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

[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: http://www.warbirdalley.com/hurry.htm

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: http://www3.mistral.co.uk/k5083/TECHDATA.HTM

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



From: http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/a...-types/f4f.htm

# 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).

[plan_D]

The Hurricane Mk.IIB was a better performer in a dogfight but the armament leaves a lot to be desired when facing off against Grumman brick houses.

[evangilder]

It would be very close, I think. They were both pretty rugged. The armament does give the edge to the Wildcat, but I am not sure with manueverability. There were stories of Wildcats shot full of holes still making it home. I don't know if that is the case with the Hurricane, but it wouldn't surprise me.

[FLYBOYJ]

Close one, I's go withthe Wildcat because of the Radial engine

[DAVIDICUS]

I know that the Wildcat was outclassed in manueverability by the Zero but suspect that the Hurricane would have been outclassed in manueverability as well. I don't think the Wildcat was an unmanueverable plane per se, it's just that having the Zero as your opponent does everything to develop and nothing to combat that impression.

The Wildcat, I have read, did have a superior dive rate and roll rate against the Zero.

Does anyone have climb data on both these aircraft?

Perhaps to further even the contest, we could compare the Hurricane IIB to the fixed wing F4F-3 model which had four .50 cal's and was a little lighter, faster and more manueverable.

Perhaps we could substitute the IIC for the IIB which would afford the Hurricane four 20mm cannons. The FM-2 Wildcat is a consideration as well with its better performance vis a vis the F4F series..

[FLYBOYJ]

Good Point!

[R Leonard]

Chronologically, an F4F-3 s a fairer comparison to a Hurricane IIB, rather than the F4F-4.

Answer to the F4F v A6M2 question is tactics, tactics, tactics.

Rich

[DAVIDICUS]

Ok, based on that representation, why don't we go with the F4F-3 and Hurricane Mk. IIB.

The only difference I think is that the F4F-3 had four .50 cal.'s and was a little lighter, faster and a manueverable than the F4F-4.

From: http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/a...-types/f4f.htm

"The heavier F4F-4 was not as nimble nor as fast as the F4F-3 ..."

From: http://www.microworks.net/pacific/av...4f_wildcat.htm

Grumman F4F-3 Wildcat
Length: 8.77 meters / 28.8 ft.
Wingspan: 11.58 meters / 38 ft.
Crew: 1
Weight Empty: 2423 Kilograms / 5342 lbs.
Weight Loaded: 3176 Kilograms / 7002 lbs.
Weight Maximum: ?
Armament: 4 x 12.7mm / 50-caliber machine-guns, two in each wing, two 45 Kilograms /100 lbs. bombs
Top Speed: 532 km/h / 331 mph
Range: 1383 km / 860 miles
Ceiling: 8839 meters / 29.000 feet
Climb Rate: 701 meters per minute / 2300 feet per minute

[the lancaster kicks ass]

well if you're gonna perposefully pick a better version of the wildcat surely we can go for a hurry Mk.IIC??

[DAVIDICUS]

Actually I first picked the F4F-4 Wildcat which had poorer performance than the F4F-3 Wildcat. I only said why don't we go with the F4F-3 because of R Leonard's statement that the F4F-3 vs. Mk.IIB would be a fairer comparison as they were contemporaries which I thought made some sense.

If I wanted to pick a superior Wildcat, I would have just gone straight for the FM-2.

At any rate, what do you think of a match up between a Mk. IIC and whatever Wildcat you wish to pick?

[FLYBOYJ]

the -3 of course!

[Glider]

This is really close. If its the Hurrie 2B against a Wildcat F4F3 I would go with the Wildcat because the 303 lacked penetration and the Wildcat was rugged. In performance there is little between the two.

If its the Hurrie 2C vs FM2, frankly I really don't know.

After having chewed this one over for some time I would go for the Wildcat FM2 over the Hurrie 2C
The reason is a little odd but the logic is as follows.
The FM2 was an improved aircraft with a number of changes over and above the change in weapons. Overall its performance was improved.
The Hurrie 2C was a 2B with heavier guns and a small decrease in performance.

That said this is one that goes dwon to the pilot behind the controls.

[R Leonard]

F4F-3 was straight wing, F4F-4 had folding wings

Most importantly, because the -4 had both folding wings AND three guns per wing it carried only 240 rounds per gun. The -3, with only two guns per wing carried 450 rounds per gun

F4F drivers at the time were as critical of this change as those brought about by increases in weight without increases in power. BuAir tried to sell the gun change as an ability to put more rounds into a target per burst, but the pilots recognized that first you had to hit the target.

Lieut Comdr JS Thach, CO VF-3, from transcript of a BuAir interview, 28 August 1942, after return from Pacific duty including the Battle of Midway and earlier actions:

“Air battles are won by hitting enemy planes with bullets. “

“The pilot who will miss with four .50 caliber guns won’t be able to hit with eight. Increased firepower is not a substitute for marksmanship.”

“In a fighter I would like to have 500 rounds per gun, but would be satisfied with 400.”

“We would rather have six guns, but there is no use carrying around six or eight guns if you can’t bring those guns to bear on the enemy.”

Lieut NAM Gayler, VF-3, VF-2, from transcript of a BuAir interview, 17 June 1942, after return from Pacific duty including the Battle of the Coral Sea and earlier actions:

“If you hit with four guns it’ll bring down whatever you’re hitting. I don’t say that I don’t think six guns are desirable, if you don’t have to cut down too much on your ammunition.”

“I should say that, in general, the four .50 calibers are a swell armament for a fighter plane. Personally I wouldn’t trade them for anything I’ve seen so far or heard of. They bring down anything they shoot; they’re rugged and apparently fool–proof and comparatively few stoppages and very little maintenance trouble or anything else to do with them. They’re very effective.”

“As far as I personally am concerned, I think the four caliber .50’s is excellent armament and that a couple of more would be nice if you can carry the ammunition. If you can’t, I think the four .50’s is adequate.”

Having flown both in combat, my resident F4F pilot preferred the -3 to the -4.

Rich

Rich

[FLYBOYJ]

Great stuff - I like the quote from Thach “The pilot who will miss with four .50 caliber guns won’t be able to hit with eight. Increased firepower is not a substitute for marksmanship.”

[alejandro_]

Does anyone konw the victory/loss ratio of the Wildcat against the Zero? Overall the victory ratio for the F4F is ~5:1. Apparently it is close to 1:1.

Regards.