Battle of Britain Hurricane or Wildcat

[Markus]

Another consideration - could you smoke in the Wildcat??

= Tim

Smoking is bad for your health; it distracts you, the smoke reduces visibility ...

Aircraft attacking the German bombers should be flying at about 20,000 feet. How did the Hurricane and F4F compare at this altitude?

Very well, because the F4F-3 did not have a two-speed but a two-stage supercharger. Thus she could operate at up to 30,000ft.

The Hurricane would climb faster by some 500ft/min which would make a difference over a comparatively small combat arena like SE England in terms of getting to altitude quickly enough, or not and getting bounced

Her initial climb rate is app. 1,000ft lower than a Wildcats. How much time did she need to 20,000ft? I found info on two websides and they say at least 9 minutes. That would make her a slower climber than the -3 Wildcat.

K5083 - Technical Data Part II - Mk. I
Hawker Hurricane Mk IA - The Air Combat Wiki

 

[Vincenzo]

the FTH altitude for F4F-3 was higher of that Hurricane I (the best speed are at 22000" and a 17500")

 

[herman1rg]

As someone said earlier in the the thread I don't think there would be enough Wildcats produced in time.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

As someone said earlier in the the thread I don't think there would be enough Wildcats produced in time.

Depends where and when production would be fully engaged to support this hypothetical effort. After Pearl Harbor and after the first batch of F4F-3As were delivered, up to 1943, 1169 examples of the F4F-4 were built, that averages 390 units per year, as a comparison there were about 500 Hurricanes built from when production started in October 1937 through September 1939.

 

[Hop]

In the first 12 months of the war, 3 September 1939 to 3 September 1940, the RAF took delivery of 1,782 Hurricanes.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

In the first 12 months of the war, 3 September 1939 to 3 September 1940, the RAF took delivery of 1,782 Hurricanes.

And in 1944 3103 FM-3s were built for the USN and the RN. The point is just as many, if not more F4Fs' could have been built as Hurricanes under the same given time.

 

[Colin1]

Her initial climb rate is app. 1,000ft lower than a Wildcats. How much time did she need to 20,000ft? I found info on two websides and they say at least 9 minutes. That would make her a slower climber than the -3 Wildcat

I'm showing initial climb rates of 2,000ft/min for the early (read lighter) versions of the F4F and 2,529ft/min for the Hurricane I. Service ceiling of 35,000ft for the F4F (more for the earlier, lighter versions) and 36,000ft for the Hurricane I.

As far as the two-stage supercharging issue: Pratt Witney started work on two-stage supercharging for the R-1830 in 1935 and bumped into alot of problems, so many in fact that a reasonable model wasn't available for testing until 1939. This was the R-1830SB-2/R-1830SC-2G which made its maiden flight in February of that year. It suffered badly from surging and P&W took the supercharger design all the way back to the drawing board. The R-1830-19 was the first all-Pratt Witney two-stage supercharged powerplant, it featured C-type cylinder heads, new-type cylinders, an NA-V12A carburettor and lead-coated silver master-rod bearings. It had an air intercooler but none of the technology resolved the high-altitude surging. The -76 and -86 followed but neither was completely satisfactory.

Rolls-Royce Merlin II__________1,030hp@3,000rpm@16,250ft (delivered August 1937)
Pratt Witney R-1830-19_____1,050hp@2,550rpm@17,500ft (delivered late 1939)

 

[parsifal]

Wilcats had numerous teething problems throughout 1940, that continued to plague the type until early 1941. Its a fact often overlooked by many such comparisons.

The hurricane was a type that had been ready for service since before the war. To adequately compare the hurricane to the Wildcat, and remain in a contemporary time line, one has to go to the hurricane II series really.

 

[Hop]

And in 1944 3103 FM-3s were built for the USN and the RAN. The point is just as many, if not more F4Fs' could have been built as Hurricanes under the same given time.

In time for the BoB? With the pre-war production, about 2,300 Hurricanes had been built by the start of September 1940. With the best will in the world, I can't see 2,300 Wildcats being built in the first few months of production.

It takes time to go from prototype to production to large scale deployment. The Wildcat might have been ready to play a large role in 1941, but not in the summer of 1940.

 

[Colin1]

In time for the BoB? ... ...The Wildcat might have been ready to play a large role in 1941, but not in the summer of 1940.

The F4F wasn't accepted by the USN until July 1940
Even if F4Fs were ready to ship in time for the battle, the logistic lines would have proved a near-insurmountable headache; Britain had no real answer to the Atlantic problem in 1940, if F4Fs were to replace Hurricanes plane for plane then roughly 2/3 of RAF Fighter Command would have been decorating the ocean floor between Ireland and the eastern seaboard of the US.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

In time for the BoB? With the pre-war production, about 2,300 Hurricanes had been built by the start of September 1940. With the best will in the world, I can't see 2,300 Wildcats being built in the first few months of production.

It takes time to go from prototype to production to large scale deployment. The Wildcat might have been ready to play a large role in 1941, but not in the summer of 1940.

But had the first production model flown in 1937 like the Hurricane? That's my point - read my earlier post...

Depends where and when production would be fully engaged to support this hypothetical effort

From 1937 to 1939 there were 500 Hurricanes. From 1939 to 1940, you had 2300 Hurricanes. As stated, in 1944 3103 FM-3s were built for the USN and the RN...

Had a

 

[FLYBOYJ]

The F4F wasn't accepted by the USN until July 1940
Even if F4Fs were ready to ship in time for the battle, the logistic lines would have proved a near-insurmountable headache; Britain had no real answer to the Atlantic problem in 1940, if F4Fs were to replace Hurricanes plane for plane then roughly 2/3 of RAF Fighter Command would have been decorating the ocean floor between Ireland and the eastern seaboard of the US.

That's another secenrio to look at. Also consider the FAA had Wildcats operational by Dec 1940.

 

[Markus]

I'm showing initial climb rates of 2,000ft/min for the early (read lighter) versions of the F4F and 2,529ft/min for the Hurricane I. Service ceiling of 35,000ft for the F4F (more for the earlier, lighter versions) and 36,000ft for the Hurricane I.

What a mere 2,000ft/min for an early Wildcat? No way, "America´s 100,000" says even the heavier F4F-4 could almost make 2,500ft/min at sea level. Climb rates rapidly decreased with altitude but 8 minuts to 20,000ft still beats the Hurricane´s time.

@parsifal, Colin1, Hop and herman1rg

Valid points IOTL but pinsog stated:

This is a hypothetical question so we shall assume 2 things
1. there were enough F4F3's to supply the RAF and

 

[proton45]

It was my understanding that another advantage of the Hurricane was ease of repair...

It was possible to repair them more quickly and keep them in the air, for the fight. Also it took less skilled repairmen.

 

[pbfoot]

The range of the Wildcat gives it an advantage over the Hurricane because it would the ability to pursue the German birds back to base . Something that wasn't attempted by the RAF because of the limited range of their birds

 

[JoeB]

The F4F was a later plane, but any what-if has to assume accelerating its production, otherwise it's a simple, wasn't available. As mentioned truly operational USN F4F sdns as well as the FAA's first Martlets, from the diverted Greek order post dated the BoB, let alone considering comparable numbers to Hurricanes as of BoB.

As we've gone over several times and controversially each time but worth remembering, against the same oppostion in the Pacific the F4F had a much better fighter combat record than the Hurricane. The Hurricane struggled against the Zero and Type 1 all the way through 1943, several:1 kill ratio's against it. F4F fought them at parity pretty much immediately, and has been covered ad nauseum F4F's in 1942 didn't usually use special anti-Zero tactics, and Zeroes themselves preferred hit and run tactics by late 1942 v F4F's, not tail chasing, so the quick hand wave of 'tactics' doesn't explain it alone. There are many other variables in those outcomes as there always are, and it's impossible to prove how much of that discrepancy in record was due to subtle or intangible performance differences that made the the F4F the superior fighter combat a/c, but it would seem that some probably was, IMO. And survival rate v escorting fighters is important even though not the direct objective in such a combat scenario. As far as attacking bombers it would seem the F4F was superior and nothing from Pacific suggests otherwise on that point either: .50's v RCMG's, no radiator vulnerable to RCMG return fire from bombers, basically similar capability to intercept. I can't see preferring the Hurricane to F4F in pretty much any scenario unless you got fewer planes choosing F4F or some other penalty. But, the F4F was a later airplane, not in actual history available as soon.

Joe

 

[parsifal]

Joe I accept your position of the hurricane vis a viz Japanese fighters, but against the european axis aircraft, the Hurricane was quite effective. The obvious comparison has to be Hurricane versus Me 109e. I would suggest the Me 109 had the advantage overall, but the margin was not as great as the straight up performance figures might suggest. the hurri remained a competitive fighter well into 1941. Perhaps the Hurri was inneffective against the jap fighters but effective against the German fighters for precisely the reason that the hurricanes main asset....its manouverability, it held an advantage over the german types, but not the jap types.

Hurricanes continued to be effective bomber destroyers and fighter bombers well into 1943, and I believe that they were never really intended to be pure or dedicated fighters in any TO, including the SEAC area, after the end of 1942. I believe it unfairly and unneccessarily casts them in a bad light to judge them as apure fighter when they were anything but by 1943

Some (not you) are also saying the F4f had the range advantage over the hurricane, and this would allow them to take the battle to the germans in France....bad idea, and a fundamental misunderstanding about what the essntials of the battle really were. The BoB for the RAF was not about defeating the LW outright.....to pursue the LW, continue the engagement and seek to destroy the LW was an objective quite beyond the RAFs capabilities in 1940. It fails, in a fundamental way to appreciate the brilliance of Dowdings strategy, and merely mouths that idiots mallorys concepts of the big wing. All the RAF could hope to do in 1940 was to remain in the fight and deny outright air sup[eriority to the Germans. any deviation from that objective would have destroyed the RAF. Keeping the engagement going after that defensive mission had been achieved was simply going to fatigue the pilots even more and lead to losses that would worsen the balance against the RAF even more than it was.

 

[pbfoot]

Some (not you) are also saying the F4f had the range advantage over the hurricane, and this would allow them to take the battle to the germans in France....bad idea, and a fundamental misunderstanding about what the essntials of the battle really were. The BoB for the RAF was not about defeating the LW outright.....to pursue the LW, continue the engagement and seek to destroy the LW was an objective quite beyond the RAFs capabilities in 1940. It fails, in a fundamental way to appreciate the brilliance of Dowdings strategy, and merely mouths that idiots mallorys concepts of the big wing. All the RAF could hope to do in 1940 was to remain in the fight and deny outright air sup[eriority to the Germans. any deviation from that objective would have destroyed the RAF. Keeping the engagement going after that defensive mission had been achieved was simply going to fatigue the pilots even more and lead to losses that would worsen the balance against the RAF even more than it was.

T hank you for the voice from on high , however it sounds like a good plan to me harrassing aircraft that are low on fuel , as for beyond the capabilities of tha RAF it was beyond the capabilities for the whole war

 

[Colin1]

Some (not you) are also saying the F4F had the range advantage over the Hurricane, and this would allow them to take the battle to the germans in France....bad idea... ...Keeping the engagement going after that defensive mission had been achieved was simply going to fatigue the pilots even more and lead to losses that would worsen the balance against the RAF even more than it was.

I would agree
rhubarbs cost the RAF pilots and machines for next to zero gain in the months after the battle, and these were organised sorties.

Hot-headed pursuits back in to occupied France would play straight into the Luftwaffe's hands - it wouldn't take long for them to organise 'welcoming committees' - another avenue for bleeding the RAF to death and this one would have the distinction of almost certainly depriving the RAF of a surviving pilot.

 

[pbfoot]

I would agree
rhubarbs cost the RAF pilots and machines for next to zero gain in the months after the battle, and these were organised sorties.

Hot-headed pursuits back in to occupied France would play straight into the Luftwaffe's hands - it wouldn't take long for them to organising 'welcoming committees' - another avenue for bleeding the RAF to death and this one would have the distinction of almost certainly depriving the RAF of a surviving pilot.

yes there would be welcoming committees but those same committes would not be swanning about the UK , but to have the ability could not fail to change the application of resources