Battle of Britain Hurricane or Wildcat

Wildcat or Hurricane

  • Total voters
    50

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

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
 
Last edited:
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.
 

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
 
Last edited:
RCAFson said:
The Buffalo had a superb kill ratio in Finnish service.
Click to expand...

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."
 
Last edited:

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 ?
 
Last edited:
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
 
Last edited:

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.
 
Last edited:
"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.
 

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?
 

you overstated the ground losses
 
There were at least one, probably two Gladiator Squadrons in France as well and I'm sure they had losses.
 
And the data to support that???
 
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?
Click to expand...

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 ?
.
 
Last edited:

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
 
FLYBOYJ said:
And the data to support that???
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

Second best fighter of World War II
Replies
15
Views
2K
SaparotRob
  • Poll
F-15, F-16, F-18, F-22, or F-35
Replies
5
Views
2K
FLYBOYJ
  • Poll
Spitfire vs Hurricane
Replies
1
Views
2K
pbehn
P
  • Poll
Hurricane Mk1 vs 109E-6
Replies
2
Views
1K
Shortround6
S
  • Poll
Which was better
Replies
5
Views
1K
Supermarine-SpitfireMkXIV
Menu
Log in
Register