Battle of Britain Hurricane or Wildcat

[Colin1]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

"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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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.

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

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]

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]

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.

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.

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.

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?"

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]

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]

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]

I
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)

wrong assumption the report it's for -3 with armour as you can read in it

 

[The Basket]

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]

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]

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]

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 provides some basic information that tends to back up my speculation

Grumman Martlet (F4F Wildcat)

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