Was the Sea Hurricane a superior naval fighter than the F4F? (1 Viewer)

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

American pilots were complaining about the performance against the Zero, the Hurrican did no better and was less powerfully armed. The performance of the Wildcat and Sea Hurricane were about the same with either having advantages in certain areas. Both were inferior to Axis aircraft in 1942
I guess you skipped over my point #5:

"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?"

At typical 1942 combat altitudes (under 10-15K ft) the Sea Hurricane 1B could outturn, outclimb, outrun, out dive and out roll an F4F-4. Only above 15K ft did the F4F-4 have a slight edge in speed. In any event we've discussed this to death already. The HS1B has a 30% advantage in power to weight, with a similar frontal and wing area. You have to ignore the basic laws of physics and aerodynamics and actual test reports to claim that "..they have about the same performance..."

The FM2 (Martlet VI) has considerably superior performance to an F4F-4 for exactly the same reasons as the HS1B; it's lighter and has more power with the same frontal and wing area. This should be easy for anyone to understand.

 
Quite right. The USAAC/USAAF should never have operated the P38,P39,P40 or P51 as they were clearly too fragile to use in battle.
The P-38 had a second engine to get a damaged aircraft home. A lot of P-39, P-40 and P-51 pilots got captured or killed by hits to their cooling systems. Radials were far more resistant to damage than water-cooled inlines. That was why the USN refused to operate water-cooled engines over the water.
 
Radials were far more resistant to damage than water-cooled inlines.
This is a bit (or more than bit) simplistic. Just for the radials there was quite a range from the R-2800 (usually the engine referred to as resistant to damage) to things like the A-S Tiger and the Hispano-Suiza radials. The A-S Tiger (one version) was banned from over water flights by the RAF before WW II broke out. Since it was the engine used in existing fleet (very small) of British heavy bombers at the time this was a serious problem. The H-S radials (or one version) tended to part company with the propellers in flight with absolutely no help from the enemy. Just about everybody else's radials fell somewhere in-between.
That was why the USN refused to operate water-cooled engines over the water
The USN made that decision in the late 1920s after flying mostly Liberty V-12s for nearly 10 years with a smattering of Packards and Curtiss V-12s thrown in. The main problem was not "battle" damage but leaking water pipes/radiators. USN had to wait for 450-600hp radial engines in the late 20s to make the change over. However the installations had made a lot of progress by 1940. The late 20s engines didn't use much in the way of anti-vibration hook ups. Like loops in the pipes to allow for flexibility as the engine vibrated.
 
I have been lead to believe Glycol was also the reason for wanting radials, it's flammable?.
This shows up in books and the internet, how much is true I don't know. It seems like a mountain is being made out of molehill (and small one at that).
The USN was buying radial engines in the late 20s.
640px-Martin_T4m_01.jpg

P & W Hornet engine starting in 1927/28. Glycol didn't show up until the early 30s. Perhaps they used the Glycol as an excuse for not switching back?
Glycol is supposed to stay in the engine, it is not supposed to be changed until a lot of hours of flight (yes there are leaks and servicing) so how many gallons do you need to store ?But an aircraft carrier was certainly stowing a crap load of other flammable materials. Especially in the early 1930s. Like both paint for the ship and paint/dope for the aircraft and hydraulic fluid.

Modern material data sheets show a flash point of 232 degrees F for glycol, Jet fuel is 100 degrees F, diesel depends on grade but around 100-126 degrees F. Gasoline is -40-45 Degrees F.

Not saying you can store it any where on the ship (next to the boiler up takes) but it doesn't seem to be big problem.
I could be wrong but I would like to see some documentation that the Navy considered it to be a major fire hazard.

The Aircraft industry was trying to replace cellulose nitrate dope on fabric for aircraft in the 1930s ( one large paper written in 1935). Much of the visible fire on Hindenburg was from the doped fabric.
 
The P-38 had a second engine to get a damaged aircraft home. A lot of P-39, P-40 and P-51 pilots got captured or killed by hits to their cooling systems. Radials were far more resistant to damage than water-cooled inlines. That was why the USN refused to operate water-cooled engines over the water.
The P-38 only had 1 generator for much of the war. Losing the wrong engine meant not getting home. The statement the radial was FAR more resistant to damage is an exaggeration. That the USN refused to operate water- cooled engines is a myth. The USN was paying P&W to develop the XH-3130 until just before the US joining the war. The USN also paid for the Bell Airbonita.
 
Last edited:
Losing the wrong engine meant not getting home.
Well, the P-38 could get you closer to home than a single engine plane would ;)

A lot depended in battery management and how good the battery was when the generator stopped.
Turn off lights, including instrument lights. Turn off radio/s except when absolutely necessary. Try to keep propeller pitch changes to a minimum. This one is part of the head scratcher situation. If you need electrical power for the propulsion system (propeller) to work, then not installing the 2nd generator means you are taking a 50/50 shot at not having the plane actually get very far on one engine.
 
The P-38 only had 1 generator for much of the war. Losing the wrong engine meant not getting home. The statement the radial was FAR more resistant to damage is an exaggeration. That the USN refused to operate water- cooled engines is a myth. The USN was paying P&W to develop the XH-3130 until just before the US joining the war. The USN also paid for the Bell Airbonita.
Quoting Friedman from Fighters over the Fleet
"Navy interest in high-power liquid-cooled engines led to a December 1939 contract with Lycoming for the H-2470, a 24-cylinder liquid-cooled H engine (two sets of opposing cylinders); that company has already the necessary technology in its O-1230, a horizontally-opposed twelve-cylinder engine. The H-2470 was planned for the Curtiss XF14C and the army P54. This engine nearly completed its 100-hour test in January 1942, but no production followed."
 
Pure glycol is. The mixture of 30% glycol 70% water isn't. RR shifted to 30/70 in 1940. Allison didn't until switch until the end of the war.
Actually after referring to "Vees for Victory" Allison did switch mid war to 30/70 for P38Gs and later and P-40Ks and later, but surprisingly not for P-39s and P-63s.
 
Not saying you can store it any where on the ship (next to the boiler up takes) but it doesn't seem to be big problem.
I could be wrong but I would like to see some documentation that the Navy considered it to be a major fire hazard.
The Spitfire cooling system held 16.7 gallons of coolant which equates to 5 gallons of glycol. 500 gallons of glycol would allow a complete change out for 100 Spitfires. I'm sure my local Autozone has that much in stock.
Further more, if it is stored premixed there is no problem.
 
Last edited:
So what if the RAF had Wildcats and the Luftwaffe had A6M's?, the BoB would have continued on into 1941 with the Wildcats slashing down 109's, the A6M's cutting Spitfires and Hurricanes out of the skies, the Wildcats then shooting down Zero's without mercy because they were the premier fighter in 1940, the Zero's getting their own back because they could cruise over London at 10,000ft @ 160 mph on weak mixture getting 1000 mile range. I don't know about the rest of you but I'm glad the BoB was fought with such inferior aircraft or we could all be speaking Germanese now.
 
All of the Wildcats that Great Britain took possession of in 1940 - in time for the Battle of Britain, were the "G-36A" model that were originally built for the French. These planes had a 1,000 Horsepower R-1820 engines and did not have two-stage turbochargers. I haven't seen performance figures for this model, but I suspect they weren't any better than the contemporary Hurricanes. The A6M model from the summer of 1940 were the pre-production A6M2a-11 model that Japan sent to China towards the end of summer 1940. These planes only had a 950 horsepower Sakae engine, but this was still enough to clear the sky over China.
 
All of the Wildcats that Great Britain took possession of in 1940 - in time for the Battle of Britain, were the "G-36A" model that were originally built for the French. These planes had a 1,000 Horsepower R-1820 engines and did not have two-stage turbochargers. I haven't seen performance figures for this model, but I suspect they weren't any better than the contemporary Hurricanes. The A6M model from the summer of 1940 were the pre-production A6M2a-11 model that Japan sent to China towards the end of summer 1940. These planes only had a 950 horsepower Sakae engine, but this was still enough to clear the sky over China.
The Martlet 1 weighed 6811lb, with no armour or SS fuel tanks and had a Cyclone G205A rated at 1200hp for TO and at 4500ft in low blower and 1000hp at 14000ft in high blower with no combat rating. These engines had reliability problems and imposed a much higher workload on the pilot due to the lack of automatic boost and pitch control. The Hurricane 1 weighed ~6800lb, with armour and SS tanks, and had a Merlin III, combat rated at 1300+ HP (12lb boost) up to about 11K ft, with a gradual decline above that altitude, and 1030hp at ~17K ft. Consequently the Hurricane 1 had superior speed and climb at all altitudes when using the combat rating of the Merlin III.
 
Last edited:
All of the Wildcats that Great Britain took possession of in 1940 - in time for the Battle of Britain, were the "G-36A" model that were originally built for the French. These planes had a 1,000 Horsepower R-1820 engines and did not have two-stage turbochargers. I haven't seen performance figures for this model, but I suspect they weren't any better than the contemporary Hurricanes. The A6M model from the summer of 1940 were the pre-production A6M2a-11 model that Japan sent to China towards the end of summer 1940. These planes only had a 950 horsepower Sakae engine, but this was still enough to clear the sky over China.
The first 6 arrived with Scottish Aviation Ltd at Prestwick on 7 Aug 1940. The remainder of the 71 arrivals arrived between 22 Sept and the end of Nov. The first squadron, 804, began receiving its aircraft for the defence of Scapa Flow in Sept initially to augment Buffalos and Gldiators, but it was Oct before it received its full complement of 12. The second squadron, 802, formed on 21 Nov 1940.

804 is one of only 2 FAA squadrons credited with participating in the BoB.
 
I guess you skipped over my point #5:

"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?"

At typical 1942 combat altitudes (under 10-15K ft) the Sea Hurricane 1B could outturn, outclimb, outrun, out dive and out roll an F4F-4. Only above 15K ft did the F4F-4 have a slight edge in speed. In any event we've discussed this to death already. The HS1B has a 30% advantage in power to weight, with a similar frontal and wing area. You have to ignore the basic laws of physics and aerodynamics and actual test reports to claim that "..they have about the same performance..."

The FM2 (Martlet VI) has considerably superior performance to an F4F-4 for exactly the same reasons as the HS1B; it's lighter and has more power with the same frontal and wing area. This should be easy for anyone to understand.

That is all absolute categorical falsehood. The Hurricane (all types) was a notoriously slow rolling, slow diving, and generally slow aircraft which underperformed in combat in the Middle East, Russia, Pacific and Burma. It was a good fighter aircraft in 1940, but by 1941 it was obsolescent and basically a deathtrap. The British decided to replace the Hurricane (all versions) in the fighter role in North Africa in 1942. The Russians phased it out as soon as they had any other options, including even I-16s.

The F4F, by sharp contrast, turned out to have relatively good combat outcomes from 1942 through the end of the war. Unlike the Hurricane, F4F appeared capable of contending with all Axis fighters they encountered. Which is why the Royal Navy preferred them. The only way these claims could be "easy to understand" is if you were allowing ideology rather than data to guide your 'understanding'.
 
The first 6 arrived with Scottish Aviation Ltd at Prestwick on 7 Aug 1940. The remainder of the 71 arrivals arrived between 22 Sept and the end of Nov. The first squadron, 804, began receiving its aircraft for the defence of Scapa Flow in Sept initially to augment Buffalos and Gldiators, but it was Oct before it received its full complement of 12. The second squadron, 802, formed on 21 Nov 1940.

804 is one of only 2 FAA squadrons credited with participating in the BoB.
So as soon as the Wildcat showed up the Germans quit.
 
Forgive me if this has been brought up already, but did the Sea Hurricanes have life rafts? Wildcats had them in a compartment in the spine behind the pilot.
 

Attachments

  • F4F_Martlett_fbz_30.jpg
    F4F_Martlett_fbz_30.jpg
    66.3 KB · Views: 13

Users who are viewing this thread

Back