Wild_Bill_Kelso
Senior Master Sergeant
- 3,231
- Mar 18, 2022
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
The Wildcat's big advantage was folding wings. The USN was willing to reduce the performance of the Wildcat to get folding wings, but by August 1942 the F4F-4s weight and poor climb rate was causing a crisis of confidence in the F4F-4 and the idea of a higher performing 'point defense' fighter became quite appealing and there was calls within the USN for Merlin engined carrier fighters:I would say no.
Wildcat had greatly superior range and loiter time. Most of the Wildcats had folding wings. Their engines were less vulnerable because air cooled. They had a much greater ammunition capacity than most of the Hurricanes.
Wildcat was also just a better fighter.
Sea Hurricane was basically an ad-hoc point defense fighter, not really a naval fighter or a real carrier fighter.
...Another aspect of
the attack that proved inadequate was fighter escort. To Fletcher the folding wing F4F-4s
represented no improvement over the fixed-wing F4F-3s, except more F4F-4s could be
carried. He echoed the call of Halsey and others of the urgent necessity'' for detachable fuel
tanks to increase their effective attack radius beyond 175 miles. Spruance and Browning
rated the Grumman Wildcat "greatly inferior'' in comparison with the nimble Japanese
Zero. On 20 June Nimitz relayed their fears to King, noting the "extreme and apparently
increased superiority performance of 0 fighters'' was mitigated only by the vulnerability
of Japanese planes and the superior tactics of the U.S. Navy fighter pilots. "Overall results
have been bad and will be serious and potentially decisive with improvement that must
be expected in enemy tactics.'' Remarkably he called for army Curtiss P-4OF Warhawk
fighters to replace navy F4F Wildcats and Brewster F2A Buffaloes in all marine fighting
squadrons defending forward bases and even asked that the P-4OF "or comparable type"
be tested for carrier suitability; In the meantime the F4F-4s must be lightened, and their
ammunition supply increased even should that require reverting to four guns in place ofsix.
The swift introduction ofthe Vought F4U-1 Corsair fighter was an"absolute priority.'' Thus
after Midway the top fleet commanders experienced a serious crisis of confidence over the
effectiveness of the basic U.S. carrier fighter, a worry that would soon influence Fletcher's
most controversial command decision...
Lundstrom, Black Shoe carrier Admiral, p.200
As proven by whom?Wildcat would eat a Hurricane for breakfast
There has been a bit of willy waving on another thread associated with this. The Royal Navy replaced the Sea Hurricane with the Seafire and Martlets. By passing the issue of whether a Seafire was suited to escort carriers, were the Martlets not available by mid war, when the USA entered the war, what might have been done to keep the Sea Hurricane in the game? Bearing in mind the Royal Navy was still operating Martlets over Norway up to the end of the war in Europe? Surely a folding wing was not beyond their competence and Hurricanes were still in production to July 1944 which would put the last airframes into service about August/September 1944.
The Martet/FM2 was available for free via Lend-lease and FM2 production had ramped up to meet USN and FAA demand. The Hurricane was ending production and it just wasn't cost effective to continue development of the Sea Hurricane at that point in the war. The RAF resisted attempts to release Hurricanes to the FAA and to fund carrier aircraft development in general.There has been a bit of willy waving on another thread associated with this. The Royal Navy replaced the Sea Hurricane with the Seafire and Martlets. By passing the issue of whether a Seafire was suited to escort carriers, were the Martlets not available by mid war, when the USA entered the war, what might have been done to keep the Sea Hurricane in the game? Bearing in mind the Royal Navy was still operating Martlets over Norway up to the end of the war in Europe? Surely a folding wing was not beyond their competence and Hurricanes were still in production to July 1944 which would put the last airframes into service about August/September 1944.
The Martet/FM2 was available for free via Lend-lease and FM2 production had ramped up to meet USN and FAA demand. The Hurricane was ending production and it just wasn't cost effective to continue development of the Sea Hurricane at that point in the war. The RAF resisted attempts to release Hurricanes to the FAA and to fund carrier aircraft development in general.
The main questions:
Was the Sea Hurricane suited for carrier operations?
Yes, it had good STOL characteristics and seems to have had extremely low carrier landing accident rates.
Did it have good performance?
Yes, it had the best climb rate of Allied Carrier fighters prior to the Seafire. It appears to have been the fastest Allied carrier fighter prior to the Seafire at altitudes under ~10K ft.
Was it's range and endurance adequate?
It wasn't outstanding but in actuality it's endurance was only about ~30min less than the F4F-4. OTOH, because it could climb so fast it had the ability to be on the flight deck and only launched when needed, rather than having to be airborne at ~10K ft on CAP duty, to make up for a poor rate of climb.
Was the armament adequate?
Against heavily armoured Axis aircraft 8 x .303MGs was outdated but against poorly armoured aircraft with no self sealing tanks, it was still a lot of firepower. The Sea Hurricane IC and IIC had 4 x 20mm guns.
What was it's biggest draw back?
And, potentially, Japanese fighters.The lack of folding wings and the fact that it was primarily facing high performance ETO Axis aircraft.
1) So? Those aren't Sea Hurricanes and would need to be converted which costs money vs free FM2s.1) And yet, they had thousands of Hurricanes and were phasing them out from most combat fronts (except Burma maybe?)
2) Wow! I'd sure like to see some data on that. Do you have a speed chart for the Sea Hurricane specifically or are you going by the Hurricane?
3) I don't think this is correct. Somehow dozens of Royal Navy officers and Fleet Air Arm pilots seem to have felt that the Sea Hurricane in particular had very poor endurance and range compared to other RN types, and in particular compared to the Martlet.
4) With 60 rounds.
3) Range and endurance
5) And, potentially, Japanese fighters.
Original question of the thread, was the Sea Hurricane a superior naval fighter than the F4F?
No. The F4F was a superior naval fighter, probably due to the fact that it was originally designed to be one, and had inherent features well aligned to the task. Deck handling, view over the nose, greater internal fuel capacity etc. With the later addition of folding wings, and the fact that they were available in large numbers, for basically free (1943-44), made them an obvious improvement for the FAA.
However, the performance between the two fighters wasn't tipped in the F4F's favor, with the Sea Hurricane out performing the F4F on paper. Assuming pilots of equal skill, pit the best Wildcat, FM-2 against the best Sea Hurricane (IIC?) and the Hawker would probably come out on top.
But by 1943-44, nobody would choose either fighter to build a carrier air wing around, unless dictated by size constraints
Some sources say 90 or 91 rpg. either way a lot more than 60rpg.4) The Zero had 60 rounds/gun. The SHIIC had 100RPG (Brown: Wings of the Navy).
design work was done in 1942/43. Production FM-2s showed up in Aug 1943.why then did the FM2 design team spend countless hours and dollars to come up with a lightweight carrier fighter in 1944 that only just matched the mid 1941 SH1B in range and performance?
1) So? Those aren't Sea Hurricanes and would need to be converted which costs money vs free FM2s.
2) I looked at the data from PQ18, IRONCLAD, and PEDESTAL and the SH seems to have had the lowest landing accident rate. The data card for the SH1B shows 315mph at 7500ft. The Seafire appeared in late 1942.
3) The early variants of the Martlet had no armour or self sealing tanks and 10% more fuel than the ~SS tank versions and these seem to be the basis for that rumour. The actual data shows the rumours to be unfounded.
4) The Zero had 60 rounds/gun. The SHIIC had 100RPG (Brown: Wings of the Navy).
5) I'm pretty certain that your average F4F-4 Wildcat pilot who was complaining about his aircraft's poor climb rate and manoeuvrability (and whose reports were passed up the line to Nimitz) would be quite happy to fly an aircraft that weighed ~10% less with the same wing area and had ~20% more power... This is hard truth here and we have to recognize it. Yes, the F4F-4 has some superior attributes like folding wings but why then did the FM2 design team spend countless hours and dollars to come up with a lightweight carrier fighter in 1944 that only just matched the mid 1941 SH1B in range and performance?
Some sources say 90 or 91 rpg. either way a lot more than 60rpg.
design work was done in 1942/43. Production FM-2s showed up in Aug 1943.
And strangely enough, part of the weight savings came from cutting the fuel capacity from 144 US gallons to 117-130 US gal (later ones were 126 US gal) so endurance may not have been as important then. (more radar?) Cutting guns was not the only weight saving measure.
I've read that Hawker had designed a FW for the SH, but I've also read that it wasn't possible. OTOH, Lend-lease arrived just at the same time as the FW SH was being considered and Grumman was promising a FW Martlet, in greater numbers than actually appeared. I suspect that plans for a folding wing SH were, in fact, scuppered by Lend-Lease. The folding wing Seafire III also began development around the same time and it promised much higher performance than a folding wing SH or a Martlet.As a matter of interest, how difficult would it have been to make a folding-wing version of the SH?
And yet, they had thousands of Hurricanes and were phasing them out from most combat fronts (except Burma maybe?)
The Wildcat is by far the better carrier aircraft, as it should be, being designed as such.Wildcat would eat a Hurricane for breakfast