Hawker Hurricane Mk. IIB vs. Grumman F4F-4 Wildcat

[Graf]

As someone put it before, the F4F is a manueverable aircraft. Put up against the Zero however, everyything, even the nimble Spitfire will be put to shame.

Having said that I would take the Wildcat over the IIB anyday. Of course the Hurri was and is a great fighter for its day but not many aircraft can withstand the punishment of those .50s.

[the lancaster kicks ass]

Originally Posted by FB

I'd take an F4F over a Mk I.

as the title of this topic suggests, we're talking about the Mk.IIB

Originally Posted by Graf

the F4F is a manueverable aircraft

as is the hurricane........

not many aircraft can withstand the punishment of those .50s

not many aircraft can withstand the punishment of 12 yes 12!!!!! .303s...........

[plan_D]

If Hawk-75s with six .303cal can shoot down Wildcats then a Hurricane IIB with twelve .303cal wouldn't have too hard of a time.

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by the lancaster kicks ass

as the title of this topic suggests, we're talking about the Mk.IIB

I know - that's why I stated it - I'd take a MkIIB over the F4F

[Jabberwocky]

Originally Posted by Graf

As someone put it before, the F4F is a manueverable aircraft. Put up against the Zero however, everyything, even the nimble Spitfire will be put to shame.

Having said that I would take the Wildcat over the IIB anyday. Of course the Hurri was and is a great fighter for its day but not many aircraft can withstand the punishment of those .50s.

Dont write off the Hurricane as any type of slug, Sir Sydney Camm knew what he was doing in the early 1930s (although, despite my love of it, we can forgive him just a little for the Typhoon). While the Hurrican may not outpace or outclimb the Spitfire, just because it didn't have those greyhound lines, doesn't mean that it wasn't very nimble. Sure the Wildcat was agile, but a Hurricane has it beat for manuverability in a fair fight.

Comparig it to is WW2 stablemate, the Hurricane had a better rate of role, better turning circle, faster turn and much lighter control requirements (pounds of stick force) than the Spitfire. Its still not quite in the Ki-27, Ki-43, A5M or A6M leauge, but then the Japanese did always had a mania for horizontal manuverability. Both the Wildcat and the Hurricane fell prey to the nimble Japanese birds.

Stick a Merlin XX (1850 hp at 21000 feet!) on a Hurricane, add a Bendix-Stromberg carburettor, reinforce the airframe, add a dozen .303s at 250 yards convergence, plumb in a 90 imp. gal. center line drop-tank and you have a very capable bird. Switch out the Merlin XX for a Merlin 24 or a 27 (1,640 hp at 3000 feet) and all of a sudden the Hurri loks very good at low alt as well.

I would argue that the Hurricane was the superior DEFENSIVE fighter of the pair. It operated as a interceptor far better than the Wildcat. It could climb to altitude faster, manuver better to close with its target and inflict significant damage when it got there.

The Wildcat was probably a superior OFFENSIVE weapon; greater range, carrier capable, heavier armament, an exellent team based airplane against foes who had trouble at higher altitudes.

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by Jabberwocky

I would argue that the Hurricane was the superior DEFENSIVE fighter of the pair. It operated as a interceptor far better than the Wildcat. It could climb to altitude faster, manuver better to close with its target and inflict significant damage when it got there.

The Wildcat was probably a superior OFFENSIVE weapon; greater range, carrier capable, heavier armament, an exellent team based airplane against foes who had trouble at higher altitudes.

I think that sums it up!

[Bernhart]

I have a book on hurricanes at home and there is a piece in there were pilots flying hurricanes out of halifax took on wildcats from a carrier that had docked there. They started flying towards each other at same hieght. evey instance hurricane got on the tail of the wildcats and wildcats couldn't shake them,

[Jank]

"I have a book on hurricanes at home and there is a piece in there were pilots flying hurricanes out of halifax took on wildcats from a carrier that had docked there. They started flying towards each other at same hieght. evey instance hurricane got on the tail of the wildcats and wildcats couldn't shake them."

Really.

Did the story also have a giant clown with pigs flying out of his butt?

[Bernhart]

that's what I like about this forum, the intelligent postings and replies

[Doodard]

Originally Posted by DAVIDICUS

I don't know how accurate the data is that I have presented for each aircraft. (Consider the source and whatever knowledge you can bring to bear)

So how would these two allies fare in a head to head dogfight?




From: Warbird Alley: Hawker Hurricane

Engine: 1,280hp Rolls-Royce Merlin XX 12-cylinder V piston engine
Weight: Empty 5,500 lbs., Max Takeoff 7,300 lbs.
Wing Span: 40ft. 0in.
Length: 32ft. 2.5in.
Height: 13ft. 1in.
Performance:
Maximum Speed at 22,000 ft: 342 mph
Cruising Speed at 20,000 ft: 296 mph
Ceiling: 36,500 ft
Range: 480 miles
Armament:
Twelve 7.7mm (0.303in.) wing-mounted machine guns
Two 250 or 500-lb bombs

For further details see: K5083 - Technical Data

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



From: USN Aircraft--Grumman F4F

# Dimensions: Wing Span, 38 feet; Length, 28 feet 9 inches; Wing Area, 260 square feet.
# Weights: Empty, 5785 pounds; Gross, 7975 pounds
# Powerplant: One 1,200 horsepower Pratt & Whitney R-1830-86 double-row radial engine.
# Armament: Six .50 caliber Browning machine guns; Two 100-pound bombs.
# Performance: Maximum Speed, 320 m.p.h. (@ 19,800 feet & weight of 7975 pounds).

Hurricanes were more forgiving and when equipped with cannons were deadly. But useless for Arctic service. Wildcats - radial engines and better rate of climb for interceptions made from carriers. Large cockpits and not as responsive.

[Glider]

Originally Posted by Doodard

Hurricanes were more forgiving and when equipped with cannons were deadly. But useless for Arctic service. Wildcats - radial engines and better rate of climb for interceptions made from carriers. Large cockpits and not as responsive.

Why usless for Arctic Service? We few them on escort for Russian Convoys and the Russians used thousands with a fair degree of success.

Granted they were not in the same league as the 109 F/G or the 190, but neither is a Wildcat.

[Jabberwocky]

Originally Posted by Jank

"I have a book on hurricanes at home and there is a piece in there were pilots flying hurricanes out of halifax took on wildcats from a carrier that had docked there. They started flying towards each other at same hieght. evey instance hurricane got on the tail of the wildcats and wildcats couldn't shake them."

Really.

Did the story also have a giant clown with pigs flying out of his butt?

Read my post on the previous page....

[MacArther]

F4F, and if possible, the F4F-3, because I'd need that extra ammo in case things got hairy and I had to "plow a path" to get back to a squad member or group. Sounds stupid, probably, but this is coming from someone who has no flight experience other than airliners and the air show I saw the other......something.

[Bernhart]

opps missed that Jabberwocky my bad..

[freebird]

The Hurricane actually did quite well against the Zero in the early battles, better ratio than the Wildcat I think