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


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.
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Colin1 said:
I'm getting well confused over the F4F-3's climb rate...
Click to expand...

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:

 
Last edited:
I was wondering if the 4 x Cannon, sticking out of the wing of the Hurri, were actually deleterious to performance or not ?
Click to expand...

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.
 
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
 
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?
 
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.
 
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
 
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.
Click to expand...

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)
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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