frf3 wildcat v. hurricane1

[Elvis]

Early Martlets are weird anyway, some were redirected French or Greek orders and others were ordered by the British, they had various engines, some Pratt Whitney and some Wright Cyclone. Some were six gun and some four gun and all of them are roughly accordant with the F4F-3 production period, I don't think any of those early ones had paper clip wings which is the real distinction of the F4F-4 (and standardised 6 gun armament).

A British Martlet in 1941 could have 4 or 6 guns or either of two engine types and no folding wings. In the European Theatre it was a superb carrier fighter either way, and a damn good fighter in general, though perhaps not quite as high performing as a short range interceptor like the Spit and 109.

Similar to the previously posted anecdote vs the Hurricane I've read an anecdote of Wildcats mock-dogfighting P-40s in which they won three for three for the island audience.

Vanir,

Thanks, I knew I'd heard something similar to that Wildcat-Hurricane story that was posted earlier.
Happened in the south pacific, IIRC.
Funny how the Wildcat got beat in both of those stories, yet I believe it had the beter kill ratio, over the entire war, compared to the Hurri and the P-40.

I understand that the inception of the folding wing concept came with the F4F-4, and was never available with the F4F-3 (with exception to test aircraft).

The 6 gun arrangement was actually somethng the Britsih requested with the Martlet's, after being sent an initial delivery of 4-gun planes.
For some reason, the Brits didn't feel comfortable with only 4 guns (even though they were far more powerful). In fact, I seem to remember reading something about them initially asking for 8 guns (just like the Hurri's and Spits), but I think 6 was all the Grumman could fit on the plane.

That is true about the different engines being used with different orders (I think, partly, because licensed copies of the R-1820 were in wide use with other nations at that time), but since the information I quoted listed the P&W engine, I am of the belief that the performance figures I listed are for an R-1830 powered airplane (with exception to the quoted climb rate, which I believe to be a typo).
Interesting side-note about the engines. It was the useage of the R-1820 in the Martlet's, that was the inspriation for the use of the same engine (albeit, a later and more powerful version) in the FM-2, which originated from a still-born design known as the F4F-8.



Elvis

 

[vanir]

Actually I might have put it ambiguously in my post, but it was the Wildcats that won three for three against the P-40E, something which notably surprised all spectators except the F4F pilots, including the base commander.

The French ordered Martlets used the R1820 and it was something to do with maintenance parts being more easily produced locally for some reason, specifically components of the crankcase. Extended maintenance costs were higher for the R1830 and the two engines were in the same class so the 1820 was requested. The French order was the first major one for the F4F and preceded US orders. Don't know which engine the Greek order had, but the British order was for the 1830 I think. The General Motors a/c produced later used the 1820 iirc because a version of this engine was specially developed for improved low altitude performance and so could operate with good combat loads off small escort carriers and the like.

 

[fibus]

It may not be worth a lot but my opinion, withheld until now, is the extra drag of two depth charges alone would defeat a Hurricane against any model Wildcat. Then add the weight and it is an impossible situation for ANY hurricane pilot.

 

[Elvis]

Vanir,

Re: Mock dogfight vs. P-40.
sorry about that one. I re-read your original post on that and you couldn't have been any clearer.
I must've overlooked that part, upon my response.

Re: R-1820
The French had it. The Russians had it. A lot of people had it. Parts were easier to make, because there would be no need for re-tooling. They were already producing the engine.

Re: Use of R-1820 in FM-2
Exactamundo 8)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fibus,

Your opinion holds as much water as anyone elses around here.
Your reasoning concerning the depth-charge carrying Hurricanes is quite sound and very logical.
I think anyone would draw the same conclusion.




Elvis

 

[R Leonard]

Can't address the F4F v Hurricane issue except with just my poor benighted, and somewhat biased, personal opinion.

On the other hand, my father was an F4F driver, -3's and -4's, both in combat. In mid January 1943, while operating out of Maui, he had the opportunity for a check flight in a P-40. His opinion was that if headed for the Solomons, and he was with VF-11, he would not have wanted to face the Japanese, something he'd done before, in a P-40. Even with it's weight to power drawbacks and less ammunition that the -3, he thought chances of success and survival were better in the F4F-4.

Rich

 

[vanir]

Oh that's right, the Soviet M-25 in the I-15 was just a license produced Cyclone. Kind of ironic because correct me if I'm wrong but the Mitsubishi A5M they fought against in '38 also used a licensed derivative of the Cyclone, on the strength of Japanese efforts in the Great War technology was openly shared with the nation in the early thirties, a little more irony. Even the British and Germans used to send them engineers to update their industry to contemporary standards (the Ki-61 was indeed a German inspired design, the Japanese engineers former students of Blohm and Voss iirc, its wartime title of the Japanese Messerschmitt wasn't far from the truth).

France had the Gnome Rhone but started license producing the Cyclone because of their Hawk-75 orders, which I read in a fascinating book about the history of test piloting, was taken on the strength of a dive speed no other aircraft in the world could match at the time, which a test pilot demonstrated for some French speculators in the US. He was nearly killed during the flight and berated by superiors but the order was won (NACA test flight guidelines were altered directly as a result of this somewhat infamous flight, which had been rendered obsolete due to advances in design technologies...the French had no idea the actual dive speed recorded would never have normally been allowed for safety reasons and went home thinking the Curtiss Hawk was some kind of superweapon).

The British of course had the Bristol Mercury which was the third major 9-cyl radial in use throughout Europe.
The Pratt Whitney was something new, being a compact 14-cylinder double row which not everybody was entirely convinced was either reliable or serviceable. Certainly it had better development potential but it was very new, rather advanced aero technology which hadn't proven itself yet and at this point most designers were starting to go with the latest race derived inlines, heavier but more streamlined for fighter use and back en par with the radial for output.
I believe it was generally recognised at this point the US was a world leader in aero engine manufacture however and had even started the ball rolling in modern V-12s with the Curtiss D-motor.

All things considered I think the P-40, F4F and Hurricane I are all fair comparisons, all with significant earlier production heritage, all current modern warplanes and all in the same class. In this sense whilst the Zero is credited as being the first carrier based a/c to exceed land based fighter performance I think the Wildcat deserves a title of parity with land based fighters at least.

The Wildcat has a lot of weight but some of that is good protection, the fuel tankage is entirely between the engine and a thick firewall as per USN design requirements, the cockpit is well armoured and behind it are three or four radios, navigational aids and a well equipped emergency store, including a life raft which doubles as a good absorber of 20mm shell fragments. The design itself is solid, tublike and sturdy for carrier operations under combat conditions, the wings are huge and designed to float down to a flat top with plenty of control and a low stall speed, which in turn gives great initial rates in its class. It loses out a little in outright speed but still has a very powerful engine, again capable of great initial rates. The type is really very manoeuvrable, just not in the same class as something like a Zero or Oscar, which are more like aerobatic stunt planes with extra tankage and guns than contemporary fighters.

Against each other, P-40, Hurricane or Wildcat, I'd put my money on the better pilot. Truth is though the Wildcat is 1941 vintage and that means Hurricane II with up to ca1500hp on tap and that's hard to beat. Hurricane IIs also did quite well with SEAC against Oscars and other types and that was using terrible fuel quality so performance was reduced.
A Hurricane II or IV aren't at all bad combat planes, just not up to date with something like a contemporary Hellcat or P-47, but an enemy pilot would be making a severe mistake thinking he's in for an easy kill nonetheless.

Same thing goes for the Wildcat I think. Great plane, tough as all get out, highly manoeuvrable, contemporary and specialised. Some great advantages, few shortcomings. The RAAF should've ordered at least a couple of squadrons IMHO, for far ranging fighter sweeps.

 

[Waynos]

A Hurricane II or IV aren't at all bad combat planes, just not up to date with something like a contemporary Hellcat or P-47, but an enemy pilot would be making a severe mistake thinking he's in for an easy kill nonetheless.

That line just reminded me of a passage from the 'The Most Dangerous Enemey" , although relating to Hurricane 1's in the BoB, that reproduces the diary entries of a Luftwaffe pilot who writes how wary he is of the Spitfire, but keen to get as many Hurricanes as he can. I think there is another one where he pities the Hurricane pilots for being saddled with what he regarded as an an aerial target. The footnote then advises how he was shot down and killed by a Hurricane I shortly after writing that .

 

[Shortround6]

The French ordered Martlets used the R1820 and it was something to do with maintenance parts being more easily produced locally for some reason, specifically components of the crankcase. Extended maintenance costs were higher for the R1830 and the two engines were in the same class so the 1820 was requested. The French order was the first major one for the F4F and preceded US orders. Don't know which engine the Greek order had, but the British order was for the 1830 I think. The General Motors a/c produced later used the 1820 iirc because a version of this engine was specially developed for improved low altitude performance and so could operate with good combat loads off small escort carriers and the like.

While I can well believe the extended costs for the R-1830 (maintenence in general) are higher than the R-1820, you have after all 14 cylinders vrs 9 with all that entails, I have my doubts about "components of the crankcase". it may be an instance of bad translation? Perhaps accessories that mount on the crankcase? like generators or pumps?
I would rather doubt that anybody but the factory was actually making front or back halfs of the actual crankcase.
You are correct that the later FM-2 used a version of the R-1820 that had better take-off performance. It had 1350hp vrs the 1200hp of the R-1830 and earlier R-1820s. It was just a bit lighter than the R-1830 also.

edit.> Had not read your post about french production of R-1820, I am wondering just how far that actually got.
I am also not sure about that bit about the R-1830 being very new, It first flew in 1931. Both P&W and Wright tended to see-saw back and forth in any given year (or even month) as to whose engine could put out the most power. For some reason certain countries tended to favor one brand over the other and stayed that way.

 

[Graeme]

The Hurricane was the better eating platform although the chap on the left doesn't appear to be enjoying the benefit.

 

[Elvis]

Graeme,

LOL! I think he's finding out just how "good" Military Cooking can be.





Elvis