Battle of Britain Hurricane or Wildcat

[RCAFson]

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]

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

 

[RCAFson]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

Joe

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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))