# P36 vs Hurricane



## pinsog (Nov 7, 2016)

General feelings are that the P36 was too slow and obsolete to fight in WW2, yet the Hurricane has a loyal following especially up through the Battle of Britain. 

Yet, I was looking at the specs on wwiiaircraftperformance and the P36 was 17 mph faster than the Hurricane at 10,000 feet. It was equal in top speed to the Hurricane at 17,000 feet when equipped with the P&W R-1830-23 engine. It could beat the Hurricane in a time to climb to 23,000 feet and it could easily out turn it under any conditions. The Hurricane had 8 .303 machine guns, the P36 either 1 .50 and 5 30's or, I understand the later models had 2 .50's and 4 30's. 

So why was the Hurricane ok and the P36 was obsolete? If the P36 had the 1830-23 engine or later, I don't see what the Hurricane had over it at all.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## davebender (Nov 7, 2016)

I think P-36 was a more modern design. Hurricane was constructed of steel tubing covered with fabric.


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 7, 2016)

WW2 is more than 1939 to 1940. Hurricane was deployed in big numbers during that time, and during the BoB it served as the sharp end of the Fighter Command's command & control system, a great thing that P-36 was without in the theaters where served. We know that Hurricane when used in low numbers and away from the good C&C system was hard pressed to do it's job.
Neither Hurricane nor P-36 were as good as Spitfire or Bf 109 when it is about raw performance. Even the P-40 and P-39 can and will be faster than Hurri or P-36.

One thing that will make Hurricane less obsolete was introduction of 12 MGs, later 4 cannons in the Merlin XX powered Hurricane II. Still an underperformer, though. The greater power (via increased boost, that was possible due to the use of 100 oct fuel) will notably improve Hurricane's rate of climb under 15000 ft.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 7, 2016)

Are we talking the P-36 or the Curtiss Hawk 75 in it's best form? IMO this aircraft was one of the most underrated fighters of WW2. The French did very well with them.

From Wiki;

_*"During 1939–1940, French H75 pilots claimed 230 air-to-air kills (of a total of 1,009 air-to-air kills by the French Air Force during the 1939-40 time period) and 81 probable victories in H75s against only 29 aircraft lost in aerial combat. While making up only 12.6% of the French Air Force single-seater fighter force, the H75 accounted for almost a third of the air-to-air kills during the 1940 Battle of France. Of the 11 French aces of the early part of the war, seven flew H75s. The leading ace of the time was Lieutenant Edmond Marin la Meslée with 15 confirmed and five probable victories in the type."*_


----------



## buffnut453 (Nov 7, 2016)

Joe, 

I entirely agree that the "P-36" (in quotes because there were just soooo many different variants!) is an underrated aircraft. 

I suspect some of the negative press is related to the utility of the P-36 in the Battle of Britain where its relatively poorer high altitude performance would have been a hindrance. It's worth noting that although the Commonwealth air forces operated P-36s for a number of years, most notably in Burma, no operational units were ever deployed in the UK. 

We also need to be careful about which variant we're discussing...hence my original caveat. The final armament option of 2x50 cal in the nose and 4x30 cal in the wings was adequate but earlier variants with fewer guns were probably not up to par for an early-1940s vintage fighter.

The performance of the P-36 in Finnish use is interesting, not least the comparison with that other unloved fighter the Brewster B239. 

Cheers,
Mark

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinsog (Nov 7, 2016)

FLYBOYJ I guess I use Hawk75 and P36 interchangeably, I thought the Hawk75 was just the export name of the same airplane. Also, the Hawk75 used by the French did not have the best performing engine available and it was underarmed with 6 French RC machine-guns which, according to French pilots, caused many Hawk75 to be shot down by German defensive gunners because they had to close to about 50 yards for them to be effective.

TOMO PAUK I agree that it will never be as fast as a 109 or a Spitfire, but if it can climb with them, easily outturn them (a French pilot said a Hawk75 can do 1 360 degree turn with a 109 and be on its tail), its as tough as anything short of a P47, and with the late model P&W used in the Wildcat it would gain a tremendous boost in performance at altitude (625 hp at 20,000 feet for a P36 vs 1,000 hp at 19,000 feet for a Wildcat) The Spitfire didn't do well with the Zero in 1942-1943 and the Zero had terrible handling above 320-350 mph, something a P36/Hawk75 didn't have trouble with, in fact the roll rate on a P36/Hawk75 got better at high speed and the controls remained light


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 7, 2016)

I'd say that P-36 was not that tough  Most (all?) of it's iterations were without armor of any sort, so we have Zero/Oscar-style advantages and problems here. Great for climb and turning, less great when it needs to catch the bogey or to run away from it, while every burst that struck home will mean grave danger to the pilot.
Spitfire in 1942 have had problems with Zero, however, many of problems were less related to the aircraft, rather to the system it was employed. The P-36 have had a good roll rate, expecting it to attain more than 320 mph (in order to out-roll the Zero) would've been asking too much.
The 2-stage R-1830 in P-36 would've been a fairly good match, I agree with that. We'd still have the weight increase, due to heavier engine, s-s tanks, armor, better armament etc.
BTW, the single, and atop of that synchronised .50 will be hardly at advantage vs. multiple French 7.5mm MGs.


----------



## pinsog (Nov 7, 2016)

tomo pauk said:


> I'd say that P-36 was not that tough  Most (all?) of it's iterations were without armor of any sort, so we have Zero/Oscar-style advantages and problems here. Great for climb and turning, less great when it needs to catch the bogey or to run away from it, while every burst that struck home will mean grave danger to the pilot.
> Spitfire in 1942 have had problems with Zero, however, many of problems were less related to the aircraft, rather to the system it was employed. The P-36 have had a good roll rate, expecting it to attain more than 320 mph (in order to out-roll the Zero) would've been asking too much.
> The 2-stage R-1830 in P-36 would've been a fairly good match, I agree with that. We'd still have the weight increase, due to heavier engine, s-s tanks, armor, better armament etc.
> BTW, the single, and atop of that synchronised .50 will be hardly at advantage vs. multiple French 7.5mm MGs.




From what I read, the French and Finnish pilots evidently had armor behind the seat. Before Coral Sea, F4F-3 pilots used boilerplate, so a 100 pound sheet of armor behind the seat would be an easy fix. 

2 synchronized .50's and 4 30's would be what I would spec out for an early war P36/H75, with an increase to 4 .50 BMG when the time came.

Along with the latest P&W engine as they were coming out. The -23 gave 950 hp at 17,000 while the -17 that they actually used gave 810 at 15,000. 140 more hp 2,000 feet higher is pretty substantial. The F4F-3 Wildcat had 1,000 hp at 19,000 feet. I'd like to see that in a P36 that weighed over 1,000 pounds less. 

The official specs for the F4F-3 show protected fuel tanks weighing 164 pounds for 160 gallons, so that shouldn't be much of a weight penalty. 

Official specs show a P36C weighed 5,840 pounds with 1 .50, 3 .30 machine-guns, 200 rounds of 50, 1500 rounds of .30 and 162 gallons of fuel. Lets add 100 pounds of armor plate behind pilot, and trade the synchro 30 and ammo for a 50 and ammo and you have gained 163 pounds. Plane is at 6,000 even now, so add another 100 for protected tanks and your still 1,300 pounds lighter than an F4F-3

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 7, 2016)

There was far easier (and lighter) to make install the s-s liner in the single, semispherical fuel tank of the F4F, than it will be for the P-36. Once the P-40C (that used the same 3-piece tankage as P-36) got s-s protection, the fuel system went from 171 lbs in the P-40 (no suffix) to 420 lbs in the P-40C, a gain of almost 250 lbs.
After all is said and done, would we be any better with 4 HMG-armed, up-armored & up-engined P-36, or with P-40C/D? That is before we consider the ability to heavily over-boost the V-1710, unlike what R-1830 was capable for. The V-1710-33 was making 960 HP at 17000 ft.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinsog (Nov 7, 2016)

tomo pauk said:


> There was far easier (and lighter) to make install the s-s liner in the single, semispherical fuel tank of the F4F, than it will be for the P-36. Once the P-40C (that used the same 3-piece tankage as P-36) got s-s protection, the fuel system went from 171 lbs in the P-40 (no suffix) to 420 lbs in the P-40C, a gain of almost 250 lbs.
> After all is said and done, would we be any better with 4 HMG-armed, up-armored & up-engined P-36, or with P-40C/D? That is before we consider the ability to heavily over-boost the V-1710, unlike what R-1830 was capable for. The V-1710-33 was making 960 HP at 17000 ft.



In tests, the US said above 19,000 or 20,000 feet the F4F-4 had every advantage over the P40. Everything. That was straight from a US test. P39's and P40's couldn't even climb to the altitude of Japanese bombers to make an intercept, so yes, I think a re-engined P36 was the better plane in every respect except top speed, and that top speed would only have shown up at lower altitudes. Go ahead and add 250 pounds of self sealing fuel tank to the P36 and it will weigh 6,250. Still 600 pounds lighter than a P40B before you add armor and SS tanks

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 7, 2016)

P-40s were very much able to climb to the altitudes where the Japanese bombers were coming in, provided a) there was enough of warning (15-20 min, like the ones above Rangoon enjoyed) and b) early P-40s were used (Rangoon again). P-39D was armed with a 37mm cannon, two HMGs and 4 LMGs (USAAF brass went overboard with armament suite here); leveling the field by what Soviets did (strip the LMGs and their ammo, an armor plate or two, a radio or two) brings to the table an increas in the RoC here.
As for the comparison between P-40 and F4F-4 - what versions were compared? The P-40C or P-40N will climb far better than the P-40D.


----------



## wuzak (Nov 7, 2016)

pinsog said:


> General feelings are that the P36 was too slow and obsolete to fight in WW2, yet the Hurricane has a loyal following especially up through the Battle of Britain.
> 
> Yet, I was looking at the specs on wwiiaircraftperformance and the P36 was 17 mph faster than the Hurricane at 10,000 feet. It was equal in top speed to the Hurricane at 17,000 feet when equipped with the P&W R-1830-23 engine. It could beat the Hurricane in a time to climb to 23,000 feet and it could easily out turn it under any conditions. The Hurricane had 8 .303 machine guns, the P36 either 1 .50 and 5 30's or, I understand the later models had 2 .50's and 4 30's.
> 
> So why was the Hurricane ok and the P36 was obsolete? If the P36 had the 1830-23 engine or later, I don't see what the Hurricane had over it at all.



Can you link the specs you used?

At 10,000ft the P-36A tests gave speeds in the region of 290-295mph.

At 10,000ft with constant speed prop the Hurricane I was good for ~290mph.

The P-36A also had only one 0.50" and one 0.30" machine guns.

Also, 10,000ft is not where the Hurricane I was optimised for - the engine's FTH was higher.


----------



## wuzak (Nov 7, 2016)

As for P-40s, they were very much faster than the Hurricane or P-36.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinsog (Nov 7, 2016)

wuzak said:


> As for P-40s, they were very much faster than the Hurricane or P-36.



wwiiaircraftperformance.com Go to the bottom of the P36 page and look at the last 2 links, right below the 'supplemental" "Detail of Specifications of Hawk75" and "Handbook of Operations for P36"

P40 was faster than a Zero, P39 was faster than both. The Zero could simply fly above them and bounce them at will if he desired, or he could simply fly above them and ignore them. A Ferrari 458 is faster than a Piper Cub, but the Piper Cub can fly above it and avoid interception.....

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## davebender (Nov 7, 2016)

Altitude can be converted to speed. So if Zero has an altitude advantage then P40 might not have a speed advantage when the turning & burning begins.


----------



## pinsog (Nov 7, 2016)

davebender said:


> Altitude can be converted to speed. So if Zero has an altitude advantage then P40 might not have a speed advantage when the turning & burning begins.



I agree 100% DAVEBENDER. The P36 also didn't have the high speed handling problems the Zero had, it could dive at full speed and still be light on the controls, having no trouble out rolling a Zero, Spitfire or ME109. 

The old trick to shake a Zero was to dive at full speed, roll to the right and pull out. A Zero couldn't follow this maneuver because the the ailerons would freeze up and it couldn't roll, so if you knew this and you had some altitude it was fairly easy to shake off a Zero even in an underperforming plane like an F4F-4. This trick wouldn't work on a P36.


----------



## Greyman (Nov 7, 2016)

(quick speed chart, A&AEE data except for blue, which is from a French manual)

*Hawk 75 - R1830 SCG
Mohawk - R1830 SC3-G
Mohawk - GR1820 G205A
Hurricane - Merlin III*

The British were very impressed with the flying characteristics of the Hawk 75, placing it above both the Hurricane and the Spitfire in that respect. I think high-altitude performance would certainly have been a factor in the Battle of Britain (where it wasn't so much for the AdA in the Battle of France), but I think the main thing is what tomo pauk alluded to - that the Mohawk wasn't quite ready for British service and in sufficient numbers numbers to play a role in 1940.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 7, 2016)

pinsog said:


> General feelings are that the P36 was too slow and obsolete to fight in WW2, yet the Hurricane has a loyal following especially up through the Battle of Britain.
> 
> Yet, I was looking at the specs on wwiiaircraftperformance and the P36 was 17 mph faster than the Hurricane at 10,000 feet. It was equal in top speed to the Hurricane at 17,000 feet when equipped with the P&W R-1830-23 engine. It could beat the Hurricane in a time to climb to 23,000 feet and it could easily out turn it under any conditions. The Hurricane had 8 .303 machine guns, the P36 either 1 .50 and 5 30's or, I understand the later models had 2 .50's and 4 30's.
> 
> So why was the Hurricane ok and the P36 was obsolete? If the P36 had the 1830-23 engine or later, I don't see what the Hurricane had over it at all.



Weight gain would have been much higher. 

The R-1830 engine/s used in the P-36 were single speed engines. the -17 used a 7.15 supercharger gear and the -23 engine used a 8.0 supercharger gear. More power higher up but it cost 100hp at take-off or low level (1100hp for take-offat 2700rpm) . 
-17 engine weighed 1403lbs, -23 engine went 1436lbs. The -33 engine used in the P-66 and early non-turbo B-24s was a two speed engine that went 1480lbs. gear ratios were 7.15 and 8.47. engine would give 1000hp at 14,500ft (no ram) compared to the -23 engine 950hp at 14,300ft, both at 2700rpm. 

Only one P-36 was ever fitted with four wing guns in US service.
Tomo is quite correct in the weights for the self sealing tanks for the P-40s. I would also note that the fuel tank behind the pilot was referred to as a ferry tank or overload tank. In other words, much like the rear tank on the Mustang, full combat maneuverability was *not *AVAILABLE with the rear tank full. 
You want four wing .30s? Add 222lbs to the US weight figures for guns and ammo. 
You want four .50 cals? rip out the 100lbs of gins in a P-36/A and put in 314lbs worth of guns, 214lb increase. Instead of 83lbs worth of ammo even 200rpg for the four .50s is 200-240lbs 

Wildcat engine used a two stage supercharger. it weighed 1550/1560lbs and needed inter-coolers. 

The XP-40 was the 10th P-36 pulled off the production line. 
Why is it so hard to understand that just about any "improvement" done to the P-36 would track the same sort of improvement done to the P-40 almost pound for pound? 
Allison went about 1350lbs with a 290-295lb cooling system. 
The P-40 gained around 150lbs of weight in the wing group compared to a Hawk 75. (P-36 weight unknown) Hawk 75 with P&W engine was about 300lbs heavier than a P-36 with both holding 105gals of fuel. P-36s had some trouble with wing skin wrinkling or buckling in the wing root landing gear area.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Nov 7, 2016)

Greyman said:


> (quick speed chart, A&AEE data except for blue, which is from a French manual)
> 
> *Hawk 75 - R1830 SCG
> Mohawk - R1830 SC3-G
> ...



Greyman, the thick green line for the Hurricane I is at +12psi boost? The other green line,which meets up at around 17,500ft, is +9psi?


----------



## Greyman (Nov 7, 2016)

+12 and +6.25


----------



## RCAFson (Nov 7, 2016)

pinsog said:


> General feelings are that the P36 was too slow and obsolete to fight in WW2, yet the Hurricane has a loyal following especially up through the Battle of Britain.
> 
> Yet, I was looking at the specs on wwiiaircraftperformance and the P36 was 17 mph faster than the Hurricane at 10,000 feet. It was equal in top speed to the Hurricane at 17,000 feet when equipped with the P&W R-1830-23 engine. It could beat the Hurricane in a time to climb to 23,000 feet and it could easily out turn it under any conditions. The Hurricane had 8 .303 machine guns, the P36 either 1 .50 and 5 30's or, I understand the later models had 2 .50's and 4 30's.
> 
> So why was the Hurricane ok and the P36 was obsolete? If the P36 had the 1830-23 engine or later, I don't see what the Hurricane had over it at all.



I don't see those numbers showing an advantage for the P-36. IIRC, the P-36 did not have armour and self sealing tanks. Add those and there's no contesting that the Hurricane1 was superior.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 7, 2016)

davebender said:


> Altitude can be converted to speed. So if Zero has an altitude advantage then P40 might not have a speed advantage when the turning & burning begins.



Not really - the Zero cannot out dive a P-40 and its ailerons become bricks at speeds above 250


----------



## pinsog (Nov 7, 2016)

Shortround6 said:


> Weight gain would have been much higher.
> 
> The R-1830 engine/s used in the P-36 were single speed engines. the -17 used a 7.15 supercharger gear and the -23 engine used a 8.0 supercharger gear. More power higher up but it cost 100hp at take-off or low level (1100hp for take-offat 2700rpm) .
> -17 engine weighed 1403lbs, -23 engine went 1436lbs. The -33 engine used in the P-66 and early non-turbo B-24s was a two speed engine that went 1480lbs. gear ratios were 7.15 and 8.47. engine would give 1000hp at 14,500ft (no ram) compared to the -23 engine 950hp at 14,300ft, both at 2700rpm.
> ...



Using the figures provided in the spec sheet. Use the -23 engine giving 317 mph at 17,000 feet. Remove 3 30 caliber machine guns weighing 44 pounds for both wing guns, 27 for the synchronized gun and 1,500 rounds of ammo at 33 pounds per 500 totals 170 pounds. Add 3 50's back in at 73 pounds per gun and 200 rounds of ammo per gun at 50 pounds per 200 equals 369. 369-170=199 pounds increase. 

Add another 100 pound armor plate behind pilot


RCAFson said:


> I don't see those numbers showing an advantage for the P-36. IIRC, the P-36 did not have armour and self sealing tanks. Add those and there's no contesting that the Hurricane1 was superior.



Why? From what I read, all the Hawk75's that went into action had seat armor for the pilot. 

Self sealing tanks...do they actually have to work? The last place on the planet I would want to be in 1940 was in a Hurricane that just had the "self sealing fuel tank" in front of me hit by 8mm fire from a 109 or a defensive gunner on a bomber because apparently they were self sealing in name only, from what I have read they tended to drench the pilot in petrol and then ignite. Hurricane pilots were notorious for being burned and if your opened the canopy to bail out, evidently it sucked the flames down through the open canopy like a blast furnace. I'd rather have 2 50's than 8 DRC (deer rifle caliber) machine guns

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greg Boeser (Nov 7, 2016)

The Finns loved their Hawk 75s. LLV 32, equipped with Hawk 75s had the third best combat record during the Continuation War behind LV 24 with B-239s and later Bf 109Gs and LLV 34 with Bf 109G (introduced in 1943).
The Finns used a mixed bag of models, 75A-1, -2, -3 and -4 from French stocks and -6 from Norwegian stocks.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 7, 2016)

RCAFson said:


> I don't see those numbers showing an advantage for the P-36. IIRC, the P-36 did not have armour and self sealing tanks. Add those and there's no contesting that the Hurricane1 was superior.



And the Hawk H75s supplied to France? I believe the Hawk Hawk 75A-2/3 had armor and self sealing tanks - and again they accounted for a third of the kills during the Battle of France.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinsog (Nov 7, 2016)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Not really - the Zero cannot out dive a P-40 and its ailerons become bricks at speeds above 250




I assume he means the P40 is flying level when the Zero bounces him, not that they were diving together. The Zero in a dive from altitude is faster than a P40 flying flat out straight and level


----------



## pinsog (Nov 7, 2016)

FLYBOYJ said:


> And the Hawk H75s supplied to France? I believe the Hawk Hawk 75A-2/3 had armor and self sealing tanks - and again they accounted for a third of the kills during the Battle of France.



I didn't realize they had self sealing tanks. I knew they had seat armor. If they had the -23 engine, giving them 317 mph at 17,000 and a pair of synchronized 50's instead of 6 light machine guns they might have done even better. Pilots talked about having to get within 50 yards/meters of a bomber before the light machine guns would have any effect


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 7, 2016)

pinsog said:


> I assume he means the P40 is flying level when the Zero bounces him, not that they were diving together. The Zero in a dive from altitude is faster than a P40 flying flat out straight and level


 
I don't think by much - the Zero was a poor diver - if you can't control an aircraft in a dive, what good is the tactical advantage?

How fast was the Zero?


----------



## Greg Boeser (Nov 7, 2016)

Another interesting thing about the Hawk in Finnish service is that the highest scoring "Suusu" was a four gun H-75A-6. So more guns doesn't necessarily mean better success. The Finnish aces preferred the four gun models because they were more maneuverable than the heavier six gun models.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinsog (Nov 7, 2016)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I don't think by much - the Zero was a poor diver - if you can't control an aircraft in a dive, what good is the tactical advantage?
> 
> How fast was the Zero?



I agree with that, and as I pointed out, the P36/H75 didn't have that problem, it was light on the controls at any speed. Even the Spitfire had stiff controls and trouble rolling at high speed as did the 109. The H75 with a 109 on its tail could do a single 360 and be behind the German.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinsog (Nov 7, 2016)

Greg Boeser said:


> Another interesting thing about the Hawk in Finnish service is that the highest scoring "Suusu" was a four gun H-75A-6. So more guns doesn't necessarily mean better success. The Finnish aces preferred the four gun models because they were more maneuverable than the heavier six gun models.



What guns was that plane equipped with?


----------



## Greg Boeser (Nov 7, 2016)

pinsog said:


> What guns was that plane equipped with?


The H-75A-6 as supplied to Norway was supposed to have 4 x 7.9mm Brownings. I believe that in Finnish service they carried 7.7mm Brownings, though in 1942 Hawks began to replace one or both nose guns with .50 caliber Brownings, or sometimes captured UBSs.
The -6 was also supposed to be powered by the SC1G-3, as were the Hawk 75A-3s from France, but the source I recall - Backwoods Landing Strip - is no longer available. It mentioned the use of the Swedish licensed SC3-G. Did Finns have access to 100 octane fuel?


----------



## RCAFson (Nov 7, 2016)

pinsog said:


> I didn't realize they had self sealing tanks. I knew they had seat armor. If they had the -23 engine, giving them 317 mph at 17,000 and a pair of synchronized 50's instead of 6 light machine guns they might have done even better. Pilots talked about having to get within 50 yards/meters of a bomber before the light machine guns would have any effect




They didn't have SS tanks, nor armoured glass and the armour on the pilot's seat was "optional". Here's the detailed specs:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/P-36/Curtiss_Hawk_75-A_Detail_Specifications.pdf

strip all of these off the Hurricane and it's performance would increase dramatically. Note that the manufacturers' spec performance falls along way short of actual USAAF and RAF testing:
P-36 Flight Tests


MOHAWK testing at Boscombe down:
Mark/airframe/engine/weight/ time to climb/RofC/ceiling /speed
I AR645 R-1820-G20SA 6,317lb 6.2 min to 15,000ft 2,600fpm @ 8,000ft 33,800 302mph @ 14,000ft Ex French - contract - Model75C
II AR631 R-l830-SC3G 5,962lb 7.3 min to 15000ft 2,260fpm @ 9,600ft 31,200ft 300mph @ 10,000ft Ex Norwegian - 84 gal fuel

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 7, 2016)

RCAFson said:


> They didn't have SS tanks, nor armoured glass and the armour on the pilot's seat was "optional". Here's the detailed specs:
> 
> http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/P-36/Curtiss_Hawk_75-A_Detail_Specifications.pdf



That's a flight manual for a basic 75A - the French aircraft had different equipment, a throttle that was "backwards" and I think the armored seat. Despite what you say I think its evident that it held its own despite its limitations. Maybe the pilots flying it had something to do with it?!?!


----------



## GregP (Nov 8, 2016)

Somebody's smoking weeds; not saying it is Greyman, either.

The Hurricane was never a 327 mph fighter in combat configuration. Operational examples in the BOB could not even hit 300 mph. Most topped out at 288 - 294 mph, and that was at full throttle, best height. We all know how long full throttle can be used, so most were basically 275 mph airplanes in combat trim, with a little "extra" if badly needed for a short time.

At least they were in the combat reports I have read and the books I have seen. The only 300+ mph Hurricanes I can recall were unarmed prototypes. The 327 mph variant was ONE mark in unarmed fitment, IIRC. The fastest fully armed, large production rtun version I can recall went 31 mph at the company trials. In service they lost a bit of speed and were down to sub-300 mph performance, too.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Nov 8, 2016)

GregP said:


> The fastest fully armed, large production rtun version I can recall went 31 mph at the company trials.



That fast?

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Nov 8, 2016)

GregP said:


> Somebody's smoking weeds; not saying it is Greyman, either.
> 
> The Hurricane was never a 327 mph fighter in combat configuration. Operational examples in the BOB could not even hit 300 mph. Most topped out at 288 - 294 mph, and that was at full throttle, best height. We all know how long full throttle can be used, so most were basically 275 mph airplanes in combat trim, with a little "extra" if badly needed for a short time.
> 
> At least they were in the combat reports I have read and the books I have seen. The only 300+ mph Hurricanes I can recall were unarmed prototypes. The 327 mph variant was ONE mark in unarmed fitment, IIRC. The fastest fully armed, large production rtun version I can recall went 31 mph at the company trials. In service they lost a bit of speed and were down to sub-300 mph performance, too.



You might want to check this out Greg:

Hurricane L-2026 Trials Report

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 8, 2016)

I believe that 304mph for a Hurricane top speed speed was quoted in a speech about the time of the BoB and repeated quite a bit since. The speed was quoted a bit out of context as that was the _average _speed of Hurricanes being _returned to service after _*repair. *Not new Hurricanes from the factory/s. 
High speeds for the P-36 and Hawk 75 follow the same general rules. Full power (2700rpm) was only available for 5 minutes (if that) with 2550 rpm being the "normal" rating and for the most part, planes did not go charging about the sky at 88-90% power ratings either. 

Something to note from the USAAC Handbook of operation and flight instruction was that the P-36 had a max gross weight of 5840lbs. This was true for both the P-36A (2 gun) and the P-36C (4 gun) and has the following note. 

"The weights given in the normal weight column represent approximate useful military load. When overloads are carried, flight restrictions as specified in Air Corps Circular 60-9 must be observed."

Please note that the P-36C with four guns was within 2lbs of the max gross with 105 US gallons of fuel. 
I would also note that the P-36C gained 124lb over the P-36A _without _guns being installed. And that a P-36A could hit 6017lbs with full fuel,oil and landing flares. 
If you want more powerful engines and more guns/ammo, armor/protected tanks something has to give. Either less fuel or you need heavier structure if you are going to keep the same flight safety margins. There is no free lunch.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 8, 2016)

Shortround6 said:


> If you want more powerful engines and more guns/ammo, armor/protected tanks something has to give. Either less fuel or you need heavier structure if you are going to keep the same flight safety margins. There is no free lunch.



And I believe the last version of the H75 (-4?) had some structural modifications


----------



## Lefa (Nov 8, 2016)

The Finns apparently used Hawk's 87 octane gasoline.
The bomb racks and light bomb tanks were removed as unnecessary.
Armament changed to 1 or 2 12.7 mm machine guns and two or four 7.7 mm Browning on wings.
Nickname is "Sussu" = Sweet heart, because the machine was easy and pleasant to fly.


----------



## RCAFson (Nov 8, 2016)

ASI (mph) Hawk/Hurricane (time to bank 45degs)

200 2.2/1.3 seconds
250 2.3/1.4
300 2.7/1.5
350 4.0/1.6
390 5.2/1.9 seconds

(From Flying to the Limit)


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 8, 2016)

I would note that the Hawk 75 was originally equipped with the experimental Wright R-1670 14 cylinder radial engine that went about 1170lbs. Used in a few other Curtiss prototypes the engine went nowhere was was replaced rather quickly by Wright Cyclone 9s in the planes that were using it. Wither the Army specified the use of the P&W R-1830 in the fighter competition that led to the purchase of the P-35 I don't know or if Curtiss thought the smaller diameter engine (compared to the Cyclone 9) offered better streamlining or if the P&W R-1830 was offering more power at that particular point in time than the Wright R-1820. They tended to swap back and forth quite a bit as to which was the more powerful. The R-1830 was always heavier though.
The US did get 30 six gun P-36Gs when they took over the last of 36 Hawk 75A-8s intended for Norway. These used Wright R-1820 engines that weighed about 1320lbs. These were commercial engines that were given a military designation and were never given a military power rating, just take-off and max continuous. The planes were given to Peru in 1943.


----------



## fastmongrel (Nov 8, 2016)

pinsog said:


> I'd rather have 2 50's than 8 DRC (deer rifle caliber) machine guns



I dont think I would rather have 2 synchronised 1939 specification .50 Brownings over 8 .303 Brownings. The 1939 M2 when synchronised fired at around 450 rpm and there was no 2,900 fps Armour Piercing Incendiary ammo either, it was 2,600fps Tracer, AP or Ball. A 1941 model M2 A/N firing at 850rpm was reckoned to be 3 to 4 times more effective than a .303 Browning. A pair of 1940 M2 at 450rpm is going to be roughly equivalent to 4 or 5 .303 Brownings.


----------



## fastmongrel (Nov 8, 2016)

fastmongrel said:


> I dont think I would rather have 2 synchronised 1939 specification .50 Brownings over 8 .303 Brownings. The 1939 M2 when synchronised fired at around 450 rpm and there was no 2,900 fps Armour Piercing Incendiary ammo either, it was 2,600fps Tracer, AP or Ball. A 1941 model M2 A/N firing at 850rpm was reckoned to be 3 to 4 times more effective than a .303 Browning. A pair of 1940 M2 at 450rpm is going to be roughly equivalent to 4 or 5 .303 Brownings.



Just found a table from Anthony Williams site WORLD WAR 2 FIGHTER GUN EFFECTIVENESS
The relevant info is interesting.
Hawker Hurricane Mk I 8x.303 Brownings is given a gunpower rating of 160 
P40C 2 x .50 and 4 x .30 is given a gunpower rating of 163

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greyman (Nov 8, 2016)

GregP said:


> The Hurricane was never a 327 mph fighter in combat configuration. Operational examples in the BOB could not even hit 300 mph. Most topped out at 288 - 294 mph, and that was at full throttle, best height. We all know how long full throttle can be used, so most were basically 275 mph airplanes in combat trim, with a little "extra" if badly needed for a short time.
> 
> At least they were in the combat reports I have read and the books I have seen. The only 300+ mph Hurricanes I can recall were unarmed prototypes. The 327 mph variant was ONE mark in unarmed fitment, IIRC. The fastest fully armed, large production rtun version I can recall went 31 mph at the company trials. In service they lost a bit of speed and were down to sub-300 mph performance, too.



You gotta trust the eggheads at Boscombe Down and their 27-page report, not the two-line Squadron pilot anecdote. Some Flying Officer on operations looking at his airspeed indicator doesn't compare to the scientific approach taken at the A&AEE.

Wind correction? Position Error Correction? Other instrument error? I have a trial conducted by the AFDE (soon to be AFDU) in which a Hurricane and Defiant were flown in formation at the exact same speed and the difference in their ASI readings was 7 mph. Which direction were the errors, was the true ASI reading in-between? Who knows ...

For what it's worth, as far as the AFDE could tell that particular Hurricane made 317 mph at 17,400 feet. And that was the old 'slower' position error numbers for the Hurrie.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 8, 2016)

The British .303 was about 90% as powerful as the American .30-06. Main failing of the .303 in the BoB was more ammo availability related than power of the cartridge. Nowhere near enough AP .303 and nowhere near enough incendiary. 

15 rounds per second from a pair of early fuselage .50s depends waaaaayyyy too much on the Golden BB vs 150 or so .303 bullets per second.


----------



## Greg Boeser (Nov 8, 2016)

Lefa said:


> The Finns apparently used Hawk's 87 octane gasoline.
> The bomb racks and light bomb tanks were removed as unnecessary.
> Armament changed to 1 or 2 12.7 mm machine guns and two or four 7.7 mm Browning on wings.
> Nickname is "Sussu" = Sweet heart, because the machine was easy and pleasant to fly.


Thanks, Lefa. That explains why the R-1830 is rated at 1065 bhp for Finnish aircraft. I was told that a few ground support missions were flown by LLV 14 and 16 before they surrendered their Hawks to LLV 32. Photos show the bomb racks still in place on many LLV 32 Hawks.




Here's a H-75A-4, possibly still with LLV 14 or 16.


----------



## stona (Nov 9, 2016)

Shortround6 said:


> Main failing of the .303 in the BoB was more ammo availability related than power of the cartridge. Nowhere near enough AP .303 and nowhere near enough incendiary.
> .



Exactly, during the BoB period typically three or four of the guns would be loaded with ball ammunition, which was of very limited capability, unless it hit the pilot/crew.
Later any .303 machine guns in fighters were loaded with incendiary and AP ammunition, to the exclusion of ball ammunition. There's a clue there 
I've excluded tracer. If anyone can find a standard load for this I'd be interested!
Cheers
Steve

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fastmongrel (Nov 9, 2016)

Shortround6 said:


> The British .303 was about 90% as powerful as the American .30-06. Main failing of the .303 in the BoB was more ammo availability related than power of the cartridge. Nowhere near enough AP .303 and nowhere near enough incendiary.
> 
> 15 rounds per second from a pair of early fuselage .50s depends waaaaayyyy too much on the Golden BB vs 150 or so .303 bullets per second.



Does anyone know if the RAF was using MkVII or MkVIII ammunition. The MkVIII designed to increase the range of the Vickers MMG and was a good bit more powerful than the MkVII it used Nitro Cellulose rather than Cordite and had a boat tailed bullet.


----------



## fastmongrel (Nov 9, 2016)

stona said:


> Exactly, during the BoB period typically three or four of the guns would be loaded with ball ammunition, which was of very limited capability, unless it hit the pilot/crew.
> Later any .303 machine guns in fighters were loaded with incendiary and AP ammunition, to the exclusion of ball ammunition. There's a clue there
> I've excluded tracer. If anyone can find a standard load for this I'd be interested!
> Cheers
> Steve



From Anthony Williams website THE BATTLE OF BRITAIN

_the initial RAF fighter loading was three guns loaded with ball, two with AP, two with Mk IV incendiary tracer and one with Mk VI incendiary. 
Another source for the Battle of Britain armament gives four guns with ball, two with AP and two with incendiaries (presumably Mk VI) with four of the last 25 rounds being tracer (presumably Mk IV incendiary/tracer) to tell the pilot he was running out of ammunition. It is not clear why ball was used at all; presumably there was a shortage of the more effective loadings. (By 1942 the standard loading for fixed .303s was half loaded with AP and half with incendiary.)_

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Nov 9, 2016)

When the Mk IV ammunition was superceded some tracer, apart from that at the end of the belt to tell the pilot that his ammunition was expended, seems to have been included, at least as far as I can tell from gun camera footage. I've never found a ratio for this in fixed aerial machine guns.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## Greyman (Nov 9, 2016)

As fastmongrel posted, during the Battle of France/Battle of Britain the ratio was 50% Ball, 25% AP, 25% Incendiary.

Ball ammunition was used because 

it was found to be broadly more destructive against light aircraft structure. Mostly due to a greater % of AP ammunition being deflected by aircraft skin at shallow angles
general lack of armour of German aircraft
heavier barrel wear of AP ammunition
At steep angles, of course, AP ammo was better vs. heavy fittings and naturally armour plate when (eventually) encountered. Incendiary was in low proportion due to the general unreliability of the type, and the RAF couldn't justify removing reliable ammo with a type that might not do its job in any particular burst.

After the Battle of Britain the RAF used a 50:50 AP:Incendiary ratio to meet the Luftwaffe's new armour and to take advantage of their new, better performing Mk.VI 'de Wilde' Incendiary.

Tracer was never part of a standard loading for Fighter Command except for a short period in 1939 when trouble was experienced with the Browning and the Mk.IV Incendiary.

All RAF ammunition used nitro cellulose (designated with a 'z' postfix, eg: .303 Mk.VIIz Ball), and didn't use the Mk.VIII round.


----------



## fastmongrel (Nov 9, 2016)

Greyman said:


> and didn't use the Mk.VIII round.



I wonder why surely the 300 fps extra would be useful. Unless the boat tailed bullets were less destructive or in short supply.


----------



## parsifal (Nov 9, 2016)

some basic home truths about zekes fighting P-40, P-39 and P-36s. none of these types did well against the Zeke at any stage in the war, even after the limitations of the Zeke was known and countermeasures worked out. The shoot and scoot tactics developed towards the end of 1942, basically reduced loss rates amongst the Allison engine fighters, not increased zeke loss rates. Zeke loss rates skyrocketed due to the radial types used against them, basically F4U, f4F and f6F. P-38s had such a marked speed advantage that they too tore into the Zekes with a vengeance. Losses to the older US types were never fantastic.

So whatever theoretical advantages you guys want to convince yourselves of over the Zeke with these old crates, it simply does not exist in the operational results.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinsog (Nov 10, 2016)

Ball ammunition was used because

it was found to be broadly more destructive against light aircraft structure. Mostly due to a greater % of AP ammunition being deflected by aircraft skin at shallow angles
general lack of armour of German aircraft
heavier barrel wear of AP ammunition
At steep angles, of course, AP ammo was better vs. heavy fittings and naturally armour plate when (eventually) encountered. Incendiary was in low proportion due to the general unreliability of the type, and the RAF couldn't justify removing reliable ammo with a type that might not do its job in any particular burst.

[/QUOTE]

You said "RAF couldn't justify removing reliable ammo with a type that might not do its job in any particular burst"

How was the incendiary unreliable? Was in not firing at all or was the incendiary not doing its job on impact?


----------



## pinsog (Nov 10, 2016)

Shortround6 said:


> The British .303 was about 90% as powerful as the American .30-06. Main failing of the .303 in the BoB was more ammo availability related than power of the cartridge. Nowhere near enough AP .303 and nowhere near enough incendiary.
> 
> 15 rounds per second from a pair of early fuselage .50s depends waaaaayyyy too much on the Golden BB vs 150 or so .303 bullets per second.



The Russians were basically using 2 .50 Brownings against the Germans when they used the P39. They removed all the wing guns and I would imagine the 37mm was useless against a maneuvering 109 or 190 and only good for relatively non maneuvering bombers, so that leaves 2 50s. The Dauntless only had 2 50's and according to Lundstrom in The First Team it did well against everything except Zero's. The Dauntless pilots in the Guadalcanal campaign appeared to be extremely aggressive, picking off Japanese dive bombers, torpedo bombers and even a few of the large Japanese flying boats to the point it was actually annoying the Wildcats. He talked of Dauntless pilots accepting head on passes from Zero's and, since their guns were on the centerline and outranged the Zero's guns, they scored engine hits on the Zero and shot it down before they were in range of the Zero's weapons.

The only way I would want to fight with 30 caliber machine guns is if they were all concentrated in the nose. In fact, I think it was a mistake to arm the Whirlwind with 20mm cannon simply because they only had 60 round drum magazines. I read an article on the Whirlwind and it seemed like all the combat stories were "I pulled up behind German plane, began firing scored some hits, ran out of ammo, went home, enemy plane damaged". I would have armed the Whirlwind with 8 303 machine guns. That many guns that close to gather would have been devastating, like a saw, not much different than a 7.62 mini-gun.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greyman (Nov 10, 2016)

pinsog said:


> How was the incendiary unreliable? Was in not firing at all or was the incendiary not doing its job on impact?



Not doing its job, so to speak. You had to hit the relatively small area required to have the desired effect - then cross your fingers and hope said desired effect takes place. Whereas Ball ammunition was more liable to 'do its job' and over a greater volume of the enemy aircraft than Mk.IV Incendiary.

Interestingly, the RAF found that increasing the proportion of Ball ammunition actually increased the chance of the incendiary ammunition starting a fire in the enemy aircraft - I'm guessing due to the mass of ball ammunition chewing up tanks and plumbing to an extent that allowed an easier job for the Incendiary ammunition.

In other words 75% solid : 25% Mk.IV incendiary was better at starting fires than, say, 50% solid : 50% IV incendiary.


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 10, 2016)

You have two differences between a Russian P-39 in 1942/43 and a Curtiss Hawk in 1940. One is that the 1942-43 machine guns had a higher cycle rate, although still much lower than wing guns, and the 2nd is that they had the M2 ammo instead of the M1 ammunition. an extra 250-280fpm of velocity. There may have been different proportions of ammo types? Not sure if the Russians got M8 MPI ammo or not, since the design was pretty much a copy of a Russian bullet for their own 12.7mm guns there wasn't much point in trying to keep it a secret. 

Just how many Japanese planes did the Dauntless shoot down with cowl guns? 4? 7? 12 or none? Not claimed but actually shot down as listed as lost in Japanese records? 

*IF *the wing guns are aimed at one spot (or small area) then at most practical fighting ranges it doesn't make a whole lot of difference is the guns are all in the nose or in the wings. Please work out the geometry for a 250 yd cross with guns 12 feet apart.


----------



## pinsog (Nov 10, 2016)

Just how many Japanese planes did the Dauntless shoot down with cowl guns? 4? 7? 12 or none? Not claimed but actually shot down as listed as lost in Japanese records?

I have no idea how many were shot down vs how many were claimed, I'm sure you've read both of Lundstroms books and you would know that the Dauntless interceptions of the snoopers around the carrier (I can't remember which carrier and don't feel like looking it up) were pretty well confirmed when they exploded and burned all the way to the water like a meteor and could be seen by the whole task force. And, during the big fur ball when Hornet was lost and Enterprise was damaged, many of the returning Dauntless pilots piled right into the fight like they were flying Wildcats (they're aggressiveness stunned me when I read the second book. It seemed that the only enemy plane they had any respect for at all was a Zero, anything else to them was a target) They were aggressively shooting at anything with a red circle on it. Best guess on cyclic rate for Dauntless 50's? P39 50's? 

And, obviously, the sample of any combat over the Pacific was tiny compared to the air battles that occurred around England, Germany and Russia.


----------



## GregP (Nov 11, 2016)

Hey Fastmongrell,

Thanks for tghe table. His table is deeply flawed.

Follow his example. He says the first row shell has 5% Hei, so he multiplies by 1.5. But that SHOULD be 1.05, not 1.5.

105% is 1.05 and 150% is 1.5. So his numbers are WAY off.

Just FYI. I made my own table with teh correct multlplication and the results are startlingly different. Still, a great resource tghat CAN be coirrected to be actually useful.

- Greg


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 11, 2016)

pinsog said:


> And, obviously, the sample of any combat over the Pacific was tiny compared to the air battles that occurred around England, Germany and Russia.


Some of the air battles that occurred in the Pacific would have dwarfed aerial engagements in the ETO both on savagery and sheer scale.

Especially when the Japanese still had the manpower and resources to bring a fight to the Allies.


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 11, 2016)

GregP said:


> Hey Fastmongrell,
> 
> Thanks for tghe table. His table is deeply flawed.
> 
> ...



" For projectiles with a chemical content, we increase this by the *weight fraction* of explosive or incendiary material, *times ten*. This chosen ratio is based on a study of many practical examples of gun and ammunition testing, and we will see below that it at least approximately corresponds with the known results of ammunition testing." from the paragraph 2 above the the one which details out the .303 calcualtion. 

5% X 10 is 50% by my math.

There may be some mistakes in the tables, I certainly believe there are some in table III


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 11, 2016)

pinsog said:


> ...
> Best guess on cyclic rate for Dauntless 50's? P39 50's?
> ...



IIRC the cyclic rate for the synchronised .50 BMG was 550 rpm.

But then, if we settle for a pair of .50s as a viable weapon in 1942 for the US fighters, the P-40 and especially P-39 will be far better performers with just a pair of .50s - talk 360+ and 370+ mph, respectively? With a boost to the rate of climb, rate of roll and general maneuverability.


----------



## fastmongrel (Nov 11, 2016)

tomo pauk said:


> IIRC the cyclic rate for the synchronised .50 BMG was 550 rpm.



The synchronised rate for a .50 BMG in 1939 when this plane would be built was about 400 to 450rpm. When the BMG was sped up from 600 to 800rpm in iirc 1941 the synchronised rate went to approx 550 to 600rpm. Synchronised rate varies between planes from the same batch, how many revs the prop is doing and how many blades the prop has. Certain engine and prop combinations worked better with the synchro gear, 3 blades was the maximum no one seemed to get a 4 blade synchro to work and fixed pitch props were better than constant speed props for some reason.

Whatever gun, prop and engine combination was used the synchronised rpm was about 3/4 of the max rpm. It could be sped up by cutting the safety margin but then you have the risk that a slight hangfire means you just shot one of your prop blades off. Which always ruins your day


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 11, 2016)

The synchronised rate of fire was approaching 90% or the 'free' RoF in case electically fired ammo was used - basically, we talk about German guns, like MG 131 and 151.


----------



## fastmongrel (Nov 11, 2016)

tomo pauk said:


> The synchronised rate of fire was approaching 90% or the 'free' RoF in case electically fired ammo was used - basically, we talk about German guns, like MG 131 and 151.



Good luck getting a midwar German gun fitted into a 1939 US plane

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 11, 2016)

P-40 at 360mph at what altitude


pinsog said:


> General feelings are that the P36 was too slow and obsolete to fight in WW2, yet the Hurricane has a loyal following especially up through the Battle of Britain.
> 
> Yet, I was looking at the specs on wwiiaircraftperformance and the P36 was 17 mph faster than the Hurricane at 10,000 feet. It was equal in top speed to the Hurricane at 17,000 feet when equipped with the P&W R-1830-23 engine. It could beat the Hurricane in a time to climb to 23,000 feet and it could easily out turn it under any conditions. The Hurricane had 8 .303 machine guns, the P36 either 1 .50 and 5 30's or, I understand the later models had 2 .50's and 4 30's.
> 
> So why was the Hurricane ok and the P36 was obsolete? If the P36 had the 1830-23 engine or later, I don't see what the Hurricane had over it at all.



Getting back to the Original question.
There was ONE P&W R-1830-23 engine made, it was converted BACK to a P&W R-1830-17 at the end of the test/s. It gave up 100 hp at take-off for the better performance at high altitude.
The P-36B had ONE .50 cal gun and ONE .30 cal gun. The P-36D (one built and and placed in service after tests) had ONE .50 and FIVE .30s but we have no performance data on the P-36D. P-36G had TWO .50s and FOUR .30s but used a Wright Cyclone ( and we have little or no performance data aside from top speed)
We have Performance data for the P-36C with ONE .50 and THREE ,30s.

The P-36 performed pretty good at low altitude, the problem came at high altitudes. once you get to about 15,000 the Hurricane can outcimb the P-36. And that is an equipped Hurricane.
Just adding 150lb to the P-36 (and the large shell boxes) not only dropped the speed by a rather insignificant 2mph but lengthened take-off run and distance to 50ft by 50 and 100ft and added 12 seconds to climb to 15,000ft. It cut climb by 100ftper minute at low altitudes and 50fpm at higher altitudes and cut about 1000ft from the ceiling. Adding armor, self-sealing tanks and more guns is just going to affect things more. The P-40 lost 3000ft worth of service ceiling go from the no letter version to the "C" version as operational equipment and 2 extra .30 cal guns were added.
The P-36C had a ceiling 750 ft lower than the P-40 no letter and 500-1000ft lower than a Hurricane I with Rotol prop (depending on Hurricane weight.
Switching to a 2 speed R-1830 engine gets you 1050hp at 13100ft no ram in hi gear and the engine is a bit late.


----------



## Juha2 (Nov 12, 2016)

Hello Grayman
thanks alot for the graphs!
According to Lionel Persyn's Curtiss Hawk H-75 in French Service (2010) the plane used in the French test (N 1 of the Adl'A's H-75s tested in the USA between Nov 1938 and Jan 1939) was unarmed and not painted. The results match with your graph, 412 km/h at s/l and 502 km/h at 4400 m [256 mph at s/l, 312 mph at 14 436 ft]

Juha


----------



## Juha2 (Nov 12, 2016)

H-75A4 or H-751 as the French called it had Wright Cyclone G-205A engine with a 2-speed supercharger. French got 81 of them before the surrender.


----------



## Juha2 (Nov 12, 2016)

pinsog said:


> The Russians were basically using 2 .50 Brownings against the Germans when they used the P39. They removed all the wing guns and I would imagine the 37mm was useless against a maneuvering 109 or 190 and only good for relatively non maneuvering bombers, so that leaves 2 50s...



According to some Russian pilots LW 190 pilots had liked head-on attacks with their sturdy fighter against fairly lightly armed Russian fighters but learned fast not to try that against P-39. Also Finnish fighter pilots noted the 37 mm muzzle flash .


----------



## Juha2 (Nov 12, 2016)

A couple clips from the RAE Curtiss H-75 handling tests and comp aileron tests H-75, Spitfire and Gloster F.5/34 based on the RAE Report No BA 1583 AVIA 6/2338

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Juha2 (Nov 12, 2016)



Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Old Wizard (Nov 13, 2016)




----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 13, 2016)

Thank you very much. 
BTW - is there the 2nd page of the report around?


----------



## Juha2 (Nov 13, 2016)

Hello Tomo

the RAE Report No BA 1583 has over 50 pages plus 14 pages of Figures and that Reports and Memoranda No 2379 from which the 2 clips are has 43 pages.

The page 2 of the RAE Report No BA 1583 attached.


Juha

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Nov 13, 2016)

No mention of altitude?

One could have an aircraft performing superbly at 17,000ft which would be next to useless as an interceptor in the Battle of Britain if it couldn't do something at least similar at 25,000ft +.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 13, 2016)

Juha2 said:


> Hello Tomo
> 
> the RAE Report No BA 1583 has over 50 pages plus 14 pages of Figures and that Reports and Memoranda No 2379 from which the 2 clips are has 43 pages.
> 
> ...



Thank you again. 
Is it possible to download the documents mentioned ( my google-fu seems weak today)?


----------



## Juha2 (Nov 13, 2016)

Hello Steve

I read the reports over a decade ago and fast skimming through them, no time to more thorough checking, didn’t reveal altitude, but the plane was a late H-75A-2 with SC3-G engine, a French test (painted and fully equipped, 4 guns) gave following results, no time to conversion to mls/ft, 2540rpm, 412.5 km/h at 1000 m, 482 km/h at 4000m, 491 km/h at 5000m and 449.5 km/h at 8000 m (over 26,000 ft I think).

HTH
Juha

Hello Tomo
no time at least now

Sorry
Juha


----------



## wuzak (Nov 13, 2016)

Juha2 said:


> Hello Steve
> 
> I read the reports over a decade ago and fast skimming through them, no time to more thorough checking, didn’t reveal altitude, but the plane was a late H-75A-2 with SC3-G engine, a French test (painted and fully equipped, 4 guns) gave following results, no time to conversion to mls/ft, 2540rpm, 412.5 km/h at 1000 m, 482 km/h at 4000m, 491 km/h at 5000m and 449.5 km/h at 8000 m (over 26,000 ft I think).



256mph @ 3,281ft
300mph @ 13,123ft
305mph @ 16,404ft
279mph @ 26,247ft


----------



## stona (Nov 13, 2016)

I take it those are TAS. I'm surprised how much slower that is than for a Spitfire I. No wonder the Spitfire pilot in the tests could break off the engagement at will. The same would go for a Bf 109 E pilot too.
Cheers
Steve

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Juha2 (Nov 14, 2016)

Yes, P-36 was slow but still the Adl'A H-75As did a little better than the RAF Hurricane Is against Bf 109Es during the Battle of France in 1940. It wasn't a Spitfire or 109 but this thread is P36 vs Hurricane.


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 14, 2016)

The are a lot variables between the the Battle of France and the Battle of Britain including _perhaps_ pilot experience/training and _average height _of combat.
Both the British and French air forces were expanding tremendously in late 30s and a lot of the pilots are going to be low time ones. Perhaps the French pilots got better gunnery training? Perhaps the Hawks had their guns all pointed in the same direction?

The Germans were flying a lot more low level missions in support of the ground troops in France and their fighters may have been a lower levels. the low altitude engines of the Hawks (and the two speed Cyclone wasn't any lower than the DB601) may not have been a large disadvantage in France. I have not seen a breakdown of the claims of the French Hawks, as in how many 109s, how many He 111s, how many Ju 87s how many Fi 126s etc. 

Expecting the Hawk to do as well over England where, in general, the altitudes were higher and their were fewer 'tactical' aircraft flying may be a different story.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Juha2 (Nov 15, 2016)

Hello SR
a very short answer. I agree with your first point, but I refered to the real results in Hurri vs 109 contra Hawk 75A vs 109 combats as counted from Cornwell’s BoF T&N by JoeB, see:

DeWoitone D.520 vs. Spitfire Bf-109

Juha

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fastmongrel (Nov 15, 2016)

Juha2 said:


> Hello SR
> a very short answer. I agree with your first point, but I refered to the real results in Hurri vs 109 contra Hawk 75A vs 109 combats as counted from Cornwell’s BoF T&N by JoeB, see:
> 
> DeWoitone D.520 vs. Spitfire Bf-109
> ...



Peter Cornwells The Battle of France Then and Now is a book I have been after for a while unfortunately copies are going for over £45.00 on Amazon at the moment and dont often turn up on 2nd hand booksites.


----------



## buffnut453 (Nov 16, 2016)

fastmongrel said:


> Peter Cornwells The Battle of France Then and Now is a book I have been after for a while unfortunately copies are going for over £45.00 on Amazon at the moment and dont often turn up on 2nd hand booksites.



Have you tried Abebooks? There are a couple for sale there at under US$40. I've used Abebooks a lot and never had a bad experience. I think it's a great shopfront for small booksellers trying to sell their stuff.


----------



## fastmongrel (Nov 16, 2016)

I have looked at Abe books but last time I looked they had none in stock I will have a look again. Thanks for the heads up


----------



## fastmongrel (Nov 16, 2016)

Just ordered a copy off Abebooks £29.50 delivered. Expensive but I hope worth it thanks buffnut


----------



## FalkeEins (Dec 3, 2016)

Lionel Persyn in his summing in his huge 448-page book on the type says .." the H-75 was undoubtedly the plane of the French aces but it was also the plane of defeat. " Whereas of course the Hurricane ( in close collaboration with the Spitfire ) was the plane of victory...

Another sentence of Persyn's which sums up the H-75 pretty well "... it wasn't really a hunter, but when hunted it could bite back..."

incidentally, Cornwell exploits Persyn's book pretty heavily_.._but H-75 fans should opt for Lionel's_ " Curtiss Hawk H-75 in French service" _published by MMP which is basically the best bits of the French book put into an English-language format..


----------



## Juha2 (Dec 4, 2016)

Yes, Lionel's_ " Curtiss Hawk H-75 in French service" _is a good book even if most of the page space seems to have been used in photos. There is also plenty of colour profiles and two colour 4-views. The text is good. 144 pages.


----------



## merlin (Dec 10, 2016)

Juha2 said:


> A couple clips from the RAE Curtiss H-75 handling tests and comp aileron tests H-75, Spitfire and Gloster F.5/34 based on the RAE Report No BA 1583 AVIA 6/2338
> View attachment 357171



Any more info there about the charachistics of the Gloster f.5/34? Surprised it thought visibility was better in the P-36, compared to the 'all-round' cockpit canopy of the Gloster!


----------

