Hawker Hurricane Mk. IIB vs. Grumman F4F-4 Wildcat

[Greyman]

From what I've seen it was a naval fighter development of the Hawker P.4/34 (what became the Henley) that was evaluated against the naval fighter development of the Fairey P.4/34 (what became the Fulmar).

The Fulmar being better in most respects and selected.

On the subject of a single-seater aircraft meeting the Admiralty's requirements (a conversion of the Hurricane was specifically mentioned) -- it was the opinion of Captain Graham (Director of the Naval Air Division) that a single-seater would be better than nothing but a two-seater was very important for navigation and communication purposes. This was November 1937.

As others have mentioned he later said that "... speed would not be of such vital importance as in RAF fighters. It was not anticipated that the aircraft would be called upon to operate against types other than those suffering the same limitations as themselves."

 

[Kevin J]

I have read that Hawker, in 1938, did a study on a folding wing Hurricane for carrier duty but were turned down when it was offered to the Admiralty. I have never run across the reason why they were turned down. I have always assumed that it was due to the need for a 2-man crew (for navigation purposes) being more important at that time, along with a limited value placed on single purpose aircraft. The folding wing and suitable navalization would have added a few hundred pounds to the Hurricane but the result would still have been faster than the Fulmar.

The Fulmar was just as fast as the Hurricane, at least once you've put it into a dive. Anyway, who needs speed unless you're chasing away overflying recce planes, for that you lash a few Sea Hurricanes with souped up engines to your deck on outriggers. If the enemy wants to sink you, they have to come to you and slow down in order to get bombing accuracy. Our top scoring navy fighters: the Fulmar followed by the Sea Hurricane with the Seafire in 3rd place. FYI: Sea Hurricane Ib, 315 mph at 7500 ft, so faster than the A6M2; Sea Hurricane IIc, from 291 mph at sea level to 342 mph at 22000, as per the A6M3 and the same or better than a Seafire IIc equipped with 4 20 m cannon.

 

[ThomasP]

In response to Kevin J post#362,

The Fulmar was a good interim carrier fighter, not least because it was a 2-seater with better navigation ability (see the thread Build a better Sea Hurricane 1938 started by fast mongrel).

However I believe you are mistaken in your assessment of the difference in performance of the various aircraft. Some of the actual speeds were as follows:

Fulmar Mk I 247@ 9,750 Merlin VIII@ +4
Fulmar Mk II(trop) 265@ 9,500 Merlin 30@ +9.75

Hurricane Mk I 322@17,750 Merlin III@ +6.25
SeaHurricane Mk IB 308@18,000 Merlin III@ +6.25
315@ 7,500 Merlin III@ +16
SeaHurricane Mk IC 305@15,000 Merlin III@ +6.25
310@ 7,300 Merlin III@ +16
Hurricane Mk IIC 326@20,000 Merlin XX@ +9
SeaHurricane Mk IIC 320@20,000 Merlin XX@ +9

Spitfire Mk VB 370@20,000 Merlin 45@ +9
Spitfire Mk VB(trop) 354@17,400 Merlin 45@ +9
Spitfire Mk VC 359@19,900 Merlin 45@ +9
Seafire Mk IB 350@21,000 Merlin 45@ +9
Seafire HF Mk IIC 342@20,700 Merlin 46@ +9
332@20,700 Merlin 46@ +9, 30 gal DT
Seafire LF Mk IIC 339@ 5,100 Merlin 32@ +??
Seafire Mk III 339@16,500 Merlin 55@ +9
351@12,000 Merlin 55@+14
Seafire LF Mk III 343@17,000 Merlin 50@ +9
350@11,000 Merlin 50@+16

A6M2 Zero Model 21 335@16,000 Sakae 12
A6M3 Zero Model 31 345@20,000 Sakae 21

 

[Kevin J]

In response to Kevin J post#362,

The Fulmar was a good interim carrier fighter, not least because it was a 2-seater with better navigation ability (see the thread Build a better Sea Hurricane 1938 started by fast mongrel).

However I believe you are mistaken in your assessment of the difference in performance of the various aircraft. Some of the actual speeds were as follows:

Fulmar Mk I 247@ 9,750 Merlin VIII@ +4
Fulmar Mk II(trop) 265@ 9,500 Merlin 30@ +9.75

Hurricane Mk I 322@17,750 Merlin III@ +6.25
SeaHurricane Mk IB 308@18,000 Merlin III@ +6.25
315@ 7,500 Merlin III@ +16
SeaHurricane Mk IC 305@15,000 Merlin III@ +6.25
310@ 7,300 Merlin III@ +16
Hurricane Mk IIC 326@20,000 Merlin XX@ +9
SeaHurricane Mk IIC 320@20,000 Merlin XX@ +9

Spitfire Mk VB 370@20,000 Merlin 45@ +9
Spitfire Mk VB(trop) 354@17,400 Merlin 45@ +9
Spitfire Mk VC 359@19,900 Merlin 45@ +9
Seafire Mk IB 350@21,000 Merlin 45@ +9
Seafire HF Mk IIC 342@20,700 Merlin 46@ +9
332@20,700 Merlin 46@ +9, 30 gal DT
Seafire LF Mk IIC 339@ 5,100 Merlin 32@ +??
Seafire Mk III 339@16,500 Merlin 55@ +9
351@12,000 Merlin 55@+14
Seafire LF Mk III 343@17,000 Merlin 50@ +9
350@11,000 Merlin 50@+16

A6M2 Zero Model 21 335@16,000 Sakae 12
A6M3 Zero Model 31 345@20,000 Sakae 21

The FAA fighters were optimised for low altitude. The Fulmar II IIRC did 265 at 1750 feet and 272 at 6500 feet. The A6M2 did 273 at sea level and 296 at 10000 ft so there's only about 10 mph speed difference at low altitude. The late '42 Sea Hurricane IIc with 16 lbs boost, arrestor hook only, and individual exhaust thrusts did 291 mph sea level, 328 at 7000 ft, 327 at 10400 ft and 342 at 12400 ft as it had been cleaned up to have a similar speed to a Hurricane IIa, and so comparable with an A6M3. A Sea Hurricane Ib/Ic as you correctly state did 310/315 at 7000 ft which is faster than an A6M2, and its going to be faster all the way up to 10000 ft where at the heights that combat is going to take place. If you want a like for like comparison between a Seafire HFIIc and an FM-1 then you need to attach the 30 slipper combat tank on the Seafire to get the same range as the FM-1 which is 331 mph at about 20000 feet so I'd prefer the FM-1 as it can carry drop tanks. The LFIIc is pretty similar in performance to the FM-2. Of course if you compare the FM-1/2 against the Seafire FIII/LlII then the Seafire is superior and more than a match for the A6M5 which the FM-1/2 clearly weren't but these are fighters operational in 1944/45 not 1943/44, the mk IIc versions being available in 1942/43. The Seafire HFIIc of 1942 without combat slipper tank only did 280 at sea level compared to the 296 or so of the A6M3. The RAAF found that the Spitfire VC Trop was inferior to the A6M3 up to 20000 ft so the Seafire IIc would have been even worse. The Fulmar, Sea Hurricane and Seafire could all out dive the A6M2, while only the Seafire could out dive the A6M3. You're not going to either be defending your task force or attacking the enemies at 20000 ft, its more likely to below 10000 ft.

 

[Greyman]

Quick sketch on speeds.

Fulmar I - Fulmar II - Sea Hurricane I - A6M2

Fulmars are from the A&AEE, Sea Hurricane is from official data points from somewhere ... MAP I believe. A6M2 is from http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/japan/intelsum85-dec42.pdf

 

[Kevin J]

Quick sketch on speeds.

Fulmar I - Fulmar II - Sea Hurricane I - A6M2

View attachment 531197

Fulmars are from the A&AEE, Sea Hurricane is from official data points from somewhere ... MAP I believe. A6M2 is from http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/japan/intelsum85-dec42.pdf

I've seen higher speeds for the Fulmar II lower down, although they could be without the tropical filter installed. The other figures all look fine. Only the Fulmar II had the tropical filter installed as standard.

 

[ThomasP]

To Greyman & Kevin J,

I was using the max sustainable boost for more than 5 min, i.e. +9 or +12 lbs for the UK, Normal for the US, and whatever the Japanese called their Military power.
What are your criteria for max speeds?

 

[Greyman]

Fulmar I -- 9,800 lb -- +9.4 lb boost, 3000 rpm
Fulmar II -- 9,980 lb -- +12.5 lb boost, 3000 rpm
Sea Hurri -- ?,??? lb -- +16 lb boost, 3000 rpm
A6M2 -- 5,555 lb -- 35" boost, 2600 rpm

The Fulmar II has the temperate cowling fitted. With the tropical cowling subtract 7 mph.

 

[Kevin J]

To Greyman & Kevin J,

I was using the max sustainable boost for more than 5 min, i.e. +9 or +12 lbs for the UK, Normal for the US, and whatever the Japanese called their Military power.
What are your criteria for max speeds?

In the case of the Sea Hurricane its 16 lbs boost for 3 mins.

 

[Greyman]

Pilot's Notes I have say "The use of +16 lb/sq.in. boost is permitted for periods of about 15 minutes at low altitudes."

 

[Kevin J]

Pilot's Notes I have say "The use of +16 lb/sq.in. boost is permitted for periods of about 15 minutes at low altitudes."

What year are the notes printed in? My 3 minute rating is for 1941 with the FAA and 16 lbs, the RAF at the time only allowed 12 lbs for 5 minutes. I believe things had changed by 1943.

 

[Greyman]

No date on that particular amendment, but the one before it is dated December 1941.

 

[Kevin J]

No date on that particular amendment, but the one before it is dated December 1941.

December 1941 sounds like the time 16 lbs was cleared for 3 minutes. By the time you get to 1943, you have the Merlin 25, 32, 50 series, all cleared for up to 18 lbs boost. Improvements in metallurgy IIRC.

 

[RCAFson]

In Jan 1942 the Merlin 30 was cleared for 16lb boost:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/merlin-ratings_3jan42.jpg

 

[MycroftHolmes]

In Jan 1942 the Merlin 30 was cleared for 16lb boost:

I suspect that is just putting the official seal-of-approval on something that was already being done by squadrons, since we know that Malta-based Hurricanes were being tweaked well before this.