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

[EwenS]

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]

This is where things get messy

After the Martlet I from the French contract, Britain took up the option clause therein for another 100 aircraft which were to be delivered as Martlet II. The first 10 were delivered in March 1941 arriving in the UK in June. Then Britain decided it would rather have the folding wing version, so delivery of the remaining 90 aircraft was delayed to take advantage of this. Deliveries of these 90 with folding wings began in late 1941, the first arriving in the UK in Dec 1941 with them forming the core of the Martlet II squadrons on Illustrious & Formidable in the IO in early 1942.

So the initial 10 fixed wing aircraft were redesigated Martlet III (along with 30 from the Greek contract that went straight to the Middle East)

There are reports that the original 10 Martlet III were retrofitted with folding wings but no evidence to back that up, except for a single fixed wing Martlet (serial unknown AFAIK) where the conversion was reported as being carried out by maintenance personnel on Illustrious as she sailed south to Cape Town after it had been damaged in a flight deck accident.

 

[Shortround6]

I believe he also flew a variety of other Martlet and Wildcat models in his capacity as test pilot didn't he?

And the point?
FM-2s had two fuel tanks.
117 US gallons early and 130 US gal late.

I am not doubting that Brown stayed in the air for 4 1/2 hours, once. A number of planes landed on fumes or ditched after using up their reserve allowance.
They tried not plan actual missions that way most of the time.

And in combat you can burn 3-5 times the amount of fuel per minute depending on engine ( sometimes more if you use a lot of boost).

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

See here the Sea Hurricane (= basically a hooked Hurricane I with drop tank facility) data sheet - 1100 miles with drop tanks at 208 mph and 20000 ft, after allowance of 22 gals is subtracted.
Slipper tanks on Hurricane - please, do tell.

It's funny you brought that site up here is some stuff i see on that site regarding the Sea Hurricane:

"Endurance
The Sea Hurricane's range was recorded as about 450 miles. But it was loiter time that meant the most for carrier operations.
Sea Hurricanes carried only enough fuel to sustain themselves for 1 hour at combat power, and 4.5 hours at full-economical settings. The Fulmar and Martlet could stay aloft for 2 hours and 2 hours 45 minutes under combat power, and 6 hours economical.
The consequence of this was carriers being forced to turn into the wind far more often to take-off and land Sea Hurricanes. So they were often held as 'alert' aircraft on the deck while their longer-legged stablemates maintained the CAP.

From First Lord of Admiralty to Prime Minister [AVIA 46/ 136] 6 December 1941 "Supply of Grumman Martlet fighters"

It is clear, therefore, that unless drastic steps are taken to increase the production of fleet fighters, we are likely to be in a nasty hole from the beginning of 1943 onwards. Although we have use of a number of Hurricanes, and in prospect of a number of Spitfires, it must emphasised that these are not really suitable aircraft for operating from Carriers for the following reasons:–

"(c) Their small endurance requires a Carrier to be turned into the wind so often in order to relieve fighter patrols that the consequent reduction of speed of advance of the ships from which it may be operating is quite unacceptable under certain circumstances."

Also unrelated to range, but this seems to have been notable to the pilots, in this case Henry 'Hank' Adlam:

"I found that the Hurricane, with its tight little cockpit smelling of glycol and fuel, was more tiring comparatively to fly on two-hour patrols than the Wildcat. But the patrols were without incident. However, flying the Hurricane over the sea, I could not get out of my mind the fear of engine failure if it should ever occur at a level so low, such as in the landing circuit, where it would be impracticable to bale out. It was well known that to ditch a Hurricane safely was impossible because of the huge cooling radiator located like a scoop under the fuselage. The radiator, as soon as it touched the sea, would inevitably cause the aircraft to bunt upside down and hard into the sea without possibility of survival for the pilot. Engine failures did occur from time to time among all aircraft in those days, but the certainty of being killed if it did occur in the Hurricane, made me look forward to the return to my Wildcat with its radial engine which gave the pilot a good chance of surviving a ditching."

I did not see reference to the external tanks and 1100 mile range. Where is that precisely?

 

[EwenS]

Thank you.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4f/martlet-II-ads.jpg

Still have the 136 imp gal fuel tank/s unless it was a mistake in the data sheet?
Engine is a two speed single stage engine, not the two stage engines that most F4F-3 and F4F-4s got.
The US had some F4F-3As with the same engine engine. (65) and most went to the USMC.

This will provide a startig point to understand the British Martlets

The Grumman Wildcat in FAA Service by Bruce Archer

 

[EwenS]

I believe he also flew a variety of other Martlet and Wildcat models in his capacity as test pilot didn't he?

AIUI it was during his time with 802 that he claimed his 4.5hr sortie, which is the subject of the dispute here.

 

[tomo pauk]

I did not see reference to the external tanks and 1100 mile range. Where is that precisely?

Here.

 

[Shortround6]

Sea Hurricanes carried only enough fuel to sustain themselves for 1 hour at combat power, and 4.5 hours at full-economical settings. The Fulmar and Martlet could stay aloft for 2 hours and 2 hours 45 minutes under combat power, and 6 hours economical.

Something is way off. Way Way Way off.

You could keep a Merlin running (economical settings) at a bit under 30 Imp gal an hour. which means 135 imp gallons for 4 .5 hours.(what kind of drop tanks on the Hurricane?)
Now the problem really comes in the the "combat power"
6lbs of boost?
9lbs of boost? 88inp gal an hour?
12lbs of boost?
16lbs of boost? (could be 150imp gallons an hour for a Merlin 45)

 

[RCAFson]

View attachment 757838

I

Hurricane IIC/ Trop performance: ( K5083 - Technical Data Part II - Mk. II )

Power Loading

Wing Loading

speed

climb Performance​

Hurricane Mk. IIC

6.47

29.8

334

21,500

2,780

Hurricane Mk. IIC Tropical

6.65

30.2

328

18,000

2,650

Hurricane Mk. IIC Tropical Long-Range 2 x 45IG DTs

7.20

33.1

306

18,000

2,280

I don't fully trust the max speed figures (they seem about 6-7 mph optimistic) but the key info is the delta between the IIC and IIC trop.

 

[RCAFson]

Something is way off. Way Way Way off.

You could keep a Merlin running (economical settings) at a bit under 30 Imp gal an hour. which means 135 imp gallons for 4 .5 hours.(what kind of drop tanks on the Hurricane?)
Now the problem really comes in the the "combat power"
6lbs of boost?
9lbs of boost? 88inp gal an hour?
12lbs of boost?
16lbs of boost? (could be 150imp gallons an hour for a Merlin 45)

The range of the IB was 555 miles at 208mph using 76IG ( 21IG allowance - 97IG internal fuel) and this equals an endurance of 2.7 hours at 20K ft (excluding time to climb). Using a more economical speed, and a lower altitude, we could probably stretch the endurance to ~3.5 hours. Minimum consumption on the Merlin III was about 25IG/hr at ~1800rpm, IIRC.

BWOC, at Midway 10 F4F-4s took off with full internal fuel. cruise climbed to 20K ft and all ended up running out of fuel in ~3.5 hours, so using the SH1B data card, and including time to climb, the HS1B endurance with the same mission profile would be ~2.9 hours vs ~3.5 hours for the F4F-4.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

Hurricane IIC/ Trop performance: ( K5083 - Technical Data Part II - Mk. II )

Power Loading

Wing Loading

speed

climb Performance​

Hurricane Mk. IIC

6.47

29.8

334

21,500

2,780

Hurricane Mk. IIC Tropical

6.65

30.2

328

18,000

2,650

Hurricane Mk. IIC Tropical Long-Range 2 x 45IG DTs

7.20

33.1

306

18,000

2,280

I don't fully trust the max speed figures (they seem about 6-7 mph optimistic) but the key info is the delta between the IIC and IIC trop.

Yeah, I don't trust them either.

That doesn't look to me like a WW2 era document. It looks like a spreadsheet from the 1990s.

in fact i see on the bottom ... that is exactly what it is. Looks like amateur / enthusiast optimism.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

Something is way off. Way Way Way off.

You could keep a Merlin running (economical settings) at a bit under 30 Imp gal an hour. which means 135 imp gallons for 4 .5 hours.(what kind of drop tanks on the Hurricane?)
Now the problem really comes in the the "combat power"
6lbs of boost?
9lbs of boost? 88inp gal an hour?
12lbs of boost?
16lbs of boost? (could be 150imp gallons an hour for a Merlin 45)

I mean... why would they lie about it? Why would the admiral complain so much to the prime minister about the difficulty in operating the Sea Hurricane compared to the other types? You would think heck, just put a couple of these ubiquitous external tanks on it, and it can fly for 1,000 miles right?

Yet, it doesn't seem to have been the wartime consensus on that aircraft, or on the land based Hurricanes.

Maybe it was all a conspiracy by the RAF and FAA in the early 1940s to annoy internet forum regulars in the 21st Century?

 

[RCAFson]

I mean... why would they lie about it? Why would the admiral complain so much to the prime minister about the difficulty in operating the Sea Hurricane compared to the other types? You would think heck, just put a couple of these ubiquitous external tanks on it, and it can fly for 1,000 miles right?

Yet, it doesn't seem to have been the wartime consensus on that aircraft, or on the land based Hurricanes.

Maybe it was all a conspiracy by the RAF and FAA in the early 1940s to annoy internet forum regulars in the 21st Century?

The SH1B was assigned top cover at 20K ft and this cut into it's endurance and AFAIK, they didn't have DTs available during PEDESTAL.

Admiral Halsey April 1942:

"Limited range and endurance of F4F-4 type carrier VF is a serious defect in these new planes. Action looking to improvement in this regard has been initiated by dispatch, copy to Commander-in-Chief, U.S. Pacific Fleet"

HyperWar: USS Enterprise Action Report, Halsey-Doolittle Raid

Halsey-Doolittle Raid: USS Enterprise Action Report (Capt. G.D. Murray to Adm. Chester A. Nimitz)

www.ibiblio.org

So this seems to indicate that despite the Zero beating range claimed by Grumman for the F4F-3/4 that it wasn't so.

 

[RCAFson]

Yeah, I don't trust them either.

That doesn't look to me like a WW2 era document. It looks like a spreadsheet from the 1990s.

in fact i see on the bottom ... that is exactly what it is. Looks like amateur / enthusiast optimism.

View attachment 758008

The data can be cross checked with actual performance tests and it checks out, except for minor variations.

 

[ThomasP]

Hey Wild_Bill_Kelso,

re the F4F-3 PD (Performance Data) page you posted above.

(I have posted clearer copies of the F4F-3 PD and the similar F4F-4 ACP at the bottom of this post)

Speed, altitude, and range at which the F4F-3 flew this profile was a Vcruise of 150/145 mph TAS/IAS at an altitude of 2,500 ft for 940 miles.
Note the superscript cross after the V in the red circle and another superscript cross before the 2,500 ft in the red box. What would the range be for the Hurricane Mk IIA flying at Vcruise for max range at an altitude of 2,500 ft - as opposed to 20,000 ft?

and re

And just as obviously, range is considerably more than any version of the Hurricane, measured the same way.

I am pretty sure that no one is saying that the Hurricane or SeaHurricane had the same range as the F4F - I know I have never said so (or even thought so for the past 50 years or so since I became aware of the Hurricane and Wildcat). We are just saying that the range difference is not as much as some people (or documents) say it is.

Note that the F4F-4 ACP below has the aircraft flying at 5,000 ft altitude.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

The SH1B was assigned top cover at 20K ft and this cut into it's endurance and AFAIK, they didn't have DTs available during PEDESTAL.

Admiral Halsey April 1942:

"Limited range and endurance of F4F-4 type carrier VF is a serious defect in these new planes. Action looking to improvement in this regard has been initiated by dispatch, copy to Commander-in-Chief, U.S. Pacific Fleet"

HyperWar: USS Enterprise Action Report, Halsey-Doolittle Raid

Halsey-Doolittle Raid: USS Enterprise Action Report (Capt. G.D. Murray to Adm. Chester A. Nimitz)

www.ibiblio.org

So this seems to indicate that despite the Zero beating range claimed by Grumman for the F4F-3/4 that it wasn't so.

Who pray tell, said that the F4F-3 or F4F-4 had "Zero beating range" ?

The F4F-3 and -4 did actually beat the Zeros, but it did not have superior range to a zero. It had superior range to the Hurricane. It definiely had inferior range to an A6M.

It was a "Zero beating" fighter in terms of operational outcomes, however, in spite of it's flaws.

From Japanese sources it is abundantly clear that while Midway, Coral Sea and some of the other large carrier battles were a blow to the IJN (partly due to F4F fighters, partly due to flak, partly due to sunk ships) , the most severe period of destruction of IJN fighters and crews in WW2 was during the Solomons campaign in later 1942 and in 1943. I would tend to agree that the F4F-3 is somewhat inferior to the A6M and the F4F-4 is considerably inferior. And yet, it was the F4Fs, mainly flown from land bases, which bore the brunt of the fighting during that campaign. Losses on both sides were about equal, but the IJN could not sustain that, and this led to a crisis for the Japanese air forces (which in turn led to the IJN asking their hated rivals in the IJA to send in fighter units, which is what leads us to the next chapter in the Ki-43 story I'm about to trasncribe in the other thread).

Aside from the F4Fs, the Solomons campaign included P-38F/Gs, P-39s, P-40E, K and M (some flown by New Zealand and Australian pilots), P-40F, P-38H, and later P-47s, F4Us and finally F6Fs. But the bulk of the fighting was by the seemingly least capable fighters, the F4Fs. Somehow they made them work about as well as the most successful other types, with the possible exception of the P-38s.

By contrast, so far as I have been able to determine, no Hurricane unit ever showed a good / favorable combat record against either the Ki-43 or the A6M. Do you know of any example of one that did?

 

[RCAFson]

Who pray tell, said that the F4F-3 or F4F-4 had "Zero beating range" ?

You pointed to a Grumman spec sheet showing 1280 miles range on internal fuel for the F4F-3.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

You pointed to a Grumman spec sheet showing 1280 miles range on internal fuel for the F4F-3.

I mean... I didn't make it up. Various RAF sources for F4F aircraft also give ranges about that number. The difference is in testing parameters, load out, flying speed, etc.

You are trying to conflate and cherry pick your way out of ever admitting that Hurricanes (or any RAF aircraft) were ever inferior in any way to other types, in direct contradiction to wartime sources, including RAF, FAA, and RN sources. Including specific pilots, fleet officers, admirals etc.

 

[Shortround6]

I mean... why would they lie about it? Why would the admiral complain so much to the prime minister about the difficulty in operating the Sea Hurricane compared to the other types? You would think heck, just put a couple of these ubiquitous external tanks on it, and it can fly for 1,000 miles right?

Yet, it doesn't seem to have been the wartime consensus on that aircraft, or on the land based Hurricanes.

Maybe it was all a conspiracy by the RAF and FAA in the early 1940s to annoy internet forum regulars in the 21st Century?

Problem is that we have no idea of what the original writer meant by "combat power" or even what was meant by "full economical settings."

Now the writer knew and maybe the person/people he was writing to knew, but without numbers everybody else is stumbling around in the dark.
People (pilots) had stopped flying around at full power, let alone "combat power" about the time they put adjustable pitch props on planes.
Outdated terminology?
An R-1830 running at high power was going burn around .66lb per HP/hr or around 120-130 US gallons per hour.
Even Assuming the engine will run for 2 hours or more at "combat level" that is every drop of fuel in an F4F with a pair of drop tanks.

 

[Shortround6]

The difference is in testing parameters, load out, flying speed, etc.

Yeah,
Parameters like.
fuel used for warmup.
fuel used to take off and even climb to 2500ft.
Fuel reserved for emergency (like finding the carrier, or heaven forbid, circling the carrier after the plane in que ahead crashed and it took 10 minutes to clear the flight deck.

The Wildcat had around 30-35% more range than the Hurricane except for the first few hundred Grummans built and with neither plane using drop tanks.
The drop tanks are within 1-2 gallons of each other once you convert from Imp to US gallons.
Neither was particularly streamlined.
Neither was in very good supply until 1943 or late 1943. US showed all kinds of range figures but if the tanks are not in the supply chain they are not being used (or used rarely).

 

[RCAFson]

I mean... I didn't make it up. Various RAF sources for F4F aircraft also give ranges about that number. The difference is in testing parameters, load out, flying speed, etc.

Really, ~1280 miles on internal fuel?