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

I don't think the Sea Hurricane Mk IIC made anywhere near 342 mph. Most Hurricane IIC didn't either.
 
Posted several times before, but what the hell ... from Eric Brown:

F4F-4 Wildcat Versus Sea Hurricane IIc
Here were two fighters almost evenly matched in combat performance and firepower, with the British fighter holding the edge. The Hurricane could exploit its superior rate of roll, the Wildcat its steeper angle of climb. In a dogfight the Hurricane could outturn the Wildcat, and it could even evade an astern attack by half rolling and using its superior acceleration in a dive.
Verdict: This is a combat I have fought a few times in mock trials. The Hurricane could usually get in more camera gunshots than the Wildcat, but for neither this was an easy job. The Hurricane would probably have been more vulnerable to gun strikes than the Wildcat.


That said, overall Brown rated the Wildcat as a more effective carrier fighter than the Sea Hurricane.

EDIT: re: the Hurricane's Hispano ammunition, the inner guns held 98 rounds and the outer guns 88.
 
Last edited:
Posted several times before, but what the hell ... from Eric Brown:

F4F-4 Wildcat Versus Sea Hurricane IIc
Here were two fighters almost evenly matched in combat performance and firepower, with the British fighter holding the edge. The Hurricane could exploit its superior rate of roll, the Wildcat its steeper angle of climb. In a dogfight the Hurricane could outturn the Wildcat, and it could even evade an astern attack by half rolling and using its superior acceleration in a dive.
Verdict: This is a combat I have fought a few times in mock trials. The Hurricane could usually get in more camera gunshots than the Wildcat, but for neither this was an easy job. The Hurricane would probably have been more vulnerable to gun strikes than the Wildcat.


That said, overall Brown rated the Wildcat as a more effective carrier fighter than the Sea Hurricane.

EDIT: re: the Hurricane's Hispano ammunition, the inner guns held 98 rounds and the outer guns 88.


This is what we found for top speed for Sea Hurricanes

1676564368955-png.png


Here is what we have for Wildcat / Martlet and Hurricane

F4F-3
Top speed 330 mph, rate of climb ~2,500 fpm (to 16,000 ft)

F4F-4
Top Speed 316 mph at 17,200 ft, climb ~1,820 fpm

Martlet II
Top Speed 317 mph at 14,000 ft, climb 7.5 minutes to 15,000 ft

FM-2, top speed about 312 at 4-12,00 ft, 328 mph at 18,000 ft,

British Wildcat VIa data card says 307 mph at 3,500 and 319 mph at 16,750 ft

British Wildcat VIb data card shows 307 and 328 mph at 12,800 ft

Hurricane IIs at low and high boost

Notice Hurricane IIC top speed 327. Hurricane IIC 'Trop' 301.

I think Sea Hurricane II is a bit less than IIC, due to extra drag from arrestor hook etc.
 
It looks like Hurricane has better climb and higher ceiling. Speed is about equal. Dive I think Martlet goes into a bit easier but they can both dive very fast once they get going. Roll would be interesting to look at. Martlet obviously has a much better range.
 
I know we've turned down the idea of a folding wing Sea Hurricane, mostly due to the heavier weight straining the early Merlins. But the later Merlins had better power - was a folding Hurricane always going to be a dud? The folding Wildcat did okay vs its non-folder predecessor.
 
Well, a fair point has been raised that the F4F-4 was barely fast enough for the Pacific Theater, I mean it was still better to have 30 fighters than 20 fighters but F4F-3 was definitely much closer to parity against a Zero. Sea Hurricane was similarly barely in the fight due to speed limitations, so you didn't want to slow it down further... Seafire was just around the corner anyway.
 
I know we've turned down the idea of a folding wing Sea Hurricane, mostly due to the heavier weight straining the early Merlins. But the later Merlins had better power - was a folding Hurricane always going to be a dud? The folding Wildcat did okay vs its non-folder predecessor.
My own believe is that the Hurricane could have been a more viable carrier fighter in 1941 if they had the engineering capacity to design/build the folding wing.
However you are fighting the Firefly and Firebrand at that time and it was the failure of both of those to get into production that forced the Seafire to take over.
The Hurricane had reached it's limit in 1941 with the Merlin XX engine and they could see that something better was going to needed after late 1942 or early 1943 so the Sea Hurricane was only ever going to be temporary.
Please note that the Firebrand mock-up was inspected by the end of Sept 1940 and the first actual prototype was flew (for 10 minutes) on Feb 27th 1942,
Also note however that the Firebrand was supposed to be the land based fleet base defender and not fit on existing carriers. This changed over time but the whole program seemed to progress with all the speed of molasses flowing uphill in Scotland in wintertime. the 3rd prototype was delivered for armaments trials in May of 1943 (compare to first prototype) and it took about one year to fly the machine 60hrs.
 
Both must have seemed like a rocket compared to the 270 mph Fulmar. You're not going to catch any Bettys, Sallys or Nells with that performance.

Very true, though part of that as I think others have pointed out is that the Fulmars kind of peaked out below 10,000 ft, where the air is thick and neither Wildcat nor Hurricane were real fast down low either. Still a bit faster than a Fulmar.

That in turn was due to another thing in the specs, which they kept insisting on right up to the Barracuda (which also caused a bunch of problems when it couldnt' fly over mountains on pacific islands...) A 2 speed engine would have probably improved the range of the Fulmar a bunch too...
 
I kinda like the Fulmar as an armed scout. The problem is carriers couldn't really afford specialized scouts due to such limited space (and so few carriers)
 
I wonder if a RR Griffon was ever tried on the Hurricane. It's an odd sight with the four blades.

hurr4-7-jpg.jpg


Add a Griffon, ditch the chin scoop and we should have the power to remain competitive in the PTO. I appreciate by then we're getting close to lipstick on a pig.

I kinda like the Fulmar as an armed scout. The problem is carriers couldn't really afford specialized scouts due to such limited space (and so few carriers)
I think had the RN not lost so many carriers between Sept 1939 and Aug 1942, when every carrier they started the war with was sunk, save HMS Furious and little Argus, I think the Fulmar would have done well as you suggest. The FAA needed more aircraft of all types.
 
Last edited:
Both must have seemed like a rocket compared to the 270 mph Fulmar. You're not going to catch any Bettys, Sallys or Nells with that performance.
again, please look at the altitudes the Bettys, Sallys and Nells were making their best speeds.
Also look at which versions.
Nells used either Kinsei 41-45 with 1075hp for take-off and 990hp/2800meters or the same Take-off with 1000hp at 4180 metes. The last of the Nells used Kinsei 51s with 1300hp for take-off and 1200hp at 3,000meters. Nells with the lower powered engines were good for 232mph at 13,715 ft.

The Sallys also came with several different engines. But most of them used engines that were good for 1500hp for take-off and 1340hp at 15,090ft and they peaked out at 302mph at 15,485ft, of course bombing from 15,000ft was bit difficult.

Bettys used an amazing variety of engines. But the really powerful don't show up until the G4M2 and G4M3 in late 1942 and late 1943 respectfully.

Interception of the early versions would be difficult, perhaps very difficult, but the bombers have to come down low to bomb ships and things aren't quite as bad as quoting the speeds of the late models would make it appear.
Also note that B-17s and B-24s never flew at their list max speeds.
 
Here is your Griffon powered fighter.

x-Fairey_Firefly_FR.1_Z2030_Ringway_04.46_edited-2.jpg

Firefly.jpg

Actual work in the shop started Nov 16th 1940. First flight was Dec 22nd 1941, after that the molasses tank broke loose.

The Problem with Griffon powered Hurricanes is one, no Griffons when you want them, two the Hurricane was already hitting a wall with drag. Some planes hit the wall early than others and the increase in drag takes a dramatic change, not the regular progression that it make in under 300mph area, some planes get the progression to last until around 400mph, some hit the wall under 350mph. The Hurricane was one of these.
remember that a Hurricane was over 20mph slower than a P-40F with the same engine. Using up valuable Griffons (only about 8000 of them made?) it about the worst airframe you can find in late 1942 or 1943 isn't going to get you a good warplane for the effort invested.
 
Both must have seemed like a rocket compared to the 270 mph Fulmar. You're not going to catch any Bettys, Sallys or Nells with that performance.
C'mon the Skua and Gloster Sea Gladiator were shooting down lots of Luftwaffe bombers with similar or superior performance to a Betty with much less performance, than a Fulmar II.
 
Last edited:
Define "lots".
The Skua as 'Fleet Defender'. During the 1940 Norway campaign the Skua downed the following aircraft via front gun kills:

Do 26 Flying boat - 1.
Dornier 18 flying boat - 3.
Heinkel 115 floatplane - 2. (10 more by strafing)
Henkel 111 bomber -17.
Junkers Ju 88 - 5

(verified by Cull et all by cross referencing Luftwaffe loss records and operation reports)
 
The Skua as 'Fleet Defender'. During the 1940 Norway campaign the Skua downed the following aircraft via front gun kills:

Do 26 Flying boat - 1.
Dornier 18 flying boat - 3.
Heinkel 115 floatplane - 2. (10 more by strafing)
Henkel 111 bomber -17.
Junkers Ju 88 - 5

(verified by Cull et all by cross referencing Luftwaffe loss records and operation reports)

Now what did the Wildcat do in the Pacific? "Lots".

Skuas are to fighters as paperclips are to staplers.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back