How did the Martlets rate against the European aircraft?

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules


Yep pretty much what I thought the Hurricane would do (a case for reverse lend lease: USAAF Hurricanes and Spitfires in the PTO?). Thanks for the add on. I concur with you statement on the Merlin, but it's been my impression was the P-40 with the Allison -39's were pretty much maxed out at about 27-28,000 feet in practice. That there was nothing available to the pilot of an Allison 1730-39 above the "Military Power" setting. Is that incorrect? It was also my impression that the P-40B or E were at least competitive with the Emil at medium altitude. I think I 'heard' that here at least once; no?
 
Last edited:

Theoretically, the Canadian built Sea Hurricane II would have been a useful stopgap between the F4F-4 and F6F-3. Hurricanes might have had some advantages over the P-39/40 at higher altitudes, say at Guadalcanal, as would UK built spitfires.
 
RCAFson said:
Theoretically, the Canadian built Sea Hurricane II would have been a useful stopgap between the F4F-4 and F6F-3. Hurricanes might have had some advantages over the P-39/40 at higher altitudes, say at Guadalcanal, as would UK built spitfires.
Click to expand...

Yes, I agree. Either type probably would been as important in the PTO as were the reverse-lend-lease Spitfires were to the USAAF in the ETO. At least from land bases. I prefer the somewhat longer internal fuel endurance of the F4F-4 for the USN, but then I also must admit a bias on that account. What I really would have preferred as an interim gap filler between the F4F-3 and F6F was a 4 gun F4F-4, with 250-300 rounds per gun. It should have been roughly comparable to either the P-40F and the Hurricane Mk I in terms of climb and ceiling. Speed would probably have been about 320+ mph at optimum altitude. You don't happen to have a Sea Hurricane's time to climb performance do you?

Interesting thread here:

FAA aircraft comparative performance - Naval History Forums

about exchanging FAA aircraft for USN at Midway. Please, I am merely presenting not endorsing.
 
Last edited:

The as nothing officially available to the pilot of the V-1710-39 above the Military Power level. Many squadrons used higher than "book" settings. However this only worked BELOW the critical (full throttle) height. Above the FTH there was nothing a pilot or mechanic could do. The closer to sea level the P-40 flew the more boost could be had IF the pilot wanted (dared) to use it.
 
davebender said:
Four wing mounted .50cal MGs is not a lot of firepower when shooting at aircraft with decent armor protection.
Click to expand...

"...interim gap filler between the F4F-3 and F6F was a 4 gun F4F-4." I would submit that PTO is implicit in the previous statement as there were not a lot of F4F-3s fighting in Europe but the 4-gun FM-1 -2 Martlet/Wildcat appear to have been acceptable to our cousins across the pond unless they had Eastern A/C build a FAA specific variant with 6 gun installation for which I have no prior knowledge, although as has been pointed out, these latter were not tasked with exactly the same mission. I would certainly specify that preference for the USN in PTO.

Of course, the thread is entitled:

"How did the Martlets rate against the European aircraft?"

so your point must be considered: the F4F-3s were NOT Martlets and follow on comments were certainly a digression.
 
Last edited:
davebender said:
Four wing mounted .50cal MGs is not a lot of firepower when shooting at aircraft with decent armor protection.
Click to expand...

Then why was the P-51B so successful?

Ive read that Navy pilots preferred the 4 gun Wildcat because it carried more total ammo than the F4F-4 which had 6.
 
Last edited:
FLYBOYJ said:
Hogwash - 4 .50 cal could do a lot providing you hit your target.

"A pilot who cannot hit with four guns will definitely miss with six." -John "Jimmy" Thach
Click to expand...
Aw, what does he know, he just flew them in combat. I'll bet he never even heard of Wikipedia.
 
Last edited:

The Sea Hurricane IB should have similar performance to the Hurricane IB trop, since they weigh about the same. Brown in Wings of the Navy states a time to climb of 9.1 minutes to 22,000ft, for the Sea Hurricane IIC.
 
RCAFson said:
The Sea Hurricane IB should have similar performance to the Hurricane IB trop, since they weigh about the same. Brown in Wings of the Navy states a time to climb of 9.1 minutes to 22,000ft, for the Sea Hurricane IIC.
Click to expand...

Should have looked in my own copy of Brown! Doing so, Brown makes an interesting comment regarding the Wildcat compared to the Hurricane IB: "Its [Wildcat, presumably Martlet II or F4F-4/Wildcat 5?] initial climb rate was better than that of the Hurricane IB."

Looking at:

Hawker Sea Hurricane Mk IB

This site indicates that the Hurricane Mk IB had a gross wt about 500 lbs lighter than the F4F-4 (with gross weight of the Hurricane Mk 1B about the same as that of a Martlet II), but with the RR-Merlin III providing some 170 Hp less at sea level. I don't have a performance curve for the Merlin III, but with their similar wing areas and similar weight, I would expect any performance difference between the IB and martlet II to be marginal until higher altitudes (>15,000 ft) where the Merlin may be more in its element. The above listed site provides a time to climb for the HIB to 20,000 ft of 11 minutes. That suggests to me an overall (including high altitude) performance similar or just a bit less sharp than the F4F-3. it also lists a speed of 317 mph at 15,000 ft. In the same general regime of the F4F-3A /martlet III of 312 mph at 16K' ( assuming Grumman's numbers are accurate) or the F4F-4, ~318 at ~18,000.

Interesting history on the above site quote:

"The Mk IB entered service in October 1941, operating from converted merchant ships - the MAC-ships. These ships had a small through-flight deck, and could carry a small number of fighters and anti-submarine aircraft - often the Sea Hurricane and Fairey Swordfish.

The first Arctic convoy to be accompanied by an escort carrier was PQ18, the first convoy after the disastrous PQ17. PQ18 was escorted by the US-built escort carrier HMS Avenger, which carried three Swordfish from 825 Squadron and twelve Sea Hurricanes from 802 and 883 Squadrons - six assembled on deck and six dismantled and stored below deck as replacements. The convoy also included the CAM-ship Empire Morn and her Sea Hurricane Mk IA, a cruiser, two destroyers, two anti-aircraft vessels, four corvettes, two anti-submarine trawlers, three minesweepers and two submarines. On the outwards journey the Sea Hurricanes shot down five enemy aircraft and damaged seventeen, in return for four losses. These were replaced with five aircraft from below decks, before the carrier transferred to the home-bound convoy QP14, which contained the survivors from PQ17.

The Sea Hurricane Mk IB and Mk IC played an important role in the defence of the August 1942 Malta convoy (Operational Pedestal). The convoy was escorted by four aircraft carriers with Indomitable (800 Squadron), Eagle (801 Squadron) and Victorious (885 Squadron) carrying 43 Sea Hurricanes between them. There were also sixteen Fairey Fulmars and nine Grumman Mantlets. The convoy began badly with the loss of HMS Eagle, along with sixteen of her Hurricanes - the only four to escape were on Combat Air Patrol (CAP) duty over the convoy. Between 10-15 August the convoy came under attack by up to 500 German and Italian aircraft. 39 enemy aircraft were claimed shot down at a cost of eight naval fighters lost. Only five of the convoy's fourteen merchant ships reached Malta, but the supplies they carried played a crucial role in allowing the island to withstand the Axis siege. The fighting around the Pedestal convoy did demonstrate one increasing problem for the Sea Hurricane - although it had been a high performance fighter when introduced, it was already being outpaced by the Junkers Ju 88, and the Fleet Air Arm would soon need a faster interceptor."
 
Last edited:
On paper, the Sea Hurricane is a little better performer than the F4F-4 and about as good as the F4F-3. However, speed/climb stats don't really tell you much about about how good a fighter it was, just the relative performance levels. The Wildcat dove better and handled better at high speeds.

Canadian pilots certainly considered their locally made Hurricane IIBs better than the USN's F4F-4s, and even engaged their USN counterparts in some friendly dogfights, where the Hurris typically ended up glued to the rear ends of the Wildcats.

In contrast, Eric Brown stated the Wildcat - no mention of sub-type - was "faster and more maneuverable than the Sea Hurricane". Possibly the weight gain in the conversion of the Sea Hurri sapped some of the performance. Mr Brown was something of a fan of the Wildcat, summing it up as "A potent fighter with splendid manoueverability, good performance, heavy firepower and excellent range and endurance". He also admits an emotional fondness for the Wildcat.

Certainly, in the wash of things, the F4F had a better combat record (at least in US hands) than the Hurricane did. The F4F usually just about broke even against its fighter opposition, and the FM-2 had a sterling record. On the other hand, the Hurricane rarely had a favourable kill-loss ratio, and was considered a lovely aircraft but a bit of an underperformer.
 
FLYBOYJ said:
"A pilot who cannot hit with four guns will definitely miss with six." -John "Jimmy" Thach
Click to expand...

Thach was an aviator for about 10 years when the US got into WW II and had been a gunnery instructor. While his argument has some validity he is also speaking from a level of expertise that many pilots never archived.

Few aircraft (even 4 engine bombers) can withstand a GOOD, WELL AIMED burst of .50 cal fire. The problem most pilots had was keeping the guns on target LONG enough. Four .50s are good for about 54 bullets per second. IF the pilot can catch the enemy aircraft in the "sweet spot" of convergence and keep it there for a full second 54 bullets in a 3-4ft square area are going to do a lot of damage. Six .50s will deliver the same number of bullets in 0.66 seconds giving the slightly less skillful pilot a better chance of delivering a killing blow. A poor pilot is going to miss almost no matter what.
Many pilots fired from way too long a range. Many pilots fired bursts that lasted way too long, they depended on the target flying though their stream of bullets at some point as they hosed the area of sky the target was in. A 300mph airplane is moving 440 feet per second so keeping the guns on target for a full second ( let alone 2 or 3) is not as easy as it might seem.
 
What would be good was if anyone had the AFDU and RAE trials of the Martlet and Sea Hurricane. I've done a little googling but come up dry.

The only trials of FAA aircraft I've been able to find are the Brewster Buffalo vs Hurricane I and Spitfire I comparative trials, which shows the the Buffalo was superior to either British aircraft in terms of aileron/elevator control, marginally faster than the Hurricane below 15,000 ft and easily able to out-turn either British type.
 

Getting weight and performance stats on the Sea Hurricane is tough because the Sea Hurricane IB is somewhat ill defined. If we define it as a late model Hurricane I with 8 x .303mgs and converted for carrier operations with catapult spools and arrester hook, then the gross weight comes to about 6800lbs, according to both Birtles. Mason gives a complete weight breakdown for the IIC/Sea Hurricane IIC as 7544/7618lb. Birtles states the loaded weight of a IB as 6800lb, which seems about right given that the airframe weight of a SH IIC is only 47lb more than a standard IIC. Performance stats for the Sea Hurricane IB bounce around considerably as well. But logically they should be similar to a land based Hurricane with the same weight. Performance for some SHs might be somewhat less because testing was done on a tired airframe or because the combat rating or even 5min 3000rpm rating was not used.

Engine output of the Merlin III was 1030hp at 6.25lb boost/3000rpm and 1310hp for 12lb/3000rpm and 1440hp for 16lb/3000rpm as used in the Sea Hurricane IC, which was a IB with the 4 20mm cannon wing.
 

Well, at least in this trial, they tried to fly a P-39D at 70 inches of manifold pressure against a tame Zero:
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/japan/intelsum85-dec42.pdf (page 7) but had to back it down to 52 inches! On page 8 they state that the P-40 trials could not be completed because of engine problems...I'll bet they blew it up trying to pull too much boost!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

A
How did the I-16 Really Perform in WWII?
3 4 5
Replies
85
Views
5K
Steamed_Banana
S
A
Why did British aircraft production stagnate a bit during the war?
Replies
18
Views
3K
Geoffrey Sinclair
G
Lockheed Ventura - Why didn't the RAF rate it?
2
Replies
39
Views
6K
GregP
N
How capable was the Ki-44?
4 5 6
Replies
105
Views
11K
Irregualr23
I
Cold war European combat aircraft alternatives?
2
Replies
25
Views
845
bf109xxl
Menu
Log in
Register