



## RCAFson (Mar 18, 2010)

JoeB said:


> I think the key point was that that's one mock combat anecdote.
> 
> 
> The Hurricane's record in combat in Pac was so much worse than F4F's, and record in Battle of France signficantly worse than Hawk 75's, that I think that much more strongly indicates, though you can never *prove* that it was not strong in intangible factors as practical air combat fighter. This is obviously difficult because it's going head on v Brit/Commonwealth pride in a big national achievement, the period of stand alone v German after fall of France, and the Hurricane is a hero a/c in Brit mythology (much more than the F4F, or really any airplane, figures in American national mythology). But I still can't see any non emotional reason you'd take a Hurricane when you could have an F4F. Of course again it's questionable you can have (enough) F4F's in summer 1940, and you obviously couldn't in say 1939. The fact that the F4F was the better fighter doesn't mean the Brits were behind in fighter development, Hurricane was an earlier airplane.
> ...



I do not agree with your Battle of France stats, since they show more Hurricanes lost in combat than RAF records. 

I have provided hard data showing that the Hurricane can out run and out climb the F4F and I've shown that it has lower wing loading. Your stats showing the loss of a few dozen Hurricanes in the far east to the A6M and Ki-43 don't address the fact that the Hurricane was simply a better performing aircraft than any variant of the F4F, with the exception of the early F4F-3 at altitudes over 19-20,000 ft.

The Buffalo had a superb kill ratio in Finnish service.


----------



## Waynos (Mar 18, 2010)

To quote, once again, F K Mason, "The Hurricane was never, at any time during WW2 the fastest or best fighter in RAF service. It was however frequently the best British fighter available, often arriving in theatre months or even years ahead of the Spitifre".

This to me says why deconstructing the Hurricane and its fallibities in threads like these is a little pointless. It was never a case of Hurricane or F4F, or Hurricane or Spitfire. It was Hurricane or nothing.

Whether enough F4F's would have been available in 1940 is not questionable, it is absolutely out of the question. as late as 1942 Hurricanes were fighting in theatres where *nothing* else was available.

Good point regarding comparing BoF Hurricanes with BoB ones. Lots was done in those months and the newer, better models were held back in the UK as much as possible just like Spitfires were, and then there's the 100 octane effect too.

They were also mainly green aircrews going against SCW experienced opponents with better tactics - a situation only addressed later in 1940.

Just a note on the Mosquito NF. It deleted its 303's from the nose to make way for radar and relied on a perfectly adequate armament of 4x 20mm Hispanos.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 18, 2010)

RCAFson said:


> The story may well be false. but would it be possible for a Hurricane with depth charges to outmanoeuvre an F4F-4?



For the most part no, unless the Wildcat pilot was straight out of flight school...


----------



## Vincenzo (Mar 18, 2010)

RCAFson said:


> I do not agree with your Battle of France stats, since they show more Hurricanes lost in combat than RAF records.
> 
> I have provided hard data showing that the Hurricane can out run and out climb the F4F and I've shown that it has lower wing loading. Your stats showing the loss of a few dozen Hurricanes in the far east to the A6M and Ki-43 don't address the fact that the Hurricane was simply a better performing aircraft than any variant of the F4F, with the exception of the early F4F-3 at altitudes over 19-20,000 ft.
> 
> The Buffalo had a superb kill ratio in Finnish service.



please show us the RAF official loss.

for F4F-3 and Hurricane I performance with same fuel load the F4F-4 climb best, has a bit best max level speed at highest FTH.


----------



## parsifal (Mar 18, 2010)

JoeB said:


> The Hurricane's record in combat in Pac was so much worse than F4F's, and record in Battle of France signficantly worse than Hawk 75's, that I think that much more strongly indicates, though you can never *prove* that it was not strong in intangible factors as practical air combat fighter. This is obviously difficult because it's going head on v Brit/Commonwealth pride in a big national achievement, the period of stand alone v German after fall of France, and the Hurricane is a hero a/c in Brit mythology (much more than the F4F, or really any airplane, figures in American national mythology). But I still can't see any non emotional reason you'd take a Hurricane when you could have an F4F. Of course again it's questionable you can have (enough) F4F's in summer 1940, and you obviously couldn't in say 1939. The fact that the F4F was the better fighter doesn't mean the Brits were behind in fighter development, Hurricane was an earlier airplane.
> 
> Joe




Joe

Over france the Luftwaffe lost close to 1800 aircraft....with more than 505 of those losses attributable to RAF . A very large proprtion of those losses were at the hands of Fighter Command, which was roughly 60/40 hurricane/Spitfire. The entire modern fighter component of of the AASF was Hurricane, and though the AASF lost heavily, this was overwhelmingly due to losses on the ground from airfields being overrun. It was a differnt story the RAF bomber groups in the air, but the germans never bested the RAF fighters over france. Over Dunkirk, German fighter losses exceeded 200, to less than 100 for the RAF (roughly speaking). Saying the RAF fighters were mauled over france is just untrue


----------



## renrich (Mar 18, 2010)

RCAFson, Boscombe Downs, 12 June, 1940-Hurricane I with Merlin III, Rotol constant speed 3 blade prop
Rate of climb is 2610 fpm @ 2000 feet
Vmax of 323 mph @ 10000 feet, at 20000 feet Vmax is about 320 mph and dropping fast( William's Site)

F4F3
Rate of Climb is 3300 FPM @ SL
V max is 335 MPH @ 22000 feet.
Wildcat is faster at combat altiudes, better rate of climb, better armed, longer legged, more survivable.
Just looking at those raw numbers the F4F3 seems clearly to be better suited for bomber interception.


----------



## Vincenzo (Mar 18, 2010)

parsifal said:


> Joe
> 
> Over france the Luftwaffe lost close to 1800 aircraft....with more than 505 of those losses attributable to RAF . A very large proprtion of those losses were at the hands of Fighter Command, which was roughly 60/40 hurricane/Spitfire. The entire modern fighter component of of the AASF was Hurricane, and though the AASF lost heavily, this was overwhelmingly due to losses on the ground from airfields being overrun. It was a differnt story the RAF bomber groups in the air, but the germans never bested the RAF fighters over france. Over Dunkirk, German fighter losses exceeded 200, to less than 100 for the RAF (roughly speaking). Saying the RAF fighters were mauled over france is just untrue



AFAIK 1814 it's luftwaffe loss from 3 september to 24 june in the west, 1401 the loss in may and june (other 672 damaged), this are all the loss.
idk from came 505 RAF attributable, maybe RAF claims??

RAF modern fighters all loss 10 may to 24 june western front
377 Hurricane 
64 Spitfire

(the ground loss in all RAF in same time are 164 planes (not only fighters) and an other 55 planes loss w/o action (i think abbandoned))


----------



## parsifal (Mar 18, 2010)

Yes your right, but these were combat loses....does not include non-combat losses, or the approximately 440 aircraft damaged in the BOF (many of which were later written off due to damage). The 505 number is a typo...it should read 50%....

About 540 Hurricanes were lost in the BOF, but more than 50% of these were destroyed on the ground, (many by the british to avoid capture). Estimates do vary 9some as high as your 377 in the air, some as low as 20 in the air) , but around 200 Hurricanes is a good estimate of hurricane losses in the BOF whilst airborne. By comparison Me 109 losses were over 300 and a further 100 or so Me 110s. My best estimate is that the hurricanes caused about 100 or so of these losses in the air.

The french are attributed with shooting down 700-900 German aircraft in that period, with 328 claimed by the H-75s. I am a little sceptical; of that number....other often quoted figures are 175 shot down by MS 406s and 140 or so by D 520s, with the remainder by the odds and ends that made up the rest of the FAF fighter force


----------



## zoomar (Mar 18, 2010)

To jump in at the end of this thread and probably risk restating what some others have said, I'd go with the Wildcat, primarily because it probably would have been a better (not great mind you, but better) bomber killer than any RAF fighter armed with .303 popguns. Since the Hurricane was more commonly used in the interceptor role, then I'd take F4Fs over the Hurri if they grew on trees in England in 1940. However, I would not want to mix it up with Bf-109s in the Wildcat. In most respects, the Hurricane matched the Bf-109 much more closely than the F4F. Once you get to the Hurricane II models with twin 20mm cannon supplementing the popguns, I'd certainly choose the Hurricane.


----------



## Vincenzo (Mar 18, 2010)

parsifal said:


> Yes your right, but these were combat loses....does not include non-combat losses, or the approximately 440 aircraft damaged in the BOF (many of which were later written off due to damage). The 505 number is a typo...it should read 50%....
> 
> About 540 Hurricanes were lost in the BOF, but more than 50% of these were destroyed on the ground, (many by the british to avoid capture). Estimates do vary 9some as high as your 377 in the air, some as low as 20 in the air) , but around 200 Hurricanes is a good estimate of hurricane losses in the BOF whilst airborne. By comparison Me 109 losses were over 300 and a further 100 or so Me 110s. My best estimate is that the hurricanes caused about 100 or so of these losses in the air.
> 
> The french are attributed with shooting down 700-900 German aircraft in that period, with 328 claimed by the H-75s. I am a little sceptical; of that number....other often quoted figures are 175 shot down by MS 406s and 140 or so by D 520s, with the remainder by the odds and ends that made up the rest of the FAF fighter force



as i writed 1401 and 672 damaged are all the loss of luftwaffe in the west not only combat or almost i s ounderstand if you are different reference please show it.

my notes take on other forum (i think axis history forum) and give from RAF report are loss on operations, not air to air loss. i think JoeB give a reliable data on loss in air to air encounter ( 214 to 111 109110 ) 
for french he don't give data for more common MS406 but only D.520 and H.75 and are away from so large numbers


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 18, 2010)

Folks - don't underestimate JoeB's research, he's usually spot on and has his ducks in a row BEFORE he posts something.


----------



## Cromwell (Mar 18, 2010)

RCAFson said:


> The Buffalo had a superb kill ratio in Finnish service.



Well the Beef-alo issue has cropped up several times in different threads and it does seem something of a anomaly that the Finns did so well. They also discovered that by turning one of the piston rings _upside-down_ on the Wright Cyclone you greatly improved reliability (its true).

Take a look at this from http://www.warbirdforum.com/faf.htm

_" First off, the Finnish Brewsters weren't Brewster Buffaloes, or Brewster 339's, or F2A-2, which were very bad fighters. They were Model 239's much closer to the original USN F2A-1, which were reported to be delightful to fly. Finnish nickname "Taivaan Helmi" "Pearl of the Skies" reflects this. 

Also, Finnish Brewsters had reflector sights and reliable armament of three heavy machine guns and one rifle-caliber mg. (later on four heavy MG's) and seat armour. 

The Finnish Air Force also used innovative modern air combat tactics, such as largely relying on finger four / Thach Weave / Schwarm, whatever you call it, against doctrinal Soviet tactics, such as using three plane flights and "Spanish circle" described later on." _


----------



## Cromwell (Mar 18, 2010)

zoomar said:


> To jump in at the end of this thread and probably risk restating what some others have said, I'd go with the Wildcat, primarily because it probably would have been a better (not great mind you, but better) bomber killer than any RAF fighter armed with .303 popguns. Since the Hurricane was more commonly used in the interceptor role, then I'd take F4Fs over the Hurri if they grew on trees in England in 1940. However, I would not want to mix it up with Bf-109s in the Wildcat. In most respects, the Hurricane matched the Bf-109 much more closely than the F4F. Once you get to the Hurricane II models with twin 20mm cannon supplementing the popguns, I'd certainly choose the Hurricane.



At one point the RN was operating Wildcats (of various types) and Sea Hurricanes (of different marks) at the same time, so it would be interesting to see what a Fleet Air Arm officiando thought or thinks ?


----------



## Cromwell (Mar 18, 2010)

Performance of Hurricane IIC - I pasted these figures from Wikipedia to see how you all think the IIC stacks up against the Wildcat and earlier Hurricanes :-


*Performance* - have highlighted some figures that we seem to be using as key measures / points of comparison on this thread :-


*Maximum speed: 340 mph (547 km/h) at 21,000 ft (6,400 m)* 

*Range: 600 mi (965 km)**Service ceiling: 36,000 ft (10,970 m)*

*Rate of climb: 2,780 ft/min (14.1 m/s)*

*Wing loading: 29.8 lb/ft² (121.9 kg/m²)*

Power/mass: 0.15 hp/lb (0.25 kW/kg)


Armament

Guns: 4 × 20 mm (.79 in) *Hispano Mk II* cannons - note they are the Mk IIs which I _think_ had spring recoil / shocks that you could see on the barrels.

Bombs: 2 × 250 or 500 lb (110 or 230 kg) bombs


----------



## RCAFson (Mar 18, 2010)

renrich said:


> RCAFson, Boscombe Downs, 12 June, 1940-Hurricane I with Merlin III, Rotol constant speed 3 blade prop
> Rate of climb is 2610 fpm @ 2000 feet
> Vmax of 323 mph @ 10000 feet, at 20000 feet Vmax is about 320 mph and dropping fast( William's Site)
> 
> ...



I gave you the Hurricane I figures for climb with 12lb boost and the initial rate is over 3400 fpm and that is a Hurricane I with armour and self sealing tanks. The figures you quote are for 6.25lb boost. There's a whole page here on 12lb boost:

Hurricane Mk I Performance

and here:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/bushell.html

and here's some service data:







showing the increase in performance with increasing boost levels.

The F4F-3 has a slower time to to 20000 ft, it is much slower at lower altitudes, and it is less survivable because in the summer of 1940, it had not been fitted with armour or self sealing fuel tanks. Once these are added in, its overall performance drops considerably.

Much of the combat in France, especially, and during the BofB, was at lower altitude, where the Hurricane greatly benefited from overboost. The Hurricane II was superior to the F4F-3, even at high altitude.


----------



## RCAFson (Mar 18, 2010)

_"In May and June 1940, 959 of our aircraft, of which 477 were fighters, were lost..."_
from the RAF official history:
HyperWar: Royal Air Force 1939–1945: Volume I: The Fight at Odds [Chapter V]

This figure includes all fighter aircraft including Spitfires and Defiants. Once these are subtract out, the total number of Hurricanes lost falls to under 400 and at least 1/2 were lost on the ground, since the Luftwaffe was conducting an aggressive ground attack campaign and many RAF bases were overrun.


----------



## Vincenzo (Mar 18, 2010)

Cromwell said:


> Performance of Hurricane IIC - I pasted these figures from Wikipedia to see how you all think the IIC stacks up against the Wildcat and earlier Hurricanes :-
> 
> 
> *Performance* - have highlighted some figures that we seem to be using as key measures / points of comparison on this thread :-
> ...



i don't understand why put Hurricane IIC in consideration we start an other what if scenario, what if the Hurricane IIC was available for a effective partecipation in BoB?


----------



## Vincenzo (Mar 18, 2010)

RCAFson said:


> _"In May and June 1940, 959 of our aircraft, of which 477 were fighters, were lost..."_
> from the RAF official history:
> HyperWar: Royal Air Force 1939–1945: Volume I: The Fight at Odds [Chapter V]
> 
> This figure includes all fighter aircraft including Spitfires and Defiants. Once these are subtract out, the total number of Hurricanes lost falls to under 400 and at least 1/2 were lost on the ground, since the Luftwaffe was conducting an aggressive ground attack campaign and many RAF bases were overrun.



you overstated the ground losses


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 18, 2010)

RCAFson said:


> _"In May and June 1940, 959 of our aircraft, of which 477 were fighters, were lost..."_
> from the RAF official history:
> HyperWar: Royal Air Force 1939–1945: Volume I: The Fight at Odds [Chapter V]
> 
> This figure includes all fighter aircraft including Spitfires and Defiants. Once these are subtract out, the total number of Hurricanes lost falls to under 400 and at least 1/2 were lost on the ground, since the Luftwaffe was conducting an aggressive ground attack campaign and many RAF bases were overrun.


There were at least one, probably two Gladiator Squadrons in France as well and I'm sure they had losses.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 18, 2010)

RCAFson said:


> The F4F-3 has a slower time to to 20000 ft, it is much slower at lower altitudes, and it is less survivable because in the summer of 1940, it had not been fitted with armour or self sealing fuel tanks. Once these are added in, its overall performance drops considerably.


And the data to support that???


----------



## Cromwell (Mar 18, 2010)

Vincenzo said:


> i don't understand why put Hurricane IIC in consideration we start an other what if scenario, what if the Hurricane IIC was available for a effective participation in BoB?



Yes it could almost be another discussion thread - and possibly quite an interesting one too. 

"Performance of Cannon versus MG variants of the same plane" - if not necessarily the same mark per se.

I was wondering if the 4 x Cannon, sticking out of the wing of the Hurri, were actually deleterious to performance or not ?

Put another way, earlier on we talked a little bit about armament during BoB actual vs desirable ie shortfall of 303 ammo, even the DeWilde bullet *

So, I was wondering if the 'better' explosive cannon armament may have negatively impacted on performance and therefore (partially at least) 'self-cancelled' the advantages if that makes sense ?

* Have you noticed that we have not even touched on De Wilde _versus_ ball, armour or tracer ammo ?
.


----------



## Vincenzo (Mar 18, 2010)

Cromwell said:


> Yes it could almost be another discussion thread - and possibly quite an interesting one too.
> 
> "Performance of Cannon versus MG variants of the same plane" - if not necessarily the same mark per se.
> 
> ...



Hurricane IIC was not alone new guns but also new engine, so the drag from the hispanos (and idk if 4 hispano give more drag of 8 browning) maybe overcompesate from the power


----------



## Vincenzo (Mar 18, 2010)

in the comparison to Hurricane I and Martlet i want just put the attention that RAF have not F4F-3


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 18, 2010)

Vincenzo said:


> in the comparison to Hurricane I and Martlet i want just put the attention that RAF have not F4F-3



Actaully there wasn't much difference between the two.

Grumman F4F Martlet (Grumman F4F Wildcat) aircraft profile. Aircraft Database of the Fleet Air Arm Archive 1939-1945


----------



## Vincenzo (Mar 18, 2010)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Actaully there wasn't much difference between the two.
> 
> Grumman F4F Martlet (Grumman F4F Wildcat) aircraft profile. Aircraft Database of the Fleet Air Arm Archive 1939-1945



Flyboyj that it's my source, the first export variant of wildcat has the 9 cylinders radial and i think this is a large difference,


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 18, 2010)

Vincenzo said:


> Flyboyj that it's my source, the first export variant of wildcat has the 9 cylinders radial and i think this is a large difference,



A different cowl - look at the performance of the two....

http://www.vectorsite.net/avwcat.html


----------



## RCAFson (Mar 18, 2010)

FLYBOYJ said:


> And the data to support that???



I posted this earlier, but I bolded the Hurricane data here to make it more readable.

The Hurricane I with a CS prop, armour and self sealing tanks, when using 12lb boost was generally equal or superior in climb rate and speed to the F4F-3 except above 19-20,000 ft:

Grumman Aircraft Engineering Corporation
Report No. 1469A
August 12, 1941

Detail Specification ForModel F4F-3 Airplane (this is the non armoured initial version - overload version shown is roughly equal to armoured version)

SUMMARY

Normal-Fighter, Bomber, Overload-Fighter, *(Hurricane I 12lb boost)*

Fuel (gals.) 110 110 147 (116usgal)
Gross weight (lbs.) 6895 6891 7432 *(6735lb)*
High speed at sea level (MPH) 278 264 277 *(290mph)*
High speed at 5500 ft. (MPH)* 295 281 294* (304mph)*
High speed at 6800 ft. (MPH)* 294 280 293 *(310mph*)
High speed at 13,000 ft. (MPH)* 313 297 312 *(325mph)*
High speed at 14,200 ft. (MPH)* 312 296 310 *( 322mph)*
High speed at max. engine rated alt. 19,000 ft (MPH) 330 314 328 *(319mph*)
High speed at airplane critical alt. 22,000 ft. (MPH) 326 320 336* *(316mph)*
Initial rate of climb at sea level (ft./min.) 3300 3180 3070 *(3435fps)*
Time to climb to 10000 ft. (min.) 3.5 4.1 4.2 *( 2.9min)*
Time to climb to 20000 ft. (min.) 7.6 8.1 8.4* (6.5min- estimated. May not be possible due to boost time limitations but overboost should end at 16500 ft and so total overboost time should = 5min)*
Hurricane Mk I Performance: 
Hurricane Mk I Performance
and
F4F-3 detail specifications:
F4F Performance Trials
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4f/f4f-3-detail-specification.pdf

* this speed appears to be a typo since the heavier aircraft should be slower.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 18, 2010)

RCAFson said:


> I posted this earlier, but I bolded the Hurricane data here to make it more readable.
> 
> The Hurricane I with a CS prop, armour and self sealing tanks, when using 12lb boost was generally equal or superior in climb rate and speed to the F4F-3 except above 19-20,000 ft:
> 
> ...



Keep in mind the Hurricane was only able to use the 12 pound boost for 5 to 6 minutes so this "extra" performance is limited and your typo should be 316MPH.


----------



## Vincenzo (Mar 18, 2010)

FLYBOYJ said:


> A different cowl - look at the performance of the two....
> 
> The Grumman F4F Wildcat




sorry i don't find it

i find this is few but best of nothing http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4f/martlet-I-ads.jpg


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 18, 2010)

Vincenzo said:


> sorry i don't find it
> 
> i find this is few but best of nothing http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4f/martlet-I-ads.jpg



I found this....


----------



## Colin1 (Mar 18, 2010)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I found this....


I'm getting well confused over the F4F-3's climb rate...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 18, 2010)

Colin1 said:


> I'm getting well confused over the F4F-3's climb rate...



Actually I am as well and I think its to the point where we're splitting hairs.

I looked at the wing loading - an earlier post had them by a half pound diff. In the air you'd hardly notice that.


----------



## timshatz (Mar 18, 2010)

The -3 comes in with a top speed of 330Mph while the -4 and FM2 are at 319mph but are supposed to be lighter. Seems odd.


----------



## RCAFson (Mar 18, 2010)

timshatz said:


> The -3 comes in with a top speed of 330Mph while the -4 and FM2 are at 319mph but are supposed to be lighter. Seems odd.



This is due to a different supercharger setup. IIRC, the -4 and FM2 had a single stage, two speed setup versus a two stage, two speed unit in the -3. This lowers the critical altitude for the -4 and FM2 and lowers the maximum speed as a result, even though the FM2 has more power.


----------



## RCAFson (Mar 18, 2010)

Colin1 said:


> I'm getting well confused over the F4F-3's climb rate...



Like the Hurricane,F4F climb rates are often quoted with and without military power, which is the equivalent to overboost, IIRC.

Here's the climb rates w/o military power:





and






and they do not compare well to a 6.25lb boost Hurricane, considering the difference in protection:


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 18, 2010)

Now that makes it more clear...


----------



## Hop (Mar 18, 2010)

> I was wondering if the 4 x Cannon, sticking out of the wing of the Hurri, were actually deleterious to performance or not ?



The A&AEE tested a Hurricane II with 4 20mm Hispano IIs. They compared it to the same aircraft with all guns removed, but ballasted to the same weight. The speed difference was 5 mph at FTH, dropping to 3 mph at close to service ceiling.


----------



## Vincenzo (Mar 18, 2010)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I found this....



this not give info on early export variant, with cyclone and curtiss one stage engine


----------



## Vincenzo (Mar 18, 2010)

timshatz said:


> The -3 comes in with a top speed of 330Mph while the -4 and FM2 are at 319mph but are supposed to be lighter. Seems odd.


i'm not sure of understand but -4 and FM-2 aren't lighter of -3, FM-2 is lighter of -4


----------



## renrich (Mar 18, 2010)

The F4F3 had a two speed, two stage supercharger. This is the fighter which is postulated that would be superior to the Hurricane. The gross weight of the F4F3 would be 7150.7 pounds compared to the gross weight of the F4F4 of 7426 pounds. The rate of climb @ Mil Power of the F4F3 at 7150 pounds @ SL according to the manufacturers data was 3300 feet per minute and the time to climb of that model at that weight was eight minutes to 20000 feet. It's Vmax @ 20000 feet was just under 340 mph @ mil power. The Hurricane during the BOB did not have all protected fuel tanks. The F4F3 did.


----------



## Vincenzo (Mar 18, 2010)

renrich said:


> The F4F3 had a two speed, two stage supercharger. This is the fighter which is postulated that would be superior to the Hurricane. The gross weight of the F4F3 would be 7150.7 pounds compared to the gross weight of the F4F4 of 7426 pounds. The rate of climb @ Mil Power of the F4F3 at 7150 pounds @ SL according to the manufacturers data was 3300 feet per minute and the time to climb of that model at that weight was eight minutes to 20000 feet. It's Vmax @ 20000 feet was just under 340 mph @ mil power. The Hurricane during the BOB did not have all protected fuel tanks. The F4F3 did.



afaik original F4F-3 haven't armour and ss tanks, for US go in war they have it but around 1 year and half before i'm not so sure.

i've already write the export variant of wildcat have different engine and was badest of US F4F-3, but it a what if and we can suppose that US F4F-3 were exported


----------



## renrich (Mar 18, 2010)

Vincenzo, those weights seem to include armor and protected tanks. I know that SS tanks must weigh more than non SS tanks but does the lower fuel capacity off set the weight of the tank?


----------



## slaterat (Mar 19, 2010)

Okay after checking all of my books and the internet in a search to find the real performance of the Martlet /Wildcat I have this summary.

F4F-3 Polished ,dyno tuned factory ringer with the R 1830-76Twin wasp 2speed/2 stage supercharger

334mph and initial climbrate 3,100 ft/min sans pilot armor and self sealing tanks 4x .50 mgs

actual in service performance 330 mph and 2,400 - 2,500 ft/min climb rate

Due to extreme shortages of the 2speed/2stage super charger other alternatives were used

Martlet I, initial export version 1,200 Wright cyclone R-1820 2 speed/single stage supercharger
Modified to FAA specs including self sealing tanks and rear pilot armor and armored windscreen non folding wings with arrestor gear 

315 mph and 2000 ft/min initial climb rate and 4 x.50s

F4F3a 95 ordered for the US Navy deliveries in in 1941 R 1830-90 two speed/single stage version of the twin wasp 4x .50 312 mph at 16,000 ft max climbrate ? ( Martlet II with the same engine is 1960 ft/min)

Unfortunately it just gets worse for the Wildcat. the F4F-4 gets folding wings 6x .50s ,pilot armor and self sealing tanks and the two speed/two stage twin wasp but the increase in overall weight gives it 318 mph and a climb rate of 1.600 ft /min 


So basically the 335 mph , 3000ft/ min Wildcat was a pretty rare bird , even the US Navy had trouble getting them having to settle for the two speed/single stage supercharger of the F3F-3a.


----------



## slaterat (Mar 19, 2010)

Does anyone know how many F3F s with the two speed/ two stage supercharger were in active service with the US Navy? My best guess is maybe only a couple squadrons VF -7 and VF -41 are mentioned in one of my sources. 

To compare the F3F to the BoB Hurricane I you pretty much have to go with the Martlet I as it is the only version that is similarly equiped ie with self sealing tanks / pilot armor and armored windscreen.

Performance wise the Hurricane wins 325 mph vs 315 and 2.600 vs 2000 ft/min max climb rate.

Slaterat


----------



## Vincenzo (Mar 19, 2010)

slaterat said:


> Does anyone know how many F3F s with the two speed/ two stage supercharger were in active service with the US Navy? My best guess is maybe only a couple squadrons VF -7 and VF -41 are mentioned in one of my sources.



at time of Skua thread i looking info and i find that in january 1941 2 USN carrier have wildcat as fighter, this have 2 fighter squadron, the other with F2A and F3F have 1 fighter squadron, so in january half of embarked fighter force was Wildcat (i think around 60 planes)


----------



## renrich (Mar 19, 2010)

There were 285 F4F3s built with deliveries beginning in August, 1940. This discussion, I believe, is about which AC would have been superior in the BOB. No one is postulating that the Wildcats were available to replace the Hurricane because they were not. It might have been possible, if the US were at war in 1939 to have put the rush on and have Wildcats already deployed by summer of 1940, but the US was not at war until December, 1941, and the urgency was not there. I believe that what gets under some people's skin is that a corpulent little carrier borne fighter which possibly could have been deployable in summer 1940 might have been superior as an interceptor to an icon like the Hurricane.

Another point for those who are interested is that most USN and Marine pilots seemed to prefer the F4F3 with it's four guns over the F4F4 with it's six guns.


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 19, 2010)

renrich said:


> I believe that what gets under some people's skin is that a corpulent little carrier borne fighter which possibly could have been deployable in summer 1940 might have been superior as an interceptor to an icon like the Hurricane.



I think what gets under some peoples skin (at least mine) is the skewing of time lines. The F4F-3 was entering squadron service about 4-6 weeks ahead of the Hurricane MK II. That might be a better comparison. 

Another thing is the "legs" of the Wildcat. Yes the Wildcat had more range but the Hurricane carried 97 imp gal of fuel which comes out to 116.5 US gallons. Wildcat with self sealing tanks had 147 US gallons. 26% more, nice to have but a battle/campaign changer?
The climb figure of 3300ft/min for the Wildcat is done with only 110 US gallons on board. carring 147 gallons was considered overload condition.

I am sorry if I missed it if it has been posted but many of the British climb figures are done with less than full throttle. The 8.35 -8.5 climb to 20,000ft was done at 2600rpm and 6 1/4lbs of boost until a bit over 10,000ft at which point the boost begins to drop as the RPM stays steady. At 13,000 ft the boost is down to 5.3 lbs and continuous to drop until the engine has 1.0lb of boost at 20,000ft and a climb rate at that altitude of 1465ft/min. However full throttle at 20,000 with 3000rpm gives 4.85lb of boost. What is the rate of climb at 20,000ft if the Hurricane uses full throttle? Granted it isn't supposed to do it for very long.

Many American climb figures are taken using full throttle for the first 5 minutes of the climb and then throttling back to the max continuous setting for the rest of the climb.

In the interest of fairness I will note that the Hurricane figures were done with less than a full tank of fuel.
The First British Martlets with the Cyclone engines were down a minimum of 100hp at practically any altitude much over sea level compared to the P&W powered versions and at high altitudes much more than that.


----------



## Colin1 (Mar 19, 2010)

Shortround6 said:


> I think what gets under some peoples skin (at least mine) is the skewing of time lines. The F4F-3 was entering squadron service about 4-6 weeks ahead of the Hurricane MK II. That might be a better comparison


At the risk of being pedantic
isn't that the difference between a comparison and a what-if?
A comparison usually does take contemporaneous peers and run them against each other, what-ifs ask us to disregard the historically correct and present an informed debate based on our collective knowledge of the two subjects.

This really shouldn't be getting under anybody's skin


----------



## pbfoot (Mar 19, 2010)

Shortround6 said:


> Another thing is the "legs" of the Wildcat. Yes the Wildcat had more range but the Hurricane carried 97 imp gal of fuel which comes out to 116.5 US gallons. Wildcat with self sealing tanks had 147 US gallons. 26% more, nice to have but a battle/campaign changer?
> 
> .


I extolled the range factor not as a campaign changer but as an option, and in most situations options are a nice thing to have .


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 19, 2010)

Colin1 said:


> At the risk of being pedantic
> isn't that the difference between a comparison and a what-if?
> A comparison usually does take contemporaneous peers and run them against each other, what-ifs ask us to disregard the historically correct and present an informed debate based on our collective knowledge of the two subjects.
> 
> This really shouldn't be getting under anybody's skin



"What-ifs" that ask us to chose between plane "A" and plane "B" for a given job when plane "B" is almost 3 years newer (based on entry into squadron service) are almost always going to have the same answer.

Plane "B". 

Unless Plane "B" is a dog with a well known reputation.


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 19, 2010)

pbfoot said:


> I extolled the range factor not as a campaign changer but as an option, and in most situations options are a nice thing to have .



Yes, options are nice to have, but since there is no such thing as a free lunch what does the option cost you?

If the extra fuel option is taken and the intercept is made after an hour or so of patrol it might not cost anything and might allow for a longer patrol. If the extra fuel option is taken and the intercept is to made after a fast scramble and climb to altitude the extra fuel is going to cost an extra 40 seconds or so to 20,000ft. In other words much (but not all) of the Climbing advantage of the Wildcat disappears. 

While the F4F-3 also had a "bomb" option it was planned to pay for it by leaving two of the .50 cal guns on the ground. I doubt this was ever really done in a war zone but then the actual performance of the plane is going to be a bit below the "BOOK" figures when carrying the extra load. 

The Wildcat would be the better choice, with several more years of aeronautical Knowledge and several more years of Internal combustion engine knowledge to draw on it should be.


----------



## slaterat (Mar 20, 2010)

I'm ready for a final comparison. Given that a total of 285 F4F-3 s were built as the first model of the Wildcat to go into production and into service on or about Dec 1940. It is not too unreasonable to bump these planes into service 6 months earlier for the sake of our comparison.


F4F-3 331 mph at 21,300 ft climb rate at military power 2,303 ft/min

no armour or self sealing tanks

4x .50 with 450 rpg

Hurricane Mk Ia 324mph at 17,800ft climb rate at military power 2,640 ft/min

front armored bulkhead, bullet proof windscreen, full rear armour plate, self sealing fuel and oil tanks

8x .303 with approx 335 rpg

If I was flying I know which one I would pick, especially when intercepting bombers, which can fire back at you. The Hurricane has a definite advantage in climb , which could be the difference between making an intercept or not. The tightly grouped .303s proved good enough to knock down more than 1000 German planes during the BoB including about 700 bombers.

The appeal for the Wildcat is the 4x.50s with 450 rpg or about double the firing time of the Hurricane. It certainly is something to consider.

I would like to thank all who participated in this thread it certainly made me more knowledgeable about the different models and performance of the Wildcat/ Martlet variants.

Slaterat


----------



## fastmongrel (Mar 20, 2010)

How long did it take the Wildcat to take off. I have read that the Hurricane was the fastest aircraft of the war to scramble. From the alert and the ground crew hitting the starter button to the pilot pulling the undercarrige lever could be around 90 seconds. Apparently it was like pulling on an old jacket and stepping out of the door whereas the Spitfire was like putting on a 3 piece suit and the 109 was like putting on a 3 piece suit that was a size too small.

The RAF tactics of the period were all about scrambling the aircraft quickly and climbing hard to intercept and disrupt the bomber formations. The consensus at the time was that the bomber would always get through. I believe actually shooting down aircraft was considered secondary to preventing the bombers dropping their bombs accurately.


----------



## Colin1 (Mar 20, 2010)

Shortround6 said:


> "What-ifs" that ask us to chose between plane "A" and plane "B" for a given job when plane "B" is almost 3 years newer (based on entry into squadron service) are almost always going to have the same answer


That makes sense
for the most part and we clearly don't want to be comparing P-51s with P-26s but there are some comparisons that merit scrutiny; I think this was one of them.


----------



## parsifal (Mar 20, 2010)

Yes, but as far as possible we should be comparing the F4f as it existed in July 1940, to the hurricane as it exsted in July 1940. If you do that, you find the f4f has a LOT of deficiencies and design faults, that mean it would not have been abale to do the job....if you want to fast forward the evolution and argue the F4f3 as it existed in say April 1941 should be the representative type, then you have to compare that with the hurricane as it existed at that time...trouble is, by that stage the hurricane was not being developed as a true or pure fighter....it was already on its way to being transformed into a fighter bomber with a different role to that of the f4f.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 20, 2010)

fastmongrel said:


> How long did it take the Wildcat to take off. I have read that the Hurricane was the fastest aircraft of the war to scramble.


I find that statement a little far stretched. There's many variables that have to be put in place considering if the aircraft is sitting on alert ready to go. The type of runway, field and wind conditions would play a major part in getting into the air. In WW2 there were many RAF bases with open grass strips so there was little time for taxi. Also pilot skill has a lot with doing a "short field take off" and going immediately to "Vx" while maintaining engine temps. A number of aircraft could have done the same thing, and that's not taking anything away from the Hurricane.

As far as getting into the cockpit? The biggest factor is going to be the size of the pilot, how familiar he is with the aircraft and how quickly either he or his crew chief gets him strapped in to the point where he's comfortable flying the aircraft.



parsifal said:


> Yes, but as far as possible we should be comparing the F4f as it existed in July 1940, to the hurricane as it exsted in July 1940. If you do that, you find the f4f has a LOT of deficiencies and design faults, that mean it would not have been abale to do the job....if you want to fast forward the evolution and argue the F4f3 as it existed in say April 1941 should be the representative type, then you have to compare that with the hurricane as it existed at that time...trouble is, by that stage the hurricane was not being developed as a true or pure fighter....it was already on its way to being transformed into a fighter bomber with a different role to that of the f4f.



I can agree to a point but be aware that the FAA put the Marlet 1 in service in August 1940, and for the most part we're talking the same aircraft. Like any "new" aircraft of the day, it had issues, but those issues were overcome. BTW the first two kills by Marlets were against Fw.200s and Eric Brown got both of them while he was with 802 squadron, this happened in Dec 40. I think the "deficiencies and design faults" are way overstated as shown by the Martlet 1 introduction.


----------



## parsifal (Mar 20, 2010)

True enough about the types problems being overstated. But it nevertheless was not a type that was really ready, whereas the hurricane had been ready for some years. Whilst the type may have had land based possibilities, it was not ready for carrier operatiion in the RN until november, and then only in a very limited way, primarily the result of the lack of wing folding in the martlets until April '41. 

if the type had been thrown into battle as the hurricane was, it would have suffered the heavy losses that the hurricane suffered. Its problems with armamant, undercariage armour fuel systms etc, instead of being worked out in a peacetime environment, would have been worked out under combat conditions....and that would have meant a lot of losses. to try and compare the f4f3 AFTER it was made fully operational, with hurricane subtypes years older in design and fighting for their very existence under the most difficult comabat conditions, is not comparing apples to apples


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 20, 2010)

parsifal said:


> True enough about the types problems being overstated. But it nevertheless was not a type that was really ready, whereas the hurricane had been ready for some years. Whilst the type may have had land based possibilities, it was not ready for carrier operatiion in the RN until november, and then only in a very limited way, primarily the result of the lack of wing folding in the martlets until April '41.


Again parsifal, you have no real data to back that up. The problems with the aircraft were things quickly fixed as seen how fast the FAA put them into services. As far as the aircraft not being ready for carrier service, the Martlet 1 went aboard carriers in the fall of 40. Just because their wings didn't fold didn't mean they couldn't operate from a carrier. 


parsifal said:


> if the type had been thrown into battle as the hurricane was, it would have suffered the heavy losses that the hurricane suffered.


That's speculation


parsifal said:


> Its problems with armamant, undercariage armour fuel systms etc, instead of being worked out in a peacetime environment, would have been worked out under combat conditions....and that would have meant a lot of losses. to try and compare the f4f3 AFTER it was made fully operational, with hurricane subtypes years older in design and fighting for their very existence under the most difficult comabat conditions, is not comparing apples to apples


I could agree to a point. Had the -3 been thrown into the BoB factory fresh, I can agree.

BTW I think Brown thought the Martlet was more maneuverable than the Hurricane and Spitfire, for what that's worth....


----------



## parsifal (Mar 20, 2010)

Martlet Is were never deployed onto Carriers. 100 were ordered in 1940 (by the french) and 81 of these were delivered to the RN. the remaining 19 were lost to u-Boats enroute. As a type they actually outnumbered the Fulmar. Clearly they were superior to the Fulmar, but the martlet Is were only ever used defensively, whereas the Fulmar was entrusted with many extremely hazardous offensive operation. 

Heres where the speculation kicks in. Why would the RN not put the Martlet into the frontline of combat, when in up front perfomrance it clearly out shone the Fulmar. i think it was due to reliability issues as well as the lack of wing folding. It was found to suffer undercarriage issues, which meant its attrition rate whilst in heavy seas and on carriers was too high. it was found to suffer armemnt stopages which had criticalimplications when every fighter counted in the types of combat face by the RN in early'41. It suffered fuel system failures which again affected attrition and reliability. Lastly it lacked wing folding, which meant that if it had been embarked it would have dropped air group sizes in british carriers (already far too small) by at least a third. 

its true my argument about the type being vulnerable to losses if it had been committed to heavy fighting in 1940 is speculative , but I think its a reasonable speculation. the RN also evidently did not think it ready either....if they had, they would have committed the type to frontline combat, like the Fulmar, rather than holding the type back on essentially light duties, flying defensive patrols in relatively safe areas like Scapa 

Whilst the problems were minor, they did take more than a year to iron out. Most of the problems had been identified in the USN by early '40, yet they, and the RN soldiered on with examples that performed poorly for more than a year. The F4f in British service did not really reach full operational status until April 1941, and was not extensively shipped aboard carriers until september '41 (with the introduction of the martlet IIIs) 

This site proviodes some basic information that tends to back up my speculation

Grumman Martlet (F4F Wildcat)


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 20, 2010)

parsifal said:


> Martlet Is were never deployed onto Carriers. 100 were ordered in 1940 (by the french) and 81 of these were delivered to the RN. the remaining 19 were lost to u-Boats enroute. As a type they actually outnumbered the Fulmar. Clearly they were superior to the Fulmar, but the martlet Is were only ever used defensively, whereas the Fulmar was entrusted with many extremely hazardous offensive operation.


The Marlet 1 was still miles a head of the Fulmar despite the operations flown.



parsifal said:


> Heres where the speculation kicks in. Why would the RN not put the Martlet into the frontline of combat, when in up front perfomrance it clearly out shone the Fulmar. i think it was due to reliability issues as well as the lack of wing folding. It was found to suffer undercarriage issues, which meant its attrition rate whilst in heavy seas and on carriers was too high. it was found to suffer armemnt stopages which had criticalimplications when every fighter counted in the types of combat face by the RN in early'41. It suffered fuel system failures which again affected attrition and reliability.  Lastly it lacked wing folding, which meant that if it had been embarked it would have dropped air group sizes in british carriers (already far too small) by at least a third.



The Martlet was never to be a long term replacement for the Fulmar, that was supposed to be the Seafire. The Martlet was more or less picked up as a fire sale when France fell and that was well documented. The FAA continued to order the Grumman product as it served well, but it was clear that it was never meant to be "the" FAA's primary fighter.
Again I see nothing to support anything to show that the Martlet 1 performed poorly.


parsifal said:


> Whilst the problems were minor, they did take more than a year to iron out.


But yet the aircraft were immediately deployed. Look at the time span from when the Martlet 1 was acquired to when it did began operations, I think we're talking 4 months.


parsifal said:


> Most of the problems had been identified in the USN by early '40, yet they, and the RN soldiered on with examples that performed poorly for more than a year. The F4f in British service did not really reach full operational status until April 1941, and was not extensively shipped aboard carriers until september '41 (with the introduction of the martlet IIIs)


What's your definition of "performing poorly?"


parsifal said:


> This site proviodes some basic information that tends to back up my speculation
> 
> Grumman Martlet (F4F Wildcat)



Again I see nothing on that site to show the Martlet 1's performed poorly, as a matter of fact it clearly shows how an aircraft that might not have entered service with the FAA and did so because the fall of France. The fact that the Martlet II was ordered and placed aboard FAA ships speaks for the success of the Martlet 1s, again and aircraft the FAA shouldn't of had to begin with. Like any aircraft of the day, it was subjected to problems and improvements, no different from any "MK I" or "A" model of any aircraft deployed.


----------



## renrich (Mar 20, 2010)

In Dean the empty weight of the F4F3 shows a weight of armor of 155 pounds. The F4F4 with added armor showed a weight of 162.5 pounds. Based on that, to say the F4F3 lacked armor, is incorrect. Unless I am mistaken the Hurricane that fought in the BOB had one fuel tank, right in front of the pilot, which was not self sealing and a number of RAF pilots paid a price for that. First flight of the Wildcat was in 1937. First flight of the Hurricane was in 1935 so there was about two years difference in the beginning of development.


----------



## Vincenzo (Mar 20, 2010)

renrich said:


> In Dean the empty weight of the F4F3 shows a weight of armor of 155 pounds. The F4F4 with added armor showed a weight of 162.5 pounds. Based on that, to say the F4F3 lacked armor, is incorrect. Unless I am mistaken the Hurricane that fought in the BOB had one fuel tank, right in front of the pilot, which was not self sealing and a number of RAF pilots paid a price for that. First flight of the Wildcat was in 1937. First flight of the Hurricane was in 1935 so there was about two years difference in the beginning of development.



you start from the assumption that -3 was same in all its life


----------



## Vincenzo (Mar 20, 2010)

RCAFson said:


> I
> Grumman Aircraft Engineering Corporation
> Report No. 1469A
> August 12, 1941
> ...



wrong assumption the report it's for -3 with armour as you can read in it


----------



## The Basket (Mar 20, 2010)

Read the thread and still confused.

The Air Ministry is going to replace a British fighter with a British engine made in British factories whose perfomance is still excellent and has been in operational service for a few years with a totally unknown American fighter? On the eve of war?


----------



## RCAFson (Mar 20, 2010)

Vincenzo said:


> wrong assumption the report it's for -3 with armour as you can read in it



Yes, I think you are correct. However, even so, it does not show an advantage over the Hurricane, except in high altitude maximum speed.


----------



## RCAFson (Mar 20, 2010)

renrich said:


> In Dean the empty weight of the F4F3 shows a weight of armor of 155 pounds. The F4F4 with added armor showed a weight of 162.5 pounds. Based on that, to say the F4F3 lacked armor, is incorrect. Unless I am mistaken the Hurricane that fought in the BOB had one fuel tank, right in front of the pilot, which was not self sealing and a number of RAF pilots paid a price for that. First flight of the Wildcat was in 1937. First flight of the Hurricane was in 1935 so there was about two years difference in the beginning of development.



Hurricane armour and self sealing tank development proceeded at a rapid pace during the BofF and BofB and aircraft in September were much improved over those available even a few months earlier. CS props, armpur and self sealing tanks were all being rapidly fitted to production aircraft and retro-fitted to existing aircraft:

_"6. So far as our Fighters were concerned,
the wing tanks in the Hurricane were removed
and covered with a fabric known as " Linatex "
which had fairly good self-sealing characteristics.
The reserve tank in the fuselage was
left uncovered, as it was difficult of access and
it was thought that it would be substantially
protected by the armour which had been fitted.
During the Battle, however, a great number
of Hurricanes were set on fire by incendiary
bullets or cannon shells, and their pilots were
badly burned by a sheet of flame which filled
the cockpit before they could escape by parachute.
7. The reserve tanks were therefore covered
with Linatex as a matter of the highest priority,
and a metal bulkhead was fitted in front of the
pilot to exclude the rash of flame from the
cockpit"_

Dowding, The battle of Britain, Despatch to the London Gazette , 1946.


----------



## RCAFson (Mar 20, 2010)

parsifal said:


> Martlet Is were never deployed onto Carriers. 100 were ordered in 1940 (by the french) and 81 of these were delivered to the RN. the remaining 19 were lost to u-Boats enroute. As a type they actually outnumbered the Fulmar. Clearly they were superior to the Fulmar, but the martlet Is were only ever used defensively, whereas the Fulmar was entrusted with many extremely hazardous offensive operation.
> 
> Heres where the speculation kicks in. Why would the RN not put the Martlet into the frontline of combat, when in up front perfomrance it clearly out shone the Fulmar. i think it was due to reliability issues as well as the lack of wing folding. It was found to suffer undercarriage issues, which meant its attrition rate whilst in heavy seas and on carriers was too high. it was found to suffer armemnt stopages which had criticalimplications when every fighter counted in the types of combat face by the RN in early'41. It suffered fuel system failures which again affected attrition and reliability. Lastly it lacked wing folding, which meant that if it had been embarked it would have dropped air group sizes in british carriers (already far too small) by at least a third.
> 
> ...



The Fulmar also had armour and SS tanks, which the earliest Martlets lacked. However, I think we may be understating the performance of the Fulmar and Sea Hurricane, because it appears that most performance stats fail to take into account the use of overboost. I found this tidbit on the WWIIaircraft performance sight:







Note the use of 16lb boost on the Sea Hurricane and 1440hp at 5500ft!

If the Fulmar was able to use similar boost levels, the Fulmar I might have 1440hp available in emergencies while the Merlin XXX, in the Fulmar II, might have close to 1600hp available!

Here's the effect of 16lb boost on the Spitfire I with the Merlin III:





and here the maximum power levels of a Merlin XX with 14lb boost appears to be 1470hp at about 6000ft:
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/merlin-xx-curve-c1.jpg


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 20, 2010)

The Martlet I used commercial Wright cyclone engines with 2 speed-single stage superchargers. 
this engine offered 1000hp at 13500ft. performance dropping the higher it went.

The American F4F-3 (and only some of them) got the 2 speed-2 stage R-1830s which offered 1000hp at 19,000ft (several thousand ft more than the Hurricanes Merlin III) and offers the better altitude performance.

Some American F4F-3 and Martlet IIs IIIs got 2 speed-single stage supercharged R-1830s which gave 1000hp at 14,500ft. Altitude performance will be worse than the Hurricane.

So you have basically two different Wildcats to deal with, the single stage models and the two stage model.(I am not going to get too excited about the difference between the Cyclone and twin wasp single stage, the extra 1000ft of critical altitude may be part matched by the lighter weight of the Cyclone) 

Royal Navy may have gotten it's first Martlet in July but it took until Oct 31 to get all 81 delivered.

While the take-off performance of the two might not be enough to worry about the Wildcat didn't have the best of ground handling. 

Considering the numbers needed 6 months head start over historical isn't anywhere near enough. With a total of 1900 Wildcats built by the end of 1942 closer to a two year head start over historical would be needed to replace the Hurricane in like numbers.


----------



## RCAFson (Mar 20, 2010)

JoeB said:


> My source is a landmark new book ("The Battle of France Then and Now") that has details of almost every loss in every AF involved in the BoF period, including also Britain based Fighter Command units in the same period, with details, so it only includes air combat losses of Hurricanes to 109's and vice versa, counted up in the book. That said I realize I mistyped my own notes then calced wrong ratio in the last post, its' 151 Hurricane and 74 Bf109's not 171 and 54, sorry about that. Hurricanes downed 37 Bf110's v 63 Hurricanes lost to 110's. And again ratio's later on as at Malta and Western Desert were less favorable for Hurricane, sometimes worse than the Hurricane did in the Far East. So it's not clear to me the Far East situation was so completely special, and I think the F4F' far better record there should probably factor in somewhat in estimating its possible outcome v Bf109E's, as should the Hawk's relatively good record v 109 in BoF 23:38 in BoF. The Spitfire's record v 109 in BoF period was 24:32, D520's 14:30, for further comparative reference.
> 
> Joe



I found this site, which details the loss for about 1/2 of all Hurricanes lost, and gives the total losses during the Battle of France, by squadron:
World War 2 - RAF May 1940


I had to go through each Hurricane squadron and count the losses and they come out to:

216 total, of which:

54.5 by Me-109

33 by bomber defensive fire

20.5 by Me-110

2 x ground fire
------------
110 stated

106 unstated.
----------
216 total


so extrapolating the stated losses we get about:

110 by Me-109
66 by BDF
41 x Me-110
4 x GF

but of course many of these unaccunted for losses may have been due to other factors such as simple pilot error. Some of the Me110 losses may have been from the Me-110 rear gunner.

I may have made some errors in my counts, but the above numbers should be close.


----------



## Glider (Mar 21, 2010)

Excellent site. Thanks for finding it


----------



## Vincenzo (Mar 21, 2010)

RCAFson said:


> I found this site, which details the loss for about 1/2 of all Hurricanes lost, and gives the total losses during the Battle of France, by squadron:
> World War 2 - RAF May 1940
> 
> 
> ...



find a good site thanks

but you can't extrapolating the unstated from the stated the stated sample it's not statistical (or you can extrapolating but the results aren't scientific).


----------



## slaterat (Mar 21, 2010)

Slaterat wrote:


> Other essential factors to wining the BoB where the Hurricane was superior to the wildcat include:
> -repair of battle damage aircraft



Flyboy wrote:


> Only if you're talking about holes through the fabric with limited damage to the forming structure. If the steel tubing is damaged the repair can be a bit time consuming to either straighten out the tubing or cut away damaged sections and re-weld. Although the mild steel the Hurricane's tube structure was made from (4130 or 4140) is easily welded, this adds another skill to the maintainer's resume to keep up with the repair of the aircraft.



Flyboy, it would appear that you are unfamiliar with the type of tubular construction used on the Hurricane. This is a common mistake I've read on many websites and books. The load bearing structure of the Hurricane didnot employ any welding or use of low quality mild steel that could be welded.

Sydney Camm and Hawker had a mistrust of welding preferring to use mechanical fasteners to assemble the tubular frame of the Hurricane. This had multiple advantages , it allowed for the use of lighter and stronger materials , including high tensile heat treated steel and aluminum tube, while making the airframe both stronger, lighter and much easier to repair.

Slaterat


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 21, 2010)

slaterat said:


> Slaterat wrote:
> 
> Flyboy wrote:
> 
> ...



Then with that said, you're still disassembling primary structure, removing fabric and formers and possibly control surface rigging, still not a great advantage when compared to aluminum structures when you can cut and spice structure and many times a "standard repair" is already developed for damage scenarios. And I'd bet dollars to donuts than when damaged components are removed, they are repaired - by welding which was the standard practice of the day for that type of material.


----------



## merlin (Mar 21, 2010)

WOW - I'm amazed at the number of posts on this topic. I've read through most - though not all!

As others have posted, the idea of the comparison seems lopsided i.e. comparing the Hurricane 1 with a later model Wildcat, rather than one of that time.
Secondly the armament arguement seems to allow this 'alternative' RAF Wildcat to have 0.5" machine guns, when in such circumstances - this is not believeable IMHO. Yet, the idea of the Hurricane having such weapons doesn't seem to have been considered!! The Belgians were going to equipe their locally made Hurricanes with 12.65 mm machine guns.
So no I don't see it as 'plausible' to have the Wildcat F4F-3 in place of the Hurricane 1 = ASB

However, if the British Purchasing Commision had got the 'finger out' when Gruman offered the F4F for export, they may have got their order(rather than no order at all) in before the French Greeks. So either, the FAA could have had the aircraft in service earlier for them to have Squadrons based in the south e.g. Yeovil (under RAF direction) to participate in the BoB; or the RAF may have enough aircraft to equipe a Squadron or two as well.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 21, 2010)

merlin said:


> However, if the British Purchasing Commision had got the 'finger out' when Gruman offered the F4F for export, they may have got their order(rather than no order at all) in before the French Greeks. So either, the FAA could have had the aircraft in service earlier for them to have Squadrons based in the south e.g. Yeovil (under RAF direction) to participate in the BoB; or the RAF may have enough aircraft to equipe a Squadron or two as well.


Interesting point.


----------



## Vincenzo (Mar 22, 2010)

RCAFson said:


> I had to go through each Hurricane squadron and count the losses and they come out to:
> 
> 216 total, of which:
> 
> ...



looking in the site i understand that it is focused on men, and also if for many squadrons there are more data, give info on (fatal) losses on men not on planes. so the count of hurricane loss it's not complete


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 22, 2010)

merlin said:


> However, if the British Purchasing Commision had got the 'finger out' when Gruman offered the F4F for export, they may have got their order(rather than no order at all) in before the French Greeks. So either, the FAA could have had the aircraft in service earlier for them to have Squadrons based in the south e.g. Yeovil (under RAF direction) to participate in the BoB; or the RAF may have enough aircraft to equipe a Squadron or two as well.



If they had got the 'finger out' There are still several questions.

1. could Grumann really have moved up the delivery dates by very much?
Placing the order is one thing, tooling up the factory and making deliveries is another. US Navy places an order for just 54 planes Aug 8 1939, France orders 100 planes Oct 1939. First US production planes flies Feb 1940 and First French plane test flies May 11th 1940. Grumann manufactures just over 200 F4Fs in 1940?

2. Which engine do the British get?
The standard export Cyclone with it's critical altitude of 13,500ft or the high tech 2 stage P&W engine (which the US government may not have allowed to be exported in 1939/early 1940) which is the engine that gives the biggest performance advantage. It also is the engine that gave the most trouble in development.

A few squadrons in service at the start of the BoB may have been possible though.


----------



## renrich (Mar 22, 2010)

I have read that the Hurricane was much more easily repaired than the Spitfire because much of the airplane was wood and fabric and that wood workers in England were more numerous than workers familiar with the mostly metal construction of the Spitfire. As for the Sea Hurricane, Eric Brown states that the Wildcat was faster and more maneuverable and was more powerfully armed. The Sea Hurricane had a Vmax, according to Brown, of 300 mph and a service ceiling of only 30000 feet compared to 35000 feet for the standard Hurricane and 37000 feet for the F4F3. Taking a fighter designed only for land based operation and converting it for carrier use caused large penalties in performance.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 22, 2010)

renrich said:


> I have read that the Hurricane was much more easily repaired than the Spitfire because much of the airplane was wood and fabric and that wood workers in England were more numerous than workers familiar with the mostly metal construction of the Spitfire.


From what I seen on the Hurricane (al least ones with metal wings), the only wood on the aircraft were the formers that made up the "turtleback" and the stringers accross the fuselage. Normally if any of each is damaged you just replace it. I don't know if repalcements came pre-varnished, so that would have to be applied as well. I can't see any mechanic in a war setting making repairs to stringers and formers unless they were not available.

Fabric work is not really difficult but more tedious and depending on the size of the repair, you would need enviornmental controls when applying dope. High humidity and cold is not good for fabric work as the doped surfaces can develope conditions known as "blushing" and pinholes, especially with the fabrics used in the 1940s (Irish Linen and grade 'a' cotton).

There were two types of dopes used, nitrate and butyrate, with the latter being superior. For the most part you want temps. between 65 -75F and humidity between 20 to 60%.


----------



## buffnut453 (Mar 22, 2010)

FLYBOYJ said:


> For the most part you want temps. between 65 -75F and humidity between 20 to 60%.



Those temps and humidity levels don't happen often in Blighty, even in the height (or lows) of summer. As for ventilation, health and safety ain't what it used to be. 

I suspect groundcrews did what they could when and where they could do it. IIRC fabric patches were rapidly applied and coated with a red dope to fix them into place, much akin to the gun port covers applied to RAF fighters in the early stages of the war.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 22, 2010)

buffnut453 said:


> I suspect groundcrews did what they could when and where they could do it. IIRC fabric patches were rapidly applied and coated with a red dope to fix them into place, much akin to the gun port covers applied to RAF fighters in the early stages of the war.


Patches are different - you could readily slap and patch on a small hole and apply ample amounts of dope on it to keep it in place. The conditions I described above could be present and not affect a small patch. It when you have to replace a large segment of fabric is where you'll have problems, and that will come if you have to replace or repair larger structural components, especially within the fuselage.


----------



## renrich (Mar 22, 2010)

FB, the photo I saw of the Hurricane being restored confirms your observation. There was a tubular "backbone" inside, wasn't there? This was in a magazine, "Air and Space", I believe, and it had a long article comparing the Hurricane and Spitfire with a comparison of kills in the BOB and also a pre-war calculation by the RAF about how many 303 hits it took to bring down an enemy bomber. I think it was 179 but memory is probably faulty. Wish I had made a copy of the article.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 22, 2010)

renrich said:


> FB, the photo I saw of the Hurricane being restored confirms your observation. There was a tubular "backbone" inside, wasn't there? This was in a magazine, "Air and Space", I believe, and it had a long article comparing the Hurricane and Spitfire with a comparison of kills in the BOB and also a pre-war calculation by the RAF about how many 303 hits it took to bring down an enemy bomber. I think it was 179 but memory is probably faulty. Wish I had made a copy of the article.



Here's some good photos of a Hurricane restoration and what I'm talking about


----------



## RCAFson (Mar 22, 2010)

renrich said:


> I have read that the Hurricane was much more easily repaired than the Spitfire because much of the airplane was wood and fabric and that wood workers in England were more numerous than workers familiar with the mostly metal construction of the Spitfire. As for the Sea Hurricane, Eric Brown states that the Wildcat was faster and more maneuverable and was more powerfully armed. The Sea Hurricane had a Vmax, according to Brown, of 300 mph and a service ceiling of only 30000 feet compared to 35000 feet for the standard Hurricane and 37000 feet for the F4F3. Taking a fighter designed only for land based operation and converting it for carrier use caused large penalties in performance.



Which version of Sea Hurricane are you talking about, and what altitude and boost levels does he state?


----------



## renrich (Mar 22, 2010)

This was in Brown's book, "Duels in the Sky" and I am assuming that he meant the 300 mph was at critical altiude. He further stated that the Sea Hrricane had a range of 450 miles and that no Sea Hurricanes were built from scratch as such but were conversions of RAF builds., He also pointed out that when ditched at sea the results were lethal.

Thanks FB, that photo is similar to the one I saw in the magazine except that the restoration was further along.


----------



## RCAFson (Mar 22, 2010)

renrich said:


> This was in Brown's book, "Duels in the Sky" and I am assuming that he meant the 300 mph was at critical altiude. He further stated that the Sea Hrricane had a range of 450 miles and that no Sea Hurricanes were built from scratch as such but were conversions of RAF builds., He also pointed out that when ditched at sea the results were lethal.
> 
> Thanks FB, that photo is similar to the one I saw in the magazine except that the restoration was further along.



The slowest Sea Hurricane would have been the Mk 1C which had 4 x 20mm cannon but retained the Merlin III engine. We can estimate its performance by looking at a MkIIC:

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

and using 16lb boost (and 1440hp), it is very likely to be faster than an F4F-3 under 10,000 ft or so.

Lt RJ Cork was credited with 5 kills during Operation Pedestal while flying the Sea Hurricane IC.

The Sea Hurricane had poor ditching qualities but it was certainly not always fatal for the pilot.


----------



## renrich (Mar 22, 2010)

I would not hold up Eric Brown as the final authority on anything although he flew almost all naval types, many of them in action. He seems to have had a strong bias against US aircraft but he seems to think that the Wildcat was much superior to the Sea Hurricane. I can certainly see that a fighter like the Hurricane, Spitfire or P51 would be very difficult to ditch at sea with those big scoops underneath. He also makes the statement that the Wildcat " was a great asset to the FAA, bringing it nearly to the level of the fighter opposition." He says the Wildcat II with the P&W engine had a Vmax of 328 mph at 19500 feet and 290 mph at SL and a range of 1150 miles. Sounds a lot better to me than the Sea Hurricane.


----------



## RCAFson (Mar 22, 2010)

renrich said:


> I would not hold up Eric Brown as the final authority on anything although he flew almost all naval types, many of them in action. He seems to have had a strong bias against US aircraft but he seems to think that the Wildcat was much superior to the Sea Hurricane. I can certainly see that a fighter like the Hurricane, Spitfire or P51 would be very difficult to ditch at sea with those big scoops underneath. He also makes the statement that the Wildcat " was a great asset to the FAA, bringing it nearly to the level of the fighter opposition." He says the Wildcat II with the P&W engine had a Vmax of 328 mph at 19500 feet and 290 mph at SL and a range of 1150 miles. Sounds a lot better to me than the Sea Hurricane.



The FAA data cards for the Marlet/Wildcat can be found here:
F4F Performance Trials

and only the Wildcat V (FM1)comes close to the figures you quote:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4f/wildcat-V-ads.jpg

having a maximum speed of 292mph at 3250ft, 313 at 13000ft and 332 at 21000ft, but this is a 1943/44 aircraft.

The Wildcat II shows a maximum speed of 292 at 6000ft and 300 at 14000ft:
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4f/wildcat-II-ads.jpg

Again it is important to compare the aircraft using the same power ratings at similar altitudes.


----------



## renrich (Mar 22, 2010)

The F4F3, with four 50 cals and 450 rounds per gun and armor at a takeoff weight of 7300 pounds in January, 1941, on Williams site has a production fighter # 1848, with the engine not running right showing a vmax of 331 mph at 21000 feet, service ceiling of 37000 feet and a climb to 20000 feet in eight minutes. As I have said before that fighter if the US had been at war in 1939, I am sure could have been in service in late summer 1940. I am only quoting Eric Brown, one of Britains premier test pilots. It actually shows a photo of him in a deck landing in a Wildcat, but he may have memory problems.


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 23, 2010)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Here's some good photos of a Hurricane restoration and what I'm talking about



Now that's neat - they're almost building it from scratch 
So the upper part of hull is made of wood? Would've lend itself to easy modification for bubble canopy like P-51D or Typhoon. I'll make a pic with that, and Hercules/R-2600 and see what it could like


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 23, 2010)

tomo pauk said:


> Now that's neat - they're almost building it from scratch
> So the upper part of hull is made of wood? Would've lend itself to easy modification for bubble canopy like P-51D or Typhoon. I'll make a pic with that, and Hercules/R-2600 and see what it could like



The upper turtle back formers are either birch or spruce along with the stringers.


----------



## Colin1 (Mar 23, 2010)

A couple more pics of the Hurricane's rear fuselage construction


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 23, 2010)

Very Cool!


----------



## Waynos (Mar 23, 2010)

tomo pauk said:


> Now that's neat - they're almost building it from scratch
> So the upper part of hull is made of wood? Would've lend itself to easy modification for bubble canopy like P-51D or Typhoon. I'll make a pic with that, and Hercules/R-2600 and see what it could like



Like so, Tomo? Merlin only I'm afraid, but still, eh?


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 23, 2010)

That's one neat Hurricane 

My drawings are done, will post them soon in thread about re-engined planes.


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 23, 2010)

renrich said:


> The F4F3, with four 50 cals and 450 rounds per gun and armor at a takeoff weight of 7300 pounds in January, 1941, on Williams site has a production fighter # 1848, with the engine not running right showing a vmax of 331 mph at 21000 feet, service ceiling of 37000 feet and a climb to 20000 feet in eight minutes. As I have said before that fighter if the US had been at war in 1939, I am sure could have been in service in late summer 1940.



Please define "in service in late summer 1940"

Equipping one squadron?

Equipping twenty or more squadrons?

Please note that there were troubles with both with the P&W 1830 two stage supercharged engines operation and with the expected supply of th engine which lead to a number of early F4F-3 being equipped with the single stage engine. Those planes a marked decrease in performance at altitude. 

Again please note that US climb to altitude figures are done using military power for the first 5 minutes and then using max continuous power for the remainder of the time while British climb to altitude figures are done using Max continuous (or max for 1/2 hour or 1 hour) power. The British figures are always going to be worse than the American figures for planes of the same nominal power because the British are using 100-150hp less for the first 5 minutes of the climb.


----------



## Nikademus (Mar 23, 2010)

Interesting thread.....and best of all, i have a new book to add to the wish list! (Been looking for a detailed account of the airwar over France post Sitzkreig. According to Shores, the Hurricane wasn't doing too badly from the start of the war through may 9, 40. ratio of exchange with 109E's (1:1.8 ). vs. Bf-110 - 5:0. Engagements between Luft fighters though only started occuring near the end though and there wer'nt many encounters. The British got badly bounced a couple of times so add salt where needed.

Shore's book (Fledgling Eagles) also documents a mock combat by 1 Squadron's new constant-speed airscrew equipped Hurricanes vs. a captured Bf-109E. They found the Hurr to be more maneuverable and with a slight speed edge at ground level. At any alt above however the Messerschmitt had the edge in speed. They also commented on it's excellent view to the rear.

Hurricanes in the BoB seemed to do well enough and better still in Greece where at one point they were commanding a 5:1 ratio edge over this same 109E. However by the close of the Crete action this had shrank to 1.5:1 in favor of the Hurricane. (Shores - Yugoslavia/Greece/Crete) Would the F4F have done better? who can say.....i do think that given the green state of many UK pilots during the hectic days of the BoB, having 8 fast firing guns has it's advantages. You hit any aircraft long enough, even with rifle caliber bullets and its going to go down. Ask your friendly neighborhood Stuka pilot.


----------



## Cromwell (Mar 23, 2010)

Hop said:


> The A&AEE tested a Hurricane II with 4 20mm Hispano IIs. They compared it to the same aircraft with all guns removed, but ballasted to the same weight. The speed difference was 5 mph at FTH, dropping to 3 mph at close to service ceiling.



That is very interesting reading - so really it was a negligable issue as to whether you had them neatly tucked-in like the Tempest, or all-hanging-out like the Hurricane or Tiffie ! Cosmetic, but not a lot else.

Note. I know intellectually that 'what-if' re-writing of history is probably a wast of time,

BUT I tell you something, if we had been able to source the Hurricane IIC for the BoB _with Cannon_, well, the LW bombers would have been Scrap Toast all at the same time !

I guess it would have chopped weeks off the BoB and saved Dozens of Lives, especially on 'our side' of the channel so to speak. _Wah Wah Wee Wah_


----------



## Sr. Gopher (Mar 23, 2010)

We must all remember that the toughness of the wildcat and its armament is useful all around


----------



## Cromwell (Mar 23, 2010)

Nikademus said:


> .....i do think that given the green state of many UK pilots during the hectic days of the BoB, having 8 fast firing guns has it's advantages. You hit any aircraft long enough, even with rifle caliber bullets and its going to go down. Ask your friendly neighborhood Stuka pilot.



Yes, and if you look at the extensive Perspex glazing on, say, the He111 or Ju87 there is not much between the Human Cranium and a 303 Bullet that will absolutely kill you and the rest of the crew in short order.


When used on the ground, the Lee Enfield 303 round (somewhat similar to bog standard RAF 303 'Ball' ammo) would stop you dead even at long ranges. It had a lot more KE than say modern 9mm 


*DE WILDE Bullets* - I notice this still keeps being left out of the discussion but Len Deighton (Brit Historian Novelist) said it made a significant difference to the trajectory and drag of 303 MG rounds (see "Fighter: The True Story of the Battle of Britain" by Len Deighton pub by Grafton and others)


See this from *THE BATTLE OF BRITAIN * It makes _Very Interesting Reading_ [Anthony G Williams 2004/5]



"_The incendiary ammunition was also variable in performance. Comparative British tests of British .303" and German 7.92 mm incendiary ammunition against the self-sealing wing tanks in the Blenheim, also fired from 200 yards (180m) astern, revealed that the .303" B. Mk IV incendiary tracer (based on the First World War Buckingham design – it was ignited on firing and burned on its way to the target) and the 7.92 mm were about equal, each setting the tanks alight with about one in ten shots fired. 


The *B. Mk VI **'De Wilde'* incendiary (named after the original Belgian inventor but in fact completely redesigned by *Major Dixon*), which contained 0.5 grams of SR 365 (a composition including barium nitrate which ignited on impact with the target) was twice as effective as these, scoring one in five. 


The 'De Wilde' bullets were first issued in June 1940 and tested operationally in the air battles over Dunkirk. 

Their improved effectiveness, coupled with the fact that the flash on impact indicated that the shooting was on target, was much appreciated by the fighter pilots. 

It was at first in short supply, and the initial RAF fighter loading was three guns loaded with ball, two with AP, two with Mk IV incendiary tracer and one with Mk VI incendiary. 

Another source for the Battle of Britain armament gives four guns with ball, two with AP and two with incendiaries (presumably Mk VI) with four of the last 25 rounds being tracer (presumably Mk IV incendiary/tracer) to tell the pilot he was running out of ammunition.

It is not clear why ball was used at all; presumably there was a shortage of the more effective loadings. (By 1942 the standard loading for fixed .303s was half loaded with AP and half with incendiary.)_ "


----------



## Colin1 (Mar 23, 2010)

Cromwell said:


> When used on the ground, the Lee Enfield .303 round (somewhat similar to bog standard RAF .303 'Ball' ammo roughly speaking) would stop you dead


Similar?
Does that imply they were different? In what way? I didn't realise they were different.

The .303, used on the ground, would certainly kill a man. It wasn't the most powerful cartridge in the world when applied to aerial combat, even by the standards of other .30 ammunition.


----------



## Cromwell (Mar 23, 2010)

Colin1 said:


> A couple more pics of the Hurricane's rear fuselage construction



I have read in a few places about the complexity and the subtlety of the Hurricane tubular construction

Its the same when trying to restore Furies, Bulldogs that type of plane - complex joints with mixtures of metal types and both pressed and cast flanges - used on tubing that is Not round in section but Hexagonal and all sorts 

Nightmare - no wonder the Spit, or better still, the P51 was easier to make en masse.


----------



## Colin1 (Mar 23, 2010)

Cromwell said:


> ... no wonder the Spitfire or, better still, the P-51 was easier to make en masse.


I was under the impression that it was the Hurricane that was easier to build


----------



## Cromwell (Mar 23, 2010)

Colin1 said:


> Similar?
> Does that imply they were different? In what way? I didn't realize they were different.
> 
> The .303, used on the ground, would certainly kill a man. It wasn't the most powerful cartridge in the world when applied to aerial combat, even by the standards of other .30 ammunition.



Well you would have to check to be totally sure - but from memory the cartridges used in planes may have been .303 calibre too, but in terms of propellant they were much more powerful I think, especially for the Browning application.

Put another way, if you want to put a standard 1939/40 RAF .303 round in a Lee (if you can, I am not sure the cartridge would fit the breach by the way) then I would not want to pull the trigger, or stand anywhere near you if you wanted to let one off (so to speak).

I know that the idea was originally that those jolly chaps in their flying machines could swap ammo with those jolly chaps in the cavalry or the infantry, but in reality I think the two technologies were diverging quite a lot by 1939.


----------



## Cromwell (Mar 23, 2010)

Colin1 said:


> I was under the impression that it was the Hurricane that was easier to build



I used to think that, but when I spoke to some of the resorers at Duxford or even Shuttleworth on open days they all say that its easier to bend and rivet metal than try to repair tubular open-frames

Note. Even the tubing is not round - it is very subtly Hexagonal in section and very hard to get hold of.

You can try and draw it under pressure through tool steel formers but it then work hardens and can be prone to cracking.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 23, 2010)

Cromwell said:


> I used to think that, but when I spoke to some of the resorers at Duxford or even Shuttleworth on open days they all say that its easier to bend and rivet metal than try to repair tubular open-frames.


My point earlier about the maintenance of these aircraft...

I think the common belief for this goes back in the day when aluminum airplanes were new and many of the "really old timers" had to be "retrained" to work metal aircraft. Even today, I know a few mechanics who think working fabric aircraft are easier than metal planes, but these folks are a minority.


----------



## pbfoot (Mar 23, 2010)

Also remember these maintainers knew these aircraft inside out or someone in close proximty sure did , and they had the "knack"


----------



## fastmongrel (Mar 24, 2010)

I have restored 4 classic British motorbikes and 2 classic British cars. It is quite amusing to watch people who can work on modern Japanese or Italian bikes and modern cars struggle with the old stuff. They cant understand it, it's simpler with less moving parts it must be easy to work on so they plough on getting deeper and deeper in the mire. There are a lot of dodges and tricks to learn when working with old stuff you cant just throw a part at it and expect it to slot in place. In the days before modern precision manufacturing most parts were fitted by hand and all fitters/mechanics knew this and were taught this during there apprenticeship. 

Working on the Hurricanes tubular fuselage would never be easy but if you were brought up on this technology I bet you would know all sorts of bodges and tricks that have just been forgotten these days.

An example of long forgotten tricks was shown to me when I was restoring an old Wolsley car with my brother. We couldnt get the doors to fit we tried and tried but just couldnt get the hinges and locks to marry. They werent the original doors but were from the same model. We ended up taking the car and doors to an old boy who at the time must have been in his late 70s retired and not particulary sturdy looking. His eyes lit up when he saw the old girl he got his still immaculate tool kit out of the shed and within half an hour he had one door fitting beautifully and the other done another hour or so later. He wouldnt take any payment he said it was a pleasure to do the work so we took him to the pub and filled him up with beer.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 24, 2010)

fastmongrel said:


> I have restored 4 classic British motorbikes and 2 classic British cars. It is quite amusing to watch people who can work on modern Japanese or Italian bikes and modern cars struggle with the old stuff. They cant understand it, it's simpler with less moving parts it must be easy to work on so they plough on getting deeper and deeper in the mire. There are a lot of dodges and tricks to learn when working with old stuff you cant just throw a part at it and expect it to slot in place. In the days before modern precision manufacturing most parts were fitted by hand and all fitters/mechanics knew this and were taught this during there apprenticeship.
> 
> *Working on the Hurricanes tubular fuselage would never be easy but if you were brought up on this technology I bet you would know all sorts of bodges and tricks that have just been forgotten these days.*
> 
> An example of long forgotten tricks was shown to me when I was restoring an old Wolsley car with my brother. We couldnt get the doors to fit we tried and tried but just couldnt get the hinges and locks to marry. They werent the original doors but were from the same model. We ended up taking the car and doors to an old boy who at the time must have been in his late 70s retired and not particulary sturdy looking. His eyes lit up when he saw the old girl he got his still immaculate tool kit out of the shed and within half an hour he had one door fitting beautifully and the other done another hour or so later. He wouldnt take any payment he said it was a pleasure to do the work so we took him to the pub and filled him up with beer.



Restoring old cars and motorcycles are a lot different than restoring aircraft. For the most part many of the old processes used to build the aircraft being restored will have to be used to re-certify the aircraft if it is to fly again. There aren't many "dodges and tricks to learn" when working with aircraft, unless the particular aircraft was handbuilt, and in the case of the Hurricane, I doubt you'll see any major "hand built idiosyncrasies" unless you're dealing with the very first ones built. Even though fabric work is somewhat of a dying art in some circles, you can still find people who can do it and there are newer processes (Polyfiber) that can be used to make the process easier should the restorer choose to do so. 

I don't understand your comment on the tubing. There is nothing in today's world that will make either fabricating that tubing or repairing it any different. There is no "trick" in restoring a wing rib or forming a new skin. For the most part those restoring aircraft are using the same methods that were used to build the aircraft in the first place. I deal with a company that specializes in aircraft restoration and the only modern process they have come up with is a method in riveting inside corrugated reinforced skins found on a P-38. They had to make special bucking bars that fit inside the corrugations and use compress air for pressure so solid rivet can be used in the restoration.


----------



## Jerry W. Loper (Jul 14, 2011)

There wasn't a whole lot to choose between the two in overall performance - that being more or less equal, I'd pick the Hurricane because it had the same armament and engine as the Spitfire.


----------



## RCAFson (Jul 15, 2011)

The Hurricane was considerably easier and cheaper to build than the Spitfire:



> _As early as January 1940 when the first wartime programme embodying the heavy bombers was settled, it was reckoned that ratios of weight to man-hours would, for the principal types, work out as follows:
> 
> 
> Airframe structure weight / Average man-hours per lb. / structure weight per 1,000 man-hours
> ...



HyperWar: British War Production [Chapter IV]


----------



## Nxthanos (Jul 15, 2011)

Interesting topic, i would select a wildcat for a number of reasons, such as:

Could take more battle damage
Faster in level flight
MUCH faster in a vertical dive
Superior armament

Wildcats could and did take on zeros well into 1942 with sucess, the hurricanes, often Mk IIs did not do well vs the vaunted zerosens.


----------



## RCAFson (Jul 15, 2011)

I don't know how to quantify battle damage, but the Hurricane was capable of taking quite a bit of damage.

The Hurricane was definitely faster than the Wildcat

I doubt there was much difference, and I wouldn't be surprised if the Hurricane was faster in a dive, since the F4F couldn't even out dive a zero.

Armament might be better than 8 x .303 but the cannon armed Hurricane was far more potent.

Under similar tactical situations I would expect the Hurricane to outscore the F4F, since it was faster, could much climb faster, turn better, probably roll better. and probably outdive the F4F.


----------



## Glider (Jul 16, 2011)

Cannon armed Hurricanes were not an option in the BOB so I am afraid that wouldn't work. As for the last section I would expect the Wildcat to roll and dive faster than the Hurricane and a small but valid point, the engine wouldn't cut when first doing a punt eliminating one of the Luftwaffe key tactics for evading a Hurricane.

As for turning I do not know, they were both pretty agile and I would expect both to turn inside the Me109 which is the bit that really counts.


----------



## pinsog (Jul 16, 2011)

RCAFson said:


> I don't know how to quantify battle damage, but the Hurricane was capable of taking quite a bit of damage.
> 
> The Hurricane was definitely faster than the Wildcat
> 
> ...


 
Hurricane faster in a dive??? The F4F couldn't outdive a zero??? I've never read that anywhere. Dive speed was one of the few advantages the Wildcat had on the zero. Somewhere buried in this forum, someone else put in a thread that in North Africa a German Ace in a 109 was dogfighting a Wildcat and the Wildcat got on his tail so he did what he always did to shake Spits and Hurricanes, he flipped over and dropped into a dive. When he looked over his shoulder he was suprised to see the Wildcat glued to his tail firing away at him. The German Ace said the reason he wasn't shot down was the guy was a terrible shot. I dont know if the Wildcat could outdive a 109 but it was at least an equal.

As far as tough, even if airframes are equal, you still have watercooled vs aircooled giving that advantage to the Wildcat.


----------



## Readie (Jul 16, 2011)

pinsog said:


> you still have watercooled vs aircooled giving that advantage to the Wildcat.



The Wildcat, while undoubtedly robust was a stop gap till the Hellcat arrived to met the Zero on equal terms in the Pacific.
We needed the brute power of the in line Merlin to meet the LW in the BoB, a 1940 US Radial did not have the performance we needed.
Cheers
John


----------



## RCAFson (Jul 16, 2011)

pinsog said:


> Hurricane faster in a dive??? The F4F couldn't outdive a zero??? I've never read that anywhere. Dive speed was one of the few advantages the Wildcat had on the zero. Somewhere buried in this forum, someone else put in a thread that in North Africa a German Ace in a 109 was dogfighting a Wildcat and the Wildcat got on his tail so he did what he always did to shake Spits and Hurricanes, he flipped over and dropped into a dive. When he looked over his shoulder he was suprised to see the Wildcat glued to his tail firing away at him. The German Ace said the reason he wasn't shot down was the guy was a terrible shot. I dont know if the Wildcat could outdive a 109 but it was at least an equal.
> 
> As far as tough, even if airframes are equal, you still have watercooled vs aircooled giving that advantage to the Wildcat.


 
The USN compared a captured Zero with an F4F-4:





and the two were judged equal in a dive.
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/japan/intelsum85-dec42.pdf
AFAIk, the Hurricane was as good or slightly better than a Spitfire in roll rate and here's the Spitfire compared to an F4F-3:
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/naca868-rollchart.jpg

The F4F might gain a slight advantage in initial dive rate, but the superior power to weight ratio of the Hurricane would quickly allow it to overtake the F4F.


----------



## RCAFson (Jul 16, 2011)

Glider said:


> Cannon armed Hurricanes were not an option in the BOB so I am afraid that wouldn't work. As for the last section I would expect the Wildcat to roll and dive faster than the Hurricane and a small but valid point, the engine wouldn't cut when first doing a punt eliminating one of the Luftwaffe key tactics for evading a Hurricane.
> 
> As for turning I do not know, they were both pretty agile and I would expect both to turn inside the Me109 which is the bit that really counts.


 
The F4F was only an option if someone had the foresight to get it into production sooner, and the same could be said for cannon armed Hurricanes which were in testing before and during the BofB, although personally I think the Vickers .5" would have been a better weapon than the .303 BMG, and would have been available right from the start.
Wing loading
Me109e3 = 30.76
F4F-4 = 30.5 (7930lb)
F4F-3 = 28.46
Hurricane I = 26.26 (6750lb)

The F4F-4 has only a slight edge over the 109.


----------



## pinsog (Jul 16, 2011)

RCAFson said:


> The USN compared a captured Zero with an F4F-4:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
I can't lay my hands on the specific posts, but on this forum, and other places, I have read that the Wildcat could dive with an Me109, and they had equally good evidence to back up that opinion. I wish I could find those posts, but there are only about 8 million posts on this forum!


----------



## RCAFson (Jul 16, 2011)

pinsog said:


> I can't lay my hands on the specific posts, but on this forum, and other places, I have read that the Wildcat could dive with an Me109, and they had equally good evidence to back up that opinion. I wish I could find those posts, but there are only about 8 million posts on this forum!



I know what you mean about the trying to find things on this forum...

However, the Me109 had much smaller frontal area than a F4F and equal or greater power. A 109 will outdive an F4F and a Hurricane; the Spitfire would eventually catch it in a dive, but initially it would pull away from the Spit as well.


----------



## pinsog (Jul 16, 2011)

RCAFson said:


> I know what you mean about the trying to find things on this forum...
> 
> However, the Me109 had much smaller frontal area than a F4F and equal or greater power. A 109 will outdive an F4F and a Hurricane; the Spitfire would eventually catch it in a dive, but initially it would pull away from the Spit as well.


 
Found it, search for Wildcat vs me109 on this forum. Everyone on that particular thread say that the Wildcat will actually OUTDIVE an Me109E but someone said NOT a 109F.


----------



## pinsog (Jul 16, 2011)

RCAFson said:


> I know what you mean about the trying to find things on this forum...
> 
> However, the Me109 had much smaller frontal area than a F4F and equal or greater power. A 109 will outdive an F4F and a Hurricane; the Spitfire would eventually catch it in a dive, but initially it would pull away from the Spit as well.


 
I found it, search for Wildcat vs Me109 on this forum. Most everybody said a Wildcat would OUTDIVE an Me109E, but one guy said a 109F would outdive the Wildcat.


----------



## pinsog (Jul 16, 2011)

Nice double post. I looked and that wasnt there, so I retyped it and then it came back. I hate computers......


----------



## RCAFson (Jul 16, 2011)

Well, I am very sceptical about that. I posted this before, but I can't find my original so here it is again:



> _P.210, DUELS IN THE SKY
> F4F-4 Wildcat Versus Sea Hurricane IIC
> Here were two fighters almost evenly matched in combat perform-
> ance and firepower, with the British fighter holding the edge. The
> ...



Brown seems to imply a superior RoC for the F4F-4, which is nonsense. Even the lowly and much despised (by some, but not me...) Fulmar II could outclimb an F4F-4 to 10,000 ft.


----------



## VBF-13 (Jul 16, 2011)

Nxthanos said:


> Wildcats could and did take on zeros well into 1942 with sucess



The Zeroes could turn on a dime and give you a nickel back, that's the advantage they had over the F4Fs and the FM2s. The F6Fs had a higher ceiling and could dive on them all day long. 

In the poll, I voted Wildcat. Hey, I'm a Northwestern grad.


----------



## pinsog (Jul 16, 2011)

RCAFson said:


> Well, I am very sceptical about that. I posted this before, but I can't find my original so here it is again:
> 
> 
> 
> Brown seems to imply a superior RoC for the F4F-4, which is nonsense. Even the lowly and much despised (by some, but not me...) Fulmar II could outclimb an F4F-4 to 10,000 ft.


 
Good post, I have that book. 2 things about Mr Brown that sometimes make me question his judgement: He rated the Hellcat and I think the Wildcat above the Corsair, AND he rated the Swordfish above the Avenger.

While his credentials are incredible, it's kinda like world renown brain surgeon claiming he was kidnapped by aliens. You know he's smart, but you still look at him sideways and say "Seriously?"


----------



## Glider (Jul 16, 2011)

RCAFson said:


> The F4F was only an option if someone had the foresight to get it into production sooner, and the same could be said for cannon armed Hurricanes which were in testing before and during the BofB, although personally I think the Vickers .5" would have been a better weapon than the .303 BMG, and would have been available right from the start.
> Wing loading
> Me109e3 = 30.76
> F4F-4 = 30.5 (7930lb)
> ...


 
True to a degree. The first RN Wildcats entered service in August 1940 so it was a close run thing but I agree had they pushed for it earlier then the RN would have ahd a fighter to help the RAF during the battle itself.

A cannon armed Hurricane was used during the BOB and did get at least one kill but the mounting was basic, its impact on performance significant and reliability poor. The RAF had been trying since 1938 to get the cannon to work but had encountered a number of problems. 
There is a difference. The British had been trying their best to get the 20mm working nad its unlikely that they could have done any better than they did, so the 20mm Hurricane wasn't likely to happen in time for the BOB. Had they tried nearly as hard for the Wildcat then it would have happened.

The F4-F4 was a much later aircraft would cannot really be considered for the BOB so the F4-F3 was the only candidate which had a wing loading somewhere between the Hurricane I and the Me109E3. Whilst there is more to turning than wing loading it would indicate that both the Hurricane and F4-F3 had a better turn than the Me109.


----------



## Glider (Jul 16, 2011)

RCAFson said:


> Well, I am very sceptical about that. I posted this before, but I can't find my original so here it is again:
> 
> 
> 
> Brown seems to imply a superior RoC for the F4F-4, which is nonsense. Even the lowly and much despised (by some, but not me...) Fulmar II could outclimb an F4F-4 to 10,000 ft.


 
Brown states a steaper angle of climb, not a better ROC the difference in combat is significant. If I have the better angle of climb then you in an aircraft with a better ROC will not be able to get a shot at me if we are both climbing as you will stall out. If I am behind you then you may be able to climb faster but I will have my guns on you all the time and the probability is that you will be hit.

To put it another way a better ROC is an advantage in a tactical sense as you will have a much better chance of gaining the height advantage. Once the fighting starts then the angle of climb is more important.


----------



## the ace (Jul 16, 2011)

Funny, both the Belgians and the Soviets armed their Hurricanes with 4x.50.


----------



## RCAFson (Jul 17, 2011)

the ace said:


> Funny, both the Belgians and the Soviets armed their Hurricanes with 4x.50.



I agree that a .5", if reliable, was a better armament than the .303. 

the Vickers .5" HMG was actually a pretty good gun, that was lighter than the BMG and fired lighter, albeit less powerful ammo, but still better than the .303:



> _Several different loadings of the .5V/580 round were developed for British service, as follows:
> 
> Ball Mark I.z: 580 grain bullet with two-piece core (front aluminium, rear lead). Approved for service 1924, but not issued.
> *
> ...




and the weight of 4 guns and 1800 rnds of ammo = 

216 + 423 = 639lb (Vickers)

266lb + 556lb = 822lb (BMG)


----------



## Mustang nut (Jul 19, 2011)

It may be seen as a good idea to use the Wildcats range to chase the LW back over the channel but during the later stages of the BoB the Pas de Calais was home to over 500 109s chasing one group of fighters could lead to getting bounced by another. There were many good pilots "last seen chasing enemy fighters back to France". Park instructed pilots not to do it and in the later stages did not even want to engage the LW over the channel. Parachuting into water is difficult and pilots hard to spot in the water.

I cannot see that the RAF would take the Wildcat to replace the Hurricane it may have been marginally better in some respects worse in others but would require re training all pilots and ground crew and create a new logistical problem. During the BoB a fighter could land at any fighter field and get re armed engine seen to at least.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 19, 2011)

The Vickers .5 machine gun may not have been a viable option. While Vicker's guns may have been long lasting and nearly unbreakable they could suffer from a wide variety of jams or stoppages. This is what lead to the adoption of the Browning in .303, the Vickers wasn't reliable enough to put in a wing where the pilot couldn't get to it.


----------



## Readie (Jul 19, 2011)

Shortround6 said:


> The Vickers .5 machine gun may not have been a viable option. While Vicker's guns may have been long lasting and nearly unbreakable they could suffer from a wide variety of jams or stoppages. This is what lead to the adoption of the Browning in .303, the Vickers wasn't reliable enough to put in a wing where the pilot couldn't get to it.


 
Yep, look at the SE5a for Vickers access !
Cheers
John


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 19, 2011)

You mean like this:

http://www.wwi-models.org/Images/Miller/render/SE5a/scout2.jpg


----------



## Readie (Jul 19, 2011)

And like this...

SE.5a Walkaround | The Vintage Aviator

The 'upper gun' was a lewis I think... 

Cheers
John


----------

