Battle of Britain Hurricane or Wildcat

[RCAFson]

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]

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]

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]

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]

A couple more pics of the Hurricane's rear fuselage construction

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Very Cool!

 

[Waynos]

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]

That's one neat Hurricane

My drawings are done, will post them soon in thread about re-engined planes.

 

[Shortround6]

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]

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]

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]

We must all remember that the toughness of the wildcat and its armament is useful all around

 

[Cromwell]

.....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]

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]

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]

... 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]

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]

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]

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]

Also remember these maintainers knew these aircraft inside out or someone in close proximty sure did , and they had the "knack"