Was the Sea Hurricane a superior naval fighter than the F4F?

[yulzari]

They never seem to mention Italian aircraft in these comparisons… a just as likely opponent in the MTO.

Sea Hurricane or Martlet vs. Re.2001 or earlier fighters like the Macchi C.200?

Or Dewoitine D520 or Morane MS406. Martlets served in the invasion of Madagascar too.

 

[Macandy]

Isn't the Hurricane's radiator belly mounted? Which aircraft has a nose mounted rad? P-40?

View attachment 708125

All inline engines are incredibly vulnerable to ground fire to the nose, see the coolant tank and hoses.
A single hole, and its a crash landing or silk letdown.
You can shoot a radial engine full of holes and they will often still work

 

[RCAFson]

This is an interesting article about Sea Hurricane development and use:

Everything you need to know about the Hawker Sea Hurricane

A fascinating overview of the navalised Hurricanes that went to sea.

www.key.aero

an extract from the above:

Squadrons on leave, including those that had been given leave after taking part in 'Pedestal', were recalled early in September. This hit morale somewhat for units that had just been through the hardest-fought operation of the FAA's war so far, but given the short time available to work up it was inevitable. Nevertheless, while considerable problems were experienced with Martlets and Seafires in training, the Sea Hurricane II — despite being new to the Navy — presented no problems. Five squadrons were re-equipped with the newer type: 800, 802, 883, 804 and 891, all of which would be operating from modified escort carriers.

 

[Shortround6]

You can shoot a radial engine full of holes and they will often still work

That is rather dependent on the engine. P W R-2800s seemed to do pretty well, although we only hear about the ones that got back so we don't know what the percentage was.

On the other hand the French had some radials that had a habit of breaking their reduction gears which led to a fast exit of the propeller from the airplane and this was accomplished with absolutely no aid from any axis aircraft or ground gun.

There is also a picture of an Allison C-15 engine that was removed from a Tomahawk (page 131 of Vee's for Victory) and sent back to Allison by the British with 14 bullet holes in the engine itself. Caption says the plane successfully completed it's mission.
Two things.
No mention of how long the plane flew after getting hit. (3 minutes or 20 minutes)
To make it worthwhile sending this thing back from North Africa means (to me anyway) that this was pretty unusual.

Just looking at the picture you can see 4 bullet holes in the reduction gear case, a couple of holes in the valve cover and a couple of holes in cylinder block. I have no idea where the others are.

Apparently somebody didn't tell that engine that it was supposed to fail in a complete and catastrophic way within seconds of being hit.
Shooting holes in cast aluminum engine blocks is not that hard.

 

[PAT303]

You can shoot a radial engine full of holes and they will often still work

You only see photos of the ones that made it back, the highest scoring ace in the Pacific, Neel Kearby was killed after being downed by a Ki 43 which had a couple of .303's or a combination of .303's and either one or two Breda .5's, a very weak armament against such a tough airplane.

 

[ThomasP]

Hey Macandy,

re "You can shoot a radial engine full of holes and they will often still work"

Unless you put holes in the oil lines or oil radiator(s).

Also, "You can shoot a radial engine full of holes and they will often still work"? Can you list more than 10 instances where the story of an air-cooled radial running for any length of time after being shot full of holes is reliably documented. (This is kind of a trick question, as I have only run across 4 - from which all other stories I have run across are referenced.)

 

[Jabberwocky]

Very interesting reading on the early F4F-3:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4f/f4f-3-1845.pdf

I know there were some unofficial dogfights between the F4F and the Hurricane, and Winkle Brown did some flight testing of both, but were there any official comparisons ever done?

 

[Jabberwocky]

For my money and based on pilot accounts.
If I was a Navy pilot, I'd want the Sea Hurricane
If I was an Admiral or war planner, I'd want the F4F.

 

[rinkol]

For the British it would be deciding between a folding wing Hurricane and a folding wing Spitfire. And please, please keep in mind that either one was just a temporary solution until the Firefly and Firebrand sprang forth in all their glory humbling all other carrier fighters world wide.

Yes we know how that worked out but that what was going in at least a few minds at the time.
Prototype Firefly flew Dec 22, 1941, 2 Weeks after Pearl Harbor and 12 days after the PoW and Repulse went down.
Prototype Firebrand first flew on Feb 27th 1942. 3 months before Midway.

I suspect a folding wing Spitfire would present problematic structural issues in view of the thinness of the wing.

 

[Shortround6]

I suspect a folding wing Spitfire would present problematic structural issues in view of the thinness of the wing.

perhaps but they did solve them. It just may have taken more work than folding Hurricane, but then the rewards were better.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

I don't know precisely when each variant of Martlet / Wildcat got self sealing tanks (both external cover and internal) and armor, and how much, does anyone have that precisely?

My understanding was that F4F-3 had some armor and SS tanks (external?) but F4F-4 had more and the internal lining (which took up some room for fuel). I know the very early F4F intended for France (Martlet I or II?) lacked protection at least somewhat. If anyone knows the precise breakdown and timeline I'd be interested to see it.

For future reference in this discussion, I'm going to aggregate some of the data here.

Armored carriers gives the following data points for different Martlet / Wildcat variants:
Martlet Mk I - 492 km/h (305 mph) at 4,572m. Range 1884 km (1,170 miles) [Cyclone engine]
Martlet Mk II - 472 km/h (293 mph) at 2,962m and 3965m. Range 1432 km (889 miles) [Four gun, two speed Twin Wasp engine, some had 'retro-fitted' folding wings. On Formidable and Illustrious]
Martlet Mk III - 502 km/h (311 mph) at 4,877m. Range 1328 km (825 miles) [aka Wildcat Mk III, two speed R-1830-90 Twin Wasp. Originally Greek order, went to 805 and 806 Sqn]
Martlet Mk IV - 480 km/h (298 mph) at 4,267m. Range not given. [Aka Wildcat Mk IV, six guns ... F4F-4 equivalent?]
Martlet Mk V - 512 km/h (318 mph) at 5,913m. Range not given. [Aka Wildcat Mk V, FM-1 equivalent]
Martlet Mk VI - 505 km/h (313 mph) at 4039m. Range not given. [Aka Wildcat Mk VI, FM-2 equivalent]

Eric Brown also notes that he personally flew a 4.5 hour sortie in the Wildcat.

Data Sheets
Martlet I 870 mile range, top speed 315 mph at 14,500 ft
Martlet II 850 mile range, top speed 317 mph at 14,000 ft
Wildcat II 795 mile range, top speed 300 mph at 14,000 ft
Wildcat III 890 mile range, top speed 307 mph at 14,000 ft
Wildcat IV 695 mile range, top speed 298 mph at 15,000 ft
Wildcat V (no range given), top speed 332 mph at 21,000 ft
Wildcat VIA (no range given), top speed 319 mph at 16,750 ft
Wildcat VIB (no range given), top speed 328 mph at 12,800 ft

Test (not spec) of F4F-4 Speed 318 - 319 mph at 22,110 and 19,400 ft, weight 7,369 lb
Test (not spec) of F4F-4 Speed 316 mph at 17,200, ceiling 33,100' ROC 1,820 ft, at 7,933 lb (this is the test with the P-40F comparison)
Data sheet / test F4F-4. Speed 320 mph at 18,800 ft, range 830 miles, combat radius 105 miles (F4F-4 internal fuel 144 gallons, 6 guns with 1,440 rounds, 7,975 lb, internal fuel)
Data Sheet / test F4F-4. Speed 305 mph at 18,800 ft, range 1,050 miles, combat radius 245 miles (F4F-4, one 58 gallon external tank, 202 gallons total fuel, 8,369 lb)
Data sheet / test F4F-4. Speed 294 mph at 18,800 ft, range 1,275 miles, combat radius 325 miles (F4F-4, two 58 gallon external tanks, 260 gallons total fuel, 8,762 lb)
Test FM-2. Speed 329 mph at military power 44.5" at 15,300 ft, 328 mph at 10,800 ft with water injection. Climb 3,480 fpm at military power, 3,670 at WEP / water injection
Test FM-2. Speed 327 mph at normal power, 328 mph at military power. Graph shows WEP gives over 325 mph at 8,500 feet instead of 12,500 feet.

This seems to provide pretty definitive data for range and speed for F4F-3, F4F-4, and the earlier export / FAA types. Combat radius for F4F-4 is helpful here.
We also have speed and climb for FM-2 in detail. Strangely range is missing for FM-1 and FM-2.

Obviously there is some variance in the data and this can be attributed (I think) to different loadouts of gear and consumables, as well as probable variation in test machines. Some of the US tests tested two machines simultaneously which is probably to help narrow this down.

 

[Admiral Beez]

For my money...

If money is the driving factor, our Accountant will ask for Hurricanes. The first Sea Hurricanes, those used on CAM ships were second hand RAF birds, surplus from the Battle of Britain and likely free of charge to the RN. And the Sea Hurricane is available earlier than the F4F. Unless the F4F is provided at no charge under lend lease, the Grumman fighter costs US $30,000 in 1940, while a Hawker Hurricane cost £4,000 (US $10,000), with the Sea Hurricane variant presumably a little more, but still half the price of the F4F. By 1941 when the F4F is becoming available, Hurricanes will be cheap as chips and just as plentiful for conversion. I have to think that the Sea Hurricane is probably one of the cheapest monoplane fighters ever to operate from a carrier, save perhaps for the Dewoitine D.373, Mitsubishi A5M and Brewster F2A. For your money you'll find no cheaper way to put heavily armed, 330 mph fighters on your flattops.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

The 105 mile radius previously mentioned was based on the F4F-4 with internal fuel and includes an allowance for finding the carrier on the way back. F4F-3 had bit a better range.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

If money is the driving factor, our Accountant will ask for Hurricanes. The first Sea Hurricanes, those used on CAM ships were second hand RAF birds, surplus from the Battle of Britain and likely free of charge to the RN. And the Sea Hurricane is available earlier than the F4F. Unless the F4F is provided at no charge under lend lease, the Grumman fighter costs US $30,000 in 1940, while a Hawker Hurricane cost £4,000 (US $10,000), with the Sea Hurricane variant presumably a little more, but still half the price of the F4F. By 1941 when the F4F is becoming available, Hurricanes will be cheap as chips and just as plentiful for conversion. I have to think that the Sea Hurricane is probably one of the cheapest monoplane fighters ever to operate from a carrier, save perhaps for the Dewoitine D.373, Mitsubishi A5M and Brewster F2A.

It certainly compares pretty well to those types. I think the key thing to remember is that the Sea Hurricane, while not an ideal naval fighter (which is all I was arguing, that triggered this big debate) was clearly good enough for what they needed in the interim - a point defense fighter (initially CAM fighter) that could fly from a cargo ship and later a carrier and defeat land based bombers, and at least hold it's own against land based fighters when necessary. Something faster than a Sea Gladiator or a Fulmar which sometimes had trouble catching Ju 88s, SM.79s or later model He 111s.

But the Sea Hurricane was good enough to save several convoys, including I would say, Pedestal. If they hadn't been available I suspect the convoy would have been turned back or completely sunk. As it was the provided just enough of an edge to stave off catastrophe, and ultimately contribute to a resounding strategic victory due to the British holding on to Malta. Considering that the Sea Hurricane was an almost overnight conversion from a land based aircraft, it did well.

The early Martlet wasn't as good at point defense because of it's slow rate of climb, but was better overall as a carrier fighter due to better range and flying endurance, more ammunition / longer shooting time, less vulnerable air-cooled engine, good high altitude performance, better deck handling, and folding wings. And also the fact that ditching wasn't a near death-sentance like with the Sea Hurricane. It's also worth noting that the slower initial rate of climb is basically due to all the extra fuel it's carrying, putting it just below the tipping point on weight per horsepower. Once it's been flying for a while climb performance increases.

 

[Admiral Beez]

But the Sea Hurricane was good enough to save several convoys, including I would say, Pedestal.

Good points. Had the fast T-lift carriers HMS Courageous and Glorious been available into 1941 the RN would have had two ships ideally made for a sizeable force of Sea Hurricanes. Granted, unfolded Hurricanes take up a lot of space. Here's HMS Argus below - her hangar was 48–68 feet (14.6–20.7 m) wide.

Maybe the Courageous class layout makes staggered stowage easier? Here's HMS Indomitable's 62 ft wide hangar with non-folding Seafires. I can't find any info online for the width of the hangar of the Courageous class.

.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

Wow how the heck do they get them past those posts? That would be tough to get in and out in a hurry! WW2 carrier ops are friggin insane...

 

[EwenS]

Good points. Had the fast T-lift carriers HMS Courageous and Glorious been available into 1941 the RN would have had two ships ideally made for a sizeable force of Sea Hurricanes. Granted, unfolded Hurricanes take up a lot of space. Here's HMS Argus below - her hangar was 48–68 feet (14.6–20.7 m) wide.

View attachment 708630

Maybe the Courageous class layout makes staggered stowage easier? Here's HMS Indomitable's 62 ft wide hangar with non-folding Seafires. I can't find any info online for the width of the hangar of the Courageous class.

View attachment 708631.

C&G class carrier hangars were 50ft wide according to Hobbs.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

I still struggle to grasp how they get those planes past the poles which seem to be almost in the middle of the hangar. Folding wings definitely seems to be a priority need here...

Early (non folding) Martlets wouldn't be any better here either really, they had wide wingspan too.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

One in the back seems to either have folded wings or the wings are off. Fulmar?

 

[Admiral Beez]

One in the back seems to either have folded wings or the wings are off

Hurricane wings are readily removable.

The lifts on the Courageous class are at either end of the hangar, and are I believe equal to the width of the hangar, at least at the lift well, so there's no pole in the way.