# A Critical Analysis of the RAF Air Superiority Campaign in India, Burma and Malaya in 1941-45



## Kevin J (Jun 8, 2018)

I found this an interesting read, but it took a while.
A Critical Analysis of the Royal Air Force Air Superiority Campaign in India, Burma and Malaya, 1941-1945 - Wolverhampton Intellectual Repository and E-Theses
It looks like an interesting topic for discussion.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Jun 9, 2018)

Kevin J said:


> I found this an interesting read, but it took a while.
> A Critical Analysis of the Royal Air Force Air Superiority Campaign in India, Burma and Malaya, 1941-1945 - Wolverhampton Intellectual Repository and E-Theses
> It looks like an interesting topic for discussion.


Here are my initial thoughts. There's no point in introducing Spitfires until the radar coverage is available because the Spitfire V Trop versions available from late 1941 to early 1943 don't have the speed necessary to catch up with a Ki-46-II recce plane in a chase, they need GCI to get them to the altitude and position in order to be successful. Spitfire (F) Mk.VB W.3322 Report
The performance of the Hurricane II is perfectly adequate to combat the Ki-43-I/II, all you need to do is to remove half of the machine guns. The Mohawk IV served perfectly adequately with that number of guns. For added range, you simply add two 45 gal drop tanks, giving it a better range that a Spitfire V with a 45 gal drop tank. The 90 gal tank they had was intended for ferry missions only, although theoretically could be used as a drop tank.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## MycroftHolmes (Jun 11, 2018)

Kevin J said:


> The 90 gal tank they had was for ferry missions only.



No, the 90-gallon tank was used for combat. The 170-gallon tank was solely for ferrying.


----------



## Kevin J (Jun 11, 2018)

MycroftHolmes said:


> No, the 90-gallon tank was used for combat. The 170-gallon tank was solely for ferrying.


Not at the start. On the Spitfire Vb, the 30 gal was the combat tank, the 45 gal was the drop tank and the 90 gal was the ferry tank. Its only in 1942 with the Spitfire Vc that you get the 170 gal ferry tank with an extra 29 gal tank behind the pilot. The problem with the 45/90 gal tanks was they didn't always detach properly. I think you'll find that the Spitfires in the Med were rigged up with the Kittyhawks drop tanks as detachment was more reliable and the desert survival kit behind the pilot was re-arranged to allow the use of the additional 29 gal tank. The BPF never used the slipper tanks. They used the drop tanks from RAAF Kittyhawks. The RAF don't have Kittyhawks in India, so none of their drop tanks.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (Jun 11, 2018)

The Hurricane was never a match for the Ki43 despite the theory and the Spit V did I believe have the performance to catch the Ki46 as it was only when the Spitfire arrived on the scene did the Japanese start losing appreciable numbers of the Ki46.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Jun 11, 2018)

Glider said:


> The Hurricane was never a match for the Ki43 despite the theory and the Spit V did I believe have the performance to catch the Ki46 as it was only when the Spitfire arrived on the scene did the Japanese start losing appreciable numbers of the Ki46.


The Dutch tested a Hurricane in the East Indies with half the armament and fuel and it was fully capable of dog fighting the Hayabusa. The Hurricane had problems with the Hayabusa when it couldn't get to sufficient altitude to combat it i.e. ineffective radar. The Spitfire did stop the Ki-46 overflights but only after the radar cover was up and running. Without effective radar it would not have been able to as the Vc TROP was slower than the Ki-46-II and had a lower rated altitude. Have you read the document attached?


----------



## MIflyer (Jun 11, 2018)

The 9th Photo Recon tried to convert one of their F-4's into an interceptor to deal with the Dinahs. They mounted two .50 cal machine guns in the F-4 (which was their hangar queen) but failed to intercept the Dinah due to lack of radar warning. Finally the USAAF stripped down a P-40 and got the Dinah.

An interesting item is that the RAF went over to VHF communications and when the USAAF Air Commandos went into action in 1944, the RAF said that they did not need for their pilots to talk to the ground forces in Burma. The ground forces did not have VHF, only HF communications. The P-51A's of the Air Commandos came equipped with SCR-274N HF radios, and they talked to the ground troops.

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


----------



## Kevin J (Jun 11, 2018)

MIflyer said:


> The 9th Photo Recon tried to convert one of their F-4's into an interceptor to deal with the Dinahs. They mounted two .50 cal machine guns in the F-4 (which was their hangar queen) but failed to intercept the Dinah due to lack of radar warning. Finally the USAAF stripped down a P-40 and got the Dinah.
> 
> An interesting item is that the RAF went over to VHF communications and when the USAAF Air Commandos went into action in 1944, the RAF said that they did not need for their pilots to talk to the ground forces in Burma. The ground forces did not have VHF, only HF communications. The P-51A's of the Air Commandos came equipped with SCR-274N HF radios, and they talked to the ground troops.


Did they use a stripped down P-40F/L to intercept the Ki-46? A 2 gun P-40F/L, polished up and with putty fillings to any cracks would certainly be faster than a Ki-46-II. Also, the Chinese Observer Corps that the Americans had was a lot more effective than that of the British.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fubar57 (Jun 11, 2018)

Escort Spitfire - a missed opportunity for longer reach? - Royal Aeronautical Society





​"The slipper tank was the standard range extender on the Spitfire and some 300,000 were built in a variety of capacities and materials. Fitted flush on the fuselage underside ahead of the cockpit, the slipper tank was essentially a trough whose depth varied in proportion to volume. The 30, 45 and 90-gallon versions were used on fighter missions with the 170-gallon tank reserved for ferry flights only. The drag penalty imposed by slipper tank carriage was relatively high compared to the later ‘torpedo’ style drop tanks that were mounted on struts clear of the fuselage (see table 2). Compared with the slippers, the torpedoes were little used. All tank types could be jettisoned although this was normally only done when operationally imperative"

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Jun 11, 2018)

fubar57 said:


> Escort Spitfire - a missed opportunity for longer reach? - Royal Aeronautical Society
> 
> View attachment 497247
> ​"The slipper tank was the standard range extender on the Spitfire and some 300,000 were built in a variety of capacities and materials. Fitted flush on the fuselage underside ahead of the cockpit, the slipper tank was essentially a trough whose depth varied in proportion to volume. The 30, 45 and 90-gallon versions were used on fighter missions with the 170-gallon tank reserved for ferry flights only. The drag penalty imposed by slipper tank carriage was relatively high compared to the later ‘torpedo’ style drop tanks that were mounted on struts clear of the fuselage (see table 2). Compared with the slippers, the torpedoes were little used. All tank types could be jettisoned although this was normally only done when operationally imperative"


Are you agreeing by a roundabout way that there were potential problems in jettisoning the slipper type tanks in combat?


----------



## fubar57 (Jun 11, 2018)

I just posts em and let you guys go nuts

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Jun 11, 2018)

Kevin J said:


> I found this an interesting read, but it took a while.
> A Critical Analysis of the Royal Air Force Air Superiority Campaign in India, Burma and Malaya, 1941-1945 - Wolverhampton Intellectual Repository and E-Theses
> It looks like an interesting topic for discussion.


This document highlights the need for transport aircraft to resupply units that have been cut off by the enemy. Compared to the Soviets, Germans and Americans, us Brits didn't build a lot of transport aircraft. It certainly sheds light on why the British Army had to retreat so often.


----------



## MIflyer (Jun 11, 2018)

I thought that the Dinah shootdown was mentioned in the book "Eyes for the Phoenix", a history of Allied photo recon the SE Asia, 1941 - 1945, but I have not been able to find it.


----------



## fubar57 (Jun 11, 2018)

From "Eyes for the Phoenix"

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


----------



## Kevin J (Jun 11, 2018)

Kevin J said:


> Did they use a stripped down P-40F/L to intercept the Ki-46? A 2 gun P-40F/L, polished up and with putty fillings to any cracks would certainly be faster than a Ki-46-II.





fubar57 said:


> From "Eyes for the Phoenix"
> 
> View attachment 497254​


You still need an effective radar and ground observer corps to spot them and until that was in place there would have been no point in having Spitfires because the Spitfire Vc TROP was slower at its rated altitude which was lower than that of the Ki-46-II. That was not in place one year before.


----------



## pbehn (Jun 11, 2018)

Kevin J said:


> Are you agreeing by a roundabout way that there were potential problems in jettisoning the slipper type tanks in combat?


I believe the slipper tanks could be jettisoned but with speed and maneuvering restrictions ...not ideal to slow down and fly level in combat, and you may need the fuel anyway.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Jun 11, 2018)

pbehn said:


> I believe the slipper tanks could be jettisoned but with speed and maneuvering restrictions ...not ideal to slow down and fly level in combat, and you may need the fuel anyway.


So the only one you'd really want to enter combat with attached is the 30 gal slipper, is that not so? Maybe you could use the 45/90 gal ones if you were engaged in counter air operations attacking airfields, but then again, you'd go up with a big bang if you were hit with even light ack ack? The 45/90 gal tanks really aren't very useful.


----------



## fubar57 (Jun 11, 2018)

It says in the article,"....All tank types could be jettisoned although this was normally only done when operationally imperative..." I read this as: jettisoned before combat was engaged.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Jun 11, 2018)

fubar57 said:


> It says in the article,"....All tank types could be jettisoned although this was normally only done when operationally imperative..." I read this as: jettisoned before combat was engaged.


Any idea what the maximum speed for dropping them was?


----------



## fubar57 (Jun 11, 2018)

My thoughts as well. I wonder if it's in Mk.V Pilot's Notes?

EDIT: which it seems is the only one I don't have


----------



## pbehn (Jun 11, 2018)

Kevin J said:


> Any idea what the maximum speed for dropping them was?


I read it in an article on building a long range spitfire (which I cant find now). I don't think there was any actual maximum quoted, I suspect there would be a table because there were several different types of tanks on many different types of plane and also it would change with how full the tank is.


----------



## Kevin J (Jun 11, 2018)

pbehn said:


> I read it in an article on building a long range spitfire (which I cant find now). I don't think there was any actual maximum quoted, I suspect there would be a table because there were several different types of tanks on many different types of plane and also it would change with how full the tank is.


I've just found a 300 mph safe top speed when tested with drop tanks. With a 30 gal slipper tank you lose about 5 mph in top speed, whereas with 90 gals you lose about 10% of your speed so you slow down to the speed of a Hurricane. It doesn't sound very healthy to me flying in a straight and level line over enemy territory waiting to be bounced and unable to do much about it fast. The 30 gal slipper tank I like. I've never seen anything about Seafire IIc's with either 45 or 90 gal tanks, just the 30 gal ones and as for the Seafire III's they used Kittyhawk drop tanks.


----------



## Kevin J (Jun 11, 2018)

pbehn said:


> I read it in an article on building a long range spitfire (which I cant find now). I don't think there was any actual maximum quoted, I suspect there would be a table because there were several different types of tanks on many different types of plane and also it would change with how full the tank is.


Spiteful
Scroll down to post #49. The 45 gal slipper tank is best used for defensive patrols only. The 90/170 gal tanks for one way ferry missions. IIRC you can leave the 30 gal tank on in combat.


----------



## fubar57 (Jun 11, 2018)

Seafires aboard HMS Indefatigable. Caption says. "....894 NAS equipped with 90-gallon slipper tanks...aren't as reliable as 89-gallon P-40 tank...The 90-gallon tanks gave the Seafire an escort and strike capability in the last few months of the war...."

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jun 11, 2018)

Kevin J said:


> Spiteful
> Scroll down to post #49. The 45 gal slipper tank is best used for defensive patrols only. The 90/170 gal tanks for one way ferry missions.


I thought I read it here but cant find it....lots of useful info though.
Escort Spitfire - a missed opportunity for longer reach? - Royal Aeronautical Society

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Jun 11, 2018)

pbehn said:


> I thought I read it here but cant find it....lots of useful info though.
> Escort Spitfire - a missed opportunity for longer reach? - Royal Aeronautical Society


Yes, I've seen that too, but why extend the Spitfire's range when you have Mustangs for the long range escort mission. Of course, when the war switches to the Far East, you're going to need to get every mile you can out of the ETO/MTO Spitfires that you redeploy there. So, I guess that's why they left those tests so late. Anyway, lets get back to my original thoughts, that the Hurricane is the right fighter for India in 1942/43. It is rugged, it has longer range with drop tanks, and it can be field mod'ed so that it can take on the Hayabusa. The Spitfire would be nice to intercept Ki-46's but neither the radar coverage nor the ground based observer corps are effective so even with Spitfires you're unlikely to intercept them. For counter air operations you have the Beaufighter which at full throttle can outrun the Ki-43 and like the Hurricane it is rugged as well as exceptionally long ranged. They're the best British fighters for the tasks in hand.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## MIflyer (Jun 11, 2018)

I have the Spit V Pilot's Notes. In fact I have the maintenance manual. Appropriate pages attached.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Jun 11, 2018)

fubar57 said:


> Seafires aboard HMS Indefatigable. Caption says. "....894 NAS equipped with 90-gallon slipper tanks...aren't as reliable as 89-gallon P-40 tank...The 90-gallon tanks gave the Seafire an escort and strike capability in the last few months of the war...."
> 
> View attachment 497263​




The US pattern tanks used by the BPF were scrounged from RAAF stocks Ive read. The RAAF apparently had oodles of the US tanks for their P-40s. Fitters aboard ship managed the conversion in less than a day and the results were immediate. The RAF pattern slippers were so unreliable they could not be risked in combat. Nothing worse than basically having a fuel bomb strapped to your butt, probably leaking fuel and wrecking the a/c performance, whilst mixing it with enemies as dangerous as the Oscar.

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


----------



## fubar57 (Jun 11, 2018)

Kevin J said:


> The Spitfire would be nice to intercept Ki-46's but neither the radar coverage nor the ground based observer corps are effective so even with Spitfires you're unlikely to intercept them.








Nov. '43​

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


----------



## MIflyer (Jun 11, 2018)

Looking at the Spitfire V manual pages I posed, I note that they say that drop tank pressurization is turned on only at higher altitudes and that pressurization tends to defeat the tanks' self-sealing feature. 

As far as I know almost all US drop tanks were pressurized all the time via the vacuum pump exhaust and that was what drove the fuel out of the tank, the air pressure. That is the way it is done currently, using engine bleed air pressure. I had some urgent experience with the F-105 auxiliary tank system after one blew up while climbing out of Savannah. I had to stay up all night getting the Wild Weasels' aux tank pressure regulators fixed so they could deploy to Europe. Then the next day go to McConnell and put their 105's back in the air. 

The Hurricane ferry tanks used pumps built into the tanks. It seems that the US system was simpler and worked much better.


----------



## Glider (Jun 11, 2018)

Kevin J said:


> The Dutch tested a Hurricane in the East Indies with half the armament and fuel and it was fully capable of dog fighting the Hayabusa. The Hurricane had problems with the Hayabusa when it couldn't get to sufficient altitude to combat it i.e. ineffective radar. The Spitfire did stop the Ki-46 overflights but only after the radar cover was up and running. Without effective radar it would not have been able to as the Vc TROP was slower than the Ki-46-II and had a lower rated altitude. Have you read the document attached?


Yes, and I have also read the equivalent papers in the National Archives analysing the air war in the far east done for the RAF. Two papers were produced one in I think late 1942 and a second one in 1944 and both were extensive. The first was full of assumptions and you can tell with hindsight was very inaccurate. The second was far more detailed looking into the lessons learnt and making recommendations for the way ahead including some unexpected (for me anyway) lessons/observations. 
In the second paper the Hurricane was clearly described as being obsolete and the main reason why it was kept in service was because it was exceptionally accurate as a dive bomber. Due to its unusually thick wing profile it didn't really 'mush' when pulling out of a dive it could drop delayed action bombs at a much lower altitude than other fighter bombers significantly increasing its accuracy. Air to air combat was very unusual at this time so its poor dogfighting abilities wasn't a real problem.
Other interesting titbits were the use of modified depth charges to clear the jungle cover from targets and the request from the USAAF for RAF rockets to be used on their P40's as they were far more effective against river traffic than the bazooka type rockets they had available. The effect of Napalm was also discussed.

Re the Dutch test it's worth remembering that the Hurricane IIa suffered just as badly at the hands of the Ki43 as any other and I find it hard to believe that a Hurricane II with 6 x LMG, would be very different than one with 8 x LMG
Re the speed any fighter would need radar assistance but clearly the Spitfire was fast enough because it did the job and had a severe impact on the Ki46 operations, A Hurricane which was slower in level speed and climb would never have had the same success.


----------



## Kevin J (Jun 12, 2018)

Glider said:


> Yes, and I have also read the equivalent papers in the National Archives analysing the air war in the far east done for the RAF. Two papers were produced one in I think late 1942 and a second one in 1944 and both were extensive. The first was full of assumptions and you can tell with hindsight was very inaccurate. The second was far more detailed looking into the lessons learnt and making recommendations for the way ahead including some unexpected (for me anyway) lessons/observations.
> In the second paper the Hurricane was clearly described as being obsolete and the main reason why it was kept in service was because it was exceptionally accurate as a dive bomber. Due to its unusually thick wing profile it didn't really 'mush' when pulling out of a dive it could drop delayed action bombs at a much lower altitude than other fighter bombers significantly increasing its accuracy. Air to air combat was very unusual at this time so its poor dogfighting abilities wasn't a real problem.
> Other interesting titbits were the use of modified depth charges to clear the jungle cover from targets and the request from the USAAF for RAF rockets to be used on their P40's as they were far more effective against river traffic than the bazooka type rockets they had available. The effect of Napalm was also discussed.
> 
> ...


IIRC, the Hurricane suffered badly when it had insufficient warning of an incoming attack and failed to climb to altitude fast enough. Those occasions when it had sufficient warning or was already airborne, it did okay, not that this happened very often. Obsolete, definitely not, able to intercept a Ki-46, definitely not, but then until there is good radar cover and a decent observer corps, neither would a Spitfire.


----------



## Kevin J (Jun 12, 2018)

pbehn said:


> I thought I read it here but cant find it....lots of useful info though.
> Escort Spitfire - a missed opportunity for longer reach? - Royal Aeronautical Society


I'm just reading this document again. So if the Spitfire could gain 30 mph in speed then a Hurricane should gain almost as much, say 28 mph. Replace the triple exhausts with individual exhausts and you gain another 7 mph, so 35 mph in all. That would give a Hurricane IIb with twelve m/c guns a top speed of 375 mph less 5 mph if you fit the Aboukir tropical filter. So now you would have a Hurricane fast enough to intercept a Ki-46-II. Max dive speed is still a bit on the low side at 410 mph, so clearly the Hurricane isn't suitable for the ETO/MTO, but its adequate against the Ki-43-1. The Hurricane IV with the Merlin 24 could pull 450 mph in a dive, so base your new Hurricane on the Mk IV. You then end up with a Hurricane which although slightly slower in a dive than a Spitfire Vc would more than compensate for this with higher low altitude speeds as the Merlin 24 had 18 lbs of boost. It would combine the performance of the Spitfire LVc and Vc, be more rugged, so no more bent wings after combat. Arm it with twin 20 mm cannons and two 0.5 in m/c guns and you improve the firepower and manoeuvrability. That's what the Russians did to their Mk IIb's. The Spitfire VIII is of course much better.


----------



## MIflyer (Jun 12, 2018)

Many of the Hurricanes used in the CBI had two of their 20MM guns removed. Of course that probably was to help them when carrying bombs.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 12, 2018)

Operating in tropical conditions sapped both horsepower/thrust and lift. 
Add in short (sometimes) crappy (mostly) airstrips and take-offs and landings needed a lot more room that temperate climates.

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


----------



## Kevin J (Jun 12, 2018)

MIflyer said:


> Many of the Hurricanes used in the CBI had two of their 20MM guns removed. Of course that probably was to help them when carrying bombs.


Never knew that.


----------



## MIflyer (Jun 12, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> Operating in tropical conditions sapped both horsepower/thrust and lift.
> Add in short (sometimes) crappy (mostly) airstrips and take-offs and landings needed a lot more room that temperate climates.



A friend of mine, former maintenance chief of the 9th PRS in India in 1942-44, said that the Air Commandos found that the A-36A and P-51A could haul larger bomb loads out of those short crappy strips than could that big weightlifter, the P-47

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (Jun 12, 2018)

Kevin J said:


> IIRC, the Hurricane suffered badly when it had insufficient warning of an incoming attack and failed to climb to altitude fast enough. Those occasions when it had sufficient warning or was already airborne, it did okay, not that this happened very often. Obsolete, definitely not, able to intercept a Ki-46, definitely not, but then until there is good radar cover and a decent observer corps, neither would a Spitfire.


I am afraid that everyone considered the Hurricane was obsolete by late 1944. If you can find any exceptions to this I would be interested because at the end of the day it's the view of the people on the ground at the time that counts.


----------



## Kevin J (Jun 12, 2018)

Glider said:


> I am afraid that everyone considered the Hurricane was obsolete by late 1944. If you can find any exceptions to this I would be interested because at the end of the day it's the view of the people on the ground at the time that counts.


Who mentioned 1944? Not me, I'm talking about 1942/43 in the CBI.


----------



## Glider (Jun 12, 2018)

Kevin J said:


> Who mentioned 1944? Not me, I'm talking about 1942/43 in the CBI.


A Hurricane II and a Ki43 in 1942/3 is basically the same in 1944 so the case and argument stands

Reactions: Disagree Disagree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jun 12, 2018)

Glider said:


> A Hurricane II and a Ki43 in 1942/3 is basically the same in 1944 so the case and argument stands


The Hurricane was obsolete in 1940 and should have been replaced by Typhoons or Tornados

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


----------



## KiwiBiggles (Jun 12, 2018)

pbehn said:


> The Hurricane was obsolete in 1940 and should have been replaced by Typhoons or Tornados


Terrific. We'll just go without for a couple of years, until the Typhoon's ready. Far better that than the embarrassment of been seen wearing last-years model.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jun 12, 2018)

KiwiBiggles said:


> Terrific. We'll just go without for a couple of years, until the Typhoon's ready. Far better that than the embarrassment of been seen wearing last-years model.


Not the point I was making, as per the planning in 1938/39 both the Hurricane and the Merlin should have been replaced by 1942. It was the failure of the Typhoon/Tornado and improvements to the Merlin that meant the Hurricane being kept in service long past its sell by date.


----------



## Glider (Jun 12, 2018)

This might be of interest. I think you can just read it

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Jun 12, 2018)

pbehn said:


> Not the point I was making, as per the planning in 1938/39 both the Hurricane and the Merlin should have been replaced by 1942. It was the failure of the Typhoon/Tornado and improvements to the Merlin that meant the Hurricane being kept in service long past its sell by date.



The Hurricane and Spitfire were to be replaced by the Typhoon/Tornado.

The Merlin was used in other types (such as the Halifax and, eventually, the Lancaster), so was not on the chopping block.


----------



## Kevin J (Jun 13, 2018)

MIflyer said:


> Many of the Hurricanes used in the CBI had two of their 20MM guns removed. Of course that probably was to help them when carrying bombs.


The Russians modified their Hurricane IIb's to have two 20 mm and two 0.5 in guns. It improved turning circle and roll rate and had twice the firepower of a Bf 109F. They used it successfully in the first five months of 1942, so it definitely wasn't obsolete at that time, exactly the same time when it was having problems in the Far East.


----------



## Kevin J (Jun 13, 2018)

Glider said:


> A Hurricane II and a Ki43 in 1942/3 is basically the same in 1944 so the case and argument stands


In 1941/42 the Hurricane II will be taking on the long wing Ki-43-1, in 42/43 the long wing Ki-43-II as opposed to 43/44 the short wing Ki-43-II-Kai so you need the Spitfire Vc to combat it and 44/45, the Spitfire VIII to combat the short wing Ki-43-III-Kai. So there are differences in armament, roll rate and max dive speed and top speed to deal with.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jun 13, 2018)

wuzak said:


> The Hurricane and Spitfire were to be replaced by the Typhoon/Tornado.
> 
> The Merlin was used in other types (such as the Halifax and, eventually, the Lancaster), so was not on the chopping block.


It was a slow process from the Vulture and Sabre being delayed to having fewer and later to then having no vultures at all and the Sabre being used solely on the Typhoon.


----------



## Glider (Jun 13, 2018)

Kevin J said:


> In 1941/42 the Hurricane II will be taking on the long wing Ki-43-1, in 42/43 the long wing Ki-43-II as opposed to 43/44 the short wing Ki-43-II-Kai so you need the Spitfire Vc to combat it and 44/45, the Spitfire VIII to combat the short wing Ki-43-III-Kai. So there are differences in armament, roll rate and max dive speed and top speed to deal with.


The Hurricane was obsolete from the beginning of their introduction in the theatre of war until the end. They were even given a hard time by the Ki27 an aircraft they should have run rings around


Kevin J said:


> In 1941/42 the Hurricane II will be taking on the long wing Ki-43-1, in 42/43 the long wing Ki-43-II as opposed to 43/44 the short wing Ki-43-II-Kai so you need the Spitfire Vc to combat it and 44/45, the Spitfire VIII to combat the short wing Ki-43-III-Kai. So there are differences in armament, roll rate and max dive speed and top speed to deal with.


The Hurricane was obsolete at the start of the campaign and even more obsolete at the end. The difference in the Ki43 only magnified the problem and its worth remembering that the Hurricanes had a difficult time dealing with the Ki27

Reactions: Disagree Disagree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinsog (Jun 13, 2018)

Glider is correct. The later model KI43 had a top speed of around 350, pilot armor and self sealing tanks. The KI43 also did not have the loss of roll at high speed that the Zero suffered from and as I understand could outturn a Zero at low speed as well. There is actually nothing I can think of that a Hurricane can do to evade a KI43 unless they are at altitude and the Hurricane can dive away. (And the Hurricane was never known to be a particularly good diver either)

I got the impression after reading Bloody Shambles volume 3 that the KI43 with armor and tank protection could hold its own with about anything. Hurricanes seemed to be meat on the table, Spitfires faired a little better. P40’s could dive and take a pretty good beating and still survive. I was very surprised at how the “slow, underarmed KI43” shot down P47’s, P38’s, photo recon Spitfire’s, photo recon Mosquitoes, F5 recon Lightning’s, B24’s etc. In fact, I think they were doing better at it than the Luftwaffe.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## MIflyer (Jun 13, 2018)

Recently read "Hurricane The Last Witnesses" and pilots who flew them in the Med as well as the CBI put it bluntly, "They had 5000 Hurricanes in the U.K and they had to do something with them. So they sent them to us."

They did say that the Hurricane was a marvelous strafer against Japanese ground troops.

They have a nice color shot of an an all black Mark IIC of 87 Squadron, 10 Group. I'll see if I can scan it.


----------



## pbehn (Jun 13, 2018)

An aircraft becomes obsolete when others get better, it is still the same plane and can do all it ever did. In some cases very old types can achieve remarkable things, that doesn't mean that it wasn't obsolete.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Jun 13, 2018)

Glider said:


> The Hurricane was obsolete from the beginning of their introduction in the theatre of war until the end. They were even given a hard time by the Ki27 an aircraft they should have run rings around
> 
> The Hurricane was obsolete at the start of the campaign and even more obsolete at the end. The difference in the Ki43 only magnified the problem and its worth remembering that the Hurricanes had a difficult time dealing with the Ki27


Sure it had difficulty dealing with the Ki-27 when it was carrying long range tanks. It fared better without them and when it had adequate warning of incoming raids. The AVG did brilliantly. They had two things going for them. The P-40 was a superior plane and the Chinese Observer Corps tracked incoming raids from the moment they took off from their airfields. There was no British Observer Corps in either Burma or Malaya and the Indian Observer Corps was lousy. The Sea Hurricane and Hurricane between them shot down about 6000 enemy aircraft during the war in British and Commonwealth service, that's not what you call an obsolete plane. In the Far East, they encountered difficulties with radar effectiveness, a complete lack of a working observer corps, European fighter tactics and an armament that should have been halved and tropical filters that could have been improved on. Yes, lots of problems that resulted in a 'shambles'. On the ground, the army lacked transports to re-supply units that had been cut off, and no clear USMC like strategy of 'an advance to the sea' as occurred ten years later in Korea. Obsolete, definitely not.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Jun 13, 2018)

This link might be useful regarding the ki-43

Nakajima Ki-43

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Jun 13, 2018)

parsifal said:


> This link might be useful regarding the ki-43
> 
> Nakajima Ki-43


I've seen that before, its very good.


----------



## pinsog (Jun 13, 2018)

The Hurricane had 0 cards to play against a KI43. It couldn’t turn nearly as well, it climbed slower, didn’t dive that much better, and had about the same top speed. If a KI43 and a Hurricane saw each other from the same altitude, neither with an advantage, with equal pilots, the Hurricane was probably done. All the KI43 has to do is start climbing and turning and soon he’s behind the Hurricane. Hurricane MIGHT be able to dive and run. Maybe. A P40 can always roll over and dive away(with any altitude), he’s pretty fast on the level below 15,000 and I believe quite a bit tougher than a Hurricane. 

A KI43 is at least a handful of not better than a Spitfire V. I’d rather fight a KI43 in a Dauntless than a Hurricane, at least I have a radial engine and a rear gunner

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Funny Funny:
1 | Disagree Disagree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (Jun 14, 2018)

Kevin J said:


> Sure it had difficulty dealing with the Ki-27 when it was carrying long range tanks. It fared better without them and when it had adequate warning of incoming raids. The AVG did brilliantly. They had two things going for them. The P-40 was a superior plane and the Chinese Observer Corps tracked incoming raids from the moment they took off from their airfields. There was no British Observer Corps in either Burma or Malaya and the Indian Observer Corps was lousy. The Sea Hurricane and Hurricane between them shot down about 6000 enemy aircraft during the war in British and Commonwealth service, that's not what you call an obsolete plane. In the Far East, they encountered difficulties with radar effectiveness, a complete lack of a working observer corps, European fighter tactics and an armament that should have been halved and tropical filters that could have been improved on. Yes, lots of problems that resulted in a 'shambles'. On the ground, the army lacked transports to re-supply units that had been cut off, and no clear USMC like strategy of 'an advance to the sea' as occurred ten years later in Korea. Obsolete, definitely not.


Clearly you are allowed your own opinion and you have a belief which you will not change despite all the evidence and the views of the pilots at the time. If you haven't already I suggest you read the Bloody Shambles series which should open your eyes a little. 
You will see that when fighting the Ki27 long range tanks on the Hurricanes were very unusual, that both sides didn't much have radar (the IJAAF having none) and that didn't stop the Hurricanes taking severe losses.
I also notice that you haven't supplied any evidence to support your belief which says a lot about the strength of your case. Finally you haven't explained why a Hurricane with 6 x LMG would be so much better than a IIa with eight the difference in weight being almost negligable


----------



## RCAFson (Jun 14, 2018)

Kevin J said:


> Not at the start. On the Spitfire Vb, the 30 gal was the combat tank, the 45 gal was the drop tank and the 90 gal was the ferry tank. Its only in 1942 with the Spitfire Vc that you get the 170 gal ferry tank with an extra 29 gal tank behind the pilot. The problem with the 45/90 gal tanks was they didn't always detach properly. I think you'll find that the Spitfires in the Med were rigged up with the Kittyhawks drop tanks as detachment was more reliable and the desert survival kit behind the pilot was re-arranged to allow the use of the additional 29 gal tank. The BPF never used the slipper tanks. They used the drop tanks from RAAF Kittyhawks. The RAF don't have Kittyhawks in India, so none of their drop tanks.


IIRC, the Malta Spitfires initially used twinned 45 gallon Hurricane drop tanks.

All Spitfire slipper tanks were drop tanks and the RAAF Capstan Spitfires did drop 30G tanks in combat and their initial disaster was entirely due to not using them. The BPF did use 90G slipper tanks, and IIRC, Implacable used modded P-40 teardrop tanks and Indefatigable used 90G slipper tanks.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## RCAFson (Jun 14, 2018)

pinsog said:


> The Hurricane had 0 cards to play against a KI43. It couldn’t turn nearly as well, it climbed slower, didn’t dive that much better, and had about the same top speed. If a KI43 and a Hurricane saw each other from the same altitude, neither with an advantage, with equal pilots, the Hurricane was probably done. All the KI43 has to do is start climbing and turning and soon he’s behind the Hurricane. Hurricane MIGHT be able to dive and run. Maybe. A P40 can always roll over and dive away(with any altitude), he’s pretty fast on the level below 15,000 and I believe quite a bit tougher than a Hurricane.
> 
> A KI43 is at least a handful of not better than a Spitfire V. I’d rather fight a KI43 in a Dauntless than a Hurricane, at least I have a radial engine and a rear gunner


The same argument can be made regarding the F4F-4 and the Zero...

I took a careful look at Ki-43 vs Hurricane encounters in Burma as stated in Bloody Shambles V3. First there were very few encounters over 3 years of air combat and in nearly every encounter the winner had an altitude advantage (surprise surprise) and typically that was the Ki-43 as the Hurricane was almost always being used for low altitude strikes.

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


----------



## RCAFson (Jun 14, 2018)

Glider said:


> The Hurricane was obsolete from the beginning of their introduction in the theatre of war until the end. They were even given a hard time by the Ki27 an aircraft they should have run rings around
> 
> The Hurricane was obsolete at the start of the campaign and even more obsolete at the end. The difference in the Ki43 only magnified the problem and its worth remembering that the Hurricanes had a difficult time dealing with the Ki27



The Hurricane was completely superior to the Ki27. I don't know how people get these weird ideas into their heads but the outcome of handful of combats is hardly conclusive. No sane pilot would chose to fight in a Ki-27 against an equally trained pilot in any Mk Hurricane. Again, the Hurricane was superior to the F4F-4 and that aircraft had no problems dealing with the Ki-27/A5M.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Jun 14, 2018)

I don't know much about the CBI TO, but as I understand it, hurricanes were not considered or configured as air superiority fighters generally. They were generally used as ground attack a/c, flying low and slow for maximum effect. If that is the case, they will generally be at a disadvantage if caught in that condition by the enemy.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Stig1207 (Jun 14, 2018)

Kevin J said:


> The Sea Hurricane and Hurricane between them shot down about 6000 enemy...



That would be 6000 claimed/ credited by there own side, wouldn't it?

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Just Schmidt (Jun 14, 2018)

Kevin J said:


> The Dutch tested a Hurricane in the East Indies with half the armament and fuel and it was fully capable of dog fighting the Hayabusa.



Could you expand on that, maybe posting the reports on the test and the circumstances? I'd like to know what mark of Hayabusa (and Hurricane), what condition it was in/how it was captured and what was actually tested/compared.


----------



## Kevin J (Jun 14, 2018)

Just Schmidt said:


> Could you expand on that, maybe posting the reports on the test and the circumstances? I'd like to know what mark of Hayabusa (and Hurricane), what condition it was in/how it was captured and what was actually tested/compared.


Hawker Hurricane - Wikipedia
Its in wikipedia, so it must be true.


----------



## Kevin J (Jun 14, 2018)

parsifal said:


> I don't know much about the CBI TO, but as I understand it, hurricanes were not considered or configured as air superiority fighters generally. They were generally used as ground attack a/c, flying low and slow for maximum effect. If that is the case, they will generally be at a disadvantage if caught in that condition by the enemy.


I think you'll find the Hurricanes were initially configured as interceptors and for escort.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Jun 14, 2018)

Stig1207 said:


> That would be 6000 claimed/ credited by there own side, wouldn't it?


Absolutely, is there any other way?


----------



## Kevin J (Jun 14, 2018)

RCAFson said:


> IIRC, the Malta Spitfires initially used twinned 45 gallon Hurricane drop tanks.
> 
> All Spitfire slipper tanks were drop tanks and the RAAF Capstan Spitfires did drop 30G tanks in combat and their initial disaster was entirely due to not using them. The BPF did use 90G slipper tanks, and IIRC, Implacable used modded P-40 teardrop tanks and Indefatigable used 90G slipper tanks.


The first Spitfire Vb's that went to Malta carried the 90 gal slipper (ferry) tank, the Spitfire Vc was able to carry the 170 gal (ferry) slipper tank, IIRC the BPF may have used 90 gal slipper tanks initially but switched to the Kittyhawk tanks. A Spitfire/Seafire could retain the 30 gal slipper tank in combat, the 90/170 gal slipper tanks had operating restrictions on them, like only fly straight and level so hardly any good for offensive missions and intended for ferry missions only. The 45 gal tank was okay for defensive patrols but not much else.


----------



## Kevin J (Jun 14, 2018)

Glider said:


> The Hurricane was obsolete from the beginning of their introduction in the theatre of war until the end. They were even given a hard time by the Ki27 an aircraft they should have run rings around
> 
> The Hurricane was obsolete at the start of the campaign and even more obsolete at the end. The difference in the Ki43 only magnified the problem and its worth remembering that the Hurricanes had a difficult time dealing with the Ki27


The Hurricane was effective against the Ki-27 if it employed boom and zoom tactics. Against the Ki-43, it had a hard time. Success depended on having an altitude advantage, the Hurricane was much faster in a dive so it could break off combat. Its tropical filter and heavy armament restricted its climb rate and agility. Both problems were solvable, an Aboukir filter and reducing the armament.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Jun 14, 2018)

Glider said:


> Clearly you are allowed your own opinion and you have a belief which you will not change despite all the evidence and the views of the pilots at the time. If you haven't already I suggest you read the Bloody Shambles series which should open your eyes a little.
> You will see that when fighting the Ki27 long range tanks on the Hurricanes were very unusual, that both sides didn't much have radar (the IJAAF having none) and that didn't stop the Hurricanes taking severe losses.
> I also notice that you haven't supplied any evidence to support your belief which says a lot about the strength of your case. Finally you haven't explained why a Hurricane with 6 x LMG would be so much better than a IIa with eight the difference in weight being almost negligable


I think you need to do a bit more reading.

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


----------



## Stig1207 (Jun 14, 2018)

Kevin J said:


> Absolutely, is there any other way?



Probably not, but it does mean that how many enemy aircraft were shot down by Hurricanes is unknown; it's also likely to be a much lower number.


----------



## parsifal (Jun 14, 2018)

Kevin J said:


> I think you'll find the Hurricanes were initially configured as interceptors and for escort.


who, in what TO were doing well against the Japanese in the early part of 1942?

I managed to get myself embroiled in a discussion about p-39 performance. it was the wrong thread, but we ended talking about P-39 performance over PNG. Two US Fighter Groups managed to shoot down 7 A6Ms over a period of about 3 months......April to end of June. to all causes these groups lost nearly 60 aircraft achieving that result.

Im not convinced the hurricane was that bad really


----------



## Kevin J (Jun 14, 2018)

Stig1207 said:


> Probably not, but it does mean that how many enemy aircraft were shot down by Hurricanes is unknown; it's also likely to be a much lower number.


5871 claims for the ETO, 128 confirmed kills by the FAA. Then there's the MTO, the Eastern Front and SE Asia. Divide by 2 and add 50%?


----------



## Stig1207 (Jun 14, 2018)

Or just divide by 3 or 4; who knows?

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Jun 14, 2018)

Stig1207 said:


> Or just divide by 3 or 4; who knows?


I think divide by 2 is the norm, but the figures are just for the ETO, so double for all the remaining theatres of ops after dividing by two. Anyway, if you divide the Hurricane victories by two then that make Spitfire victories in the ETO about 1750, so much for our wonder plane.


----------



## Stig1207 (Jun 14, 2018)

RAF fighter claims and losses seem to be some the hardest to find on the web, so I wouldn't know how the Spitfire compares to the Hurricane in that regard. However, 5871 claims in the ETO seems rather a how number, seeing as the Hurricane peaked in air combat in the BoB.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinsog (Jun 14, 2018)

RCAFson
The F4F-4 had 1 card to play against the Zero, dive to above 300 mph, roll to the right and pull out. We all know the Zero’s high speed roll problem, the KI43 did not have the high speed roll problem. I think we are lucky they didn’t use the KI43 instead of the Zero, I have come to believe it is the better plane. 
I agree the Hurricane was better than an F4F-4 in mock dogfights. In real life vs a Zero the F4F-4 had a couple of advantages: radial engine, I think it had more/better armor, it did not have a fuel tank in front of the pilot that when punctured soaked the pilot in fuel and lit him on fire. 
You may not think a Ki27 is a threat, but your forgetting just how well they turn, they probably rivaled a Gladiator. Wildcats had trouble dealing with Japanese biplane float planes due to their extreme agility. 

Also remember the Australian test between a Spitfire V and a Zero “The Spitfire has no advantages below 20,000 feet”. That quote is from the 2 guys that did the tests

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jun 14, 2018)

MIflyer said:


> The 9th Photo Recon tried to convert one of their F-4's into an interceptor to deal with the Dinahs. They mounted two .50 cal machine guns in the F-4 (which was their hangar queen) but failed to intercept the Dinah due to lack of radar warning. Finally the USAAF stripped down a P-40 and got the Dinah.
> 
> An interesting item is that the RAF went over to VHF communications and when the USAAF Air Commandos went into action in 1944, the RAF said that they did not need for their pilots to talk to the ground forces in Burma. The ground forces did not have VHF, only HF communications. The P-51A's of the Air Commandos came equipped with SCR-274N HF radios, and they talked to the ground troops.



I read a long interview with Bobby Gibbes in which he explained the issue with HF - he said HF radios had to be constantly tuned in as the plane was flying around. Said they believed pilots died while fiddling with the radio dials trying to tune in their squadron mates who were yelling at them to 'Break!'

He said VF radios (not sure if he meant VHF but he said VF) were more like modern radios where you just hit a button and it switched channels and stayed tuned-in.

He also mentioned that he was really surprised at the lack of radio discipline when he got to the Pacific. He said in North Africa they had to use radio reciever clicks with special code because if they started talking on the Radio the Germans would quickly figure it out and be on their asses. When he got to the Pacific and went on his first raid in the Solomons he was amazed to hear everyone chattering away like they were in a pub.

S


----------



## Schweik (Jun 14, 2018)

pinsog said:


> RCAFson
> The F4F-4 had 1 card to play against the Zero, dive to above 300 mph, roll to the right and pull out. We all know the Zero’s high speed roll problem, the KI43 did not have the high speed roll problem. I think we are lucky they didn’t use the KI43 instead of the Zero, I have come to believe it is the better plane.



In some respects I think you might be right. Maybe a better fighter killer anyway. Against fighters the relatively 'light' armament isn't really as much of a problem but it does make it harder to knock down medium or heavy bombers.



> I agree the Hurricane was better than an F4F-4 in mock dogfights. In real life vs a Zero the F4F-4 had a couple of advantages: radial engine, I think it had more/better armor, it did not have a fuel tank in front of the pilot that when punctured soaked the pilot in fuel and lit him on fire.
> You may not think a Ki27 is a threat, but your forgetting just how well they turn, they probably rivaled a Gladiator. Wildcats had trouble dealing with Japanese biplane float planes due to their extreme agility.
> 
> Also remember the Australian test between a Spitfire V and a Zero “The Spitfire has no advantages below 20,000 feet”. That quote is from the 2 guys that did the tests



The advantage the F4F had was it could dive away from a Zero or a Ki-27 - the Ki-43 may not have had as much problem with high speed roll / torque issues but it did have a limit on dive speed, much lower than that of the F4F. The Hurricane could probably dive away from a K-27 but not from an A6M or Ki-43 - at least, the dive speed wasn't enough higher, apparently, plus the Hurricane had relatively poor roll rate.

The ability to disengage in some kind of way when the fight wasn't going well I think turned out to be one of the key features for success in WW2 fighters.

S

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jun 14, 2018)

pinsog said:


> Glider is correct. The later model KI43 had a top speed of around 350, pilot armor and self sealing tanks. The KI43 also did not have the loss of roll at high speed that the Zero suffered from and as I understand could outturn a Zero at low speed as well. There is actually nothing I can think of that a Hurricane can do to evade a KI43 unless they are at altitude and the Hurricane can dive away. (And the Hurricane was never known to be a particularly good diver either)
> 
> I got the impression after reading Bloody Shambles volume 3 that the KI43 with armor and tank protection could hold its own with about anything. Hurricanes seemed to be meat on the table, Spitfires faired a little better. P40’s could dive and take a pretty good beating and still survive. I was very surprised at how the “slow, underarmed KI43” shot down P47’s, P38’s, photo recon Spitfire’s, photo recon Mosquitoes, F5 recon Lightning’s, B24’s etc. In fact, I think they were doing better at it than the Luftwaffe.



Agree with this but it's worth noting though that the US P-40 units in the CBI, 23rd FG, 51st, 80th etc., all did quite well against Ki-43. The ability to dive away to disengage, and later on to disengage in level flight, combined with good tactics and the fact that so much of the fighting in the CBI was at low or medium altitude, meant that the P-40 pilots in that Theater had a winning formula against the Ki-27, Ki-43, the A6M, and even (also) against several of the later war fighters like the Ki-44 and Ki-61. According to an old thread on here even the Ki-84.

I do think Ki-43 tends to get very underestimated though, it was a lethal plane.

S

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Just Schmidt (Jun 14, 2018)

Kevin J said:


> Hawker Hurricane - Wikipedia
> Its in wikipedia, so it must be true.



Thank you for that, it lead me to a reference to Boer 2006 "The loss of Jawa" which I can't consult. However the relevant passage on wiki seem to be: "That same month, 12 Hurricane Mk IIB Trops were supplied to the Dutch forces on Java. With dust filters removed and fuel and ammo load in wings halved, these were able to stay in a turn with the Oscars they fought." True or not, this alone hardly warrants your claim that a so modified hurricane was "fully capable of dog fighting the Hayabusa".

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Jun 14, 2018)

Stig1207 said:


> RAF fighter claims and losses seem to be some the hardest to find on the web, so I wouldn't know how the Spitfire compares to the Hurricane in that regard. However, 5871 claims in the ETO seems rather a how number, seeing as the Hurricane peaked in air combat in the BoB.


The Hurricane fights the Battle of France, the Battle of Britain, is the primary night fighter during the Blitz and is still around as a fighter bomber until 1943 when the Typhoon replaces it in that role. From then on Thunderbolts and Lightnings, very very frightening, sorry I'm getting carried away here, take over from the RAF the fight against the Luftwaffe on their own turf with the Mustang eventually destroying the most German aircraft in the ETO. The Spitfire plays little part in the Battle of France, scores far fewer victories than the Hurricane in the Battle of Britain, and is shot from the skies by the Luftwaffe during the non stop offensive over France in 1941/42. I agree, finding the figures is difficult, like we're not meant to find them.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jun 14, 2018)

Stig1207 said:


> Or just divide by 3 or 4; who knows?



yes but that is true for all fighter types in WW2. All sides overclaimed at pretty similar rates.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Disagree Disagree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## RCAFson (Jun 14, 2018)

Schweik said:


> In some respects I think you might be right. Maybe a better fighter killer anyway. Against fighters the relatively 'light' armament isn't really as much of a problem but it does make it harder to knock down medium or heavy bombers.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


US tests showed that the F4F-4 could not dive away from a Zero:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/japan/intelsum85-dec42.pdf

see paragraph 12.

The Hurricane had an excellent roll rate and could out roll the Zero.

Air combat is usually decided by which pilot sees the other first. Most pilots who were shot down never saw their opponent.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinsog (Jun 14, 2018)

Agree that an F4F-4 couldn’t pull away from a Zero in a dive, it could only get going fast enough for the Zero’s ailerons to stiffen up and then roll to one side and pull out.


----------



## Schweik (Jun 14, 2018)

Kevin J said:


> The Hurricane fights the Battle of France, the Battle of Britain, is the primary night fighter during the Blitz and is still around as a fighter bomber until 1943 when the Typhoon replaces it in that role. From then on Thunderbolts and Lightnings, very very frightening, sorry I'm getting carried away here, take over from the RAF the fight against the Luftwaffe on their own turf with the Mustang eventually destroying the most German aircraft in the ETO. The Spitfire plays little part in the Battle of France, scores far fewer victories than the Hurricane in the Battle of Britain, and is shot from the skies by the Luftwaffe during the non stop offensive over France in 1941/42. I agree, finding the figures is difficult, like we're not meant to find them.



I think there were fewer Spitfires active in the BoB though weren't there? I always assumed that is why the Hurricane shot down more enemy planes (or made more claims).

By the way claims vs. losses for Hurricanes are available for the Med in Christopher Shores books.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinsog (Jun 14, 2018)

The problem with the Hurricane vs KI43 is they both play the same game and the KI43 is better. When the Hurricane fought the 109, 110 and even 190 it always had the ability to out turn them. When all else failed a Hurricane pilot could outturm anything the Germans had. When a Hurricane fought KI43’s, the turn advantage went to the KI43 by a large margin. They had about the same top speed, climb went to KI43, acceleration went to KI43, the Hurricane wasn’t a particularly good diver and if the KI43 was following a Hurricane in a fast dive it could still match the roll rate (unlike the Zero). Other than better firepower in a head on pass I can’t think of anything a Hurricane can do that a KI43 can’t do better. (The 2nd model of KI43 even had pilot armor and self sealing tanks along with a 2 speed supercharger)

The P40 is far from perfect with bad climb and horrible performance above 15-17,000 feet, BUT when all else fails, use that magnificent roll rate, flip it on its back, point the nose downhill and run like the wind! Live to fight tomorrow

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


----------



## Schweik (Jun 14, 2018)

pinsog said:


> Agree that an F4F-4 couldn’t pull away from a Zero in a dive, it could only get going fast enough for the Zero’s ailerons to stiffen up and then roll to one side and pull out.



I think the Zero had a pretty low maximum dive speed. Less than 400 mph I believe. F4F might not be able to accelerate as fast but if it kept twisting and skidding could avoid being shot until the speed picked up enough to escape.


----------



## Schweik (Jun 14, 2018)

RCAFson said:


> US tests showed that the F4F-4 could not dive away from a Zero:
> 
> http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/japan/intelsum85-dec42.pdf



yeah but I think if you look at the maximum dive speed, this isn't actually the case.



> The Hurricane had an excellent roll rate and could out roll the Zero.



That is news to me! Do you have stats and / or a source on this? I always read the Hurricanes roll rate described as 'stately'. I.e. not fast. I feel bad if I have been repeating this for a while and it's incorrect.

How does the Hurricanes roll rate compare to a Spit I or V, a P-40, a Bf 109E or F, a Fw 190, a Ki 43 or an A6M?



> Air combat is usually decided by which pilot sees the other first. Most pilots who were shot down never saw their opponent.



That's true but it's also a bit misleading. Probably 60% of aircraft destroyed in WW2 were knocked down before the pilot saw the enemy. But later in the war all sides got much better at using formation tactics, wingmen etc., strict regimes for watching the skies, to prevent being 'bounced' without warning. It became rarer, it was also rarer fighter to fighter than fighter vs. bomber.

Performance and maneuverability did also matter quite a bit once both sides were aware of each other, and the ability to disengage even more so.

Working radios helped a lot too!

S


----------



## Glider (Jun 14, 2018)

Kevin J said:


> I think you need to do a bit more reading.


Well I have and read the Bloody Shambles series, I took the trouble to go to the National Archives and research a number of original reports and the paper you presented. Plus a number of other books over the years.
In support I posted an original document that clearly stated that the Hurricane was obsolete in the eyes of the RAF. You have read what exactly?

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jun 14, 2018)

Kevin J said:


> The Hurricane fights the Battle of France, the Battle of Britain, is the primary night fighter during the Blitz and is still around as a fighter bomber until 1943 when the Typhoon replaces it in that role. From then on Thunderbolts and Lightnings, very very frightening, sorry I'm getting carried away here, take over from the RAF the fight against the Luftwaffe on their own turf with the Mustang eventually destroying the most German aircraft in the ETO. The Spitfire plays little part in the Battle of France, scores far fewer victories than the Hurricane in the Battle of Britain, and is shot from the skies by the Luftwaffe during the non stop offensive over France in 1941/42. I agree, finding the figures is difficult, like we're not meant to find them.


The Spitfire played a small part in the Battle of France. In the Battle of Britain. In the BoB the Hurricane was more numerous and had the most kills, it also had a much higher loss rate and those losses were more likely to kill or cripple the pilot. While fighting over England the Hurricane had the advantage of home territory and RADAR control. Its big disadvantage was that against the Bf109 it couldn't break contact. At any time sending Hurricane fighters to France would be suicide unless in massive numbers with others like Dieppe. You omitted the Battle of Malta where Spitfires took over from Hurricanes and North Africa where Spitfires were used to escort Hurricanes and P-40s. Finding the numbers is easy, seek and ye shall find.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## RCAFson (Jun 14, 2018)

Schweik said:


> 1) yeah but I think if you look at the maximum dive speed, this isn't actually the case.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



1) The Hurricane's maximum dive speed was somewhat higher than the Ki-43II, however the trick was to engage with sufficient altitude to take advantage of that, which was hard when the Hurricane was mostly being used for low level ground attack.

2)NACA roll rate comparison:
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/naca868-rollchart.jpg

A NACA paper dated 16 Nov 1942 compared the roll rate of the Hurricane Mk2A, Spitfire V, P40 and P36. The Hurricane had the best roll rate in terms of roll rate per 5lb stick force and this matches pilot comments and RAF mock combat reports. Hurricane and Spitfire maximum roll rates were nearly identical, but slightly superior to the Spitfire and so the Spitfire curve, above, can be used for the Hurricane.

3) I'm pretty sure it was greater than 60% and the Hurricane was primarily a ground attack aircraft from 1942 onward.

4) Dog fights were usually inconclusive compared to bounces but again the experience of the F4F-4, which should have been slaughtered by the Zero, but wasn't gives us some clues that the Hurricane II, should do somewhat better.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## RCAFson (Jun 14, 2018)

pbehn said:


> The Spitfire played a small part in the Battle of France. In the Battle of Britain. In the BoB the Hurricane was more numerous and had the most kills, it also had a much higher loss rate and those losses were more likely to kill or cripple the pilot. While fighting over England the Hurricane had the advantage of home territory and RADAR control. Its big disadvantage was that against the Bf109 it couldn't break contact. At any time sending Hurricane fighters to France would be suicide unless in massive numbers with others like Dieppe. You omitted the Battle of Malta where Spitfires took over from Hurricanes and North Africa where Spitfires were used to escort Hurricanes and P-40s. Finding the numbers is easy, seek and ye shall find.



Hurricane losses in the BofB are misleading because they were primarily concentrated within 11 Group, which was closest to incoming raids and were the most likely to be bounced by Me109s because aircraft based in 11 Group typically had insufficient time to climb prior to being engaged. 11 Group had the highest ratio of Hurricane to Spitfire squadrons of any Group, and if 11 Group had been predominately Spitfires it seems very likely that Spitfire loss rates would have been higher than the Hurricane, which would have been a disaster for FC because of the low production rate and slower repair rate of the Spitfire.

The Spitfire V as used at Malta was superior to the Hurricane 1/2 but the Hurricane's primary problem there was lack of numbers at a time when the Luftwaffe was able to concentrate overwhelming power against Malta and bomb the airfields continuously. In the winter the Luftwaffe would withdraw units from Russia and use them in the MTO and thus the Malta airwar had a cyclical nature.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jun 14, 2018)

RCAFson said:


> 2)NACA roll rate comparison:
> http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/naca868-rollchart.jpg
> 
> A NACA paper dated 16 Nov 1942 compared the roll rate of the Hurricane Mk2A, Spitfire V, P40 and P36. The Hurricane had the best roll rate in terms of roll rate per 5lb stick force and this matches pilot comments and RAF mock combat reports. Hurricane and Spitfire maximum roll rates were nearly identical, but slightly superior to the Spitfire and so the Spitfire curve, above, can be used for the Hurricane.



Ok but that must be a different paper then right? I looked carefully (even though I have seen it before) and didn't see a Hurricane on this one. 

This one says at an altitude of 10,000 feet, with 50 lbs stick force, the following 'best' roll rates were observed in degrees per second:

*Fw 190 *- 162 @ 255 mph indicated
*Spitfire* (clipped wing) 150 @ 190 mph indicated
*P-63 *- 110 @ 270 - 285 mph indicated
*Spitfire *(Normal wing) - 105 @ 200 mph indicated
*P-40F *-95 @ 260-290 mph indicated
*P-51B* -93 @ 310 mph indicated
*P-47C-1 *- 88 @ 230-270 mph indicated
*XP-51 *-80 @ 230-260 mph indicated
*P-39D-1*-BE - 75 @ 230 mph indicated
*F6F-3 *- 68 @ 250-290 mph indicated
*A6M *- 55 @ 250 mph indicated

However from what I gather, there are some other factors. P-47 for example probably rolled much better at say, 27,000 feet than at 10,000.

Roll rate can be very different at different speeds- the Spit rolls beautifully at 200 mph but not as good at 300 mph.

The Zero numbers also seem a bit suspect. 

I know there are some nuances to roll rate other than the speed and altitude, there is also the difference between roll rate, roll acceleration, and the amount of force required to roll. For example a given aircraft may achieve a very high roll rate but take longer to get to it, so to speak, or vice versa.

But everything I have read did say that the Hurri didn't roll fast, does anyone have actual numbers? If the Hurricane had a good roll rate that would certainly modify my perception of that aircraft.

S


----------



## Schweik (Jun 14, 2018)

Just noticed this:



> A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements of the University of Wolverhampton for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy



Lol what does a PhD in Philosophy have to do with Hurricanes and Ki-43s? I had no idea philosophy was so interesting!

S

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## RCAFson (Jun 14, 2018)

Schweik said:


> Ok but that must be a different paper then right? I looked carefully (even though I have seen it before) and didn't see a Hurricane on this one.
> 
> This one says at an altitude of 10,000 feet, with 50 lbs stick force, the following 'best' roll rates were observed in degrees per second:
> 
> ...


The Spitfire normal wing curve used in the NACA report here:
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/naca868-rollchart.jpg

is very nearly identical to the Hurricane curve, with the Hurricane being slightly superior.

From the 16 Nov 1942 paper:

Hurricane/Spitfire/P40/P36 roll rate in Degs/sec, 10k ft, 230mph @ 5lb stick force: 19/15/8/9

Hurricane/Spitfire/P40/P36 roll rate in Degs/sec, 10k ft, 230mph @ 30lb stick force: 64/63/43/90*
*P40 max stick deflection reached at 19.5lb.


----------



## RCAFson (Jun 14, 2018)

Schweik said:


> Just noticed this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


PhD = Dr of Philosophy


----------



## Schweik (Jun 14, 2018)

RCAFson said:


> The Spitfire normal wing curve used in the NACA report here:
> http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/naca868-rollchart.jpg
> 
> is very nearly identical to the Hurricane curve, with the Hurricane being slightly superior.
> ...



Well, if that's accurate one possible clue is that they only tested at one speed. But per the chart you keep posting, the Spitfire peaked at 105 degrees per second @ 200 mph, and the P-40 roll rate peaked at 95 degrees per second at ~260 mph.

64 degrees per second (if I'm reading what you posted above correctly) isn't so great.

S


----------



## Kevin J (Jun 14, 2018)

Glider said:


> Well I have and read the Bloody Shambles series, I took the trouble to go to the National Archives and research a number of original reports and the paper you presented. Plus a number of other books over the years.
> In support I posted an original document that clearly stated that the Hurricane was obsolete in the eyes of the RAF. You have read what exactly?


The Air Ministry considered discontinuing the Spitfire in 1939 because of production difficulties. Why do you continue to allege that the Hurricane was obsolete in 1939. It was successfully shooting down enemy aircraft in the ETO from 1939 to 1941, on the Eastern Front from Autumn 1941 to Summer 1942 and in the Mediterranean from 1940 through to 1942 also. In the Far East, it was less successful, but what is all this obsolete nonsense.


----------



## Kevin J (Jun 14, 2018)

Schweik said:


> Ok but that must be a different paper then right? I looked carefully (even though I have seen it before) and didn't see a Hurricane on this one.
> 
> This one says at an altitude of 10,000 feet, with 50 lbs stick force, the following 'best' roll rates were observed in degrees per second:
> 
> ...


If, as the document says, that the Spitfire and Hurricane roll rates were almost identical then that means that a Hurricane can roll at twice the rate as an A6M.


----------



## pinsog (Jun 14, 2018)

RCAFson
“Somewhat higher dive speed”. Pulling away from an opponent at 10 mph while he hoses your plane from behind won’t work with a Hurricane vs a KI43. It might work with Hurricane vs Zero because when you hit 300 mph you can roll 90 degrees and pull out and a Zero can’t follow that move, but a KI43 can. A P40 below 15,000 can dive faster and has a top speed maybe 40 mph faster than a Hurricane. In Australian tests a P40E could disengage at will from a Spitfire V by diving. 

The F4F-4 was a different machine than the Hurricane. (Still remarkable it wasn’t slaughtered) A couple of things going for it: 1. Navy pilots trained and plane designed for deflection shooting 2. Good armor and radial engine 3. Zero couldn’t roll at high speed

US Navy pilots were trained in deflection shooting allowing them to hit and down Zeros that wouldn’t be hit otherwise

Pilots were told “if a Zeros behind you, don’t turn. Duck down behind your armor until someone shoots him off of you or he runs out of ammo”. I file this under the “you gotta be kidding me, that’s your best plan?” file. A Hurricane doesn’t seem to stand up to that abuse.

F4F-4 could dive to 300 mph and roll to break contact.

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


----------



## Kevin J (Jun 14, 2018)

Schweik said:


> Just noticed this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Because it goes into the problems that the RAF faced operating in India, Burma and Ceylon. The lack of radar coverage, radar coverage in the wrong places, radar that doesn't work as well in a humid climate, radar that is affected my mountains. An Indian Observer Corps that was ineffectual. Hurricanes that are fitted with tropical dust filters designed for the Western Desert which affect climb performance and top speed. An armament that was designed to shoot down Luftwaffe bombers as opposed to the more lightly protected Japanese aircraft; putting guns at the ends of your wings in the IIb affects roll rates and turning circles. So the Hurricane fared badly because of all these issues, and of course the development effort being put into the Hurricane back home in England is for ground attack, whereas in Russia its mod'ed to be a better interceptor and unfortunately none of the Russian mods are applied to the RAF's Hurricanes in the Far East. Even the RN/FAA improved on the Hurricane IIc such that the Sea Hurricane IIc with its naval equipment was faster. The AVG on the other hand had a superior fighter and a professional Chinese Observer Corps. The Hurricane could have performed better for a large number of reasons.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinsog (Jun 14, 2018)

The KI43 was the main opponent in Burma, not the Zero. A KI43 did not have the high speed rolling problem the Zero did. If you try the “dive to 300 mph, roll right 90 degrees, pull out and laugh as enemy goes by” routine with a KI43, you will go home in a box

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


----------



## RCAFson (Jun 14, 2018)

Schweik said:


> Well, if that's accurate one possible clue is that they only tested at one speed. But per the chart you keep posting, the Spitfire peaked at 105 degrees per second @ 200 mph, and the P-40 roll rate peaked at 95 degrees per second at ~260 mph.
> 
> 64 degrees per second (if I'm reading what you posted above correctly) isn't so great.



I presented test data from the 16 Nov 1942 report at 5lb and 30lb (which is all that is reported except that they noted that at maximum aileron deflection the theoretical roll rate between the Hurricane, Spitfire and P-40 would be nearly identical) stick force so you can't compare it against other aircraft except at those stick forces. The test data for the the larger comparison is for 50lb stick force but the key factor is that tested Hurricane and Spitfire roll rates were very similar with the Hurricane having a slight edge, which is also what was discovered in mock combat. At very high speed the Spitfire suffered from wing flexure which was not a factor on the Hurricane.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jun 14, 2018)

pinsog said:


> The KI43 was the main opponent in Burma, not the Zero. A KI43 did not have the high speed rolling problem the Zero did. If you try the “dive to 300 mph, roll right 90 degrees, pull out and laugh as enemy goes by” routine with a KI43, you will go home in a box



yeah but if you make it to 400 mph I don't think the Ki-43 can follow, or at least not with the wings still attached. A6M top speed is also close to that. 

There is also this test (see page 7) which shows that P-40Ks could actually outrun A6M in level flight, extend, turn around and come back for a head-on attack, without even diving. 

S

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jun 14, 2018)

RCAFson said:


> I presented test data from the 16 Nov 1942 report at 5lb and 30lb (which is all that is reported except that they noted that at maximum aileron deflection the theoretical roll rate between the Hurricane, Spitfire and P-40 would be nearly identical) stick force so you can't compare it against other aircraft except at those stick forces. The test data for the the larger comparison is for 50lb stick force but the key factor is that tested Hurricane and Spitfire roll rates were very similar with the Hurricane having a slight edge, which is also what was discovered in mock combat. At very high speed the Spitfire suffered from wing flexure which was not a factor on the Hurricane.



Interesting but I'm sorry - not quite convinced.

S


----------



## Schweik (Jun 14, 2018)

pinsog said:


> RCAFson
> “Somewhat higher dive speed”. Pulling away from an opponent at 10 mph while he hoses your plane from behind won’t work with a Hurricane vs a KI43. It might work with Hurricane vs Zero because when you hit 300 mph you can roll 90 degrees and pull out and a Zero can’t follow that move, but a KI43 can. A P40 below 15,000 can dive faster and has a top speed maybe 40 mph faster than a Hurricane. In Australian tests a P40E could disengage at will from a Spitfire V by diving.



Agreed! P-40's could routinely get to 500 mph in a dive, they even did some tests (very risky no doubt) where they did over 600 mph





> The F4F-4 was a different machine than the Hurricane. (Still remarkable it wasn’t slaughtered) A couple of things going for it: 1. Navy pilots trained and plane designed for deflection shooting 2. Good armor and radial engine 3. Zero couldn’t roll at high speed
> 
> US Navy pilots were trained in deflection shooting allowing them to hit and down Zeros that wouldn’t be hit otherwise
> 
> F4F-4 could dive to 300 mph and roll to break contact.



One thing which seemed necessary for success in nearly all Theaters and for all aircraft, was to work out very careful tactics. Bf 109s did their "boom and zoom", out of the sun, in pairs, "combat turn" escape maneuver etc. AVG developed their tactics thanks to the long experience of Claire Chennault. USN (and USMC) pilots and instructors, to their credit, figured out the optimal tactics for the Wildcat with Thach Weave and so on, very early on. That helped.

Gunnery training is also very important - most early war Allied pilots never had any. In a given air combat each side gets so many firing opportunities, but actual hits are a very low percentage of those.

I think Wildcats did have some other characteristics which contributed to victory though. One is a pretty good high altitude performance, pretty heavy guns (four 12.7mm) probably a good all around combination of turn, dive and acceleration. 

S

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## RCAFson (Jun 14, 2018)

pinsog said:


> RCAFson
> “Somewhat higher dive speed”. Pulling away from an opponent at 10 mph while he hoses your plane from behind won’t work with a Hurricane vs a KI43. It might work with Hurricane vs Zero because when you hit 300 mph you can roll 90 degrees and pull out and a Zero can’t follow that move, but a KI43 can. A P40 below 15,000 can dive faster and has a top speed maybe 40 mph faster than a Hurricane. In Australian tests a P40E could disengage at will from a Spitfire V by diving.
> 
> The F4F-4 was a different machine than the Hurricane. (Still remarkable it wasn’t slaughtered) A couple of things going for it: 1. Navy pilots trained and plane designed for deflection shooting 2. Good armor and radial engine 3. Zero couldn’t roll at high speed
> ...



P40 maximum speed was about 20mph faster versus ground attack versions of the Hurricane and about equal to the Hurricane IIa/b in Boscombe down testing.

You're talking about the Ki-43II which doesn't appear in any numbers until mid 1943. The Hurricane was just as capable as the F4F for deflection shooting due to the geometry of the cockpit and pilot view over the nose. If USN pilots were better trained, then that's no reflection on the aircraft.

The idea that an F4F/Hurricane could stand up to 20mm cannon fire is nonsense, however if the Zero has no 20mm ammo, then he's left with two 7.7mm mgs.

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


----------



## RCAFson (Jun 14, 2018)

Schweik said:


> Interesting but I'm sorry - not quite convinced.
> 
> S


For a modern comparison:

http://www.flighttestsafety.org/ima...2009Nov/27-The-Battle-of-Britain-Fighters.ppt

see page 11.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jun 14, 2018)

RCAFson said:


> For a modern comparison:
> 
> http://www.flighttestsafety.org/ima...2009Nov/27-The-Battle-of-Britain-Fighters.ppt
> 
> see page 11.



Better roll rate than a Spitfire is very interesting if true, but ... who is that person? What is the basis of that claim? 

Still not there yet but I like where you are going. I'm ready to be convinced but I think i need to see some kind of wartime data not somebodies powerpoint.

S


----------



## Schweik (Jun 14, 2018)

RCAFson said:


> P40 maximum speed was about 20mph faster versus ground attack versions of the Hurricane and about equal to the Hurricane IIa/b in Boscombe down testing.



Maybe you mean a P-40 prototype or an early Tomahawk model or something, do you have a link to the test? I don't know of any Hurricanes capable of flying 360-370 mph. Which is one of the reasons why they were flying almost exclusively as fighter bombers by 1942 (at least in the Med)

S


----------



## RCAFson (Jun 14, 2018)

Schweik said:


> Better roll rate than a Spitfire is very interesting if true, but ... who is that person? What is the basis of that claim?
> 
> Still not there yet but I like where you are going. I'm ready to be convinced but I think i need to see some kind of wartime data not somebodies powerpoint.
> 
> S


What about the NACA report of 16 Nov 1941?


----------



## Glider (Jun 14, 2018)

Kevin J said:


> The Air Ministry considered discontinuing the Spitfire in 1939 because of production difficulties. Why do you continue to allege that the Hurricane was obsolete in 1939. It was successfully shooting down enemy aircraft in the ETO from 1939 to 1941, on the Eastern Front from Autumn 1941 to Summer 1942 and in the Mediterranean from 1940 through to 1942 also. In the Far East, it was less successful, but what is all this obsolete nonsense.



Before I reply I will quote your posting earlier in the thread
'_Who mentioned 1944? Not me, I'm talking about 1942/43 in the CBI_. '

Can I also remind you about the title of the thread
_A Critical Analysis of the RAF Air Superiority Campaign in India, Burma and Malaya in 1941-45_
So when did we start talking about 1939? If you want a discussion about the state of development of the Hurricane in 1939 start a new thread and I will happily take part, but this isn't the place.

Now to the points you mentioned taken one at a time.
_ It was successfully shooting down enemy aircraft in the ETO from 1939 to 1941_
Actually it wasn't. Once the RAF moved from the defensive to the offensive around the end of 1940 they knew that the time of the Hurricane as a fighter was over. Very quickly most Hurricane squadrons were moved to GA duties or overseas. None as far as I am aware were kept on in fighter roles in Europe. 
Quote from SL Bob Stafford Tuck_ I shot down 109's when flying Hurricanes but only when I had the advantage of height. I'd stick my nose down and go for them but a Hurricane couldn't match the 109 on the same level. _From Life as a Battle of Britain Pilot Chapter 4

_on the Eastern Front from Autumn 1941 to Summer 1942_
Almost as soon as they had them Hurricanes were transferred to secondary duties and needed to be rearmed with 2 x 20mm and 2 x HMG. What the Russians really wanted were Spitfires to the tune of 300 a month plus P39's as seen in this memo part of a discussion in August to October 1942 about production requirements.





_
and in the Mediterranean from 1940 through to 1942 also_
I am afraid wrong again. When facing the Italian airforce the Hurricanes did very well but once the Me109E arrived they suffered very heavy losses and the same applied in the Battle for Malta. Suggest you read Malta the Hurricane Year and the Mediterranean Air War Series that will help your understanding

I have highlighted a number of books that I think you will find interesting and suggest you take up this suggestion


----------



## pinsog (Jun 14, 2018)

RCAFson
In The First Team, Lundstrom, an F4F-4 returned to Guadalcanal with 20 20mm cannon hits. Yes the Wildcat was truly tough. 

In Bloody Shambles a British RAF officer wrote up a report about how they just weren’t using the right tactics and the Hurricane should be able to handle the KI43. He was invited to come on down, climb into a Hurricane and show us how it’s done. He declined their offer. 

The Australians tested a Zero against a Spitfire V and concluded that below 20,000 feet the Spitfire V does nothing better than a Zero and the Zero essentially was holding all the cards. If a Spitfire V can do nothing better than a Zero below 20,000 feet, how do you expect a Hurricane to do better than a KI43? (The KI43 is well known to out turn the Zero)

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


----------



## Greyman (Jun 14, 2018)

I posted this in another thread earlier but seems pertinent here ...

Wing Commander Ops Paul Richey, AHQ Bengal:
_The Japanese fighters have their good and bad points, our own fighters have their good and bad points. A comparison of the Japanese Army 01 and the British Hurricane makes it obvious from the start that in a certain type of fighting the Japs should come off best. This is borne out by experience: the Japs can dog-fight better than we can: however, they are lightly armed and need to get in good long bursts against our heavily armoured aircraft before they can shoot them down. Their manoeuvrability enabled them to do this if we try to dog-fight them. On the other hand, one short accurate burst from a Hurricane usually causes the disintegration of an 01 - and the Hurricane is faster. All this being so, the obvious thing to do is to work out tactics to give ourselves the maximum advantage. We won't dog-fight. We will only attack from above, diving and firing a short burst before climbing again. If we are caught out and below the Japs or at their level we will immediately take steps to reverse this situation by diving away and climbing up again before attacking. We will defeat the Japs by cleverness._

Sgt Yoshido Yasuda of the 64th Sentai:
_The Hurricane was a unique plane with twelve 7.7 mm machine guns which caused deadly damage if we were shot from behind. Its diving speed was much faster than the 01 Fighter. Therefore, when we fought with Hurricanes we attempted to counter its firepower with the better manoeuvrability of the 01 and tried to hit its radiator, bringing the engine to a stop. Even with the poor firepower of the 01, Hurricanes could be shot down merely by a hole in the radiator._


All of the data (no real tests, mostly anecdotes and squadron surveys) I've seen on the Hurricane's roll rate indicates it was very similar to the Spitfire with fabric-covered ailerons.

As RCAFson said, during their tests the NACA found the Spitfire (metal ailerons) remarkably similar to the Hurricane in roll performance. This was at 30 pounds stick force.

The Hurricane's rate of roll at 30 pounds was somewhat similar to the F4F-3's rate of roll at 50 pounds. So if I had to guess I'd say the Hurricane has the Wildcat beat.

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


----------



## pinsog (Jun 14, 2018)

Great post Greyman. 
I think that is the RAF officer I was referring to who they invited to comb into a Hurricane and show them how it’s done. Can you confirm that it is or isn’t?

I will say the Hurricane dived better than I thought it did against the KI43


----------



## Schweik (Jun 14, 2018)

Greyman said:


> As RCAFson said, during their tests the NACA found the Spitfire (metal ailerons) remarkably similar to the Hurricane in roll performance. This was at 30 pounds stick force.
> 
> The Hurricane's rate of roll at 30 pounds was somewhat similar to the F4F-3's rate of roll at 50 pounds. So if I had to guess I'd say the Hurricane has the Wildcat beat.



And yet I've read several pilot anecdotes describing the Hurricane as having a painfully slow roll rate. I must admit I find this all a bit baffling.

The 1941 report while interesting, seems to only measure roll rate at a fixed (pretty low) speed and a low aileron pressure. I'd like to see something like the chart showing maximum roll rates at different speeds.

I can't say I'm invested enough in this to go pouring through books looking for anecdotes to transcribe and post, but if i blunder across one while doing other research I'll post it. Meanwhile would love to see some more hard data.

And just out of curiosity, is this is a consensus among the other folks here? Hurricane outrolled a Spitfire?

I admit I may have been wrong about this I won't rule it out!

I can say the Russian were very disappointed in the Hurricane as a fighter, leading to experiments like this






This Russian Ace, who flew I-16, Hurricane, Tomahawk, Kittyhawk and Yak series fighters, compared the Hurricane to a "pterodactyl":

Part 1

_*"N. G. * He is correct. Precisely a pterodactyl. It had a very thick profile and poor acceleration characteristics. At maximum speed it was somewhat faster than an I-16. But until it had attained this speed, many things could happen. It was not slow in responding to the control stick, but everything happened smoothly, in its own time. In the I-16, if you moved the stick, the airplane inverted right now. With this beast, it would roll over very slowly."_

and the British and Aussies weren't very enthusiastic about it in the Med. They converted Hurricane squadrons to other types as soon as enough planes were available.

However I freely admit, one pilots opinion doesn't define a fighter. I will also say that Hurricanes were grimly hanging on as fighter bombers and were capable of getting Air to Air victories. They could certainly out-turn any enemy fighter in the Med, they made short work of Ju 87s, and were still shooting down MC 202s and Bf 109s in 1942 and even 1943.

S

Reactions: Disagree Disagree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greyman (Jun 14, 2018)

It is the officer. I don't think It was so much that he declined to "show them how all how to fight the Japs" in a Hurricane, as Air Commodore Gray suggested he do. Richey was flying a desk at this point - his comments ruffled a few feathers and the line was just a quip back at him.

More from Richey:
_It is considered, however, that the Air Staff has played ostrich for long enough in the matter of the retrospective points of the Hurricane and the 01. If everyone, from the AOC-in-C is agreed that the Japanese fighters have our fighters at a disadvantage in certain circumstances let it be admitted and let steps be taken to avoid those circumstances. No useful purpose can be served by telling the pilots they have the best aircraft in the world, because they know they have not and will merely regard the Air Staff as a bunch of nit-wits._

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## RCAFson (Jun 14, 2018)

pinsog said:


> RCAFson
> In The First Team, Lundstrom, an F4F-4 returned to Guadalcanal with 20 20mm cannon hits. Yes the Wildcat was truly tough.
> 
> In Bloody Shambles a British RAF officer wrote up a report about how they just weren’t using the right tactics and the Hurricane should be able to handle the KI43. He was invited to come on down, climb into a Hurricane and show us how it’s done. He declined their offer.
> ...



Lots of Hurricanes came back shot to pieces as well, and I'm sure I could find similar examples but generally speaking F4Fs that allowed Zeros hit them with 20 x 20mm cannon were going down. 

In BSV3 there are examples given of Hurricanes using B'nZ tactics against the Ki43 with great success, but as I stated in most cases the Ki-43 had the altitude advantage.

That Zero was an A6M3 which was the faster than the typical carrier borne A6M2 but still ~20mph slower than the Spitfire Vtrop. The testing was not as one sided as you state but it did find the SpitV to be less manoeuvrable at speeds under 250mph.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greyman (Jun 14, 2018)

Schweik said:


> And yet I've read several pilot anecdotes describing the Hurricane as having a painfully slow roll rate. I must admit I find this all a bit baffling.



Painfully slow compared to what, should be the question. Slow compared to the Tomahawk and Kittyhawk? Makes sense to me.

One thing I've certainly noted when looking into roll rates is that it could quite possibly be the one attribute that varies most from individual airframe to airframe. It leaves me with a certain air of futility about the whole thing.

One issue with the Hurricane's roll rate was that at very low temperatures the ailerons would stiffen up appreciably. Generally, above 20,000 feet maneuverability was noticeably diminished. This was solved in early (I think) 1941 by switching the lubrication of the aileron differential control to 1/1 DTD 201 oil and parrafin.

I have a theory that perhaps the Russian and Finnish Hurricane units never got this memo and the famously low temperatures in their areas of operation had definite negative effects on aileron control.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinsog (Jun 14, 2018)

“Both pilots consider the Spitfire is outclassed by the Hap at all heights up to 20,000 feet....the Spitfire does not posses any outstanding qualities that permit it to gain an advantage over the Hap in equal circumstances”

Sounds pretty one sided to me


----------



## pinsog (Jun 14, 2018)

I’m not surprised that a Hurricane that started with a substantial height advantage could boom and zoom a KI43, but nearly any fighter with a height advantage could do that. F4F-4’s could and did boom and zoom Zero’s when they caught them down low.


----------



## Greyman (Jun 14, 2018)

_Report from No.1 Fighter Wing, RAAF
Spitfire versus "Zeke"_
_
Points favouring the Spitfire are :-_
_(a) Maximum level speed at all heights
(b) Manoeuvrability at high speeds, and
(c) Diving speed._​_
Zekes on the other hand are more manoeuvrable at low speeds. Characteristics giving no appreciable advantage to either type over the other are :-_
_(a) Service ceiling, and
(b) Rate of climb._​_
Although the rate of climb is approximately the same, the Spitfire appears to climb and zoom at a slightly shallower angle and higher speed than the Zeke, thus opening the range by covering a greater plan distance.


=======================================================

_
_Intelligence Summary No.87 - HQ RAAF SW Pacific Area
Comparison of Spitfire and Type Navy "0" Mk.I SSF Zeke Performances_
_
The relative merits of the Spitfire and Zeke have been discussed by an experienced Spitfire pilot, who participated in the Darwin Raid interception; portion of his report is quoted below:-

...

To summarise, ... despite the fact that both height and numbers favoured the Zekes, I regard the Spitfire as a superior aircraft generally, though less manoeuvrable at low speeds. In straight and level flight and in the dive the Spitfire appears faster.

Though the angle of climb of the Zeke is steeper, the actual gaining height seems much the same, the Spitfire going up at a lesser angle but at greater forward speed - an advantage. No difficulty was experienced in keeping height with the Zekes during the combat. I believe that at altitudes above 20,000 feet the Spitfire, in relation to the Zeke, will prove an even better aircraft in general performance.

It must be remembered, however, that the Japanese pilots had been airborne for a very long period and their efficiency must necessarily have been impaired by considerations of fuel conservation and fatigue._

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


----------



## Greyman (Jun 14, 2018)

Something from a little project I've been puttering away at. Take with a grain of salt since I've just eyeballed a few things for the sake of speed. Anyone know where I could go to figure out EAS/IAS conversions?

*Zero
Spitfire*
Solid lines are 30 lb stick force, dashed lines are 50 lb.
Zero 50 lb curve is eyeballed midway between right and left roll curves.
Spitfire curves are from different airframes, different establishments

Rate of roll in degrees per second by IAS in mph

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


----------



## pinsog (Jun 14, 2018)

http://www.darwinspitfires.com/index.php?page=spitfire-vc-versus-the-zero


----------



## RCAFson (Jun 15, 2018)

Schweik said:


> And yet I've read several pilot anecdotes describing the Hurricane as having a painfully slow roll rate. I must admit I find this all a bit baffling.
> 
> The 1941 report while interesting, seems to only measure roll rate at a fixed (pretty low) speed and a low aileron pressure. I'd like to see something like the chart showing maximum roll rates at different speeds.
> 
> ...





pinsog said:


> “Both pilots consider the Spitfire is outclassed by the Hap at all heights up to 20,000 feet....the Spitfire does not posses any outstanding qualities that permit it to gain an advantage over the Hap in equal circumstances”
> 
> Sounds pretty one sided to me



That was only one


pinsog said:


> “Both pilots consider the Spitfire is outclassed by the Hap at all heights up to 20,000 feet....the Spitfire does not posses any outstanding qualities that permit it to gain an advantage over the Hap in equal circumstances”
> 
> Sounds pretty one sided to me



That was only one test of several and they were actually doing before and after testing of a G-suit. After the G-suit was worn the Spitfire could outmanoeuvre the Zero, but the Australian tests are flawed in that the Spitfire was not allowed to use overboost hence the low speeds. Additionally, the Australian Spitfires used the Merlin 46 which had a weaker power curve at medium altitude than the Merlin 45 and Merlin XX.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greyman (Jun 15, 2018)

Greyman said:


> One thing I've certainly noted when looking into roll rates is that it could quite possibly be the one attribute that varies most from individual airframe to airframe. It leaves me with a certain air of futility about the whole thing.



_The heaviness of HURRICANE ailerons was discussed with Mr. Lucas and Captain Broad. Both pilots agreed as to the necessity for lightening HURRICANE ailerons, but pointed out that these aircraft were still very inconsistent in this respect. Some were too light and some were extremely heavy.
...
Some ailerons on the production line were examined and although apparently the design calls for the complete sealing of the cut out portions in the nose of the aileron where the hinge brackets are mounted; this is not done in every case ... It is clear that inconsistency in this respect may easily lead to wide differences in the heaviness of ailerons. Trailing edges of some ailerons were markedly ridged, almost as badly as if deliberate cord had been attached to them._ -- J.E. Serby, 10 Sep 1940


----------



## slaterat (Jun 15, 2018)

I have the "Bloody Shambles" series of three books I must admit that I find them very biased and even misleading about different attributes of the Hawker Hurricane. They seem to have no problem heaping most of the blame for the poor performance of the RAF in the Far East on the Hurricane. I have found what I consider a much fairer appraisal in the various books written by Terence Kelly, himself a hurricane pilot in Singapore, Sumatra and Java. Shores and Cull propagate the notion that the tropicalized Hurricane was grossly overweight and that the tropical filter was huge, neither of which is true. The actual impact of the tropical conversion was a decrease in top speed from 340 to 335 mph and an increase in normal loaded weight for a hurricane IIb from 7,233lbs to 7,396 lbs, an increase of only 163 lbs ( which also includes 50lbs of survival gear).
In his book "Hurricane and Spitfire Pilots at War", Kelly explains how it was so much easier just to scapegoat the Hurricane instead of looking at other (human) reasons for failure. Kelly actually calls it "*fiction*" that the zero out classes the Hurricane. Kelly also mentions about how much more combat experienced the Japanese pilots were and how, in his 258 Squadron, only three pilots had ever fired their guns in combat before arriving in Singapore. In reading Kelly's books one discovers how there was a complete dearth of support for the Hurricanes. No ews, no spares, no tool kits, poor or non-existant communications, a complete lack of intelligence gathering and dissemination, shortages of everything , ap ammo, dixon/dewilde ammo, glycol ect. Add to this always being outnumbered , climbing to a fight and learning tactics the hard way. 
I've got copies of , Hurricane and Spitfire Pilots at War, Hurricane Over the Jungle, Hurricane vs Zero(also published as Battle for Palembang), Nine Lives of a Fighter Pilot and Hellship to Hiroshima. They give an engrossing, truthful picture of the events at that time and tell it in away that is far more interesting and than anything of Shores and Cull that I have ever read.

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


----------



## slaterat (Jun 15, 2018)

Here's some roll rate info from "Flying to the Limit"

Curtis Hawk Hurricane Spitfire Buffalo
ASI Time to bank 45 degrees Max force lbs

200 2.2sec 8lbs 1.3 sec 10lbs 1.8 10 1.7 10.5

250 2.3 14 1.4 15 1.8 18 1.7 14

300 2.7 20 1.5 21 2.1 35 1.7 17

350 4.0 27 1.6 38 2.6 55 1.8 20

390 5.2 33 1.9 34 3.5 80 1.6 24

Overall the Hurricane is the best roller of the four, the spitfire is a MK 1. The stiff wing of the Hurricane helped it maintain good rates at all speeds.

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


----------



## slaterat (Jun 15, 2018)

Wow that didn't come out right let me try again,

Hawk/Hurricane/Spitfire/Buffalo

asi/ time to 45 degrees/force

200/2.2 sec , 8lb /1.3sec,10 lb/1.8sec,10lb/1.7sec,10.5lb
250/2.3sec,14lb/1.4sec,15lb/1.8sec,18lb/1.7sec, 14lb
300/2.sec7, 20lb/1.5sec ,21lb/2.1sec, 35lb/1.7sec, 17lb
350/4.0sec, 27lb/1.6sec, 38lb/2.6sec, 55lb/1.8sec ,20lb
390/5.5sec ,33lb/1.9sec, 34lb/3.5sec, 80lb/1.6sec, 24lb

Reactions: Like Like:
5 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Jun 15, 2018)

slaterat said:


> Wow that didn't come out right let me try again,
> 
> Hawk/Hurricane/Spitfire/Buffalo
> 
> ...


Looks like the Buffalo wins


----------



## Greyman (Jun 15, 2018)

The test is only using 1/4 aileron so I don't find that it's a good indication of what the planes could do in combat.


----------



## parsifal (Jun 15, 2018)

Caldwells report on the spitfire V vs A6M3 Hap
(transcribed by our own Greg_P)

*Tactical Trials Between Japanese S.S.F. Type "0" Mark II "Hap" and Spitfire V.C.*
1. Comparative performance trials were not carried out at the time and these performance figures will be supplied at a later date.
2. Both aircraft were flown at normal combat weight minus belly tanks.
3. Brief Particulars of Hap:
a. Take-off run - 900' using 2600 rpm and 30" MP.
b. Approach speed, wheels and flaps fully down - 75 knots.
c. Stalling speed, landing condition - 53 knots.
d. Rated altitude - 16,000'.
e. Combat ceiling - 32,500'.
f. Maximum speed at rated altitude - 335 mph, 2600 rpm, 40" MP.
g. Armament - 2 x 7.7 synchronized machine guns, 600 rounds per gun (Identical with Vickers). British .303 ammunition may be used - 2 x 20 mm cannons, 100 rounds per gun Identical to Oerlikon).
h. Figures shown in b, c, and f are approximate. Air speed indicator had not been calibrated.

4. Flying Characteristics of Hap
a. No tendency to swing in take off or landing. However, a tail wheel locking device was incorporated since the brakes were inoperative.
b. Short take off and landing runs.
c. Good visibility.
d. Stick loadings normally not light and increasing with speed. This is more evident with right stick.
e. Movement of elevator trim extremely stiff.
f. Rudder loading normal but tiring in climb due to absence of rudder trim.
g. Very stable stalling characteristics. No tendency to spin even in high speed stalls.
h. Extremely maneuverable at low speeds, rolling off the top of loops can be executed at 180 knots.
i. Boost gauge calibrated in centimeters.
j. Seating position cramped, rudder position to suit short legged pilots only.


Test No. 1 - Commencing at 17,000 feet:
1. Spitfire and Hap to approach head on and maneuver, without loss of altitude, until one aircraft gets on the other's tail.

Result:
Both aircraft passed at about 50 yards. Spitfire executed steep climbing turn. Hap steep turned and was on Spitfire's tail within 21/2 turns.
2. Hap on Spitfire's Tail. Spitfire to complete 4 steep turns to left. Reform position and carry out 4 steep turns to right.
Result:
Hap was able to turn easily inside Spitfire. However, jinking was necessary to watch Spitfire and check on deflection allowance. Hap did not steep turn as easily to right as to left.
3. Spitfire on Hap's Tail. Steep turns to left and right as in previous test.

Result:
Hap commenced steep turning at 220 mph IAS. Spitfire was unable to turn with Hap., either in left or right hand turns, for more than 3/4 turn by which time Spitfire was close to stall.
4. a. Hap on Spitfire's Tail. Spitfire to perform loop.
b. Spitfire on Hap's Tail. Hap to perform loop.

Result:
a. Spitfire commenced looping at 300 mph IAS with speed of 140 mph IAS on top. Hap had no trouble in following Spitfire.
b. Hap commenced lop at 220 knots IAS and completed two loops in succession. Spitfire endeavored to follow Hap and stalled at top of first loop and fell out. Hap finished on Spitfire's tail.
5. Hap on Spitfire's tail. Spitfire to shake Hap off.

Result:
Spitfire commenced evasive action by executing spaning aileron rolls to right. Hap had difficulty in following this maneuver and was unable to get into firing position. Spitfire then did a high speed vertical climbing turn which Hap was just able to follow. Hap was able to comfortably follow all other maneuvers which were not carried out above 250 mph.



Conclusion:
1. Hap considerably more maneuverable than Spitfire at low speeds.
2. Hap stalling speeds considerably lower than Spitfire.
3. Hap able to turn and loop in much smaller radius.
4. Hap able to carry out any aerobatic maneuver at a much lower speed than Spitfire, e.g., roll off the top of loop - Hap 205 mph, Spitfire 250 mph.
5. Hap experienced considerable difficulty in following Spitfire in High-G, High-Speed maneuvers, especially to right.
6. At medium and low levels Hap easily able to evade Spitfire and turn the tables.


Recommendations:

1. Do not attempt to dogfight the Hap, especially at low airspeeds.
2. If you have a height advantage, use excess speed obtained in your spaning attack to climb vertically thus retaining your height advantage.
3. High Speed - High G tactics will considerably alter the disparity in maneuverability.
4. Keep your speed high. Don't stagger through the sky.

Test No. 2 - Commenced at 27,000 Feet:



The results obtained in Test No. 1 were confirmed and the following additional conclusions were reached.

1. Spitfire had an approximate advantage of 25 mph at 26,000 feet.
2. Spitfire had a slight advantage in rate of climb at 26,000 feet.
3. Spitfire initially gained speed slightly faster in a vertical spane.
4. The Spitfire's advantage in 2 and 3 are not sufficient to evade the Hap's fire.
5. At altitudes over 20,00 feet with a height advantage of approximately 3,000 - 4,000 feet, the Spitfire can spane and attack the Hap with impunity. The breakaway would be made in a vertical climb, thus maintaining height advantage.



Tests No. 3 and 4 - Commenced at 17,000 and 32,000 Feet Respectively:

1. No appreciable differences were noted at 17,000 and 27,000 feet.
2. A special Spitfire was used for these trials.
3. All maneuvers were carried out at high speed and high "G".



Results:
Hap commenced tests on Spitfire's tail:
1. In high speed flight, Spitfire was able to loop in a smaller radius. Hap pilot blacked out endeavoring to follow.
2. Spitfire carried 3 loops in succession at high speed and finished in firing position on Hap's tail.
3. Spitfire carried out roll off top of loop. Hap was unable to follow in same radius and lost considerable distance.
4. Spitfire executed a series of high speed, tight spaning turns to right; Hap pilot unable to follow and was on verge of graying out.

5. Spitfire executed a 1/2 roll to right from 45° spane at 280 mph IAS and 330 mph IAS and pulled out abruptly into vertical climb. Hap pilot unable to follow this maneuver either at 280 or 320 mph and finished up in both instances approximately 1000 feet below Spitfire and some distance behind.



Conclusions:
1. Spitfire was able to evade and outmaneuver Hap by combining high speed and High "G".
2. Spitfire required a minimum speed of 250 mph to retain maneuverability advantage.
3. Hap was able to evade and outmaneuver Spitfire by maneuvering at low speeds.
4. Stresses placed upon both aircraft during tests were not measured. However, the Hap pilot considers his tolerance in reference to blacking out to be above average.

Spitfire vs. Zero
Report of Combat - 2/3/43
Duration of engagement was approximately eight (8) minutes from the time of first attack on enemy formation, which was well enough disposed for its purposes. The enemy tactics employed in this first instance were, I consider, unsound and based on false premises, and/or lack of experience.

When first sighted the enemy were flying in 3 sections as follows.
No. 1 E/A section comprised of 3 single engined L.E with a close escort of 3 Zekes at a height of approximately 10,000 feet. No. 2 E?A section comprising 4 Zekes about 400 yards on the port beam of No. 1 E/A section and approximately 2,000 feet above them. No. 3 E/A section comprising 5 Zekes about 800 yards on starboard beam of No. 1 E/A section and approximately 5,000 feet above them.
The positions of my own formations of 6 Spitfires flying in 3 sections of 2 aircraft in line astern, section abreast, was at this time approaching from slight astern of the starboard beam of the enemy formation, height slightly above the No. 2 E/A section , at an IAS of 230 mph.
The enemy made no attempt to alter the disposition of their aircraft though our approach must have been observed, but continued to fly as before at approximately 190 mph IAS (estimation).

From what took place subsequently it was obvious that the enemy considered we would not place ourselves beneath the Zeros, but attempt in the first place either climb away for height in order to engage the top or No. 3 E/S section, which would then no doubt have climber also, or alternatively, if failing to observe the top cover to move across and engage the No. 1 E/A section, thus leaving ourselves open to attack in the rear by No. 3 section E/A above.
My own tactics were governed primarily by our pressing shortage of petrol.



We had been airborne at this stage approximately one hour fifteen minutes mostly at altitudes in excess of 20,000 feet under fighter sector control.
My own tanks showed less than 30 gallons, which as leader would exceed that of any of the other 5 Spitfires. We were now 40 or more miles from our base on a vector and at a height instructed by 5 fighter sector, and a Spitfire at combat revs and boost uses petrol at a rate between 70 and 90 gallons per hour. Therefore it was impractical waste time and petrol in attempting to climb after the top cover or No. 3 section of the E/A section. To attack No. 2 section on our left, in view of the position of No. 3 section, or to attack No. 1 E/A section from astern, in view of the respective positions of No. 2 and No. 3 E/A sections would have been inadvisable in the extreme.

I therefore flew my formation directly under the No. 3 E/A section and some 3,000 feet below, where any attack from them must be preceded by such maneuvers as to give us sufficient warning to meet it. That is the Zekes directly above must either turn on their backs and attack vertically downwards, a difficult shot and easily avoided; loop fully as they are credited with doing so freely, thus going behind us, or losing height to turn onto out tails, in either case giving us sufficient warning. When abreast of No. 1 section E/A, I dived to attack at a steep angle from full beam breaking to the rear in a wide climbing turn to port and was followed into the attack by the rest of my formation. No. 3 section of the enemy, the top cover, appeared slow to appreciate the significance of the move and failed to get position behind us in time to be dangerous.

No. 1 E/A section moved herein to intercept us directly, but were not successful in doing so, and the break to the rear gave us enough clear air momentarily, to sustain the altered position, and at the end of the zoom I found I was well up in height in relation to the Zekes which had lost height after us. A diving head-on attack was refused by a Zeke who broke downward before coming to range. This was repeated in the case of another Zeke a few minutes later. I observed several Zekes firing on me and took momentary action, others not seem may have fired, but the shooting was bad despite liberal use of tracer, and the attempts at correcting aim were poor. Engaging in turns with a Zeke at about 180 mph IAS and pulling my aircraft as tight as possible, the Zeke did not dangerously close, until the speed began to drop, about the completion of the second turn. Breaking severely downward to the inside of the turn I experienced no difficulty in losing the Zeke. My engine cut momentarily in this maneuver. I observed Zekes to loop, to half roll and fire while on their backs, which, though interesting as a spectacle seemed profitless in dogfighting.

During the engagement I saw a Spitfire diving away with a Zeke on its tail. The Spitfire appeared to be gaining distance.
When leaving the combat area, I dived steeply away and was followed down in a dive by a Zeke. At a speed in excess of 400 mph IAS the Zeke did not close the distance and gave up quickly, though supported by several of his kind. The Zekes appeared to be armed with M.G. and 30 mm cannon.
To summarize, in view of the whole circumstances surrounding the brief engagement, and despite the fact that both height and numbers favored the Zekes, I regard the Spitfire as a superior aircraft generally, though less maneuverable at low speeds. In straight and level flight and in dives the Spitfire appears faster.
Though the angle of climb of the Zeke is steeper, the actual gaining of height seems much the same, the Spitfire going up at a lesser angle but at greater forward speed - an advantage. No difficulty was experienced in keeping height with the Zekes during combat. I believe that at altitudes above 20,000 feet the Spitfire, in relation to the Zekes will prove an even more superior aircraft in general performance.

It must be remembered however, that the Japanese pilots had been airborne for a very long period and their efficiency must necessarily be impaired by consideration of fuel conservation and fatigue.



(Signed) a. (?) h. or k. Caldwell,
Wing Commander,
Wing Commander flying,
No. 1 Fighter Wing,
R.A.A.F Darwin

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
2 | Informative Informative:
5 | Like List reactions


----------



## Stig1207 (Jun 15, 2018)

Kevin J said:


> The Hurricane fights the Battle of France, the Battle of Britain, is the primary night fighter during the Blitz and is still around as a fighter bomber until 1943 when the Typhoon replaces it in that role. From then on Thunderbolts and Lightnings, very very frightening, sorry I'm getting carried away here, take over from the RAF the fight against the Luftwaffe on their own turf with the Mustang eventually destroying the most German aircraft in the ETO. The Spitfire plays little part in the Battle of France, scores far fewer victories than the Hurricane in the Battle of Britain, and is shot from the skies by the Luftwaffe during the non stop offensive over France in 1941/42. I agree, finding the figures is difficult, like we're not meant to find them.



I just wonder about the 5871 claims for the ETO, since most would seem to have to stem from the Battle of France and till the end of the BoB.



Schweik said:


> yes but that is true for all fighter types in WW2. All sides overclaimed at pretty similar rates.



Yes, but the subject is the Hurricane.


----------



## Kevin J (Jun 15, 2018)

Stig1207 said:


> I just wonder about the 5871 claims for the ETO, since most would seem to have to stem from the Battle of France and till the end of the BoB.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, but the subject is the Hurricane.


Supposedly, 11500 claims and 10410 confirmed, Hurricane got 55%, Spitfire 33%. I know what you're getting at, its rather high for the 1939/41 period and maybe even a handful in 1942. My guess would be halve the number confirmed. It includes Battle of France, Dunkirk, Battle of Britain, the Blitz, Dieppe plus any other minor ops. It must be at least 2000 for everything excluding Dieppe and other minor ops.


----------



## Schweik (Jun 15, 2018)

parsifal said:


> Caldwells report on the spitfire V vs A6M3 Hap
> (transcribed by our own Greg_P)



That was a great description. Imagine the brass balls of Caldwell attacking underneath one of the flights of Zeros with 10 or 15 minutes of fuel in his tanks and still 40 miles away from base. 

I recently read a biography of the man, which included several of these incidents in Darwin but not in all that detail. Quite gripping.

The Darwin experiences really helped me understand the problem with the short legs of the Spit in that area and the need for good radar / spotter web etc. They usually spent most of their fuel flying around trying to find the enemy, and then climbing up to sufficient altitude to attack from a good position. In this encounter Caldwell took a calculated risk but he had to get a win. And he did.

S


----------



## RCAFson (Jun 15, 2018)

Greyman said:


> The test is only using 1/4 aileron so I don't find that it's a good indication of what the planes could do in combat.


Full aileron deflection is typically not possible at high speeds.


----------



## RCAFson (Jun 15, 2018)

Schweik said:


> That was a great description. Imagine the brass balls of Caldwell attacking underneath one of the flights of Zeros with 10 or 15 minutes of fuel in his tanks and still 40 miles away from base.
> 
> I recently read a biography of the man, which included several of these incidents in Darwin but not in all that detail. Quite gripping.
> 
> ...


Caldwell was an atypical "bold and old" pilot. Unfortunately many of the problems experienced by the RAAF Spitfires can be traced back to his leadership and choice of tactics. Caldwell was a "big wing" advocate, and he wasted a lot of time trying to attack the IJ formations en-mass rather than as sections, using hit and run tactics. The RAAF Spitfires had a lot of problems with CS prop hydraulics freezing at high altitudes and wasting time with big wing tactics exacerbated them. Also he initially declined to use the 30 gallon slipper drop tanks, with disastrous results.

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


----------



## pinsog (Jun 15, 2018)

RCAFson said:


> That was only one
> 
> 
> That was only one test of several and they were actually doing before and after testing of a G-suit. After the G-suit was worn the Spitfire could outmanoeuvre the Zero, but the Australian tests are flawed in that the Spitfire was not allowed to use overboost hence the low speeds. Additionally, the Australian Spitfires used the Merlin 46 which had a weaker power curve at medium altitude than the Merlin 45 and Merlin XX.



The point of this is, if a Zero manhandles a Spit V from 0-20,000 feet, how does a 20-40 mph slower Hurricane with a slower climb rate stand even a remote chance? It doesn’t.

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


----------



## Kevin J (Jun 15, 2018)

pinsog said:


> The point of this is, if a Zero manhandles a Spit V from 0-20,000 feet, how does a 20-40 mph slower Hurricane with a slower climb rate stand even a remote chance? It doesn’t.


Hawker Sea Hurricane: Development
I think you'll find that Eric Brown thought that the Sea Hurricane IIc might just be a good match for for A6M3. It had had individual exhausts, just an arrestor hook and could do 342 mph, so it was as fast as a Hurricane IIa. It also had 16 lbs boost allowed so was very fast low down.


----------



## RCAFson (Jun 15, 2018)

pinsog said:


> The point of this is, if a Zero manhandles a Spit V from 0-20,000 feet, how does a 20-40 mph slower Hurricane with a slower climb rate stand even a remote chance? It doesn’t.



So you've proven that the F4F-4 was completely defeated by the Zero... Ditto for the P-40.

The RAAF tests only confirmed that anyone who could calculate wing loading already knew, which is that you can't dogfight a Zero and had to use other tactics, to defeat it. And, as I've pointed out, the RAAF tests handicapped the Spitfire by not allowing the use of overboost.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinsog (Jun 15, 2018)

slaterat said:


> I have the "Bloody Shambles" series of three books I must admit that I find them very biased and even misleading about different attributes of the Hawker Hurricane. They seem to have no problem heaping most of the blame for the poor performance of the RAF in the Far East on the Hurricane. I have found what I consider a much fairer appraisal in the various books written by Terence Kelly, himself a hurricane pilot in Singapore, Sumatra and Java. Shores and Cull propagate the notion that the tropicalized Hurricane was grossly overweight and that the tropical filter was huge, neither of which is true. The actual impact of the tropical conversion was a decrease in top speed from 340 to 335 mph and an increase in normal loaded weight for a hurricane IIb from 7,233lbs to 7,396 lbs, an increase of only 163 lbs ( which also includes 50lbs of survival gear).
> In his book "Hurricane and Spitfire Pilots at War", Kelly explains how it was so much easier just to scapegoat the Hurricane instead of looking at other (human) reasons for failure. Kelly actually calls it "*fiction*" that the zero out classes the Hurricane. Kelly also mentions about how much more combat experienced the Japanese pilots were and how, in his 258 Squadron, only three pilots had ever fired their guns in combat before arriving in Singapore. In reading Kelly's books one discovers how there was a complete dearth of support for the Hurricanes. No ews, no spares, no tool kits, poor or non-existant communications, a complete lack of intelligence gathering and dissemination, shortages of everything , ap ammo, dixon/dewilde ammo, glycol ect. Add to this always being outnumbered , climbing to a fight and learning tactics the hard way.
> I've got copies of , Hurricane and Spitfire Pilots at War, Hurricane Over the Jungle, Hurricane vs Zero(also published as Battle for Palembang), Nine Lives of a Fighter Pilot and Hellship to Hiroshima. They give an engrossing, truthful picture of the events at that time and tell it in away that is far more interesting and than anything of Shores and Cull that I have ever read.



I agree that the untrained/unpreparedness of the Europeans and the US against the Japanese early on is almost impossible to comprehend. But, when both the Australian test pilots say
“Both pilots consider the Spitfire is outclassed by the Hap at all heights up to 20,000 feet....the Spitfire does not posses any outstanding qualities that permit it to gain an advantage over the Hap in equal circumstances”
Then that tells me that a Hurricane doesn’t belong in the same sky as a Zero or KI43. 

I’m not a Hurricane basher or a Spitfire basher. The US didn’t have a fighter that could outperform the Zero, Spitfire or 109 at that time. (Well we had like 20 P38’s, but they were all stationed in the most important front of the entire war, Alaska...) 
I think with 2 equal pilots meeting on equal terms, the KI43 should whip a Hurricane every time unless the KI43 pilot makes a stupid mistake

Reactions: Disagree Disagree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## RCAFson (Jun 15, 2018)

pinsog said:


> I’m not surprised that a Hurricane that started with a substantial height advantage could boom and zoom a KI43, but nearly any fighter with a height advantage could do that. F4F-4’s could and did boom and zoom Zero’s when they caught them down low.



As I've pointed out, an analysis of Ki-43 versus Hurricane combats will show that in the majority of case the victor had an altitude advantage. The fact that the victor typically has an altitude advantage is a universal truism for air combat. What other Allied fighter can expect to win when caught low and slow?

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinsog (Jun 15, 2018)

RCAFson said:


> As I've pointed out, an analysis of Ki-43 versus Hurricane combats will show that in the majority of case the victor had an altitude advantage. The fact that the victor typically has an altitude advantage is a universal truism for air combat. What other Allied fighter can expect to win when caught low and slow?



I understand that the Hurricanes were many times caught at a disadvantage, I get it, I read the book. But in an equal fight, with equal pilots, it had no advantages. The Hurricane was no faster in level flight, it climbed slower, it was less maneuverable. What can it do? Can we agree a Spit V is considerably better than a Hurricane? If a Spit V is better than a Hurricane, by a lot, and a Spit V is outclassed by a Hap below 20,000, then what can a Hurricane do?


----------



## parsifal (Jun 15, 2018)

pinsog said:


> The point of this is, if a Zero manhandles a Spit V from 0-20,000 feet, how does a 20-40 mph slower Hurricane with a slower climb rate stand even a remote chance? It doesn’t.


The RAAF tests don't support that claim. it showed that with the wrong tactics, the spitfire was at a disadvantage. Apply the right tactics, as was done after June and the Zeke was outclassed.

ive always held the opinion that No1 TFW was thrown into battle on the basis of lessons learnt in the ETO and MTO. In these TOs the Spitfire's strong points were its dogfight capabilities. What few experienced pilots that were attached to 1 TFW from March through to July seem to have carried those preconceptions with them.

Once the lessons of the ETO had been "unlearned" as well as new unit leadership installed, the unit fairly quickly dealt with the Japanese intruders over Darwin in an effective way.

So I don't understand your claim that the spitfire was outclassed, or nearly outclassed by the Zeke, with no qualification to the statement. the spit was never outclassed by the Zeke. it suffered a rough time initially for the reasons outlined already, but once these were understood and allowed for, the spitfire was pretty much untroubled by the Zeke. this was borne out by the excellent performance and service the LF MkIII Seafires were able to deliver in 1945

Reactions: Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinsog (Jun 15, 2018)

parsifal said:


> The RAAF tests don't support that claim. it showed that with the wrong tactics, the spitfire was at a disadvantage. Apply the right tactics, as was done after June and the Zeke was outclassed.
> 
> ive always held the opinion that No1 TFW was thrown into battle on the basis of lessons learnt in the ETO and MTO. In these TOs the Spitfire's strong points were its dogfight capabilities. What few experienced pilots that were attached to 1 TFW from March through to July seem to have carried those preconceptions with them.
> 
> ...



I’m getting that from the 2 guys that flew them against each other ina mock dogfight
“Both pilots consider the Spitfire is outclassed by the Hap at all heights up to 20,000 feet....the Spitfire does not posses any outstanding qualities that permit it to gain an advantage over the Hap in equal circumstances”
That is from the 2 test pilots. 

I agree 100000% that a 1945 Spitfire with a RR Griffon would outperform a Zero. But a Spit V vs a Zero in a test by 2 allied pilots did not do as well


----------



## pinsog (Jun 15, 2018)

Guys, I’m not trying to be difficult, I’m not bashing Hurricanes and Spitfires, the US didn’t have the equal of the Spitfire at the time in question. I fully believe a Zero or KI43 was the equal or better than any fighter on planet earth in 1942 except for the FW190. 2 allied pilots in a test said this:
“Both pilots consider the Spitfire is outclassed by the Hap at all heights up to 20,000 feet....the Spitfire does not posses any outstanding qualities that permit it to gain an advantage over the Hap in equal circumstances”

Not sure how you argue with the 2 men that flew them against each other and said that. If the Spit V “does not posses any outstanding qualities that permit it to gain an advantage over the Hap in equal circumstances” then how can you argue that the Hurricane was it’s equal???


----------



## RCAFson (Jun 15, 2018)

pinsog said:


> I agree that the untrained/unpreparedness of the Europeans and the US against the Japanese early on is almost impossible to comprehend. But, when both the Australian test pilots say
> “Both pilots consider the Spitfire is outclassed by the Hap at all heights up to 20,000 feet....the Spitfire does not posses any outstanding qualities that permit it to gain an advantage over the Hap in equal circumstances”
> Then that tells me that a Hurricane doesn’t belong in the same sky as a Zero or KI43.
> 
> ...



This was the US summary of mock F4F-4 combat versus the A6M2 (not the superior A6M3 which with clipped wings could roll much better and was faster with a superior engine):


> Zero vs F4F-4:
> 
> The Zero is superior to the F4F-4 in speed and climb at all altitudes above 1000ft and is superior in service ceiling and range...
> ...In dive the two planes are equal with the exception that the Zero's engine cuts out in pushovers. There is no comparison between the turning circles of the two airplanes due to the relative wing loading of the Zero. In view of the foregoing, the F4F-4 type in combat with the Zero is basically dependent on mutual support, internal protection, and pull-outs or turns at high speeds where minimum radius in limited by structural or physiological effects of accelleration (assuming that allowable acceleration on the F4F is grater than that for the Zero). However advantage should be taken where possible of the superiority of the F4F in pushovers and rolls at high speed, or any combination of the two.





Yet we know that the Hurricane (especially the IIA) could do everything better than the F4F-4, and ditto for Spitfire V (in spades), yet the F4F-4 was the mainstay of the USN till mid/late 1943 and fought the Zero to a draw.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Jun 15, 2018)

pinsog said:


> I understand that the Hurricanes were many times caught at a disadvantage, I get it, I read the book. But in an equal fight, with equal pilots, it had no advantages. The Hurricane was no faster in level flight, it climbed slower, it was less maneuverable. What can it do? Can we agree a Spit V is considerably better than a Hurricane? If a Spit V is better than a Hurricane, by a lot, and a Spit V is outclassed by a Hap below 20,000, then what can a Hurricane do?


Hawker Sea Hurricane: Development
If we're talking about a Spitfire Vc TROP with the Merlin 46 high altitude engine with boost not allowed vs a Sea Hurricane IIc with 16 lbs boost allowed then as Eric Brown says a dogfight with an A6M3 would be an interesting match.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Jun 15, 2018)

pinsog said:


> Guys, I’m not trying to be difficult, I’m not bashing Hurricanes and Spitfires, the US didn’t have the equal of the Spitfire at the time in question. I fully believe a Zero or KI43 was the equal or better than any fighter on planet earth in 1942 except for the FW190. 2 allied pilots in a test said this:
> “Both pilots consider the Spitfire is outclassed by the Hap at all heights up to 20,000 feet....the Spitfire does not posses any outstanding qualities that permit it to gain an advantage over the Hap in equal circumstances”
> 
> Not sure how you argue with the 2 men that flew them against each other and said that. If the Spit V “does not posses any outstanding qualities that permit it to gain an advantage over the Hap in equal circumstances” then how can you argue that the Hurricane was it’s equal???


I think that the RAAF problem with their Spitfires was the Merlin 46 engine it had. Perhaps they would have been better off installing the Merlin 32 that the FAA had in their Seafire LIIc. Basically the RN had figured that their Merlin 46 powered Seafire IIc was crap and re-engined them with the Merlin 32.


----------



## pinsog (Jun 15, 2018)

RCAFson said:


> This was the US summary of mock F4F-4 combat versus the A6M2 (not the superior A6M3 which with clipped wings could roll much better and was faster with a superior engine):
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The only thing I can come up with is 1. The F4F-4 was extremely tough. Very good armor, radial engine, very good self sealing tanks 2. The 50 BMG (love it or hate it) was the best choice of weapons to fight a Zero (vs light hitting 30’s and slow firing limited ammo 20mm 3. In bad conditions (Guadalcanal) with limited resources the P&W radial was easier to keep running than a Merlin (Merlin being a better engine when on a clean airfield in Britain) edit: 4. Zero, thankfully had a high speed rolling problem that could be exploited (I’m glad they didn’t use KI43’s instead of Zeros. There is NOTHING an F4F-4 could do the shake a KI43)

US Navy pilots could shoot, they were specifically trained for deflection shooting so they made the most of any shot they had at anyone in range

Best I can come up with. Everyone, including me, still looks at the specs between F4F-4 and Zero and scratches their head.

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


----------



## Schweik (Jun 15, 2018)

RCAFson said:


> Yet we know that the Hurricane (especially the IIA) could do everything better than the F4F-4, (snip) yet the F4F-4 was the mainstay of the USN till mid/late 1943 and fought the Zero to a draw.



We don't actually know that though, in fact I would consider the notion that the Hurricane was in any way superior to the F4F a radically outlier position.

One test and the opinion of two test-pilots doesn't prove the Hurricane was inferior to the A6M, but unlike with the F4F I don't see any combat history with the Hurricane to contradict that opinion.

Regarding Darwin, I gather the Spitfire experience there is controversial and a consensus will probably elude us here, but I just read a biography of Caldwell, one which was not particularly sparing of criticism of the man, and it pointed out some of the rather severe mechanical problems they were having with the Spitfire. Among others when the aircraft were shipped, apparently they had drained the coolant out but not put in an anti-corrosion agent, and the cooling systems were corroded and were routinely failing. They also appeared to have a major problem with the ammunition being manufactured in Australia with a large percentage being oddly sized.

Another problem was that gun heaters were corroded or blocked, or weren't even installed (this being a tube leading from the engine to warm the guns and keep them from freezing at high altitude)

Whatever the causes, you can look at the initial Spit V interceptions of Japanese formations over Darwin and see that most of the Spits lost were due to mechanical failure or running out of gas. The latter is attributable to the short range of the Spit V and the lack of radar or any other kind of warning net for the Spits. Per the wiki on the 2 May 1943 raid:

"In the 25-minute engagement, the wing shot down between six and ten Japanese aircraft for the loss of five Spitfires. Five more Spitfires also made forced landings due to fuel shortages and three broke off after suffering engine failures;"

So that is 5 lost in combat to 8 lost to fuel or engine problems. Caldwell also noted that one of his squadron leaders attacked bombers right beneath a flight of zeros, against orders.

Caldwell is also the one who changed the tactics and got things working, so again I'm not sure it's appropriate to blame him.

There seems to have also been some kind of communications breakdown in that the No. 1 Wing seemed to have to relearn some lessons already figured out by the the earlier Australian P-40 squadrons and the USAAF 49th FG previously using their P-40s.

S

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Jun 15, 2018)

pinsog said:


> I’m getting that from the 2 guys that flew them against each other ina mock dogfight
> “Both pilots consider the Spitfire is outclassed by the Hap at all heights up to 20,000 feet....the Spitfire does not posses any outstanding qualities that permit it to gain an advantage over the Hap in equal circumstances”
> That is from the 2 test pilots.
> 
> I agree 100000% that a 1945 Spitfire with a RR Griffon would outperform a Zero. But a Spit V vs a Zero in a test by 2 allied pilots did not do as well



The observations made by these pilots appear to be on the basis of the "European experience", wherein the spits ability as a dogfighter at low speed and relatively low altitude were considered its best attributes. These are precisely the preconceptions that got 1 TFW into trouble over Darwin, combined with Caldwells absurd opposition to the use of the slipper tanks. They were not test pilots incidentally. 

The official test carried out at about the same time produced a contrary view which I will repear for you to think about:

"_Hap commenced tests on Spitfire's tail:
1. In high speed flight, Spitfire was able to loop in a smaller radius. Hap pilot blacked out endeavoring to follow.
2. Spitfire carried 3 loops in succession at high speed and finished in firing position on Hap's tail.
3. Spitfire carried out roll off top of loop. Hap was unable to follow in same radius and lost considerable distance.
4. Spitfire executed a series of high speed, tight spaning turns to right; Hap pilot unable to follow and was on verge of graying out._
_5. Spitfire executed a 1/2 roll to right from 45° spane at 280 mph IAS and 330 mph IAS and pulled out abruptly into vertical climb. Hap pilot unable to follow this maneuver either at 280 or 320 mph and finished up in both instances approximately 1000 feet below Spitfire and some distance behind._
_Conclusions:
1. Spitfire was able to evade and outmaneuver Hap by combining high speed and High "G".
2. Spitfire required a minimum speed of 250 mph to retain maneuverability advantage.
3. Hap was able to evade and outmaneuver Spitfire by maneuvering at low speeds.
4. Stresses placed upon both aircraft during tests were not measured. However, the Hap pilot considers his tolerance in reference to blacking out to be above average_".

The Spit V was not outclassed here. if speed was kept high and manoeuvres were undertaken in a high G environment, the Hap could not compete. If the manoeuvres were carried out at low speed , the Zeke held the advantage. It was found in these tests that the Zeke could not keep up with the Spitfire in a sustained climb. it had a steep angle of climb but it lost speed too much.

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


----------



## Schweik (Jun 15, 2018)

parsifal said:


> The Spit V was not outclassed here. if speed was kept high and manoeuvres were undertaken in a high G environment, the Hap could not compete. If the manoeuvres were carried out at low speed , the Zeke held the advantage. It was found in these tests that the Zeke could not keep up with the Spitfire in a sustained climb. it had a steep angle of climb but it lost speed too much.



I think this is true- the phenomenal maneuverability of the Zeke / Hamp / Hap / Zero just kind of freaked out Allied pilots and officers for a while in 1941-1942.... they had talked themselves into the superiority idea and it bit them in the ass.

Kind of like the Germans re: the Russians though not nearly as harsh of a lesson in the long run...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinsog (Jun 15, 2018)

parsifal said:


> The observations made by these pilots appear to be on the basis of the "European experience", wherein the spits ability as a dogfighter at low speed and relatively low altitude were considered its best attributes. These are precisely the preconceptions that got 1 TFW into trouble over Darwin, combined with Caldwells absurd opposition to the use of the slipper tanks. They were not test pilots incidentally.
> 
> The official test carried out at about the same time produced a contrary view which I will repear for you to think about:
> 
> ...


The Zero climbed at a steep angle, the Spitfire at a shallow angle, the amount of altitude they gained was about the same. I read a British test between I think Hurricane and 109 where it was the other way and the steeper climb was claimed to be better. The test between the SpitV and Zero said at 27,000 the Spit V climbed better and dived better but neither was enough to avoid getting shot, tactically insignificant.


----------



## RCAFson (Jun 15, 2018)

Kevin J said:


> I think that the RAAF problem with their Spitfires was the Merlin 46 engine it had. Perhaps they would have been better off installing the Merlin 32 that the FAA had in their Seafire LIIc. Basically the RN had figured that their Merlin 46 powered Seafire IIc was crap and re-engined them with the Merlin 32.



The Merlin 32 would have been far better for low altitude combat, but the Merlin 46 was used by the RAAF because they wanted to counter high altitude IJ bombing raids and the Merlin 46 had a FTH of ~22k ft @ 9lb boost:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/Merlin_46_47_Power_Chart.jpg

However this handicapped it below 20K feet unless the pilot used overboost, which at 17K ft would provide nearly 200hp more than using 9lb boost. ETO based pilots had been using 16lb boost since early 1942:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/merlin-ratings_3jan42.jpg

Spitfire V/Merlin 45 with 16lb boost:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/merlin-ratings_3jan42.jpg

and ETO Spitfire V pilots were encouraged to use it when encountering the Fw190 and 109F/G

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinsog (Jun 15, 2018)

Another Zero and KI43 advantage, the view. They had exceptional visibility out of either plane, about like sitting in a lawn chair in your driveway.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinsog (Jun 15, 2018)

Below 20,000, well below 15,000, the P40 could reasonably fight with a Zero, but the P40 with any kind of altitude could dive away. The Spit V vs P40E dogfight test showed that the P40E could disengage from the Spit V at will by diving.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greyman (Jun 15, 2018)

RCAFson said:


> Full aileron deflection is typically not possible at high speeds.



Very true but most of the entries in the test are well below what was possible (or what could be counted on for general dogfighting).

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## RCAFson (Jun 15, 2018)

pinsog said:


> The only thing I can come up with is 1. The F4F-4 was extremely tough. Very good armor, radial engine, very good self sealing tanks 2. The 50 BMG (love it or hate it) was the best choice of weapons to fight a Zero (vs light hitting 30’s and slow firing limited ammo 20mm 3. In bad conditions (Guadalcanal) with limited resources the P&W radial was easier to keep running than a Merlin (Merlin being a better engine when on a clean airfield in Britain) edit: 4. Zero, thankfully had a high speed rolling problem that could be exploited (I’m glad they didn’t use KI43’s instead of Zeros. There is NOTHING an F4F-4 could do the shake a KI43)
> 
> US Navy pilots could shoot, they were specifically trained for deflection shooting so they made the most of any shot they had at anyone in range
> 
> Best I can come up with. Everyone, including me, still looks at the specs between F4F-4 and Zero and scratches their head.



As I've pointed out the Ki-43II didn't appear until mid 1943. The Ki-43 had a lot of limitations.

If you want to know how the F4F-4 succeeded, then look at the tactical situations in which they encountered the Zero. If we provide the F4F pilots with Sea Hurricanes/Seafires and put them into the same tactical circumstances they have to do better.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Disagree Disagree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jun 15, 2018)

pinsog said:


> The test between the SpitV and Zero said at 27,000 the Spit V climbed better and dived better but *neither was enough to avoid getting shot, tactically insignificant*.



Definitely do not agree with that. The Spit may not have had sufficient dive acceleration initially but probably had at least 100 mph superior dive speed which was definitely tactically significant and without a doubt helped prevent getting shot.

It may not save you if the enemy plane is_ right_ behind you already shooting (in which case other things also have to be done) but if you have any distance a dive can quickly allow you to extend and separate. The low maximum dive speed of A6M and Ki 43 was their main tactical flaw - more significant arguably than the (original) lack of armor or self sealing tanks. The Ki-43 may not have had the same problem as the A6M with stiffening control surfaces but was considerably more fragile and vulnerable pulling out of dives, several Ki-43s shed their wings pulling out of dives in fact and this was widely known among JAAF fighter pilots.

This i.e. (Split S and strait down) is in fact the main escape maneuver they used with almost all Allied fighters against Ki -43 or A6M- the high speed climb wasn't always possible though it was a nice option to have if you had it. The only fighter that pretty much strictly used high speed climbs was the P-38 because of the problems they had with a power dive (especially the early types before the dive brakes)

S

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jun 15, 2018)

RCAFson said:


> . If we provide the F4F pilots with Sea Hurricanes/Seafires and put them into the same tactical circumstances they have to do better.



Ah, no they don't. That is your opinion - don't confuse it or conflate it with facts.

S


----------



## Schweik (Jun 15, 2018)

RCAFson said:


> The Merlin 32 would have been far better for low altitude combat, but the Merlin 46 was used by the RAAF because they wanted to counter high altitude IJ bombing raids and the Merlin 46 had a FTH of ~22k ft @ 9lb boost:
> 
> (snip)
> 
> and ETO Spitfire V pilots were encouraged to use it when encountering the Fw190 and 109F/G



Boost / overboosting is certainly an issue - again something which was frequently employed against Zeros by pilots flying all kinds of Allied fighters.

S


----------



## pinsog (Jun 15, 2018)

Schweik said:


> Definitely do not agree with that. The Spit may not have had sufficient dive acceleration but probably had 100 mph superior dive speed which was definitely tactically significant and without a doubt helped prevent getting shot.
> 
> It may not save you if the enemy plane is_ right_ behind you already shooting (in which case other things also have to be done) but if you have any distance a dive can quickly allow you to extend and separate. The low maximum dive speed of A6M and Ki 43 was their main tactical flaw - more significant arguably than the (original) lack of armor or self sealing tanks. The Ki-43 may not have had the same problem as the A6M with stiffening control surfaces but was considerably more fragile and vulnerable pulling out of dives, several Ki-43s shed their wings pulling out of dives in fact and this was widely known among JAAF fighter pilots.
> 
> ...


I get what your saying, but initial acceleration of Spit V over Zero, according to the test, wasn’t enough to keep you from getting shot down before you drew out of range. ‘The main escape maneuver they used with almost all allied fighters against KI43 or Zero” I agree 100% but aside from a few Spits in Australia and Hurricanes in Burma most allied fighters were USA and USA fighters with few exceptions, climbed worse but dropped like a rock. P39, P40, P47, P51, Hellcat Corsair were all great divers, P38 dived good against Japanese (not against Germans at high altitude) Also, except for P39 with engine in back, and P51, the other 4 fighters listed were tough and could absorb a few strikes and still get away

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jun 15, 2018)

pinsog said:


> I get what your saying, but initial acceleration of Spit V over Zero, according to the test, wasn’t enough to keep you from getting shot down before you drew out of range. ‘The main escape maneuver they used with almost all allied fighters against KI43 or Zero” I agree 100% but aside from a few Spits in Australia and Hurricanes in Burma most allied fighters were USA and USA fighters with few exceptions, climbed worse but dropped like a rock. P39, P40, P47, P51, Hellcat Corsair were all great divers, P38 dived good against Japanese (not against Germans at high altitude) Also, except for P39 with engine in back, and P51, the other 4 fighters listed were tough and could absorb a few strikes and still get away



I suspect they may not have been pushing the Spits to the max, because the Spitfire Mk V has an excellent power to mass ratio of about 0.21* whereas the A6M2 has a ratio of about 0.18. The Spit is also much more streamlined and has shorter wings (i.e. less drag).

Even if you can outdive by a lot though, it won't save you if the other aircraft is right behind you. What might save you is for example nosing over if your opponent has an engine that floods in negative G (I think this was a problem both for the Spit V and the A6M though) or else you have to sideslip / skid, roll and twist etc. either until they overshoot or you can extend. These tactics did seem to work so long as the defending pilot knows he is being attacked and has sufficient E to maneuver.

In the case of a Spitfire vs. an A6M, a Split S followed by a full power, vertical dive downward would mean reaching a speed that the A6M could not safely follow in a matter of just a few seconds... maybe 20 seconds? Still more than long enough to get shot down if you weren't taking measures to avoid being hit (skidding etc.) but not that long.

I remember recently reading (but can't remember where precisely) some US officer noting that A6Ms rarely followed Allied fighters in a steep dive even though they could have up to a point. I'm pretty confident a Spit could do this, the more pertinent question for this thread though would be could a Hurricane do it.

S

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinsog (Jun 15, 2018)




----------



## RCAFson (Jun 15, 2018)

pinsog said:


> Below 20,000, well below 15,000, the P40 could reasonably fight with a Zero, but the P40 with any kind of altitude could dive away. The Spit V vs P40E dogfight test showed that the P40E could disengage from the Spit V at will by diving.



Nonsense. No P-40 pilot would have thought that and at low altitude diving away wasn't much of an option. P-40 successes were mainly due to B'nZ tactics but remember the P-40 rarely fought the A6M3.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinsog (Jun 15, 2018)



Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## RCAFson (Jun 15, 2018)

pinsog said:


> View attachment 497749



Those speeds confirm that the Spitfire was not allowed to use overboost. The Spitfire V/Merlin 46 would gain ~20mph at 16K ft using overboost and it's climb rate would increase considerably as well.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## RCAFson (Jun 15, 2018)

pinsog said:


> View attachment 497752



So a P-40E would do better? Not likely.


----------



## pinsog (Jun 15, 2018)




----------



## Schweik (Jun 15, 2018)

pinsog said:


> View attachment 497749



Ok we get that this test convinced those two pilots of that result, and that you are thoroughly convinced by that test. But I'm not so thoroughly swayed.

I do not however think that 290 kts / 333 mph is an accurate top speed for a Spit V at 15,000 feet, according to this is managed 375 at 20,000 feet and this report says 369 at 13,000 feet, 368 at 14,000 feet, and 365 at 16,000 feet. The fastest speed I've seen reported for an A6M2 at any altitude was about 330 mph, usually quite a bit below that. Maybe the lower Spitfire speed in this test was due to the vokes filter or maybe it was just a worn out plane or something else. A given test on a given day can have different results. This test from Feb 1943 noted that the P-40K had better acceleration than the A6M. They even performed a drag race. From the report:
_
"P-40K-1 vs. Zero. Airplanes were flown side by side at 200 m.p.h. indicated. On signal, both engines were given full throttle and full r.p.m. For seven seconds the two planes accelerated equally, at which time the P-40 began to pull away very rapidly."_

I'm pretty sure the Spit V had better acceleration than the P-40K*. More importantly, they both had better acceleration than the A6M going strait down at full power.

S

* also suspect the A6M in that test may not have been operating at full capacity either


----------



## pinsog (Jun 15, 2018)

Schweik said:


> Ok we get that this test convinced those two pilots of that result, and that you are thoroughly convinced by that test. But I'm not so thoroughly swayed.
> 
> I do not however think that 290 mph is an accurate top speed for a Spit V at 15,000 feet, according to this is managed 375 at 20,000 feet and this report says 369 at 13,000 feet, 368 at 14,000 feet, and 365 at 16,000 feet. The fastest speed I've seen reported for an A6M2 was about 330 mph, usually quite a bit below that. Maybe the lower Spitfire speed in this test was due to the vokes filter or maybe it was just a worn out plane or something else. A given test on a given day can have different results. This test from Feb 1943 noted that the P-40K had better acceleration than the A6M. They even performed a drag race. From the report:
> _
> ...



290 knots not mph


----------



## RCAFson (Jun 15, 2018)

Schweik said:


> Ah, no they don't. That is your opinion - don't confuse it or conflate it with facts.
> 
> S



You can calculate the wing loading and power to weight ratios as easily as I can. Combine that with superior roll rates and the F4F-4 is completely outperformed. There's nothing that the F4F-4 can do better than a Hurricane/Spitfire or Sea Hurricane/Seafire with the exception of better cockpit, over the nose, visibility compared to the Spitfire/Seafire but not the Hurricane/Sea Hurricane.

This is from Nimitiz via Lundstrom (Black shoe carrier admiral)


> Another aspect of the attack that proved inadequate was
> fighter escort. To Fletcher the folding wing F4F-4s represented no improvement
> over the fixed-wing F4F-3s, except more F4F-4s could be carried. He echoed
> the call of Halsey and others of the "urgent necessity" for detachable fuel tanks
> ...



There's no doubt that Wildcat pilots and Nimitz would have jumped at the chance to deploy Sea Hurricanes and/or Seafires if they had been available.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jun 15, 2018)

pinsog said:


> 290 knots not mph



My bad - however that is 333 mph so my point still holds. 

Will edit post


----------



## pinsog (Jun 15, 2018)

Schweik said:


> My bad - however that is 333 mph so my point still holds.
> 
> Will edit post



Also, test was against clip winged A6M-3 not A6M-2

The actual top speed of the Zero is also highly debated. I’ve seen 330 mph to as high as 345 mph.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Jun 15, 2018)

pinsog said:


> The only thing I can come up with is 1. The F4F-4 was extremely tough. Very good armor, radial engine, very good self sealing tanks 2. The 50 BMG (love it or hate it) was the best choice of weapons to fight a Zero (vs light hitting 30’s and slow firing limited ammo 20mm 3. In bad conditions (Guadalcanal) with limited resources the P&W radial was easier to keep running than a Merlin (Merlin being a better engine when on a clean airfield in Britain) edit: 4. Zero, thankfully had a high speed rolling problem that could be exploited (I’m glad they didn’t use KI43’s instead of Zeros. There is NOTHING an F4F-4 could do the shake a KI43)
> 
> US Navy pilots could shoot, they were specifically trained for deflection shooting so they made the most of any shot they had at anyone in range
> 
> Best I can come up with. Everyone, including me, still looks at the specs between F4F-4 and Zero and scratches their head.


The USN pilots were trained to fly all types pre-war, they were an elite force and the results they got showed it. The Brits, well everyone got called up or volunteered so that they could get to do what they wanted too, and the results showed. The Commonwealth was a volunteers only set up, you can look at the results they got whether in the RAF or their own units, they were always better.


Schweik said:


> Ok we get that this test convinced those two pilots of that result, and that you are thoroughly convinced by that test. But I'm not so thoroughly swayed.
> 
> I do not however think that 290 kts / 333 mph is an accurate top speed for a Spit V at 15,000 feet, according to this is managed 375 at 20,000 feet and this report says 369 at 13,000 feet, 368 at 14,000 feet, and 365 at 16,000 feet. The fastest speed I've seen reported for an A6M2 at any altitude was about 330 mph, usually quite a bit below that. Maybe the lower Spitfire speed in this test was due to the vokes filter or maybe it was just a worn out plane or something else. A given test on a given day can have different results. This test from Feb 1943 noted that the P-40K had better acceleration than the A6M. They even performed a drag race. From the report:
> _
> ...


Spitfire (F) Mk.VB W.3322 Report
The Vokes tropical filter reduced the speed of a Spitfire Vb to 354 mph tops with a Merlin 45, the RAAF Spitfire Vc had a Merlin 46 and extra bulges on its wings for an extra two 20 mm cannon, so it would have been slower by about 5 mph, but at a greater height. 333 mph at 15000 ft is probably about right.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jun 15, 2018)

pinsog said:


> Also, test was against clip winged A6M-3 not A6M-2



Ok fair enough but the tested speed on the A6M3 doesn't appear to be better. This test showed a max of 310 mph TAS, though better altitude performance than the A6M2.

Hamp Performance Test

This doc says 346 mph at ~22,000 feet but that's still considerably lower than the Spit V at 375 mph TAS at 20,000.

My guess is that they were having trouble with that Spit for one reason or another on that particular day. May also have something to do with why they had so much trouble initially at Darwin.

S


----------



## pinsog (Jun 15, 2018)

Schweik said:


> Ok fair enough but the tested speed on the A6M3 doesn't appear to be better. This test showed a max of 310 mph TAS, though better altitude performance than the A6M2.
> 
> Hamp Performance Test
> 
> ...



No, you hit the nail on the head in previous post, it was a tropical Spitfire, that explains lower performance. But a Spitfire can’t operate in primitive conditions without Tropical setup

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jun 15, 2018)

RCAFson said:


> You can calculate the wing loading and power to weight ratios as easily as I can. Combine that with superior roll rates and the F4F-4 is completely outperformed. There's nothing that the F4F-4 can do better than a Hurricane/Spitfire or Sea Hurricane/Seafire with the exception of better cockpit, over the nose, visibility compared to the Spitfire/Seafire but not the Hurricane/Sea Hurricane.



Spitfire Seafire is a_ very different_ beast altogether than a Hurricane. Please don't conflate the arguments.

For the record Spitfire or Seafire > Wildcat / Martlet, with the exception of range,. Range of course is important for naval aircraft. But in all other respects the Spitfire is better.

Hurricane, I'm nowhere near convinced.

What is the maximum dive speed of the Hurricane compared to the Wildcat?

S


----------



## Kevin J (Jun 15, 2018)

pinsog said:


> No, you hit the nail on the head in previous post, it was a tropical Spitfire, that explains lower performance. But a Spitfire can’t operate in primitive conditions without Tropical setup


They had of course come direct from the UK, which meant the Vokes which also carried extra oil for the engine when carrying a 90 gal ferry tank. In the Med, the Aboukir tropical filter was developed that only caused a 5 mph loss in top speed.


----------



## pinsog (Jun 15, 2018)

RCAFson said:


> Nonsense. No P-40 pilot would have thought that and at low altitude diving away wasn't much of an option. P-40 successes were mainly due to B'nZ tactics but remember the P-40 rarely fought the A6M3.



Did you read post 170 detailing fight test between Spit V and P40E?

First fight started at 13,000 feet. At 4,000 feet P40E pilot decided there was nothing to gain by staying and disengaged by diving away.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## RCAFson (Jun 15, 2018)

Schweik said:


> Spitfire Seafire is a_ very different_ beast altogether than a Hurricane. Please don't conflate the arguments.
> 
> For the record Spitfire or Seafire > Wildcat / Martlet, with the exception of range,. Range of course is important for naval aircraft. But in all other respects the Spitfire is better.
> 
> ...


The Hurricane's maximum dive speed was 390mph IAS, which means it was effectively unlimited as was the Wildcat's.

Just do the math. The Sea Hurricane was totally superior to the F4F-4. Also see my previous post on this as I added a quote from Lundstrom.

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


----------



## Kevin J (Jun 15, 2018)

Schweik said:


> Spitfire Seafire is a_ very different_ beast altogether than a Hurricane. Please don't conflate the arguments.
> 
> For the record Spitfire or Seafire > Wildcat / Martlet, with the exception of range,. Range of course is important for naval aircraft. But in all other respects the Spitfire is better.
> 
> ...


IIRC the Hurricane could dive at 450 mph, a Wildcat at over 500 mph. I introduced the Seafire IIc because its a good example of how much slower it was than a Spitfire Vc once you add naval equipment and the Sea Hurricane IIc because its top speed showed what you could do to improve performance by adding individual exhausts. The Aussies got the standard Spitfire Vc with the high rated Merlin 46 but with the Vokes filter designed for tropical use and a 90 gal slipper tank, features that killed performance.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## eagledad (Jun 15, 2018)

Gentlemen

I came across some total airframe drag in pounds at a speed of 100ft/sec for the Spitfire I and Hurricane I at the following location

https://www.aerosociety.com/media/4953/the-aerodynamics-of-the-spitfire.pdf

A similar number for the A6M3 can be found at

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/japan/RAAF_Hap_Trials.pdf

page 27.

Since the airframes of the Spit 5 is very similar to the Spit I, and the Hurricane I is similar to the Hurricane II, the coefficients should be reasonable stand-ins for comparison with the A6M3, and may help explain the reports between Spitfires and Zeroes above. Pf course adding any filters and cannon barrels will increase the drag 

(originial post used the term coefficient of drag which is an incorrect description of the numbers presented, I am NOT an aero engineer)

Eagledad

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## RCAFson (Jun 15, 2018)

RCAFson said:


> The Hurricane's maximum dive speed was 390mph IAS, which means it was effectively unlimited as was the Wildcat's.
> 
> Just do the math. The Sea Hurricane was totally superior to the F4F-4. Also see my previous post on this as I added a quote from Lundstrom.



To add to this:


> All the Fine Young Eagles
> Pages 248-249.
> 
> After a few rounds from the bar, a discussion developed regarding the merits of the Wildcat versus the Hurricane. It continued until the American issued a challenge they would have four Wildcats at Torbay the following morning. The tactics were simple. Four pairs, each consisting of a Wildcat and a Hurricane, would meet at an agreed upon altitude, in each of the four quadrants of the sky, North. West. South and East of the airport. They would meet, fly in formation for a minute or two, then break up and approach each other head on. From then on it was a straight dogfight, with each pilot trying to get on the other fellow’s tail. Flight Commanders were not allowed to fly on either side. We were part of the large audience assembled on the ground to see the show. Everything went according to plan. The aircraft met, flew in formation for a minute or two, and then began dog fighting. In a couple of minutes there were four Hurricanes on the tails of four Wildcats, and they stayed there, to great applause and shouts from the audience below.
> ...




The above were Canadian built Hurricane X or XIIs.​


----------



## Schweik (Jun 15, 2018)

RCAFson said:


> The Hurricane's maximum dive speed was 390mph IAS, which means it was effectively unlimited as was the Wildcat's.
> 
> Just do the math. The Sea Hurricane was totally superior to the F4F-4. Also see my previous post on this as I added a quote from Lundstrom.



That is laughable. For one thing, the Hurricane II range was 505 miles per this, Wildcat was 830 miles, 1050 with a 157 gal tank per this

As you know, range is pretty important for naval fighters in particular. There is also the fact that the Wildcat seems to have had a better combat record in the Pacific or in general after 1941.

390 IAS is not unlimited and I'd really like to see hard data comparing the actual dive rates of the two planes. My understanding of the Hurricane was that dive speed was very limited.

I admit was starting to wonder if I'd been wrong about the Hurri all along a few pages ago but the way you do things like combine Spitfire with Hurricane as if they are the same plane and quoting stats like low pressure aileron rolls ... it doesn't seem legit.

S


----------



## Schweik (Jun 15, 2018)

eagledad said:


> Gentlemen
> 
> I came across some drag coefficients for the Spitfire I and Hurricane I at the following location
> 
> ...



Can you summarize that?


----------



## pinsog (Jun 15, 2018)

RCAFson said:


> To add to this:
> 
> 
> The above were Canadian built Hurricane X or XIIs.​


I believe 1 on 1 vs each other a land based Hurricane and F4F-3 were probably equals with little to chose between them, making a land based Hurricane better performance than an F4F-4 especially in climb. Climb rate of an F4F-4 being pathetic. That being said, the story above of Hurricanes carrying 2 depth charges and flying circles around Wildcats was panned elsewhere as untrue 1. The wildcats were from a US carrier that was in the Pacific at the time 2. I can’t think of any ww2 fighter that could carry 500 pounds under each wing and still outfight another fighter

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greyman (Jun 15, 2018)

Hurricane Pilot's Notes list 390 IAS for diving, but I've seen dozens of anecdotes/tests of Hurricanes diving up to around 450 IAS.

I have no Pilot's Notes for the Martlet, but the A&AEE tested a Mk.IV up to 460 IAS and reported no serious issues.

Eric Brown notes the dive acceleration of the Hurricane was superior, and I'd guess the lack of automatic boost control in the F4F would be a handicap. Add in the superior rates of roll of the Hurricane ...

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greyman (Jun 15, 2018)

Might as well post the whole Eric Brown bit (sorry if it was posted earlier in the thread):

_*F4F-4 Wildcat Versus Sea Hurricane IIc*
Here were two fighters almost evenly matched in combat performance and firepower, with the British fighter holding the edge. The Hurricane could exploit its superior rate of roll, the Wildcat its steeper angle of climb. In a dogfight the Hurricane could outturn the Wildcat, and it could evade an astern attack by half rolling and using its superior acceleration in a dive.
*Verdict:* This is a combat I have fought a few times in mock trials. The Hurricane could usually get in more camera gun shots than the Wildcat, but for neither was this an easy job. The Hurricane would probably have been more vulnerable to gun strikes than the Wildcat._

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


----------



## pinsog (Jun 15, 2018)

Great post Greyman. I’m surprised it didn’t out climb the Wildcat. Naval additions must have hurt the Hurricane more than I thought


----------



## Greyman (Jun 15, 2018)

Well, he did say angle - not rate ...


----------



## pinsog (Jun 15, 2018)

Good point again. Seems like a significantly higher rate of climb would have been mentioned though


----------



## RCAFson (Jun 15, 2018)

Schweik said:


> That is laughable. For one thing, the Hurricane II range was 505 miles per this, Wildcat was 830 miles, 1050 with a 157 gal tank per this
> 
> As you know, range is pretty important for naval fighters in particular. There is also the fact that the Wildcat seems to have had a better combat record in the Pacific or in general after 1941.
> 
> ...



Again, do the math: 390mph IAS = 624mph TAS at 30K ft, 540mph TAS at 20k ft and 505mph at 15K ft. This means that the aircraft's speed is drag limited rather than structurally limited. You could dive a Hurricane straight down at full throttle from 30K ft and not break it and this was tested in combat.

Just because the Seafire was totally superior to the F4F-4 doesn't mean that the Sea Hurricane wasn't as well.

A Sea Hurricane IB weighed 7000lb and had a peak 1440HP, with same wing area as the F4F. The F4F-3/4 had a maximum 1200hp and weighed 7550/7975lb. It's pretty easy to see which aircraft is going to climb and turn better, especially as the Sea Hurricane has a superior roll rate. The Hurricane X with the more powerful Merlin 20, even with two 350lb depth charges will still have lower wing loading and a superior power to weight ratio than the F4F-4.

Effective combat radius of the F4F-4 and Sea Hurricane I or II was very similar, with the F4F having a only slight edge, because of the superior specific fuel consumption of the Merlin at high power. Air cooled engines being very inefficient at high power so the Merlin uses a lot less fuel during the combat portion of a combat sortie. Theoretical still air range was superior on the F4F-4 but it's actual cruise endurance was only marginally better than a Sea Hurricane when both cruise at Maximum Weak Mixture at the same altitude. To achieve the oft quoted 830 mile range the F4F-4 has to cruise at 161mph at 5Kft. Sea Hurricane IB range was 555 miles at 20Kft at 208mph. Range with two 45IG drop tanks was 1030/1100 miles if the tanks were retained/jettisoned. The Sea Hurricane could carry drop tanks but this was rare on the Sea Hurricane IB, although it was common on the Sea Hurricane II.


----------



## RCAFson (Jun 15, 2018)

Greyman said:


> Hurricane Pilot's Notes list 390 IAS for diving, but I've seen dozens of anecdotes/tests of Hurricanes diving up to around 450 IAS.
> 
> I have no Pilot's Notes for the Martlet, but the A&AEE tested a Mk.IV up to 460 IAS and reported no serious issues.
> 
> Eric Brown notes the dive acceleration of the Hurricane was superior, and I'd guess the lack of automatic boost control in the F4F would be a handicap. Add in the superior rates of roll of the Hurricane ...



This from the F4F-4 Pilot's Handbook:

_"(c) Diving

Diving with pull-outs at required velocities
and accelerations has been successfully demon-
strated by the manufacturer of this airplane.

The theoretical terminal velocity of the air-
plane is approximately 475 knots indicated air
speed. It is not expected that this speed will
be reached in service dives. Propeller at 45° pitch."
_
Basically it's a fancy way of saying that dive speed was drag rather than structurally limited.

Edit: I found a test report where a Hurricane IIB was tested to 397mph IAS (and held there for some seconds) whilst carrying 2 x 500lb bombs. The dive sheared the safety arming pins on the bombs but there was no other structural issues. So I guess that 390mph IAS includes diving with a 1000lb bomb load.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## RCAFson (Jun 15, 2018)

Greyman said:


> Might as well post the whole Eric Brown bit (sorry if it was posted earlier in the thread):
> 
> _*F4F-4 Wildcat Versus Sea Hurricane IIc*
> Here were two fighters almost evenly matched in combat performance and firepower, with the British fighter holding the edge. The Hurricane could exploit its superior rate of roll, the Wildcat its steeper angle of climb. In a dogfight the Hurricane could outturn the Wildcat, and it could evade an astern attack by half rolling and using its superior acceleration in a dive.
> *Verdict:* This is a combat I have fought a few times in mock trials. The Hurricane could usually get in more camera gun shots than the Wildcat, but for neither was this an easy job. The Hurricane would probably have been more vulnerable to gun strikes than the Wildcat._



Brown was familiar with the early model Marlets that were devoid of SS tanks, armour, and had non-folding wings. It is obvious that he confused these with an F4F-4 because the Sea Hurricane IIC climb rate was far superior to the F4F-4, which even at full military power topped out at 1820fps.

F4F-4 climb at 7975lb using full military power:





Hurricane IIB at 8110lb using normal climb power:




and here's a Hurricane IIC at 8410lb:




and it still wins!

of course all these Hurricane tests are using normal climb power. If they used the combat rating climb rates would increase by ~50%.


----------



## Greyman (Jun 15, 2018)

Again, he mentioned climb angle, not rate.


----------



## pinsog (Jun 15, 2018)

RCAFson said:


> So you've proven that the F4F-4 was completely defeated by the Zero... Ditto for the P-40.
> 
> The RAAF tests only confirmed that anyone who could calculate wing loading already knew, which is that you can't dogfight a Zero and had to use other tactics, to defeat it. And, as I've pointed out, the RAAF tests handicapped the Spitfire by not allowing the use of overboost.



I replied to the F4F-4 in a different message, missed the P40 part.

P40 was significantly faster than a Zero KI43 Hurricane or F4F-4 below 18-20,000 feet.
A P40E could disengage from a Zero, KI43 Hurricane F4F-4 or Spitfire V tropical at will by diving.
Heavy reliable firepower, 6 50’s, very effective against Zero.
Anytime a P40 is in trouble, roll over and dive, it’s gone, a reliable exit plan in any circumstance where the P40E has altitude and the engine hasn’t been hit.
Tough, good pilot armor, allows a few hits from behind while fleeing.
Faster than a tropical Spit V below 16,000 feet




Dang, P40E is 20-25 mph faster than tropical Spit V at 12,000 feet, impressive

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


----------



## pinsog (Jun 15, 2018)

Seafire IIC vs Wildcat 6 guns (they don’t tell which model)

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## RCAFson (Jun 15, 2018)

pinsog said:


> Faster than a tropical Spit V below 16,000 feet
> View attachment 497796
> 
> Dang, P40E is 20-25 mph faster than tropical Spit V at 12,000 feet, impressive



Only if the Spitfire is denied overboost.


----------



## pinsog (Jun 15, 2018)

RCAFson said:


> Only if the Spitfire is denied overboost.



So these pilots are testing a Spit V vs a Hap so they can figure out the strong points and weak points of both aircraft so hopefully they could keep themselves and their squadron mates from dying and you think they forgot to try the overboost when the Hap was whipping the Spit V from 0-20,000 feet?

Wouldn’t there be a note somewhere,”Hap stomps Spit from 0-20,000, BUT if you use overboost Hap doesn’t have a chance”

Seems that would be a relevant addition to the test. OR they used it and didn’t mention it.

Zero had overboost available as well


----------



## slaterat (Jun 15, 2018)

pinsog said:


> The point of this is, if a Zero manhandles a Spit V from 0-20,000 feet, how does a 20-40 mph slower Hurricane with a slower climb rate stand even a remote chance? It doesn’t.



This isn't necessarily true. The Spitfire and the Zero both suffer from stiff ailerons at high dive speeds , the Spit only slightly less so, therefore using the high speed dive and rolling or turning to escape from the Zero didn't work as well for the spitfire, as it did for the Hurricane which had effective controls at high speed.

Essentially the Hurricane and Zero are very close performance wise in climb and speed with the Zero being better below 15,000 feet and the Hurricane better above.

The Hurricanes escape plan is the same as the P 40s, the P40 does dive faster than the Hurricane but they both can dive fast enough to escape a Zero or KI 43.
The limiting factor for the P40 in all variants is its anemic rate of climb, its just too heavy, with the Kittyhawks actually being worse than the Tomahawks they superseded. The Hurricanes superior climb rate gives it a far better chance of being at an equal or greater altitude when intercepting inbound raids.

The Hurricane also has other advantages over the Zero and KI 43. Its much tougher and stronger with self sealing tanks, a full plate of rear armor from the pilots head to his heels, a front armoured windshield, a front bullet proof bulkhead , as well as a 10 swg bullet resistant front cowling and an eight lb plate of armour in front of the glycol header tank. The heat treated high tensile steel frame was very resistant to exploding shells fired form the Japanese cannons and heavy machine guns.

Against the KI 43 i , which has a maximum speed of only 308 mph at 13,000 feet, the tropicalized Hurricane IIa is is clearly faster above that height reaching 334 mph at 17,500.

It really doesn't matter what Allied fighter you are flying in early 1942 the game plan is the same when fighting the Zero or Ki 43. Whether you are flying an F4F, P 40, P39, Spit V or Hurricane, the goal is to get height, come down fast, take a shot, evade and repeat.

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


----------



## RCAFson (Jun 16, 2018)

Pre USA entry into the war testing of various USAAF fighters and the Hurricane and Spitfire:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/P-40/PHQ-M-19-1307-A.pdf

The performance they were extracting from some of the US aircraft, especially the P-39s is a bit extravagant. Again, no use of overboost for the Merlins.

There's a reason the USAAF took delivery of many hundreds of Spitfires via reverse lend-lease.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinsog (Jun 16, 2018)

Agreed on Hurricane rolling better than Spitfire and Spitfire barely rolling better than the Zero. Also agree on Hurricane having armor and self sealing tanks but in BoB the tank in front of pilot didn’t seal well, was bad about soaking pilot in fuel and lighting it. Finnish fighter pilots in Buffaloes considered Russian Hurricanes their easiest prey “shoot up front they burn easily”. So not sure how good the self sealing tanks were.





Notice the Spitfire couldn’t dive away quick enough to avoid getting shot. I assume a Spitfire dives better than a Hurricane. 




The Spitfire is outclassed by Hap at all heights up to 20,000 feet. I would say the same applies to the Hurricane. 
The Spitfire is only 20 knots faster than a Hap at 26,000, assuming a Spitfire is about 20 knots faster than a Hurricane at 26,000 then I’m not seeing an advantage in anything for the Hurricane. Spitfire climb rate over Hap was insignificant at 27,000 and the Hap climbed at a steeper angle

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinsog (Jun 16, 2018)

RCAFson said:


> Pre USA entry into the war testing of various USAAF fighters and the Hurricane and Spitfire:
> 
> http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/P-40/PHQ-M-19-1307-A.pdf
> 
> ...



What does a test from October 1941 between US and British types have to do with Japanese planes beating British planes 18 months later? 18 months was a lifetime in air development in WW2. 18 months could mean the difference between a P38, P47 or P51 vs a Gladiator. I’ve addressed several things you have said above but you ignore them.


----------



## pinsog (Jun 16, 2018)

You’ve claimed the Seafires total dominance over a Wildcat. Explain this:








Also please address post 201

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greyman (Jun 16, 2018)

pinsog said:


> So these pilots are testing a Spit V vs a Hap so they can figure out the strong points and weak points of both aircraft so hopefully they could keep themselves and their squadron mates from dying and you think they forgot to try the overboost when the Hap was whipping the Spit V from 0-20,000 feet?
> 
> Wouldn’t there be a note somewhere,”Hap stomps Spit from 0-20,000, BUT if you use overboost Hap doesn’t have a chance”
> 
> ...



The Spitfire performance numbers you post from the Wawn and Jackson trials match up well with a tropical Spitfire Vc running +9 boost/3000 rpm. It appears they weren't 'pulling the tit' and using +16 boost.

Maybe that ability wasn't available in Austrailia, I have no idea. Perhaps there is a note why in the original document.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinsog (Jun 16, 2018)

You may be right Greyman. Could over heating in tropical heat be a reason? Would Volkes filter (not enough air) prevent over boost? I’m guessing, I have no idea


----------



## Schweik (Jun 16, 2018)

RCAFson said:


> Pre USA entry into the war testing of various USAAF fighters and the Hurricane and Spitfire:
> 
> http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/P-40/PHQ-M-19-1307-A.pdf
> 
> ...



From that memo, this is interesting:
_
"The P-40E can outdive the Hurricane and is fastr in level flight up to approximately 20,000 ft. The Hurricane can outclimb the P-40E at any altitude for short periods of time, *but sustained high power climb cannot be made in warm weather due to excessive coolant temperatures.*"_

Maybe Hurricanes just didn't perform right in the heat. Maybe that is why they did so poorly in the CBI and North Africa / the Med, and why the RAF changed Hurricane units over to P-40s as quick as they could.

I'm a little surprised though that it says the P-40 can outdive the Hurricane because based on your previous posts, the Hurricane can dive at 600+ mph TAS, right?

Also interesting that they note the P-39 is roughly evenly matched below 15,000'. This must be one of the ones they sent to the Russians.

S


----------



## slaterat (Jun 16, 2018)

pinsog said:


> Agreed on Hurricane rolling better than Spitfire and Spitfire barely rolling better than the Zero. Also agree on Hurricane having armor and self sealing tanks but in BoB the tank in front of pilot didn’t seal well, was bad about soaking pilot in fuel and lighting it. Finnish fighter pilots in Buffaloes considered Russian Hurricanes their easiest prey “shoot up front they burn easily”. So not sure how good the self sealing tanks were.



As far as I know the front gravity tank on the Hurricane MK1 was never made self sealing, and it was attached to the pilots side of the fire proof bulkhead. The glycol header tank was on the engine side of the bulkhead and it was quite flammable. In the Hurricane MK IIs the bulkhead was extended under and around the tank and the tank as made self sealing. Additionally the coolant became a mixture of water/glycol which was far less flammable and then the armour plate was added in front of the glycol tank and it was all capped by the bullet resistant cowling. That's a lot better protection than most WW 2 planes have.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greyman (Jun 16, 2018)

pinsog said:


> You may be right Greyman. Could over heating in tropical heat be a reason? Would Volkes filter (not enough air) prevent over boost? I’m guessing, I have no idea



It didn't seem to be a large issue in Africa/Malta. At least any trouble escapes mention in the things I've read. Cooling on combat climbs and running on the ground is mentioned - but nothing limiting the use of full emergency boost in combat.

I'm very ignorant in all matters pertaining to Australian Spitfire use, though.


----------



## Schweik (Jun 16, 2018)

slaterat said:


> Essentially the Hurricane and Zero are very close performance wise in climb and speed with the Zero being better below 15,000 feet and the Hurricane better above.



I'm not so sure about that, if the memo RCAF linked is accurate, the test showed that the Hurricane couldn't even outclimb a P-40E, it's definitely going to be left in the dust by a Zero.



> The Hurricanes escape plan is the same as the P 40s, the P40 does dive faster than the Hurricane but they both can dive fast enough to escape a Zero or KI 43.



According to a couple of these guys the Hurricane can dive as fast as anything the Allies had.



> The limiting factor for the P40 in all variants is its anemic rate of climb, its just too heavy, with the Kittyhawks actually being worse than the Tomahawks they superseded.



That actually depends a lot on the specific subtype, how much fuel they still have and whether they are overboosting. P-40N-1 (used extensively in the CBI) standard climb rate is 3,520' per minute. P-40L initial climb is 3,300 feet per minute. P-40K (also widely used in the CBI) initial climb is listed as 2,000 ' per minute but that is on Military rated power of 1,150 hp. By mid 1942 they were actually rated for up to 1,550 hp at WEP and 1,325 for takeoff. I assume that would improve the rate of climb at least for a while.

The test RCAF mentioned indicates that even a P-40E could outclimb a Hurricane II, possibly also due to WEP level of boost which was rated for up to 1,470 hp (officially).



> It really doesn't matter what Allied fighter you are flying in early 1942 the game plan is the same when fighting the Zero or Ki 43. Whether you are flying an F4F, P 40, P39, Spit V or Hurricane, the goal is to get height, come down fast, take a shot, evade and repeat.



If that was the case you would assume they would have similar combat records in 1942.

S


----------



## slaterat (Jun 16, 2018)

pinsog said:


> You may be right Greyman. Could over heating in tropical heat be a reason? Would Volkes filter (not enough air) prevent over boost? I’m guessing, I have no idea



The volkes air filter was bypassed after take off.

The Merlin XX wasn't approved for the 16/14 lbs boost until late 42 .


----------



## Schweik (Jun 16, 2018)

pinsog said:


> Agreed on Hurricane rolling better than Spitfire and Spitfire barely rolling better than the Zero. Also
> The Spitfire is outclassed by Hap at all heights up to 20,000 feet. I would say the same applies to the Hurricane.
> The Spitfire is only 20 knots faster than a Hap at 26,000, assuming a Spitfire is about 20 knots faster than a Hurricane at 26,000 then I’m not seeing an advantage in anything for the Hurricane. Spitfire climb rate over Hap was insignificant at 27,000 and the Hap climbed at a steeper angle



These posts are interesting pinsog but do you have to make that text so big? 

S


----------



## pinsog (Jun 16, 2018)

Schweik said:


> These posts are interesting pinsog but do you have to make that text so big?
> 
> S


I’m on a phone right now. It looks normal to me, same size as everyone’s. Is this text that same way?


----------



## Schweik (Jun 16, 2018)

pinsog said:


> I’m on a phone right now. It looks normal to me, same size as everyone’s. Is this text that same way?



No this text is normal, but the images / screenshots are like 20 point... thought you were doing it for emphasis or something


----------



## pinsog (Jun 16, 2018)

slaterat said:


> As far as I know the front gravity tank on the Hurricane MK1 was never made self sealing, and it was attached to the pilots side of the fire proof bulkhead. The glycol header tank was on the engine side of the bulkhead and it was quite flammable. In the Hurricane MK IIs the bulkhead was extended under and around the tank and the tank as made self sealing. Additionally the coolant became a mixture of water/glycol which was far less flammable and then the armour plate was added in front of the glycol tank and it was all capped by the bullet resistant cowling. That's a lot better protection than most WW 2 planes have.


I am going off of BoB era Hurricanes. I read that they were bad about catching fire where the fuel tank is (fuel, glycol etc I didn’t know the glycol tank was there) and when the pilot opened the canopy to bail it sucked flames into the cockpit like a blast furnace. When pumped full of cannon and machine gun fire, they all burn, I guess many of the others didn’t have fuel and glycol in front of them. Was this protection added after BoB? I didn’t notice them talking about it in Bloody Shambles so maybe the protection you spoke of fixed the problem


----------



## pinsog (Jun 16, 2018)

Schweik said:


> No this text is normal, but the images / screenshots are like 20 point... thought you were doing it for emphasis or something


No I wasn’t, not on purpose. Are all of them like that? Maybe a moderator can fix them. Didn’t know I was doing it


----------



## slaterat (Jun 16, 2018)

Schweik said:


> 'm not so sure about that, if the memo RCAF linked is accurate, the test showed that the Hurricane couldn't even outclimb a P-40E, it's definitely going to be left in the dust by a Zero.



I have read that test report, obviously something was wrong with that Hurricane on that day, as it over heated half way through its climb an had to cool down before the climb was continued. That is only one out of many tests done on Hurricanes.



Schweik said:


> That actually depends a lot on the specific subtype, how much fuel they still have and whether they are overboosting. P-40N-1 (used extensively in the CBI) standard climb rate is 3,520' per minute. P-40L initial climb is 3,300 feet per minute. P-40K (also widely used in the CBI) initial climb is listed as 2,000 ' per minute but that is on Military rated power of 1,150 hp - but they were actually rated for up to 1,550 hp at WEP.
> 
> The test RCAF mentioned indicates that even a P-40E could outclimb a Hurricane II, possibly also due to WEP level of boost which was rated for up to 1,470 hp (officially).



Those are extremely optimistic results for P 40s. Lets look at some actual results from production aircraft supplied to the RAF and not light weight dyno tuned factory ringers.

All results from "Flying To the Limit" ie primary source documents (test results from RAF,RAE and A&AEE)

Tomahawk IIb/P-40C AK146 This model would have bullet proof windscreen, rear armour and self sealing tanks

Max rate of climb1960ft/min up to 13,500 ft, time to 20,000 ft10.8 minutes, max speed 331 at 15,500

Kittyhawk 1a( P-40E) , AK572, an early four gun model
max rate of climb 1640 ft/min at 11,400ft, time to 20,000 feet 14.25 minutes, absolute ceiling 29,900 feet, full throttle dive speed 460 IAS

Kittyhawk 1a, ET573, from May of 43,
max speed 344mph at 13,800

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greyman (Jun 16, 2018)

The Hurricane fuselage tank was initially left out of the self-sealing scheme the wing tanks got - the thinking was that it was sufficiently protected by everything else. This turned out not to be the case and there was an emergency program to get Linatex and the fireproof bulkhead fitted. No specific dates handy at the moment unfortunately.

With regard to Spitfire emergency boost (Merlin 45/46) timelines, I'm always seeing different dates. Though what I've seen makes me lean to late July, early August for +16 boost (*EDIT* 1942).


----------



## RCAFson (Jun 16, 2018)

Schweik said:


> I'm not so sure about that, if the memo RCAF linked is accurate, the test showed that the Hurricane couldn't even outclimb a P-40E, it's definitely going to be left in the dust by a Zero.
> 
> 
> 
> According to a couple of these guys the Hurricane can dive as fast as anything the Allies had.



The memo doesn't state that the P40E could outclimb the Hurricane. Here's the US Hurricane climb tests:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/Hurricane_II_Z-2974_Climb.pdf

0-15K ft in 5min. I think the overheating had to do with using a too steep climb AoA.

P40E:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/P-40/P-40E_40-405_PHQ-M-19-1320-A.jpg

0-15K in 6.49 minutes.

Even with a 3min wait at 15K ft it could still outclimb the P40E to 20K ft

Terminal dive speed (Vne) says nothing about acceleration into a dive.

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


----------



## RCAFson (Jun 16, 2018)

Greyman said:


> The Hurricane fuselage tank was initially left out of the self-sealing scheme the wing tanks got - the thinking was that it was sufficiently protected by everything else. This turned out not to be the case and there was an emergency program to get Linatex and the fireproof bulkhead fitted. No specific dates handy at the moment unfortunately.
> 
> With regard to Spitfire emergency boost (Merlin 45/46) timelines, I'm always seeing different dates. Though what I've seen makes me lean to late July, early August for +16 boost (*EDIT* 1942).



It was at latest August 1942. This was a memo issued to Fighter Command:


> In August 1942 the Air Tactics department
> at the Air Ministry issued the document which
> follows, as a guide to Spitfire pilots on the
> optimum engine settings to use when fying
> ...


* Relative to an FW-190

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 16, 2018)

The Merlin 46 was a peculiar engine, It paid for it's high altitude performance with poor low-mid altitude performance.

See: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/Merlin_46_47_Power_Chart.jpg

At the "nominal" 9lbs boost which the Australians seem to use power was little over 900 hp at sea level (not much more than a Merlin III) and rose to around 1025hp (?) at 16,000ft. again not much different than a Merlin III only instead of peaking there it kept gaining power slowly until 22,000ft where it made 1100hp compared to the Melrin IIIs approximately 750hp. It is little wonder that the RAAF's Spitfire Vs struggled to keep up either the P-40 or Zeros at altitudes much below 20,000ft. A test combat at 22,-25,000ft might have been interesting  

Please note that the Merlin 46 using full 16lbs of boost is making 1440hp at 14,500ft and there would be no way the P-40 or Zero could match this. It was making 1380hp at 10,000ft and the P-40Es engine was all done at that altitude as far as using over boost goes.
Please note the difference between 16lbs of boost and 9lbs is 7lbs which is 14in or over 350mm. It is about 62in of absolute pressure (rounded off somebody can correct to exact figure) or over 1570mm which the Zero engine never came close to.


I have no idea why the Australians go this engine or why they didn't operate it at the full boost rating, or even at 12lbs.

Please note that at 15,000ft there is an almost 400hp difference between the 9lbs and the 16lb rating.

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


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 16, 2018)

I would also note that test conditions varied considerably and that combat conditions also varied from many of the test conditions. 

I would note in the US test of the Hurricane that one of the US requirements is spelled out. That is that the US wanted the planes to cool properly on a day where the temperature was 23 degrees C above "standard". Standard being 15 degrees C. For the celsius challenged among us (myself included) that is 59 Degrees for "standard" and 100 degrees F for the 23 Degrees above standard. This made sense for the US as it didn't know if it's planes were going to operate in Michigan or in Texas or Florida. Let alone Panama orother hot areas. The US didn't have tropical versions of aircraft. Some (not all) British aircraft got different radiators/oil coolers for tropical use. 

US _official_ use of WEP (over boost) didn't happen until late 1942. The US did use full military power for the first 5 minutes of climb. 

The US overboost on the early Allison engine would be rather short lived in a climb. The engines with the 8.80 supercharger gears could only hold 56in to 4300ft on a standard day with no ram, even if they could get 66-70in at sea level. This is for the E. Boost falls to the standard 44.6 in by 11,700ft (no ram) so even 1 1/2 minutes into the climb from sea level the P-40 lost several hundred HP and lost another 300hp by the time it reached 12,000ft. The extra power was quite useful for maneuvering/repositioning the aircraft in a low altitude dog fight. It simply wasn't available at altitudes over 12,000ft. and was rapidly fading from around 5000ft to 12,000ft in a climb. 
The Engine in the K was a bit better but not much. It could hold 60in to 2,500ft and fell off pretty much line the engine in the E model. It is not until you get to the M and N with the 9.60 gears that WEP lasts into the low teens. But they don't show up during this period? first showing up in the Spring of 1943. 

A Merlin 45 could hold extra boost (16lbs/62in) to 11,000ft. The 46 was described above. The Merlin XX in the Hurricane could hold 16lbs/62in to 12,500ft in high gear. 
Please note that this altitudes/power ratings are for the 15D C/59D F "standard" day and tests in Northern Australia and other hot areas could be off by well over 100hp.

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


----------



## Kevin J (Jun 16, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> The Merlin 46 was a peculiar engine, It paid for it's high altitude performance with poor low-mid altitude performance.
> 
> See: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/Merlin_46_47_Power_Chart.jpg
> 
> ...


Spitfire (F) Mk.VB W.3322 Report
If the FAA's Sea Hurricane's use of boost is anything to go by, then in 1941, 12 lbs of boost for 5 minutes, and in 1942, 16 lbs of boost for 3 minutes. So it's not going to last you very long. The document I attached gives no clues to performance with 12/16 lbs of boost, but then the Merlin 46 is optimised for use between 18 and 22.5 thou feet and the boost is only available below this, clearly for emergencies only. At a guess, I'd say a Spitfire Vc Trop would do about 352-355 mph over 20 thou feet which is not a large margin over an A6M3.


----------



## Schweik (Jun 16, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> The Engine in the K was a bit better but not much. It could hold 60in to 2,500ft and fell off pretty much line the engine in the E model. It is not until you get to the M and N with the 9.60 gears that WEP lasts into the low teens. But they don't show up during this period? first showing up in the Spring of 1943.



P-40E and K were officially rated for 1150 hp with 42" Hg @ 12,000', P-40M was still making 1125 hp at 17,300'. And it went into combat in Nov of 42.



> A Merlin 45 could hold extra boost (16lbs/62in) to 11,000ft. The 46 was described above. The Merlin XX in the Hurricane could hold 16lbs/62in to 12,500ft in high gear.



You are perhaps forgetting about P-40F and L with Merlin 28 (Packard version of Merlin XX). Those were in combat by June of 42.

S


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 16, 2018)

Kevin J said:


> Spitfire (F) Mk.VB W.3322 Report
> If the FAA's Sea Hurricane's use of boost is anything to go by, then in 1941, 12 lbs of boost for 5 minutes, and in 1942, 16 lbs of boost for 3 minutes. So it's not going to last you very long. The document I attached gives no clues to performance with 12/16 lbs of boost, but then the Merlin 46 is optimised for use between 18 and 22.5 thou feet and the boost is only available below this, clearly for emergencies only.



The WEP was "officially" for 5 minutes only on the Allison engines too. What was done in combat at squadron level may be quite different.
The Early Sea Hurricane rating was for some of the planes used on CAM ships which were going to ditch at the end of the flight so how long the engine lasted till overhaul was sort of a moot point. The Merlin III in the Sea Hurricane was rated at 1440hp at 5500ft at 16lbs boost. It could use the 12lbs of boost (54in?) up to 9000ft. Later Merlins than the III got stronger parts and were slowly allowed greater boost pressures. 

The difference in time I was referring to was in the climb, where the extra boost disappears with altitude. If you increase your climb rate by hundreds of feet per minute you wind up getting to an altitude where the supercharger simply cannot deliver the air flow needed to sustain WEP/over boost that much quicker.
If you stay at low altitude it is not so much a problem.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 16, 2018)

Schweik said:


> P-40E and K were officially rated for 1150 hp with 42" Hg @ 12,000', P-40M was still making 1125 hp at 17,300'. And it went into combat in Nov of 42.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


There was about 1 fighter group (if that) that used P-40Fs and Ls in the Pacific. 

The M did not go into combat in Nov 1942. Production started in Nov/Dec of 1942 and even if a few made it out the factory door in Nov 42 there was darn little combat around Buffalo New York. It took weeks to get a plane from the factory to a combat zone.

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


----------



## RCAFson (Jun 16, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> I would also note that test conditions varied considerably and that combat conditions also varied from many of the test conditions.
> 
> I would note in the US test of the Hurricane that one of the US requirements is spelled out. That is that the US wanted the planes to cool properly on a day where the temperature was 23 degrees C above "standard". Standard being 15 degrees C. For the celsius challenged among us (myself included) that is 59 Degrees for "standard" and 100 degrees F for the 23 Degrees above standard. This made sense for the US as it didn't know if it's planes were going to operate in Michigan or in Texas or Florida. Let alone Panama orother hot areas. The US didn't have tropical versions of aircraft. Some (not all) British aircraft got different radiators/oil coolers for tropical use.
> 
> ...


 
Looking through my files I found this telegram dated 6 Sept 1943 (originally downloaded from the Australian Archives website). It reports the results of RAAF Spitfire V/Merlin 46 speed tests with different types of cowlings and it clearly shows the use of 16lb boost at lower altitudes:


> AL794 - 6 SEPT YOUR L847 4 SEPT [1943]
> 
> SPITFIRE AIRCRAFT (.)
> 
> ...



As speeds of:
(1) AT SEA LEVEL (A) 312 (B) 318 (C) 316.

(2) AT 10,000 FEET (A) 355.5 (B) 355.6 (C) 360 MPH.

were only achievable at 16lb boost. These speeds were well above RAAF test results for the P40E and A6M3 "HAP" and it shows how vital 16lb boost was for the high altitude rated Merlin 46, when used at low altitude.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## RCAFson (Jun 16, 2018)

I also found this data in my files from the Australian Archives:







Which is a very interesting comparison. The range and endurance figures for the Hurricane and P40 seem to have used different methods of calculation.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
5 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Jun 16, 2018)

RCAFson said:


> I also found this data in my files from the Australian Archives:
> 
> View attachment 497889
> 
> ...


Are these figures for when tropical / dust filters have been fitted? In the case of the Hurricane, that 335 mph should be maintainable up to 22000 feet, but what about the P-40E?


----------



## Schweik (Jun 16, 2018)

RCAFson said:


> The memo doesn't state that the P40E could outclimb the Hurricane. Here's the US Hurricane climb tests:
> 
> http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/Hurricane_II_Z-2974_Climb.pdf
> 
> ...



Well I see two problems here.

*Problem 1* is that you are talking about two different tests. Which seems a little odd and kind of a pattern. I was referring to this Oct 1941 test which you posted in Post 203. In that test, on the second page (section 3.b) they compared the Hurricane to the P-40E and after pointing out the Hurricane could out turn the P-40 (and all the other fighters including the Spitfire) noted:

_"The P-40E can outdive the Hurricane and is faster in level flight up to approximately 20,000 ft. The Hurricane can outclimb the P-40E at any altitude for short periods of time, but sustained high power climb cannot be made in warm weather due to excessive coolant temperatures."_

This to me sounds like they are saying the Hurricane did not in fact manage to outclimb the P-40E and was also of course slower and less capable in a dive, even though in Oct 1941 they would have been using lower power settings on the P-40. I also don't agree that this was a 'broken' Hurricane because similar problems with overheating were described in the Med.

They also noted that of all the fighters tested at that time, "only the P-38 was a really effective pursuit airplane against the the B-17C bomber" at 25,000 feet, which is a bit odd considering that that altitude should be within the performance envelope of the Spit and theHurricane (though they don't specify which models).


*Problem 2 *is with this second test you posted from Dec 1941. The thing is that test was done in 1941, before the P-40E had been used much in combat. Just as you mentioned the 16 lb boost for the Spit V, there was essentially the same issue for the P-40. We now know from sources like this one that P-40Es were _not _limited to 1150 hp for takeoff as used in that test (which the original recommended max throttle setting of 45" of Hg would deliver) because by mid 1942 they were officially approved for 57" / 1470 hp, so that would probably translate to increased speed and rate of climb.

In fact Allison had acknowledged 60", and noted that some squadrons were resetting the throttle to 66" and 3200 RPM.

To put it in perspective, here is a quote from this interesting report on the British use of P-51A / Mustang I which were powered by the same V-1710-39 engine as the P-40E (items 33 and 36) :

_
33. This aircraft is powered with the Allison 1710-39 engine having a rated power of 1150 H.P. at 3000 R.P.M. and 44” Hg. at 12,000 ft. The engine was originally equipped with an automatic boost control limiting the manifold pressure at the lower altitudes to 44”. The British remove this so as to get the vastly increased performance at lower altitudes thru the judicious use of over-boost. 

36. In view of the British operation and the fact that we have an approved war emergency rating on the 1710-39 engine of 56”, it is suggested that immediate steps be taken to remove the automatic boost controls from our P-51 airplanes in this theatre and that the instrument dials be marked with the proper lights.* The British have operated at full throttle at sea level (72” Hg) for as much as 20 min. at a time without hurting the engines. According to them, the Allison is averaging 1500 hours between bearing failures as compared to 500 to 600 hours for the Merlin. *The Allison, they have found, will drag them home even with the bearing ruined. _



At 56" Hg 1470 hp. I think the fighter would climb a bit better, at least for the first 5,000 feet, it would probably cut the climb time to 15,000 ft considerably, especially lets say in a scramble situation. I'm not even going to speculate about 70 or 72". The P-40E was also rated 1,150 hp at @12,000 ft at military power (45" Hg).

I suspect this, along with varying weight loads (like carrying an external fuel tank or not) is the actual reason why reported P-40 climb rates varied so widely.

S

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jun 17, 2018)

RCAFson said:


> I also found this data in my files from the Australian Archives:
> 
> Which is a very interesting comparison. The range and endurance figures for the Hurricane and P40 seem to have used different methods of calculation.



This must have been a hell of a clapped out P-40 and the worlds fastest Hurricane.

This July 1941 test showed a top speed of 354 mph for a P-40D at 15,175 (1085 hp)

This Sept 1941 test shows a speed of 340 mph for a P-40E *with a 52 gallon belly tank 
*
This July 1942 test shows a speed of 374 mph at 19,270 ft for a P-40F (clean)

This June 1942 test (I believe British) shows a P-40F or L (Kittyhawk II) at 370 mph at 20,400 ft and still 347 mph at 30,000 feet.

This test gives an example of what i was alluding to earlier, i.e. climbing at higher boost. They took a P-40N-1CU and climbed at 57" mercury (nominal WEP rating)

Climb rates were

Sea Level
1000 ft / 57" / 3100
2000 ft / 57" / 3140
3000 ft / 57" / 3180
5000 ft / 57" / 3220
6800 ft* / 57" / 3370
7500 ft / 55.5" / 3270
10000 ft / 50.5" / 2930
12500 ft / 46.25 / 2610
15000 ft / 42.25 / 2300

*6800 ft was the 'critical full throttle height' ,meaning after that the boost started gradually declining.

Note that in the test - the plane got to 15,000 feet in 5 minutes flat. Which is as good as the time quoted on that Hurricane II test. Rate of climb actually increased until the plane got to 6800 ft.

By comparison the climb rate for the same plane at military power was 2,300 Ft / minute at military power (43.8" Hg) .

The really big question to me though, is if the Hurricane was anywhere near as good as you are saying it was, since they definitely had _plenty _of them, why didn't they use them for the defense of Australia at Darwin or in Milne Bay etc.? Why were they clamouring for Spirfires if the Hurricane was practically as good, and why did they rely on P-40s until they could get the Spits?

Why were they using P-40s at Darwin especially considering the altitude limitations of the Allison engined P-40s they had.

Why did they replace the Hurricane in the Med with the P-40 and then the Spit?

Why didn't the Americans get some via 'reverse lend - lease' like they did with the Spit V?

Why did the Russians replace all their Hurricanes with P-40s and then Yaks etc. as soon as they could?

S


----------



## RCAFson (Jun 17, 2018)

Schweik said:


> This must have been a hell of a clapped out P-40 and the worlds fastest Hurricane.
> 
> This July 1941 test showed a top speed of 354 mph for a P-40D at 15,175 (1085 hp)
> 
> ...



Commonwealth trials of the P40 variants don't show such optimistic speeds for the P-40E. Most of the really impressive results seem to have come from Curtiss directly.

The Hurricane is lighter than the P-40 and has lower wing loading. Why would you expect the P-40 to be able to climb as well, especially with the early model Allison engines? The P-40 pulling maximum boost via WEP is just about even with a Hurricane II using normal climb power, but what do you think would happen when the Hurricane II pilot pulls the plug and uses WEP as well?


> P-40 Speed trial:
> WAR DEPARTMENT
> AIR CORPS, MATERIEL DIVISION
> Wright Field, Dayton, Ohio
> ...



The later model P-40s with superior engines have better low/medium altitude speed than the Hurricane II but the P-40E's advantage is marginal

The P-40 supplemented the Hurricane in the ETO/MTO, it didn't replace it.

AFAIK, the RAAF used P-40s because they could get them, and the USAAF used them because they had them. P-40 production was roughly the same as Hurricane production but P-40 production was greater from 1942 to 1944. The RAF and Commonwealth AFs had expended thousands of Hurricanes prior to the P-40 arriving in any numbers. One reason that the P-40 was available for the PTO was that the USAAF was receiving hundreds of reverse LL Spitfires, and they even got the MK VIII before the RAAF, IIRC.

The Spitfire VC Trop was still ~30mph faster than a Hurricane II. But it is good question as to why Australia didn't get Hurricanes; Hurricane development as an air superiority fighter ended in early 1941, which probably was a factor and the RAAF wanted the best available high altitude fighter. However, there's no doubt that the Hurricane II could have done a credible job in lieu of the Spitfire Vc trop/Merlin46 and perhaps done better if it didn't suffer the same issues with the CS prop unit and cannon jams. It would have had a lot more trouble catching high altitude IJ recon aircraft though.


----------



## RCAFson (Jun 17, 2018)

Schweik said:


> Well I see two problems here.
> 
> *Problem 1* is that you are talking about two different tests. Which seems a little odd and kind of a pattern. I was referring to this Oct 1941 test which you posted in Post 203. In that test, on the second page (section 3.b) they compared the Hurricane to the P-40E and after pointing out the Hurricane could out turn the P-40 (and all the other fighters including the Spitfire) noted:
> 
> ...



The RAAF report on the P-40 and Hurricane hardly constitutes two separate tests.

The USAAC seem to have tested the B-17C at maximum speed which was somewhat unrealistic for a bomber expected to fight it's way to the target at cruise speed. However, the B17C could do ~300mph at ~25K ft which was a tough proposition for any late 1941 fighter.

The US climb trials with the Hurricane II clearly show that it could climb to 15K ft without pause for cooling and could do it faster than a P-40.


----------



## Kevin J (Jun 17, 2018)

RCAFson said:


> Commonwealth trials of the P40 variants don't show such optimistic speeds for the P-40E. Most of the really impressive results seem to have come from Curtiss directly.
> 
> The Hurricane is lighter than the P-40 and has lower wing loading. Why would you expect the P-40 to be able to climb as well, especially with the early model Allison engines? The P-40 pulling maximum boost via WEP is just about even with a Hurricane II using normal climb power, but what do you think would happen when the Hurricane II pilot pulls the plug and uses WEP as well?
> 
> ...


I think you hit the nail on the head when you said that production of the Hurricane II as an air superiority fighter ended in early 1941. It could have been improved and would have done better in combat. The Russians certainly improved it. If a Sea Hurricane IIc could do 342 mph while a Hurricane IIc only 336 mph then if you put the same mods on the Hurricane IIc you'll be looking at about 349 mph which is not far short of the Spitfire Vc with the Merlin 46 at 363 mph. If you put the same mods on a Hurricane IIa then you get 355 mph.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 17, 2018)

We are back to the difference in test procedures/ climb ratings and the use of WEP/ high boost.
we are also getting into the same old discussions of when/where the Allison was allowed to over boost and at what cost.

British climb figures, unless the test specifically states otherwise were done at a 1 hour rating. Obviously climbing at a 5 minute (or 3 minute) rating would improve things in combat. 
American climb figures were done, unless the test specifically states otherwise, using full military power (5 minute or 15 minute depending on date of test and engine, the 15 minute was later) for the first 5 minutes and then dropping back to max continuous which was a _1 hour or *longer*_ rating (again depending on date of test and engine).

It doesn't matter if the air force was the RAF or the AAF or the US Navy. EACH AND EVERY use of overboost was supposed to be recorded in the the aircraft log book and appropriate maintenance procedures decided upon by the squadron technical officer. This could be a simple as taking a look at an oil sample for metal particles and changing (or cleaning) the spark plugs more often (but not after every time WEP was used), it could lead to reducing the time between overhauls. 
This depended on the officer involved and his experience with the engines, as they gained more experience the restrictions became a bit less.

The Allison is a real can of worms because it changed considerably (and always for the better) as time went on and due to the fact that better parts were sometimes substituted for the originals during overhauls. Allison switched from a shot peened crankshaft to a shot peened and nitrided crankshaft in Dec/jan of 1941/42 which had a much higher fatigue life. The Engine in the P-40Es also had a number of improvements over the engine used in the P-40C/Tomahawks. 
The Allison actually would often get the pilot home after seeing considerable abuse (like the 20 minutes of overboosting) but then would fail at normal cruise power settings one or two flights later. Tracing the failure back to the use of over boosting on the earlier flight took a lot of experience and looking at the wrecked engine. You also don't hear from the pilot who didn't make it home after beating the crap out of his engine for 20 minutes. 

We seem to operating under the assumption that all the P-40 pilots had to do was simply over boost their engines when ever they wanted to in order to equalize the climb with other aircraft.
We need to look at the climb to altitude without WEP as routinely beating the crap out of the engines to get to intercept altitude is a really bad idea, especially if you are at the end of a long and iffy supply chain and operating in an area with lots of dirt/dust that will shorten engine life considerably regardless of the power settings used. 
Sometimes you do what you have to do but trashing engines this week to make intercepts may mean not enough aircraft left running next week to intercept next weeks raids. 
By the summer/fall of 1942 most of the P-40s in service would have the stronger crankshafts and the block had also been made stronger about the same time. 
The official approval of WEP ratings for the Allison has to be looked at in that light. there may have been some foot dragging but perhaps not as much as some people believe.

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Informative Informative:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## slaterat (Jun 17, 2018)

Schweik said:


> This to me sounds like they are saying the Hurricane did not in fact manage to outclimb the P-40E and was also of course slower and less capable in a dive, even though in Oct 1941 they would have been using lower power settings on the P-40. I also don't agree that this was a 'broken' Hurricane because similar problems with overheating were described in the Med.



Do you have a source for that?

There are a few issues with that American test of the Hurricane. The report simply calls it a Hurricane II, ( it's serial number identifies it as a a II a), its weight at 6,848 also indicate it is a *NON* tropicalized IIa, meaning it doesn't have the cooling modifications for hot tropical weather.

Also they may have been climbing at too steep of an angle and at too low of a speed. The initial climb rate, in the test, is 3,200 ft/min and it is still climbing at 3,000 ft /min at 10,000 ft. Those are very high numbers for a Hurricane IIa at 9 lbs boost. Its making great time,4.98 mins to15,000 ft, and then it has to cool down for three minutes as it was overheating.

Typical climb rates for a Hurricane IIa are, initial 3,050ft/min, 2,360 ft/min at 10,000 and a time too 15,000 ft of 6.2 mins , and as it hasn't overheated at these rates its time to 20,000 ft is 8.2 minutes.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jun 17, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> Allison switched from a shot peened crankshaft to a shot peened and nitrided crankshaft in Dec/jan of 1941/42 which had a much higher fatigue life. The Engine in the P-40Es also had a number of improvements over the engine used in the P-40C/Tomahawks.
> The Allison actually would often get the pilot home after seeing considerable abuse (like the 20 minutes of overboosting) but then would fail at normal cruise power settings one or two flights later. Tracing the failure back to the use of over boosting on the earlier flight took a lot of experience and looking at the wrecked engine. You also don't hear from the pilot who didn't make it home after beating the crap out of his engine for 20 minutes.
> 
> We seem to operating under the assumption that all the P-40 pilots had to do was simply over boost their engines when ever they wanted to in order to equalize the climb with other aircraft.
> ...



Interesting analysis - and yes the V-1710-73 (used in the P-40K - in combat in mid 1942) had a greatly improved (tempered steel) crankshaft, thicker crank case and other adjustments, not to mention increased availability of higher octane "Amendment V" fuel. I think you are overstating the case when you assume that 20 minutes of WEP is 'trashing the engine'. The USAAF report on the Mustang I is pretty definitive when they say:

_*The British have operated at full throttle at sea level (72” Hg) for as much as 20 min. at a time without hurting the engines. According to them, the Allison is averaging 1500 hours between bearing failures as compared to 500 to 600 hours for the Merlin. *_And this is presumably the earlier and not as robust V-1710-39.

I am going to go out on a limb with a couple of assumptions here:


When the officer says they could run *20 minutes at 72" Hg without hurting the engines*, recommends throttle settings be modified upwards, and then in the same paragraph, notes that the Allison was *lasting 1500 hours between bearing failures,* he may know whereof he speaks. 

Seeing as even the much lower 60" or 57' Hg throttle setting would amount to a vast improvement in climb rate and no doubt, level speed, I would assume that these could also be safely used for 20 minutes under equivalent maintenance regimes, and therefore probably safe. Sure mark it in the log book, check the oil and change the spark plugs, but it may not actually mean greatly reduced engine life.

It seems likely that the agenda of Allison and that of the pilots is a bit in conflict, but the squadron and Wing commanders in the RAF certainly wouldn't want to run out of engines or lose planes to sudden engine failures.

Of course, equivalent maintenance regimes may be one of the key issues here. RAF Mustangs were being operated from nice well maintained airfields in England, with proper hangar facilities, ample spare parts and nice big clean dry indoor hangars. A-36 and P-40s were more typically operated in difficult field conditions, out in the baking sun all day, subject to monsoon rains in the CBI, typhoons in the Pacific, dust storms in the Med, and freezing temperatures lower than most of us can imagine in Russia. Certainly the Russians noted that they had a lot of maintenance issues with P-40s in particular and have quoted engine life as low as 100 hours. They in fact ran out of engines for their first Tomahawk unit in about two months.

However that said, in the field it's clear that they did run the engines pretty hard, including overboosting quite a bit, and outside of Russia, P-40s did not have a reputation for being hangar queens, quite to the contrary. Maybe it's just a matter of Allied supply chains being better and allied maintenance crew being more familiar with everything to do with it. But the Allison engine itself had a good reputation for reliability.

S


----------



## Schweik (Jun 17, 2018)

slaterat said:


> Do you have a source for that?
> 
> There are a few issues with that American test of the Hurricane. The report simply calls it a Hurricane II, ( it's serial number identifies it as a a II a), its weight at 6,848 also indicate it is a *NON* tropicalized IIa, meaning it doesn't have the cooling modifications for hot tropical weather.
> 
> ...



What specifically are you asking for a source for? I think it was RCAF who posted the document claiming a 5 minute to 15,000 ft climb rate for Hurricanes.

S


----------



## Schweik (Jun 17, 2018)

RCAFson said:


> Commonwealth trials of the P40 variants don't show such optimistic speeds for the P-40E. Most of the really impressive results seem to have come from Curtiss directly.
> 
> The Hurricane is lighter than the P-40 and has lower wing loading. Why would you expect the P-40 to be able to climb as well, especially with the early model Allison engines?



First - I wouldn't normally expect the P-40 to outclimb the Hurricane to be honest, since they didn't climb that well, but the boost / WEP numbers look like maybe they _could_ sometimes probably depending on the load. And there is also the overheating problems apparently faced by Hurricanes to consider. I wouldn't put money on it though.

If you noticed, rather similar to your comments about +9 vs +16 boost, it was discovered in the first few months of 1942 that P-40Es could be safely run at 57" vs. 45" Hg, which translates to 1470 hp vs. 1150. Which is a big difference at least at low altitude.

Second, the Hurricane, again relying mainly on anecdotal evidence from a lot of commentary, was much draggier, it had a 40' wingspan vs 37' on the P-40 or 36' on the Sptfire, and it had notoriously thick wings. I think that may have been one of the main issues with it. The fuselage, though streamlined, was also I think high, giving it that humpback appearance. This too induces drag, I know for example the bubble canopy P-51D was slower than the 'tighter' P-51B. The P-40 was draggy too with the big chin radiator scoop, but apparently not the same extent.

I assume this is why the top speed of the P-40 is always listed as higher than the Hurricane, except in that one test you posted.



> The P-40 pulling maximum boost via WEP is just about even with a Hurricane II using normal climb power, but what do you think would happen when the Hurricane II pilot pulls the plug and uses WEP as well?



I'm not sure what the power ratings were on the tests posted so far actually, but if you find any of them being tested at WEP please post them. For some reason as noted upthread though most official tests (for any of these aircraft) seem to be done at normal rated or military power, only later in the war does WEP seem to garner much Official attention.



> The P-40 supplemented the Hurricane in the ETO/MTO, it didn't replace it.



P-40s were not used in the ETO except for early Tomahawks in the "Army coopration" role similar to the Allison engined Mustangs.

*In the MTO P-40s most definitely did replace Hurricanes in the main Air Superiority Fighter squadrons.* These were also by far the highest-scoring fighter squadrons in the Med until the Spitfires arrived in later 1942. 112 Sqn RAF, No 3 Sqn RAAF, No 250 Sqn RAF, No 260 Sqn RAF, and No 450 Sqn RAAF had all of their Hurricanes replaced by P-40s in 1941 or early 1942. Later more fighter wings converted throughout 1942, but the units which were still flying Hurricanes were flying almost exclusively bombing / strafing missions. *And usually being escorted by P-40s.*

112 RAF

1939–1941 – Gloster Gladiator I & II
1940-1940 – Gloster Gauntlet
1941 – Hawker Hurricane I
1941 – Curtiss Tomahawk I
1941 – Curtiss Tomahawk IIA & IIB
1941–1942 Curtiss Kittyhawk 1A
1942–1944 Curtiss Kittyhawk III
1944 Curtiss Kittyhawk IV
1944–1945 North American Mustang III
260 RAF is also fairly typical:

Nov 1940 Feb 1942 Hawker Hurricane I
Feb 1942 Mar 1942 Curtiss P-40 Tomahawk II
Feb 1942 Sep 1942 Curtiss P-40 Kittyhawk I
Jun 1942 May 1943 Curtiss P-40 Kittyhawk IIA
Dec 1942 Mar 1944 Curtiss P-40 Kittyhawk III
Apr 1944 Aug 1945 North American P-51 Mustang III
Jun 1945 Aug 1945 North American P-51 Mustang IV

And etc.



> The Spitfire VC Trop was still ~30mph faster than a Hurricane II. But it is good question as to why Australia didn't get Hurricanes; Hurricane development as an air superiority fighter ended in early 1941, which probably was a factor and the RAAF wanted the best available high altitude fighter. However, there's no doubt that the Hurricane II could have done a credible job in lieu of the Spitfire Vc trop/Merlin46 and perhaps done better if it didn't suffer the same issues with the CS prop unit and cannon jams. It would have had a lot more trouble catching high altitude IJ recon aircraft though.



Interesting theory, I wonder if we can find any Australian or RAF documents related to why they made the choices they did.

S


----------



## Schweik (Jun 17, 2018)

By the way - all this stuff about the Hurricane is interesting. It seems like you are reaching a little but if even half of your claims are true, you should update the Wikipedia page on it.

If the Hurricane can really roll fast and dive fast it certainly changes my impression of the plane. And poses a lot of new questions.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 17, 2018)

Schweik said:


> _*The British have operated at full throttle at sea level (72” Hg) for as much as 20 min. at a time without hurting the engines. According to them, the Allison is averaging 1500 hours between bearing failures as compared to 500 to 600 hours for the Merlin. *_And this is presumably the earlier and not as robust V-1710-39.



I think we have a problem here in equating bearing failure to engine life or time between overhauls. I don't believe anybody was operating either the Merlin or the Allison for 1500 hours without a tear down (or 3-5 teardowns). Now during a teardown or overhaul if the bearings were still in spec they went back in the engine (if they even came out?) 
And a worn bearing is not a bearing failure.
Near the end of the war the Allison was exceeding 1000 hours between overhauls in P-40s used by training commands in the US (which usually operated on much lower boost limits than standard military power). Which makes the 1500 hour figure a bit dubious when trying to apply it to combat aircraft as _actual engine life_.
Tear downs/overhauls also covered wear to pistons and piston rings (or damage from detonation, pitting or rough surface of piston top) valve pitting/burning, valve guide wear, valve seats, broken or soft valve springs and a host of other fit/tolerance areas.
RR was recommending in 1939 that Merlins used in fighters should be pulled for overhaul after 240 hours, this rose to 300 hours by 1944.
Bomber engines lasted a bit longer.

Engine life figures also need close scrutiny as RR reported that only 35% of engines going through the repair facilities had reached their recommended service life and of the engines going through the repair facilities the engines averaged 60% of the recommended engine life. 
Now please,_ please_ note that these figures include engines going through the repair facility for ALL reasons. like combat damage ( a few bullet holes in the cooling jacket?) or a prop strike (aircraft noses over with prop turning or belly lands.) In fact RR worked out a way to weld the aluminium nose gear case and add an external brace to return engines that suffered a cracked nose gear case in a prop strike to service, without requiring new castings/housings.

Also please note that Allison developed both stronger valve springs and different top piston rings for the later 2 stage engines when they expected to be running high intake manifold pressures for long periods of time.


----------



## pinsog (Jun 17, 2018)

Glad to see you Shortround. Your technical knowledge is always enlightening

Reactions: Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinsog (Jun 17, 2018)

Could someone explain how a Hurricane could beat a Hamp 1 on 1 when a Spitfire V “was totally outclassed at all altitudes below 20,000” and Spit V had no outstanding features allowing it to successfully take on a Hamp when starting on equal footing. 

A Hurricane is 20 or 30 mph slower than a Spit V, climbs slower, I would think it dives slower. It does turn tighter but that won’t work against a Zero or Hap. 

So what can it do starting on equal footing against a Zero or Hap?


----------



## Greyman (Jun 17, 2018)

I disagree with 'totally outclassed at all altitudes below 20,000 feet'. Totally outclassed in a 1-versus-1, slow-speed dogfight, perhaps.

The Hurricane has better roll and dive acceleration than the Zero - ie: the attributes that the Wildcat has over the Zero - the Hurricane is even better (save for resistance to enemy fire).

So if you can believe that the Wildcat was able to best the Zero on occasion, it shouldn't be a stretch that the Hurricane could do the same.

*EDIT:* reading around a bit it seems that the Wildcat's dive was about the same as the Zero.


----------



## RCAFson (Jun 17, 2018)

The P-40 seems to do well on some tests but not others. I think most of us agree that the F4F-4 had a poor RoC:






So what happens when the USN tests the same aircraft, above, against a P-40F?:





http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4f/f4f-4-02135.pdf

Hmm...

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## RCAFson (Jun 17, 2018)

pinsog said:


> Could someone explain how a Hurricane could beat a Hamp 1 on 1 when a Spitfire V “was totally outclassed at all altitudes below 20,000” and Spit V had no outstanding features allowing it to successfully take on a Hamp when starting on equal footing.
> 
> A Hurricane is 20 or 30 mph slower than a Spit V, climbs slower, I would think it dives slower. It does turn tighter but that won’t work against a Zero or Hap.
> 
> So what can it do starting on equal footing against a Zero or Hap?



I showed rather conclusively during that the Spitfire V/A6M3 trials that the Spitfire was denied 16lb boost. If both aircraft use their maximum engine ratings the Spitfire will have better climb at all altitudes and be ~20-30mph faster at all altitudes. The RAAF HaP trials showed a rough equivalency to a Hurricane II in performance.
Another viewpoint on Spitfire vs Hap:
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/japan/spit-v-zero-wawn.jpg

Caldwell on Spitfire vs Zero:
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/japan/spitfire-v-zero-caldwell.jpg


----------



## pinsog (Jun 17, 2018)

I agree 100% that the F4F-4 climb rate was awful. It’s stats do not explain its 1-1 kill ratio against the Zero. 

In another thread in this forum, JoeB stated and provided evidence that the Spitfire kill ratio against the Zero over Darwin was 28 Spitfires shot down (this doesn’t include those that ran out of fuel, I believe they had 8 or 10 Spitfires run out of fuel on 1 intercept over Darwin) vs 4 Zero’s confirmed destroyed. I can’t remember how many bombers were destroyed. 

RCAFson Both of those articles you produce are postwar magazine articles from the winners. (Loops aren’t used in combat??? One of the Zeros favorite tricks was to simply loop up and over and drop down on the tail of the allied fighter. The Hap flies 500 miles 1 way, shoots down Spits at a 7-1 ratio and runs a bunch more out of fuel but the Spitfire and her pilots were better? Post war BS) Actual tests, during the war, by combat pilots in theater said the Spitfire was no match under 20,000 feet if started on equal terms. Of course they could shoot them down if they bounced them from 5,000 feet above. 

The actual test showed the Spit V speed wasn’t enough to evade a Hap. Same test said the Spit V could not dive away fast enough to avoid getting shot down, it just slowly pulled away. 

Can a Hurricane out dive a Spit V? Can someone answer this? I wouldn’t think so but I learn on here every day.

Shortround6 gave a very detailed answer on the 16 lb boost rating. For whatever reason the Darwin Spit V did not have the high boost rating. Maybe if it had it it might have done better, but it didn’t have it and was deemed ‘completely outclassed below 20,000 feet’.


----------



## pinsog (Jun 17, 2018)

The Hurricane has better roll and dive acceleration than the Zero - ie: the attributes that the Wildcat has over the Zero - the Hurricane is even better (save for resistance to enemy fire).

Agree 100% the high speed Hurricane roll was better than a Zero, F4F-4 and Spitfire V. 

Agree F4F-4 dived at same speed as Zero. 

Spitfire dive wasn’t fast enough to evade a following Zero, I doubt a Hurricane would dive faster than a SpitV. Maybe a Hurricane would be better at evading than a SpitV if it did a diving roll. But at the end of that roll, your in a slower aircraft with a slower climb and if you drop below 275 mph or so your going to be less maneuverable as well. A P40 could roll, dive and run like mad. An F4F-4 could take a lot of damage (radial engine)


----------



## RCAFson (Jun 17, 2018)

pinsog said:


> I agree 100% that the F4F-4 climb rate was awful. It’s stats do not explain its 1-1 kill ratio against the Zero.
> 
> In another thread in this forum, JoeB stated and provided evidence that the Spitfire kill ratio against the Zero over Darwin was 28 Spitfires shot down (this doesn’t include those that ran out of fuel, I believe they had 8 or 10 Spitfires run out of fuel on 1 intercept over Darwin) vs 4 Zero’s confirmed destroyed. I can’t remember how many bombers were destroyed.
> 
> ...



There are extensive threads devoted to the Darwin Spitfire debacle. However, of the Spitfire air combat losses, how many had actually run of fuel? How many had suffered CS prop failures and how many suffered high altitude cannon jams, resulting in the Zero being able to turn the tables? The other factor is that the Spitfire's mission was to destroy the bombers and IJ recon aircraft. When these are added in the kill ratio is about 1-1.

You keep repeating the "outclassed claim" even when several of us have pointed out that this pertains to close in dog fighting. Anyways here's another view on being outclassed:
_"(c)Material (planes): The disastrous loss of our TBD's needs no further comment; it is earnestly hoped that steps will be taken to provide TBF's for all carrier Air Groups immediately. The SBD is now obsolescent due to its slow speed. *Our fighters, F4F-4's, are completely outclassed by Japanese "0" fighters in speed, climb, and maneuverability. It is recommended that immediate action be taken to remedy this inferiority*."_
Action Report: 4-6 June 1942 (Serial 0137)

And the above pertains to all aspects of performance, yet the F4F-4 fought the Zero to a draw.


----------



## Greyman (Jun 17, 2018)

pinsog said:


> Spitfire dive wasn’t fast enough to evade a following Zero.



When the Spitfire apparently was not using full boost, correct.


----------



## pinsog (Jun 17, 2018)

Greyman said:


> When the Spitfire apparently was not using full boost, correct.



Apparently, according to Shortround, it wasn’t available (i read his response last night) If it was, wouldn’t the report read ‘outclassed unless using emergency boost’ or something?


----------



## Greyman (Jun 17, 2018)

Do you have the actual report? There may be important entries/footnotes we're missing.

+16 boost seems to have been available in August 1942.


----------



## pinsog (Jun 17, 2018)

RCAFson said:


> There are extensive threads devoted to the Darwin Spitfire debacle. However, of the Spitfire air combat losses, how many had actually run of fuel? How many had suffered CS prop failures and how many suffered high altitude cannon jams, resulting in the Zero being able to turn the tables? The other factor is that the Spitfire's mission was to destroy the bombers and IJ recon aircraft. When these are added in the kill ratio is about 1-1.
> 
> You keep repeating the "outclassed claim" even when several of us have pointed out that this pertains to close in dog fighting. Anyways here's another view on being outclassed:
> _"(c)Material (planes): The disastrous loss of our TBD's needs no further comment; it is earnestly hoped that steps will be taken to provide TBF's for all carrier Air Groups immediately. The SBD is now obsolescent due to its slow speed. *Our fighters, F4F-4's, are completely outclassed by Japanese "0" fighters in speed, climb, and maneuverability. It is recommended that immediate action be taken to remedy this inferiority*."_
> ...



Agree the Wildcat was outclassed in speed, climb and maneuverability, no question. But the Wildcat still fought 1 to 1 in worse conditions than Darwin (Guadalcanal).

Apparently the Japanese pilots didn’t chose to fight the Spitfire on the Spitfires terms. Sounds like “little yum yum” as Caldwell called him, knew a bit more about flying than Caldwell wants to admit.

JoeB said (I’ll find that thread) that 28 Spits were shot down. They know who ran out of fuel because when they got back to base they said “I ran out of fuel”. Engine failure and prop issues were in another column. Yes, the 20mm guns didn’t work either (Caldwell apparently said they should have had 4 50’s). Several F4F-4’s were lost to prop failure in The First Team.

On the other hand, the Zero’s were flying in the same conditions as the Spitfires but their stuff seemed to work. If your engines blow up, your props don’t work, your guns won’t fire and your run out of fuel over your own airfield by a guy who just flew 500 miles one way isn’t exactly a great argument for the Spitfire being the better plane


----------



## pinsog (Jun 17, 2018)

Greyman said:


> Do you have the actual report? There may be important entries/footnotes we're missing.
> 
> +16 boost seems to have been available in August 1942.



http://www.darwinspitfires.com/index.php?page=spitfire-vc-versus-the-zero


----------



## RCAFson (Jun 17, 2018)

pinsog said:


> Agree the Wildcat was outclassed in speed, climb and maneuverability, no question. But the Wildcat still fought 1 to 1 in worse conditions than Darwin (Guadalcanal).
> 
> Apparently the Japanese pilots didn’t chose to fight the Spitfire on the Spitfires terms. Sounds like “little yum yum” as Caldwell called him, knew a bit more about flying than Caldwell wants to admit.
> 
> ...



The IJN/IJA revised their tactics after 1942 and in 1943 and in the main, only used high altitude bombing against Darwin, thus forcing the Spitfires high enough to cause the trilogy of fuel, prop and cannon failure. Many of the high altitude raids over Port Moresby and Guadalcanal were not intercepted due to theP-40/P39/F4F's poor climb rate. Over Darwin in 1942 the P-40s still had problems but typically had enough radar warning to climb above the Medium altitude bombing raids, but they typically couldn't intercept recon flights.

But of the 28 that were stated as shot down, there's no way to know how many had suffered from in-flight failures enumerated above, which in turn, contributed to their loss. 

Again, we have to look at all kills not just fighter versus fighter, and then the kill ratio was about 1-1.

The IJN/IJA fighters were based much closer to Darwin than to Guadalcanal. IJN fighters over Guadalcanal were at the extreme end of their range and most had to retain their their DTs, for example [See First Team V2 for details], whereas over Darwin they released them. Additionally the IJN employed A6M3s and Ki-43IIs on some of their raids. The A6M3, as we've discussed has considerably superior performance compared to the A6M2, especially it's roll rate due to the clipped wings and superior HV 20mm cannons. The A6M3 didn't have the range to make it to Guadalcanal and didn't participate there.


----------



## Greyman (Jun 17, 2018)

Made a quick chart to visualize things.






*EDIT:* I edited the chart to show the RAAF tropical Merlin 46 data from
http://www.darwinspitfires.com/index.php?page=performance-of-spitfire-vc-tropicalised-version-2

The thin, dotted portion of the +16 boost line is my vague estimate.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## RCAFson (Jun 17, 2018)

pinsog said:


> http://www.darwinspitfires.com/index.php?page=spitfire-vc-versus-the-zero



From the above:
_"The Zero developed its maximum speed of 291 knots at its rated altitude of 16 000 feet. The Spitfire produced 290 knots at 15 000 feet, confirming that below 20 000 feet the two types were more evenly matched in speed performance..._"

Maximum speed of the RAAF Spitfire at 15000ft, using 16lb boost was ~310 knots. The above quote confirms that 16lb boost was *not* used in the comparative test.

The Merlin 45/46 used a single speed SC. It was imperative to use overboost when fighting below the rated altitude of the engine to gain maximum performance, and the effect of overboost was to create a near constant maximum speed from 10k ft all the way to the rated altitude:
_"RAAF Spitfire V/Merlin 46 speed tests:
(1) AT SEA LEVEL (A) 312 (B) 318 (C) 316.

(2) AT10,000 FEET (A) 355.5 (B) 355. 6 (C) 360 MPH.

AT FULL THROTTLE HEIGHT (A) 357 (B) 358.5 (C) 363 MPH.

A = trop cowl, B= modded trop cowl with filter bypass, and C = temperate cowl."_


----------



## Kevin J (Jun 17, 2018)

Schweik said:


> By the way - all this stuff about the Hurricane is interesting. It seems like you are reaching a little but if even half of your claims are true, you should update the Wikipedia page on it.
> 
> If the Hurricane can really roll fast and dive fast it certainly changes my impression of the plane. And poses a lot of new questions.


The roll rate of the Hurricane I was better than the IIb/c because it had less weight in the wings. The IIb especially had a weight distribution which adversely affected roll rate. The Soviets solved these problems by replacing the armament with a pair of 20 mm cannon and another pair of 0.5 in guns.

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


----------



## Kevin J (Jun 17, 2018)

Schweik said:


> First - I wouldn't normally expect the P-40 to outclimb the Hurricane to be honest, since they didn't climb that well, but the boost / WEP numbers look like maybe they _could_ sometimes probably depending on the load. And there is also the overheating problems apparently faced by Hurricanes to consider. I wouldn't put money on it though.
> 
> If you noticed, rather similar to your comments about +9 vs +16 boost, it was discovered in the first few months of 1942 that P-40Es could be safely run at 57" vs. 45" Hg, which translates to 1470 hp vs. 1150. Which is a big difference at least at low altitude.
> 
> ...


In the Pacific, the USAAF was already operating P-40E's, so there are no supply problems. The Spitfire Vc/VIII are superior to the Hurricane II in top speed, dive, climb, roll rate and range (VIII). The Hurricane II being built in 1942 stood no chance of intercepting the Ki-46-II, the Spitfire Vc could and did, even though it was slightly slower. All you need is good radar coverage and the operators to go with, things that weren't available in India. 
P-40 Performance Tests
If you scroll down to the bottom of the page and look at the official performance summaries, you will find that the "in the field" top speed of all P-40's is about 350 mph as opposed to the Curtiss figures of 362/364 mph. You should treat the AAEE figures as being the most reliable as their tests included tropical / dust filters. From what I've read of both Soviet and Desert Air Force reports, the Kittyhawk was considered superior to the Hurricane, especially with regards to dive speed, roll rate and turning circle at high speeds. It was also much faster at low to medium altitudes with boost, where most of the combat on these fronts took place. The problem with the Hurricane is that its development as a fighter was discontinued in early 1941. It could have been a much better interceptor / escort fighter in 1942/43 if the FAA mods, the Soviet mods and the Merlin 24 had been incorporated into the production model, but they weren't. Personally, I'd still prefer the Kittyhawk / Warhawk for the escort / air superiority role.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jun 17, 2018)

One difference from the Spit V experience over Darwin vs. the Wildcats experience in the Solomons, at Midway etc. is altitude. Most of the early USN and USMC combat with IJN and IJAAF forces involved dive bombers attempting to destroy ships and airfields. These were somewhat urgent attacks since the Japanese were planning to invade, rather than at Darwin where as we now know (though they didn't then) it was more of a harassment type of bombing.

If you want to sink a carrier, or really knock out an airfield like at Wake Island or Henderson Field, you need to bomb and strafe from a relatively low altitude, and really press the issue. D3A and B5N bombers didn't usually fly at 30,000 in combat. They certainly couldn't hit anything from that height. More often they would come in at 10-14,000 ft. Typically they would be dropping bombs from much lower altitude than that - dive bombers would go down to Sea Level, obviously well within the effective altitude of the Wildcat (and within the altitude of P-40s and P-39s). 

Escorting Japanese fighters did sometimes fly in at much higher altitude, or had covering elements up there (which is one of the reasons why the P-400s had so much trouble) and sometimes they did come in high with G4M and Ki-21 level bombers, but a lot of the 'action' so to speak took place down low. When they used dive bombers certainly they had to commit the fighters down low to protect them. This gave Allied fighters a better chance.

I also do think though that Wildcats were better fighters than we tend to assume. I saw an FM2 put through its paces at an airshow not long ago and it was quite dynamic, performing loops immelmans, chandelles with apparent ease. I had been so conditioned to think of it as a rather sedate, clumsy fighter that I was surprised to see it so agile. No doubt on reduced fuel and no ammunition etc. I went up afterward and looked into the cockpit though and it did still have armor. 

S

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jun 17, 2018)

Kevin J said:


> In the Pacific, the USAAF was already operating P-40E's, so there are no supply problems. The Spitfire Vc/VIII are superior to the Hurricane II in top speed, dive, climb, roll rate and range (VIII). The Hurricane II being built in 1942 stood no chance of intercepting the Ki-46-II, the Spitfire Vc could and did, even though it was slightly slower. All you need is good radar coverage and the operators to go with, things that weren't available in India.
> P-40 Performance Tests
> If you scroll down to the bottom of the page and look at the official performance summaries, you will find that the "in the field" top speed of all P-40's is about 350 mph as opposed to the Curtiss figures of 362/364 mph. You should treat the AAEE figures as being the most reliable as their tests included tropical / dust filters. From what I've read of both Soviet and Desert Air Force reports, the Kittyhawk was considered superior to the Hurricane, especially with regards to dive speed, roll rate and turning circle at high speeds. It was also much faster at low to medium altitudes with boost, where most of the combat on these fronts took place. The problem with the Hurricane is that its development as a fighter was discontinued in early 1941. It could have been a much better interceptor / escort fighter in 1942/43 if the FAA mods, the Soviet mods and the Merlin 24 had been incorporated into the production model, but they weren't. Personally, I'd still prefer the Kittyhawk / Warhawk for the escort / air superiority role.



I agree with most of that though I suspect they were actually faster in the field (at least down low) because they were overboosting to much higher Hp. Also you missed this test which clocked the Kittyhawk II at 370 mph. (they also did some tests with a 'dust cleaner' which slowed it down a great deal)

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Jun 17, 2018)

Schweik said:


> I agree with most of that though I suspect they were actually faster in the field (at least down low) because they were overboosting to much higher Hp. Also you missed this test which clocked the Kittyhawk II at 370 mph. (they also did some tests with a 'dust cleaner' which slowed it down a great deal)


The 370+ mph was achieved without the drop tank shackle and sway braces. I think that in the real World of combat that you need these two features for the P-40F/L to be an effective air superiority fighter, which it was. The 354 mph for the AAEE tests to me seem more realistic, even the Bf 109G-2 TROP of the same era only did 373 mph at 6000 metres, below that height the P-40F/L was competitive and the victories scored by them in the Med show that.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinsog (Jun 17, 2018)

RCAFson said:


> The IJN/IJA revised their tactics after 1942 and in 1943 and in the main, only used high altitude bombing against Darwin, thus forcing the Spitfires high enough to cause the trilogy of fuel, prop and cannon failure. Many of the high altitude raids over Port Moresby and Guadalcanal were not intercepted due to theP-40/P39/F4F's poor climb rate. Over Darwin in 1942 the P-40s still had problems but typically had enough radar warning to climb above the Medium altitude bombing raids, but they typically couldn't intercept recon flights.
> 
> But of the 28 that were stated as shot down, there's no way to know how many had suffered from in-flight failures enumerated above, which in turn, contributed to their loss.
> 
> ...



I found the other thread. In the other thread you actually counted 5 Zeros and 14 bombers shot down in exchange for 28 Spitfires, 26 to Zeros 2 to KI43’s. 28-19 is a 1.48 ratio against the Spit.

I have never seen anyone try to defend their fighter choice (Spitfire) by claiming they weren’t actually shot down, but they fell out of the sky on their own. Or, they weren’t shot down, (Spitfire) they ran out of gas because they had to fly so high over their own airfield to intercept the Zeros, which incidentally were also at that extreme height after flying 500 miles and after running the Spitfires out of gas they will turn around and fly 500 miles back to their base. Total Spitfire losses appear to be over 70 for this time period. 

If your theory is correct, the Japanese could have wiped out the entire RAAF Spitfire squadron by sending unarmed Zeros on the raids and just letting the Spitfires chase them around until eventually all the Spitfires ran out of gas and crashed or just broke and fell out of the sky.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## RCAFson (Jun 18, 2018)

pinsog said:


> I found the other thread. In the other thread you actually counted 5 Zeros and 14 bombers shot down in exchange for 28 Spitfires, 26 to Zeros 2 to KI43’s. 28-19 is a 1.48 ratio against the Spit.
> 
> I have never seen anyone try to defend their fighter choice (Spitfire) by claiming they weren’t actually shot down, but they fell out of the sky on their own. Or, they weren’t shot down, (Spitfire) they ran out of gas because they had to fly so high over their own airfield to intercept the Zeros, which incidentally were also at that extreme height after flying 500 miles and after running the Spitfires out of gas they will turn around and fly 500 miles back to their base. Total Spitfire losses appear to be over 70 for this time period.
> 
> If your theory is correct, the Japanese could have wiped out the entire RAAF Spitfire squadron by sending unarmed Zeros on the raids and just letting the Spitfires chase them around until eventually all the Spitfires ran out of gas and crashed or just broke and fell out of the sky.



There's been a number of other threads, and information accumulates over time, so maybe you could post a link.

Here's a kill/loss summary:

http://www.darwinspitfires.com/index.php?page=2-raaf-air-combats-in-nwa

28 Spitfires lost to enemy action versus 28 IJ aircraft lost to enemy [Spitfire] action

Aircraft were lost constantly on all sides due to mechanical failure and/or pilot error. For example some F4F-4s were lost over Guadalcanal due to oxygen failure, others upon landing. TO, and taxiing, Many F4F-4s were lost at Midway from fuel starvation.

As I've pointed out IJ bases on Timor were much closer to Darwin than Rabaul to Guadalcanal. IJN fighters used bases on eastern Timor, that were ~320nm from Darwin, The IJAF units flow a low-high-low mission profile, but used a cruise climb to minimize fuel consumption during time spent beyond RAAF radar coverage. A high power climb by a Spitfire to ~30K+ ft uses a lot of fuel, but losses from fuel starvation were minimal after the 30IG DT was used.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jun 18, 2018)

It wasn't quite as simple as fighting over their own field either, they had a lot of ground to cover with numerous targets all around the Darwin area, and they had to intercept the actual Japanese formation which took quite a while to find. And they really were plagued with mechanical problems, that wasn't just an excuse. The ammunition was so bad they had to presort every round beforehand. The issues with the props and guns freezing took a while to even figure out, as did the issues with the coolant systems.

I am not convinced that a ('healthy') Spit V was seriously overwhelmed by the A6M. To the contrary, I think they did have an edge. I think the guys who did that test were just dismayed by the superior low speed maneuverability of the A6M, and probably not using boost. The problems they had with the Spit V were similar to the problems with all the ultimately successful types - teething, essentially. Maintenance, training, tactics. Of course the Spit V had some weaknesses, but the speed / performance advantage they had was substantial enough that they had means for victory with those aircraft - if you fought in a disciplined way to your aircrafts strengths.

Keep in mind, no fighter, not the P-38, nor the Hellcat nor the Corsair nor the P-51 or P-47, was truly ever _safe_ from an A6M flown by a good pilot. Zeros continued to shoot down Allied fighters right to the end of the war.

I think the A6M and especially Ki43 (per the original post in this thread) are underrated - they were dangerous opponents for the Allies. May not have had armor of self sealing tanks (until too late) and the Ki43 had relatively light armament, but you don't need that many .50 caliber bullets to take down a fighter, even a fairly well protected Allied fighter. As the Japanese noted, with the liquid cooled engines especially, one bullet in the radiator could do the trick. It's a tradeoff with armament vs. agility - if armament was all that mattered, the Me 110 would have been a world beater, but after the Battle of France it was barely surviving.

I do also think the Wildcat was and is underrated. It may not have had the best speed, best roll, best dive, best acceleration etc., but it was pretty good in all these areas. Turn rate was very good, handling - that difficult to quantify quality so important in not just dogfighting but also landing and taking off from an Aircraft Carrier or a short, primitive runway, was also very good. Guns were hard - hitting. Protection was good, not to mention a radial engine less vulnerable to that one magic bullet. The supercharging system gave it pretty good high altitude performance. I suspect it may be the combination of a lot of moderately virtuous traits, rather than one single outstanding trait, that made this fighter a success.

As previously noted, the F4F / FM2 did not exactly suffer grievous harm in encounters with Bf 109s either.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jun 18, 2018)

Kevin J said:


> The 370+ mph was achieved without the drop tank shackle and sway braces. I think that in the real World of combat that you need these two features for the P-40F/L to be an effective air superiority fighter, which it was. The 354 mph for the AAEE tests to me seem more realistic, even the Bf 109G-2 TROP of the same era only did 373 mph at 6000 metres, below that height the P-40F/L was competitive and the victories scored by them in the Med show that.



You might be right - I'm sure the Sway Bars did slow it down somewhat, but I doubt it made a 20 mph difference. I'd expect maybe a 5 or 10 mph difference. There were a lot of other speed tests with the P-40F and L (I'm learning about more and more of them as the P-40F seems to have been a benchmark used to evaluate many other aircraft0 and they usually ended up between 362 and 370 mph.

Assuming no heavy dust filter and good maintenance, and good fuel, they may have gotten better speed in the field actually. Aside from hot rodding the engine (rewiring throttles, over reving and so on), they did also do things like wax planes, fill in holes, repaint and sand down rough spots and protrusions, strengthen certain parts so they wouldn't flex at high speeds, even remove radio masts (from P-40L). I know the AVG did this kind of thing for sure as they mention it in some of their histories. I suspect but can't prove that USAAF squadrons in the Med did it (when they could). Almost without a doubt RAAF units did and probably RAF too.

I know 1) they were aware of the effects of such efforts, 2) that there was some competition between ground crews to get the fastest aircraft, and 3) pilot accounts mention that certain planes were known to be considerably faster than others. One USAAF P-40F was involved in a 'friendly fire' incident when it shot down an RAF Spitfire Mk Vc after a long chase and a probably lucky long distance shot. This aircraft was mentioned in the (understandably extensive) written documentation in this incident as being the fastest of the squadron - the pilot asked for and got permission to leave the formation and chase down the 'bogy'.

Australian Ace Bobby Gibbes also described a kind of similar incident in which he used a Kityhawk Mk III (P-40K or M) which he mentioned was faster than the Kittyhawk Mk IIs he was flying with, to catch and shoot down a Bf 109 out of a formation of three which had flown over their unit. He was embarrassed because he actually hit the one behind the one he was aiming at. This probably represents either overboosting or a 'cleaned up aircraft' or both. He also mentioned that he had 'stolen' the Kittyhawk Mk III and later had to give it back to the RAF.

I don't know what the experience was, by the way, with dust filers on the P-40s but the DAF sources don't mention as many problems as they had with the Vokes filter on the Spit and Hurricane. I gather they did eventually fix that or come up with another filter system, right? But not sure by what date.

I have also come to understand that dust filters were 'bypassed' after takeoff but I assume there is still some performance penalty?

The Vokes filter also looks to me like it would constrain airflow a bit and therefore might affect cooling / overheating. Did it?

S


----------



## Schweik (Jun 18, 2018)

Kevin J said:


> The roll rate of the Hurricane I was better than the IIb/c because it had less weight in the wings. The IIb especially had a weight distribution which adversely affected roll rate. The Soviets solved these problems by replacing the armament with a pair of 20 mm cannon and another pair of 0.5 in guns.



Quite interesting. So after 1941 they (Hawker) concentrated on Typhoon development exclusively?

When was the Hurricane MK IV produced? Was the Mk X- XII purely a product of the Canadian factories? What are the stats on the MK XII? Is that the 350 mph one?

Worth noting that the Russians do not seem to have liked the Hurricane much so I'm not sure how much their field modifications really helped. Would be interesting to learn more there is only really the one article on lendlease.ru and a couple of pilot interviews to go by.

S


----------



## RCAFson (Jun 18, 2018)

Schweik said:


> Quite interesting. So after 1941 they (Hawker) concentrated on Typhoon development exclusively?
> 
> When was the Hurricane MK IV produced? Was it purely a product of the Canadian factories?
> 
> S



Canadian Hurricanes were designated Mk X, XI, or XII, IIRC, and some of the Mk XII's were factory built as Sea Hurricane IIAs in mid 1942 onward. The Mk IV was purely a UK built aircraft and entered production in mid 1943.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jun 18, 2018)

RCAFson said:


> Canadian Hurricanes were designated Mk X, XI, or XII, IIRC, and some of the Mk XII's were factory built as Sea Hurricane IIAs in mid 1942 onward. The Mk IV was purely a UK built aircraft and entered production in mid 1943.



Yeah I mistyped that initially and went back to correct.

So it sounds like they did continue development on the Hurricane, at least to some extent.

Since you are the resident expert on the Hurricane can you break down performance (max level speed, ceiling, climb rate, Hp, max boost, dive speed, critical altitude etc.) for the various subtypes?

Mk 1
Mk IIa
Mk IIb
Mk II (Russian Field Mod)
Mk IV
Mk XX
Mk XI
Mk XII
Mk XIIa

And max roll rate if you know or care to estimate ?


----------



## Schweik (Jun 18, 2018)

Just read this not too stellar April 1942 encounter with A6Ms by Hurricanes from the Wiki:



> When a Japanese carrier task force under the command of Admiral Chūichi Nagumo made a sortie into the Indian Ocean in April 1942, RAF Hurricanes based on Ceylon saw action against Nagumo's forces during attacks on Colombo on 5 April 1942 and on Trincomalee harbour on 9 April 1942.[128]
> 
> On 5 April 1942, Captain Mitsuo Fuchida of the Imperial Japanese Navy, who led the attack on Pearl Harbor, led a strike against Colombo with 53 Nakajima B5N torpedo bombers and 38 Aichi D3A dive bombers, escorted by 36 Mitsubishi A6M Zero fighters.[129] They were opposed by 35 Hurricane I and IIBs of 30 and 258 Squadrons, together with six Fairey Fulmars of 803 and 806 Squadrons of the Fleet Air Arm.[130] The Hurricanes mainly tried to shoot down the attacking bombers, but were engaged heavily by the escorting Zeros.[131] A total of 21 Hurricanes were shot down (although two of these were repairable),[132] together with four Fulmars[133] and six Swordfish of 788 Naval Air Squadron that had been surprised in flight by the raid.[134] The RAF claimed 18 Japanese aircraft destroyed, seven probably destroyed and nine damaged, with one aircraft claimed by a Fulmar and five by anti-aircraft fire. This compared with actual Japanese losses of one Zero and six D3As, with a further seven D3As, five B5Ns and three Zeros damaged.[131][135]



35 Hurricanes +6 Fulmars vs. 36 Zeros and 91 bombers results in 1 Zero and 6 D3A shot down for 21 Hurricanes and 4 Fulmars. Not so great.

S

Reactions: Disagree Disagree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## RCAFson (Jun 18, 2018)

Schweik said:


> Just read this not too stellar April 1942 encounter with A6Ms by Hurricanes from the Wiki:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


There was a radar and comm failure on 5 April 1942. The Hurricanes and Fulmars were caught on the ground and during TO, and losses were severe as a result; many aircraft were shot down with LG still extended. OTOH, pilot reports from Hurricane IIBs that TO in time to meet the raid at altitude commented favourably about comparative performance vs the A6M2.

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


----------



## RCAFson (Jun 18, 2018)

Schweik said:


> Yeah I mistyped that initially and went back to correct.
> 
> So it sounds like they did continue development on the Hurricane, at least to some extent.
> 
> ...



I'll reply in detail later today.


----------



## Kevin J (Jun 18, 2018)

Schweik said:


> You might be right - I'm sure the Sway Bars did slow it down somewhat, but I doubt it made a 20 mph difference. I'd expect maybe a 5 or 10 mph difference. There were a lot of other speed tests with the P-40F and L (I'm learning about more and more of them as the P-40F seems to have been a benchmark used to evaluate many other aircraft0 and they usually ended up between 362 and 370 mph.
> 
> Assuming no heavy dust filter and good maintenance, and good fuel, they may have gotten better speed in the field actually. Aside from hot rodding the engine (rewiring throttles, over reving and so on), they did also do things like wax planes, fill in holes, repaint and sand down rough spots and protrusions, strengthen certain parts so they wouldn't flex at high speeds, even remove radio masts (from P-40L). I know the AVG did this kind of thing for sure as they mention it in some of their histories. I suspect but can't prove that USAAF squadrons in the Med did it (when they could). Almost without a doubt RAAF units did and probably RAF too.
> 
> ...


The AAEE figures are always for a P-40 fully equipped to fight in the Western Desert (dust filter, belly tank shackles and sway braces) so they are always going to be lower than any figures that Curtiss may have come up with. As for the Vokes filter. it wasn't just a dust filter, it held extra oil in it for the fighter on a flight carrying 90/170 gals of ferry tanks, that's why its so big and causes so much of a loss in performance at altitude; its certainly over engineered for normal combat operations, that's why the Aboukir oil filter was developed and was so much more streamlined and had less impact on performance, because in practice the Spitfire Vc could only realistically operate with a 30 gal (slipper) combat tank.

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


----------



## Schweik (Jun 18, 2018)

Kevin J said:


> The AAEE figures are always for a P-40 fully equipped to fight in the Western Desert (dust filter, belly tank shackles and sway braces) so they are always going to be lower than any figures that Curtiss may have come up with.



Yes, I get that and understand your point - and the implication is that Curtiss will "clean the plane up" as much as they can get away with before running one of their tests so that they can get the highest possible number, since this certainly influenced contracts and so on. Top speed being one of the main benchmarks that War Dept. Officials cared about in an aircraft.

My point though is that in those tests, Curtiss would also be limited in certain respects (they would be required to load the plane to a certain weight, and would be limited in how far to push the engine), and conversely, in the field, in the units on the ground, we know they could do many of the same things Curtiss would do: repaint, sand down uneven or rough surfaces, fill gaps and holes with putty, wax the plane and so on.

They could and did _also _do things Curtiss could _not _necessarily (legally or contractorally) do: run at higher than recommended throttle settings, run at increased RPM, remove a pair (or even two pair) of wing guns, run with reduced fuel, run on better fuel that wasn't available when Curtiss ran their tests and so on.



> As for the Vokes filter. it wasn't just a dust filter, it held extra oil in it for the fighter on a flight carrying 90/170 gals of ferry tanks, that's why its so big and causes so much of a loss in performance at altitude; its certainly over engineered for normal combat operations, that's why the Aboukir oil filter was developed and was so much more streamlined and had less impact on performance, because in practice the Spitfire Vc could only realistically operate with a 30 gal (slipper) combat tank.



Aha, interesting. I see these were "field mods" done in Egypt so in 1942? and these spread to the Pacific too?

So many of the improvements in the DAF seem to come from the pilots and maintenance personnel rather than the high leadership.

S

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Jun 18, 2018)

Schweik said:


> Yes, I get that and understand your point - and the implication is that Curtiss will "clean the plane up" as much as they can get away with before running one of their tests so that they can get the highest possible number, since this certainly influenced contracts and so on. Top speed being one of the main benchmarks that War Dept. Officials cared about in an aircraft.
> 
> My point though is that in those tests, Curtiss would also be limited in certain respects (they would be required to load the plane to a certain weight, and would be limited in how far to push the engine), and conversely, in the field, in the units on the ground, we know they could do many of the same things Curtiss would do: repaint, sand down uneven or rough surfaces, fill gaps and holes with putty, wax the plane and so on.
> 
> ...


The Aussies experimented by removing the Vokes filter on the Merlin, but screwed it up so that they didn't get a speed advantage. The Aboukir filter is a 1942 field mod. In the Western Desert they realised that you could also get 1750/1780 hp out of the Allison engine. Remember the Allison had a 1500 hour life as opposed to the 500 hours of the Merlin, so yes you could stress the Allison engine out a lot more. In the UK we used the Allison engined Mustangs until 1945 with high boost pressures, so that they could do 375/380 mph at sea level. It was a bloody good low altitude engine. Just think how fast the Kittyhawk went, they certainly scored a lot of victories and it was rated superior to the Hurricane. The Russians were using Kittyhawks in the East until the end of the war either as escorts or fighter bombers, it was definitely not obsolete.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jun 18, 2018)

Kevin J said:


> The Aussies experimented by removing the Vokes filter on the Merlin, but screwed it up so that they didn't get a speed advantage. The Aboukir filter is a 1942 field mod. In the Western Desert they realised that you could also get 1750/1780 hp out of the Allison engine. Remember the Allison had a 1500 hour life as opposed to the 500 hours of the Merlin, so yes you could stress the Allison engine out a lot more. In the UK we used the Allison engined Mustangs until 1945 with high boost pressures, so that they could do 375/380 mph at sea level. It was a bloody good low altitude engine. Just think how fast the Kittyhawk went, they certainly scored a lot of victories and it was rated superior to the Hurricane. The Russians were using Kittyhawks in the East until the end of the war either as escorts or fighter bombers, it was definitely not obsolete.



Agreed, though I think by mid 1944 the Russians were using their remaining Kittyhawks as PVO (air defense) fighters and I think maybe some maritime units in the Baltic. Those were still in combat but not in the high-intensity meat grinder any more. They (and Tomahawks) were in the front line (VVS) squadrons from 1941 through 43 and into early 44 in some places. The Russians seem to have worn out the P-40 engines pretty quickly and a lot of them that had been used for more than 2 or 3 months of combat were no longer able to make 300 mph. In 1944 they got some new P-40M and N but these mostly sent to PVO or maritime units operating around the Baltic Sea. By then they had plenty of Yak 9s and La 5FN for the front line.

They seemed to do best with the P-40K. But in general they seemed to have more maintenance issues with P-40s than they did with the P-39s, even though the latter had nearly identical engines.

S

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 18, 2018)

Kevin J said:


> In the Western Desert they realised that you could also get 1750/1780 hp out of the Allison engine. *Remember the Allison had a 1500 hour life as opposed to the 500 hours of the Merlin*, so yes you could stress the Allison engine out a lot more.



Do you have real source for that or are we back to the bearing failure thing again.

RR themselves only claimed a "life" for the Merlin in 1945 of 360 hours for a fighter engine, 420 hours for a bomber engine and 500 hours for a transport engine.
"The Merlin in Perspective- the combat years" Rolls-Royce Heritage trust Historical series No2 page 90. 

You have to very careful reading and interpreting some of these figures. 

For instance if you had 30 fighters with Allisons and ran them for 100 hours each (3000 hours total) and got 2 bearing failures you would be averaging one bearing failure every 1500 hours of operation. Do the same thing with 30 Merlin engines and if you had 6 bearing failures in 3000 hours of operation you would be averaging 500 hours between bearing failures.

It may not mean that the engines lasted either 1500 hours or 500 hours in service. Only a really desperate squadron commander or technical officer would fly a plane in combat that was hundreds of hours past the manufacturers recommended overhaul life. 

The hours I listed earlier were the not a guaranteed life. They were a MAX life. *IF* the engine made to that number of hours without being pulled for some sort of problem (excessive oil consumption, low compression, metal bits in the oil, etc) the Manufacturer strongly recommended pulling the engine for overhaul regardless of how well it was running. In the early part of the war it was quite common to order 50% more engines than the number of single engine airframes in order to allow for a good supply of spare engines/parts. If engines lasted for 1500 hours why bother to do that?

I would note that even in transport service it took until after WW II for engines to get approved for over 1000 hours.
Pre war there were some DC-3s that had gone through 12 sets of engines in just 4-5 years. 

Please not I am not claiming the Merlin was the equal of the Allison in regards to strength or durability. 
I am questioning the use of a particular type of engine failure as a measuring stick for overall engine durability/life. There are plenty of other ways for an engine to fail (in sometimes spectacular fashion) aside from bearing failure.


----------



## parsifal (Jun 18, 2018)

Schweik, you mentioned something about japan not intending to invade northern Australia. That's not entirely correct.

This is a link to some source material that you may find interesting

Battle for Australia: Japanese debate Invasion of Australia

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Jun 18, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> Do you have real source for that or are we back to the bearing failure thing again.
> 
> RR themselves only claimed a "life" for the Merlin in 1945 of 360 hours for a fighter engine, 420 hours for a bomber engine and 500 hours for a transport engine.
> "The Merlin in Perspective- the combat years" Rolls-Royce Heritage trust Historical series No2 page 90.
> ...


The point that I was trying to make was that the expected engine life far exceeds the average life expectancy of the aircraft using the engine. I.E. If the average fighter survives for 100 three hour flights then why do you need an engine for it that lasts five times as long, surely it would be better to use them as the Soviets did.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 18, 2018)

In actual fact the airframe's life far exceeded the average life of the engine's, which is why they not only provided a large percentage of extra engines but established repair/overhaul facilities is different theaters. For the Merlin there were 4 facilities in Great Britain doing overhaul work and overseas there were two on India, one in Egypt and one in Algiers. Just in the UK and not counting the Royal Navy, 50,000 Merlins were repaired/overhauled and returned to service or place in store.
The US got in serious trouble in North Africa with the P-40F because they only allocated 20% extra spare engines and what with the dirt/sand in North Africa they were going through engines much faster than planned. The British (it may have taken a while) broke down up to 600 used Merlins in that Theater to provide the US Forces with parts to repair/over haul the engines for the P-40Fs.

This is totally at odds with your statements about 1500 hour Allison life and 500 to 600 Merlin engine life.
Once again, _average _time between a particular type of failure is NOT engine life.

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


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 18, 2018)

From one website explaining mean time between failure. (MTBF)

"MTBF is usually applied to a group of similar equipment, for example all the pumps in a refinery. The formula for this is (NUMBER OF PIECES OF EQUIPMENT X TIME PERIOD) / NUMBER OF FAILURES DURING THAT TIME
Example:
1200 Pumps over one year with a total of 387 failures during the year.

(1200 X 12(months))/ 387 = 37 months MTBF


----------



## Schweik (Jun 18, 2018)

parsifal said:


> Schweik, you mentioned something about japan not intending to invade northern Australia. That's not entirely correct.
> 
> This is a link to some source material that you may find interesting
> 
> Battle for Australia: Japanese debate Invasion of Australia



I'm aware of the plan, but they had apparently ruled it out - the Navy was for it but the Army against. I mentioned it in another Thread in fact and kind of got jumped on over it.

I do think the Australians had a very legitimate reason to be worried about an invasion.

I do think the Japanese considered it and might have actually done a partial invasion under the right circumstances. We were looking at Townsville as a target in the other thread.

But it also seems clear historically that the Japanese decided against it. No doubt helped by the strong push back they faced in New Guinea and the Solomons.

Per the context of my mentioning it in this thread, I do think the raids on Darwin were basically harassment raids which is why they bombed from 27,000 ft. If they were closer to an actual invasion I think the bombing would have been more intense, on a much larger scale and pressed home a lot more aggressively.

S


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 18, 2018)

According to "Vees for Victory" the US ordered 730 Allison C-15 engines to support 534 P-40 fighters. this contract was changed at a later date. A later contract was for 334 engines to be installed in the P-40B & C with and additional 113 to be held as spares.
Initial "life" of the C-15 engine was 150 hours but after doing initial overhauls Allison recommended extending that to 200 hours for a batch of ten engines with further extensions of "life" based on results (wear) of these overhauls. Life eventually hit 400 hours but I don't know if that is for the C-15 model or some later models. This section of the book doesn't say. Some very late models did run around 1000 hours in training aircraft.(from another chapter) 

For the C-15 engines the British took delivery of 1770 engines with 100 (or 150?) sent to China (AVG) for 1180 Tomahawks and 143 twin engine P-322s (most of which stayed in the US).

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


----------



## RCAFson (Jun 19, 2018)

Schweik said:


> Yeah I mistyped that initially and went back to correct.
> 
> So it sounds like they did continue development on the Hurricane, at least to some extent.
> 
> ...



This is a summary of Boscombe Down test results of individual aircraft:
View attachment 498350

(From Mason, The Secret Years)

Engine performance and boost levels varied by year according to Rolls Royce certifying the boost level so it's not possible to break it down by aircraft mod. Merlin III combat boost was 12lb from early 1940 onward. Sea Hurricane Merlin III 16lb boost was from mid 1941 onward. Merlin XX was 12lb from Dec 1940 onward until late 1942 when 14/16b boost was allowed. Merlin 45 was ~16lb from Jan 1942 onward. See Lovesey, Figure 24, for more info:
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/merlin-lovesey.pdf

some more data on Hurricane Mk 1-V:

K5083 - Technical Data
(mostly accurate)

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Stig1207 (Jun 19, 2018)

Kevin J said:


> Supposedly, 11500 claims and 10410 confirmed, Hurricane got 55%, Spitfire 33%. I know what you're getting at, its rather high for the 1939/41 period and maybe even a handful in 1942. My guess would be halve the number confirmed. It includes Battle of France, Dunkirk, Battle of Britain, the Blitz, Dieppe plus any other minor ops. It must be at least 2000 for everything excluding Dieppe and other minor ops.



Victory claims / credits that I have been able to find by Hurricanes in the ETO amount to '41= 173½; '42= 45 and ' 43 none.
I would think that the Hurricane would have a couple of thousand claims up until the end of '40; but that still leaves a few thousand unaccounted for?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## RCAFson (Jun 19, 2018)

Here's a summary of Boscombe Down Hurricane and P-40 test results:

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jun 19, 2018)

Stig1207 said:


> Victory claims / credits that I have been able to find by Hurricanes in the ETO amount to '41= 173½; '42= 45 and ' 43 none.
> I would think that the Hurricane would have a couple of thousand claims up until the end of '40; but that still leaves a few thousand unaccounted for?



They must have had at least a couple of hundred claims in the Med, probably the same in Russia and CBI. Would love to see the total numbers.


----------



## Kevin J (Jun 19, 2018)

Schweik said:


> They must have had at least a couple of hundred claims in the Med, probably the same in Russia and CBI. Would love to see the total numbers.


My guess would be at least several hundred in the Med, maybe more. The Hurricane was superior to most Italian fighters, and when operated at 2000 to 3000 metres, the Hurricane II with boost was comparable in performance to the Mc 202 Folgore in 1942.


----------



## Schweik (Jun 19, 2018)

Kevin J said:


> My guess would be at least several hundred in the Med, maybe more. The Hurricane was superior to most Italian fighters, and when operated at 2000 to 3000 metres, the Hurricane II with boost was comparable in performance to the Mc 202 Folgore in 1942.



I can tell you that Hurricanes did not score a lot of air to air victories in 1942, per Christopher Shores records. They racked up a few before the Bf 109 showed up. I don't think they fared well against MC 202s either.

We can dive into it a bit if you want I have the books handy.

I think most of the Hurricane victories in the Med were in 1941 and against Italian G.50 and MC.200, German Bf 110 (which came before the Bf 109s did), German and Italian bombers, and Vichy French types. They did get some kills of Bf 109E too but by the time the 109F got there the Hurricanes seem to have been focusing on bombing or sometimes attacking bombers.

S

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Jun 19, 2018)

Schweik said:


> I can tell you that Hurricanes did not score a lot of air to air victories in 1942, per Christopher Shores records. They racked up a few before the Bf 109 showed up. I don't think they fared well against MC 202s either.
> 
> We can dive into it a bit if you want I have the books handy.
> 
> ...


I'm sure you're right for 1941. I'm just quoting Eric Brown who thought the Hurricane should beat the Folgore in a dogfight. I'd be interested in seeing the figures if you have them. The (Sea) Hurricane would have fought many battles in 1941/42; Western Desert, Greece, Crete, Syria, Malta, the Malta convoys, Operation Torch and of course over Yugoslavia. By the end of 1942, replacement with Tomahawks, Kittyhawks and Spitfires, was I'm sure the right move.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jun 19, 2018)

Kevin J said:


> I'm sure you're right for 1941. I'm just quoting Eric Brown who thought the Hurricane should beat the Folgore in a dogfight. I'd be interested in seeing the figures if you have them. The (Sea) Hurricane would have fought many battles in 1941/42; Western Desert, Greece, Crete, Syria, Malta, the Malta convoys, Operation Torch and of course over Yugoslavia. By the end of 1942, replacement with Tomahawks, Kittyhawks and Spitfires, was I'm sure the right move.



I don't have overall figures but if you want me to look up any particular battles on specific days I can check that for you. There were certainly a few 'good days' for Hurricanes I can try to find some examples later.

S


----------



## Kevin J (Jun 19, 2018)

Schweik said:


> I don't have overall figures but if you want me to look up any particular battles on specific days I can check that for you. There were certainly a few 'good days' for Hurricanes I can try to find some examples later.
> 
> S


You'd think the RAF would publish a few more totals, but then the narrative is that the Spitfire was the wonder plane.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jun 19, 2018)

With the Desert War, it see-sawed a lot:

at first Gladiators seem to have been doing well vs Cr 42 and misc. Axis planes, 1940 *>*
then MC 200 and G.50 showed up Gladiators suffered (mid 1940 I think) *<*
then Hurricanes showed up and the G.50 etc. suffered. (late 1940 and 1941) *>>*
The Germans sent in Bf 110 but they didn't really tip the scales (winter 1940/41) *>*
Then the Germans sent in Bf 109E and Hurricane was challenged (but still holding it's own) (spring 1941 ... I think) *<*
DAF got Tomahwaks (P-40B/C) and Hurricane IIc and the Bf 109E had some bad days (though it basically became even) (Summer 1941) *=*
Kittyhawk I initially had little impact at first, except that they started bombing with them (winter 41/42). *=*
Bf 109F and MC 202 showed up in numbers and allies suffered badly. (Spring 42) *<<*
DAF tactics improved, more planes came in and the situation stabilized. Luftwaffe had a few bad days. (Summer 42) *=*
Kittyhawk III and the first few Spitfires arrived in mid 1942, Luftwaffe suffers some reverses (Autumn 42) *>*
More Kitty III, some Kitty II and more Spit Vs. US P-40F and P-38s, and B-24 and B-25s arrive. DAF attacking German airbases (Fall 42) *>>*
Bf 109G and one squadron of Fw 190 arrives (Winter 42 / 43) DAF suffers a bit *<*
RAF and US Spitfires arrive (Winter 43) DAF rallies *>>*
5 US Fighter Groups with P-40F, 1 with Spit V and (3?) with P-38s - Germans back on their heels (Spring 43) *>>>*
Spit IX arrives spelling doom (Summer 43? I think?)* >>>>*

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


----------



## Stig1207 (Jun 20, 2018)

Schweik said:


> They must have had at least a couple of hundred claims in the Med, probably the same in Russia and CBI. Would love to see the total numbers.


Unless I misunderstood Kevin, the figure of 5871 victory credits (or claims?) awarded Hurricanes was for the ETO only; any other claims/ credits in other theatres would be on top of that. I just can't see how they could get such a large of victories in the ETO?

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Jun 20, 2018)

Stig1207 said:


> Unless I misunderstood Kevin, the figure of 5871 victory credits (or claims?) awarded Hurricanes was for the ETO only; any other claims/ credits in other theatres would be on top of that. I just can't see how they could get such a large of victories in the ETO?


I think you'll find that its awarded victories, but if you look at the awarded victories in 1941/42 for Fighter Command alone they were about four times reality and these were mainly Spitfire claims. From the Battle of France to the end of the Blitz there were about 2000 genuine Hurricane victories then whatever Hurricane victories as close escort and night intruder in 1942 which probably didn't amount to a lot. My guess would be at least an additional 1000 Hurricane victories in the Med from 1940 to 1942, plus maybe another 500 for the Eastern Front and the Far East, but I really don't know. I was just quoting a second hand source from these forums.


----------



## Stig1207 (Jun 20, 2018)

Ahh ok, I was wondering what the source of that number was. However, I don't think you can grant the Hurricanes 2000 'genuine' victories from the BoF to the end of the Blitz either; they would also be awarded victories and subject to overclaiming, though perhaps not 4-5 times overclaiming as in '41-42.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jun 20, 2018)

Stig1207 said:


> Unless I misunderstood Kevin, the figure of 5871 victory credits (or claims?) awarded Hurricanes was for the ETO only; any other claims/ credits in other theatres would be on top of that. I just can't see how they could get such a large of victories in the ETO?



You have a point. How many planes did the Luftwaffe lose in the BoB anyway?

Per this, ~ 1300 planes lost to all causes.

S


----------



## Kevin J (Jun 20, 2018)

Schweik said:


> You have a point. How many planes did the Luftwaffe lose in the BoB anyway?
> 
> Per this, ~ 1300 planes lost to all causes.
> 
> S


The RAF lost about 1300 of all types, the Luftwaffe about 1800.


----------



## Schweik (Jun 20, 2018)

Kevin J said:


> The RAF lost about 1300 of all types, the Luftwaffe about 1800.



That site says 1385 to 'enemy action' plus 404 'operational' and 280 'non operational'. However, one thing I do know about the Luftwaffe is that they did not typically list for example crash landed but repairable aircraft as losses, and that might be another 50% or more of losses. Similar for planes that land with say, 70% damage but made it back to base. True for the Luftwaffe they could get those planes back in action but from the point of view of an RAF pilot a crash landed plane would still count as a legitimate victory I think.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Milosh (Jun 20, 2018)

A 70% damage was considered a write off by the Luftwaffe.


----------



## Schweik (Jun 20, 2018)

Milosh said:


> A 70% damage was considered a write off by the Luftwaffe.



Ok my bad - 69%


----------



## Milosh (Jun 20, 2018)

Still bad, over 60% was a write off.


----------



## Schweik (Jun 20, 2018)

Milosh said:


> Still bad, over 60% was a write off.



Ok 59% then the precise percentage is rather arbitrary isn't it? - the point is that heavily damaged and / or crash landed planes were not typically listed as losses by the Luftwaffe which skews the victory confirmation process. I think a crash landed aircraft should count as a victory from the point of view of the pilot that put bullets into it even if it only had one bullet hole in the radiator.

I suspect this would turn into a deep debate but from what I have read even the 70% or as much as 90% were not always necessarily listed as lost. Quite a few were kept around in a repair queue and later destroyed or abandoned when they had to flee the airfield (and many of the more lightly damaged aircraft were later repaired by DAF mechanics and used for evaluation testing or training, sometimes as squadron 'hacks' or just flown around for fun). At one point almost every DAF squadron had some kind of 'pet' Axis plane or three.

So in those cases even a 10 or 20% damaged plane was ultimately 'lost' as a result of combat though it may never have been reported as such. Some were listed as 'destroyed by own forces', sometimes not.

All this happened on the Allied side as well of course at some points.


----------



## Milosh (Jun 20, 2018)

If one looks at Luftwaffe monthly status reports, under Abgang has Durch Feindeinw. (due to enemy action) and Ohne Feindeinw. (not due to enemy action).

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## RCAFson (Jun 20, 2018)

Milosh said:


> Still bad, over 60% was a write off.


Perhaps you can provide more detail on the Luftwaffe's determination of what constituted a write-off and what was considered repairable?


----------



## Kevin J (Jun 20, 2018)

RCAFson said:


> Perhaps you can provide more detail on the Luftwaffe's determination of what constituted a write-off and what was considered repairable?


Since we seemed to have moved away from the main topic of discussion, did any of you realise that the Russians wooden fighters were probably only good for a about a year max because of the weather conditions on the Eastern Front before they got written off. It was either that or they over-boosted and destroyed the engines. They cost about a third to a half of their Luftwaffe opponents to build.


----------



## Glider (Jun 20, 2018)

Kevin J said:


> Since we seemed to have moved away from the main topic of discussion, did any of you realise that the Russians wooden fighters were probably only good for a about a year max because of the weather conditions on the Eastern Front before they got written off. It was either that or they over-boosted and destroyed the engines. They cost about a third to a half of their Luftwaffe opponents to build.


For planning purposes the UK used as a rule of thumb, that in Europe 50 fighters were needed to keep a squadron in the front line for six months.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Jun 20, 2018)

Glider said:


> For planning purposes the UK used as a rule of thumb, that in Europe 50 fighters were needed to keep a squadron in the front line for six months.


That wouldn't surprise me. That certainly explains what happened to all those Spitfire Vb's that were built.


----------



## MIflyer (Jun 20, 2018)

Just read some personal accounts of Hurricanes in Singapore, Java, and Burma,

The pilots did not consider the Hurricane to be inferior to the Oscar and the Zeke. They even escaped Zekes by outclimbing them. They found out the hard way they could not turn with them, but their biggest problem was that they were heavily outnumbered, 5 to 1 or more just for the fighters.

By early 1944 the RAF had 1000 Hurricanes operational in India and Burma. For the type of war in Burma the Hurricane was considered to be just about perfect, used in attacking small targets. Their overwhelming superiority in numbers in the air changed the situation and that seemed to be linked also to Japanese reversals and heavy losses in the Pacific. The Japanese could no longer regard Burma as a high priority because they were getting their butts shot off elsewhere. P-47s began to replace some of the Hurricanes in 1944 but some squadrons served with Hurricanes right to the end of the war, and most had hardly seen an enemy aircraft.

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


----------



## RCAFson (Jun 20, 2018)

MIflyer said:


> Just read some personal accounts of Hurricanes in Singapore, Java, and Burma,
> 
> The pilots did not consider the Hurricane to be inferior to the Oscar and the Zeke. They even escaped Zekes by outclimbing them. They found out the hard way they could not turn with them, but their biggest problem was that they were heavily outnumbered, 5 to 1 or more just for the fighters.
> 
> By early 1944 the RAF had 1000 Hurricanes operational in India and Burma. For the type of war in Burma the Hurricane was considered to be just about perfect, used in attacking small targets. Their overwhelming superiority in numbers in the air changed the situation and that seemed to be linked also to Japanese reversals and heavy losses in the Pacific. The Japanese could no longer regard Burma as a high priority because they were getting their butts shot off elsewhere. P-47s began to replace some of the Hurricanes in 1944 but some squadrons served with Hurricanes right to the end of the war, and most had hardly seen an enemy aircraft.



Commonwealth pilots always thought there was rough equality between the Hurricane II and A6M2.

Hurricane losses to the Ki-43 have to be looked at in the context of overall Hurricane numbers in theatre and the tactical situation.

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


----------



## Milosh (Jun 20, 2018)

RCAFson said:


> Perhaps you can provide more detail on the Luftwaffe's determination of what constituted a write-off and what was considered repairable?



Something I read many years ago. Damaged was assessed as a %. Only the very basic damage was repaired by the unit (10% comes to mind). All other was sent to a repair depot. 60% and over was sent to a salvage depot.

Juha2, a member here, might have more detail.


----------



## Schweik (Jun 20, 2018)

Milosh said:


> Something I read many years ago. Damaged was assessed as a %. Only the very basic damage was repaired by the unit (10% comes to mind). All other was sent to a repair depot. 60% and over was sent to a salvage depot.
> 
> Juha2, a member here, might have more detail.



it's how it's listed in the Shores books 10-100% damage. but in the Med, and I'm sure at some point in Russia too, they clearly didn't always have the luxury of sending planes to a repair depot and quite often tried to repair them on the spot. Same for the Allies - when they moved from base to base you'd often see columns of trucks trundling along with disassembled planes in them.







Attrition was certainly high both from damage and mechanical issues / lack of parts or supplies. Typical compliment on a given day for a squadron might be 4 -6 aircraft. This was true for both Allies and Axis.

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


----------



## Milosh (Jun 21, 2018)

Don't know what the Americans had but the British had a system in place for damaged a/c. Differing amounts of damage that couldn't be repair onsite went to specific places.

As for your photo, those are going to a repair or salvage depot.

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


----------



## Schweik (Jun 21, 2018)

Milosh said:


> Don't know what the Americans had but the British had a system in place for damaged a/c. Differing amounts of damage that couldn't be repair onsite went to specific places.
> 
> As for your photo, those are going to a repair or salvage depot.



That photo was plucked from google randomly, but I have nearly identical ones in several books - in fact I have Hurricanes on exactly the same kind of trailers (they called them Queen Mary trailers), which are going from the old squadron base to the new one.





That one was being salvaged from a crash landing site and was later put back into action.





Another hurricane





and another





A spit


This is also how they hauled wrecked planes from salvage sites and brought them back to the squadron airfield for evaluation.

I'd love to know how you know those are going to the depot.

S


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 21, 2018)

Schweik said:


> I'd love to know how you know those are going to the depot.


On the otherhand, how do you know that they aren't?

Here's a line of Hurricanes on their way to the Repair and Salvage Unit workshop near Cairo - you can use Hurricane HB-D as a reference if you're not satisfied

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


----------



## MIflyer (Jun 21, 2018)

A pilot who was at Java described a Hurricane coming in to land when some Oscars suddenly appeared and set the Hurricane on fire. The pilot pulled up to about 800 ft and bailed out successfully. The Oscar then pulled up sharply and broke up.

That is not the only case in which Oscars were seen to break up in a dive.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zipper730 (Jun 22, 2018)

RCAFson said:


> The Hurricane had an excellent roll rate and could out roll the Zero.


That seemed to vary with the fact that the design called for the portions of the aileron's nose to be completely sealed where the hinge-brackets are mounted. This seems to be a matter of workmanship and consistency, as some ailerons were quite light and other's quite stiff.


> NACA roll rate comparison:
> http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/naca868-rollchart.jpg


Is this figure accurate as there were other charts that displayed different figures?


> That was only one test of several and they were actually doing before and after testing of a G-suit. After the G-suit was worn the Spitfire could outmanoeuvre the Zero


So if the pilots could physically tolerate high g-loads, they would get inside it? Did this apply at all speeds or at all but low speeds?


> the Australian tests are flawed in that the Spitfire was not allowed to use overboost hence the low speeds.


Which would be used in real combat...


----------



## Zipper730 (Jun 22, 2018)

MycroftHolmes said:


> No, the 90-gallon tank was used for combat. The 170-gallon tank was solely for ferrying.


The 170 was the one that looked like a cheese-wheel with a fairing behind it hanging underneath the belly right?



fubar57 said:


> Escort Spitfire - a missed opportunity for longer reach? - Royal Aeronautical Society


Last I checked the problem with the proposals for using slipper tanks and rear-tanks was that the speed of the plane was limited to around 240 mph. While it'd fly comfortably at that speed, if it got jumped by enemy fighters, it may not have been able to gain speed quick enough to fight effectively. When the P-38's, P-47's, and P-51's were used, they generally flew at around 300 mph which allowed much better combat performance (and used essing to stay with the bombers).


> The drag penalty imposed by slipper tank carriage was relatively high compared to the later ‘torpedo’ style drop tanks that were mounted on struts clear of the fuselage


Why didn't they use those more?

Also, why didn't they fit the 20 gallon tank used on the PR.IV?


----------



## slaterat (Jun 22, 2018)

MIflyer said:


> A pilot who was at Java described a Hurricane coming in to land when some Oscars suddenly appeared and set the Hurricane on fire. The pilot pulled up to about 800 ft and bailed out successfully. The Oscar then pulled up sharply and broke up



This account is from Terence Kelly's, "Hurricane Over the Jungle", he was an eye witness to the event. The Hurricane pilot was 258 squads Flt Sgt Scott , who was on his final landing approach when he was bounced. In his follow up book "Battle for Palembang", Kelly identifies the Japanese pilot as LT Masabumi Kunii, of the 64 Sentai.( fromYasuo Izawa"s Combat Diary).

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## slaterat (Jun 22, 2018)

Zipper730 said:


> Is this figure accurate as there were other charts that displayed different figures



http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/naca868-rollchart.jpg

I have seen others link to this report, but I do not see a graph for the Hurricane in it. I have posted some roll rate info on the Hurricane earlier in this thread, where at 1/4 aileron deflection the Hurricane out rolls a Spit 1 and a P36 and has a similar rate to the Buffalo.


----------



## slaterat (Jun 22, 2018)

Greyman said:


> All of the data (no real tests, mostly anecdotes and squadron surveys) I've seen on the Hurricane's roll rate indicates it was very similar to the Spitfire with fabric-covered ailerons.
> 
> As RCAFson said, during their tests the NACA found the Spitfire (metal ailerons) remarkably similar to the Hurricane in roll performance. This was at 30 pounds stick force.
> 
> The Hurricane's rate of roll at 30 pounds was somewhat similar to the F4F-3's rate of roll at 50 pounds. So if I had to guess I'd say the Hurricane has the Wild



Here's a better quote from Greyman


----------



## Kevin J (Jun 23, 2018)

Zipper730 said:


> The 170 was the one that looked like a cheese-wheel with a fairing behind it hanging underneath the belly right?
> 
> Last I checked the problem with the proposals for using slipper tanks and rear-tanks was that the speed of the plane was limited to around 240 mph. While it'd fly comfortably at that speed, if it got jumped by enemy fighters, it may not have been able to gain speed quick enough to fight effectively. When the P-38's, P-47's, and P-51's were used, they generally flew at around 300 mph which allowed much better combat performance (and used essing to stay with the bombers).
> Why didn't they use those more?
> ...


It wasn't only the top speed of the Spitfire that was limited when carrying the 90/170 gal slipper tanks, yes 90 gal tanks too, but they could only fly in a straight and level line, no manoeuvres were allowed so you would be a sitting target for an enemy fighter. In the case of the 45 gal slipper tank, those extra restrictions didn't apply. In practice, the 45 gal slipper tank was only used for patrol work and the 30 gal slipper tank did not need to be jettisoned and could be retained in combat. So imagine, a Spitfire Vc TROP with a 30 gal slipper tank, your top speed is probably 350+ mph, so you'd have a hard task intercepting a Ki-46-II which would be 20+ mph faster or you're a Seafire IIc on patrol with a 45 gal slipper tank, well you might as well use a Wildcat, a much better plane for carrier work.


----------



## Zipper730 (Jun 23, 2018)

slaterat said:


> http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/naca868-rollchart.jpg


I've looked at this chart before, I was just confused because there was a chart that was dated 1941, and possible other detail changes made over the years.


> I have posted some roll rate info on the Hurricane earlier in this thread, where at 1/4 aileron deflection the Hurricane out rolls a Spit 1 and a P36 and has a similar rate to the Buffalo.


Are you saying the Hurricane, P-63 and F2A have similar roll-rates with 25% deflection with varying control-loads?



Kevin J said:


> It wasn't only the top speed of the Spitfire that was limited when carrying the 90/170 gal slipper tanks, yes 90 gal tanks too, but they could only fly in a straight and level line, no manoeuvres were allowed so you would be a sitting target for an enemy fighter.


So these were functionally ferry tanks? What made them unsuitable for maneuvers?


> In the case of the 45 gal slipper tank, those extra restrictions didn't apply. In practice, the 45 gal slipper tank was only used for patrol work and the 30 gal slipper tank did not need to be jettisoned and could be retained in combat.


So the 45 gallon tank was the biggest that could take maneuver forces, and the 30-gallon tank couldn't be jettisoned?


----------



## Kevin J (Jun 23, 2018)

Zipper730 said:


> I've looked at this chart before, I was just confused because there was a chart that was dated 1941, and possible other detail changes made over the years.
> Are you saying the Hurricane, P-63 and F2A have similar roll-rates with 25% deflection with varying control-loads?
> 
> So these were functionally ferry tanks? What made them unsuitable for maneuvers?
> So the 45 gallon tank was the biggest that could take maneuver forces, and the 30-gallon tank couldn't be jettisoned?



The recommended use of 90 gal and 170 gal slipper tanks was for ferry use only as manoeuvres were restricted when flying with them, also IIRC the max speed permitted with them was under 200 mph, but I can't remember the precise figure, its out there somewhere on the internet somewhere. The 30,45 and 90 gal slipper tanks could be jettisoned but IIRC the retaining hooks that held them on didn't always work in unison with unpleasant results. Loss of speed with them fitted varied from 5 mph to 16.5 mph.


----------



## MIflyer (Jun 23, 2018)

Actually, I got the account from Terrence Kelly's "Hurricane & Spitfire Pilots at War," which includes personal accounts of both his experiences and those of many other Hurricane and Spitfire pilots in various theaters of WWII. It's a good book; I recommend it.

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


----------



## Glider (Jun 23, 2018)

Zipper730 said:


> Last I checked the problem with the proposals for using slipper tanks and rear-tanks was that the speed of the plane was limited to around 240 mph. While it'd fly comfortably at that speed, if it got jumped by enemy fighters, it may not have been able to gain speed quick enough to fight effectively. When the P-38's, P-47's, and P-51's were used, they generally flew at around 300 mph which allowed much better combat performance (and used essing to stay with the bombers).
> Why didn't they use those more?


Limiting the speed to 240mph wouldn't have been a major problem as the bombers normally cruise at around that speed so less weaving would be needed. On the journey to the danger area a lot of this extra fuel would have been used, tanks released and normal performance returned.

Mk VIII Spits often used 90 gallon slipper tanks the only problem was supplies keeping up with demand.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 23, 2018)

It may depend on the model of the aircraft and the extent of testing done at a given point in time. 
There are a number of flight manuals available on this website and those give the limitations. For late MK IX aircraft for instance (might be post war?) 
The tanks were not to be jettisoned at over 300mph IAS. 
aerobatics and combat maneuvers are not permitted carrying any external stores (except the 30 gal "blister" type drop tank). 

As a thought (with nothing to back it up) performing acrobatics or combat maneuvers with a fuel tank not stressed for such things (will the seams or attachment points stand up to a 6-7 G load in a turn or pull out?) Please note that such maneuvers were not permitted when carrying iron bombs let alone fuel tanks where the fuel could slosh about (subject to some baffling?)

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Jun 23, 2018)

So a Spitfire V may not have had the power to or performance to manoeuvre with the drop tank in place, but a IX possibly could, and the XIV definitely could.



> COMBAT PERFORMANCE WITH 90 GALLON LONG-RANGE TANKS
> 
> 50. As the Spitfire XIV has a very short range it has been assumed that when a long-range tank is to be carried, it is most likely to be the 90 gallon tank rather than the 30 gallon or 45 gallon. Pending further instructions, no drops or trials have been carried out with the 30 gallon or 45 gallon tanks. The aircraft's performance with either can be estimated from the results given below of trials with the 90 gallon long-range tank.
> 
> ...



Spitfire Mk XIV Tactical Trials


----------



## MIflyer (Jun 23, 2018)

One of the things mentioned in "Hurricane & Spitfire Pilots at War" is that the wing mounted ferry tanks used by Hurricanes were not jettisonable. They had accumulated a large quantity of the tanks on Malta and they were not good for much. They took a couple of Hurricanes, fitted them with the tanks and used them as night intruders over the enemy airbases on Sicily. Also added to those duties was dropping supplies of money to a spy in the same area. 

As for the Spitfire V drop tanks, see the attached.

The Spit V manual also says that the drop tanks are only pressurized above 20K ft and that activating the pressurization system impairs the self-sealing capabilities. I believe that all American drop tanks were pressurized when in use and that ours were not self-sealing.


----------



## Zipper730 (Jun 23, 2018)

Glider said:


> Limiting the speed to 240mph wouldn't have been a major problem as the bombers normally cruise at around that speed so less weaving would be needed.


Of course, but if jumped by enemy fighters, you might not be able to gain a sufficient amount of speed to engage in effective aerial combat.


----------



## Glider (Jun 23, 2018)

Zipper730 said:


> Of course, but if jumped by enemy fighters, you might not be able to gain a sufficient amount of speed to engage in effective aerial combat.


You are of course correct but normally by the time you get into enemy territory the extra fuel would have been used and the tanks dropped. Its a risk that you might get caught out, but war is about taking calculated risks.


----------



## Zipper730 (Jun 23, 2018)

Glider said:


> You are of course correct but normally by the time you get into enemy territory


If you're talking about SEA, you're right... however this was based on operations into Germany. You'd be over their territory in like 100 miles...


----------



## wuzak (Jun 24, 2018)

Zipper730 said:


> If you're talking about SEA, you're right... however this was based on operations into Germany. You'd be over their territory in like 100 miles...



But not necessarily defended by fighters.

In any case, the Allies covered that by using a relay system. The escort would happen in 2 or 3 stages, with the initial stage being performed by Spitfires or P-47s, the intermediate stage by P-47s (or P-38s or P-51s?) and the final stage by P-51s. 

This also allowed the final stage fighters to fly at a more optimum speed and altitude until they rendezvoused with the bombers, allowing for greater range.


----------



## Juha2 (Jun 24, 2018)

Kevin J said:


> The Russians modified their Hurricane IIb's to have two 20 mm and two 0.5 in guns. It improved turning circle and roll rate and had twice the firepower of a Bf 109F. They used it successfully in the first five months of 1942, so it definitely wasn't obsolete at that time, exactly the same time when it was having problems in the Far East.



In fact Soviet pilots were not very fond of Hurri and at least over Artic it was an underdog against 109Fs or even against FiAF's Brewster B-239s. Of course the skills of pilots had marked effects on the results of the air combats. And the armament of 2 x 20 mm and 2 x 12,7 mm was effective.

Juha


----------



## Juha2 (Jun 24, 2018)

RCAFson said:


> ...The Hurricane had an excellent roll rate...



Have you source for that? because following graph says something different.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Juha2 (Jun 24, 2018)

RCAFson said:


> 1) ...2)NACA roll rate comparison:
> http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/naca868-rollchart.jpg
> 
> A NACA paper dated 16 Nov 1942 compared the roll rate of the Hurricane Mk2A, Spitfire V, P40 and P36. The Hurricane had the best roll rate in terms of roll rate per 5lb stick force and this matches pilot comments and RAF mock combat reports. Hurricane and Spitfire maximum roll rates were nearly identical, but slightly superior to the Spitfire and so the Spitfire curve, above, can be used for the Hurricane...



Thanks for the source, even if I knew the docu beforehand. But who hell would use 5 lb stick force, except maybe badly wounded pilot, in a life and dead situation? The 30 lb or more is much more realistic for real life combat situation.

Juha


----------



## Juha2 (Jun 24, 2018)

Kevin J said:


> Spiteful
> Scroll down to post #49. The 45 gal slipper tank is best used for defensive patrols only...



IMHO that was Kurfürst's opinion on Spitfire not on the 45 Impgal slipper tank.

Juha


----------



## Juha2 (Jun 24, 2018)

Milosh said:


> Something I read many years ago. Damaged was assessed as a %. Only the very basic damage was repaired by the unit (10% comes to mind). All other was sent to a repair depot. 60% and over was sent to a salvage depot.
> 
> Juha2, a member here, might have more detail.



As asked, from Christer Bergström's old message to another board, IIRC Prien gives the same in some of his books.

_Below 10 %: Minor damage that can be repaired by the aircraft’s ground crew.
10 % - 24 %: Medium damage that can be repaired through small repair works at the unit.
25 % - 39 %: Damage that requires a major overhaul at the unit.
40 % – 44 %: Damage to that requires whole replacements of landing gears or other systems, such as hydraulic systems.
45 % - 59 %: Severely damaged aircraft where large parts of the aircraft needed to be replaced.
60 % - 80 %: Write-off category. Certain parts could be used as spare parts for other aircraft.
81 % - 99%: Totally destroyed, crashed on German-controlled area.
100 %: Totally lost, crashed or disappeared over enemy-controlled area or over sea.
_
And sometimes planes deemed as over 60% dam were repaired after all and on the other hand sometimes planes deemed as say 50% dam were scrapped.

Juha

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Juha2 (Jun 24, 2018)

MIflyer said:


> A pilot who was at Java described a Hurricane coming in to land when some Oscars suddenly appeared and set the Hurricane on fire. The pilot pulled up to about 800 ft and bailed out successfully. The Oscar then pulled up sharply and broke up.
> 
> That is not the only case in which Oscars were seen to break up in a dive.



Yes, that is true for early Oscars, Japanese needed to reinforce the main spar of the early Oscars.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Jun 24, 2018)

Juha2 said:


> In fact Soviet pilots were not very fond of Hurri and at least over Artic it was an underdog against 109Fs or even against FiAF's Brewster B-239s. Of course the skills of pilots had marked effects on the results of the air combats. And the armament of 2 x 20 mm and 2 x 12,7 mm was effective.
> 
> Juha


At least they were scoring victories.


----------



## fubar57 (Jun 24, 2018)

166 victories by my count, no Soviet aces in Hurricanes

Reactions: Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (Jun 24, 2018)

Juha2 said:


> IMHO that was Kurfürst's opinion on Spitfire not on the 45 Impgal slipper tank.
> 
> Juha


That's a name from the past. Not a big fan of the Spit, or anything else that wasn't a 109


----------



## fubar57 (Jun 24, 2018)

Glider said:


> That's a name from the past. Not a big fan of the Spit, or anything else that wasn't a 109



I just saw him on another site, not a fan there either. Can't recall the dates


----------



## RCAFson (Jun 24, 2018)

Juha2 said:


> Thanks for the source, even if I knew the docu beforehand. But who hell would use 5 lb stick force, except maybe badly wounded pilot, in a life and dead situation? The 30 lb or more is much more realistic for real life combat situation.
> 
> Juha



When you look at gun camera footage, roll rates are typically not extreme, and the responsive roll rate with low stick forces was a nice feature. Extreme dogfighting is actually pretty rare.

My main point was that Spitfire and Hurricane roll rates were nearly identical, which is true, so on the NACA868 chart:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/naca868-rollchart.jpg

The Spitfire (normal wing) is going to be nearly identical to the HurrIcane.

The Hurricane was also shown to have excellent (comparatively) rolls rates in Flying to the Limit, data from which was posted earlier in the thread [post 129].


----------



## Juha2 (Jun 24, 2018)

RCAFson said:


> When you look at gun camera footage, roll rates are typically not extreme, and the responsive roll rate with low stick forces was a nice feature. Extreme dogfighting is actually pretty rare.


I agree that low stick forces was a plus in any fighter.



RCAFson said:


> My main point was that Spitfire and Hurricane roll rates were nearly identical, which is true, so on the NACA868 chart:
> 
> http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/naca868-rollchart.jpg
> 
> The Spitfire (normal wing) is going to be nearly identical to the HurrIcane.



Yes when also Hurri had metal ailerons, Mk Is had fabric covered and at least the late Mk IICs seems to have had metal covered ailerons. Weight distribution along the span also had its effects on how fast the roll began.



RCAFson said:


> The Hurricane was also shown to have excellent (comparatively) rolls rates in Flying to the Limit, data from which was posted earlier in the thread [post 129].



Thanks for pointing the message #129 to me, have been away and read only the first 100 posts before jumping to the last ones. Very interesting!

Juha


----------



## Greyman (Jun 24, 2018)

Juha2 said:


> Yes when also Hurri had metal ailerons, Mk Is had fabric covered and at least the late Mk IICs seems to have had metal covered ailerons. Weight distribution along the span also had its effects on how fast the roll began.



I don't think the Hurricane ever had metal ailerons. It was tried briefly when it was also experimented with on the Spitfire, but unlike the Spitfire, it was found there was no benefit.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jun 25, 2018)

Juha2 said:


> Have you source for that? because following graph says something different.









This matches my understanding. It also lines up a lot better with this NACA 868 chart RCAF posted (and everyone keeps posting)

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jun 25, 2018)

slaterat said:


> Wow that didn't come out right let me try again,
> 
> Hawk/Hurricane/Spitfire/Buffalo
> 
> ...



It sounds like the hurri had relatively light control forces, which is not the same thing as saying that roll rate was good. This also doesn't match the claim that the Spit and Hurri had similar roll rates.

As for gun camera footage - a lot of what little we typically get to see shows planes being finished off after already having been damaged. Relatively little gun camera footage is actually released and easily accessible - usually on TV shows etc. (and on youtube) they so the same 5 or 6 clips over and over.

From what the pilots describe, combat maneuvering was often very violent. It wasn't unusual for people go go into spins (sometimes intentionally) and they routinely describe 'slamming the stick' around the cockpit especially when trying to escape.

S


----------



## slaterat (Jun 25, 2018)

Schweik said:


> It sounds like the hurri had relatively light control forces, which is not the same thing as saying that roll rate was good. This also doesn't match the claim that the Spit and Hurri had similar roll rates.



That roll rate I posted for the spitfire, is for a MK1, before the metal ailerons were added. Its the Spit 5 and later that were similar to the Hurricane which is what the chart you posted shows.

The NACA 868 chart shows the spit out rolling the p 40, up to 250 ias, at 50 lbs force.

I guess roll rate is not as simple as one might think.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greyman (Jun 25, 2018)

slaterat said:


> I guess roll rate is not as simple as one might think.



For sure. There are potentially a lot of 'ifs', 'buts' and fine print when an aircraft's roll characteristics are described in a single word.

Thanks to Juha for jogging my memory and getting me on the right track re: NACA Spit/Hurrie testing ...

_The ailerons of the Spitfire and the Hurricane airplanes were less effective than the ailerons of the P-40 airplane at high speeds because the large control forces limited the obtainable aileron deflections. For small deflections, however, the ailerons of the British fighter airplanes were very light and responsive. Many pilots were very favorably impressed with the aileron characteristics because of this fact. A true picture of aileron characteristics was obtained only after tests were conducted under simulated combat conditions where large aileron deflections are required._ - NACA


----------



## Schweik (Jun 25, 2018)

Greyman said:


> For sure. There are potentially a lot of 'ifs', 'buts' and fine print when an aircraft's roll characteristics are described in a single word.
> 
> Thanks to Juha for jogging my memory and getting me on the right track re: NACA Spit/Hurrie testing ...
> 
> _The ailerons of the Spitfire and the Hurricane airplanes were less effective than the ailerons of the P-40 airplane at high speeds because the large control forces limited the obtainable aileron deflections. For small deflections, however, the ailerons of the British fighter airplanes were very light and responsive. Many pilots were very favorably impressed with the aileron characteristics because of this fact. A true picture of aileron characteristics was obtained only after tests were conducted under simulated combat conditions where large aileron deflections are required._ - NACA



yeah I remember this from a previous discussion in another forum years ago (long before we had so many helpful documents available) about roll rate of some other planes. There is roll acceleration and roll rate at different lbs force, and roll rate at different speeds and also at different altitude. I remember the P-47 rolls very well at 25,000 ft but no so great down at 5,000 ft.

So yeah it's complex. My biggest question right now is how was the roll of the Spit V and Spit IX etc., more like one above with the Hurricane down around 65 degrees per second or more like in the NACA 868 chart where it's up at 105 degrees per second at 200 mph.

Which of the two charts (if either) represents a Spitfire with metal ailerons? What is the explanation of the discrepancy between the charts?

And is there a clear equivalent chart for the Bf109? From this report it sounds like the Bf109 had a pretty poor roll compared to the Spit and Tempest, but equal to the P-51.

S


----------



## Greyman (Jun 25, 2018)

Ok .. new chart with the new data:






Roll velocity in degrees per second, speeds in IAS. All stick forces 30 pounds.
*A6M3 Type 32 (RAAF data)
Spitfire (RAAF data)
Spitfire V (NACA)
Hurricane II (NACA)
F4F-3 (NACA)
*
The two Spitfire curves are there to illustrate the inconsistency of roll performance on similar aircraft. Something I've run into many many times looking at roll performance.

Reactions: Like Like:
5 | Like List reactions


----------



## slaterat (Jun 25, 2018)

For comparison sake I researched some performance numbers for the planes in this discussion. I know there are varying sources and numbers available but the concept here was just to help illustrate overall trends and tactics. I used primary sources when possible, a lot from this website.
Speeds at altitudes

KI 43-1 sea level 273/3k274/6,560ft 286/10k305/16k 306/[email protected]
zero sea level 270/5k287/10k305/16k336/20k321/25k315/30k306/[email protected]
Trop Hurri sea level265/5k280/10k296/15k310/20k333/25k/324/30k300/[email protected]
P-40C sea level???/10k314/15k331/20k326/25k321/[email protected]
P-40D sea level???/2k298/4k305/10k329/15k341/20k330/[email protected]

Climb rate
KI 43-1 5.5mins to 16,405ft(5000m)
Zero sea level 2,750/15k 2,380/20k 1,810/30k 850/time to 20k 8.11
Trop Hurri sea level 2,800/5k 2,480/10k 2,150/15k 1,710/20k 1,510/30k 680/time to 20k 10 min/time to 30k 17.2min
P-40C sea level 1960/13.5k 1,960/20k 1,360/30k 140/time to 20k 10.8/time to 30k 25.9min
P-40D sea level ???/2k 1,570/12k 1,580/16k1,220/20k 870/28k 160/time to 20k 14.25 min/time to 28k 33.5min


----------



## Zipper730 (Jun 25, 2018)

Greyman said:


> _The ailerons of the Spitfire and the Hurricane airplanes were less effective than the ailerons of the P-40 airplane at high speeds because the large control forces limited the obtainable aileron deflections. For small deflections, however, the ailerons of the British fighter airplanes were very light and responsive. Many pilots were very favorably impressed with the aileron characteristics because of this fact. A true picture of aileron characteristics was obtained only after tests were conducted under simulated combat conditions where large aileron deflections are required._ - NACA


The British were light at low speed but became so heavy at high speeds that they were nearly useless?


> Ok .. new chart with the new data:
> 
> View attachment 499436
> 
> ...


Weird the discrepancies? What would you say would account for them?


----------



## Greyman (Jun 25, 2018)

Zipper730 said:


> Weird the discrepancies? What would you say would account for them?



Differences in manufacturing seems to me to be the biggest culprit. One example I pointed to here.
A change in lubrication made a big difference in Hurricane roll performance at low temperatures.
Different testing/measuring methodologies could be the cause, or the condition of the aircraft (internal/external equipment, modifications).

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## slaterat (Jun 26, 2018)

Looking at the performance envelopes one can draw several conclusions.

The P-40D is the fastest below 20k and has a 20 to 30 mph advantage at low level for escape. The six .50s give it excellent firepower for fast slashing attacks. However it is the worst in the climb making, getting good( diving) position for intercepts difficult.

The P40-C has similar options to the P40-D just not much as much of a margin although it does have a better climb rate perhaps making a better interceptor than its big brother. Both these two struggle to get to 30k.

The Hurri 2, although it doesn't dive quite as fast as the P40s, it still dives faster than the KI 43 or Zero and it has a much better chance of getting to altitude, to use that diving advantage than the P-40s. It is faster than both its Japanese opponents above 17.5k. The tough spot for the Hurri is combat below 10k. Here it is slightly slower than the two Japanese fighters and in a co e situation without backup will be a difficult extraction.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Juha2 (Jun 26, 2018)

Zipper730 said:


> The British were light at low speed but became so heavy at high speeds that they were nearly useless?
> Weird the discrepancies? What would you say would account for them?



It's about how one definite "high speed" and "nearly useless". According to the NACA 868 table Figure. 47 Spit with normal wing still had the ror little under 60 deg/sec at 407 mph TAS at 10 000 ft. Note that the speeds in the table are given as IAS.

One reason might be that Spit and Hurri, like Fw 190, had Frise type ailerons, which were suspectible to rigging errors. And of course we are talking about war time products when quantity was more important than quality.


----------



## Juha2 (Jun 26, 2018)

Greyman said:


> I don't think the Hurricane ever had metal ailerons. It was tried briefly when it was also experimented with on the Spitfire, but unlike the Spitfire, it was found there was no benefit.



Thanks a lot for that, I tried to veryfy that from my sources but from Finnish sources only got the info for Mk I and for Mk II cannot find quickly anything better than a cutaway from a 1987 Aeroplane Monthly, which published a four part article on Hurricane in April - July 1987 issues. The Mk I cutaway rightly showed fabric covered ailerons and the Mk IIC cutaway claimed metal ailerons.

Juha

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## MIflyer (Jun 26, 2018)

I just looked at the Mk II Hurricane maintenance manual. The ailerons are aluminum and steel with fabric covering.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Juha2 (Jun 26, 2018)

MIflyer said:


> I just looked at the Mk II Hurricane maintenance manual. The ailerons are aluminum and steel with fabric covering.


Hello MIflyer
thanks for the confirmation!

Juha


----------



## Zipper730 (Jun 26, 2018)

Greyman said:


> Differences in manufacturing seems to me to be the biggest culprit. One example I pointed to here.


The cut out portions of the aileron leading-edge where the hinge-brackets are mounted weren't completely sealed. Were specific factories and nations better at building and fixing them?


> A change in lubrication made a big difference in Hurricane roll performance at low temperatures.


Was this lubrication standard maintained in different allied countries after 1941?


> Different testing/measuring methodologies could be the cause


Such as?


> condition of the aircraft


Why would you want to alter the condition to that outside what the real plane would have?


----------



## Zipper730 (Jun 26, 2018)

Schweik said:


> yeah I remember this from a previous discussion in another forum years ago (long before we had so many helpful documents available) about roll rate of some other planes. There is roll acceleration and roll rate at different lbs force, and roll rate at different speeds and also at different altitude. I remember the P-47 rolls very well at 25,000 ft but no so great down at 5,000 ft.


How do you factor in the altitude differences?


----------



## Greyman (Jun 26, 2018)

Zipper730 said:


> The cut out portions of the aileron leading-edge where the hinge-brackets are mounted weren't completely sealed. Were specific factories and nations better at building and fixing them?



I can't speak to the Hurricane aileron situation, but it's something you often come across with aircraft (and tanks, guns, uniforms, cigarettes, everything). These things aren't built by precision robots and there are a million things that can slightly differ during manufacture. This can be consistent enough to lead to pilots--for example--distinctly preferring Seafires built at Cunliffe-Owen as opposed to Westland-built ones.

For a blindingly obvious situation look no further than the 20-mm Hispano in British manufacture vs. US manufacture.




Zipper730 said:


> Was this lubrication standard maintained in different allied countries after 1941?



No idea. I would assume english-speaking countries were able to just get the latest manuals/amendments but I've occasionally seen gaps, shall we say, in support with regard to equipment to the Soviets. British negligence, Soviet stubbornness, U-boat deprivations, language barriers, all of the above ... I'm not sure. Not an area I've delved into.




Zipper730 said:


> Such as?



what altitudes
which direction in rolling
both directions averaged?
how fast is the force applied to the stick
is the rudder used to assist the roll
is the nose kept level
how large of a roll is to be measured, 45, 90, 360
does the measurement begin as soon as the force is applied or when maximum roll rate is achieved
what apparatus is used to measure stick forces
Just off the top of my head. I'm sure there's more.




Zipper730 said:


> Why would you want to alter the condition to that outside what the real plane would have?



What a 'real plane' is evolves over time. A Spitfire Mk.V in spring 1944 is a very different thing than a Spitfire V in spring 1941.

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


----------



## Schweik (Jun 26, 2018)

One of the things about these tests which seems odd to us today is that sometimes major national Defense decisions were being made on the basis of just a few hours of testing on one plane (or two or three) which might just be a dud or having problems that day. As Greyman said manufacturing wasn't always consistent back then - and aircraft made in one factory could be twice as reliable or even 20 or 30 mph faster than the theoretically same aircraft made in another.Quite a few of these tests where they took 5 or 6 aircraft, one of the planes either wasn't running at all or was running at 3/4 power or something and they just went with the results they had anyway.

Today for say, auto safety tests (let alone military kit) we would do multiple tests over and over and get an average.

Back then, and through the cold war and to some extent even today, a single prototype crashing due to a freak accident or some kind of maintenance goof can cancel or seriously delay a major new aircraft design.

S


----------



## Zipper730 (Jun 26, 2018)

Greyman said:


> I can't speak to the Hurricane aileron situation, but it's something you often come across with aircraft (and tanks, guns, uniforms, cigarettes, everything). These things aren't built by precision robots and there are a million things that can slightly differ during manufacture. This can be consistent enough to lead to pilots--for example--distinctly preferring Seafires built at Cunliffe-Owen as opposed to Westland-built ones.


Ok


> For a blindingly obvious situation look no further than the 20-mm Hispano in British manufacture vs. US manufacture.


We took a perfectly good gun, and fixed it until it was broke...


> No idea. I would assume english-speaking countries were able to just get the latest manuals/amendments but I've occasionally seen gaps, shall we say, in support


So certain things weren't exported with all the bells and whistles, there were limits in resources due to merchant raiding and things of that sort, linguistic barriers, and each nation doing things their own way?


> what altitudes


You'd figure that indicated airspeed would cover that, though if you're having issues with indicated airspeed vs altitude you'd be dealing with issues like IAS/TAS or IAS/Mach?


> which direction in rolling


So in some cases they'd pick the best side, other times the worst? Frankly, I'm surprised they didn't just list both.


> both directions averaged?


Simpler, but less accurate


> how fast is the force applied to the stick


The faster would be theoretically closer to the absolute minimum, and would get the quickest deflection and get the fastest roll-acceleration from 0 dos to maximum, allowing one to gauge how quickly it'd initiate a roll and also stop the roll...


> is the rudder used to assist the roll


I thought almost all straight-winged planes used some rudder for this purpose?


> is the nose kept level


Higher AoA would usually increase roll-rate, so I guess one could also factor in weight and g-load...


> how large of a roll is to be measured, 45, 90, 360


The larger the closer the average roll rate is to the peak roll-rate...


> does the measurement begin as soon as the force is applied or when maximum roll rate is achieved


I'd probably have been inclined to do both so as to tell pilots that as a rule you'll build up roll a certain number of degrees a second, then peaking at this amount maximum.


> what apparatus is used to measure stick forces


What did they use?


> What a 'real plane' is evolves over time.


I know that but if you're doing tests, you want to know what it can do *now* so pilots have hard figures they can use. For test purposes you'd do different stuff.


> A Spitfire Mk.V in spring 1944 is a very different thing than a Spitfire V in spring 1941.


Really? I'd have figured they were both Mk.V's...


----------



## Zipper730 (Jun 27, 2018)

Schweik said:


> One of the things about these tests which seems odd to us today is that sometimes major national Defense decisions were being made on the basis of just a few hours of testing on one plane (or two or three) which might just be a dud or having problems that day. As Greyman said manufacturing wasn't always consistent back then - and aircraft made in one factory could be twice as reliable or even 20 or 30 mph faster than the theoretically same aircraft made in another.Quite a few of these tests where they took 5 or 6 aircraft, one of the planes either wasn't running at all or was running at 3/4 power or something and they just went with the results they had anyway.


That's not what I meant: If altitude and IAS don't work out perfectly, what would you have used?


> Today for say, auto safety tests (let alone military kit) we would do multiple tests over and over and get an average.


Yeah, that's what I'm kind of used to.


----------



## Schweik (Jun 27, 2018)

Zipper730 said:


> How do you factor in the altitude differences?



I don't know, test at 3 or 4 altitudes instead of just at 10,000 ft?

All I know is that i was told in a similar discussion to this years ago on another forum that P-47s had excellent roll and overall handling at 25,000 ft and they quoted some numbers and sources. Don't remember details though.

Down near Sea Level P-47 is kind of a dud though in many respects.

S


----------



## Greyman (Jun 27, 2018)

Zipper730 said:


> What did they use?
> Really? I'd have figured they were both Mk.V's...



In terms of measuring devices I know almost nothing. The RAE was using a 'Henschel stick force indicator' for a certain period in 1940.

They certainly are both Spitfire Vs, but the one in 1944 incorporates hundreds of official modifications -- introduced incrementally over the years.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zipper730 (Jun 27, 2018)

Schweik said:


> I don't know, test at 3 or 4 altitudes instead of just at 10,000 ft?


Makes sense, I was curious about some kind of graphing idea which covers altitude and IAS. I figured it'd have to be some kind of 3D chart lol.


> All I know is that i was told in a similar discussion to this years ago on another forum that P-47s had excellent roll and overall handling at 25,000 ft and they quoted some numbers and sources.


I remember being told that it was the best in the USAAF inventory.


> Down near Sea Level P-47 is kind of a dud though in many respects.


Frankly, it's my opinion that we should have built a larger attack replacement for the A-36 like an Army AD actually.



Greyman said:


> The RAE was using a 'Henschel stick force indicator' for a certain period in 1940.


What's that?


> They certainly are both Spitfire Vs, but the one in 1944 incorporates hundreds of official modifications -- introduced incrementally over the years.


Ok

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greyman (Jun 27, 2018)

Zipper730 said:


> What's that?



Unfortunately the entirety of my knowledge about the device is derived from its name.


----------



## gordonm1 (Jan 20, 2019)

I sure appreciate learning more about the P40. It's hard to research it for a newb like me.

To me, it seems like the British followed a lot of logic to send out the P40's to its allies and keep what they know and build at home. That and good firepower, reliability and armor makes sense that they used it in place of their Hurricanes.


----------



## Kevin J (Jan 20, 2019)

gordonm1 said:


> I sure appreciate learning more about the P40. It's hard to research it for a newb like me.
> 
> To me, it seems like the British followed a lot of logic to send out the P40's to its allies and keep what they know and build at home. That and good firepower, reliability and armor makes sense that they used it in place of their Hurricanes. Plus they were free and the Hurricanes cost something.


The P40's weren't free. We paid for all the Tomahawks (1180) and the first Kittyhawks (560) with hard cash. The rest were on Lend-Lease which we finally paid off in 2006.

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 20, 2019)

gordonm1 said:


> I sure appreciate learning more about the P40. It's hard to research it for a newb like me.
> ...



Welcome here. Want to learn? Stick around and ask questions

Reactions: Friendly Friendly:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Jan 20, 2019)

gordonm1 said:


> I sure appreciate learning more about the P40. It's hard to research it for a newb like me.
> 
> To me, it seems like the British followed a lot of logic to send out the P40's to its allies and keep what they know and build at home. That and good firepower, reliability and armor makes sense that they used it in place of their Hurricanes. Plus they were free and the Hurricanes cost something.


You might find these sites informative:
Curtiss-Wright - Авиация США во Второй мировой
US Warplanes
P-40 Performance Tests
The P-40 (Erik Shilling; John Lundstrom; Steven Vincent; CDB100620)
Home Page
Aircraft A–Z - WarThunder-Wiki
P-40 Warhawk
Joe Baugher's Home Page

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


----------



## fubar57 (Jan 20, 2019)

Good stuff Kevin

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## gordonm1 (Jan 20, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> The P40's weren't free. We paid for all the Tomahawks (1180) and the first Kittyhawks (560) with hard cash. The rest were on Lend-Lease which we finally paid off in 2006.




I can't argue against you so Ill delete the last sentence.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jan 21, 2019)

gordonm1 said:


> I sure appreciate learning more about the P40. It's hard to research it for a newb like me.
> 
> To me, it seems like the British followed a lot of logic to send out the P40's to its allies and keep what they know and build at home. That and good firepower, reliability and armor makes sense that they used it in place of their Hurricanes.


You have to also take into consideration that Britain was in a precarious position not only in Europe but her Commonwealth territories across the globe when war broke out.

The Hurricane was Britain's most advanced fighter in the late 30's but there were only so many to go around. Taking advantage of the P-40, which the U.S. had on hand and could mass produce, was a logical step to bolster the RAF's numbers.
The Hurricane served in nearly every theater of the war, but again, it's numbers were limited to a certain degree, so it could only be spread so far.

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


----------



## fliger747 (Jan 22, 2019)

As a note, IAS notwithstanding aircraft handle quite differently with altitude change. Not only does the Reynolds Number of the fluid (Air) change there is a huge difference in aerodynamic dampening. At altitude this is often exemplified to the pilot as a reduction in stability, especially in roll. Hand flying a Herk say at 31,000' has very light controls in roll as compared to on the deck at very low temperatures with a density altitude approaching -5,000' or greater where the air feels like you are flying through cream cheese.


----------



## MIflyer (Jan 22, 2019)

Supersonic aircraft have what some call Q-Feel systems that adjust the flight control pressures such that there is not a radically different amount of control movement and back-pressure for different airspeeds and altitudes. The F-106 also had a system that sensed when Mach 1 was exceeded by comparing total versus static pressures (and for a given Mach number that ratio is the same for all altitudes, I have worked the equations to make sure) at which point fuel was pumped between tanks in order to maintain the same CG when the center of pressure shifted. This improved performance when the aircraft was scrambling to intercept a hostile target by keeping the pilot from having to adjust to the center of pressure change brought on by going supersonic. ,

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jan 22, 2019)

I know there's a serious difference when you're flying close to sea level or up at 35000 feet but how much difference is it between 10000 and 20000


----------



## Schweik (Jan 22, 2019)

Why were all the century series planes so crappy? Too heavy for the power plants? Bad Wing shapes?


----------



## BiffF15 (Jan 22, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Why were all the century series planes so crappy? Too heavy for the power plants? Bad Wing shapes?



Crappy compared to what? Newer aircraft with better designs, or their Russian made counterparts? The MiG-17, 21, 23, 25, 27, Su-whatever were similar technology and not as user friendly. I would have taken the US made equipment over that made in the USSR.

Cheers,
Biff

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


----------



## Schweik (Jan 22, 2019)

I think I'd rather fly a MiG 21 than an F-102 or F-106


----------



## Schweik (Jan 22, 2019)

Let alone an F- 104!


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 22, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Let alone an F- 104!


Why???

Lets not forget that the Mig-21 was produced over 26 years or more so there was definitely some improvement in components. 
Some of the early Mig-21s had very short lived engines (Ok they lasted longer than Jumo 004s) and they had a very short radius of action (endurance) without drop tanks.


----------



## Milosh (Jan 23, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Let alone an F- 104!



32 pilots died in total from 83 ejections. 65 different variants of MiG-21s were lost.
HUN MiG-21s
32/61 = 50%

In German service, 292 of 916 Starfighters crashed, claiming the lives of 115 pilots.
GER F-104s
115/292 = 39%

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Jan 23, 2019)

Milosh said:


> 32 pilots died in total from 83 ejections. 65 different variants of MiG-21s were lost.
> HUN MiG-21s
> 32/61 = 50%
> 
> ...



One of the guys I knew 15 years back, ran his own little IT Logistics company. Anyway, he started his working life in the fifties, flying Hawker Hunter jets for the RAF, I think it was an initial 4 year commission. He didn't renew it though because he saw too many of his friends die in landing accidents. I think the record for unreliability must go to the Supermarine Scimitar though. 76 built 38 crashes. Don't know the mortality rate.

38/76 = 50% crash rate.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 23, 2019)

Numbers built vs number crashed doesn't tell the real accident rate. 
That would be number crashed per 1000 hours of operation. 

Then you need to consider the flight envelope/use of the aircraft. 

The Germans may have screwed up (aided by bribes?) but the 104G was being used as a low altitude, all weather attack/strike aircraft. Flying in bad weather at low altitude at high speed puts you in a high risk situation from the start.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Milosh (Jan 23, 2019)

During 30 years of flying there were 1.975.646 flight hours accumulated. The average flight time per aircraft was 2.157 flight hours. A total of 292 F-104 were lost in accidents, with the tragic death of 116 pilots. That accounts for one loss per 6.630 flying hours, which is actually a normal value according to international standards.

916 Starfighter

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Peter Gunn (Jan 23, 2019)

Schweik said:


> I think I'd rather fly a MiG 21 than an F-102 or F-106


Why? The F-102 was a good interceptor and the F-106 was an absolute scorcher. Sure both had teething issues, what new technology doesn't? I guarantee the MiG 21 had just as many teething problems to work out as any other a/c from the fifties/sixties.

Hell, it doesn't even _*look*_ as good as a Delta Dart.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jan 23, 2019)

Well I can tell I may have tripped over something here so I'm going to venture forth cautiously.

I tend to look at these things from an Operational point of view. I don't know the full operational histories of all of the Century series fighters but all of them seem to have fallen into one of two categories when seen from that angle:

1) Interceptors or fighters with limited utility that were never ready for prime time and got relegated to home defense. Generally disliked or mistrusted by pilots and plagued by low servicability.

2) Fighter bombers which had some operational utility but suffered high loss rates and other significant limitations.

In both cases there seemed to have been extended and serious development problems with fatal accidents, as well as some infamous corruption scandals.

I admit the MiG 21 was a fairly ugly plane (and I think this is true for the -17, and -19) with short range, and no doubt it too had teething and reliability issues, but it seems to have had a good combat record and a very long combat service history during which it remained viable. 

I know there are some well known issues with the Cope India exercise but the history of that event does indicate to me that the useful life of the MiG 21 was extraordinarily long. I don't think anyone is still flying F 102s or 104s are they?

There seems to have been a lot of 'fails' in Jet fighter designs in the 50's and 60's. The MiG 15 and F-86 are stand out success stories but all countries that competed in that arena seem to have had a lot of embarassing setbacks. Consider the F 89 and the "Battle of Palmdale"

Battle of Palmdale - Wikipedia

I think it's a good thing they were never tested by a genuine emergency!

Of course the Soviets had PLENTY of fails too, as did the French, British, Chinese, Italians etc. There were so many nuclear accidents involving Soviet and US aircraft it's positively hair raising to think about.

The Century series seem (from my perspective) to have been fairly radical new designs which departed from earlier trends rather dramatically. Contending with combat in the context of supersonic flight was a major challenge of course. 

But they seem to have hovered just beneath the threshold of full viability as fighters, IMHO. YMMV!

S


----------



## buffnut453 (Jan 23, 2019)

And all this has exactly what relevance to "A Critical Analysis of the RAF Air Superiority Campaign in India, Burma and Malaya in 1941-45"?

Just askin'....I know there's often thread drift but Century Fighters aren't even WW2. Maybe time to get back on-topic?

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


----------



## michael rauls (Jan 23, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> One of the guys I knew 15 years back, ran his own little IT Logistics company. Anyway, he started his working life in the fifties, flying Hawker Hunter jets for the RAF, I think it was an initial 4 year commission. He didn't renew it though because he saw too many of his friends die in landing accidents. I think the record for unreliability must go to the Supermarine Scimitar though. 76 built 38 crashes. Don't know the mortality rate.
> 
> 38/76 = 50% crash rate.


Ouch!!


----------



## Kevin J (Jan 23, 2019)

Peter Gunn said:


> Why? The F-102 was a good interceptor and the F-106 was an absolute scorcher. Sure both had teething issues, what new technology doesn't? I guarantee the MiG 21 had just as many teething problems to work out as any other a/c from the fifties/sixties.
> 
> Hell, it doesn't even _*look*_ as good as a Delta Dart.


I though the US tried the Dagger in Vietnam and unlike the Crusader was an utter disaster.


----------



## BiffF15 (Jan 23, 2019)

Schweik said:


> I admit the MiG 21 was a fairly ugly plane (and I think this is true for the -17, and -19) with short range, and no doubt it too had teething and reliability issues, but it seems to have had a good combat record and a very long combat service history during which it remained viable.



The MiG-21 did have a long career. If you have quite a few in your AF, regardless of how many you seem to crash, and are cash strapped but need increased capes what do you do? Get the Israelis to upgrade them. The Russians make very robust stuff (MiG-21 / MiG-29) which helps with longevity. Depending. Look up how the Indians like their Flankers, or better how they like dealing with Russia to get parts or motors.

Life expectancy on a MiG-29 motor is 300 hours then toss it according to the Luftwaffe guys I fought. They detuned it a tad, and would get work done at 300 hours to double the life to 600.

The combat record of the Fishbed lies directly at the feet of the White House, who as previously mentioned, tied the tactical hands of our guys and then fed info to the enemy via Swiss Embassy. A ing event which caused a lot of US military to die or become POWs.

I should have said F4 Phantom instead of Century Series as that’s what I had in mind. Also at that time the USAF had stopped doing dissimilar trading as it was deemed to dangerous. That was fixed and Fighter Weapons Schools opened in both the USAF and USN which changed things fairly well.

Cheers,
Biff


----------



## Milosh (Jan 23, 2019)

F-89s were to intercept and shoot down Soviet bombers, not fighters. Their missiles were unguided.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 23, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Well I can tell I may have tripped over something here so I'm going to venture forth cautiously.
> 
> I tend to look at these things from an Operational point of view. I don't know the full operational histories of all of the Century series fighters but all of them seem to have fallen into one of two categories when seen from that angle:
> 
> ...




When you are looking at things from an operational point of view it helps to consider a number of operational facts. It also helps not to go in with preconceived notions (US aircraft were expensive crap foisted off on the US taxpayers).

In the 1950s they were just starting to get into life cycle accounting (how much it costs to operate a plane or fleet of planes over a number years or hours of operations). The Russians didn't tell anybody how few hours per year they were flying a lot of their aircraft. If you only fly a few hours a month even short overhaul life engines can last quite a while. 

For true comparisons you need to know how many hours were being flown per month (or per year), how often engines had to replaced and other _operational_ factors.

US readiness rates sometimes sucked, but lets compare apples to apples, the f-102 and the F-106 were all-weather fighters from the start, they were expected to take-off and intercept incoming bombers at night in rain or snow storms,. Granted with was with aid (a lot of aid) from ground radars and ground controllers but it took a lot of electronics and the electronics of the day was vacuum tubes and circuit boards. Several cubic feet of 1950s electronics will now fit on one micro chip. 
The first all weather "interceptor" versions of the Mig-21 didn't see service until 1961. almost two years after the F-106 started to enter squadron service. As electronics got smaller and lighter you could fit more capability into existing aircraft. 
The Mig-21 day fighter didn't enter production until 1959 (?) so it was a tad late compared to the US century series (5 years later than the F-100) one would hope it was better than the older American aircraft. 

The F-102 and F-106 got _relegated to home defense _because that was what they were designed for, to work as an integrated part of the home defence system to stop Russian nuclear armed bombers from making it to US soil. Dog fighting cheap daylight only enemy fighters was NOT part of the mission requirement. The F-102/106 needed a in plane radars, fire control computers that could compute collision course intercepts and firing solutions for the guided missiles of the day. and a communications link that would allow the planes navigation and intercept systems to communicate with ground systems. The powerful ground radars and computers would vector the F-102/106 to intercept points. 
It has been said that the F-106 could be flown from the ground with the pilot only needed for take-off and landing and perhaps to confirm the target identity before firing the missiles.
And do it using those late 1950s electronics (when they worked)

A lot of the century series had much more ambitious goals than the Mig-21. granted they did not always live up to expectations but in the 1950s the Mig 21 either didn't exist (as a production aircraft) or existed in a rather primitive form. "Avionics included PUS-36D weapons sequencing module, R-800 communications radio, ASP-5NV-U1 computing gunsight, and SRD-5MN _Baza-6_ radar rangefinder. "
The F-86 used a radar rangefinder from the start in Korea, 7-9 years earlier. 

Now I will note that the short overhaul life of the engines used in the early Mig 21s was a deliberate choice. The USSR did not have the access to or expertise to work with some of the exotic materials the Americans and British did. To get the combination of power to weight that they wanted with the material they had to work with engine life had to be sacrificed. 
THey could have made longer lasting engines but only by making them heavier for the same power.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## MIflyer (Jan 23, 2019)

In Vietnam one of the problems the Migs had was that the US aircraft were all faster than they were at the lower altitudes. A Mig-21 could not catch our fighters down low. I recall reading that our F-105's would sometimes go into attack a target with a Mig-21 flying formation. The Mig could not get into position to fire because if he backed off on the throttles for a second or did a maneuver to get behind the 105's they would leave him.

I also recall one Indian pilot saying that while the Mig-21 was theoretically a Mach 2 airplane every time he got much past Mach 1 the low level fuel light came on. But our Red Eagles unit flying Soviet equipment at Tonopah said that it was very impressive how you could get a Mig-21 up just past Mach 1 and then back off on the throttles and it would stay supersonic for quite a while.

And the other reason the Mig engines had short service lives was that it fit their philosophy. You had to keep people working in a Communist county, where the Govt owned everything, so you built stuff designed not to last very long. You had to keep the factories going and you did not expect equipment to last very long in combat anyway. They did not build Migs with lots of access panels because they would be sent back to be rebuilt, not fixed in the field. Of course, one bullet in the wrong place and the airplane was as good as destroyed. 

At 10,000 ft air pressure is 10.1 PSI. At 20,000 ft air pressure is 6.76 PSI. I can tell you from personal experience that it makes a hell of a lot of difference if you are trying to breathe!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## BiffF15 (Jan 23, 2019)

MIflyer said:


> In Vietnam one of the problems the Migs had was that the US aircraft were all faster than they were at the lower altitudes. A Mig-21 could not catch our fighters down low. I recall reading that our F-105's would sometimes go into attack a target with a Mig-21 flying formation. The Mig could not get into position to fire because if he backed off on the throttles for a second or did a maneuver to get behind the 105's they would leave him.
> 
> I also recall one Indian pilot saying that while the Mig-21 was theoretically a Mach 2 airplane every time he got much past Mach 1 the low level fuel light came on. But our Red Eagles unit flying Soviet equipment at Tonopah said that it was very impressive how you could get a Mig-21 up just past Mach 1 and then back off on the throttles and it would stay supersonic for quite a while.
> 
> ...



Mlflyer,

I don’t think much could keep up with an F105. I’ve heard of 900+ KIAS and that a small bit of damage could be catastrophic at those speeds. I’ve seen 740KIAS at about 6000’ but that was after ramping down but with a high drag tank on. However a few guys got kills with them!

Cheers,
Biff


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jan 23, 2019)

BiffF15 said:


> I don’t think much could keep up with an F105.


The Thud was designed from the getgo to haul a nuke across the Iron Curtain into eastern Europe in the weeds at speeds to defy interception. A hi-lo-hi profile with a high drag external load was a little outside its design parameters, yet it still did a hell of a job. A second engine would have saved a lot of them in Vietnam. The only other US planes (that I know of) that had that kind of performance goals were the A3J (RA5C) and the long forgotten Martin Seamaster.
Vigilantes, despite their greater size and weight on the same engines, were notorious for outrunning their Phantom escorts at any given fuel flow setting. And they had a lot more internal capacity.
Cheers,
Wes

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


----------



## BiffF15 (Jan 23, 2019)

XBe02Drvr said:


> The Thud was designed from the getgo to haul a nuke across the Iron Curtain into eastern Europe in the weeds at speeds to defy interception. A hi-lo-hi profile with a high drag external load was a little outside its design parameters, yet it still did a hell of a job. A second engine would have saved a lot of them in Vietnam. The only other US planes (that I know of) that had that kind of performance goals were the A3J (RA5C) and the long forgotten Martin Seamaster.
> Vigilantes, despite their greater size and weight on the same engines, were notorious for outrunning their Phantom escorts at any given fuel flow setting. And they had a lot more internal capacity.
> Cheers,
> Wes



Only Vigilante I’ve been near is sitting by the gate at Boca Chica!

That problem (speeds on ingress / egress) across time and airframes will probably always exist. Too much staggering of aircraft introductions to be otherwise. Saw it with the F4, A6, EA6, Harrier, early Vipers, etc.

Cheers,
Biff

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jan 23, 2019)

BiffF15 said:


> Only Vigilante I’ve been near is sitting by the gate at Boca Chica!
> 
> That problem (speeds on ingress / egress) across time and airframes will probably always exist. Too much staggering of aircraft introductions to be otherwise. Saw it with the F4, A6, EA6, Harrier, early Vipers, etc.
> 
> ...


Boca Chica was the final sunset base for the nomadic Vigilante community.
The F4H and A3J were contemporaries, using the same -# J79s, but designed for radically different missions.
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jan 23, 2019)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Vigilantes, despite their greater size and weight


You've seen photos of VN era carriers with RA5s in the flight deck mix; they're effing humongous.
Now picture yourself in that cockpit, 16 feet forward of the nosegear, being directed into a tightpack deck edge parking spot at night. When the deck ape with the wands brings your nosewheel two feet from the edge and signals a turn (from way behind your shoulder), you're 8 feet out beyond the catwalk and there's nothing between you and the ocean below but 100 feet of spray filled blackness. And just to give you that warm cozy feeling, your officially zero-zero seat has a track record of not always achieving that performance.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Milosh (Jan 23, 2019)

Picture time

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


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jan 23, 2019)

Milosh said:


> Picture time
> View attachment 526721


Willy Fudd looks rather diminutive between those two Viges, wouldn't you say? "Stoof with a roof" or "Miniwacs" for short.
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## Peter Gunn (Jan 24, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> I though the US tried the Dagger in Vietnam and unlike the Crusader was an utter disaster.


I guess you need to define "utter disaster", from my limited reading only one Dagger was lost air to air, a couple to ground fire and the rest to accidents, total=15 (although wiki sources 14). Remember it was an all weather radar guided and equipped interceptor that was pressed into service as a ground attack machine.

The F-102 In Vietnam

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


----------



## Kevin J (Jan 24, 2019)

Peter Gunn said:


> I guess you need to define "utter disaster", from my limited reading only one Dagger was lost air to air, a couple to ground fire and the rest to accidents, total=15 (although wiki sources 14). Remember it was an all weather radar guided and equipped interceptor that was pressed into service as a ground attack machine.
> 
> The F-102 In Vietnam


I agree. Totally unsuitable to the task assigned to it.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## MIflyer (Jan 24, 2019)

The odd thing about the F-102 in Vietnam is that they used it for RESCAP quite a lot. They were on hot pad alert to intercept any inbound hostiles and thanks to their internally stored weapons did not have to stop to pull the arming pins at the end of the runway; they could get off the ground faster than anyone else. Once over the downed pilot there was not much they could do, their weapons being unsuitable for air to ground, but they used them to scare off the VC anyway..

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jan 24, 2019)

When I mentioned the MiG 21 operational history I wasn't just referring to direct conflict between the US and Communist Bloc as in Vietnam, but also in various other conflicts around the world.

As we have discussed in the context of WW2, one of the traits of a successful fighter is its adaptability for various roles and multiple generations of upgrades and reinvention.

The MiG 21 had flaws but was ultimately very successful. The US equivalent in this sense is probably the (also flawed but ultimately highly succesful), versatile and adaptable F-4 Phantom. Two very different aircraft but both highly capable in their own way. Another perhaps /arguably equivalent fighter was the French Mirage III.

I think limited fuel / flight endurance was an issue with most early supersonic jet fighters. I would say all three of the ones I mentioned to various degrees. But they were effective in spite of that rather severe limitation.

The Century series by contrast didn't have a stellar record. F 104s were used in Vietnam in 1965-67, to little effect - losing about a dozen including one to a MiG 19. (Pakistani) F 104s engaged (Indian) MiG 21s in 1965 and came out on the short end, losing about a half dozen for no victories.

F 102s served in Vietnam, losing 14 mostly to accidents and ground fire, but including 1 to a MiG 21. No confirmed victories as far as I know.

F 101 was used in Vietnam as a recon plane in the early to mid 60's, losing 33 including 1 to a MiG 21.

F 105 served as a successful fighter bomber in Vietnam but took fairly heavy losses. 27 air to air victories were claimed (all against MiG 17s) for 17 lost to fighters. Ultimately they had to be escorted by F4s.

The idea that the Century series were at best 'marginally successful' is just my opinion, I don't claim it to be better or worse than anyone else's.

My perception of the US having some problems with military procurement is NOT based on "preconceptions" and I don't aporeciate that suggestion. I'm not some superficial media hype victim, I am a grown ass man and as well read as anyone else here. My perception is based on my own service in the US armed forces, that of several of my friends, and about 35 years of research on aviation, albeit mostly just for fun.

Incidents like the Lockheed bribery scandal with the F 104 (among many others) speak for themselves.

Please forgive any typos as I'm writing on a phone

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jan 24, 2019)

I always thought that vigilante was a beautiful looking airplane and looked ahead of its time it's too bad they didn't do more with it


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jan 24, 2019)

Schweik said:


> I always thought that vigilante was a beautiful looking airplane and looked ahead of its time it's too bad they didn't do more with it


Well, once its unique and unconventional ordnance delivery system proved to be a dud, there wasn't much they could do with it except recon. It was built to go fast and far down in the weeds as a nuke striker, was sleek, fast, and heavy, but agile it was not. Pilots referred to its jinking style as "majestic". Optimised for speed, its low speed handling left a lot to be desired, it was a bear getting on and off the boat, and quickly acquired the sobriquet "Ensign eater". It strained the catapults and arresting gear, as well as the patience of the deck apes. It came aboard 10 knots faster and 20,000 pounds heavier than a Phantom, its wingspan was only 12 feet narrower than the landing zone, and it gave LSOs the willies.
Beauty is as beauty does.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (Jan 24, 2019)

I have to admit that given the choice between the Mig 21 and the F104 then I would take the Mig 21. Neither had a range to boast about and are normally seen with drop tanks and the normal payload 2 x AAM and a gun is also shared, but the Mig 21 is easier to fly and maintain as well as being widely described as a pilots aircraft, agile and responsive which with the best will in the world, couldn't be used to describe the F104.
The US fighter that hasn't been really mentioned as being available to combat the Mig in this timeframe is the F8 Crusader, an often overlooked gem which had a number of advantages over nearly all the early supersonic fighters of the time. A land based version without the extra weight needed to meet the needs of carrier operation, would have been a real performer, but remains one of those many 'what if's' in the history of aviation

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


----------



## Schweik (Jan 24, 2019)

My understanding is that the F8 kind of held the line for a while they were getting Top Gun running and making some changes to the F4. I find it a rather ugly beast but it seems to have done a good job.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 24, 2019)

Schweik said:


> The MiG 21 had flaws but was ultimately very successful. The US equivalent in this sense is probably the (also flawed but ultimately highly succesful), versatile and adaptable F-4 Phantom. Two very different aircraft but both highly capable in their own way. Another perhaps /arguably equivalent fighter was the French Mirage III.



The _ultimately successful_ often seems to include several generations of aircraft. More later. 




Schweik said:


> I think limited fuel / flight endurance was an issue with most early supersonic jet fighters. I would say all three of the ones I mentioned to various degrees. But they were effective in spite of that rather severe limitation.



Early Mig-21s had rather sever fuel limitations. They couldn't even use all the internal fuel without the CG going out of w
whack. 



Schweik said:


> The Century series by contrast didn't have a stellar record. F 104s were used in Vietnam in 1965-67, to little effect - losing about a dozen including one to a MiG 19. (Pakistani) F 104s engaged (Indian) MiG 21s in 1965 and came out on the short end, losing about a half dozen for no victories.
> 
> F 102s served in Vietnam, losing 14 mostly to accidents and ground fire, but including 1 to a MiG 21. No confirmed victories as far as I know.
> 
> ...



US aircraft procurement in the 1950s was an absolute mess when it comes to figuring out what the intended job of the aircraft was from the designation. 
Pre-dating the century series you had the YF-97




Which was produced as the F-94C even though there were very few parts that were interchangeable with the F-94B.
in 1947 this was followed by the unmanned F-98 Falcon. 




in 1950 the air force decided not to use the "F" designation for unmanned aircraft. This also affected the F-99




Which was part of the US Army vs US Air Force pissing contest in which both wanted to control the anti-aircraft rockets/missiles. 
The F-100 _started in 1949 _but was recast several times while still on paper, due the pressure of the Korean war the Version which we are familiar with (mostly) was given the go ahead as a day fighter in 1951. This was within a few months of the Mig Bureau starting work on the Mig-19. By the time the prototype flew there were 273 production aircraft on order ( a risk that did not pay off). this flight was on May 25th 1953. The first squadron to operation with F-100Cs was in July of 1955. 

The F-101 is a rather mixed bag. It _started _as a long range escort fighter. A development of the older XF-88 but much larger, It won the design competition in 1951, However in time needed to actually design and build even the prototypes the Air Force had several changes of mind as to the actual role and wound up including nuclear fighter bomber, while still carrying the radar and fire control for air to air missions. The last of the F-101A recon planes (a later adaptation) were retired in 1979. The airframes were over 20 years old. 
The F-101B was a two seat All-weather interceptor with 479 built. They were intended as a stop gap as problems with the F-102 were worked out. They wound up carrying the nuclear warhead Genie rocket and went through a number of of upgrades. The last few in service lasted over 10 years in training and the last was retired in 1982.
The F-101C was a Fighter bomber with a beefed up structure to handle higher G loads but the Air Force had 2nd thoughts and after 47 of them completed the next 96 as additional recon machines. Most later models were refurbed machines converted to recon except for the F-101F which was a dual control trainer. 
Now, aside from doing photo recon I don't believe any F-101 Voodoo's ever performed their intended missions in anger. Which makes them a little hard to judge as to success or failure. 
A F-101B with max external fuel could gross over 52,000lbs at take-off. 

The F-102 was the well known Delta Dagger. Including 2 seat trainers about 1000 were built and the first squadron got them in April 1956. Which is about a year after the Day only Mig 19 went into service. The Dagger could max out at around 32,500lbs.
Part of the radar/fire control for the 102





The XF-103 was a bi powered interceptor




With afterburning turbojet and a ramjet, top speed was a hoped for 2600mph. It is 77 ft long.
the Familiar F-104, 




Supposed to be a day fighter but the war it was intended for ended and it was forced into other roles, perhaps the worst of the century series. 
The F-105 was never really supposed to be a fighter.
" For its primary mission, the aircraft would be expected to carry a nuclear store in an internal bomb bay. Because of the large size of the nuclear weapons of the day, the bomb bay had to be 15 feet 10 inches long, 32 inches wide, and 32 inches deep"
Complaining that an aircraft designed around that weapons bay is a lousy dogfighter kind of misses the point. It is like complaining that an Douglas A-26 was lousy dogfighter. 
The F-106 is a revisited F-102 and again is an all weather interceptor tasked with stopping russian nuclear armed bombers. dog fighting was never one of the goals. 
The F-107 had 3 prototypes and the F-108 was never built. The F-108 was in response to a 1955 requirement for "The specification was laid down on 6 October 1955, calling for an interceptor that could fly at 60,000 ft (18,000 m) at a speed of Mach 1.7 (1,122 mph (1,806 km/h), with a range of 1,000 miles (1,600 km) " which again rather rules out a dog fighter type aircraft. 

I would note that most (all?) of these aircraft stayed with the original engine/s even though they did get later models higher powered/more reliable models. 

The F-100C made it to service status 4-6 years earlier than the Mig 21 and Mirage III. 
The other Century series fighters made it to squadron service several years before the Mig-21 and the Mirage III. 

The Mig-21 has gone through 3 different engines (and several models of each) and several generations of avionics. 
for many countries it is cheaper to upgrade old airplanes than to by new ones. 

The Early and mid 50s were a period of confusion for aircraft designers. It wasn't until the end of the 50s and the early 60s that mach 2 was accepted as a defacto limit to speed (much above that required extraordinary investment in propulsion, structures and materials).

Comparing the success or failure of aircraft on their length of service or on kill/loss ratios while ignoring what their original intended missions were or the pace of replacement aircraft coming into service (and by even the mid 50s it wasn't even replacement aircraft, it was replacement _weapons systems _as a new aircraft would have new radar/electronics, new model missiles and sometimes a new generation engine.)

Simplistic comparisons don't work well.

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


----------



## nuuumannn (Jan 24, 2019)

XBe02Drvr said:


> It was built to go fast and far down in the weeds as a nuke striker, was sleek, fast, and heavy, but agile it was not.



The A-5 generated interest abroad for its sheer ability. The Hancock Evaluation Team sent to examine a Canberra replacement for the Royal Australian Air Force actually recommended the purchase of 35 Vigilantes, after evaluating the Mirage IV, BAC TSR.2, F-4C and F-111. Obviously the RAAF received the F-111.

The afforementioned TSR.2 was fitted with two modified VERDAN computers as fitted to the Vigilante, colloquially referred to as 'Very Effective Replacement for a Dumb Ass Navigator'!


----------



## Barrett (Jan 24, 2019)

Possibly to be read in concert with Chris Shores' _Bloody Shambles_?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## eagledad (Jan 24, 2019)

Glider and Schweik

(With apologies) Continuing the Mig / Vietnam AC discussion, see the following attachment.

CRT=Combat Rated Thrust, MRT= Military Rated Thrust

FYI

Eagledad

PS Glider, while I am a fan of the F-104, history shows that the Mig had its way with the 104.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 24, 2019)

Glider said:


> I have to admit that given the choice between the Mig 21 and the F104 then I would take the Mig 21.



What year F-104 vs what year Mig 21??

Saying you would take a Mig 21 is like saying you would take a Corvette as a sports racing car. A 1954 six cylinder automatic corvette or a 1959 283 cu in V-8 manual Corvette or a 1964 327 cu in with disk brakes and independent suspension?

Mig 21 with the Tumansky R-11 or the R-13 or the R-25???
What avionics?
Etc.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jan 24, 2019)

Glider said:


> The US fighter that hasn't been really mentioned as being available to combat the Mig in this timeframe is the F8 Crusader, an often overlooked gem





Glider said:


> A land based version without the extra weight needed to meet the needs of carrier operation, would have been a real performer,


Do away with that awkward wing tilt mechanism, lengthen the nose strut slightly, give it lower pressure, higher speed tires, reduce the shock strut pressures, and remove the wing fold mechanism, and you've got a lighter, stronger, more durable machine with even more impressive ACM potential.
USAF style landings would have done away with the F8's Achilles heel, which was landing gear failures on the flight deck. The real killer was the in-flight arrestment, which seemed to happen more often to F8s, probably due to the spool-up lag of the J57 and the backside of power curve behavior of the airframe, tending to in-close waveoffs. An in-flight just about guaranteed a gear collapse.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jan 24, 2019)

nuuumannn said:


> VERDAN computers as fitted to the Vigilante, colloquially referred to as 'Very Effective Replacement for a Dumb Ass Navigator'!


By the time the Viges entered my world, they were old, tired, beat-to-crap machines and those computers had come to be known as "Very Effective Resistance to Damned Aggressive Navigators"! 😠👎
The real challenge to the "testicular fortitude" of the hostage (oops, I meant Radar Attack Navigator) in the Vige was that huge periscope lens right in the face, giving a forward facing view under the belly from just forward of the tail hook. Used for low level visual navigation, it also gave the RAN an up close and personal view of the fantail and deckedge ramp coming aboard. It was optical, and could not be turned off or shuttered. I've sat in the RAN seat in a hangar queen while my fellow TDs who ran the RA5 sim gave me the tour, and watched through the periscope as the mechs up forward changed out a nose gear door actuator.
Cheers,
Wes

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


----------



## MIflyer (Jan 25, 2019)

NAA proposed a interceptor version of the A-5. They would add a third J-79 in the bomb tunnel.

By the way, the 102 and 106 were quite good a maneuvering. 102's were noted for their ability to even turn inside a T-33A.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jan 25, 2019)

MIflyer said:


> NAA proposed a interceptor version of the A-5. They would add a third J-79 in the bomb tunnel.


Where did they propose to put the fuel? The wings are too thin to provide much volume, and the center engine with its intake duct would displace most of the available fuselage volume the Vige had for fuel. And you'd have the same center engine intake duct problem the 727 had, but at 2.5 X the Mach number. On the 727 simulator I worked on, #2 ran .3 EPR lower than 1 and 3. And Boeing seems to have done a better job with the S duct than any other pretender to that throne.
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## Glider (Jan 25, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> What year F-104 vs what year Mig 21??
> 
> Saying you would take a Mig 21 is like saying you would take a Corvette as a sports racing car. A 1954 six cylinder automatic corvette or a 1959 283 cu in V-8 manual Corvette or a 1964 327 cu in with disk brakes and independent suspension?
> 
> ...


Take your pick. Mig21fl vs 104C or a Mig21bis vs an F104G

It's worth remembering that the US took the threat of the Mig 21 seriously enough to develop the F5E as cost is also a factor for a lot of countries.


----------



## Schweik (Jan 25, 2019)

How does the F5 stack up? I know it is 2nd tier but that is another pretty little bird.

The whole sub-genre of cheaper 2nd tier Fighters in smaller countries around the world is also quite interesting. Older Frontline Fighters find themselves in that niche as well of course (like the MiG 21).

Seems like there's a lot of really good little trainer / fighter / attack aircraft that qualify as 2nd tier Fighters. BAE hawk, Alphajet, Aero L 39, Macchi 339, Yak 130. and the F5 fits in there right? Did anyone ever use the F 20?

Which other good ones did I miss that are still around and in service?


----------



## Schweik (Jan 25, 2019)

​A-4 Skyhawk is another favorite of mine though I don't think those are in use any more anywhere...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## MIflyer (Jan 25, 2019)

I was not on the F/A-5 design team. I have warned them about that, but they just won't listen.

The third J-79 was not supposed to do much for speed but it supposedly boost climb rate and acceleration. As for fuel, the stock RA-5C had a range on internal fuel of 3000 miles. One would think that an interceptor version would not need that much range. I believe that it was for USAF use, to replace the F-106. 








The A-5 did have one reasonably successful spin-off: the Mig-25.

As for the F-104, it was probably the most effective aircraft we had in Vietnam. When the 104's were flying the Migs were not.

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


----------



## Schweik (Jan 25, 2019)

If that's true why didn't they send a lot more to Vietnam?


----------



## MIflyer (Jan 25, 2019)

The USAF had very few F-104's. Aside from that, it was not good for anything but air to air. The few they had went to the ANG very early.

The CF-104G's were not even intended for air to air. They were supposed to deliver nukes and had no guns. When the RCAF got out of the nuke delivery business they spent a lot of money putting guns in their 104's.


----------



## Schweik (Jan 25, 2019)

Was reading about rolling thunder, US lost 47 aircraft vs 12 MiGs (claimed) in 8 months of 1966. Damn! Sounds like the F4 was a step behind too, at least until after Top Gun etc.

Needed tactics developed to leverage their advantages


----------



## Schweik (Jan 25, 2019)

Just ran across this Corporate mercenary air force for hire which has an impressive fleet of light attack /advanced trainer type military aircraft, including MiG 21s, A-4 Skyhawks, L 39 etc. The things you can buy these days...

Draken International - Wikipedia

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Milosh (Jan 25, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Was reading about rolling thunder, US lost 47 aircraft vs 12 MiGs (claimed) in 8 months of 1966. Damn! Sounds like the F4 was a step behind too, at least until after Top Gun etc.
> 
> Needed tactics developed to leverage their advantages



How many were lost in A2A combat and how many were lost to ground defenses?


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jan 25, 2019)

MIflyer said:


> The third J-79 was not supposed to do much for speed but it supposedly boost climb rate and acceleration. As for fuel, the stock RA-5C had a range on internal fuel of 3000 miles.


That range was with 3 or 4 "plug and play" fuel cans in the bomb bay tunnel. The original A3J bomber had to omit a couple of those to make room for the ordnance payload. A limited quantity of fuel was in the wing tanks, but they were awful thin, and there was a large fuselage tank between the fwd end of the bomb bay and the RAN cockpit. A centrally located turbojet with intake duct and afterburner would have displaced all of that. With such a longitudinally distributed fuel system, naturally fuel burn had to be carefully programmed for CG reasons.
The Vige depended on its sleek profile for its performance, and anything that disturbed that profile made a serious dent in its speed, acceleration, and climb. For night photography they could carry a pair of photoflash pods that looked like small low drag drop tanks but could light up the sky like Hiroshima, for 1/100,000th of a second, and cost .5 Mach. Even the slender, streamlined, photo recon "canoe" under the belly made the RA5 slower than the A3J by a significant amount. I can't imagine how a huge variable geometry ramp intake could feed the center engine without a huge drag penalty, especially at high Mach.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jan 25, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Was reading about rolling thunder, US lost 47 aircraft vs 12 MiGs (claimed) in 8 months of 1966.


Heavily laden fighter bombers in tight formation, often no top cover, and depending on ECM to warn of attacks. Camouflaged Mig 17s using optical gunsights, radar rangefinders off, vectored by sophisticated GCI operators to make stern attacks from 6 o'clock low. Like the colonists at Lexington and Concord, they didn't "play by the rules". Many of those victims never knew what hit them.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 25, 2019)

Glider said:


> Take your pick. Mig21fl vs 104C or a Mig21bis vs an F104G
> 
> It's worth remembering that the US took the threat of the Mig 21 seriously enough to develop the F5E as cost is also a factor for a lot of countries.


The F-104C first flew in July of 1958 and started to be issued to the first user squadron in Sept of 1958. Only 77 were built. 

There were problems with the J-79 engine and 24 planes (and 9 pilots) were lost over 5 years at which point GE instituted a modification plan for the engine.
Only 4 squadrons had ever been equipped with the 104C which was the first version to be a nuclear strike fighter.
Their deployment to Vietnam was one squadron at a time (they did rotate a couple of the squadrons) I am not going to retype everything. See Joe Baugher's web page for his account. 
Lockheed F-104C Starfighter

Just their appearance deterred the Mig 17s and 19s from attacking, or so he claims. There appears to have been very little actual contact/combat. 

Just so we are on the same page this is a Mig-21F, the type that went into service in 1959




This is a Mig-21FL 





The FL as opposed to the F had a bigger nose cone with all weather radar instead of a ranging radar. The guns had disappeared (but the was an optional gun pod/pack that could be fitted _under_ the fuselage. The FL got the later R-13 (? some sources say no) engine ( two more stages in the lower pressure compressor) 2 extra hard points under the wing. 
The FL model (for export?) doesn't fly until until 1965? the earlier Russian all weather interceptor flew in 1961. Note the much larger vertical fin. 

One web site lists 4 generations of Russian Mig 21s and 3 generations of Chinese ones and a few other countries production really confuses what was available when. 

The 104G started production deliveries in May of 1961. There were a number of European factories/assembly points and there were different roll put dates.

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


----------



## Glider (Jan 26, 2019)

My understanding is that the R13 was introduced with the PFMA version as it had extra hardpoints under the wing and could carry three drop tanks and two Atoll missiles. This didn't do its power to weight ratio any favours hence the need for an engine that weighed less than the R11 and had increased power.
The earliest PFMA's had the R11 and the R13 was introduced as quickly as possible. 
The PFMA was virtually identical to the MF which was widely used and exported.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 27, 2019)

I will try to continue the discussion of the Migs vs the century series here:

Mig-21 vs the F-104 (and the century series)

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jan 28, 2019)

Seriously...WTF does all these SEA combat jets have to do with the CBI Theater (41-45)?

Or should we start a random discussion about why the Fokker D.VII had a superior flight profile over Allied types in the midst and make it go full circle?

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


----------



## UnderPressure (Feb 5, 2019)

I wanna check only one, was RAF able to maintain air superiority in the battle of Imphal?
I know that it was in the middle of the allied counterattack, but at the same time it was also the last offensive oparation of the CBI theater by the Japanese army.So, I think that it is very important which one has air superiority at that time.


----------



## Greyman (Feb 5, 2019)

From wiki:

_By mid-1944, the Allied air forces enjoyed undisputed air supremacy over Burma. The last major effort by the Japanese Army Air Force had been over the Arakan in February and March, when they had suffered severe losses. During the Imphal and Kohima battles, they were able to make barely half a dozen significant raids._

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Feb 5, 2019)

UnderPressure said:


> I wanna check only one, was RAF able to maintain air superiority in the battle of Imphal?
> I know that it was in the middle of the allied counterattack, but at the same time it was also the last offensive oparation of the CBI theater by the Japanese army.So, I think that it is very important which one has air superiority at that time.


Yes they did. 
Battle of Imphal - Wikipedia
Battle of Kohima - Wikipedia
RAF Third Tactical Air Force - Wikipedia

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## UnderPressure (Feb 5, 2019)

Thanks guys. I didn't think RAF had such a great air superiority while doing large scale transportation. they were dispatching Spitfires, which had been deployed only a little, to escort Dakotas...


----------



## Kevin J (Feb 5, 2019)

UnderPressure said:


> Thanks guys. I didn't think RAF had such a great air superiority while doing large scale transportation. they were dispatching Spitfires, which had been deployed only a little, to escort Dakotas...


I think you'll find they had 3 squadrons of Spitfire VIII's available at the time, a plane totally superior to its JAAF opponents. I don't think they would have had any problems at all undertaking the escorts.


----------



## UnderPressure (Feb 5, 2019)

Sorry for my english is not quite up to native level...



Kevin J said:


> I think you'll find they had 3 squadrons of Spitfire VIII's available at the time



AFAIK, At that time 615sqn operated Mk.V in part and They used Mk.V even in the Air combat of June 17. Maybe, 81 and 136 sqn were running Mk.VIII then.



Kevin J said:


> a plane totally superior to its JAAF opponents.



By my count, 9 Mk.VIIIs were lost, four of them were destroyed on the ground. On the other hand, nearly 20 Ki-43s were shot down by Spitfires. Therefore, I agree that Spitfire is definitely superior to Ki-43. 

However, what I'm worried about is the amount of spitfire that could cover or patrol. I think remaining squadrons are too few to defend Burma.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Wawny (Jun 21, 2019)

Greyman said:


> The Spitfire performance numbers you post from the Wawn and Jackson trials match up well with a tropical Spitfire Vc running +9 boost/3000 rpm. It appears they weren't 'pulling the tit' and using +16 boost.
> 
> Maybe that ability wasn't available in Austrailia, I have no idea. Perhaps there is a note why in the original document.



My dad was the Spitfire pilot against the Hap and he bent the tail of the Spitfire 15 degrees (Dad's annotation) doing some pretty evasive 'high G' manoeuvering.
He also flew a Kittyhawk against a Spitfire at Mildura during tests - parameters attached. 
In both cases the Volkes Filter diminished the performance considerably, especially in the tropics. He reckoned if he wasn't wearing (and testing) the Cotton G Suit, he couldn't have pulled the G's that he did

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


----------



## Schweik (Jun 21, 2019)

Wow this is quite interesting. I'm surprised the Kittyhawk was accelerating faster than the Spit V and had a higher top speed below 16,000 ft. Sounds like the Vokes filter was a real disaster. I wonder if the Kitty pilots were overboosting.

"5. Results: 
a) Spitfire had the greater rate of climb at all heights - the difference becoming greater as height increased above 13,000ft. 

b) Spitfire is far more manoeuvrable at all heights. 

c) Kittyhawk is faster in level speed from 0 to 16,000ft. Above 16,000ft Spitfire is faster and again the difference becomes greater as height increases. Estimated speed advantage of Kittyhawk up to 16,000ft: 0ft - 15mph; 12,000ft - 20 to 25mph; 16,000ft - 5 to 10mph. 

d) Kittyhawk accelerates, both in dive and on increase of throttle on the level, far more quickly than the Spitfire. 

6) Combat 1 - commenced at 13,000ft (equal height) and lasted for 5 to 7 minutes, in which time the fight was practically a stalemate. At the end of this period height was reduced to 4,000ft when the Kittyhawk pilots decided he had nothing to gain by staying and so broke off by diving away. *Thus, in combat up to 16,000ft, the Kittyhawk has the distinct advantage in that the pilot can commence the fight and discontinue it at will. *In such a combat the Kittyhawks tactics are to hit and run, and then come again. 

7) Combat 2 - commenced *at 20,000ft (equal height) and lasted less than 2 minutes. Spitfire quickly gained dominant position on the tail of the Kittyhawk and couldn't be shaken. *Kittyhawk pilot broke off by diving away. 

8) Combat 3 - Commenced at 16,000ft (height advantage to Kittyhawk) an lasted 14 minutes. Kittyhawk made repeated dive and zoom attacks with the Spitfire alternatively breaking hard to avoid and climbing for advantage where possible. Fight reduced to 9,000ft with neither pilot gaining a decisive advantage. 

9) Combat 4 - Commence at 16,000ft (height advantage to Spitfire) and lasted 11 minutes. Spitfire pounced on Kittyhawk and attempted to gain a position on tail. Kittyhawk used speed advantage in first level flight and then shallow dive to gain separation and then climb for advantage. Spitfire countered by climbing hard. Gaining advantage Spitfire used climb and dive tactics to force the Kittyhawk to make repeated diving breaks to avoid. *At 7,000ft Kittyhawk used superior roll rate to scissor behind the Spitfire*, who countered with steep climb. Kittyhawk then used speed advantage to again gain separation and fight was broken off. 

10) Visions - the vision in the Spitfire with the hood closed is better than the Kittyhawk, but it is a definite disadvantage that the hood cannot be opened at speeds above 160mph particularly when searching up-sun. 

11) The flying characteristics of the Spitfire make it more suitable for Operations: 

a) it is easier to fly. 

b) Take-off run is much shorter and so could be operated from smaller landing grounds. Note – the Spitfire does not handle hard dirt strips as well as the Kittyhawk. 

c) Mixture and boost are automatically controlled. 

d) It is not necessary, *as it is in the Kittyhawk, to alter rudder and elevator trims over great speed changes*. 

All these facts greatly reduce the pilot's problems and so increase his fighting efficiency. The report concluded by recommending that as the large Volkes air filter on the Spitfire cost 20-30mph in top speed, it should be removed in operational service - or at least an alternative found. Also mentioned was the effect of the Spitfires rough paint finish on performance but the general feeling of the report was that the Spitfire was perhaps the better fighter, especially at altitude."

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Jun 21, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Wow this is quite interesting. I'm surprised the Kittyhawk was accelerating faster than the Spit V and had a higher top speed below 16,000 ft. Sounds like the Vokes filter was a real disaster. I wonder if the Kitty pilots were overboosting.
> 
> "5. Results:
> a) Spitfire had the greater rate of climb at all heights - the difference becoming greater as height increased above 13,000ft.
> ...


So that's why the Tomahawk IIb and Kittyhawk I got sent to the Western Desert in 1941/42 before the Spitfire Vb / Vc Trop. You definitely needed that big Volkes dust filter, and extra oil tank for use with the long range slipper tanks, out there for the Spitfire.


----------



## MIflyer (Jun 21, 2019)

It seems that the P-40 did have quite good acceleration. Here is what Corky Meyer said about the P-40

"I was on final approach to Grumman’s airport in a P-40N that had been loaned to us by the USAAF for comparative testing, and during the test flight I had found it to have very poor slow-speed characteristics. About that time, another test pilot buzzed the field coming under me in the same direction. This was not an unusual occurrence in those days when the war-effort syndrome allowed test pilots to get away with murder when it came to breaking the rules.
Having just found out that the Warhawk had much better power acceleration than the Hellcat, I decided to pull up my wheels and flaps and give him a go at a rat race (which was also covered by the same syndrome).

I pushed the throttle forward and pulled up into a steep fighter climb as the wheels and flaps were retracting. At about 700 feet, my exuberance ended most abruptly when the airplane stalled unexpectedly and violently.

The control stick and rudder pedals flapped loosely around the cockpit, and the airplane snapped back and forth in a roll. Those are the last events I remember coherently. The airplane was shaking violently. It then started into a spin—still shaking like a dog getting rid of a water bath. I could see the hangars with great clarity and with a strange detachment. I was stupefied—mesmerized—and seemed to be sitting on the sidelines watching this unbelievable panorama unfolding. My mind was a blank as to what action I should be taking in this horrible kaleidoscope I was watching as if I didn’t have a concern in the world. It just couldn’t be happening to me!

The next thing I remember was moving level at 50 feet over the potato fields west of the Grumman airport with the ground whizzing by at a great speed. I was still mentally only riding this P-40. I was not flying it because the maneuver it had just done was completely out of my frame of reference, even in nightmares.
I finally noted that the throttle was pushed through both of the limiting wires, and the engine was straining with much more power than I had heard or felt during takeoff. I was in War Emergency Power. After a few seconds, I came to my senses, retarded the throttle and climbed to 1,500 feet. I turned back rapidly to the airport, as the sun had almost set and it was rapidly getting dark.

Were I a test pilot of greater experience, I might have related in my reminiscence that I calmed down, remembered all the instructions in the handbook about spins, jotted some meaningful notes about the “incident” and made a nonchalant, smooth, three-point landing. I was totally without any of these movie-star proclivities. I was still stupefied. I flew around the airport without calling the tower and talked to myself like a Dutch uncle. I said, “You stupid SOB. You can’t land this airplane. You are running out of gas. It is getting dark and you have to land this airplane,” etc., etc. My conversation was also sprinkled with four-letter words impugning my legal birthright.

After too many circuits of the field, I humbly called the tower and was given landing clearance. They were charitable and made no embarrassing commentary. I made a long, airline-style approach at a speed considerably higher than required and landed without further ado. I taxied back to the tower, where all the pilots were still gathered. They had seen my spin and wanted to see the color of my face after that farce. After the propeller had stopped rotating, the airplane continued to shake. When it stopped shaking, I did, too, and guessed that I might now be able to stand on my own two feet. I got out to the total silence of the pilot mob watching.
Later, they told me that I made a turn-and-a-half spin, came down below the hangars behind them and scurried out to the west at 50 feet off the ground like a bat out of hell. I had no recollection of the number of turns of that spin until they told me.

That flight was one of the most impressive of my test-pilot career. I learned to listen to airplanes for everything they had to tell me. I became a born-again-Christian immediately after that 30-second episode of my P-40 flight."

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


----------



## Schweik (Jun 21, 2019)

Wow that's scary. Yes I would expect a P-40N to accelerate better than a Hellcat, at least at low altitude. It had a better power to weight ratio.

P-40E vs. Spit V is a surprise though unless the former was overboosting and the latter really struggling with the filter. I guess the filter just caused a lot of drag because the filter itself was supposed to be bypassed after takeoff right?


----------



## Greyman (Jun 21, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Wow this is quite interesting. I'm surprised the Kittyhawk was accelerating faster than the Spit V and had a higher top speed below 16,000 ft. Sounds like the Vokes filter was a real disaster. I wonder if the Kitty pilots were overboosting.



If the Kittyhawk is 15-20 mph faster up to 16,000 ft that matches up well with a P-40 running the regular 42-inch boost and 3000 rpm vs. a tropical Spit V running 9-lb boost at 3000 rpm.

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


----------



## Schweik (Jun 21, 2019)

Even at 9 lbs , Spit V Trop should still have a very high power-to weight ratio, better than the Kitty I would think? When was 12 lbs introduced?

It's interesting that they mention the challenges on the Kittyhawk of changing rudder trim settings during rapid speed change, and note that the Spit is easier to fly, but it doesn't seem to cause the Kittyhawk pilot to perform worse in the dogfights, to the contrary it seems to be able to contend with the Spit even when in a height disadvantage via scissors and is able to dive away at will.

How do you feel this translates to a match up against a Bf 109E7 or F2? How does the Bf 109 dive compare to the Spit V


----------



## Greyman (Jun 21, 2019)

+12 was there from the start. Again we're kind of puzzled why +12/+16 doesn't appear to be used in Australia.

An easier plane to fly is always a plus, and being able to escape at will is a very nice option to have, but in these mock combats it doesn't appear that the Spitfire--unlike the Kittyhawk--ever _needed _to escape.

The 109F had a notable dive advantage on the Spitfire V.


----------



## BiffF15 (Jun 21, 2019)

Don’t forget the variables of pilots. They may be close in skill, or one may be more proficient in his steed than the other. Difficult airplanes can be mastered, a pilot can have a better day than the next guy, the list goes on. Multiple pilots over multiple days with multiple set ups would be optimal, but in the middle of a war one takes what one can get.

Cheers,
Biff

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 22, 2019)

BiffF15 said:


> Don’t forget the variables of pilots. They may be close in skill, or one may be more proficient in his steed than the other. Difficult airplanes can be mastered, a pilot can have a better day than the next guy, the list goes on. Multiple pilots over multiple days with multiple set ups would be optimal, but in the middle of a war one takes what one can get.
> 
> Cheers,
> Biff


There was also the occasional hangover that *may* have been a contributing factor to a pilot's abilities if they've been roused out of the rack during an early morning scramble, too.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jun 27, 2019)

Greyman said:


> +12 was there from the start. Again we're kind of puzzled why +12/+16 doesn't appear to be used in Australia.
> 
> An easier plane to fly is always a plus, and being able to escape at will is a very nice option to have, but in these mock combats it doesn't appear that the Spitfire--unlike the Kittyhawk--ever _needed _to escape.



Well that is just turn and burn vs. boom and zoom, just like when a P-40 would be fighting a Zero, the BnZ plane usually has an edge though certainly not always, and it depends by how much of a speed / dive advantage it had. But this does say pretty definitively that a P-40E could out-dive the Spit V, at least at the boost ratings they were using and with the Vokes filter. At +12 I don't know, though we don't know if the P-40E was using high boost settings either...



> The 109F had a notable dive advantage on the Spitfire V.



The report language is a bit ambiguous but it sounds to me like they were saying in combats 2 and 3 that the P-40 was getting on the tail of / or making attacks against the Spit. Unclear if that means a "firing solution" but it sounds like it does. Combat 1 was 'practically' a stalemate with the P-40 able to make hit and run attacks. Combat 4 up at 20,000 ft clearly went to the Spit.

If this was the results of a Spit V (Trop) vs. P-40E, i.e. roughly even overall up to 16,0000 ft, with a speed advantage to the P-40, presumably this is how the other P-40 variants used in the Med should shape up:

P-40E - Takeoff power 1,240 hp @ 45" Hg, WEP 1,470 hp - power / weight 0.14 at military, 0.17 at WEP (sea level) critical altitude ~ 12,000 ft
P-40K - Takeoff power 1,325 hp @ 51" Hg, WEP 1,550 hp - power / weight 0.16 at military, 0.18 at WEP (sea level) critical altitude ~ 12,000 ft
P-40M - Takeoff power 1,200 hp @ 45" Hg WEP 1,300 hp - power / weight 0.13 at military, 0.15 at WEP (~8,000 ft) critical altitude ~ 16,000 ft
P-40F - Takeoff power 1,300 hp @ 50" Hg, WEP 1,435 hp - power / weight 0.15 at military, 0.16 at WEP (at 11,800 ft and 18,500 ft*) critical altitude ~ 20,000 ft
P-40L** - Takeoff power 1,300 hp @ 50" Hg, WEP 1435 hp - power / weight 0.16 at military, 0.17 at WEP (at 11,800 ft and 18,500 ft) critical altitude ~ 20,000 ft (maybe a bit more)

P-40K should be substantially better than the P-40E against the Spitfire particularly at low altitude (say below 3,000 ft)
P-40M should be similar to the E but equal to the Spit up to a little bit higher altitude, maybe 18,000 ft
P-40F should be a bit better at all altitudes up to maybe 22,000 ft
P-40L** should be substantially better up to ~22,000 ft

All versions should be able to out turn and out roll the Bf 109F or G up to their critical altitude.

P-40N's were also used in the Med in Italy and the Balkans, by the British, but I think almost exclusively for fighter-bomber sorties so I didn't include it.

* I have to admit I don't understand precisely where the Merlin 28 / XX reaches it's two highest power output points, one source said 6,000' for low gear so maybe SR8 can clear that up
** This would also be the same for field stripped, 4 gun P-40Fs

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## MIflyer (Jun 27, 2019)

The P-40F had a two speed supercharger, so speed increased to 11,500 ft, at which point it would have dropped off, but the 2nd speed of the supercharger kicked in and the speed increased up to 20,000 ft, after which it dropped off. At 20,000 ft the F was over 30mph faster than the E model, but the E model was around 10 mph faster than the F at sea level. The P-40F had about the same climb rate as the K model until about 15,000 ft where the F started increasingly climbing faster. 

The P-40N-5 and -40 was actually slower than the E or F but climbed quite a bit faster over over 10,000 ft.

The F was heaver than the others due to the Merlin engine's greater weight so it probably was not as quite as maneuverable.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jun 27, 2019)

Yeah I know about the two speeds, but I wasn't sure which two altitudes were critical.

The P-40F of course was habitually stripped down to 4 guns and had one of the fuel tanks removed and some other stuff. The P-40L (same as the stripped P-40F configuration) had a slightly lower empty weight than the E. This wasn't so much for maneuverability though as for performance at altitude and climb rate. The L had an initial climb rate of 3,300 ft/min which is much better than all the other P-40 models.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 27, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Yeah I know about the two speeds, but I wasn't sure which two altitudes were critical.




They both were.
The lower one is wide open throttle in low supercharger gear and the upper one is wide open (*F*ull *T*hrottle *H*eight/*FTH*) in high gear. 
Full throttle height is just another term for critical altitude.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jun 28, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> They both were.
> The lower one is wide open throttle in low supercharger gear and the upper one is wide open (*F*ull *T*hrottle *H*eight/*FTH*) in high gear.
> Full throttle height is just another term for critical altitude.



Right, what I meant is that I saw two sets of numbers, one 6,000 / 12,000 and the other 11,000 / 18500 or thereabouts.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 28, 2019)

One set is for WEP and the other is for military power.

Using the same "criteria" as your post (not saying it is your criteria) the Allison -39 used in the P-40E had two FTHs, one at around 4300-4600ft for WEP and one at 11,500ft for military power, The engine used in the P-40K had one FTH at about 2500ft for WEP and the other at 11,500ftft for military and the P-40 M/N had the WEP FTH at 9500ft and military power at 15,500ft. 

In each case it is the altitude at which the throttle can be fully opened and give the rated pressure, above the altitude the throttle is fully open but the supercharger can no longer deliver the rated pressure, below the altitude the throttle has to progressively closed to keep from over boosting the engine. 

At about 6000ft the Merlin could give around 1485hp using 14lbs boost (58in aprox) and at 11,000ft it could give at least 1435hp at 16lbs boost (62in aprox) finding the ratings for WEP for the Merlin V-1650-1 is not easy and trying to use the equivalent British engines gets tricky as some of the Merlin XX series differed slightly from each other and the max allowable boost differed both in time (original Merlin XX was re-rated at least twice) and later Series XX engines were allowed to use a boost level that was never approved for the earlier engines.

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


----------



## Schweik (Jun 28, 2019)

Thanks Sr6 that is quite informative. Maybe you aren't so bad after all...


----------



## Schweik (Jun 28, 2019)

MIflyer said:


> The P-40N-5 and -40 was actually slower than the E or F but climbed quite a bit faster over over 10,000 ft.
> .



Not sure about low altitude but the early P-40N (P-40N-1 "interceptor" variant") was the fastest P-40 at ~380 mph at altitude

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## MIflyer (Jun 28, 2019)

Oddly enough, the P-40N had both the fastest and slowest production versions of the P-40. The N-1 had the fuel tankage reduced, was cut down to 4 guns, and the starter and battery were deleted. It may have been fast but it was not popular with the operational units.

In 1942 in India they were troubled by a Japanese Dinah recon airplane they could not intercept. Radar warning was not adequate to intercept it and the Japanese felt so invulnerable they would taunt the Allied forces over the radio. They even took one of the F-4's of the 9th Phot Recon unit, added some .50 cal guns and tried to use it as an interceptor. They finally stripped a P-40 down to make it as light as possible and it shot down the Dinah. .


----------



## Schweik (Jun 28, 2019)

Yay P-40! yeah I agree on all that. They also had a lighter aluminum radiator. They had a few of the faster P-40N production types in use in the Pacific, the RAF didn't get any I don't think. Of course they didn't have to go by what came from the factory. Basically with field modifications you could go 4 guns / less gas (for fighter missions) or 4 or 6 guns / more gas / + bombs (fighter-bomber missions and / or longer range fighter missions).

With 6 guns, the lower rated engine, and extra gas + bombs, the P-40N was a real slow beast, underpowered and ungainly at least until they used up some of the fuel and got rid of the bombs. With 4 guns, the higher rated engine and one of the gas tanks taken out, it was pretty zippy. Most units put back the starter and the battery because it was much faster to start up a squadron during a scramble or even routine operations when you didn't have to use the external one, plus sometimes you needed to restart the engine in flight.







The Australians and New Zealanders, and the US CBI groups still used them a lot as fighters sometimes (and quite effectively) and as fighter bombers too of course, whereas the American Pacific units still stuck with P-40s that late in the game were mostly just using them as fighter-bombers.

RAF in Italy even more so, by 1944 they were not really fighting fighter missions with their Kittyhawk IV's and were pretty much only dropping bombs.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 28, 2019)

Schweik said:


> yeah I agree on all that. They also had a lighter aluminum radiator.


I believe the oil coolers were also aluminum. Another change was magnesium wheels in the landing gear (and possibly of a smaller size?) 

At any rate AHT (Dean) says the P-40N landing gear was about 60lbs lighter than a P-40M.
the Cooling system was about 60lbs lighter, the lubrication system was about 25lbs lighter. 
Weights are for a P-40N-25 so the fuel tanks were added back in (but changed to a different type?) as was the electric starter and battery. 
For some reason the "communications" catagory had gone up by about 90lbs though.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jun 28, 2019)

Might be another one of those IFF things


----------



## MIflyer (Jun 29, 2019)

If they were going to the CBI they probably added a radio direction finder.


----------



## Schweik (Jun 29, 2019)

Yes, sometimes. You see those also in the Pacific, usually identifiable as a loop in the rear fuselage turtle deck, or as a little fared over teardrop shaped thing. I don't know if there were other kinds.











Photo, warbirdsresource group, pintrest


----------



## Schweik (Jun 29, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> At about 6000ft the Merlin could give around 1485hp using 14lbs boost (58in aprox) and at 11,000ft it could give at least 1435hp at 16lbs boost (62in aprox) finding the ratings for WEP for the Merlin V-1650-1 is not easy and trying to use the equivalent British engines gets tricky as some of the Merlin XX series differed slightly from each other and the max allowable boost differed both in time (original Merlin XX was re-rated at least twice) and later Series XX engines were allowed to use a boost level that was never approved for the earlier engines.



This part is intersesting, all I had was 1435 hp for the XX / 1650-1 and that as WEP, I had 1300 as military power. Can you give me the source for these numbers?


----------



## Mad Dog (Jul 4, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> Are you agreeing by a roundabout way that there were potential problems in jettisoning the slipper type tanks in combat?


 Tom Neil of Malta fame certainly did in his Spit XII. There is a hilarious description of the problem in "From The Cockpit: Spitfire". The Spits had two little hooks under the fuselage just aft of the slipper tank, the idea being that upon release, the hooks would catch the back end of the tank and flip it out away from hitting the Spitfire's tailwheel. Some Spitfire's never had problems, some seem to have almost continual problems caused by those hooks. Neil's XII was a bit of a lemon and the jettisoned tank would continually ram itself onto the hooks, as he put it "standing out rampant from the fuselage", and acting as a big airbrake! Not ideal when you consider the tactics for the Spitfire XII squadrons was to find a group of high-flying Jerries, slip in underneath them, and challenge them to come down to the level the Spit XII's Griffon engines worked best at.


----------



## Mad Dog (Jul 4, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> …..you'd go up with a big bang if you were hit with even light ack ack?.....


 The USN did a lot of research on exploding drop tanks for the simple reason that carriers have limited space for spares, so they wanted their pilots to only drop their tanks if they really had to. They did slow-motion filming of tanks being shot up and decided it actually wasn't that easy to get them to explode, you have to have the right mix of fuel and air for it to actually go bang. The other thing they found was that, if the tank did explode, it tended to disintegrate into several large but slow-moving fragments that often missed the plane's fuselage or wings due to being thrown clear by the slipstream. Fire could not spread from a lit tank into the plane as there was no oxygen inside the fuel lines. So the USN issued orders that pilots could engage with tanks on and only drop them if desperate to escape. Subsequently, many Hellcats scored victories with their belly tanks still attached. This is in contrast to the RAF, who were very paranoid about fire, and whom actually punished pilots that didn't drop their tanks before engaging the enemy!

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Mad Dog (Jul 4, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> The Dutch tested a Hurricane in the East Indies with half the armament and fuel and it was fully capable of dog fighting the Hayabusa. The Hurricane had problems with the Hayabusa when it couldn't get to sufficient altitude to combat it i.e. ineffective radar. The Spitfire did stop the Ki-46 overflights but only after the radar cover was up and running. Without effective radar it would not have been able to as the Vc TROP was slower than the Ki-46-II and had a lower rated altitude. Have you read the document attached?


After a few dogfights with the Japanese, the Hurri pilots over Singapore developed very simple and effective tactics for dealing with the Ki-27 and Ki-43. With the warning of radar, they would take off and just climb for height. The Japanese always seemed to attack at the same time of day and using the same route and height each time, making it easier for the RAF pilots. The Hurricanes would get at least five thousand feet advantage over the Japanese bombers, then go into as steep dives as possible, ignoring the fighter escorts and making one firing pass on the bombers, and carry on the dive until well out of range. The one time a Ki-43 tried to follow its wings folded up. A few of the survivors from Singapore were on Ceylon when the IJN made their Easter Sunday raid. They used exactly the same tactic and all survived, whilst the other RAF and RN pilots that ignored their advice suffered badly at the hands of the Zeros. 
Frank Carey was one of the pilots that read their combat reports, and he taught a very simple gunnery course to Hurricane pilots in Burma - get high, let the enemy pass beneath, roll into a vertical dive and rudder until you are making a stern diving attack, make one firing pass and carry on down to the deck. His deflection shooting was legendary and he is reported as shooting down a Japanese fighter with only seven 20mm shells fired.
So, no, the Hurricane was not useless against the Ki-43. Carey's tactics were later used by RAF Spitfire and P-47 units over Burma.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Mad Dog (Jul 4, 2019)

…..but why extend the Spitfire's range when you have Mustangs for the long range escort mission...…….
One driver was when they lost carriers making fighter deliveries to Malta. They actually created the biggest slipper tank in order to enable a Spitfire to fly from Gibraltar all the way to Malta. They had to strip half the guns out of Spit VC, but with the extra fuselage tank and the big slipper they could just make the 1100 mile flight. They started in October in 1942, but by that time the siege of Malta was virtually over, and (IIRC) less than a dozen Spitfires actually made the long flight.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Mad Dog (Jul 4, 2019)

pinsog said:


> …..I agree the Hurricane was better than an F4F-4 in mock dogfights. In real life vs a Zero the F4F-4 had a couple of advantages: radial engine, I think it had more/better armor, it did not have a fuel tank in front of the pilot that when punctured soaked the pilot in fuel and lit him on fire.
> You may not think a Ki27 is a threat, but your forgetting just how well they turn, they probably rivaled a Gladiator....


Sorry to disappoint, but the Hurricane did not have a problem with the Ki-43, even at low level. One example was 26th October 1942 over Cox's Bazaar, when Frank Carey (rashly) decided to take off in his IIc when a Japanese raid was attacking the airfield. He was jumped low and slow by the Ki-43 escorts, and spent thirty minutes being chased around by a whole Sentai, yet they didn't manage to hit his aircraft once.
The Hurricane did have a problem intercepting the Dinah, that's one of the reasons the Spitfire was eventually sent to India, and it simply didn't have the range required for escorting the Liberators to Rangoon.

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


----------



## Mad Dog (Jul 4, 2019)

pinsog said:


> The problem with the Hurricane vs KI43 is they both play the same game and the KI43 is better. When the Hurricane fought the 109, 110 and even 190 it always had the ability to out turn them. When all else failed a Hurricane pilot could outturm anything the Germans had. When a Hurricane fought KI43’s, the turn advantage went to the KI43 by a large margin. They had about the same top speed, climb went to KI43, acceleration went to KI43, the Hurricane wasn’t a particularly good diver and if the KI43 was following a Hurricane in a fast dive it could still match the roll rate (unlike the Zero). Other than better firepower in a head on pass I can’t think of anything a Hurricane can do that a KI43 can’t do better. (The 2nd model of KI43 even had pilot armor and self sealing tanks along with a 2 speed supercharger)


 The Hurricane was not only a good diver, it was relatively easy to recover too. Polish pilots used that to trick 109s into hitting the ground. No Japanese fighter in 1942 could stay in a dive with a Hurricane without risking structural failure when recovering. RAF pilots over Singapore found they could put their Hurricanes into a spiral dive from 25,000ft down to 2000 and recover without problems, and neither the Zero nor the Ki-43 could follow them.
The Ki-43's record is further clouded by rampant overclaiming, even against easier opposition like the Brewster Buffalo. In their first sizeable combat over Malaysia, 22nd December 1941, the Ki-43a of the 64th _Sentai_ jumped the Buffalos of RAAF 453Sq. The Ki-43 pilots claimed 11 victories, but the Aussies actually lost five planes. The one Ki-43 lost had it's wing fold up in a dive, but six of the other Ki-43s had to be grounded upon their return to base because of cracks in their wing spars. And that was a low-level combat. 
The fragility of the Ki-43 was amply illustrated on May22nd 1942, when five Ki-43s chased a 60Sq Blenheim out over the Bay of Bengal. The Blenheim's dorsal gunner shot up two of the Ki-43s, sending their pilots back to base wounded, and shot down in flames the Ki-43 of ace Lt Colonel Kato. No armour and no self-sealing tanks meant the Ki-43 simply couldn't take damage, unlike the Hurricane.
Japanese over-claiming was again rampant when 27 Zeros and 101 of the improved Ki-43 IIs, escorting bombers, met 21 Hurricane over Calcutta on December 5th 1943. The Ki-43s claimed six Hurricanes shot down when the RAF actually lost three to the Zeros _after_ the Ki-43s had left the area. The Hurricanes managed to get to the bombers and shot down one Ki-21 and one of the Ki-43s (confirmed by wrecks), despite the overwhelming odds. That's in a combat where the Ki-43s had all the advantages - massive number advantage; height and speed (the Hurricane's best climb speed was 140mph, over a 100mph slower than the cruising speed of the Ki-43s); having to climb while the Japanese could wait up-Sun; snd having to concentrate on the bombers, giving the Japanese fighters freedom to attack as they wanted. Yet the massacre of the Hurricanes you seem to think ought to have happened did not, because the Hurricane was not out-classed by the Ki-43. Even more illuminating is that the three Hurricanes lost that day were from a section of five 176Sq *night-fighters*, not the day-fighters, and they were actually up looking for the usual post-raid Japanese recce when they were vectored onto a second wave escorted by Zeros. So that's 101 Ki-43s vs 21 Hurricanes and the Hurricanes won.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Mad Dog (Jul 4, 2019)

slaterat said:


> …..Overall the Hurricane is the best roller of the four....


 Yes and no. It was a common joke that the Hurricane could out-roll anything if you had Popeye at the controls. Spitfire pilots joked about "Hurri-lugging" because the Hurricane did require more effort to throw it round the sky, even if the Hurri could out-turn and out-roll the Spitfire. One reason was the British design of joystick, which had the whole length moving back and forwards for elevator control, but only the top third pivoted left and right for ailerons. This rather bizarre design idea was so the cockpit could be nice and slim and not require the pilot to move his legs when applying full bank. Aircraft like the P-36 had wider cockpits and the whole stick moving for the ailerons, which meant you had an advantage from better leverage, and it was easier for the average pilot to apply at higher speeds. Hence the P-36 and P-40 out-rolled the Hurricane and Spitfire in practice.


----------



## Mad Dog (Jul 4, 2019)

pinsog said:


> ….There is NOTHING an F4F-4 could do the shake a KI43.....


 The F4F-3/4 couldn't shake a Zero either, other than a turning dive, but they didn't need to. The Thach Weave was the successful use of *better tactics*, not a performance advantage, and it worked just as well against the Ki-43 as it did against the Zero, because it played on the Japanese pilot's *willingness* to get into a turning dogfight, allowing them to be drawn into a head-on with a second Wildcat. Even in 1945 the Thach Weave was still being used because the Japanese still couldn't resist following a Wildcat into a turning fight.


----------



## Mad Dog (Jul 4, 2019)

RCAFson said:


> The above were Canadian built Hurricane X or XIIs.


 So no different to the Hurricane IIb/c used in Burma.


----------



## Mad Dog (Jul 4, 2019)

pinsog said:


> I can’t think of any ww2 fighter that could carry 500 pounds under each wing and still outfight another fighter


 These were unlikely to be 500Lb bombs. The depth bombs in use by Coastal Command at the time were typically 100Lb, with the heaviest being the 250Lb Mk VIII. IIRC, the Canadian Ansons used 112Lb depth and 250Lb GP bombs on anti-submarine patrols, so these Hurricanes were probably flying with 100Lb or 112Lb bombs.


----------



## fubar57 (Jul 4, 2019)

Mk.IV could carry a 500lb bomb under each wing


----------



## Mad Dog (Jul 5, 2019)

pinsog said:


> So these pilots are testing a Spit V vs a Hap so they can figure out the strong points and weak points of both aircraft so hopefully they could keep themselves and their squadron mates from dying and you think they forgot to try the overboost when the Hap was whipping the Spit V from 0-20,000 feet?
> 
> Wouldn’t there be a note somewhere,”Hap stomps Spit from 0-20,000, BUT if you use overboost Hap doesn’t have a chance”
> 
> ...



For some reason the Australians just weren't happy with the Spitfire Vs they were sent from the UK. They were a bit embarrassed by their No1 Wing pilots crashing Spitfires and also running them out of fuel. It didn't help that the Spits arrived without a lot of the field mod.s the RAF already had in place for RAF Spit Vs, the most serious being they only ran +9Lb boost, the lack of the Shilling Orifice fix for the carb, and they had the original heating tubes for guns (which often fell apart, leaving the guns vulnerable to freezing at high altitude). The Americans were supplying a steady stream of P-40s, plenty of spares and maintenance assistance. The grumpy Aussies, led by Desert P-40 ace Peter Jeffrey, asked for more P-40s instead of Spitfires. The British got so tired of the Australians and their moaning that they arranged a competitive trial of the tropicalised Spit V (Merlin 45) against a CAC Boomerang, a Hurricane IIb Trop, a P-39 Airacobra and a P-40E, flown by RAF and RAAF pilots. Not surprisingly, the Spitfire trounced the other fighters. Interestingly, the P-39, despite being lumbered with the heavy 37mm M4 cannon, was faster, climbed better and flew higher than the P-40 with the same Allison V1710-39 engine, and was preferred by the RAF pilots to the P-40. This was quite ironic given how the RAF bad-mouthed the Airacobra in 1941! The result was the Aussies moaned a bit less and got Spitfire VIIIs in 1944.


----------



## Mad Dog (Jul 5, 2019)

RCAFson said:


> …..But it is good question as to why Australia didn't get Hurricanes....


 Ah, that would be the politics involved. In 1939, when Britain went to war, the Commonwealth countries stepped up and sent their sailors, soldiers and pilots to help. By December 7th 1941 there was exactly one modern fighter in Australia, a single Hurricane I Trop, V7476. The British promised that the Hurricanes in Malaysia would keep the Japanese away from Australia. So when the Japanese bombed Darwin in 1942 there were no fighter defences available, not even Hurricanes. The Australians were rightly unamused, and Winston Churchill hastily promised to send them a wing of Spitfires. The resulting reformation of No1 Wing was actually two RAAF Spitfire squadrons from the UK plus 54Sq RAF, but because it was so associated with Winnie it was christened the "Churchill Wing" by the press. Ironically, upon hearing of the plan, the experienced pilots in all three squadrons transferred to other UK squadrons, meaning the majority of No1 Wing's pilots came straight from training units.
Despite Winnie's promises, the USAAF actually operated P-40s in Australia first, and were supplying a steady stream of P-40s before the Spitfires arrived. To make matters worse, the RAF diverted most of the original Spitfires promised to the Med in 1942, meaning Churchill's Wing arrived in Australia in August 1942 with only six Spitfires, and they were in a bad state after shipping. Replacement Spitfires didn't arrive until October 1942, giving the Aussies 71 operational Spitfires. Ever since, Australians have used the term "Churchill promise" to indicate a good deal gone bad.


----------



## Mad Dog (Jul 5, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> I think we have a problem here in equating bearing failure to engine life or time between overhauls....


 During the BoB, a pilot had to report if he used max boost. The fitters were then supposed to strip the engine and look for signs of wear. As the situation became more desperate and the trust in the Merlin grew, this was reduced to the fitter pulling out the oil filter and checked for white metal in the oil. By the time the P-40s were flying in the Desert the RAF was more relaxed, and whilst the pilot still had to report using WEP, the official procedure was now for the fitter to just check the Allison's oil filter, record it as "clean" on the Form 700, and that was it. The Allison was always considered very reliable in RAF service.
A bigger problem with Merlins was the dreaded reconditioned engine. This was a Merlin that had reached the end of it's operational life and was returned to Rolls-Royce for a thorough rebuild before being sent back to the RAF "good as new". As the RAF went to war, the need for more engine rebuilds than RR could handle arose, and most engines were sent to maintenance units for their rebuilds. Outside the UK all rebuilds were done in MTUs. RAF pilots avoided reconditioned Merlins if they could, considering them much more likely to fail than factory-fresh engines. Tom Neil mentions having two reconditioned Merlins seize in a week when he was flying Hurricanes over Malta, one after less than a minute of full boost.


----------



## Mad Dog (Jul 5, 2019)

MIflyer said:


> One of the things mentioned in "Hurricane & Spitfire Pilots at War" is that the wing mounted ferry tanks used by Hurricanes were not jettisonable…..


 If you mean the cigar-shaped 44-gallon tanks, they were actually called ferry tanks as they were only intended for long-range deliveries, not combat use. Part of the reason the RAF did not intend them being jettisoned was they each had their own electric pump inside, making them rather expensive to manufacture. 
The RAF was forced to use the ferry tanks as a way to stretch the range of the Hurricane in the Med, most notably when trying to provide air-cover for Crete from Libya. They were also used for long-range strafing attacks in the Desert where the cannon of the IIc made it very good for shooting up roads and airfields. The ferry tanks allowed the Hurricanes to hook far out over the desert and then attack the Axis supply-lines behind the areas covered by Axis fighters. This was so successful it culminated in Operation Chocolate, two weeks after Alamein, when a wing of Hurricanes operated from desert strip LG125 _behind_ the Axis lines. Over three days they shot up 14 Axis aircraft and over 300 vehicles, and disrupted the attempts to resupply Rommel's retreating army.


----------



## Mad Dog (Jul 5, 2019)

Schweik said:


> I know there's a serious difference when you're flying close to sea level or up at 35000 feet but how much difference is it between 10000 and 20000


The air pressure and temperature drop as you gain height. For engine performance, the less dense air has less oxygen, which means you need to push more air into the engine (with a supercharger) to get the same level of horsepower as you did at sea level. If you have a relative air density of 1 at sea level, it has already dropped to 0.73 by the time you get to 10,000ft, and 0.53 by 20,000ft, meaning your engine that produced 1000hp at sea level is probably only going to generate 730hp at 10,000ft and 530hp at 20,000ft without supercharging.
Also, if the air temperature is 15 degrees C (59F) at sea level, by the time you get to 20,000ft the air temperature is down to -24.6 degrees C (-12.2F). That has a big effect on your coolants, oil and fuel, with poor oil turning to sludge in the oil coolers whilst still boiling away in the engine.


----------



## Schweik (Jul 5, 2019)

I'm well aware of all that, I'd appreciate since you and I clearly don't see eye to eye that you didn't quote my posts or respond to them.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 5, 2019)

Schweik said:


> I'm well aware of all that, I'd appreciate since you and I clearly don't see eye to eye that you didn't quote my posts or respond to them.


Quoting posts regardless of a like or dislike situation, provides context.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (Jul 5, 2019)

Mad Dog
First, I must say that I am impressed with the effort and detail of your posts on this topic, there is a lot of information which is new to me and no doubt others. 

However, we are going to have to agree to disagree on the main basis of your argument that the Hurricane was at least equal with the Ki43. There is no doubt that if the Hurricane of any version, got a good shot at the Ki43 then it was game over, but that aside, the Hurricane in my view only had two other advantages. It could dive faster and it didn't (practically speaking) tend to 'mush' or sink when pulling out of the dive.
In all other criteria, speed, agility, climb, range take your pick, the Ki43 was in a different class. This was recognised by the RAF who themselves described the Hurricane as obsolete and the only reason it was kept in service in the Far East was its ability as a particularly accurate bomber. It was very accurate because it could release its bombs at a lower altitude than any other aircraft because it didn't 'mush' when pulling out.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## taly01 (Jul 5, 2019)

> This was recognised by the RAF who themselves described the Hurricane as obsolete



In Air War for Burma: Bloody Shambles 3, a British officer is noted as been a big complainer and minute writer about the Hurricane in early-ish 1943 been outclassed and he was told to shut the hell up about it as he was hurting morale, Sadly ironically he was soon shot down and killed....in a Hurricane. 

In Burma the Ki-43 vs Hurricane is a classic matchup. The Japanese do say the Hurricane was better in a dive and a tough opponent, especially vs the Ki-43-I. Unfortunately i've never found a comparison fly-off of Ki-43 vs allied aircraft etc like they did with the Zero, which may suggest the Allies didn't consider it highly (or different to a Zero  ) But the Ki-43-II was probably very similar to a A6M3 Model 32 in performance. It is only after the Spitfires VIII arrival that the JAAF began to be decimated in Burma.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jul 5, 2019)

I haven't read Bloody Shambles yet but from their own records US P-40 squadrons didn't seem to feel outgunned by the Ki-43 nor did they suffer particularly heavy losses. They certainly weren't complaining about the P-40.


----------



## MIflyer (Jul 5, 2019)

I read where a CBI RAF Hurricane pilot described the 12 gun version as just marvelous for strafing, especially against Japanese troops in barges. I could see that.

As for why they kept the Hurricane in service in the Med and CBI, one pilot summed things up thusly: "They have five thousand Hurricanes in England and they have to do something with them." 

Reference the book, "They Flew Hurricanes."

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Mad Dog (Jul 7, 2019)

Glider said:


> ….In all other criteria, speed, agility, climb, range take your pick, the Ki43 was in a different class.....


 Not so. The late Ki-43 III was faster and considered a pretty good match for a Spitfire V Trop, but by the time they reached the frontline the RAF had Spitfire VIIIs and P-47s. Very few Ki-43 IIIs reached Burma, meaning the Japanese pilots were still using Ki-43 IIs in 1944, which were not considered superior to the Hurricane II by the RAF.


Glider said:


> …. This was recognised by the RAF who themselves described the Hurricane as obsolete and the only reason it was kept in service in the Far East was its ability as a particularly accurate bomber.....


 Whilst the Spitfires were moved forward to provide air-superiority ahead of the frontline, the Hurricanes were given the vital tasks of both anti-bomber defence and escort of the Dakota supply flights. The Commonwealth strategy in the Arakan was to stand and fight, using resupply from the air. Escorting the Dakotas was vital, and the Hurricanes did a very good job, losing only one Dakota to Japanese fighters. You can read more about the use of Hurricanes after the arrival of Spitfires here. Please note the New Zealander pilots mentioned did not have any qualms about dogfighting with the Ki-43, especially when they used tactics like the rolling dive attack followed by a climb away, Frank Carey's version of boom'n'zoom.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greyman (Jul 7, 2019)

Mad Dog said:


> Not so. The late Ki-43 III was faster and considered a pretty good match for a Spitfire V Trop, but by the time they reached the frontline the RAF had Spitfire VIIIs and P-47s. Very few Ki-43 IIIs reached Burma, meaning the Japanese pilots were still using Ki-43 IIs in 1944, which were not considered superior to the Hurricane II by the RAF.



Not to mention, the great majority of the time the Hurricane II was the main fighter for the RAF in theatre -- its main opponents were the Ki27 and Ki43 I. The Ki43 II only had a couple of months as the Hurricane's main antagonist before the Spitfire Vs and VIIIs started coming in.

As I said earlier in the thread, my impression is that the Hurricane wasn't outclassed by the Ki43 at all, but tactics, pilot skill (vs. the Japanese, not in general), radar and control deficiencies were much more important factors in why the Hurricane struggled.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## slaterat (Jul 7, 2019)

This is a repost from earlier in the thread.

The Spitfire and the Zero both suffer from stiff ailerons at high dive speeds , the Spit only slightly less so, therefore using the high speed dive and rolling or turning to escape from the Zero didn't work as well for the spitfire, as it did for the Hurricane which had effective controls at high speed.

Essentially the Hurricane and Zero are very close performance wise in climb and speed with the Zero being better below 15,000 feet and the Hurricane better above.

The Hurricanes escape plan is the same as the P 40s, the P40 does dive faster than the Hurricane but they both can dive fast enough to escape a Zero or KI 43.
The limiting factor for the P40 in all variants is its anemic rate of climb, its just too heavy, with the Kittyhawks actually being worse than the Tomahawks they superseded. The Hurricanes superior climb rate gives it a far better chance of being at an equal or greater altitude when intercepting inbound raids.

The Hurricane also has other advantages over the Zero and KI 43. Its much tougher and stronger with self sealing tanks, a full plate of rear armor from the pilots head to his heels, a front armoured windshield, a front bullet proof bulkhead , as well as a 10 swg bullet resistant front cowling and an eight lb plate of armour in front of the glycol header tank. The heat treated high tensile steel frame was very resistant to exploding shells fired form the Japanese cannons and heavy machine guns.

Against the KI 43 i , which has a maximum speed of only 308 mph at 13,000 feet, the tropicalized Hurricane IIa is is clearly faster above that height reaching 334 mph at 17,500.

It really doesn't matter what Allied fighter you are flying in early 1942 the game plan is the same when fighting the Zero or Ki 43. Whether you are flying an F4F, P 40, P39, Spit V or Hurricane, the goal is to get height, come down fast, take a shot, evade and repeat.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## eagledad (Jul 8, 2019)

Taly01

Attached are 2 reports on the Oscar Mk I vs P-40 and P-38

FYI

Eagledad

Source: J-aircraft.com

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## PAT303 (Jul 9, 2019)

Mad Dog said:


> Ah, that would be the politics involved. In 1939, when Britain went to war, the Commonwealth countries stepped up and sent their sailors, soldiers and pilots to help. By December 7th 1941 there was exactly one modern fighter in Australia, a single Hurricane I Trop, V7476. The British promised that the Hurricanes in Malaysia would keep the Japanese away from Australia. So when the Japanese bombed Darwin in 1942 there were no fighter defences available, not even Hurricanes. The Australians were rightly unamused, and Winston Churchill hastily promised to send them a wing of Spitfires. The resulting reformation of No1 Wing was actually two RAAF Spitfire squadrons from the UK plus 54Sq RAF, but because it was so associated with Winnie it was christened the "Churchill Wing" by the press. Ironically, upon hearing of the plan, the experienced pilots in all three squadrons transferred to other UK squadrons, meaning the majority of No1 Wing's pilots came straight from training units.
> Despite Winnie's promises, the USAAF actually operated P-40s in Australia first, and were supplying a steady stream of P-40s before the Spitfires arrived. To make matters worse, the RAF diverted most of the original Spitfires promised to the Med in 1942, meaning Churchill's Wing arrived in Australia in August 1942 with only six Spitfires, and they were in a bad state after shipping. Replacement Spitfires didn't arrive until October 1942, giving the Aussies 71 operational Spitfires. Ever since, Australians have used the term "Churchill promise" to indicate a good deal gone bad.



Not only were the spit's in poor condition, they were fitted with Merlin 46's which were only allowed 9psi boost which meant the MkV's had performance levels less than the Mk11.


----------



## PAT303 (Jul 9, 2019)

Glider said:


> Mad Dog
> First, I must say that I am impressed with the effort and detail of your posts on this topic, there is a lot of information which is new to me and no doubt others.
> 
> However, we are going to have to agree to disagree on the main basis of your argument that the Hurricane was at least equal with the Ki43. There is no doubt that if the Hurricane of any version, got a good shot at the Ki43 then it was game over, but that aside, the Hurricane in my view only had two other advantages. It could dive faster and it didn't (practically speaking) tend to 'mush' or sink when pulling out of the dive.
> In all other criteria, speed, agility, climb, range take your pick, the Ki43 was in a different class. This was recognised by the RAF who themselves described the Hurricane as obsolete and the only reason it was kept in service in the Far East was its ability as a particularly accurate bomber. It was very accurate because it could release its bombs at a lower altitude than any other aircraft because it didn't 'mush' when pulling out.



The fact that Hurricane pilots only attacked from a position of advantage and continued diving away after the engagement, and were forbidden to dogfight JAAF aircraft only strengthens the argument as to it's obsolescence.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## PAT303 (Jul 9, 2019)

Mad Dog said:


> Tom Neil of Malta fame certainly did in his Spit XII. There is a hilarious description of the problem in "From The Cockpit: Spitfire". The Spits had two little hooks under the fuselage just aft of the slipper tank, the idea being that upon release, the hooks would catch the back end of the tank and flip it out away from hitting the Spitfire's tailwheel. Some Spitfire's never had problems, some seem to have almost continual problems caused by those hooks. Neil's XII was a bit of a lemon and the jettisoned tank would continually ram itself onto the hooks, as he put it "standing out rampant from the fuselage", and acting as a big airbrake! Not ideal when you consider the tactics for the Spitfire XII squadrons was to find a group of high-flying Jerries, slip in underneath them, and challenge them to come down to the level the Spit XII's Griffon engines worked best at.



Hindsight is a wonderful thing but you have to scratch your head at why they didn't just fit a 35g aux tank behind the seat.


----------



## Kevin J (Jul 9, 2019)

PAT303 said:


> The fact that Hurricane pilots only attacked from a position of advantage and continued diving away after the engagement, and were forbidden to dogfight JAAF aircraft only strengthens the argument as to it's obsolescence.


So they were used the same way as the P-40 in the CBI which was the top scoring fighter in that theatre. So no problem. Against the Ki-43-I/II the Hurricane IIb Trop had higher level and dive speeds, heavier armament and better armour protection. Against a II-Kai onwards you really need a Spitfire. Monsoon time in India is May to October. Earliest available Vb Trop was Feb 42 in Malta, Summer 42 for Vc. Others all went to North Africa in 1942. Maybe if we hadn't given USSR 200 Vb's early 43 then India could have got them in time for their Monsoon season when little flying took place.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Jul 9, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> So they were used the same way as the P-40 in the CBI which was the top scoring fighter in that theatre. So no problem. Against the Ki-43-I/II the Hurricane IIb Trop had higher level and dive speeds, heavier armament and better armour protection. Against a II-Kai onwards you really need a Spitfire. Monsoon time in India is May to October. Earliest available Vb Trop was Feb 42 in Malta, Summer 42 for Vc. Others all went to North Africa in 1942. Maybe if we hadn't given USSR 200 Vb's early 43 then India could have got them in time for their Monsoon season when little flying took place.


Best that could have been done for our Hurricanes in November 1942 would have been mods as per Sea Hurricane IIc which would have given them another 13 mph and strengthened wing as per Hurricane IV to increase dive speed to 450 mph.


----------



## wuzak (Jul 9, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> Best that could have been done for our Hurricanes in November 1942 would have been mods as per Sea Hurricane IIc which would have given them another 13 mph and strengthened wing as per Hurricane IV to increase dive speed to 450 mph.



What mods?


----------



## Kevin J (Jul 9, 2019)

wuzak said:


> What mods?


On the Sea Hurricane it was individual exhaust stacks changes to radio mast. Don't know what they did to the IV but it could dive at 450 max.


----------



## PAT303 (Jul 9, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> So they were used the same way as the P-40 in the CBI which was the top scoring fighter in that theatre. So no problem. Against the Ki-43-I/II the Hurricane IIb Trop had higher level and dive speeds, heavier armament and better armour protection. Against a II-Kai onwards you really need a Spitfire. Monsoon time in India is May to October. Earliest available Vb Trop was Feb 42 in Malta, Summer 42 for Vc. Others all went to North Africa in 1942. Maybe if we hadn't given USSR 200 Vb's early 43 then India could have got them in time for their Monsoon season when little flying took place.



The RAF could not win with the Hurricane or P40 in 1942 in any theatre, for that you needed Spitfires.

Reactions: Disagree Disagree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## RCAFson (Jul 9, 2019)

PAT303 said:


> The fact that Hurricane pilots only attacked from a position of advantage and continued diving away after the engagement, and were forbidden to dogfight JAAF aircraft only strengthens the argument as to it's obsolescence.



Those were the instructions given to almost all Allied fighters.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## Mad Dog (Jul 9, 2019)

PAT303 said:


> The RAF could not win with the Hurricane or P40 in 1942 in any theatre, for that you needed Spitfires.


 Possibly, but the whole idea of bringing the Spitfire to the theatre was because we did not want parity, we wanted superiority, and that is what the Spitfire delivered, first in the Med and then in the Far East. As a pilot, would you want to fly the Hurricane or P-40 against the Ki-43 and know you had a 60:40 chance, or a Spitfire VIII and know the enemy has virtually no chance?

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


----------



## Greyman (Jul 10, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> Don't know what they did to the IV but it could dive at 450 max.



So could the earlier marks, I'm not sure what the reasoning was behind the 390 mph limit in the Pilot's Notes. If I had to guess I'd say safety considerations re: elevator stiffness.


----------



## Kevin J (Jul 10, 2019)

Greyman said:


> So could the earlier marks, I'm not sure what the reasoning was behind the 390 mph limit in the Pilot's Notes. If I had to guess I'd say safety considerations re: elevator stiffness.


I thought it was 370 with fabric covered wings and 410 for metal.


----------



## Greyman (Jul 10, 2019)

Everything I have says 390 mph ASI. All marks.

Except for early versions of the Mk.I notes, which have no dive speed limit, just RPM limits.

edit: found an early amendment insert for Mk.I notes which lists 380 IAS.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 10, 2019)

PAT303 said:


> The RAF could not win with the Hurricane or P40 in 1942 in any theatre, for that you needed Spitfires.


But the Hurricane and the P-40 (along with the F4F) were not only holding the Japanese, but pushing back.
When the Spitfire first arrived in the PTO/CBI, it suffered high losses and it's short range put it initially at a disadvantage.
So the Spitfire wasn't a "magic bullet".

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
5 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Jul 10, 2019)

GrauGeist said:


> But the Hurricane and the P-40 (along with the F4F) were not only holding the Japanese, but pushing back.
> When the Spitfire first arrived in the PTO/CBI, it suffered high losses and it's short range put it initially at a disadvantage.
> So the Spitfire wasn't a "magic bullet".


Until the Spitfire VIII arrived in 1944. Then it was game, set and match.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## PAT303 (Jul 10, 2019)

GrauGeist said:


> But the Hurricane and the P-40 (along with the F4F) were not only holding the Japanese, but pushing back.
> When the Spitfire first arrived in the PTO/CBI, it suffered high losses and it's short range put it initially at a disadvantage.
> So the Spitfire wasn't a "magic bullet".



The only reason the Hurricane and P40 were used was because there was nothing else, the MkV running 16 psi boost could take on anything it met except the FW190, that problem was solved with the MkIX. Those three planes along with the Me109F/G where in another league compared to the Hurri and P40.

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


----------



## Wildcat (Jul 10, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> Until the Spitfire VIII arrived in 1944. Then it was game, set and match.


True. If only the PTO based squadrons had something to shoot down...

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


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 10, 2019)

There seems to be a misconception that the Allied fighters in the CBI were ineffective until the Spitfire arrived in 1943/44 and this is not quite true.

The Allies had (in addition to the Hurricane IIA/C and P-40B/C/E) the P-43A-1and Mohawk (replaced by Spit VIII in Jan 44, by the way) *all of which *contributed in reducing the numbers of IJA and IJN aircraft and pilots until newer Allied types became available.

The Japanese were feeling the pressure so much by 1943, that the 2nd Hiko Chutai pressed several captured P-40Es into service during the defense of Rangoon. This is a pretty good indicator of how things were going by the time the Spitfires were starting to arrive in theater.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jul 10, 2019)

Funny how we all seem to see history's details through the lenses of our own national narrative. Keeps things interesting.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Agree Agree:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 10, 2019)

In my case, I see history through the details.

In my recent post, I wasn't listing all the fighter types present in the theater, just the ones that were effective at stopping the Japanese.

Otherwise, I would have incuded such types as the P-66, I-15, Boomerang, P-26, CR.32, Buffalo, D.510, Wirraway, I-16, CW-21B, I-153 and so on.

Hardly flag-waving, right?

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


----------



## Wildcat (Jul 10, 2019)

GrauGeist said:


> But the Hurricane and the P-40 (along with the F4F) were not only holding the Japanese, but pushing back.


Not only that, but it could be argued that they were also facing the cream of he crop in regards to Japanese aviators. P-40's and F4F's whittled away the Tainan Kokutai in 1942 for example.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greyman (Jul 10, 2019)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Funny how we all seem to see history's details through the lenses of our own national narrative. Keeps things interesting.
> Cheers,
> Wes



Not my fault that the Spitfire is the high-water mark technical, creative and artistic achievement of human civilization.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Funny Funny:
2 | Creative Creative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## PAT303 (Jul 10, 2019)

GrauGeist said:


> There seems to be a misconception that the Allied fighters in the CBI were ineffective until the Spitfire arrived in 1943/44 and this is not quite true.
> 
> The Allies had (in addition to the Hurricane IIA/C and P-40B/C/E) the P-43A-1and Mohawk (replaced by Spit VIII in Jan 44, by the way) *all of which *contributed in reducing the numbers of IJA and IJN aircraft and pilots until newer Allied types became available.
> 
> The Japanese were feeling the pressure so much by 1943, that the 2nd Hiko Chutai pressed several captured P-40Es into service during the defense of Rangoon. This is a pretty good indicator of how things were going by the time the Spitfires were starting to arrive in theater.



The argument is the P40 and Hurricane were effective front line fighters which they weren't, both, and the much maligned Zero were second line fighters from 1942-43 onwards.


----------



## PAT303 (Jul 10, 2019)

Greyman said:


> Not my fault that the Spitfire is the high-water mark technical, creative and artistic achievement of human civilization.



Doesn't the Mustang have that award?, it shot down the entire Luftwaffe single handedly, the History channel said so so it must be true.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 10, 2019)

PAT303 said:


> The argument is the P40 and Hurricane were effective front line fighters which they weren't, both, and the much maligned Zero were second line fighters from 1942-43 onwards.


In light of what the Allies had available to them through the early part of 1943 - the Hurricane and the P-40 *were* the front-line fighters of the CBI...

I understand that the Hurricane and the P-40 were being eclipsed in the ETO and MTO during the same time period, but they weren't up against the Luftwaffe and Regia Aeronautica and their tactics.
The Japanese had completely different hardware and tactics, so it was an entirely different war with entirely different metrics.

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


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jul 10, 2019)

PAT303 said:


> The argument is the P40 and Hurricane were effective front line fighters which they weren't, both, and the much maligned Zero were second line fighters from 1942-43 onwards.


So essentially the CBI was a second rate theater (like the porn cinema on the wrong side of town) until the mighty Spitfire showed up and gave it status? Thank you for the enlightenment!
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Funny Funny:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Mad Dog (Jul 10, 2019)

XBe02Drvr said:


> So essentially the CBI was a second rate theater...….


 Pretty much, as far as Whitehall was concerned. Even when the RAF were sending Spitfire VIIIs and P-47s to the theatre, the number of wings involved was tiny compared to the number of wings devoted to the ETO.

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


----------



## PAT303 (Jul 11, 2019)

XBe02Drvr said:


> So essentially the CBI was a second rate theater (like the porn cinema on the wrong side of town) until the mighty Spitfire showed up and gave it status? Thank you for the enlightenment!
> Cheers,
> Wes



You have a very active imagination to come to this conclusion considering nobody said anything of the sort, I'll give you that.


----------



## PAT303 (Jul 11, 2019)

Mad Dog said:


> Pretty much, as far as Whitehall was concerned. Even when the RAF were sending Spitfire VIIIs and P-47s to the theatre, the number of wings involved was tiny compared to the number of wings devoted to the ETO.



Defeating Nazi Germany was the Allies primary gaol, then the Japanese.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (Jul 11, 2019)

XBe02Drvr said:


> So essentially the CBI was a second rate theater (like the porn cinema on the wrong side of town) until the mighty Spitfire showed up and gave it status? Thank you for the enlightenment!
> Cheers,
> Wes


I will bow to your obviously more comprehensive knowledge on this topic

Reactions: Funny Funny:
5 | Like List reactions


----------



## MIflyer (Jul 11, 2019)

Pilots in the CBI reported that after the Marianas Turkey Shoot that their aerial opposition dropped off markedly. It was a 2nd rate theater for the Japanese after they took those huge losses in the Pacific.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinsog (Jul 17, 2019)

PAT303 said:


> The argument is the P40 and Hurricane were effective front line fighters which they weren't, both, and the much maligned Zero were second line fighters from 1942-43 onwards.



In 1942-43 those 2nd line Zero’s flew 500 miles one way down to Darwin, shot down 28 Spitfire’s and ran a couple dozen other’s out of fuel over their own territory and then flew home with a loss of 4 Zero’s and 1 KI43. 

Meanwhile the Germans and British could barely come to blows from different sides of the English Channel without one side running out of fuel.

Would someone please tell me which German or English fighter you would have chosen in 1942, 1943, 1944 or 1945 to replace that 2nd rate Zero that could have flown as escort to the G4M Betty air raids on Darwin that could have whipped the Spitfire V and then flown back home?

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


----------



## PAT303 (Jul 18, 2019)

pinsog said:


> In 1942-43 those 2nd line Zero’s flew 500 miles one way down to Darwin, shot down 28 Spitfire’s and ran a couple dozen other’s out of fuel over their own territory and then flew home with a loss of 4 Zero’s and 1 KI43.
> 
> Meanwhile the Germans and British could barely come to blows from different sides of the English Channel without one side running out of fuel.
> 
> Would someone please tell me which German or English fighter you would have chosen in 1942, 1943, 1944 or 1945 to replace that 2nd rate Zero that could have flown as escort to the G4M Betty air raids on Darwin that could have whipped the Spitfire V and then flown back home?



MkIX Spitfire of course. https://forum.keypublishing.com/filedata/fetch?id=3842013&d=1543311117

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## PAT303 (Jul 18, 2019)

pinsog said:


> In 1942-43 those 2nd line Zero’s flew 500 miles one way down to Darwin, shot down 28 Spitfire’s and ran a couple dozen other’s out of fuel over their own territory and then flew home with a loss of 4 Zero’s and 1 KI43.
> 
> Meanwhile the Germans and British could barely come to blows from different sides of the English Channel without one side running out of fuel.
> 
> Would someone please tell me which German or English fighter you would have chosen in 1942, 1943, 1944 or 1945 to replace that 2nd rate Zero that could have flown as escort to the G4M Betty air raids on Darwin that could have whipped the Spitfire V and then flown back home?



You have fun trying to fight Spitfire VIII's, IX's and XIV's, FW190A's and D's and Me109G's in a Zero that's 90-100mph slower with no armour or self sealing tanks.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinsog (Jul 18, 2019)

Schweik said:


> yeah but if you make it to 400 mph I don't think the Ki-43 can follow, or at least not with the wings still attached. A6M top speed is also close to that.
> 
> There is also this test (see page 7) which shows that P-40Ks could actually outrun A6M in level flight, extend, turn around and come back for a head-on attack, without even diving.
> 
> S


I somehow missed this post from last month. I have read that test showing P40K’s and P43’s tested against a Zero, but sadly that Zero was not performing near 100%. Look at the top speed of the Zero 289 mph at 15,000 feet. The Zero should be doing 315-330 at that altitude. Climb rate is also much lower than a standard Zero. I would LOVE to see a test with a Zero performing at 100% vs a P43 at full available power. I have always thought a P43, fitted with armor and true self sealing tanks, would have been the best fighter the US had to fight the Zero until the P38 arrived. The P43, unlike the P38, Hellcat and Corsair, could have been there day 1 of the war with Japan but we chose not to use it.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Jul 18, 2019)

pinsog said:


> I somehow missed this post from last month. I have read that test showing P40K’s and P43’s tested against a Zero, but sadly that Zero was not performing near 100%. Look at the top speed of the Zero 289 mph at 15,000 feet. The Zero should be doing 315-330 at that altitude. Climb rate is also much lower than a standard Zero. I would LOVE to see a test with a Zero performing at 100% vs a P43 at full available power. I have always thought a P43, fitted with armor and true self sealing tanks, would have been the best fighter the US had to fight the Zero until the P38 arrived. The P43, unlike the P38, Hellcat and Corsair, could have been there day 1 of the war with Japan but we chose not to use it.


Even better, the Mohawk with 2 stage engine from the F4F-3.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinsog (Jul 18, 2019)

PAT303 said:


> MkIX Spitfire of course. https://forum.keypublishing.com/filedata/fetch?id=3842013&d=1543311117



Was this variant of the Spitfire built?


----------



## pinsog (Jul 18, 2019)

PAT303 said:


> You have fun trying to fight Spitfire VIII's, IX's and XIV's, FW190A's and D's and Me109G's in a Zero that's 90-100mph slower with no armour or self sealing tanks.



No kidding! I sure wouldn’t want to be in that Zero, I’d stand about as much of a chance as a Spitfire over Darwin!

I’d rather be in a KI43 in that situation, at least it had armor and self sealing tanks and the ailerons didn’t stiffen up at high speed.


----------



## pinsog (Jul 18, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> Even better, the Mohawk with 2 stage engine from the F4F-3.



A Mohawk/Hawk 75/P36 would have gained a lot from any engine upgrade. A 2 speed P&W 1830-33 would be easiest and lightest, 77 pounds heavier than the P36 engine, top speed jumps from 295’ish to about 325 at 17,000. The 1830-86 from a Wildcat would add about 150 pounds. Jumping from 1403 to 1550 on engine weight, performance guess would be 330 mph at 20,000. But a turbocharger, adding probably 250 pounds, should put it at about 360 mph at 25,000 feet.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Jul 18, 2019)

pinsog said:


> A Mohawk/Hawk 75/P36 would have gained a lot from any engine upgrade. A 2 speed P&W 1830-33 would be easiest and lightest, 77 pounds heavier than the P36 engine, top speed jumps from 295’ish to about 325 at 17,000. The 1830-86 from a Wildcat would add about 150 pounds. Jumping from 1403 to 1550 on engine weight, performance guess would be 330 mph at 20,000. But a turbocharger, adding probably 250 pounds, should put it at about 360 mph at 25,000 feet.



Are the turbos reliable enough in 1942. Me, I'd go for a cleaned up Hurricane in the CBI.


----------



## Schweik (Jul 18, 2019)

PAT303 said:


> The argument is the P40 and Hurricane were effective front line fighters which they weren't, both, and the much maligned Zero were second line fighters from 1942-43 onwards.



I think the facts bear out that the P-40 was certainly an effective front line fighter in the CBI through the end of the war. It certainly had the highest success rate, nor were P-40 units complaining of inferiority to enemy aircraft. The Hurricane was much less effective after 1941.

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


----------



## Schweik (Jul 18, 2019)

GrauGeist said:


> In light of what the Allies had available to them through the early part of 1943 - the Hurricane and the P-40 *were* the front-line fighters of the CBI...
> 
> I understand that the Hurricane and the P-40 were being eclipsed in the ETO and MTO during the same time period, but they weren't up against the Luftwaffe and Regia Aeronautica and their tactics.
> The Japanese had completely different hardware and tactics, so it was an entirely different war with entirely different metrics.



By late 1942, Hurricanes were almost never flying fighter missions in the Med, though later model P-40s still were. The USAAF Fighter Groups did quite well with them through the end of 1943.

23rd FG in China and 80th etc. in Burma / India were able to achieve air superiority in the CBI. The P-40 seemed to be ideal for that Theater.

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


----------



## Schweik (Jul 18, 2019)

Two other aircraft in the CBI which I think made a dent was the Beaufighter, and the Vengeance which we mentioned in another thread. The Beaufighter was operating out of Burma or India from at least 1943 and could do a lot of damage. The Aussies apparently got a lot of mileage out of the Vultee Vengeance even though the Brits and Americans didn't think much of it.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## taly01 (Jul 19, 2019)

> A Mohawk/Hawk 75/P36 would have gained a lot from any engine upgrade.



I once saw a graph of P-36 types performance and their is a huge variation as the early ones had 900hp single speed supercharger and the last had 1200hp two speed superchargers. AFAIK the British only used the 1200hp Cyclone engined ones in combat CBI, the lower powered ones were for training etc.

The British use of the Mohawk (P-36/Hawk 75) is interesting as they were a mix of different export models they got from allies countries that were overrun early in the war. I don't think the British ever ordered any direct from Curtiss? Yet became the country to use it most in combat!?

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greyman (Jul 19, 2019)

In terms of the length of time 'on the line' the RAF Mohawks might hold the distinction -- but in terms of number of combats / sorties / victories the French Hawk 75s are _waayy _out ahead.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jul 19, 2019)

The hawk had the highest score for the Allied side during the Battle of France, I believe. Too bad they didn't get Tomahawks and all the other stuff they had ordered in time. Not to mention a few more months to get their D.520s ready and up to speed as those were quite good too.







Or a few Arsenal VG-33s....


----------



## Schweik (Jul 19, 2019)

Just out of curiosity, does anyone have a list of front line aircraft (fighters and bombers) that the French had ordered before the Battle of France started for real, that they never actually got in time? I think they had placed pre-orders for A-20s and SBDs and all kinds of stuff...


----------



## Kevin J (Jul 19, 2019)

taly01 said:


> I once saw a graph of P-36 types performance and their is a huge variation as the early ones had 900hp single speed supercharger and the last had 1200hp two speed superchargers. AFAIK the British only used the 1200hp Cyclone engined ones in combat CBI, the lower powered ones were for training etc.
> 
> The British use of the Mohawk (P-36/Hawk 75) is interesting as they were a mix of different export models they got from allies countries that were overrun early in the war. I don't think the British ever ordered any direct from Curtiss? Yet became the country to use it most in combat!?


IIRC the French had 335 Twin Wasp variants, 30 going over to the RAF before the BoB and 195 Cyclone versions.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jul 19, 2019)

Which ones were the two speed?


----------



## pinsog (Jul 19, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Which ones were the two speed?



The Wrights only. I have never seen a 2 speed P&W engine listed for the P36/Hawk 75

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Mad Dog (Jul 21, 2019)

pinsog said:


> A Mohawk/Hawk 75/P36 would have gained a lot from any engine upgrade.....


 One of the biggest problems with the Mohawks used by the RAF in the CBI theatre was the fuel tank in the fuselage behind the cockpit. The RAF units were ordered to vent the tank before entering combat, a process that could take minutes, and required the pilot to fly straight and level during the venting. Better armour and self-sealing material for the fuselage tank would have added weight, as it did in the P-40s, reducing climb performance, which means adding power probably takes you down the P-40 road - faster on the level, but can't climb.


pinsog said:


> …… But a turbocharger, adding probably 250 pounds, should put it at about 360 mph at 25,000 feet.


 The problem was the turbo-charger designs of the day were very bulky. To fit a turbo into the P-36 as done with the P-43 would mean taking out the fuel tank behind the cockpit to make room for the turbo, plus requiring a bulge under the fuselage to run the large air trunking from the engine to the turbo and back. That's why the P-43 had an oval fuselage shape and why the P-47 ended up so big. Taking out the fuselage tank would produce a faster, high-flying P-36, but with a range so short it probably wouldn't be useful.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Mad Dog (Jul 21, 2019)

Mad Dog said:


> …..As a pilot, would you want to fly the Hurricane or P-40 against the Ki-43 and know you had a 60:40 chance, or a Spitfire VIII and know the enemy has virtually no chance?


 I see Schweik is still living trying to pretend a P-40 of any version was better than a Spitfire VIII/IX.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Disagree Disagree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinsog (Jul 21, 2019)

Mad Dog said:


> One of the biggest problems with the Mohawks used by the RAF in the CBI theatre was the fuel tank in the fuselage behind the cockpit. The RAF units were ordered to vent the tank before entering combat, a process that could take minutes, and required the pilot to fly straight and level during the venting. Better armour and self-sealing material for the fuselage tank would have added weight, as it did in the P-40s, reducing climb performance, which means adding power probably takes you down the P-40 road - faster on the level, but can't climb.
> The problem was the turbo-charger designs of the day were very bulky. To fit a turbo into the P-36 as done with the P-43 would mean taking out the fuel tank behind the cockpit to make room for the turbo, plus requiring a bulge under the fuselage to run the large air trunking from the engine to the turbo and back. That's why the P-43 had an oval fuselage shape and why the P-47 ended up so big. Taking out the fuselage tank would produce a faster, high-flying P-36, but with a range so short it probably wouldn't be useful.



Why would you wait until your actually engaged in combat to vent the tank be hind the seat? It’s an overload tank, you use it for take off and climb, it should be empty long before your engaged in combat, if not then it shouldn’t have been filled in the first place. A P36 had 1050 hp at takeoff, and extra 75 pounds would have given it a 2 speed engine with 1,200 hp up to 5,000 feet and according to tests by the US army top speed would jump by 20 mph at 17,000 feet with an engine providing 50 less hp. Not sure how heavy your self sealing material for your one little overload tank is, but if it overcomes an additional 150 hp and lowers your climb rate then you might want to back off on how much you use. The P40 had more weight issues than just a bit of self sealing tank material, 450 pounds of guns and 400 pounds of ammo might have been a start.

Plenty of room in a P36 behind and below the tank behind the pilot for a turbocharger. The return pipe would be internal and the pipe from engine to turbo half exposed like on a P43. Considering they went from a radial to a V12 and ended up adding 1500-2500 pounds to the design, I don’t think that slipping a pair of 6 inch pipes down the middle for 12 feet would be a huge problem. Also, that little added bulge isn’t going to hurt the aerodynamics of a P36 considering how dirty the bottom of that plane was anyway.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Mad Dog (Jul 21, 2019)

pinsog said:


> In 1942-43 those 2nd line Zero’s flew 500 miles one way down to Darwin, shot down 28 Spitfire’s and ran a couple dozen other’s out of fuel over their own territory and then flew home with a loss of 4 Zero’s and 1 KI43....


 That would be down to the tactics used by No.1 Wing RAAF, not the Spitfires themselves. You have to question the skill and training of any flight leader that allows themselves to be run out of fuel whilst flying defensive interceptions under ground control as No.1 Wing did.



pinsog said:


> …..Meanwhile the Germans and British could barely come to blows from different sides of the English Channel without one side running out of fuel.....


 In 1940 the Luftwaffe was tightly tied to the idea of the ME109 for air-superiority over the battlefield, with the ME110 providing the long-range role by sweeping ahead of the bombers into enemy airspace. That idea worked fine in Poland and also France, but was not able to cope during the Battle of Britain with the better ground control afforded by RAF Fighter Command using radar. The Germans did have long-range drop-tanks in use for the He.51 pre-War, but that was before the ME110 was ready. They considered drop-tanks for the ME109 pre-War but thought the ME110 made the idea redundant. Drop-tanks were then hurriedly brought back into service for the ME109, but the Battle Of Britain was already lost, and after that the majority of the _jadgflieger's_ work was defensive. In 1941 the ME109-E7 could carry a drop-tank to extend its range to 1350km, and the cleaner F to 1660km. So the German fighters _could_ have ranged widely over the British Isles in 1942, they just didn't have the operational requirement to. The RAF did have the requirement, and Spitfires did range as far as the German border. By mid-1942 the Spitfire Vc Trop with long-range tank could fly direct from Gibraltar to Malta, a flight of 1100 miles.



pinsog said:


> …..Would someone please tell me which German or English fighter you would have chosen in 1942, 1943, 1944 or 1945 to replace that 2nd rate Zero that could have flown as escort to the G4M Betty air raids on Darwin that could have whipped the Spitfire V and then flown back home?


 German? Me410 would be an interesting escort, especially if using boom'n'zoom tactics against climbing Spit Vs. Thankfully, by the time the Me410 first flew in March 1942, the Germans were already being forced over to the defensive. British? In 1942, the Beaufighter, maybe the Merlin-engine IIF version for altitude performance, and without the weight of the radar. As long as it doesn't get sucked into a turning match the Beau IIF could give a Spit some problems, especially fi the Beau starts with an altitude advantage. Coastal Command Beaufighters spent many years of the War sweeping over the Bay of Biscay for Luftwaffe recce and long-range fighters. And then (even in 1942) there's the Mosquito, which could have flown all the way either as an escort or with it's own bombload, dropped the bombs and still been able to mix it with Spit Vs. If you want to expand the question to include the Yanks, then the P-38F or G was massively superior to the Zero.

Reactions: Disagree Disagree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinsog (Jul 21, 2019)

Mad Dog said:


> That would be down to the tactics used by No.1 Wing RAAF, not the Spitfires themselves. You have to question the skill and training of any flight leader that allows themselves to be run out of fuel whilst flying defensive interceptions under ground control as No.1 Wing did.
> 
> In 1940 the Luftwaffe was tightly tied to the idea of the ME109 for air-superiority over the battlefield, with the ME110 providing the long-range role by sweeping ahead of the bombers into enemy airspace. That idea worked fine in Poland and also France, but was not able to cope during the Battle of Britain with the better ground control afforded by RAF Fighter Command using radar. The Germans did have long-range drop-tanks in use for the He.51 pre-War, but that was before the ME110 was ready. They considered drop-tanks for the ME109 pre-War but thought the ME110 made the idea redundant. Drop-tanks were then hurriedly brought back into service for the ME109, but the Battle Of Britain was already lost, and after that the majority of the _jadgflieger's_ work was defensive. In 1941 the ME109-E7 could carry a drop-tank to extend its range to 1350km, and the cleaner F to 1660km. So the German fighters _could_ have ranged widely over the British Isles in 1942, they just didn't have the operational requirement to. The RAF did have the requirement, and Spitfires did range as far as the German border. By mid-1942 the Spitfire Vc Trop with long-range tank could fly direct from Gibraltar to Malta, a flight of 1100 miles.
> 
> German? Me410 would be an interesting escort, especially if using boom'n'zoom tactics against climbing Spit Vs. Thankfully, by the time the Me410 first flew in March 1942, the Germans were already being forced over to the defensive. British? In 1942, the Beaufighter, maybe the Merlin-engine IIF version for altitude performance, and without the weight of the radar. As long as it doesn't get sucked into a turning match the Beau IIF could give a Spit some problems, especially fi the Beau starts with an altitude advantage. Coastal Command Beaufighters spent many years of the War sweeping over the Bay of Biscay for Luftwaffe recce and long-range fighters. And then (even in 1942) there's the Mosquito, which could have flown all the way either as an escort or with it's own bombload, dropped the bombs and still been able to mix it with Spit Vs. If you want to expand the question to include the Yanks, then the P-38F or G was massively superior to the Zero.



You also get to question the plane when they run the interceptor out of fuel over his own territory after flying 500 miles 1 way. 

Me109 with any drop tank can’t fly 500 miles, fight a comparable single engine fighter and return, neither could any model Spitfire.

Me410’s were meat on the table for any P38, P47 or P51. No way is it a long range escort in any scenrio. 

I love the Beaufighter. As an escort vs single engine fighters, meat on the table.

If you include US fighters you have P38, P47 and P51, but I didn’t include them because they, along with the Zero are the only 4 long range fighters of the war. 

The Zero was called 2nd rate in 1942 and yet, my original point was that those “2nd rate Zeros” flew 500 miles 1 way and whipped one of the supposedly greatest planes of all time 7-1 over its own airspace and then flew home. 

Nothing the Germans or British had during the war could have done that mission. Period.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Winner Winner:
2 | Disagree Disagree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinsog (Jul 21, 2019)

Love to know which of those points you consider incorrect

Reactions: Disagree Disagree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Mad Dog (Jul 21, 2019)

pinsog said:


> You also get to question the plane when they run the interceptor out of fuel over his own territory after flying 500 miles 1 way....


 Why, do you think the pilot said "Hey, we're running out of gas", only for the plane itself to force him to fly on? No, running out of fuel is a *pilot error*. If you are referring to 2nd May 1943, the Spits shot down between six and ten Japanese aircraft for the loss of five Spits in the actual air combat, _then_ five Spits then made forced landings due to running out of fuel. They had used too much from the long climb followed by dogfighting with the Zeros. On the plus side, the majority of the Spits that did run out of fuel were repaired and returned to service. I can find only two Spitfires at Darwin that ran out of fuel and were too badly damaged to be repaired. So, despite pilot error, the long-term effect on the defences was small. After the 2nd May 1943, the Spits carried drop-tanks and avoided dogfighting, which chewed up fuel, and were so effective that the Japanese made their last major raid on 6th July 1943, and abandoned attacks on Darwin by November 1943.


pinsog said:


> …...Me109 with any drop tank can’t fly 500 miles, fight a comparable single engine fighter and return, neither could any model Spitfire.....


 Your post said neither side could fly far over the Channel without running out of fuel. My reply was not intended to imply either the Spit nor the ME109 could have flown 500 miles, had a combat and then returned, it was to fill in the gaps in your knowledge regarding both Luftwaffe and RAF range capabilities by 1942.


pinsog said:


> …...Me410’s were meat on the table for any P38, P47 or P51. No way is it a long range escort in any scenario…..


 And there were how many P-38s, P-47s or P-51s at Darwin? The Allied defence at Darwin was tropicalized Spitfire Vs and P-40Es. The Me410 could outrun both with 385mph top speed, could fly higher than the P-40 could, and was excellent for boom'n'zoom tactics. It had the firepower to knock either down in a single pass, and the dive capability to then speed out of range to make a safe recovery, necessary given its relatively slow climb rate (though still better than the P-40E). The problem for the Me410 as an escort was there simply was no Luftwaffe role as long-range escort by 1942. I was also faster than the Zero, by quite a margin, and had the advantage of a rear-gunner to warn the pilot of attacks from the rear. It could even have carried bombs to Darwin, dropped them and engaged or evaded the Spitfires at will. Did the Zeros carry bombs to Darwin?


pinsog said:


> …..I love the Beaufighter. As an escort vs single engine fighters, meat on the table.....


 Beaufighters shot down ME109s and ME110s on day sweeps over the Med and Desert in 1942, both of which out-perform the Zero. The Beau II with Merlins would also have had the altitude performance to come in above the climbing Spit Vs (and well above the P-40Es), allowing them to position for diving attacks out of the Sun. Maybe you should think more about the scenario before passing such quick judgement? To be successful, an escort does not need to shoot down every enemy interceptor, it just has to disrupt them enough to keep them from attacking the bombers. Having said that, any Spit V or P-40E that got in the way of a diving Beau would have been shredded by the Beau's cannons.


pinsog said:


> …..If you include US fighters you have P38, P47 and P51, but I didn’t include them because they, along with the Zero are the only 4 long range fighters of the war......


 I didn't include them because there were none at Darwin.


pinsog said:


> …..The Zero was called 2nd rate in 1942 and yet, my original point was that those “2nd rate Zeros” flew 500 miles 1 way and whipped one of the supposedly greatest planes of all time 7-1 over its own airspace and then flew home.....


 It didn't whip anything, the RAAF pilots stupidly ran out of fuel. A properly flown Spitfire V Trop was more than capable of besting a Zero, and the Spit V Trop _was_ pretty much second-rate by mid-1942, let alone by the time of the Darwin raids in 1943. Please also note that the Spits were tasked with shooting down the bombers, not the Zeros, and shot down more Japanese aircraft than were lost in the defence of Darwin.


pinsog said:


> …..Nothing the Germans or British had during the war could have done that mission....


 Except for the Me410, the Beau, the Mosquito, and the P-38 at the time, and planes like the P-51B/D or P-47N much, much, much better later in the War.


pinsog said:


> …..Period.


 You're on your period? That does explain a lot.

Reactions: Dislike Dislike:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Mad Dog (Jul 21, 2019)

pinsog said:


> Why would you wait until your actually engaged in combat to vent the tank be hind the seat? It’s an overload tank, you use it for take off and climb, it should be empty long before your engaged in combat, if not then it shouldn’t have been filled in the first place....


 IIRC, the fuselage tank was the largest tank in the P-36 (and P-40s), and the RAF Mohawks spent a lot of time flying patrols (and escorts to Blenheims) and needed the additional range. It was unlikely to be empty by the time you ran into the enemy, not unless you had already started back for home. However, using the fuselage tank left you with the possibility of an explosive mix of fuel, fumes and air, and after the Battle of Britain the RAF was paranoid about fuel tank fires.


----------



## pinsog (Jul 21, 2019)

Mad Dog said:


> IIRC, the fuselage tank was the largest tank in the P-36 (and P-40s), and the RAF Mohawks spent a lot of time flying patrols (and escorts to Blenheims) and needed the additional range. It was unlikely to be empty by the time you ran into the enemy, not unless you had already started back for home. However, using the fuselage tank left you with the possibility of an explosive mix of fuel, fumes and air, and after the Battle of Britain the RAF was paranoid about fuel tank fires.



Wing tanks are 42 and 63 gallons, the behind the seat ferry tank is 58 and cannot be used during high g maneuvers. It is strictly for take off, climb and ferrying. No one fought with fuel in this tank. It was the first tank emptied if used at all.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 21, 2019)

Uh, guys, the P-36 and Hawk 75 held about 42 US gallons in the forward wing tank and about 63 US gallons in the rear wing tank. The "small" fuselage tank held 57 US gallons (47.8 Imp gallons). 

Part of the problem with the rear fuselage tank was not the accumulation of fumes but the fact that with a fair quantity of fuel in the tank the planes CG was too far aft and it was prohibited from performing combat maneuvers or aerobatics. The French had lost at least one Hawk 75 and possible more by trying to fly them and do hard maneuvering with fuel in the fuselage tank. It depends on which accounts you read. 

The P-40 no letter had a fuel system that weighed 171lbs and that went to about 254lbs on the P-40B and then to 420lbs on the P-40C and there it stayed for most later models that kept all three tanks. Late model Ns got a different style self sealing tank. 
Unless you had Dr. Who helping design your fuel tanks the two wing tanks were restricted in size/volume and fuel capacity dropped from 105 gallons to something less depending on type of self sealing tanks used. Standard fuel capacity on early P-40s was given as 120 gallons but this required the fuselage tank to partially filled. One data sheet has just 28 gallons of fuel capacity left for overload. 
The forward shift of weights in the P-40 meant that fuel could be carried in the rear tank during combat (it might not have been recommended depending on model, Merlin P-40s used a partially filled rear tank to counterbalance the Merlin engine and while the tank was 1/2 emptied early on the last of the fuel was kept as the reserver) ) and the rear tank was self sealing. 

The P-43 had the fuel storage out in the wings, well away from the fuselage. Running hot exhaust pipes near the tanks on the P-36/Hawk 75 may not have been a good idea without lots of heat shielding and cooling air. Not so much from a fire risk but to stop hot fuel from causing vapor lock problems. It is bad enough that the low pressure air at altitude can cause vapor pressure problems (a difference between aviation fuel and motor (car/truck) fuel) but heating the fuel with hot exhaust pipes is just asking for trouble  

Please note the Hawk 75 A-4 added about 165lbs worth of guns and ammo compared to a P-36A and had a bit heavier armament than the P-36C. 

Please note that a 6 gun Hawk 75 carried a heavier load of ammo than an 8 gun Spitfire II or Hurricane.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinsog (Jul 21, 2019)

Mad Dog said:


> Why, do you think the pilot said "Hey, we're running out of gas", only for the plane itself to force him to fly on? No, running out of fuel is a *pilot error*. If you are referring to 2nd May 1943, the Spits shot down between six and ten Japanese aircraft for the loss of five Spits in the actual air combat, _then_ five Spits then made forced landings due to running out of fuel. They had used too much from the long climb followed by dogfighting with the Zeros. On the plus side, the majority of the Spits that did run out of fuel were repaired and returned to service. I can find only two Spitfires at Darwin that ran out of fuel and were too badly damaged to be repaired. So, despite pilot error, the long-term effect on the defences was small. After the 2nd May 1943, the Spits carried drop-tanks and avoided dogfighting, which chewed up fuel, and were so effective that the Japanese made their last major raid on 6th July 1943, and abandoned attacks on Darwin by November 1943.
> Your post said neither side could fly far over the Channel without running out of fuel. My reply was not intended to imply either the Spit nor the ME109 could have flown 500 miles, had a combat and then returned, it was to fill in the gaps in your knowledge regarding both Luftwaffe and RAF range capabilities by 1942.
> And there were how many P-38s, P-47s or P-51s at Darwin? The Allied defence at Darwin was tropicalized Spitfire Vs and P-40Es. The Me410 could outrun both with 385mph top speed, could fly higher than the P-40 could, and was excellent for boom'n'zoom tactics. It had the firepower to knock either down in a single pass, and the dive capability to then speed out of range to make a safe recovery, necessary given its relatively slow climb rate (though still better than the P-40E). The problem for the Me410 as an escort was there simply was no Luftwaffe role as long-range escort by 1942. I was also faster than the Zero, by quite a margin, and had the advantage of a rear-gunner to warn the pilot of attacks from the rear. It could even have carried bombs to Darwin, dropped them and engaged or evaded the Spitfires at will. Did the Zeros carry bombs to Darwin?
> Beaufighters shot down ME109s and ME110s on day sweeps over the Med and Desert in 1942, both of which out-perform the Zero. The Beau II with Merlins would also have had the altitude performance to come in above the climbing Spit Vs (and well above the P-40Es), allowing them to position for diving attacks out of the Sun. Maybe you should think more about the scenario before passing such quick judgement? To be successful, an escort does not need to shoot down every enemy interceptor, it just has to disrupt them enough to keep them from attacking the bombers. Having said that, any Spit V or P-40E that got in the way of a diving Beau would have been shredded by the Beau's cannons.
> ...



Over the course of the Darwin raids, the Japanese shot down 28 Spitfires confirmed by the pilots that in fact got shot down. They lost according to their own records, 4 Zero's and 1 Ki43. This does not include the Spitfires that they ran out of fuel over their own territory. They knocked down a few bombers as well but over all they lost more than they knocked down. That is not a good record for an interceptor and should prove e that the Zero was not a 2nd line fighter. At the time of those raids in 1942, there was not a fighter in the world that could have flown that mission, I don't believe the P38 was plumbed for drop tanks at that time.

My point about the Spitfire and Me109 was that they were so short ranged they had trouble coming to battle with the English channel in the way. Ok, they got drop tanks, congrats you can each cross a 20 mile body of water to do battle now. The Zero could probably have flown from Berlin and fought over the channel and returned but hey, its only a 2nd rate fighter.

So your proving the British and Germans could have escorted a group of medium bombers 500 miles one way and defended them over Darwin from Spitfires and P40's with......2 more medium bombers. Both the Me410 and the Beaufighter weigh more when empty than a P38 weighed loaded without drop tanks. An Me410 weighed 16,574 pounds empty and a Beaufighter weighed 15,592 pounds empty. Both weighed over 20,000 when loaded. The Beaufighter was 80-100 miles per hour slower than a P38. It was 20-30 mph slower than the Spitfire V at Darwin and your plan is to climb above the Spitfire and Boom and Zoom him??? This just keeps getting better. When a Spitfire gets behind a Beafighter or the Beaufighter gets down below 15,000 feet where a P40 or P39 works well he is done. He can't outrun them and he sure can't out maneuver them 

I said, "Nothing the British or Germans had during the war could have flow that mission" and you said "except the Me410, Beaufighter, Mosquito, P38, P51 or P47"
Last I checked the P38, P51, and P47 were not British or German. It has also been proven by the British themselves that the Mosquito was no match for a single engine fighter in one on one combat during the daylight. Yes if you catch someone napping or distracted you can knock him down with a pass from a plane like a Me410, Beaufighter or Mossie, but in a prolonged combat if you don't have a big speed advantage you are toast.

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


----------



## PAT303 (Jul 21, 2019)

pinsog said:


> Love to know which of those points you consider incorrect



Well maybe you could start by acknowledging some facts. Those Zero's you talk about were factory new aircraft flown by experienced pilots as noted in Darwin Spitfires, the MkV's they fought against were worn out converted MkII's that had corroded cooling systems and faulty propeller CSU that caused the engines to fail flown by less experienced pilots, again as noted in Darwin Spitfires, running out of fuel was caused by Clive Caldwell wanting all the planes to form up as per Mallory's ''big wing'' which caused them to fly around in circles wasting time and fuel and when they finally set off it was a stern chase pursuit which wasted what little fuel they had, the same thing that happened in the BoB and again noted in Darwin Spitfires. Lastly the MkV's had Merlin 46 engines that had 500Hp less than the 45 had at 20,000ft, the most common height the Japanese attacked from, as per Shortround6's post on the subject, the result was the MkV's had inferior performance to a MkII, RAAF tests showed the MkV's, A6M and P40's all maxed out around 320-330mph, the MkV's are giving away 45mph and loss of overall performance to the Zero and P40 by having the wrong engine. I'm not a fan of the Zero, it is one plane I would not want to go to war in, especially if I was up against 1941-42 era European aircraft.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jul 22, 2019)

pinsog said:


> Why would you wait until your actually engaged in combat to vent the tank be hind the seat? It’s an overload tank, you use it for take off and climb, it should be empty long before your engaged in combat


Like any tank, it has a certain amount of unusable fuel in the sump. Just because all the usable fuel has been used, doesn't mean it's not a FAE (fuel air explosive) bomb just waiting for an ignition source. It's not fuel that burns, it's the vapor. On a subzero day which suppresses vapor, you can toss lit matches into a can of avgas and it will just snuff them out. Venting clears out the vapor and evaporates the residual fuel in the sump, clearing its vapors out as well.
Besides, running a tank dry (to make sure it's empty) is, I'm told, not considered good formation flying etiquette, as the sudden loss of power when your engine sucks air is apt to precipitate a chain reaction of ducking and dodging to avoid a midair. Especially so if the formation is the RAF's favored line in trail.
I've flown a Cherokee Six with 4 tanks and a Twin Comanche with 8. On long trips with Piper's imprecise fuel gages, it was common practice to run tanks dry (assuming no nervous passengers), so as you got towards the end, you at least knew where your remaining fuel was. In the Six especially, you could have a tank indicating "E" with as much as 8 gallons in it. You could be half an hour offshore with two hours of usable fuel onboard and all four tanks indicating "E".
Cheers,
Wes

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


----------



## taly01 (Jul 24, 2019)

> A properly flown Spitfire V Trop was more than capable of besting a Zero,



In theory yes  but 1 v 1 air combat can be a rock-paper-scissors game. The RAAF test quoted earlier in this thread says the Spit.V(trop) they used in Australia had no great advantages over the tested A6M3 model 32 below 20,000ft.

The short range of the Spitfire was its biggest problem, In Burma the long range US airfield raids by P-51 and P-38's in early 1944 gave the JAAF no respite. The Beaufighter had the range to make the same long range raids but does not seem to have been used much for that?

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## PAT303 (Jul 24, 2019)

taly01 said:


> In theory yes  but 1 v 1 air combat can be a rock-paper-scissors game. The RAAF test quoted earlier in this thread says the Spit.V(trop) they used in Australia had no great advantages over the tested A6M3 model 32 below 20,000ft.
> 
> The short range of the Spitfire was its biggest problem, In Burma the long range US airfield raids by P-51 and P-38's in early 1944 gave the JAAF no respite. The Beaufighter had the range to make the same long range raids but does not seem to have been used much for that?



This gives a good account of what happened.https://www.ozatwar.com/raf/spitfireoverdarwin.pdf


----------



## michael rauls (Jul 24, 2019)

pinsog said:


> Over the course of the Darwin raids, the Japanese shot down 28 Spitfires confirmed by the pilots that in fact got shot down. They lost according to their own records, 4 Zero's and 1 Ki43. This does not include the Spitfires that they ran out of fuel over their own territory. They knocked down a few bombers as well but over all they lost more than they knocked down. That is not a good record for an interceptor and should prove e that the Zero was not a 2nd line fighter. At the time of those raids in 1942, there was not a fighter in the world that could have flown that mission, I don't believe the P38 was plumbed for drop tanks at that time.
> 
> My point about the Spitfire and Me109 was that they were so short ranged they had trouble coming to battle with the English channel in the way. Ok, they got drop tanks, congrats you can each cross a 20 mile body of water to do battle now. The Zero could probably have flown from Berlin and fought over the channel and returned but hey, its only a 2nd rate fighter.
> 
> ...


Once read a quote from a RAF pilot who said" if the Germans had been flying A6ms in the Battle of Britain we'd all be speaking German right now". While one can agree or disagree with his vision of the outcome under such a scenario it makes the point about how critical range can be for many missions.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 24, 2019)

On the disagree side the losses of Zeros over England in 1940 would have been horrendous. However successful they may have been in air to air combat dishing it out their inability to survive minor damage may very well have resulted in as high or higher operational losses than the 109. British AA in 1940 being a lot more 'active' than the AA in the far east or Darwin. 
A few holes in the unprotected tanks and the Zero doesn't make it back across the channel. 

Of course this assumes the needed time machine to get 1942 Zeros over England in 1940

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Jul 24, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> On the disagree side the losses of Zeros over England in 1940 would have been horrendous. However successful they may have been in air to air combat dishing it out their inability to survive minor damage may very well have resulted in as high or higher operational losses than the 109. British AA in 1940 being a lot more 'active' than the AA in the far east or Darwin.
> A few holes in the unprotected tanks and the Zero doesn't make it back across the channel.
> 
> Of course this assumes the needed time machine to get 1942 Zeros over England in 1940


I agree that it wouldn't have changed the ultimate outcome of the battle imho but who knows for sure. I do think it would have made things alot tougher for the Brits though. I don't see how it couldn't.
It would have given the Germans the ability to escort bombers to anywhere in Britain an have time to fight once there.
I think the pilot making the observation was engaged in a bit of hyperbole to make a point about how valuable range is but it wasn't clear from thee context of the quote if this was the case.
Also didn't the A6m enter service in June 1940? If so just in time for this hypothetical although it is a hypothetical so I guess exact dates wouldn't really matter.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 24, 2019)

Mad Dog said:


> Why, do you think the pilot said "Hey, we're running out of gas", only for the plane itself to force him to fly on? No, running out of fuel is a *pilot error*. If you are referring to 2nd May 1943, the Spits shot down between six and ten Japanese aircraft for the loss of five Spits in the actual air combat, _then_ five Spits then made forced landings due to running out of fuel. They had used too much from the long climb followed by dogfighting with the Zeros. On the plus side, the majority of the Spits that did run out of fuel were repaired and returned to service. I can find only two Spitfires at Darwin that ran out of fuel and were too badly damaged to be repaired. So, despite pilot error, the long-term effect on the defences was small. After the 2nd May 1943, the Spits carried drop-tanks and avoided dogfighting, which chewed up fuel, and were so effective that the Japanese made their last major raid on 6th July 1943, and abandoned attacks on Darwin by November 1943.
> Your post said neither side could fly far over the Channel without running out of fuel. My reply was not intended to imply either the Spit nor the ME109 could have flown 500 miles, had a combat and then returned, it was to fill in the gaps in your knowledge regarding both Luftwaffe and RAF range capabilities by 1942.
> And there were how many P-38s, P-47s or P-51s at Darwin? The Allied defence at Darwin was tropicalized Spitfire Vs and P-40Es. The Me410 could outrun both with 385mph top speed, could fly higher than the P-40 could, and was excellent for boom'n'zoom tactics. It had the firepower to knock either down in a single pass, and the dive capability to then speed out of range to make a safe recovery, necessary given its relatively slow climb rate (though still better than the P-40E). The problem for the Me410 as an escort was there simply was no Luftwaffe role as long-range escort by 1942. I was also faster than the Zero, by quite a margin, and had the advantage of a rear-gunner to warn the pilot of attacks from the rear. It could even have carried bombs to Darwin, dropped them and engaged or evaded the Spitfires at will. Did the Zeros carry bombs to Darwin?
> Beaufighters shot down ME109s and ME110s on day sweeps over the Med and Desert in 1942, both of which out-perform the Zero. The Beau II with Merlins would also have had the altitude performance to come in above the climbing Spit Vs (and well above the P-40Es), allowing them to position for diving attacks out of the Sun. Maybe you should think more about the scenario before passing such quick judgement? To be successful, an escort does not need to shoot down every enemy interceptor, it just has to disrupt them enough to keep them from attacking the bombers. Having said that, any Spit V or P-40E that got in the way of a diving Beau would have been shredded by the Beau's cannons.
> ...



Someone has not learned.

What did I say about snide insults?


----------



## Schweik (Jul 25, 2019)

Mad Dog said:


> I see Schweik is still living trying to pretend a P-40 of any version was better than a Spitfire VIII/IX.



I'd love to see where I ever said a P-40 was better than a Spit VIII or a Spit IX. In fact I have said the opposite more than once.


----------



## Schweik (Jul 25, 2019)

Mad Dog said:


> You're on your period? That does explain a lot.



Seriously?


----------



## Schweik (Jul 25, 2019)

PAT303 said:


> Well maybe you could start by acknowledging some facts. Those Zero's you talk about were factory new aircraft flown by experienced pilots as noted in Darwin Spitfires, the MkV's they fought against were worn out converted MkII's that had *corroded cooling systems and faulty propeller CSU *that caused the engines to fail flown by less experienced pilots, again as noted in Darwin Spitfires, running out of fuel was caused by Clive Caldwell wanting all the planes to form up as per Mallory's ''big wing'' which caused them to fly around in circles wasting time and fuel and when they finally set off it was a stern chase pursuit which wasted what little fuel they had, the same thing that happened in the BoB and again noted in Darwin Spitfires. Lastly the MkV's had Merlin 46 engines that had 500Hp less than the 45 had at 20,000ft, the most common height the Japanese attacked from, as per Shortround6's post on the subject, the result was the MkV's had inferior performance to a MkII, RAAF tests showed the MkV's, A6M and P40's all maxed out around 320-330mph, the MkV's are giving away 45mph and loss of overall performance to the Zero and P40 by having the wrong engine. I'm not a fan of the Zero, it is one plane I would not want to go to war in, especially if I was up against 1941-42 era European aircraft.



I don't agree with all of this, since I unlike many here am a fan of the Zero - I just think it was ideal for 'Biltzkrieg' type tactics rather than attrition war. But the part I bolded above, about the maintenance problems with the Spit V's - of which those are only two of 5 or 6 serious issues they were contending with- are the real issue and reason for the problems. Not Clive Caldwell in other words. Caldwell was a 20 victory (claim) ace and a very good pilot. He was used to fighting the Germans

The other issues they had with the Spit Vs were that the gun heaters weren't working, so the guns froze, and the 20mm ammunition was faulty to the point that it was not only jamming but routinely damaging guns. They had to cover a lot of ground in terms of preparation and they actually fixed most of these problems pretty quickly. Once they did, those humble perhaps clapped out Spit Vs, despite the Merlin 46, _were _a pretty good match for the Zero even though the Zero was an excellent and very dangerous fighter in my opinion.

The only significant design flaw of the Spit V relative to Pacific fighting was the short legs, which was at least partly addressed with the Spit VIII.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Jul 25, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Seriously?


Both P-40N and Beaufighter are better than Spitfire VIII if opponents are only A6M and Ki-43, because they have better range than Spit.


----------



## Schweik (Jul 25, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> Both P-40N and Beaufighter are better than Spitfire VIII if opponents are only A6M and Ki-43, because they have better range than Spit.



I'd say you'd have to balance the range limits with performance and speed etc. How was the Beaufighters record against Zeroes? Could a Beau outrun a zero at low altitude?


----------



## Kevin J (Jul 25, 2019)

Schweik said:


> I'd say you'd have to balance the range limits with performance and speed etc. How was the Beaufighters record against Zeroes? Could a Beau outrun a zero at low altitude?


The Beau could outrun all versions at sea level.

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


----------



## Schweik (Jul 25, 2019)

The Beau increasingly looks like one of the unsung heroes of WW2.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 25, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Could a Beau outrun a zero at low altitude


Only if they both started low. 

This outrun on the deck trick works in certain situations. 
If the pursuing aircraft has a height advantage of several thousand feet it may be able to get in a firing pass at the end of a long shallow dive. The Pursued aircraft also has limited options, it can't dive any further and it can't really turn or bank to any great extent or it slows down. It also can't climb or it slows down. 

the pursued aircraft has to hope that the engines keep running in top form. It doesn't have much else up it's sleeve.


----------



## Schweik (Jul 25, 2019)

Of course. Nevertheless, this was the basis of a successful strategy used with a lot of aircraft. How was the Beau's combat record against Zeroes and Ki 43s? In the Med they scored a lot of victories and sank a lot of ships - more of both than Allied leadership probably realized during the war- but also took fairly heavy losses.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 25, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Seriously?



Like a Kindergarten huh? 

And thank you for editing your post and not responding with the original one. We Mods will handle it.


----------



## Kevin J (Jul 25, 2019)

Schweik said:


> The Beau increasingly looks like one of the unsung heroes of WW2.


The RAF had 70 Beaufighter aces.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jul 26, 2019)

That is quite impressive, especially since I'm sure RAAF had a good number of Beaufighter aces as well as did the USAAF (or was it the Navy). But I'd like to know a bit more. What Theaters, how many night fighting vs. daytime claims, what kind of targets (i.e., how many Zeros and Bf 109s vs. how many H6Ks and Ar 196s) and _how many losses vs. how many claims_. Do you have any of that data?


----------



## pinsog (Jul 26, 2019)

70 Beaufigter aces is very impressive. Agree with Schweik that I would love to see more stats on Beaufighter if you have them Kevin. 

Can anyone recommend any books specifically on the Beaufighter?


----------



## Schweik (Jul 26, 2019)

Some RAAF and RNZAF / Pacific Theater only stuff can be seen here, you can see the Beau's racked up some impressive claims in Aussie service

Pacific Victory Roll - Home

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


----------



## Kevin J (Jul 26, 2019)

Schweik said:


> That is quite impressive, especially since I'm sure RAAF had a good number of Beaufighter aces as well as did the USAAF (or was it the Navy). But I'd like to know a bit more. What Theaters, how many night fighting vs. daytime claims, what kind of targets (i.e., how many Zeros and Bf 109s vs. how many H6Ks and Ar 196s) and _how many losses vs. how many claims_. Do you have any of that data?


There's a government website in Canberra that goes into details for the RAAF. What aircraft shot down what Japanese planes. It's on my not working laptop, the transformer wire is broke. Try a Google search.also includes RNZAF claims. For the RAF I've only found stuff on Wikipedia. You could try a search on BAE Systems Bristol Beaufighter. They might have some useful links.


----------



## Kevin J (Jul 26, 2019)

pinsog said:


> 70 Beaufigter aces is very impressive. Agree with Schweik that I would love to see more stats on Beaufighter if you have them Kevin.
> 
> Can anyone recommend any books specifically on the Beaufighter?



Mxdoc Beaufighter aces.


----------



## pinsog (Jul 26, 2019)

Thank you


----------



## PAT303 (Jul 26, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> Both P-40N and Beaufighter are better than Spitfire VIII if opponents are only A6M and Ki-43, because they have better range than Spit.



I still don't understand why the RAF hobbled their fighters by not adopting the widespread use of aux/drop tanks, the Beau was an unsung hero in the Pacific.


----------



## pinsog (Jul 26, 2019)

PAT303 said:


> I still don't understand why the RAF hobbled their fighters by not adopting the widespread use of aux/drop tanks, the Beau was an unsung hero in the Pacific.


Agree on Beaufighter being an unsung hero. The US left drop tanks off of the Wildcat and P47 and the Germans left drop tanks off the Me109. Those are all real head scratchers looking back

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


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 26, 2019)

PAT303 said:


> I still don't understand why the RAF* hobbled their fighters *by not adopting the widespread use of aux/drop tanks, the Beau was an unsung hero in the Pacific.



Which fighters and when?

The Hurricane and Spit were designed to fly out of pea patches using fixed pitch props powered by engines that were throttled well back from full throttle for take-off.

Not to mention they had to maintain a certain weight in order to avoid putting ruts in the grass fields. 

Not a recipe for large fuel loads regardless of the type of tanks used. 

The airfields did get bigger, the planes got propellers that allowed full power to be used for take-off and even the weight restrictions were relaxed. But it took time and original planes were not sized (or perhaps more properly _Stressed_) to take large fuel loads. trying to fight a Spitfire with an extra 100 imp gallons crammed into it would probably break the Spitfire. 
Photo recon Spits dropped hundreds of pounds worth of guns and ammo and also usually didn't try extreme maneuvers. doing a high speed 2-3 G turn is much less likely to bend/break the wing when overloaded than a 6-7 G turn. 

Drop tanks are not really good answer for a plane with small internal tanks as the plane's radius is determined by how far it can fly _after _dropping the external tank/s and fighting for X minutes. 

Beaufighter was bigger than some people's bombers, including the Mosquito.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinsog (Jul 26, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> Which fighters and when?
> 
> The Hurricane and Spit were designed to fly out of pea patches using fixed pitch props powered by engines that were throttled well back from full throttle for take-off.
> 
> ...


I agree 100% with the fixed pitch prop, low hp, short fields, large internal tank on early Spitfires and Hurricanes being a problem. But, by the time of the Battle of Britain when both fighters got constant speed props it was time to add drop tanks, not for escort missions, but for standing patrols, longer intercepts or longer pursuits after initial contact. I’m sure they would have been helpful at times during the BoB and certainly would have been helpful during the Darwin raids.


----------



## Schweik (Jul 27, 2019)

You wouldn't want to fight in a P-51 carrying a full fuel load either....

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Jul 27, 2019)

PAT303 said:


> I still don't understand why the RAF hobbled their fighters by not adopting the widespread use of aux/drop tanks, the Beau was an unsung hero in the Pacific.



The Beaufighter had a similar range with / without drop tank as the Zero. Their P-40 was their bomb truck and it had a better range than the Spitfire VIII. The Seafire III's of the BPF used RAAF P-40 drop tanks. I wasn't aware of the RAF in the Pacific not using drop tanks.


pinsog said:


> I agree 100% with the fixed pitch prop, low hp, short fields, large internal tank on early Spitfires and Hurricanes being a problem. But, by the time of the Battle of Britain when both fighters got constant speed props it was time to add drop tanks, not for escort missions, but for standing patrols, longer intercepts or longer pursuits after initial contact. I’m sure they would have been helpful at times during the BoB and certainly would have been helpful during the Darwin raids.



Standing patrols are a waste of your resources if your resources are limited. The Hurricane was the first to get 45 imperial gallon tanks, for ferrying aircraft to the Middle and Far East, fixed at first in 1940, then could be dropped from 1941 (?) when 90 gal tanks became available for ferrying. Some Spitfire II had fixed 26 gal wing tanks. From mid Summer 1941, Spitfire V had slipper tanks, 30 gal combat, 45 gal drop, 90 gal fixed.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## slaterat (Jul 27, 2019)

Hawker was working on auxiliary tanks for the Hurricane in May 1940. The first Hurricane Mk IIa series 2 aircraft entered squadron service in dec of 1940 and were capable of carrying 2x250lb bombs or 2x45 gallon tanks that could be either fixed or drop tanks. These effectively doubled the combat range of the Hurricane.



Shortround6 said:


> Drop tanks are not really good answer for a plane with small internal tanks as the plane's radius is determined by how far it can fly _after _dropping the external tank/s and fighting for X minutes.



That is a very good point, The Hurricane worked around this limitation by making the auxiliary tanks stressed for combat and having them equipped with transfer pumps that would pump fuel to the main tanks in the wing, allowing for two fuel top ups.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## PAT303 (Jul 27, 2019)

[QUOT
Not a recipe for large fuel loads regardless of the type of tanks use


slaterat said:


> Hawker was working on auxiliary tanks for the Hurricane in May 1940. The first Hurricane Mk IIa series 2 aircraft entered squadron service in dec of 1940 and were capable of carrying 2x250lb bombs or 2x45 gallon tanks that could be either fixed or drop tanks. These effectively doubled the combat range of the Hurricane.
> 
> That is a very good point, The Hurricane worked around this limitation by making the auxiliary tanks stressed for combat and having them equipped with transfer pumps that would pump fuel to the main tanks in the wing, allowing for two fuel top ups.




The MkXIV could match the 109/190 with the 90G tank fitted. Sydney Cotton designed a 20G under seat talk for the Spit MkII in 1940, the MkIII had a 96G tank in 1940, the MkV's got a 29G rear tank, the MkVIII had the 96G main, 26G wing tanks, the MkIX's got 26 and later 36G wing tanks and 66G rear tanks plus as many slippers and drop tanks you could ask for, there's plenty of options to extend the range of both the Spit and Hurri.


----------



## Milosh (Jul 27, 2019)

PAT303 said:


> The MkXIV could match the 109/190 with the 90G tank fitted.



What do you mean by match?

The 90gal tank was a ferry tank wasn't it?


----------



## Kevin J (Jul 27, 2019)

Milosh said:


> What do you mean by match?
> 
> The 90gal tank was a ferry tank wasn't it?



Originally it was. Later versions had assistor springs to ensure it detached successfully. The XIV with 90 gal tank still attached had superior performance to the Bf 109G and Fw 190a.


----------



## PAT303 (Jul 27, 2019)

Milosh said:


> What do you mean by match?
> 
> The 90gal tank was a ferry tank wasn't it?



Spitfire Mk XIV Tactical Trials


----------



## Kevin J (Jul 27, 2019)

PAT303 said:


> Spitfire Mk XIV Tactical Trials


Yes, in 1941. In 1942 on the Spitfire IX it was a drop tank. On the XIV the only drop tank, so no 30 or 45 gal tanks. So you could retain it in combat if only a third full and performance wise you're equal or superior to a Bf 109G or Fw 190a.


----------



## Mad Dog (Jul 27, 2019)

pinsog said:


> …..I don't believe the P38 was plumbed for drop tanks at that time.....


 P-38F was plumbed for tanks from the P-38F-1-LO block, and were used by 1st Fighter Group when flying their P-38s to the UK in August 1942. They were definitely in use by P38 groups in the Pacific in 1943.



pinsog said:


> …..My point about the Spitfire and Me109 was that they were so short ranged they had trouble coming to battle with the English channel in the way.....


 The Battle of Britain, one of the biggest and most intensive air campaigns of the War. A far higher number of sorties and combats between Spitfires and ME109s than in any campaign mounted by the IJN with Zeros. In total, the Japanese mounted only 97 attacks on Australia during the War, the majority without Zeros, a fraction of the number of raids the Luftwaffe flew in 1940. Care to reconsider your claim "they had trouble coming to battle with the English channel in the way"?



pinsog said:


> ….. It was 20-30 mph slower than the Spitfire V at Darwin and your plan is to climb above the Spitfire and Boom and Zoom him???....


 You obviously missed the fact the ME110 was also 20-30mph slower than the Sptfire in the BoB, but still shot down Spitfires using boom'n'zoom tactics. The problems for the ME110s began when Goring insisted they fly close escort rather than _freijagd_ sweeps. The Beau II could certainly have used the same tactics against Spitfires. The Me410 and Mosquito FBVI would also have a speed advantage over a Spitfire V.



pinsog said:


> ….. I said, "Nothing the British or Germans had during the war could have flow that mission" and you said "except the Me410, Beaufighter, Mosquito, P38, P51 or P47" Last I checked the P38, P51, and P47 were not British or German.....


 So the Me410, the Beau, the Mosquito weren't German or British? Try nit-picking less and just admit you were wrong. The Yanks planes were simply added to show other planes that could have done the mission far, far better than the Zero.



pinsog said:


> …..It has also been proven by the British themselves that the Mosquito was no match for a single engine fighter in one on one combat during the daylight. Yes if you catch someone napping or distracted you can knock him down with a pass from a plane like a Me410, Beaufighter or Mossie, but in a prolonged combat if you don't have a big speed advantage you are toast.


 I suggest you go read up on Squadron Leader Paul Elwell, who took on five FW190As in a Mosquito FBVI over Cherbourg in 1944, dogfighting them until he ran out of ammo. He shot down one confirmed and one probably destroyed before he broke off and escaped. IIRC, the Banf Wing also had no great problems taking on ME109Gs and FW190As over Norway even as late as 1945. Please try and pretend a tropicalised Spit V was somehow a tougher opponent than a late-model FW190A.

Reactions: Disagree Disagree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Mad Dog (Jul 27, 2019)

pinsog said:


> Love to know which of those points you consider incorrect


 Just about everything you posted.

Reactions: Dislike Dislike:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Mad Dog (Jul 27, 2019)

michael rauls said:


> Once read a quote from a RAF pilot who said" if the Germans had been flying A6ms in the Battle of Britain we'd all be speaking German right now". While one can agree or disagree with his vision of the outcome under such a scenario it makes the point about how critical range can be for many missions.


 The Germans could have flown Me262s, it would not have changed the fact the _Kriegsmarine_ didn't have enough ships to defend an invasion fleet against the Royal Navy, nor enough ships to actually carry the invasion force the _Wehrmacht_ required, so zero likelihood we'd have ended up speaking German.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## taly01 (Jul 27, 2019)

> Beaufighter was bigger than some people's bombers, including the Mosquito.



RAAF Beaufighters usually raided Japanese airfields etc then used their (slight) low level speed advantage to escape, certainly have never heard of Beaufighters dogfighting Zeros (like some ace Mosquito pilots did vs Fw190/Me109 in Europe). 

The Japanese had the Ki-45 twin fighter and it sometimes faced the Beaufighter over the southern pacific seas on long patrols. Unfortunately the Ki-45 was slower than allied single engine fighters and had no escape like the Beaufighter did. A Ki-45 vs Beaufighter would be an interesting speed race!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinsog (Jul 28, 2019)

Mad Dog said:


> P-38F was plumbed for tanks from the P-38F-1-LO block, and were used by 1st Fighter Group when flying their P-38s to the UK in August 1942. They were definitely in use by P38 groups in the Pacific in 1943.
> 
> The Battle of Britain, one of the biggest and most intensive air campaigns of the War. A far higher number of sorties and combats between Spitfires and ME109s than in any campaign mounted by the IJN with Zeros. In total, the Japanese mounted only 97 attacks on Australia during the War, the majority without Zeros, a fraction of the number of raids the Luftwaffe flew in 1940. Care to reconsider your claim "they had trouble coming to battle with the English channel in the way"?
> 
> ...


An Me110 was not 20-30 mph slower than a Spitfire. It was faster than a Hurricane and just barely slower than a Spitfire with nowhere near the climb rate or maneuverability of either. Essentially when an Me110 got a single engine British fighter on its tail there was no way to shake it off. 

An Me109 had about 10 minutes of fuel over London and German pilots constantly talked about watching the fuel gauge, worried about going down in the channel. 

In isolated incidences a twin engine fighter (other than the P38) I’m sure took on a won battles with single engine fighters, but there is no way a Beaufighter, Me410 or Mosquito is going to work as a long range fighter. These are the conclusions of the tactical trials of the Mosquito as a long range fighter.

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


----------



## pinsog (Jul 28, 2019)

British tests of a Mosquito as a longe range fighter. Mosquito was considerably faster than a Beaufighter. I really like the Beaufighter but it just could not double as a high altitude escort fighter any more than an A20 havoc could.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mosquito/Mosquito-VI-tactical.pdf

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Mad Dog (Jul 28, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> Both P-40N and Beaufighter are better than Spitfire VIII if opponents are only A6M and Ki-43, because they have better range than Spit.


 For offensive operations, yes. But for defensive interceptions, rate of climb and ceiling are more important, especially considering the Japanese tried bombing from high altitude. That's why the P-40Es and P-39D/P-400s were no use as interceptors at Guadalcanal, because the Japanese came in above their operational ceiling, leaving only the Wildcats as capable of getting high enough fast enough to catch them. The Spitfire V was the fastest climbing interceptor available at Darwin. By the time Spit VIIIs arrived the Allied position had changed from defensive to offensive, and the Spit VIII didn't have the range required for long-range interdiction nor escorts.
The May 2nd 1943 Darwin Raid actually illustrates how badly the Aussies were commanded at Darwin, with some of the blame lying with Clive Caldwell. 
Firstly, the Spitfires only intercepted the Japanese after they had dropped their bombs and were withdrawing. This shows bad use of radar by ground control. Over Malta in 1942, the RAF used Park's Forward Interception Plan to defeat Luftwaffe raids using Ju88s and Bf109Gs, faster and tougher than the equivalent Japanese bombers and fighters used over Darwin. If the Malta Spit Vs could defeat the Luftwaffe with proper ground controlled interceptions (GCI) in August 1942, with a lot less warning time, then the RAAF should have over Darwin eight months later. By intercepting after the raid the Spits were committed to a stern chase and used up too much fuel before they even engaged. 
Secondly, we have the Caldwell issue. As an experienced fighter leader he should have predicted the fuel problems and disengaged his squadrons earlier. But Caldwell let his inexperienced pilots carry on dogfighting with the Zeros, which was in itself a poor decision as the Zeros were not a threat to Darwin, the Japanese bombers were. And this was after the US P-40 jocks at Darwin, who had already tangled with the Zeros, had warned Caldwell that dogfighting Zeros was a bad idea. Despite having scored his victories in the Desert in the Tomahawk and Kittyhawk, Caldwell was another sufferer from "Spitfire snobbery", and simply assumed the P-40 was the issue. Caldwell and the RAAF did learn from the May 2nd raid, and after that they tended to ignore the Zeros, kept their speed high and just went for the Jap bombers.


----------



## pinsog (Jul 28, 2019)

I never said the US didn’t have long range fighters. I said “nothing the British or Germans had”. The 3 longest range fighters of WW2 are the P38, P47N and P51, so why when I specifically said British and German planes would you bring up 3 US planes? That’s like me saying the Germans didn’t have a good long range bomber and you arguing that they had He177, B17, B24 and B29.

Reactions: Disagree Disagree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Mad Dog (Jul 28, 2019)

pinsog said:


> .....The US left drop tanks off of the .... P47 and the Germans left drop tanks off the Me109. Those are all real head scratchers looking back


 Read this. Then read this. 
The 109 didn't have drop-tanks for the Battle of Britain because the Luftwaffe assumed the ME110 would do all the long-range work. The ME109E-4 had the fittings for a centre-line crutch but not the fuel lines for a drop-tank. Those came with the E-7, which was available towards the end of August 1940, and were later retro-fitted to early E-4s from October 1940.
The P-47 in the ETO didn't originally have drop-tanks because the Air Corp in the ETO was run by the "Bomber Kings", who still thought the bombers would be able to fight their way in and out without escorts. Whilst the Schweinfurt-Regensburg raid of October 1943 didn't have escorts right to the target, because the ETO P-47s and P-38s didn't have the long-range drop-tanks available for anything other than ferrying, the P-38s had been flying longer escorts in the PTO since March 1943 because they did use drop-tanks operationally. P-47s in the PTO began using drop-tanks operationally in June 1943.


----------



## pinsog (Jul 28, 2019)

What is there to disagree with here?! Do you think it was a good idea to leave drop tanks off of the early models of the Wildcat, P47 and Me109?

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinsog (Jul 28, 2019)

Mad Dog said:


> Read this. Then read this.
> The 109 didn't have drop-tanks for the Battle of Britain because the Luftwaffe assumed the ME110 would do all the long-range work. The ME109E-4 had the fittings for a centre-line crutch but not the fuel lines for a drop-tank. Those came with the E-7, which was available towards the end of August 1940, and were later retro-fitted to early E-4s from October 1940.
> The P-47 in the ETO didn't originally have drop-tanks because the Air Corp in the ETO was run by the "Bomber Kings", who still thought the bombers would be able to fight their way in and out without escorts. Whilst the Schweinfurt-Regensburg raid of October 1943 didn't have escorts right to the target, because the ETO P-47s and P-38s didn't have the long-range drop-tanks available for anything other than ferrying, the P-38s had been flying longer escorts in the PTO since March 1943 because they did use drop-tanks operationally. P-47s in the PTO began using drop-tanks operationally in June 1943.


I don’t care WHY they left off the drop tanks, what I said was it was a bad idea. The Wildcat, P47 and Me109 SHOULD have had drop tanks from the beginning. 

Do you actually read what is typed or just hit disagree and start typing?

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Disagree Disagree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## RCAFson (Jul 28, 2019)

Mad Dog said:


> Secondly, we have the Caldwell issue. As an experienced fighter leader he should have predicted the fuel problems and disengaged his squadrons earlier. But Caldwell let his inexperienced pilots carry on dogfighting with the Zeros, which was in itself a poor decision as the Zeros were not a threat to Darwin, the Japanese bombers were. And this was after the US P-40 jocks at Darwin, who had already tangled with the Zeros, had warned Caldwell that dogfighting Zeros was a bad idea. Despite having scored his victories in the Desert in the Tomahawk and Kittyhawk, Caldwell was another sufferer from "Spitfire snobbery", and simply assumed the P-40 was the issue. Caldwell and the RAAF did learn from the May 2nd raid, and after that they tended to ignore the Zeros, kept their speed high and just went for the Jap bombers.



Additionally, Caldwell knew that his Spitfires had drop tanks available and he purposely didn't use them. The RAAF was rather upset about that decision.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 28, 2019)

M
 Mad Dog
, if I see one more childish insult, you will no longer be posting here.

Don’t ignore me again.


----------



## pinsog (Jul 28, 2019)

RCAFson said:


> Additionally, Caldwell knew that his Spitfires had drop tanks available and he purposely didn't use them. The RAAF was rather upset about that decision.


You mean the Spitfires he was using were plumbed for drop tanks and he either had British drop tanks or could have used P39 or P40 drop tanks and he chose not to do use them??? If that’s the case, he should have been sacked....


----------



## PAT303 (Jul 28, 2019)

Caldwell and the RAAF did learn from the May 2nd raid, and after that they tended to ignore the Zeros, kept their speed high and just went for the Jap bombers 

19 of the 28 Spitfires lost over Darwin were shot down while they themselves were attacking a bomber, which puts some light on the MkV's losses.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Mad Dog (Jul 28, 2019)

pinsog said:


> An Me110 was not 20-30 mph slower than a Spitfire. It was faster than a Hurricane and just barely slower than a Spitfire with nowhere near the climb rate or maneuverability of either.....


 The average Bf110C-1/2/3 available to the Luftwaffe in 1940 had a top speed of 336mph at 20,000ft, which is about 30mph slower than a BoB Spit I, and not much faster than a Hurricane I with 100 Octane fuel. The Bf110C-4 with the DB601N engines (100 Octane) could hit 349mph, but were available in very small numbers in late 1940. RAF Hurricane and Spitfire pilots meeting the ME110 in August 1940 reported it could outclimb them above 15000ft, especially when it zoom-climbed after an attack. Bob Tuck was one that gave up chasing an ME110 in a climb during the attacks on London, a period by which the ME110 was supposedly "useless". Please do tell me your sources are better than Bob Tuck.



pinsog said:


> …...Essentially when an Me110 got a single engine British fighter on its tail there was no way to shake it off.....


 In the early period of the Battle of Britain, when the ME110s could range freely without being tied to the bombers, they actually had a higher kill-to-loss ratio than the 109.



pinsog said:


> …...An Me109 had about 10 minutes of fuel over London and German pilots constantly talked about watching the fuel gauge, worried about going down in the channel......


 And? You might want to check a map, London is not on the Channel coast, it is 80-odd miles inland. You were going on and on about the Channel, that's not London.



pinsog said:


> …...In isolated incidences a twin engine fighter (other than the P38) I’m sure took on a won battles with single engine fighters, but there is no way a Beaufighter, Me410 or Mosquito is going to work as a long range fighter.......


 The tests for the Mosquito were done against ETO aircraft, not the relatively slow Zero. For a start, a 450mph dive in a Zero would rip the wings off! As I tried to explain earlier, the job of an escort is to dissuade or stop the enemy's interceptors from getting to your bombers. A Mosquito diving on you at 450mph, with four 20mm Hispano and four .303s, is a lot of dissuasion! Especially when you consider a Spitfire V climbed best at a speed of180mph, and a lot less as it got to altitude. As I pointed out earlier, a force of Mosquitos could not only have flown all the way to Darwin with their own bombs, they would have had the speed to evade the Spitfire Vs, negating the need for an escort. Same goes for the Me410 with its 380mph top speed, especially as the RAAF ground controllers seem to have been incompetent. The Beau IIF could clock 301mph at 20,000ft with radar, probably a bit more without, so still fast enough for the IJN "Betty" bombers they would need to escort, though they would be more likely to be intercepted than the Me410 or the Mosquito. 
The only reason the Zero was viable as an escort over Darwin in 1943 was because the tropicalised Spit Vs were just not that fast, and because Caldwell was not using the best tactics. As soon as Caldwell sorted the tactics and they started using drop-tanks, even the Spit V was good enough to be successful against the Japanese bombers.


----------



## Mad Dog (Jul 28, 2019)

pinsog said:


> …..I never said the US didn’t have long range fighters. I said “nothing the British or Germans had”......


 Do I really need to point out which country the de Havilland Mosquito and Bristol Beaufighter originated in, or is it the Messerschmitt Me410 that has you confused?

Reactions: Dislike Dislike:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Mad Dog (Jul 28, 2019)

pinsog said:


> What is there to disagree with here?! Do you think it was a good idea to leave drop tanks off of the early models of the Wildcat, P47 and Me109?


 As I pointed out, they didn't. Even the Wildcat got a pair of 58-gal drop-tanks, though I'm not sure when they started being used operationally. 
The P-47C was the first operational Thunderbolt model in 1943, and it had drop-tanks the same year. The decision not to use them in the ETO straight away was down to the brass.
Under the _Luftwaffe_'s policy of primarily supporting the _Wehrmacht_, the ME109 wasn't supposed to do the long-range role, that was supposed to be the job of the ME110, but even the ME109 had drop tanks in use by late 1940. Goering's problem was that Germany couldn't build enough ME110s so he had to try and use ME109s as escorts.
So your statement is incorrect.


----------



## RCAFson (Jul 28, 2019)

pinsog said:


> You mean the Spitfires he was using were plumbed for drop tanks and he either had British drop tanks or could have used P39 or P40 drop tanks and he chose not to do use them??? If that’s the case, he should have been sacked....



The RAAF Spitfires had been supplied with 30IG slipper tanks, they were available at the airstrips and Caldwell opted not to use them because he (and other pilots) thought they caused too much loss in performance. See Darwin Spitfires, p159.

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


----------



## RCAFson (Jul 28, 2019)

Mad Dog said:


> The only reason the Zero was viable as an escort over Darwin in 1943 was because the tropicalised Spit Vs were just not that fast, and because Caldwell was not using the best tactics. As soon as Caldwell sorted the tactics and they started using drop-tanks, even the Spit V was good enough to be successful against the Japanese bombers.



To be fair there was no other fighter in the Allied inventory (except maybe the P-38 but they had their own problems) that had the climb rate and altitude performance to have intercepted the IJ bombers over Darwin after they switched to high altitude attacks. The Spitfire V/Merlin 46 actually had fair high altitude performance and were somewhat faster than the Zero at high altitude.

The Spitfire VII/VIII/IX could have been used but these were scarce in late 1942 when the decisions had to be made.

The Hurricane IIA was the other UK/Cdn fighter available in numbers but it's high altitude performance was somewhat less than the Spitfire V/M46 at ~310mph @30K ft.

The P47 hadn't sorted out it's high altitude ignition problems in time for them to have been used. The P40F was marginal at best, because of it's climb rate and ceiling.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinsog (Jul 28, 2019)

Mad Dog said:


> As I pointed out, they didn't. Even the Wildcat got a pair of 58-gal drop-tanks, though I'm not sure when they started being used operationally.
> The P-47C was the first operational Thunderbolt model in 1943, and it had drop-tanks the same year. The decision not to use them in the ETO straight away was down to the brass.
> Under the _Luftwaffe_'s policy of primarily supporting the _Wehrmacht_, the ME109 wasn't supposed to do the long-range role, that was supposed to be the job of the ME110, but even the ME109 had drop tanks in use by late 1940. Goering's problem was that Germany couldn't build enough ME110s so he had to try and use ME109s as escorts.
> So your statement is incorrect.


So, you disagreed with my statement “it was a bad idea to not put drop tanks on early models of Wildcat, P47 and Me109” by saying they eventually got them?
Oh my. Please read this very slowly and carefully.
The EARLY models of the Wildcat, P47 and ME109 did not get drop tanks. The Wildcat did not get them until very late in the Guadalcanal campaign which means that it was in service with the British and US Navy for over a year before it was plumbed for drop tanks.
The first P47’s deployed to Britain did not have drop tanks and had a horrible combat range, something like 200 miles.
The Me109 did not get drop tanks until, I believe, the end of the BoB. It doesn’t matter that they didn’t plan to use it as a “long range” fighter, it was still a bad idea to not give it drop tanks.

It was a massive mistake not to equip the very first Wildcat and P47 with drop tanks.

It was a massive mistake not to equip the Me109 with drop tanks before the BoB started. How many bombers were shot down because their 109 escort was headed home on fumes instead of protecting them? How many 109 pilots ended up in the channel because he was out of fuel?

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


----------



## pinsog (Jul 28, 2019)

RCAFson said:


> The RAAF Spitfires had been supplied with 30IG slipper tanks, they were available at the airstrips and Caldwell opted not to use them because he (and other pilots) thought they caused too much loss in performance. See Darwin Spitfires, p159.


Oh ok. I get not using a slipper tank. Caldwell was probably right on that. The performance margin of the Spitfires over the Zero at Darwin was slim above 20,000 and nonexistent below 20,000 so I don’t blame him on that. They needed true drop tanks.

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


----------



## RCAFson (Jul 28, 2019)

pinsog said:


> Oh ok. I get not using a slipper tank. Caldwell was probably right on that. The performance margin of the Spitfires over the Zero at Darwin was slim above 20,000 and nonexistent below 20,000 so I don’t blame him on that. They needed true drop tanks.



There was little difference between the 30IG slipper tank, which was a true drop tank which could be and was jettisoned when empty, and other designs, especially as the slipper tank was so light. IIRC, no Darwin Spitfires ran out of fuel when using the 30IG slipper tank. Max performance of the RAAF SpitV/M46 with/without the 30IG DT was 352/332 mph at 30k ft which was considerably better than the A6M2 and by the time it reached 30K ft the slipper tank would be empty and could be dropped if combat was imminent.

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


----------



## pinsog (Jul 28, 2019)

Mad Dog said:


> Do I really need to point out which country the de Havilland Mosquito and Bristol Beaufighter originated in, or is it the Messerschmitt Me410 that has you confused?


Please please start a “Bristol Beaufighter as high altitude long range escort” thread. Some others in here might enjoy that. 

If the Beaufighter could boom and zoom a Spitfire Trop V at high altitude, why didn’t they use them to intercept the Japanese raids over Darwin? With your logic the Beaufighters could have escorted the Spitfires and protected them from those 2nd rate Zero’s with boom and zoom tactics and let the Spitfires engage the bombers.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinsog (Jul 28, 2019)

RCAFson said:


> To be fair there was no other fighter in the Allied inventory (except maybe the P-38 but they had their own problems) that had the climb rate and altitude performance to have intercepted the IJ bombers over Darwin after they switched to high altitude attacks. The Spitfire V/Merlin 46 actually had fair high altitude performance and were somewhat faster than the Zero at high altitude.


Agree 100% with this. US had 2 fighters that had the performance to do the interceptions, the P38 and the P43. The P43 had the speed and altitude performance to do the job, 4 50’s would have been fair since 2 were synchronized lowering the rate of fire. Armor was supposedly added to them, but the whole wet wings that leak fuel even on the ground would have been a MAJOR problem. Too bad. If the P43 would have had self sealing tanks it could have been useful against Japan early on. The P38, even the early models, I think would have been a great choice. Great climb, 75 mph faster at high altitude than a Zero, 4 50’s and a 20mm concentrated in the nose. I think 40 P38’s would have ended the Darwin raids in a hurry.


----------



## RCAFson (Jul 28, 2019)

Mad Dog said:


> The Beau IIF could clock 301mph at 20,000ft with radar, probably a bit more without, so still fast enough for the IJN "Betty" bombers they would need to escort, though they would be more likely to be intercepted than the Me410 or the Mosquito.
> The only reason the Zero was viable as an escort over Darwin in 1943 was because the tropicalised Spit Vs were just not that fast, and because Caldwell was not using the best tactics. As soon as Caldwell sorted the tactics and they started using drop-tanks, even the Spit V was good enough to be successful against the Japanese bombers.



The IJ bombers were coming in well above 20k ft, and typically were at or above the Beaufighters service ceiling.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## RCAFson (Jul 28, 2019)

pinsog said:


> Agree 100% with this. US had 2 fighters that had the performance to do the interceptions, the P38 and the P43. The P43 had the speed and altitude performance to do the job, 4 50’s would have been fair since 2 were synchronized lowering the rate of fire. Armor was supposedly added to them, but the whole wet wings that leak fuel even on the ground would have been a MAJOR problem. Too bad. If the P43 would have had self sealing tanks it could have been useful against Japan early on. The P38, even the early models, I think would have been a great choice. Great climb, 75 mph faster at high altitude than a Zero, 4 50’s and a 20mm concentrated in the nose. I think 40 P38’s would have ended the Darwin raids in a hurry.



The early P-38 was not a good high altitude fighter:

P38 at high altitude

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinsog (Jul 28, 2019)

RCAFson said:


> The IJ bombers were coming in well above 20k ft, and typically were at or above the Beaufighters service ceiling.


Your right. Some of the raids had Betty’s coming in at 27,000-28,000 feet with the Zero’s above them at 31,000 feet. I believe the early raids were much lower and they went higher to escape the P39’s and P40’s


----------



## pinsog (Jul 28, 2019)

RCAFson said:


> The early P-38 was not a good high altitude fighter:
> 
> P38 at high altitude


I would agree that they had problems at high altitude over Europe. Long flights at low engine temps, freezing pilots etc. But Australia isn’t cold like Europe and these would have been fast climbing interceptions up to the bombers altitude instead of flying 3-4 hours at minimal engine power. I’ve never read anything from the Pacific theater about the P38 except “we need more”. Only negative thing I recall is just trying to keep them in flying condition which was hard to do with anything and I’m sure the complicated P38 was even worse.


----------



## PAT303 (Jul 28, 2019)

RCAFson said:


> There was little difference between the 30IG slipper tank, which was a true drop tank which could be and was jettisoned when empty, and other designs, especially as the slipper tank was so light. IIRC, no Darwin Spitfires ran out of fuel when using the 30IG slipper tank. Max performance of the RAAF SpitV/M46 with/without the 30IG DT was 352/332 mph at 30k ft which was considerably better than the A6M2 and by the time it reached 30K ft the slipper tank would be empty and could be dropped if combat was imminent.



As posted here Spitfires over Darwin error. the Merlin 46 MkV's we got were giving away 500hp over the standard 45 engined models. This discussion is going around in circles, the Spits we had were in poor mechanical condition, used ammunition from a brand new factory set up in western Sydney that was not within spec, we had poor leadership, no spares and of the almost 100 pilots of 1 wing, only 6 had previous combat experience.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 28, 2019)

PAT303 said:


> As posted here Spitfires over Darwin error. the Merlin 46 MkV's we got were giving away 500hp over the standard 45 engined models. This discussion is going around in circles, the Spits we had were in poor mechanical condition, used ammunition from a brand new factory set up in western Sydney that was not within spec, we had poor leadership, no spares and of the almost 100 pilots of 1 wing, only 6 had previous combat experience.




Please read the post again. The 500hp difference was at 11,000ft which from what most of the people posting are saying is not where the problem was. At altitudes over 20,000ft the Merlin 46 had around a 100hp advantage which means something else was problem (assuming factory spec engines) in combating the Japanese.

As for climbing to intercept altitude the 500 hp difference goes away or is reduced to under 100hp and more like 40-50hp. I doubt that the RAAF would have climbed from sea level to over 20,000ft using emergency boost. the 30 minute rating for both engines was 2850rpm and 9lbs boost.

If the RAAF was not using over 9lbs boost on the Merlin 46 would they have used over 9lbs boost on the Merlin 45? 

The Merlin 45 simply cannot deliver more than 9lbs boost at altitudes over 17,400ft to 18,000ft with tropical filter regardless of what boost level is used at lower altitudes. and if fact down were under 5lbs at 23,000ft in max level speed and under 4lbs at best climb speed. 

MK Vs using Merlin 45s and tropical filters over Darwin without any changes in tactics or other equipment (drop tanks?) would not have fared any better and quite possibly worse than the planes with the Merlin 46.

Use of 30 gallon slipper tanks would have meant taking off on internal fuel (I don't know if fuel could have transferred from the slipper/drop tank to the main tanks/s) and changing to the slipper tank at 500-1000ft and making the climb to 20,000ft and above on the slipper tank. This would have slowed the climb slightly. But the climb to just 20,000ft could use up 12-15 gallons of gas and the forming up of the big formation Cadwell favoured(?) could use up more 
In any case a Spitfire V (non tropical) running at a cruise speed of 263mph at 20,000ft could burn as little as 36 gallons an hour so having an extra 20-30 gallons in the main tanks when the fight started at over 20,000ft meant that a lot fewer pilots and planes would have run out of fuel.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jul 28, 2019)

RCAFson said:


> To be fair there was no other fighter in the Allied inventory (except maybe the P-38 but they had their own problems) that had the climb rate and altitude performance to have intercepted the IJ bombers over Darwin after they switched to high altitude attacks. The Spitfire V/Merlin 46 actually had fair high altitude performance and were somewhat faster than the Zero at high altitude.
> 
> The Spitfire VII/VIII/IX could have been used but these were scarce in late 1942 when the decisions had to be made.



I don't think they had sent any VIII or IX to the Pacific in time for Darwin, though I could be wrong. They didn't get any Spit IX in the Med until a couple of months into 1943. VIII came later.



> The Hurricane IIA was the other UK/Cdn fighter available in numbers but it's high altitude performance was somewhat less than the Spitfire V/M46 at ~310mph @30K ft.



Hurricanes had a fairly dismal record against A6M and Ki-43 type fighters, and also seemed to have trouble climbing in high temperature / Tropical environments. They even had trouble intercepting higher flying bombers at Malta which was arguably less hostile conditions than New Guinea, probably similar to Darwin. The problem may have been due to the infamous vokes filter. They could have field stripped them perhaps and / or come up with a different filter. They did develop a new one in the Med.



> The P47 hadn't sorted out it's high altitude ignition problems in time for them to have been used. The P40F was marginal at best, because of it's climb rate and ceiling.



P-47 wasn't available later in '43. 

Considering that the P-40E, with a 12,000' critical altitude, was used to some good effect in the defense of Darwin, it stands to reason that the P-40F with a 20,000' critical altitude might have been considerably more effective. Rate of climb was also dependent on load, it could range from as low as 1,700 fpm to as high as 3,300 fpm, depending on how heavy the aircraft was. Though of course that too is a tradeoff. Less fuel means quicker climb, more fuel means much longer endurance. Maybe you could combine the two- have one squadron kitted out for rapid interception and a second squadron kitted out for the sustained fight.

It's probably a cinch though that either way they could have taken out a pair of the wing machine guns and associated ammunition for work over Darwin, and as seen in the Med and shown in some side by side tests by the Aussies, in actual field conditions with four guns it would probably have a climb to 20,000 ft better than the Hurricane and definitely quite a bit better than the P-40E or P-39.

In the event though they only ever sent one or maybe two squadrons of P-40F to the Pacific and these went to the 49th FG, but I don't think this was until they had been redeployed in the Solomons.

Reactions: Disagree Disagree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jul 28, 2019)

One other comment in defense of Caldwell. The "big formation" he favored was part of a series of hard learned lessons that the DAF had paid a bitter price to adopt as Tactics. To successfully face the Luftwaffe (and to be real - the more elite units of the Regia Aeronautica) the DAF pilots had learned to fly in large formations and to turn into attacks from above with guns blazing, and only when and if the Bf 109s or MC 202s chose to enter a sustained engagement would they break into flights of four and pairs. 

In North Africa, flying in small formations was a death sentence, because both the German and Italian fighters usually had an altitude advantage (even against Spit Vs) and seemed to routinely attack from above, and they were also typically at least a little bit faster. If they caught small groups of Allied fighters they could pick them apart, but against larger groups acting in concert they often had to break off their attacks. In the desert there was safety in numbers.

It's worth pointing out that all of these Tactics were worked out at the squadron level and filtered their way up to become doctrine - often against fairly strong resistance. So that explains some of Caldwells stubbornness.

Given that the IJ fighters were still quite often attacking from an altitude advantage in Australia it was a reasonable assumption for him to make that they would still need to use such Tactics.

What he didn't realize until after facing combat with Japanese fighters, because it had not adequately been explained in Allied briefings by then, was that the main advantage for the Allied fighters including both the P-40 and the Spit V, was speed, especially in the dive. This affected tactics developed by the 49th FG in their defense of Darwin from *March to September of 1942*. 49th FG also had an experienced leader, in Lt. Col Paul Wirtsmith, and an experienced XO Major Donald Hutchinson - most of their pilots had very little experience, with 89 out of 102 pilots had no fighter training whatsoever. Training on type was similarly limited for the RAAF P-40 units as well.

49th FG developed tactics which were almost the opposite of Caldwells. Not all the IJ raids were at high altitude, but those that were posed a unique challenge. Unable to climb above the higher altitude IJ raids at 27-31,000', they had to attack from below, struggling with the P-40E's very anemic performance at that altitude, and would do so in pairs of 2 or flights of 4 aircraft, and immediately disengage by diving when attacked, then zoom climb to return to the fight. The advantage of the smaller groups of fighters was that they were able to keep up a steady stream of attacks against the bombers and thus undermined the effectiveness of the escorts - if they kept chasing P-40s another section would hone in on the bombers and starting scoring hits. This worked fairly well- they claimed 78 aircraft shot down for 19 losses, post war analysis shows the IJ forces actually lost 19 aircraft as well - 7 fighters, 12 bombers, and 1 recon plane, plus quite a few heavily damaged. The losses, particularly of bombers were too much for the Japanese and their raids tapered off for a while.

There is a good analysis of this period of fighting here

When Caldwell took over in 1943 he apparently discounted the American tactics as someone noted above, but after the first combat they seem to have shifted over to something more like them, with hit and run attacks and smaller sections.

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


----------



## Schweik (Jul 28, 2019)

Regarding fuel tanks and the P-47, when they first arrived to the 49th FG in New Guinea in July 1943 they had no external tanks, their range was so short they couldn't be used as escorts at all. Medium or light bomber strikes in the region were considered to require escorts for daytime strike missions, otherwise they got decimated. They started manufacturing 200 imperial gallon drop tanks in Australia which enabled the P-47s to start being used operationally by August of 43. However the P-47s apparently struggled to take off from the primitive airfields and just flying in general with these heavy tanks and there were a lot of crashes. As a result they were still using some P-40s and (to a lesser extent) P-39s (from the 35th FG) well into 1944.

They were able to fit the same 200 gallon Australian made drop tanks on the P-40s (with one per aircraft instead of two on P-47) for escorting raids to Lae, Rabaul etc., and against shipping such as during the Battle of the Bismarck Sea in March 1943. This increased P-40 combat range to 650 miles by mid 1943 allowing them to be used as escorts.

During this period No. 30 Sqn. RAAF was on site with Beaufighters (from Sept 42). They also had two heavy bombardment groups with B-17s and B-24s respectively, and two medium groups with B-25s and B-26 Marauders, but all of the bombers struggled with maintenance issues and the B-26s had to be withdrawn due to combat losses (later converted to B-24s). They also had some A-24s (SBD Dauntless Army version) which could be useful if they were adequately protected by fighters, but were very vulnerable if not.

P-38s were the preferred ride for the 49th, but were in limited numbers during much of 1943 because so many were being sent to the Med, and of course also had a lot of teething problems. They increasingly became more available & viable through 1943 and eventually took over as the main fighter for the 49th, with increasing cruise efficiency and so on after Lindbergh's visit in July 1944 gradually extending their range as well. By Sept 1944 the 49th FG was all P-38s.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jul 28, 2019)

One other thought that occurs to me is that the logistics chain of the drop tanks must have been fairly sigificant, if they are basically disposable (I guess if they go into combat they would be dropped, otherwise carried back) that means with the high rate of combat in 1942 and 43, probably something like 1.5 drop tanks per mission for a P-47 or P-38, or around .7 drop tanks per mission for a P-40 or P-39. That is quite a lot given how much trouble they had in New Guinea with even the most basic supplies. I wonder how often a shortage of drop tanks might have postponed missions or limited the number of aircraft.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Jul 28, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Regarding fuel tanks and the P-47, when they first arrived to the 49th FG in New Guinea in July 1943 they had no external tanks, their range was so short they couldn't be used as escorts at all. Medium or light bomber strikes in the region were considered to require escorts for daytime strike missions, otherwise they got decimated. They started manufacturing 200 imperial gallon drop tanks in Australia which enabled the P-47s to start being used operationally by August of 43. However the P-47s apparently struggled to take off from the primitive airfields and just flying in general with these heavy tanks and there were a lot of crashes. As a result they were still using some P-40s and (to a lesser extent) P-39s (from the 35th FG) well into 1944.
> 
> They were able to fit the same 200 gallon Australian made drop tanks on the P-40s (with one per aircraft instead of two on P-47) for escorting raids to Lae, Rabaul etc., and against shipping such as during the Battle of the Bismarck Sea in March 1943. This increased P-40 combat range to 650 miles by mid 1943 allowing them to be used as escorts.
> 
> ...


The thought process of designing the p47 with such a limited range has always been a head scratcher for me. If ever there was a single engine fighter that had the power, room, and structural strength to tote a few more gallons of fuel without it affecting performance much it was the Thunderbolt.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinsog (Jul 28, 2019)

Schweik said:


> One other thought that occurs to me is that the logistics chain of the drop tanks must have been fairly sigificant, if they are basically disposable (I guess if they go into combat they would be dropped, otherwise carried back) that means with the high rate of combat in 1942 and 43, probably something like 1.5 drop tanks per mission for a P-47 or P-38, or around .7 drop tanks per mission for a P-40 or P-39. That is quite a lot given how much trouble they had in New Guinea with even the most basic supplies. I wonder how often a shortage of drop tanks might have postponed missions or limited the number of aircraft.


They would only drop them when they made contact with the enemy. I can’t imagine they got enough of anything they needed!


----------



## RCAFson (Jul 28, 2019)

Useful data about the Darwin Spitfires:

http://darwinspitfires.com/index.php?page=articles

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 28, 2019)

michael rauls said:


> The thought process of designing the p47 with such a limited range has always been a head scratcher for me. If ever there was a single engine fighter that had the power, room, and structural strength to tote a few more gallons of fuel without it affecting performance much it was the Thunderbolt.



What people forget is that the P-47 had about twice the range of a Spitfire or 109 if none of them are carrying drop tanks. 
It was good for around 700 miles at 15,000 at a bit over 260mph true using 265 gallons (allowing 40 gallons for starting warm up and take-off). 
Now this turned out to be not enough range for what they wanted to use it for, or the theaters it had to fight in. 

Lets remember that the USAAC agreed to order the Prototype XP-47B on Sept 6th 1940 when the daylight part of the BoB was still going on.


----------



## michael rauls (Jul 28, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> What people forget is that the P-47 had about twice the range of a Spitfire or 109 if none of them are carrying drop tanks.
> It was good for around 700 miles at 15,000 at a bit over 260mph true using 265 gallons (allowing 40 gallons for starting warm up and take-off).
> Now this turned out to be not enough range for what they wanted to use it for, or the theaters it had to fight in.
> 
> Lets remember that the USAAC agreed to order the Prototype XP-47B on Sept 6th 1940 when the daylight part of the BoB was still going on.


Verry true and I realize hindsight is 20/20 but by 1940 there was trouble brewing with Japan( they were already at war with China and from what I've read many saw the potential for conflict with the US) so seems like the need for more range would have been appearant and doesn't seem like youd loose alot of performance on a p47 by packing a little more fuel.
Maybe it just didn't look as obvious then as it looks now.


----------



## Schweik (Jul 28, 2019)

michael rauls said:


> The thought process of designing the p47 with such a limited range has always been a head scratcher for me. If ever there was a single engine fighter that had the power, room, and structural strength to tote a few more gallons of fuel without it affecting performance much it was the Thunderbolt.



The design process for the P-47 was a pretty long and I suspect a fairly painful and desperate saga, especially if you take it back to the P-43 (which I don't think was actually ready for prime time so to speak even though a couple did make it to the field). It was obvious from early days that the design had great potential especially for high altitude combat. But the turbocharger, engine, cooling requirements and so on kept pushing the parameters so far that they ended up with a ridiculously large and heavy plane that they couldn't have helped but notice was decidedly an outlier in terms of design standards for a single-seat fighter.

In other words, they may have been so pre-occupied with the core design features, i.e. just getting it to function properly as a fighter, and trying to get it operational before the contract deadlines and so on (and with the benefit of hindsight - before the tipping point of the war had been fought through) that they hadn't had time to think of some of the (again in hindsight) obvious needs like external tanks.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## RCAFson (Jul 28, 2019)

RCAFson said:


> Useful data about the Darwin Spitfires:
> 
> http://darwinspitfires.com/index.php?page=articles




To quote myself: 



> RAAF tests showing the use of 16lb boost with the SpitfireV/M46:
> 
> _AL794 - 6 SEPT YOUR L847 4 SEPT [1943]
> 
> ...



Now compare these figures with these:


http://darwinspitfires.com/index.php?page=performance-of-spitfire-vc-tropicalised-version-2 

and we get a 43mph increase at 10k ft.


----------



## pinsog (Jul 28, 2019)

Schweik said:


> The design process for the P-47 was a pretty long and I suspect a fairly painful and desperate saga, especially if you take it back to the P-43 (which I don't think was actually ready for prime time so to speak even though a couple did make it to the field). It was obvious from early days that the design had great potential especially for high altitude combat. But the turbocharger, engine, cooling requirements and so on kept pushing the parameters so far that they ended up with a ridiculously large and heavy plane that they couldn't have helped but notice was decidedly an outlier in terms of design standards for a single-seat fighter.
> 
> In other words, they may have been so pre-occupied with the core design features, i.e. just getting it to function properly as a fighter, and trying to get it operational before the contract deadlines and so on (and with the benefit of hindsight - before the tipping point of the war had been fought through) that they hadn't had time to think of some of the (again in hindsight) obvious needs like external tanks.


I agree the P43 wasn’t combat at ready because of the leaky fuel tanks. But a few were used in china and they were also used as photo recon. I personally think if they would have had proper fuel tanks and a bit of pilot armor then they would have done well against the Japanese with boom and zoom tactics. Look up their performance and compare it to the first Hellcat and Spitfire Mark II and even the Spitfire Mark V at 25,000 feet. It would have done well at altitude and would have been good for flying top cover for P40’s against Zero’s. It is faster than a Zero at any altitude, getting to with about 10 mph at 17,000 feet but more like 40 mph at 25,000 feet

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


----------



## Schweik (Jul 28, 2019)

I agree the P-43 was a nice performer, but I think the armor and (self-sealing) fuel tanks are a bigger deal than you are calculating here. If you took the armor and self sealing tanks out of a Hurricane IIC or an F4F it would probably perform pretty well at high altitude too (maybe not quite as well but you know what I mean). The problem is the attrition risk to the pilot gets a lot higher.

Trust me, I'm a fan - I like the P-35 too (and I love the Re-2000 series which may or may not be related) but I don't think Seversky/Republic got it quite right and it wasn't until the P-47 that this initial design lineage really bore fruit. It's a shame they couldn't keep the clean lines of the original P-35 but those early turbos were not exactly petite.


----------



## PAT303 (Jul 28, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> Please read the post again. The 500hp difference was at 11,000ft which from what most of the people posting are saying is not where the problem was. At altitudes over 20,000ft the Merlin 46 had around a 100hp advantage which means something else was problem (assuming factory spec engines) in combating the Japanese.



Re-reading your thread on the Darwin MkV's, they should have been able to do 380-385mph between 16,000 and 24,000ft when fitted with the Merlin 46, instead they did 330mph at 20,000ft as per RAAF testing. How does a plane lose 50mph?.


----------



## Mad Dog (Jul 28, 2019)

pinsog said:


> So, you disagreed with my statement “it was a bad idea to not put drop tanks on early models of Wildcat, P47 and Me109” by saying they eventually got them?
> Oh my. Please read this very slowly and carefully.
> The EARLY models of the Wildcat, P47 and ME109 did not get drop tanks. The Wildcat did not get them until very late in the Guadalcanal campaign which means that it was in service with the British and US Navy for over a year before it was plumbed for drop tanks.
> The first P47’s deployed to Britain did not have drop tanks and had a horrible combat range, something like 200 miles.
> ...


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 28, 2019)

michael rauls said:


> Verry true and I realize hindsight is 20/20 but by 1940 there was trouble brewing with Japan( they were already at war with China and from what I've read many saw the potential for conflict with the US) so seems like the need for more range would have been appearant and doesn't seem like youd loose alot of performance on a p47 by packing a little more fuel.
> Maybe it just didn't look as obvious then as it looks now.



The P-47 started with 305 US gallons or over 1800lbs of fuel. Which is about the the same as a P-38 once the P-38 got self sealing tanks.

For perspective the fuel fraction for the P-47 was about 15.25% ( weight of fuel as a percentage of the normal gross weight) fir 12,000lb plane, production versions got heavier quickly and the fuel fraction shrank. Meanwhile the fuel fraction of the Spitfire MK I was about 11%.
As the planes got heavier the fuel fraction dropped. The Fuel Fraction tells you nothing about how plane performs (or it's range/endurace) it merely tells you what sort of choices the designer made or perhaps how clever he was in using weight. Bigger planes do have some advantages though. (Pilot fraction for a 12,000lb plane is 1/2 the pilot fraction for a 6000lb plane unless you get really big pilots  

As to hindsight, the paddle blade props, water injection and WEP power settings that really turned the P-47 into a formidable fighter were several years away when initial design and prototype testing were going on. The bigger internal fuel tanks on the late P-47Ds weighed about 90 lbs more than the small tank set up. and held about 390 lbs more fuel.
Most early P-47s had trouble climbing better than 2500fpm and many of the test planes were not carrying full ammo (425rpg weighs about 1020lbs). one test plane was carrying 525lbs of ballast which is equal to about 218-220 rpg. a few test planes only had 6 guns.

Adding almost 500lbs to an early P-47 might not be what you want to do regardless of how well the P-47D-25 handled it

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


----------



## RCAFson (Jul 28, 2019)

PAT303 said:


> Re-reading your thread on the Darwin MkV's, they should have been able to do 380-385mph between 16,000 and 24,000ft when fitted with the Merlin 46, instead they did 330mph at 20,000ft as per RAAF testing. How does a plane lose 50mph?.



?

RAAF tests:
speed at 5min rating, clean/30IGDT/90IGDT

20 000ft: 356 / 341 / 329mph


----------



## Mad Dog (Jul 28, 2019)

pinsog said:


> So, you disagreed with my statement “it was a bad idea to not put drop tanks on early models of Wildcat, P47 and Me109” by saying they eventually got them?....


 Nothing "eventually" about it. The P-47 wasn't originally designed as a long-range escort, that was the role of the P-38. The P-47 was a high-altitude interceptor that was pushed into the role of escort because P-38 production was too slow. The 56th FG, the first unit to equip with P-47s, was originally to have been equipped with P-38s. Even so, the first operational model of the P-47, the P-47C, came from the factory with the fittings for a 200-gal belly tank. This was used operationally in the ETO. The P-47C-5 block introduced a field kit that could be fitted to allow the carriage of a 75-gal drop-tank or 500Lb bomb, and this became a factory-fitted item with the P-47D-5-RE. So you are incorrect about the P-47. I have already posted a link to P-47 drop-tanks, I assume you just didn't bother to read it. Likewise, the ME109 had to take on the role of bomber escort because the Germans didn't have enough ME110s, yet was very quickly fitted for drop-tanks as soon as the problem was exposed operationally in late 1940. Messerschmitt had already looked at drop-tanks as early as 1938. *The P-47 and ME109 were designed as interceptors.* You are complaining about interceptors not being factory-ready for a role outside their original design goals, like someone saying; "Well, your Ferrari can't tow a caravan!" 



pinsog said:


> ….Oh my. Please read this very slowly and carefully....


 Read it slow or fast, you're still just wrong.



pinsog said:


> ….The EARLY models of the Wildcat, P47 and ME109 did not get drop tanks....


 Already debunked for the P-47 and ME109, with the reasoning given. You seem to be struggling to comprehend the difference between a true, long-range escort and a fighter _developed _into an escort. 



pinsog said:


> ….The Wildcat did not get them until very late in the Guadalcanal campaign which means that it was in service with the British and US Navy for over a year before it was plumbed for drop tanks.....


 I already said they did get drop-tanks, I just wasn't sure of the exact date. So you're basically just proving yourself wrong there.



pinsog said:


> ….The first P47’s deployed to Britain did not have drop tanks and had a horrible combat range, something like 200 miles.....


 So you didn't read the P-47 tanks post then. 



pinsog said:


> ….The Me109 did not get drop tanks until, I believe, the end of the BoB. It doesn’t matter that they didn’t plan to use it as a “long range” fighter, it was still a bad idea to not give it drop tanks.....


 Why? The Luftwaffe didn't have any crystal balls to predict the requirement, and had already got what was probably then the World's best long-range fighter in the ME110 long before the Zero flew. Germany's whole problem was Hitler took them to war without the economic and industrial structure in place to defeat the British Empire, and the shortage of ME110s was simply another result of that fundamental failing. Messerschmitt even had problems keeping up with demand for the ME109E! Again, just because a Ferrari doesn't come with a tow-hook,_ just in case it needs to tow a caravan_, does not make it a stupid design.



pinsog said:


> ….It was a massive mistake not to equip the very first Wildcat and P47 with drop tanks......


 Again, in the case of the P-47 and ME109, *THERE WAS NO DESIGN REQUIREMENT BECAUSE THERE WAS ALREADY A LONG-RANGE FIGHTER IN THAT ROLE IN THE USAAF AND LUFTWAFFE.* As it was, the P-47 did have drop-tank capability, and it was quickly added to the ME109.



pinsog said:


> …It was a massive mistake not to equip the Me109 with drop tanks before the BoB started......


 You say that like the Luftwaffe ignored some obvious warning, when in reality there was no way they could have predicted the requirement. The Luftwaffe was tailored to the role of tactical support to the Wehrmacht, a role it served brilliantly right up until the BoB. No-one in the German High Command ever considered a requirement to have to fight a strategic air-battle over the English Channel. Indeed, Hitler had hoped the British would simply sue for peace after the Battle of France. Similarly, the RAF did not predict the need to defend against _escorted_ bomber raids on the UK and designed a defensive system and training optimised for unescorted bombers. The USAAF predicted that high-flying, heavily-armed, well-armoured bombers would not require long-range escorts, and the USAAF's "Bomber Barons" didn't even want the fighters to be able to fly long ranges. The RAF didn't predict a requirement for a long-range day-fighter because the heavy bomber force was designed and trained for _night_ bombing. You are thumping the side of your armchair and insisting your opinion is somehow "insight" without understanding the actual situation that created the problems in the first place.

Reactions: Disagree Disagree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Mad Dog (Jul 28, 2019)

pinsog said:


> ......The performance margin of the Spitfires over the Zero at Darwin was slim above 20,000 and nonexistent below 20,000.......


 Actually, the Zeros refused to fly above 30,000ft, and as soon as the RAAF realized that they switched their tactics to climbing above 30,000ft before engaging. That "safe zone" between 30,000 and 36,000ft was because the Japanese were very aware that the Spitfire V would out-perform the Zero at that altitude. The Luftwaffe had been passing them test data on captured Spitfires for years.



pinsog said:


> …..They needed true drop tanks.


 So the slipper tanks weren't "real" drop-tanks???? It was an external tank that could be jettisoned as required - kinda the definition of a drop-tank!


----------



## Mad Dog (Jul 28, 2019)

pinsog said:


> Please please start a “Bristol Beaufighter as high altitude long range escort” thread. Some others in here might enjoy that.
> 
> If the Beaufighter could boom and zoom a Spitfire Trop V at high altitude, why didn’t they use them to intercept the Japanese raids over Darwin? With your logic the Beaufighters could have escorted the Spitfires and protected them from those 2nd rate Zero’s with boom and zoom tactics and let the Spitfires engage the bombers.


----------



## Mad Dog (Jul 28, 2019)

pinsog said:


> Please please start a “Bristol Beaufighter as high altitude long range escort” thread. Some others in here might enjoy that.....


 Well, at least it would be more factual than your posts. The reason the Beau IIF wasn't used as a long-range, high-altitude, daylight escort in 1943 was there was no Allied requirement for a long-range, high-altitude, daylight escort not already being filled by a better design, such as the P-38. The Beaus _were_ used in the ETO, MTO, CBI and PTO for escorting long-range, low-level, anti-shipping and interdiction strikes. I merely suggested the Beau IIF (and Mosquito, and Me410, and P-38F) _could_ have done the job because you insisted there was no other aircraft other than the Zero which could have. You are simply delaying the inevitable in not admitting your mistake.



pinsog said:


> …..If the Beaufighter could boom and zoom a Spitfire Trop V at high altitude, why didn’t they use them to intercept the Japanese raids over Darwin?.....


 Because there weren't any Beau IIFs at Darwin. And because the Spit V was a better daylight _interceptor. _Please try and remember the difference between and interceptor and a long-range escort when throwing your straw men around.

Reactions: Disagree Disagree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jul 28, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> The P-47 started with 305 US gallons or over 1800lbs of fuel. Which is about the the same as a P-38 once the P-38 got self sealing tanks.
> 
> For perspective the fuel fraction for the P-47 was about 15.25% ( weight of fuel as a percentage of the normal gross weight) fir 12,000lb plane, production versions got heavier quickly and the fuel fraction shrank. Meanwhile the fuel fraction of the Spitfire MK I was about 11%.
> As the planes got heavier the fuel fraction dropped. The Fuel Fraction tells you nothing about how plane performs (or it's range/endurace) it merely tells you what sort of choices the designer made or perhaps how clever he was in using weight. Bigger planes do have some advantages though. (Pilot fraction for a 12,000lb plane is 1/2 the pilot fraction for a 6000lb plane unless you get really big pilots
> ...




The other thing about the P-47 is that while it was designed to be a very high altitude fighter, and excelled in combat up above 25,000 ft, it was very big and draggy for use down low where it was actually fighting a lot of the time. To counter all that drag and weight they did run that giant engine very hard, and that means a much higher rate of fuel consumption than the small, clean, and comparatively very light Spitfire. So the ratio of how much fuel they were carrying compared to weight alone is kind of misleading.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Mad Dog (Jul 28, 2019)

Schweik said:


> I don't think they had sent any VIII or IX to the Pacific in time for Darwin, though I could be wrong. They didn't get any Spit IX in the Med until a couple of months into 1943. VIII came later....


 Correct, but that was mainly because Whitehall treated the Med and CBI/PTO as less than secondary importance. Whilst there was no reason for the Air Ministry to predict Darwin becoming a frontline station, they could have sent Spitfires to Australia (and India, Singapore, Malta and the Desert) in 1941 without seriously reducing operational capabilities in the UK. That early a start would have meant revealing and fixing many of the problems long before they arose over Darwin in 1943. Even when considering Darwin as a secondary port, its status as one of the most important Royal Navy bases in the theatre should have accorded it better defences in 1942, even if they had just been Hurricane IIs or Wildcats.



Schweik said:


> Hurricanes had a fairly dismal record against A6M and Ki-43 type fighters....


 No, you are just repeating already debunked myths. Go back and read the post about the Calcutta raids, escorts over the Arakan, and Frank Carey. As soon as they got the right tactics the Hurri IIs did fine against the Ki-43 and Zero.



Schweik said:


> …..They even had trouble intercepting higher flying bombers at Malta which was arguably less hostile conditions than New Guinea, probably similar to Darwin....


 You really need to just stop and go do a LOT more reading about the air battles for Malta. For start, it was not unusual for the Malta Hurricanes to be out-numbered ten-to-one just by the Axis escorts, let alone the bombers, on a daily basis And the escorts were often Bf109Fs and Gs, which are certainly far more deadly any model of the Zero. Considering that, after the Spit V, the Hurri II was the fasting climbing option available, had the altitude performance to get high enough and speed to catch them, plus had the firepower to shoot down the Japanese bombers, and by 1943 had the tactics to deal with the Zeros, the Hurri II was probably the next best available choice after the Spit V.



Schweik said:


> …..P-47 wasn't available later in '43.....


 P-47s weren't available _at Darwin_ in 1943. The first P-47Cs left the factory on September 14th 1942, and the 56th FG took their P-47s to the UK in January 1943, so P-47Cs _could_ have been at Darwin in May 1943 if the USAAF had had the foresight to send them to Australia instead of the UK. But the climb performance of a clean P-47C was pretty bad, so it might not have been able to get high enough in time to intercept the May 2nd raid without a lengthy stern chase, raising the possibility of the P-47s also running out of fuel.



Schweik said:


> …..Considering that the P-40E, with a 12,000' critical altitude, was used to some good effect in the defense of Darwin, it stands to reason that the P-40F with a 20,000' critical altitude might have been considerably more effective......


 The Jap escorts would still have been able to sit higher than the P-40F's operational ceiling and dive on them at will. Plus the P-40F took so long to get to 25,000ft the raid would be long gone by then. If the faster-climbing Spit Vs weren't getting high enough until after the Japanese had bombed then there was no way the P-40F could.



Schweik said:


> …..Rate of climb was also dependent on load, it could range from as low as 1,700 fpm to as high as 3,300 fpm, depending on how heavy the aircraft was......


 Not in any figures I have seen. Maybe if you stripped it down to a water-pistol for armament, a thimble of fuel, and the pilot was a shaved-naked squirrel, then maybe 2500fps.



Schweik said:


> …..It's probably a cinch though that either way they could have taken out a pair of the wing machine guns and associated ammunition for work over Darwin, and as seen in the Med and shown in some side by side tests by the Aussies, in actual field conditions with four guns it would probably have a climb to 20,000 ft better than the Hurricane and definitely quite a bit better than the P-40E or P-39.......


 We've been over this, the figures are already in and any model of the P-40 in any stripped-down form couldn't match the climb of a Hurricane II. A normal loaded P-40F weighed 8500Lbs, whereas a 12-gun Hurricane IIB was 7080Lbs, which is why the P-40F took 2.6 minutes longer to get to 20,000ft with what was practically the same engine. Those are the real test figures. Good luck trying to trim 1500Lbs off the P-40! You'd be better off taking the Hurri IIB and taking the twelve .303 Brownings out and replacing them with four .50s as the Belgians did. But that would still be slower climbing and slower on the level than a Spit V.

Interestingly (and probably very annoyingly to Pinsog), the P-40F with the 141.5-gal drop-tank had a range of 1500 miles, which implies it could have cruised the 500 miles to Darwin as escort, dropped the tank and had a ten minute combat, and then made it the 500 miles back home on remaining internal fuel (700 mile range on internal fuel at 20,000ft). The pilot would probably suffer some puckering for the last 50-odd miles, but possible. Strip it down to four guns and you'd probably feel a bit happier for those last 50 miles, and four .50s would still be deadly against a Spitfire.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jul 28, 2019)

I have read quite a few books on Malta (where on more than one occasion Hurricanes had trouble intercepting _unescorted _but high flying / fast bombers like Ju 88s), two or three on Darwin, and a whole shelf on the P-40. None of the facts I quoted about rate of climb and so on are incorrect. I'd get into details but they have already been posted more than once and you don't seem to be receptive to data which contradicts your theories.

Being outnumbered was a fairly common situation for Allied pilots in early 1942, in fact for much of 1942. Some pilots with some aircraft were able to adjust to the conditions rapidly and develop tactics which allowed them to do some damage to the Axis juggernaut, many could not. Fortunately enough did that it did slow down the Axis leading up to the great tipping point in late 1942.

But I think the heyday of the Hurricane was in 1940, not 1942 or 1943.

I've yet to see anything to change my opinion of the Hurricane vis a vis the A6M or Ki 43. I read everything you and everyone else posted about it in this thread.

Reactions: Disagree Disagree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 28, 2019)

Schweik said:


> So the ratio of how much fuel they were carrying compared to weight alone is kind of misleading.



That ratio can be misapplied or misinterpreted and it often is. 

I have already said that the the number cannot be used to predict actual range or endurance. It is a design benchmark of sorts. How well is a designer able to divide up the weight of an aircraft to meet his design goals Fuel is part of the payload. For the MK I Spit and it's 5875lbs 1890lbs were structural or about 32% which is a fairly normal number for a single engine fighter of that size. the power plant went 2035lb or 34.63% (and this is with a 96lb wooden prop) leaving about 1585lbs of payload or 27% to be divided up between pilot, guns/ammo.etc, fuel and oil (there was 335lbs of assorted "sundries"which might include radio/s, etc)
The designer can trade fuel and oil for armament fairly easily. It is harder to design a light weight structure that allows for a higher payload. Like I said, size does help as some things (cockpits, equipement and pilots don't change much), Structural weight British/American for single engine fighters in 1943 went from a low of about 26% to a high of almost 40% 

The original question was why didn't they stick more fuel in the P-47 from the start (design/development) not how the plane wound up being used.
American fighters in general carried more fuel and had longer "yardstick" ranges than most/all European fighters. This is in the late 30s and 1940/41. yard stick range is the range you can get if you magically transport the airplane to cruising height with a warmed up engine but with full fuel tanks and fly at optimum cruising speed (with no regard for tactical situation) and also allow no reserve. 

An interesting number for comparing different designs but totally useless for mission planning. 

As noted the P-47 had almost twice the "range" of a Spitfire or 109 in the planning stage/s. Without operational experience in late 1940 or early 41 why would they have tried to add more fuel to the P-47 design when it already was one of the longest ranged fighters they knew about? (they didn't know about the Zero at this point) 

It turned out that it didn't have the range needed for the missions they wanted it to do in the 2nd half 1943 but then next to nothing did.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jul 28, 2019)

Here is a silly and no doubt misguided question SR6. I notice that the Boulton Paul Defiant managed (allegedly) 300 mph running a 1030 hp Merlin III, even with a second crewman and a turret. If true, that is considerably better than say, a Fulmar with it's second crewman and no turret.

If they took the second crewman and turret out of the Defiant, fared over the intervening space nice and clean, (maybe put a fuel tank there) and put in say, a Merlin XX instead of the Merlin III, and add a pair of 20mm and a pair of .303 guns in the wings, could it have made a better Hurricane than the Hurricane?

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


----------



## michael rauls (Jul 28, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> That ratio can be misapplied or misinterpreted and it often is.
> 
> I have already said that the the number cannot be used to predict actual range or endurance. It is a design benchmark of sorts. How well is a designer able to divide up the weight of an aircraft to meet his design goals Fuel is part of the payload. For the MK I Spit and it's 5875lbs 1890lbs were structural or about 32% which is a fairly normal number for a single engine fighter of that size. the power plant went 2035lb or 34.63% (and this is with a 96lb wooden prop) leaving about 1585lbs of payload or 27% to be divided up between pilot, guns/ammo.etc, fuel and oil (there was 335lbs of assorted "sundries"which might include radio/s, etc)
> The designer can trade fuel and oil for armament fairly easily. It is harder to design a light weight structure that allows for a higher payload. Like I said, size does help as some things (cockpits, equipement and pilots don't change much), Structural weight British/American for single engine fighters in 1943 went from a low of about 26% to a high of almost 40%
> ...


Interesting explanation of how things appeared to designers and planers of the time and why they didn't do things that look like so obviously good ideas with hindsight.
Trying to look out into the future and looking back at the past can certainly yield different priorities, and hindsight is indeed 20/20. 
Still seems to me that at least a bit of greater full capacity in the p47 pf all planes would be desirable and doable but who can really blame the designers too much for not seeing the eventual need. They only had the past and preasant to guide them.


----------



## Mad Dog (Jul 29, 2019)

Schweik said:


> I have read quite a few books on Malta.....


 Then you should know the situation in Malta was completely different to that in Darwin. In Malta, especially during the Luftwaffe blitzes, the RAF faced day and night bombing that actually destroyed more aircraft than air combat. Malta was the most bombed place on the planet with often several raids each day. The defending Hurricanes were restricted by fuel shortages and faced a far superior enemy fighters in the shape of the Bf109F and MC202, and a far tougher bomber in the shape of the Ju88 and SM79. The Axis often mounted faints to draw the defenders into the air and then attacked them as they landed to refuel - nothing like that at Darwin. The Hurricanes at Malta had to put up with German fighters flying in below the radar and strafing their airfields, again unknown at Darwin. Yet the Maltese Hurricanes (and a few Fulmars and the original Gladiators) shot down just short of 200 Axis aircraft (and that's confirmed post-War, not just claimed) before the Spitfires arrived in 1942, for only 20 Hurricanes (Is and IIs) lost in air combat. Compared to Malta, the defence of Darwin was sporadic and relatively undemanding. The Spitfires at Darwin had no shortage of fuel nor food and plenty of time between raids to repair and prepare, and the Spit V had a number of important performance advantages over the Zero. The comparison doesn't stand scrutiny.



Schweik said:


> .......you don't seem to be receptive to data which contradicts your theories......


 LOL, more like you can't stand any criticism of the P-40F, despite the many historical facts and figures provided. Even the P-40B, the lightest version, could only just beat 3000fpm, and it couldn't operate at 30,000ft. You had to go to the XP-40Q prototypes to get climb over 3000fpm. Checking here, the best figure for the P-40F is under 2500fpm, with an operational figure of 8 minutes to 15,000ft, which is less than 1900fpm. The idea you could get a production P-40F to 3000fpm without attaching boosters from the shuttle is - frankly - laughable. 



Schweik said:


> .......I've yet to see anything to change my opinion of the Hurricane vis a vis the A6M or Ki 43. I read everything you and everyone else posted about it in this thread.


 Try reading with your eye open then. Or at least a more open mind.


----------



## Schweik (Jul 29, 2019)

Mad Dog said:


> LOL, more like you can't stand any criticism of the P-40F, despite the many historical facts and figures provided. Even the P-40B, the lightest version, could only just beat 3000fpm, and it couldn't operate at 30,000ft. You had to go to the XP-40Q prototypes to get climb over 3000fpm. Checking here, the best figure for the P-40F is under 2500fpm, with an operational figure of 8 minutes to 15,000ft, which is less than 1900fpm. The idea you could get a production P-40F to 3000fpm without attaching boosters from the shuttle is - frankly - laughable.
> 
> Try reading with your eye open then. Or at least a more open mind.



The Malta / Darwin comparison is interesting and worth exploring, but you have to have some credibility and mutual respect carry out that kind of complex discussion. You and I don't have that between us.

As for the climb rate thing, you are quoting stats for 6 guns and a full fuel load. This is the P-40N-5 (lightened, 4 gun) but it's from the same source you linked (WWIIaircraftPerformance), and it's definitely not a P-40Q or any other experimental type. So read this chart and think about it for a moment, maybe take your own advice:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/P-40/A29-412-climb-WEP.jpg

I really, really don't want to turn this into another debate about P-40s and I know you in particular won't agree regardless of what I or anyone else posts about it so maybe we should just agree to disagree. Like with the Hurricanes in Burma.


----------



## Schweik (Jul 29, 2019)

I'd also like to point out I think the Spit V is a better interceptor than the P-40F, and a Spit VIII or IX would be much better (for the Pacific, the VIII probably would be the best of the three). My only point about the F/L is that it would have been better in that role than a P-40E or a P-39. Or a Hurricane.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Jul 29, 2019)

Over the years I've read more different climb rates for the p40f/L than I have fingers and toes but the majority have been around 2400/ 2500 fpm. Not greased lightning in the climb department but not horrendous either as most planes with around 3000 fpm climb like the p51 and A6m are usually refered to has having great climb rates.
Wouldn't be my first pick for an interceptor but you certainly could have done alot worse in that department in 42/43.


----------



## PAT303 (Jul 29, 2019)

RCAFson said:


> ?
> 
> RAAF tests:
> speed at 5min rating, clean/30IGDT/90IGDT
> ...



The MkV's did 330mph clean when the RAAF did performance trails with the spit, p40 and Zero at 20,000ft, the report is about a dozen pages back. Spitfire Mk V Performance Testing It is easy to see the handicap the Merlin 46 was over the 45, even when fitted with fuel injection the 46 was slower, to add more salt to the wounds the report states the Spit it was fitted to was is very good overall condition which gave it a 10mph advantage.


----------



## Kevin J (Jul 29, 2019)

PAT303 said:


> The MkV's did 330mph clean when the RAAF did performance trails with the spit, p40 and Zero at 20,000ft, the report is about a dozen pages back. Spitfire Mk V Performance Testing It is easy to see the handicap the Merlin 46 was over the 45, even when fitted with fuel injection the 46 was slower, to add more salt to the wounds the report states the Spit it was fitted to was is very good overall condition which gave it a 10mph advantage.


I can't find your 330 mph figure anywhere. RCAFson's look to be more accurate. The 30 gal slipper combat tank should only reduce speed by 5 mph. I think the 341 mph top speed is when the 45 gal slipper drop tank is fitted.


----------



## Schweik (Jul 29, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Here is a silly and no doubt misguided question SR6. I notice that the Boulton Paul Defiant managed (allegedly) 300 mph running a 1030 hp Merlin III, even with a second crewman and a turret. If true, that is considerably better than say, a Fulmar with it's second crewman and no turret.
> 
> If they took the second crewman and turret out of the Defiant, fared over the intervening space nice and clean, (maybe put a fuel tank there) and put in say, a Merlin XX instead of the Merlin III, and add a pair of 20mm and a pair of .303 guns in the wings, could it have made a better Hurricane than the Hurricane?



*Kevin J*, I really don't understand why you hit "Disagree" on this, I was just asking a question. What is there to disagree with? I wasn't asserting anything.


----------



## Schweik (Jul 29, 2019)

michael rauls said:


> Over the years I've read more different climb rates for the p40f/L than I have fingers and toes but the majority have been around 2400/ 2500 fpm. Not greased lightning in the climb department but not horrendous either as most planes with around 3000 fpm climb like the p51 and A6m are usually refered to has having great climb rates.
> Wouldn't be my first pick for an interceptor but you certainly could have done alot worse in that department in 42/43.



Initial rate of climb for a P-40L or 'stripped' / 4-gun F is about 3300 fpm, probably at WEP. Roughly the same as that 4 gun P-40N-5 I linked from WWIIAircraftPerformane. Source is "The Curtiss Hawks" (Shamburger, 1972) p. 234 and "_Curtiss P-40, snub nosed Kittyhawks and Warhawks_", Molesworth 2013, P. 32

Needless to say, A6M and P-51 also climb better if they have less fuel on board.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Jul 29, 2019)

Schweik said:


> *Kevin J*, I really don't understand why you hit "Disagree" on this, I was just asking a question. What is there to disagree with? I wasn't asserting anything.


Oh yea yea yea yea yea. BP Defiant, crap manoeuvrability compared with Hurricane. Estimated 360 mph top speed without turret that only cost 25 mph.🙄 Someone's been smoking the whacky backy?🤣 PR Hurricane I without guns did 350 mph so how would a Defiant with guns do 360 mph?


----------



## Schweik (Jul 29, 2019)

I never said it did...? Why do people seem determined to put words in my mouth?


----------



## Kevin J (Jul 29, 2019)

Schweik said:


> I never said it did...? Why do people seem determined to put words in my mouth?


I agree, it was Boulton Paul, not you. Now me, I like the Defiant. So, move the radiator to the nose, get 20 mph, wing folding like the Spitfire, arrestor hook, catapult attachments, replace 2nd crew member with fuel tank, put the guns in the wings and maybe you get navy fighter with same speed, range as Zero but not so manoeuvrable. Better still build Miles M20 navy fighter. Better still buy Corsair.


----------



## Schweik (Jul 29, 2019)

Why I would moving the radiator to the nose make it faster? I still don't understand why you clicked 'disagree' on my original question on this. It was just a question and made no claims, so what is there to disagree with?


----------



## Kevin J (Jul 29, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Why I would moving the radiator to the nose make it faster? I still don't understand why you clicked 'disagree' on my original question on this. It was just a question and made no claims, so what is there to disagree with?


The Hotspur had its radiator in that position and was faster. The production P-40 as opposed to the prototype moved the radiator and was faster. I disagreed with your suggestion that it would be a better Hurricane than the Hurricane.


----------



## Schweik (Jul 29, 2019)

I wasn't suggesting I was _asking_. I didn't claim to know, which is why I stipulated that it was probably a stupid question - you are more than entitled to disagree, but tagging a post with a negative flag is a bit much. If we can't ask a question without being dinged how can anyone have a conversation here?

As for the chin radiator thing, I'm not sure I agree that is the actual reason. I thought the mid-fuselage / underwing location was the more aerodynamic / less draggy place to put the radiator, ala Spitfire or P-51.


----------



## Glider (Jul 29, 2019)

I have found the following written by the RAF in a review of the air combat in the far east.

_'The Hurricane longest in operation is now completely outclassed by the Japanese fighters, and it is confined to ground attack in which its specialised bombing technique had made it a remarkable success. '_

Later in the paper when discussing allied tactics:-

_The basis of the allied tactics is avoidance of in-fighting with the Japanese whose manoeuvrability gives them a clear advantage. All allied fighters except the Hurricane at present enjoy advantages of dive, straight and level speed, zoom and in the case of the Spitfire climb, when compared to all but the latest types of Japanese aircraft._

In another paper written in 1942 the RAF are clear that as long as they don't get into close in fighting they are definitely superior to the Japanese type 97 (Ki 27) fighters, but the Type O fighters (Ki 43 misidentified as Zero) has a performance almost equal to the Hurricane but cannot match it in a dive and zoom combat. These would have been early Ki43's which did have a problem with the strength of the wing.
Unfortunately for the RAF, close in combat was the order of the day as the Japanese realised that the RAF fighters often couldn't gain altitude and once the Radar cover was made ineffective, started to position the escorting fighters below the bombers so the RAF had to climb through the escort before they could attack the bombers.

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


----------



## PAT303 (Jul 29, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> I can't find your 330 mph figure anywhere. RCAFson's look to be more accurate. The 30 gal slipper combat tank should only reduce speed by 5 mph. I think the 341 mph top speed is when the 45 gal slipper drop tank is fitted.



http://darwinspitfires.com/index.php?page=spitfire-vc-versus-the-zero The Merlin 46 engined MkV's and A6M both maxed out at 330 mph at 15-16,000ft, the Merlin 45 MkV's on the other hand were doing 375 mph at 19,000ft.


----------



## Kevin J (Jul 29, 2019)

PAT303 said:


> http://darwinspitfires.com/index.php?page=spitfire-vc-versus-the-zero The Merlin 46 engined MkV's and A6M both maxed out at 330 mph at 15-16,000ft, the Merlin 45 MkV's on the other hand were doing 375 mph at 19,000ft.


No, 354 mph with tropical filter, 337.5 mph with 90 gal tank, all at 17,400 feet with Spitfire VB and Merlin 45. You're not comparing like with like. From what I can find the 30 gal tank cost about 10 mph speed loss on a Seafire Iic. The Seafire Iic is about 20 mph slower than a Spitfire Vc with Merlin 46 because of navy equipment, but no volkes filter which would cause a 5% loss in speed and 8% loss in rated altitude. Go look at www.spitfireperformance.com/spittest.html and press the Seafire IIc button.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 29, 2019)

If a MK Vc with a Merlin 46 could not do 375 mph at at 19,000 the chances of a Vc with a Merlin 45 doing it are about zero. 

from a test of a Spitfire V using a Merlin 45 with the "combat rating" of 16lbs.

" In level flight below 13,000 ft. the maximum level true airspeed is higher by about 35 m.p.h. using combat rating than at the same height using normal rating. The maximum level speed is 369 m.p.h. at 13,000 ft. Above this height the increase in speed is less and falls to zero at 19,900 ft., the full throttle height at normal rating, where the speed in either rating is 360 m.p.h. "

The test of the Spit VB with the fuel injected Merlin 46 is a special test engine and no production Merlin 46 used fuel injection or any production Spitfire V for that matter,

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


----------



## RCAFson (Jul 29, 2019)

PAT303 said:


> http://darwinspitfires.com/index.php?page=spitfire-vc-versus-the-zero The Merlin 46 engined MkV's and A6M both maxed out at 330 mph at 15-16,000ft, the Merlin 45 MkV's on the other hand were doing 375 mph at 19,000ft.



They only gave speeds for the SpitV at 15K ft but that was not the full throttle height of the SpitV/M46 which as the comparison states was " ...21 000 feet...". In the comparison the SpitV is denied the use of overboost and max boost in the test was limited to 9lb and this has the effect of reducing SpitfireV/M46 speeds by about 20-30 mph at 15k ft.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Jul 30, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> If a MK Vc with a Merlin 46 could not do 375 mph at at 19,000 the chances of a Vc with a Merlin 45 doing it are about zero.
> 
> from a test of a Spitfire V using a Merlin 45 with the "combat rating" of 16lbs.
> 
> ...


Fuel injected gave a top speed of 368 mph above 20000 feet, 8-10 mph higher.


----------



## PAT303 (Jul 30, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> If a MK Vc with a Merlin 46 could not do 375 mph at at 19,000 the chances of a Vc with a Merlin 45 doing it are about zero.



The MkV which was tested which the injected 46 did 368 mph at 22,500, the report states the condition of the plane added 10 mph, a standard 45 engined MkV did 374 mph at 20,800ft, nothing was said about the condition. The data is from Boscome Down.


----------



## PAT303 (Jul 30, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> No, 354 mph with tropical filter, 337.5 mph with 90 gal tank, all at 17,400 feet with Spitfire VB and Merlin 45. You're not comparing like with like. From what I can find the 30 gal tank cost about 10 mph speed loss on a Seafire Iic. The Seafire Iic is about 20 mph slower than a Spitfire Vc with Merlin 46 because of navy equipment, but no volkes filter which would cause a 5% loss in speed and 8% loss in rated altitude. Go look at www.spitfireperformance.com/spittest.html and press the Seafire IIc button.



The RAAF did their performance trials around 20,000ft over Darwin, I can only assume they did because that was the most common combat height they fought at during that battle. My whole argument revolves around the fact the Merlin 46 was the wrong engine in that situation because it only starting showing it's advantage well above that height, resulting in the poorer performance it showed when compared to the P40E and A6M.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 30, 2019)

PAT303 said:


> The MkV which was tested which the injected 46 did 368 mph at 22,500, the report states the condition of the plane added 10 mph, a standard 45 engined MkV did 374 mph at 20,800ft, nothing was said about the condition. The data is from Boscome Down.


 

We really need to try to compare like to like as a lot of things are not adding up.

Yes, a MK V Spit with with a Merlin 45 did make 374-375mph at 20,800ft at Boscombe Down, however it was a MKVa with eight .303 guns and was operating at 6450lbs at take-off.
Spitfire Mk VA X.4922 Report
A later MK VB did 371mph at 20,100ft at 6525lbs and the drag of the cannon barrels/cannon drum fairings.

A tropical MK Vb did 354mph at 17,400ft at 6695lbs and with the cg 1in further back than the early Vb,
In addition to the tropical filter the plane's set up was "An aerial mast was fitted in the usual position on top of the fuselage, and I.F.F. aerials were fitted between the tail plane tips and the fuselage. An external mirror was fitted above the front of the hood. The aircraft was finished in desert camouflage. "

earlier tests make no mention of the radio mast, the IFF aerials or the external mirror one way or the other, they may have been fitted (the radio mast especially) or not.

The Spitfire performance site has no test of the Spitfire MK VI which is a MK V fitted with a Merlin 47 (Merlin 46 fitted with a cabin compressor for pressure cabin) the pressure cabin, a four bladed prop
and the extended wing tips.

However the book "The Spitfire story" by Alfred price gives test reports of both a Spitfire Va (tropical) fitted with a Merlin 46 (aircraft X4922), a MK VI (AB200) and a comparative tactical performance of a MK VI ((BR289) VS a standard MK Vb.

The Va tropical did 363mph at 20,800ft and 353 at 26,000ft at 6,440lbs

The MK VI did 356mph at 21,800ft and 343mph at 28,000ft at 6,740lbs

The MK VI in the in the comparative trial was (at 6,738lbs) was slightly slower below 20,000ft but 6mph faster at 22,000ft which was it's rated altitude.
Below 10,000ft it was bit slower in climb and and climbed at a less steep angle. from 10,000ft to 20,000ft there was little difference although the MK VI was slightly faster in climb. From 20,000 to 30,000ft the MK VI is about 1 minute faster than the test Vb. From 30,000ft to 35,000ft the MK VI takes half the time of the MK Vb.

Unfortunately no boost levels are given in any of these tests but the tactical trial was flown in May of 1942 with a plane from the middle of the production batch. The test with Aircraft AB200 was flown in Feb 1942 and AB 200 was the 2nd production MK VI and the test of the MK Va with Merlin 46 was flown in early 1942.

If combat with the Japanese over Darwin had been below 20,000ft then the Merlin 46s might very well have been part of the problem, bu if the combats were over 20,000ft then the problems were something other than the engines fitted.

edit, the Spit Va Tropical referred to was actually the same aircraft in the report linked to above but the tests were done about 8-9 months apart, the engine changed, the guns taken out and ballast used,and the gun ports sealed over. The same aircraft is reported to have made 355 1/2 mph at 20,800ft with a mock up of the 90 imp gallon jettisonable fuel tank and ballasted to 7,420lbs, max climb rate of 2050fpm at 14,600ft and service ceiling of 35,000ft.


----------



## PAT303 (Jul 30, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> We really need to try to compare like to like as a lot of things are not adding up.
> 
> Yes, a MK V Spit with with a Merlin 45 did make 374-375mph at 20,800ft at Boscombe Down, however it was a MKVa with eight .303 guns and was operating at 6450lbs at take-off.
> Spitfire Mk VA X.4922 Report
> A later MK VB did 371mph at 20,100ft at 6525lbs and the drag of the cannon barrels/cannon drum fairings.




3rd of March 1942 a Spitfire Vc with 4 20mm Hispano's did 374 mph at 19,000ft at an all up weight of 6,916 Lbs http://www.spitfireperformance.com/aa873speed.jpg

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 30, 2019)

True but then 

"The aeroplane was fitted with universal wings, 4 - 20 m/m guns and _an internal bullet-proof windscreen._

_ No snow-guard was fitted during the tests._

A rear view mirror was mounted on top of the pilots hood outside, and triple-ejector exhausts were fitted (without fishtails).

I.F.F. aerials, a W/T mast, and aerial were installed."

Italics mine. Plane was also running at 9.3lbs boost which is not going to make a big difference over 9.0lbs of boost. 

This plane was down to 349mph at 25,000ft which also shows some of the difference between the Merlin 45 and 46/47 for fighting at over 20,000ft.


Sorry, the idea that the RAAF was handicaped by the Merlin 46 vs the Merlin 45 does not hold up. Too many of the comparisons use the wrong altitudes for comparing power or the wrong boost limits. Why the Australians were limiting the boost to 9lbs is a question that doesn't seem to be answered. The Merlin 45,46 and 47 had all been cleared to use 60 1/2 inches ( 15lbs ? boost ) in Jan 1942.
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/merlin-ratings_3jan42.jpg


----------



## Milosh (Jul 30, 2019)

Would there be any differences in performance in a temperate climate and a tropical climate?


----------



## Schweik (Jul 30, 2019)

Yes


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 30, 2019)

There seems to have been a considerable difference between the air at Boscombe Down and the air in Australia 

I would note that there also seemed to a considerable difference in the air in Buffalo NY and Wright field and the Air in North Africa and the South Pacific when one looks at the tests for the P-40 and P-39 and the combat reports of the pilots.

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


----------



## Schweik (Jul 30, 2019)

No doubt, in Boscombe Down they seemed to be just as reluctant to use high power settings on P-40s as they were with Spit V's in Australia  In the Desert and the Jungle they also seemed to be quicker to strip parts and guns, in addition to adding things like bomb racks.

But from what I gather, humidity and temperature certainly do affect performance and IIRC at least one of those Australian tests was intentionally done on a hot day.

IIRC there is a theory that both the F2A and the P-39 performed better in cold weather. Maybe that's true for the Hurri and the Spit too.


----------



## Hop (Jul 30, 2019)

British tests usually corrected figures to standard atmospheric conditions. The Australian tests I have seen, including the test of the tropicalised Spitfire V with and without drop tanks, did so as well. 

The Australian test of the clean Vc produced a speed of 334 mph at 15,000 at 3000 rpm, 9 lbs boost, and a maximum speed of 365 mph at 22,000 ft at the same rating. The test of Spitfire V AA878 in the UK found a speed increase of 35 mph below full throttle height when going from 9 lbs to 16 lbs boost, with the full throttle height falling by nearly 7,000 ft.


----------



## Greyman (Jul 30, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> We really need to try to compare like to like as a lot of things are not adding up.



From another thread. In the interest of like-with-like ...

All things being equal here is a quick sketch based on figures from (for the most part) the Ministry of Aircraft Production. Perhaps not 100% useful for what actual aircraft would do, but a good indicator of how the changes in engine/equipment will effect performance.







*Spitfire V - Merlin 45 - temperate
Spitfire V - Merlin 46 - temperate
Spitfire V - Merlin 45 - tropical*

Thicker lines are full throttle/+16 boost, thin lines are +9 boost

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jul 30, 2019)

Hop said:


> British tests usually corrected figures to standard atmospheric conditions. The Australian tests I have seen, including the test of the tropicalised Spitfire V with and without drop tanks, did so as well.
> 
> The Australian test of the clean Vc produced a speed of 334 mph at 15,000 at 3000 rpm, 9 lbs boost, and a maximum speed of 365 mph at 22,000 ft at the same rating. The test of Spitfire V AA878 in the UK found a speed increase of 35 mph below full throttle height when going from 9 lbs to 16 lbs boost, with the full throttle height falling by nearly 7,000 ft.



Some problems you can't always correct for with a little math, for example in this Oct 1941 test

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/P-40/PHQ-M-19-1307-A.pdf

...where they mentioned that with the Hurricane "_sustained high power climb cannot be made in warm weather due to excessive coolant temperatures."_

They also noted that the Hurricane could not catch a B-25, B-26 or A-20A in level flight. Also perhaps due to the weather? I would expect a Hurricane should be able to catch a B-25 at least.


----------



## pinsog (Jul 30, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Some problems you can't always correct for with a little math, for example in this Oct 1941 test
> 
> http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/P-40/PHQ-M-19-1307-A.pdf
> 
> ...


Anyone notice that the Hurricane only slightly outturns the SBD? Might explain SBD’s being able to at least defend themselves (when bombless) against Zero’s. 

Could the reason the B25 is faster in this test is because it was an early version that was lighter without all the heavy defensive armament and armor of the later models? Same with B17C? (Although later models could still do 300+ at 25,000 if lightly loaded)

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## PAT303 (Jul 30, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> Sorry, the idea that the RAAF was handicaped by the Merlin 46 vs the Merlin 45 does not hold up. Too many of the comparisons use the wrong altitudes for comparing power or the wrong boost limits. Why the Australians were limiting the boost to 9lbs is a question that doesn't seem to be answered. The Merlin 45,46 and 47 had all been cleared to use 60 1/2 inches ( 15lbs ? boost ) in Jan 1942



All fighter command Merlin 45/46/47's were cleared for 3,000rpm and 16lbs boost in August 1942, the RAAF cleared it's Merlin 46's for 12lbs boost in February 1943.


----------



## pinsog (Jul 30, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Some problems you can't always correct for with a little math, for example in this Oct 1941 test
> 
> http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/P-40/PHQ-M-19-1307-A.pdf
> 
> ...


Also notice the Spitfire had worse visibility than any of the other fighters including the P38. We all get hung up on an extra 10 mph top speed or 200 fpm rate of climb but you can’t avoid them if you can’t see them. The Spitfire was difficult to see out of, the view out of the Zero was like sitting in a chair in your driveway.


----------



## RCAFson (Jul 30, 2019)

pinsog said:


> Anyone notice that the Hurricane only slightly outturns the SBD? Might explain SBD’s being able to at least defend themselves (when bombless) against Zero’s.
> 
> Could the reason the B25 is faster in this test is because it was an early version that was lighter without all the heavy defensive armament and armor of the later models? Same with B17C? (Although later models could still do 300+ at 25,000 if lightly loaded)



I don't see any reference to the Hurricane having trouble catching the A-24.

Regarding the other bombers, it might have been necessary for the Hurricane to use overboost but it also seems likely that the bombers themselves were somewhat lighter and faster than the variants used in actual combat since the speed recorded for the Hurricane II in USAAC testing should be sufficient to overtake any of the bombers:
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/Hurricane_II_Z-2974_Level.pdf


----------



## pinsog (Jul 30, 2019)

RCAFson said:


> I don't see any reference to the Hurricane having trouble catching the A-24.
> 
> Regarding the other bombers, it might have been necessary for the Hurricane to use overboost but it also seems likely that the bombers themselves were somewhat lighter and faster than the variants used in actual combat since the speed recorded for the Hurricane II in USAAC testing should be sufficient to overtake any of the bombers:
> http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/Hurricane_II_Z-2974_Level.pdf


No trouble catching A24 (SBD), but it only slightly outturns it.





Says in the test the Hurricane couldn’t catch them. For the B17C thats no surprise since I think it did about 315 mph at 25,000 feet. The A20 would do 349 mph at 12,000 feet and I think 333 at 5,000 feet so that isn’t a surprise either. B26 was fast down low as was the early unarmored and lightly armed B25.


----------



## pinsog (Jul 30, 2019)

A20 test late 1941

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greyman (Jul 30, 2019)

Anyone know of a good resource where I can see all of the US engine designations and their export designations? I'm constantly foiled by this.

Looking at Boston/Havoc tests at the A&AEE the bomber has about 18 mph on the Hurricane II at 10,000 ft. And maybe 30 mph under 5,000 ft. due to the lower gear.
These are on Bostons/Havocs without flame dampers on. With them on they're about equal to the Hurricane II at 10,000.

(This is a +9 boost Hurricane II, not +12 or +16).

The US test above is about 15-20 mph faster than the fastest examples the A&AEE tested. This seems to happen all the time, not sure if it's a lack of equipment fitted, different methods of reduction, or what.


----------



## RCAFson (Jul 30, 2019)

pinsog said:


> No trouble catching A24 (SBD), but it only slightly outturns it.
> 
> .



If we look at the wing loading of an SBD-1, clean 1/2 fuel, we get a weight of ~7600lb and a wing loading of 24.4lb, for the SBD-3 we get ~8600lb and 27.1lb. The corresponding figure for the Hurricane IIa was ~25.2lb so it's not surprising that the turn radius is similar.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 30, 2019)

Part of the problem is that sometimes the test/s were done at standardized altitudes (or some in between altitudes are left out?) 
a chart that shows speeds at 5,000ft intervals not show the A-20 or B-25 to best advantage? if FTH of the engine was at 12-13,000ft?? and chart shows speed at 10,000ft and 15,000ft?


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 31, 2019)

Greyman said:


> Anyone know of a good resource where I can see all of the US engine designations and their export designations? I'm constantly foiled by this.


I don't think there is a single source for this. 
However US engines are not quite as bad (confusing) as it might appear. Many of the model numbers for the radials just denote different magnetos or carburetors (without performance change) or another characteristic that affects maintenance and not performance. 

however http://www.enginehistory.org/reference.shtml 

is a good place to start, specifically Model Designations of U.S.A.F Engines 

which does _not_ cover navy engines or commercial. 

there are number links further down on the page that cover P & W and Wright radials.

For Wright the most confusing engine is the R-1820

The R-2600 is fairly simple, there are 3 of them that count in WW II (around 100 made pre war?)

The 1600hp A Series
The 1700hp B Series (summer of 1941)
The 1900hp BB Series ( summer of 1943)

each series used pretty much the same supercharger gears (often from series to series) even if the crankcases changed. So military, commercial (?) and export models all were functionally identical. None got water injection, none got a service turbo, none got a service two stage mechanical supercharger. If you have a power curve/chart for a 1600hp R-2600 you pretty much have the power curve/chart for_ all_ 1600hp take-off Wright R-2600s. Same for the 1700HP B (or BA) series. All had two speed superchargers using the same gear ratios (at least in any versions produced in more than a handful) 

For P&W the R-1830 is the confusing engine. Like the Wright R-1820 the period from around 1938-41 has different model engines (different construction) rated for different fuels (US threw in 90-91 octane in addition to 87 and 100) they used both two speed and single speed superchargers (and sometimes different gear ratios although that was ending at the beginning of WW II) and P&W had the two stage engines and both wound up with turbos. As the war went on things got a bit simpler as the older engines were phased out and fuel was more standardized. 

Few, if any, Wright R-3350s were exported during the war.

The P&W R-2800 is a bit tricky but basically you have the A series at 1850hp for take-off (two speed supercharger) which was used in the early B-26 and some shipped off to England to be used in the Warwick. No production single speed,, no production turbo, no production two stage engines. 
The B series gets all the variations but the basic engine was good for 2000hp (dry) for take-off. Single speed engines all got turbos which makes things simple. 
The C series doesn't show up until 1944 (late) which also keeps most of the war simple.

Hope this helps.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Simon Thomas (Jul 31, 2019)

What fuel were the RAAF using during 42-45? Was it from an Australian refinery or was it imported from the US? I doubt any Australian refinery was making 100 octane in 42. Would this have limited the available boost for the Mk V Spitfires?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Jul 31, 2019)

Simon Thomas said:


> What fuel were the RAAF using during 42-45? Was it from an Australian refinery or was it imported from the US? I doubt any Australian refinery was making 100 octane in 42. Would this have limited the available boost for the Mk V Spitfires?



My guess is that the tropical filter has been removed as top speed is stated as 365 mph and Rolls Royce has recommended or prevented the use of override boost. The Seafire IIc with the Merlin 46 was a bit slow too, 280 at sea level, 345 mph at 22,000 feet; no tropical filter either.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 31, 2019)

By 1942 the Australians would have been using 100 or 100/130 fuel. The P-40s/P39s needed it. The Merlin would have been limited to 6lbs boost or less with 87 octane, not 9lbs.
Heck, even the Brewster Buffaloes needed 100 octane.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fubar57 (Jul 31, 2019)

Boulton Pual P.94: Defiant without the turret...Boulton Paul P.94

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


----------



## Schweik (Jul 31, 2019)

fubar57 said:


> Boulton Pual P.94: Defiant without the turret...Boulton Paul P.94



_"The aircraft would have been powered by the 1,260hp Rolls-Royce Merlin XX engine, which was expected to give it a top speed of 380mph at 23,500ft. "_

Wow if that was even close to true it sounds like it might have been a useful addition to the fleet so to speak, instead of making all those Hurricanes. I guess they saw it as competitor to the Spit so they nixed it.

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


----------



## fubar57 (Jul 31, 2019)

from this site​

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Aug 1, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> The Hotspur had its radiator in that position and was faster. The production P-40 as opposed to the prototype moved the radiator and was faster. I disagreed with your suggestion that it would be a better Hurricane than the Hurricane.



The nose position of the radiator does not necessarily mean better performance.

If it was that simple, why wouldn't they move the Hurricane's radiator to the nose?

And the Hotspur was faster than the Defiant? Maybe that was due to other factors than the radiator?

The prototype P-40's belly radiator was badly designed. That's why it was moved. Not sure they even did proper performance tests with the original radiator design before changing it.


----------



## Kevin J (Aug 1, 2019)

Schweik said:


> _"The aircraft would have been powered by the 1,260hp Rolls-Royce Merlin XX engine, which was expected to give it a top speed of 380mph at 23,500ft. "_
> 
> Wow if that was even close to true it sounds like it might have been a useful addition to the fleet so to speak, instead of making all those Hurricanes. I guess they saw it as competitor to the Spit so they nixed it.



Maybe 330 / 340 mph tops when armed. You could add 35 mph to a Spitfire if you cleaned it up and removed all the bits that made it a usable fighter.


----------



## Kevin J (Aug 1, 2019)

wuzak said:


> The nose position of the radiator does not necessarily mean better performance.
> 
> If it was that simple, why wouldn't they move the Hurricane's radiator to the nose?
> 
> ...


Perhaps if the radiator is under the nose you affect view for deflection shooting and buggar up the c.g.


----------



## Hop (Aug 1, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> My guess is that the tropical filter has been removed as top speed is stated as 365 mph and Rolls Royce has recommended or prevented the use of override boost.



The test notes say it was tropicalised, the statement on the condition of the aircraft makes no mention of the filter being removed. They also say "during the tests the engine limitations as stated in the handbook were adopted". I suspect they were simply using an original handbook, rather than the updated version authorising higher boost limits.


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 1, 2019)

Schweik said:


> _"The aircraft would have been powered by the 1,260hp Rolls-Royce Merlin XX engine, which was expected to give it a top speed of 380mph at 23,500ft. "_
> 
> Wow if that was even close to true it sounds like it might have been a useful addition to the fleet so to speak, instead of making all those Hurricanes. I guess they saw it as competitor to the Spit so they nixed it.



It wasn't even close to being true, any more than the Typhoon was a 460mph airplane or the Beaufighter was a 370-380mph airplane. 

Instead of thinking that the Spitfire had "the fix" going on in procurement why doesn't anybody wonder what kind of blackmail evidence Boulton Paul had that required the manufacture of hundreds of Defiants well after it was shown they were near useless as combat aircraft  

The Defiant I had been test both with and without turret (with ballast) so they knew exactly how much extra drag the turret caused. changing the engine wasn't going to change that and in fact the larger radiator (poorly designed) cut into the expected performance of the MK II Defiant.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Aug 1, 2019)

As usual, words are being put into my proverbial mouth. I never said the Spit or Supermarine 'had the fix', I was just quoting the linked article which suggested that the turretless defiant was considered redundant because it was equivalent to the newer models of the Spitfire. My interpretation of this remark is that they didn't want to duplicate the effort.

As to whether the projected performance was realistic or included armor and the planned (very heavy) armament etc., I did not claim to know, in fact to the contrary I pointed out that I did not know and that the claim was not proven.

The fact that the Defiant was at least considered for use indicates to me that my intuition about the design wasn't entirely wrong. I can think of a lot of other potential issues with it though which may have blocked.

I agree that it is a mystery that the Defiant was still being produced as a turret fighter in 1941, though it is unclear if it may have had significant utility as a night fighter. The issue to me is if they could have come up with a better replacement for the Hurricane as a day fighter which was an excellent fighter in 1940, was clearly obsolete by the end of 1941 yet still being produced in large numbers in 1944. That is a bit of a mystery to me, and I think it cost the lives of a lot of Allied pilots.

Relevant to the thread, the hotly debated issue of whether the Hurricane was still providing useful service in Burma in 1944-45. I don't think it was based on what I have read. Same for the Med / Italy, where clearly it's utility had faded dramatically by 1943.


----------



## Schweik (Aug 1, 2019)

fubar57 said:


> View attachment 547141
> 
> from this site​



This photo seems to indicate that they did make a prototype, is that a Merlin XX? Does it have guns? (I don't see any) Did they do any flight testing of it?


----------



## fubar57 (Aug 1, 2019)

This is all I could find. The above photo is also seen in Mushroom Publications "Boulton Paul Defiant" and has this caption....

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Aug 1, 2019)

Wow very interesting. So they did test it.


----------



## Kevin J (Aug 1, 2019)

Hop said:


> The test notes say it was tropicalised, the statement on the condition of the aircraft makes no mention of the filter being removed. They also say "during the tests the engine limitations as stated in the handbook were adopted". I suspect they were simply using an original handbook, rather than the updated version authorising higher boost limits.


There's no way that a Spitfire Vc with a volkes filter was ever going to do 365 mph, it's more like the 345 mph of the Seafire IIc. A Vc Merlin 46 SU carb did 368 so take off 8 - 10 for the standard version without filter. Seafire IIc did 320 at 16000. So maybe it was an Aero vee filter.


----------



## fubar57 (Aug 1, 2019)

I've got 354 @ 17,400 ft. from the book "Spitfire" by Tony Holmes


----------



## Kevin J (Aug 1, 2019)

fubar57 said:


> I've got 354 @ 17,400 ft. from the book "Spitfire" by Tony Holmes


That's a Vb Merlin 45 Volkes filter.


----------



## fubar57 (Aug 1, 2019)

Books says Vc Trop...

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Aug 1, 2019)

fubar57 said:


> Books says Vc Trop...
> 
> View attachment 547219​


Merlin 45 not 46.


----------



## Schweik (Aug 1, 2019)

fubar57 said:


> Books says Vc Trop...
> 
> View attachment 547219​



Is that accurate speed for the MC 202 (including Tropical filters etc.)? If so, really quite a performance advantage (+18 mph at a slightly higher altitude) for the Macchi especially considering the Spit had a 295 hp edge...


----------



## Kevin J (Aug 1, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Is that accurate speed for the MC 202 (including Tropical filters etc.)? If so, really quite a performance advantage (+18 mph at a slightly higher altitude) for the Macchi especially considering the Spit had a 295 hp edge...


Spitfire is 33% bigger with 3 X weight of fire. Macchi probably loses 11 mph with trop filter.


----------



## fubar57 (Aug 1, 2019)

From the book "Spitfire V vs. C.202 Folgore: Malta 1942


----------



## Kevin J (Aug 1, 2019)

fubar57 said:


> From the book "Spitfire V vs. C.202 Folgore: Malta 1942
> View attachment 547220​


IIRC Early109G-2 did 384, with filter 373.


----------



## Schweik (Aug 1, 2019)

If it was a choice between the cannon vs. 18 mph in speed and 6 minutes in climb rate to 20,000 feet instead of 8, I think I'd go with the lighter guns. At least for fighter vs. fighter combat.


----------



## Kevin J (Aug 1, 2019)

Schweik said:


> If it was a choice between the cannon vs. 18 mph in speed and 6 minutes in climb rate to 20,000 feet instead of 8, I think I'd go with the lighter guns. At least for fighter vs. fighter combat.


So long as you're a good shot. The Soviets had 15100 Yak-1/7's and 10 pilots had 8 or more victories. They had 2600 Hurricane IIb/c's, 3 pilots with 8 or more victories. So the Hurricane was twice as effective in combat even though it was universally recognised as obsolete in the ETO. It did have twice as much firepower as a Yak.


----------



## Schweik (Aug 1, 2019)

That is a hell of an assumption based on those numbers, I think you'd need a much broader analysis and more data (like perhaps, total claims by type instead of the number of aces with a certain threshold of victories) to draw even preliminary or tentative conclusions. I'd be very surprised indeed if Soviet Hurricane pilots claimed more air to air victories than Yak 1 and 7 pilots did. 

The Soviet pilots themselves certainly didn't believe the Hurricane was a better fighter than a Yak 1 or Yak 7. Let alone a Yak 1b or Yak 9 which also had quite light armament.

Similarly, the 109F-2 had very light armament compared to a Hurricane IIB or IIC, but does anyone believe the Hurricane was a better fighter?


----------



## Schweik (Aug 1, 2019)

I'd also add - I think it was pretty much a consensus in the Med that the MC 202 was a better and more dangerous fighter than any Hurricane.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fubar57 (Aug 1, 2019)

I've got the book, "Soviet Hurricane Aces of World War 2" which gives all the numbers of aircraft shot down by VVS pilots, not just the aces. I'll get back to you......

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## fubar57 (Aug 1, 2019)

Off the get-go, there were 14 Hurricane VVS aces, three pilots with eight or more.


----------



## Schweik (Aug 1, 2019)

This is an (obviously unofficial, cobbled together) list somebody made of Soviet aces showing what types they flew. Tons of Yak Aces though many of them flew multiple types of planes.

Soviet top Aces of WWII rating

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fubar57 (Aug 1, 2019)

According to the book, Soviet Hurricanes shot down 281 aircraft.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fubar57 (Aug 1, 2019)

The book "Yakovlev Aces of World War 2" lists only the top 55 Yak aces but the top eight eclipse the Hurricane numbers

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fubar57 (Aug 1, 2019)

Number of Hurricanes sent to the USSR according to the Wiki...

The British archives file AIR 22/310 reports 218 mark IIA sent to Russia or handed over, 22 lost before arrival, 1,884 mark IIB sent or handed over, 278 lost before arrival, 1,182 mark IIC sent or handed over, 46 lost before arrival, 117 rejected, 60 IID sent or handed over, 14 rejected, 30 mark IV handed over, total 3,374 Hurricanes sent or handed over, 346 lost before delivery, 2,897 accepted by the Russians, 131 rejected

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Aug 1, 2019)

Comparing the Yak to the Hurricane is a bit of a challenge though, to be fair to the Hurri, it's more of a generalist whereas the Yak is highly specialized for the Russian conditions. I think the Yak, even the early Yak -1, so long as you got a decently built one (big if) was better for the Soviet -German War where the Soviet fighter pilots were mainly trying to defend the airspace over the battlefield and protect their bombers and ground attack aircraft from being destroyed by predatory Luftwaffe fighters. They did not fight bombers that much and most of the bombers they did encounter were Stukas.

The Hurricane was able to saw down fight fleets of level bombers in the BoB, shoot down tactical and anti-shipping bombers in the Med, take out level bombers and dive bombers in Burma and the Pacific and so on. To shoot down a larger bomber like an He 111 or a G4M I'd rather have a Hurricane IIC than a Yak -1. To survive an encounter against a Bf 109F or Fw 190 though I think I'd rather be in the Yak. Either way you are probably in trouble!

Yak vs. say, a Ki-43 is an interesting proposition. Probably go with the Ki-43 though it would be a tough call. How do their speeds compare under 10,000 ft?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## RCAFson (Aug 1, 2019)

fubar57 said:


> Books says Vc Trop...
> 
> View attachment 547219​


Given the smaller wing and frontal area I can buy extra speed for the C.202 at altitude but I don't buy the climb rate. The advertised power for the VC above is 1475hp and if the Spitfire used overboost and used that power for climb it would make 20k ft in about 5mins.


----------



## Greyman (Aug 1, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Yak vs. say, a Ki-43 is an interesting proposition. Probably go with the Ki-43 though it would be a tough call. How do their speeds compare under 10,000 ft?



About 25 mph over a Ki-43 ii and about 45 mph over a Ki-43 i

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Milosh (Aug 1, 2019)

In Dec '42 there was 136 serviceable Ju87s on the Eastern Front which was over 1000mi long..

Luftwaffe Strength Reports for the Eastern Front, 4th Quarter, 1942

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Aug 1, 2019)

fubar57 said:


> According to the book, Soviet Hurricanes shot down 281 aircraft.


The early part of the war on the Eastern Front makes for some pretty grim reading not just on the ground but also in the air. Reading those 'aces' books gives the clues as to how the Germans racked up so many victories. So 2800 Hurricane II/b/c required to log up 281 victories. 15100 Yak-1/7's to generate 55 aces? So what's the overall totals for all Yak-1/7 pilots, 1500?


----------



## fubar57 (Aug 1, 2019)

They book also included the Yak-9


----------



## Schweik (Aug 1, 2019)

But there were definitely more than 55 Soviet pilots who made Ace flying the Yak. A lot more.
















_Glory to the experten!_

However I do agree, circumstances for the Soviet pilots in the first two years of the war were indeed very grim. For one thing the pilot flying a Yak was very lucky, most pilots in action weren't even flying fighters, there were a ton of obsolete bombers and biplane "utility aircraft" and so on getting whacked right and left. Those who were in fighters mostly flew I-153, I-16, LaGG-3, or Mig-3 ... or something even more obscure. A few had Hurricanes which the Soviets considered marginally better than a LaGG-3 I think. A few had Tomahawks or Kittyhawks. The P-39s and Spitfires weren't available until later. And the Spitfires got chewed through pretty quickly in the Kuban.






Loss rates were astronomically high in most parts of the front through Stalingrad, right up to Kursk. Then it started to shift a little. The much improved Yak-1B & Yak 7b, the Yak-9, the La -5, and the P-39s started to make a difference. Tactics improved. The Germans started feeling the strain of constant combat and getting ready for their third Winter was a little too much.

Most of the successful Soviet fighters still didn't have a lot of guns though even by 1944, especially compared to late war German or British fighters.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Aug 1, 2019)

Greyman said:


> About 25 mph over a Ki-43 ii and about 45 mph over a Ki-43 i



That is probably enough of an edge for energy fighting.


----------



## slaterat (Aug 2, 2019)

Its interesting to note that the RAF never thought any P-40 was good enough for service in Northern Europe. They kept their Hurricane IIs till mid 42 , after which they were replaced by Typhoons. In the DAF the Hurricanes were kept in front line service till the Spring of 43 after which they were replaced by Spitfires. In the Burma theater the Hurricanes excellent ground attack abilities and servicability kept in in front line service in large numbers till late 44, after which it was largely replaced by Thunderbolts.


----------



## taly01 (Aug 2, 2019)

> Yak vs. say, a Ki-43 is an interesting proposition. Probably go with the Ki-43 though it would be a tough call. How do their speeds compare under 10,000 ft?



To contrast soviet vs japanese fighters are interesting as both were engine HP limited and resource limited. The both made light fighters designed to be flown off average airstrips. Both were also limited to light armanents due to weight and space limitations. Somehow the USSR was able to use small wings for speed and still have landing ability on rough forward strips. The Japanese planes did have a much longer range ability that the USSR never did.

A Ki-43 with a Yak size wing would have been interesting, but would have definately reduced its range due to factors of wing loading and fuel tank space.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Milosh (Aug 2, 2019)

The 109 only had 2 mgs and 1 cannon unless gun gondolas were under the wings and Lw pilots were not enthused with them.

Spitfires in the Kuban, late April 1943. Spitfires over the Kuban – Lend-Lease


----------



## buffnut453 (Aug 2, 2019)

And all of this has exactly what relationship to the RAF campaign in Malaya, India and Burma? 😄

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Aug 2, 2019)

slaterat said:


> Its interesting to note that the RAF never thought any P-40 was good enough for service in Northern Europe. They kept their Hurricane IIs till mid 42 , after which they were replaced by Typhoons. In the DAF the Hurricanes were kept in front line service till the Spring of 43 after which they were replaced by Spitfires. In the Burma theater the Hurricanes excellent ground attack abilities and servicability kept in in front line service in large numbers till late 44, after which it was largely replaced by Thunderbolts.



P-40s weren't deemed suitable for defense of England due to their altitude limitation.

Hurricanes were actually replaced by P-40s in multiple squadrons in the Med, and by mid 42 almost all that were still flying were used as bombers. The only place they kept using them as fighters seems to be Burma.

In Russia Hurricanes were typically replaced by Yaks or P-39s.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Aug 2, 2019)

buffnut453 said:


> And all of this has exactly what relationship to the RAF campaign in Malaya, India and Burma? 😄



Obviously the conversation is just an extension of the evaluation of the main British fighter in India and Burma - the Hurricane. It is central to the discussion that the Hurricane was arguably the most important fighter type in use by the British / Commonwealth forces in that Theater. The question being was it still suitable after 1942?

It's worth keeping in mind that the Soviets were also an enemy of the Japanese and did eventually engage them again in northern China / Manchuria in 1945. In fact you could make the argument that the real impetus for the Japanese surrender, even more than all the bombing including the A-bombs, was the precipitous collapse of their large and once very formidable Kwantung Army under the ferocious, highly efficient onslaught of the Red Army, including the rapid capture of Northern Korea and the Kuril islands by paratroopers and amphibious landings.

The Japanese authorities greatly feared a Soviet invasion as Imperial Japan was perhaps the most virulently anti-Communist polity on earth at that time. Being taken over by Stalin may have seemed to them a fate worse than death. Their armies on the mainland of China were their ace in the hole which they (unrealistically) hoped to somehow leverage against their enemies. In the early part of the war the IJA seemed to be nearly unstoppable.

When a large proportion of the IJA land forces in China were crushed decisively in less than two weeks all hope of revival of Imperial Japanese fortunes collapsed with them.

Air power was a major component of the combined-arms approach used by the Soviets in that invasion. The Japanese forces were largely obsolescent and in poor repair but they did have 1,800 aircraft in that part of the Theater on August 9 when the Soviet invasion started. No doubt the Japanese collapse saw the substantial use of Yak fighters with just a few nose guns 

For the US the Theater was called the CBI - China, Burma, India. Prior to that decisive Soviet invasion, it's difficult to completely untangle USAAF and RAF efforts in that very broad region and the much more gradual successes of Anglo-American-Sino forces against the IJA, especially it's central focus for the Allies - the Burma Road, the main point of which was to supply and reinforce the Chinese army.


----------



## Kevin J (Aug 2, 2019)

Schweik said:


> P-40s weren't deemed suitable for defense of England due to their altitude limitation.
> 
> Hurricanes were actually replaced by P-40s in multiple squadrons in the Med, and by mid 42 almost all that were still flying were used as bombers. The only place they kept using them as fighters seems to be Burma.
> 
> In Russia Hurricanes were typically replaced by Yaks or P-39s.



In Russia the Hurricanes were reassigned to the PVO, and operated as both interceptors and close escorts until 1944.

In the CBI, as fighters until finally replaced by Spitfires in 1944, but kept for ground attack until war's end. Outclassed with the arrival of the KI-43-II from 1943. All they needed was a Merlin 24 and a cleanup like the Sea Hurricane IIc and they would have been okay as fighters until 1944.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Aug 2, 2019)

PVO as I understand it was air defense over cities and other Strategic targets a long way from the front. The most vital PVO defenses were manned by Spitfire Mk IX and later, high altitude Yak 9 variants. Hurricanes, and later P-40s too, were assigned to defend the less critical PVO targets. It's worth noting that most of these were beyond the range of German day fighters so they were mostly just intercepting longer ranged bombers. So long as the bomber was slow enough, the Hurricane was still pretty good at that job.



> In the CBI, as fighters until finally replaced by Spitfires in 1944, but kept for ground attack until war's end. Outclassed with the arrival of the KI-43-II from 1943. All they needed was a Merlin 24 and a cleanup like the Sea Hurricane IIc and they would have been okay as fighters until 1944.



Interesting proposition. Maybe true, but hard to prove.


----------



## Schweik (Aug 2, 2019)

One other thing about Soviet Hurricanes worth keeping in mind, many of the ones that were sent to them (I don't know the exact percentage) had already seen combat and may have been 'clapped out' before the first Soviet pilot even flew them. This was true with some of the P-40s as well. They also had limited spares, no maintenance manuals and no winterization prep, and Soviet mechanics lacked familiarity with the much more demanding maintenance (including 'oil culture') standards for the engines in particular, causing endless headaches. All of this no doubt influenced the Soviet perception of the aircraft.

Lessons learned on the Hurricane and P-40 and other early adopted Western aircraft contributed to the careful workup that was done with the P-39.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Aug 2, 2019)

Did they ever replace the Vokes filters in Burma with more efficient types?


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 2, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> In the CBI, as fighters until finally replaced by Spitfires in 1944, but kept for ground attack until war's end. Outclassed with the arrival of the KI-43-II from 1943. All they needed was a *Merlin 24 *and a cleanup like the Sea Hurricane IIc and they would have been okay as fighters until 1944.




You do know that a Merlin 24 was functionally a Merlin XX with a modified supercharger *drive* that allowed 18lbs of boost to be used instead of 14lbs in low gear and 16.bs in high gear (heavier supercharger drive shaft?) and above around 12,500ft there was no difference in the power output of the two engines? 
The supercharger itself was not changed and neither were the gear ratios which means the extra power is only available at relatively low altitudes. Merlin XX was good for 1485hp at 6000ft compared to the Merlin 24s 1635hp at 2250ft but the Merlin 24 would have dropped to about 1485hp at 6000ft.
The Merlin 24 was allowed to use 18lbs boost for take-off which would have helped with short airstrips and heavy loads but the utility of the Merlin 24 over the Merlin XX for air to air combat requires certain circumstances at a limited number of altitudes. 

As to how useful the Hurricane II was as a fighter just compare it to the P-40F which used for all practical purposes the same engine. The P-40F was faster by 20-30mph and actually climbed better at around 20,000ft and up. It also carried more fuel (not much more) and carried about the same weight of guns and ammo (depend on how many .50 cal rounds).

The Hurricanes usefulness as a fighter rather depends on the Japanese NOT bringing in Ki-44s or K-61s to oppose it.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Aug 2, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> The supercharger itself was not changed and neither were the gear ratios which means the extra power is only available at relatively low altitudes. Merlin XX was good for 1485hp at 6000ft



I was recently discussing a very similar topic with someone else on the forum, and wondered if you could provide some insight with your sources and knowledge about engines. First, do you know when these boost settings were approved for the Merlin XX, and second, were they ever approved for the P-40F/L?

All my sources lack any WEP setting for the V-1650-1 / Merlin 28 (which is nominally identical to the XX but there are no doubt some minor differences) and the highest power setting listed is the takeoff power of 1,300 hp at roughly 12 lbs boost / 54”. I have 3 books which list this but none ever mention any WEP setting or any higher power setting.

I have seen brief mentions of 1480 or 1485 hp at +16 lbs boost, and I have seen pilot anecdotes in which they claimed or mentioned using up to 65" Hg boost in emergencies, but I have never seen that associated with any official document related to the Packard Merlin V-1650-1. Do you know of any?


----------



## slaterat (Aug 2, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Hurricanes were actually replaced by P-40s in multiple squadrons in the Med, and by mid 42 almost all that were still flying were used as bombers. The only place they kept using them as fighters seems to be Burma.



I am not sure where this idea that P-40s replaced Hurricanes in North Africa came from but it is basically false. The only two Squadrons that ever replaced Hurricanes with P-40s in Africa were 250, that oddly replaced Tomahawks with Hurricane 1s, and then replaced the Hurricane 1s with Kittyhawks, and 260 which replaced Hurricane 1s with Kittyhawks. That's it, two squadrons replaced their old clapped out tropicalized Hurricane 1s with brand new Kittyhawks. It does not appear that any Hurricane 2s were ever replaced by P-40s.

The Hurricane Squadrons were still making claims from air to air kills till the end of the African campaign. 73 squad made 9 or 10 claims and an equal amount damaged in Tunisia in April and May 43. By this time the Kittyhawks were primarily fighter bombers as well.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## slaterat (Aug 2, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> As to how useful the Hurricane II was as a fighter just compare it to the P-40F which used for all practical purposes the same engine. The P-40F was faster by 20-30mph and actually climbed better at around 20,000ft and up. It also carried more fuel (not much more) and carried about the same weight of guns and ammo (depend on how many .50 cal rounds).



RAF testing differs with you on the climb rate. The info I have is Hurricane 2, 8.8 mins to 20 k and 17 mins to 30 k. The Kityhawk 2 is 10.9 mins to 20k and 18.5 mins to 28 k. You can find better numbers for both but the Hurricane is always ahead on the climb. The speeds are fairly close when using the same boost. The Kitthawk 2 was not used in large numbers by the RAF as overall it really wasn't any better than a Hurricane. The Hurricanes handling and turn rate is far better as well.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Aug 2, 2019)

slaterat said:


> I am not sure where this idea that P-40s replaced Hurricanes in North Africa came from but it is basically false.



It's surprising that you keep making this statement because it's so easy to disprove. The last time you made this claim I replied with a detailed post which you seem to have somehow not seen, perhaps due to the magic of ideology. Here is a link to it from another thread and here is a repost for your convenience:

The following RAF / Commonwealth combat squadrons converted from Hurricanes to P-40s in the Western Desert (use of some types overlapped). It was a total of 7 combat squadrons in all:

From *239 Wing*:

*112 Sqn RAF* (Hurricanes I in the first half of 41, Tomahawk in the second half, Kittyhawk I from Winter 41, Kittyhawk III in 1942, Kittyhawk IV in early 44, then Mustang III in late 44)
*250 Sqn RAF *(Hurricane I and IIB and IIC from February to April 42, Kittyhawk I and II April - October 42, Kittyhawk III from October 42, then Kittyhawk II again, then Kittyhawk IV in 44*,* and finally Mustang III from August 45)
*260 Sqn RAF* (Hurricane I and II from Nov 41 - Feb 42, Tomahawk II from Feb - Mar 42, Kittyhawk I from Feb - Sep 42, Kittyhawk IIA from Jun 42 - May 43, Kittyhawk III from Dec 43-Mar 44, Mustang III from Apr 44- Aug 45)
*3 Sqn RAAF *(Gladiators and Gauntlets - and a few Lysanders- in 1940, then Hurricanes in 1941, then Tomahawks in late 1941, then Kittyhawks from 1942- Nov 1944, then Mustang IV)
*450 Sqn RAAF* (Hurricane from May-Dec 41, Kittyhawk I and Ia from Dec 41 - Sept 42, Kittyhawk III from Sept 42 - Oct 43, Kittyhawk IV from Oct 43 - Aug 45, Mustang III from May 45-Aug 45)

from *223 Wing
4 Sqn SAAF* (Hurricanes from March 41 - plus some Mohawks - Tomahawks from Sept 41, Kittyhawks from some time in 42, then Spitfires in July 43)
*2 Sqn SAAF* (Gladiator and Gladiator II from 1940, Hurricane in early 1941, Tomahawk IIB June 41 - May 42, Kittyhawk I Apr 42 - June 43, Kittyhawk III, June 43 - July 43, Spitfire VC from July 43 - march 44, Spitfire IX from Feb 44 - July 45)

As far as I can tell, one unit, *239 Squadron RAF* operating as a recon unit from England switched from Lysanders (Sep 40 - Jan 42) to Tomahawk I and IIa (from Jun 41 to May 42) to Hurricane I and IIc (from Jan 42- because they didn't like the Tomahawk). Then they were converted to the Fairey Battle in Jun 42!!! Then the Miles Master in March 42, then finally to Mustang I in May 42, and Beaufighters in Oct 43 and then Mosquitoes from Dec 43.

I couldn't find any Western Desert units that switched from P-40 to Hurricane _though I am not saying there weren't any_. I just couldn't find it if there was.

5 Sqn SAAF never got Hurricanes to begin with (Mohawk Vk, Dec 41 with Tomahawk IIB, late 42 with Kittyhawk III, Kittyhawk IV in 1944)

In addition, some Canadian squadrons which seem to have been home-defense units based on Canada's Pacific coast, converted from Hurricanes to Kitythawks, but I don't consider these combat units. They included:

133 Squadron British Columbia (converted from Hurricanes to Kittyhawks in March 44, then to Mosquitoes)
135 Squadron Patricia Bay (converted from Hurricanes to Kittyhawks in May 44)
163 Squadron Sea Island (converted from Hurricanes to Kittyhawks in Oct 43)

Please note that in fact 250 RAF did convert from Hurricane IIB to Kittyhawk, as did 260, and I think 3 RAAF as well.




> The Hurricane Squadrons were still making claims from air to air kills till the end of the African campaign. 73 squad made 9 or 10 claims and an equal amount damaged in Tunisia in April and May 43. By this time the Kittyhawks were primarily fighter bombers as well.



Yes, they still made a handful of claims in 1942 and 1943 while flying fighter bomber missions, but compare the above to the claims for any of the US fighter P-40 groups or to the 239 Wing or 223 Wing RAF / Commonwealth groups. Kittyhawk II and IIIs and P-40F/L were flying escort missions routinely in April and May 1943, quite often for Hurricanes or older model Kittyhawks.

We can debate this further in that other thread if you want to rather than continue to derail this one.


----------



## Kevin J (Aug 2, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> You do know that a Merlin 24 was functionally a Merlin XX with a modified supercharger *drive* that allowed 18lbs of boost to be used instead of 14lbs in low gear and 16.bs in high gear (heavier supercharger drive shaft?) and above around 12,500ft there was no difference in the power output of the two engines?
> The supercharger itself was not changed and neither were the gear ratios which means the extra power is only available at relatively low altitudes. Merlin XX was good for 1485hp at 6000ft compared to the Merlin 24s 1635hp at 2250ft but the Merlin 24 would have dropped to about 1485hp at 6000ft.
> The Merlin 24 was allowed to use 18lbs boost for take-off which would have helped with short airstrips and heavy loads but the utility of the Merlin 24 over the Merlin XX for air to air combat requires certain circumstances at a limited number of altitudes.
> 
> ...


Agreed, but you should be able to get an extra 13 mph at altitude if you do the same mods as the Sea Hurricane IIc which would be useful against the Ki-43-II.


----------



## Kevin J (Aug 2, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Did they ever replace the Vokes filters in Burma with more efficient types?


Not that I know.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Aug 2, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> Not that I know.


Ideally we need those Spitfire Vb Trops for Russia with the Merlin 46 in early 43 in India. I guess there was some politics involved in their final destination. Alternately, a cleaned up Hurricane IIc with a less drag inducing filter maybe Merlin 24 so that we have it doing 322 at 13000 and 342 at 22000 so being more competitive against the Ki-43-II.


----------



## Schweik (Aug 2, 2019)

I think the only real problem with the Hurricane was the lack of an escape maneuver. Other Anglo-American planes used dive - the Hurri had those big wings. It didn't seem to be able to dive out of trouble.

I agree though that there was clearly a speed (in level flight) threshold involved. So long as the Hurri was in the ballpark on speed or had a slight edge as in Burma in the earlier days, it's pilots had something to work with, once it fell behind a little (beyond a certain point) or lost that edge it lost the initiative.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Aug 2, 2019)

Schweik said:


> I think the only real problem with the Hurricane was the lack of an escape maneuver. Other Anglo-American planes used dive - the Hurri had those big wings. It didn't seem to be able to dive out of trouble.
> 
> I agree though that there was clearly a speed (in level flight) threshold involved. So long as the Hurri was in the ballpark on speed or had a slight edge as in Burma in the earlier days, it's pilots had something to work with, once it fell behind a little (beyond a certain point) or lost that edge it lost the initiative.


Supposedly it could do 450 in a dive so more than a Ki-43. A Merlin 24 would give it a good low altitude performance edge. So exit manouvre would be dive then boost to run then zoom climb back. That should be okay until the Ki-43-III comes along and it's outclassed. You could then remove 2 cannon to improve the roll rate. Now that they did.


----------



## Schweik (Aug 2, 2019)

They did that (removed two guns) in Russia and in the Med at least some times. Do you have records of diving as escape maneuver with Hurricanes in the CBI?


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 2, 2019)

Schweik said:


> I was recently discussing a very similar topic with someone else on the forum, and wondered if you could provide some insight with your sources and knowledge about engines. First, do you know when these boost settings were approved for the Merlin XX, and second, were they ever approved for the P-40F/L?
> 
> All my sources lack any WEP setting for the V-1650-1 / Merlin 28 (which is nominally identical to the XX but there are no doubt some minor differences) and the highest power setting listed is the takeoff power of 1,300 hp at roughly 12 lbs boost / 54”. I have 3 books which list this but none ever mention any WEP setting or any higher power setting.
> 
> I have seen brief mentions of 1480 or 1485 hp at +16 lbs boost, and I have seen pilot anecdotes in which they claimed or mentioned using up to 65" Hg boost in emergencies, but I have never seen that associated with any official document related to the Packard Merlin V-1650-1. Do you know of any?



The Manual for the P-40F and L, revised June 20th 1943 says that 61 in could be used for WER in both high and low gear, Low gear used below 8000ft and high gear above 8000ft. 
61in works out to just about 15 1/2lbs boost so take it for what you think it is worth. It is on page 2.

However the engine chart on page 37 just shows 1300hp at 4800ft for 61in inlow gear and 1300hp at 13,000ft for 61in. in high gear which is rather strange (wrong?) . 
same chart says 1240hp at 11,500ft using 48in (9lbs) military power in low gear. 

1300hp for take-off using 54.3in (12lbs boost) is on the chart.
Sloppy editing? copied the 1300 figure into boxes it wasn't supposed to be? 
I don't think any US engines got a WER until fall of 1942 (at least an official one) which means early copies of pilots manuals are not going to list it.

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


----------



## Schweik (Aug 2, 2019)

Thanks Shortround6 much appreciated.

It's quite possible it was a mistake that just got repeated over and over from the manual. 61" should mean much more than 1300 hp below say 2,000 feet.

Certainly by June 43 they would have been using the higher boost settings.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 2, 2019)

slaterat said:


> RAF testing differs with you on the climb rate. The info I have is Hurricane 2, 8.8 mins to 20 k and 17 mins to 30 k. The Kityhawk 2 is 10.9 mins to 20k and 18.5 mins to 28 k. You can find better numbers for both but the Hurricane is always ahead on the climb. The speeds are fairly close when using the same boost. The Kitthawk 2 was not used in large numbers by the RAF as overall  it really wasn't any better than a Hurricane. The Hurricanes handling and turn rate is far better as well.




Thank you, Speed for one KittyHawk 2 was 354mph at 48in and that was with both fittings for under fuselage bomb/drop tank and slots in the wings for under wing bombs. 

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/P-40/FL220.pdf 

Plane is at 8910lbs (?) granted planes varied in weight but that seems a bit heavy. Weight and loading chart calls for 8860lbs with full internal fuel, full oil, 506lbs of .50 cal ammo (281 rog) and 27lbs of _extra_ radios.


----------



## Schweik (Aug 2, 2019)

I wonder what the difference was in this test done a month earlier where it managed 370

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/P-40/Kittyhawk_II_performance_9sept42.jpg

Does anyone still upload documents to wwiiaircraftperformance.org? Did it all stop some time around 2015?


----------



## pinsog (Aug 2, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> Supposedly it could do 450 in a dive so more than a Ki-43. A Merlin 24 would give it a good low altitude performance edge. So exit manouvre would be dive then boost to run then zoom climb back. That should be okay until the Ki-43-III comes along and it's outclassed. You could then remove 2 cannon to improve the roll rate. Now that they did.


I don’t think top speed in a dive was the problem, it was the slow acceleration in a dive. If a P39 or P40 rolled into a dive it accelerated quickly, essentially it dropped like a rock. Early Spitfires and all Hurricanes accelerated too slowly and while they may eventually outpace the Japanese fighter following them, they remained within effective gun range for too long and got shot down. The P40 outrolled anything the Japanese had, so it was on its back and gone in a heartbeat.

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


----------



## Kevin J (Aug 3, 2019)

pinsog said:


> I don’t think top speed in a dive was the problem, it was the slow acceleration in a dive. If a P39 or P40 rolled into a dive it accelerated quickly, essentially it dropped like a rock. Early Spitfires and all Hurricanes accelerated too slowly and while they may eventually outpace the Japanese fighter following them, they remained within effective gun range for too long and got shot down. The P40 outrolled anything the Japanese had, so it was on its back and gone in a heartbeat.



I guess you're not going to refine a fighter ( Hurricane IIb ) that you expect to replace with a better one ( Spitfire Vb ) quite soon. The late 42 Sea Hurricane IIc no doubt came along because of the disappointing performance of the Seafire IIc.


----------



## Kevin J (Aug 3, 2019)

Schweik said:


> I wonder what the difference was in this test done a month earlier where it managed 370
> 
> http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/P-40/Kittyhawk_II_performance_9sept42.jpg
> 
> Does anyone still upload documents to wwiiaircraftperformance.org? Did it all stop some time around 2015?



Look at document FL220-LEVEL.JPG and you get 330 at 9800 and 354 at 20400 with air cleaner so about 5% loss in speed over Kittyhawk II with no air cleaner.


----------



## Hop (Aug 3, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> There's no way that a Spitfire Vc with a volkes filter was ever going to do 365 mph, it's more like the 345 mph of the Seafire IIc. A Vc Merlin 46 SU carb did 368 so take off 8 - 10 for the standard version without filter. Seafire IIc did 320 at 16000. So maybe it was an Aero vee filter.



It was definitely a Vokes filter. The Australians spent some time building and testing their own replacement tropical cowling to replace it (they got a slight performance improvement but had problems with rough running at high altitude).

Various figures for Spitfire V aircraft with Vokes filters:

Vc - 352 at 18,500 ft (Merlin 45, as reported by the Australian Air Ministry based on UK tests)
Vb - 354 at 17,400 ft (AB320, Merlin 45)
Vc - 357 at FTH ("extensive" Australian testing of 3 aircraft with different cowlings (358.5 for locally produced cowling, 363 for temperate cowls)
Va - 363 at 20,800 ft (6,440 lbs) (test of tropical filter as reported in The Spitfire Story by Price)
Vc - 364 ("several separate tests" in Australia accord to Darwinspitfires.com)
Vc - 365 at 22,000 ft (6,870 lbs) (first Australian test, probably part of same figures from Darwinspitfires)
V - 374 (Comparative trials of tropicalised and temperate aircraft (379 for temperate). Model not given, from Spitfire the History

The 365 mph of the first aircraft tested by the Australians was higher than most, but the speed of individual aircraft varied, especially if they had a variation in FTH.

I suspect there may have been differences in the design, manufacture or fitting of the Vokes filter because some trials reported a large speed loss (15 mph or more) but others around 5 mph. The Australians devoted a lot of effort into getting temperate cowls and designing their own improved tropical version but in the end found little difference between them.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 3, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> I guess you're not going to refine a fighter ( Hurricane IIb ) that you expect to replace with a better one ( Spitfire Vb ) quite soon. The late 42 Sea Hurricane IIc no doubt came along because of the disappointing performance of the Seafire IIc.




I am not sure that was the case. I would love to see some memos regarding the thinking or reasoning of the time. You may be right but there is too little evidence available to say one way or the other. 

we do have to make sure we are comparing like to like and both planes came with and without the Vokes filter, larger oil tanks, ice guards (in the case of the Spitfire at least)
and in one case of the Sea Spit MK IIC it was carrying four 20mm cannon and four .303 guns. 

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/seafireIIc.pdf 

I am not sure how many of either type aircraft got the 6 outlet exhausts instead the 3 outlet ones. There are a number of pictures about that claim to be Sea Hurricane IICs with the 3 outlet exhausts. Bad captions or the 6 outlet exhaust was limited issue/special case? 

Fit Spit with the same intake as the 342mph Hurricane and the same exhausts and fit two 20mm guns and four .303s and I wonder what the results would be (use the Merlin 46 as a number of Seaspits got very low altitude engines which means their speed in the lower thicker air cannot compare to the Sea Hurricane flying at 20,000ft),


----------



## Kevin J (Aug 3, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> I am not sure that was the case. I would love to see some memos regarding the thinking or reasoning of the time. You may be right but there is too little evidence available to say one way or the other.
> 
> we do have to make sure we are comparing like to like and both planes came with and without the Vokes filter, larger oil tanks, ice guards (in the case of the Spitfire at least)
> and in one case of the Sea Spit MK IIC it was carrying four 20mm cannon and four .303 guns.
> ...


Yes lots of different figures. IIRC there were a small number of new build Sea Hurricane IIc, so maybe only 10% of them had the individual exhausts and the higher speeds as other figures I've seen are 324/320 for the IIb/IIc.


----------



## Kevin J (Aug 3, 2019)

Hop said:


> It was definitely a Vokes filter. The Australians spent some time building and testing their own replacement tropical cowling to replace it (they got a slight performance improvement but had problems with rough running at high altitude).
> 
> Various figures for Spitfire V aircraft with Vokes filters:
> 
> ...


The Volkes filter was big and bulky and included an oil tank necessary when a 90 gal slipper tank was carried. This caused th 5% speed loss.


----------



## Glider (Aug 3, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> I guess you're not going to refine a fighter ( Hurricane IIb ) that you expect to replace with a better one ( Spitfire Vb ) quite soon. The late 42 Sea Hurricane IIc no doubt came along because of the disappointing performance of the Seafire IIc.


Can I ask where you got the idea that the Sea Hurricane IIc was developed because of the disappointing performance of the Seafire IIc?


----------



## Kevin J (Aug 3, 2019)

Glider said:


> Can I ask where you got the idea that the Sea Hurricane IIc was developed because of the disappointing performance of the Seafire IIc?


They kept building them and put Merlin 32's in the Seafire IIc's.


----------



## Glider (Aug 3, 2019)

They kept building Hurricanes way after they were effective fighters and Merlin 32's were specially designed to boost low altitude performance and was designed for, and built mainly used by the FAA because of that. The Merlin 32 produced more power than the Merlin XX as fitted to the Sea Hurricane at low altitude.


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 3, 2019)

data card for the Sea Spitfire L IIc with Merlin 32 engine (also used in the Baracuda)







From Spitfire Performance. The engine used a 9.75in Impeller (compared to the "cropped" 9.5in ones) but used the the 8.588 supercharger gear instead of the 9.089 gears of the MK Vs with Merlin 45s, 50s, 55s with the cropped impeller. 
If somebody can find a Hurricane with a speed of 330mph or so at 5,000ft we might have a horse race but again we need to make sure we are comparing like to like, 
The Seafire III did use the Merlin 55 and 55M (cropped rotor) 

Please note with engine, despite have ing 18lbs at low level boost was down to 6.6lbs at 16,000ft including RAM from 334mph forward speed, at 20,000ft boost was down to 3.5lbs.


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 3, 2019)

They may have built Sea Hurricanes because they were easier to land on a Carrier than the Seaspit and not because they performed better. 

There is also the matter of allocations, unless you shut down a Hurricane factory and retool it to build Spitfires there are only so many Spitfires to go around. Every Sea Spit for the FAA is a land Spit not built for the RAF (not exactly but you get the point) so converting/building 400 or more Sea Hurricanes in late 1942/early 1943 may have been seen as as a way to keep from screwing up total number of fighters built.


----------



## Kevin J (Aug 3, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> data card for the Sea Spitfire L IIc with Merlin 32 engine (also used in the Baracuda)
> 
> View attachment 547576
> 
> ...


Hurricane V, Merlin 32, 322 at 2000.


----------



## wuzak (Aug 3, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> Hurricane V, Merlin 32, 322 at 2000.



Can you post the full comparison and where the data comes from?

The Seafire 322mph @ 2,000ft and the Sea Hurricane?
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mb138speed.jpg 

Hurricane IIC
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/hurricane-IIc-raechart-level.jpg 

The Hurricane IIC doesn't get to 320mph until 19,000ft and FS gear (which the Seafire did not have).

Have you any better data for the Hurricane V?

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 3, 2019)

No Performance figures but from "Hawker Aircraft since 1920 by Mason"

""Rolls-Royce was able to show that it was possible to ground boost the Merlin 32 to develop almost 1700hp, and it was therefore decided to combine thins engine, driving a 4 blade Rotol propeller, with the universal wing of the MK IV and alter the designation to MK V. Two conversions from MK IVs were undertaken, the first, KZ193, being flown by Lucas and Fox on 3 APril 1943'

"By the Autumn of 1943, however, with very large stocks of Hurricanes being assembled in India, it was decided that relatively modest advance in performance did not justify perseverance with a new version of the Hurricane and, although the three MK V examples underwent prolonged trials, the project was abandoned."

Unless we know the condition of the MK V prototype it's speed, while interesting, doesn't tell us much. The MK IV universal wing having a single .303 gun on each side (hardly fighter armament) and fittings/wiring/plumbing for bombs, drop tanks, rockets and 40mm AT guns in pods. Was the 322mph made with clean wings or with empty bomb racks or with ?????

This prototype performance is 17mph slower than the data card for the Seafire M MK IIC

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Aug 3, 2019)

wuzak said:


> Can you post the full comparison and where the data comes from?
> 
> The Seafire 322mph @ 2,000ft and the Sea Hurricane?
> http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mb138speed.jpg
> ...


It's from wiki. Other figures from wwiiaircraftperformance.


----------



## Kevin J (Aug 3, 2019)

326 at 500 ft for Hurricane V.


----------



## wuzak (Aug 3, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> 326 at 500 ft for Hurricane V.



From?

Got a chart?


----------



## PAT303 (Aug 3, 2019)

Schweik said:


> The Beau increasingly looks like one of the unsung heroes of WW2.



I found this by pure accident

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


----------



## Schweik (Aug 3, 2019)

Oh yeah.... love that story.


----------



## Kevin J (Aug 4, 2019)

PAT303 said:


> I found this by pure accident



I thought the Eifel Tower was in France and not the CBI.


----------



## Kevin J (Aug 4, 2019)

wuzak said:


> From?
> 
> Got a chart?


Wikipedia


----------



## wuzak (Aug 4, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> 326 at 500 ft for Hurricane V.





wuzak said:


> From?
> 
> Got a chart?





Kevin J said:


> Wikipedia



Hawker Hurricane variants - Wikipedia 

*Sea Hurricane Mk IIC*
Hurricane Mk IIC version equipped with catapult spools, an arrester hook and full naval avionics; 400 aircraft were converted and used on fleet and escort carriers. The Merlin XX engine on the Sea Hurricane generated 1460 hp at 6,250 feet (1,900 m) and 1435 hp at 11,000 feet (3,400 m). Top speed was *322 mph (518 km/h) at 13,500 ft (4,100 m)* and 342 mph (550 km/h) at 22,000 ft (6,700 m). 

*Hurricane Mk V*
Two Hurricane Mk Vs were built as conversions of Mk IVs, and featured a Merlin 32 engine driving a four-bladed propeller. As the ground attack role moved to the more capable Hawker Typhoon, production of the Hurricane ended, and only a handful were delivered with the Merlin 32.

By this time, the Hurricane was no longer a frontline fighter in the United Kingdom. However, it still saw extensive service overseas as a fighter, playing a prominent role in the Middle East and Far East. It was also critical to the defence of Malta during 1941 and early 1942.

Hawker Hurricane - Wikipedia 

*Hurricane Mk V*
The final variant to be produced. Only one was built and 2 mark IV converted, and the variant never reached production. This was planned to be powered by a Merlin 27 but also tested with a Merlin 32 boosted engine to give 1,700 hp at low level and was intended as a dedicated ground-attack aircraft to use in Burma. All three prototypes had four-bladed propellers. Speed was *326 mph (525 km/h) at 500 ft*, which is comparable with the Hurricane I despite being one and a half times as heavy.

Do you think there may have been a typo there?

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/seafirel2cads.jpg 

The critical latitude of the Merlin 32 was 1,750ft in the Seafire IIC and the maximum speed was at 5,000ft.


----------



## Kevin J (Aug 4, 2019)

wuzak said:


> Hawker Hurricane variants - Wikipedia
> 
> *Sea Hurricane Mk IIC*
> Hurricane Mk IIC version equipped with catapult spools, an arrester hook and full naval avionics; 400 aircraft were converted and used on fleet and escort carriers. The Merlin XX engine on the Sea Hurricane generated 1460 hp at 6,250 feet (1,900 m) and 1435 hp at 11,000 feet (3,400 m). Top speed was *322 mph (518 km/h) at 13,500 ft (4,100 m)* and 342 mph (550 km/h) at 22,000 ft (6,700 m).
> ...


Reply embedded after Hurricane V.


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 4, 2019)

"Speed was *326 mph (525 km/h) at 500 ft*, which is comparable with the Hurricane I despite being *one and a half times as heavy*".

And this is a big part of the trouble with Wiki. Misprints/typing and somebody confusing or leaving out such minor details as the height at which speeds were achieved. Also comparing gross weights and not the weights at which the speeds were achieved. 

Assuming the 326mph is correct (and not the 322mph) and that 5000ft is the correct altitude a MK I Hurricane using 12lbs of boost did make 326mph. but it did it at 10,000ft. at 5,000ft it did about 304mph and at 2000ft it was doing about 293mph. This is on 12lbs of boost, yes using 14lbs or 16lb will show improvement but few, if any, land based Hurricanes used thos boost settings. 

The "one and a half times as heavy" is a real laugher. As noted the speed seems to be for the clean MK V and a clean MK V was in now way, shape or form 1 1/2 times heavier than a MK I.

No combat ready MK 1 (armor, self sealing tanks and at least a two pitch prop) was under 6,000lbs. actual gross weight for most was 6600-6700lbs? Max gross weight for the MK V was 8500lbs. without under wing loads it was 7500lbs or under. 

I would say the chances of a MK I PR Hurricane hitting 350mph, especially at 7000ft, are about zero. 






From, obviously, Spitfire performance. 
Now the 16lbs boost was only good at 5,500ft and it slowly tapered off to the 12lbs boost at 9,000ft, granted you can pick up 1000ft or more due to RAM. We can see the difference the 12lb boost rating made, expecting another 4lbs of boost to get the plane anywhere near 350mph is pretty hopeless at the lower altitudes. 

My information on the PR MK I is sketchy so please add to it. One source says 8 were converted in North Africa, complete with Vokes filters, but the tactical recon versions kept their guns. A few Hurricane Is were converted to high altitude Photo Reconnaissance (PR) Mark I Hurricanes with fuel tanks replacing the guns, number unknown (to me anyway) and there were MK II versions of both which might lead to confusion on performance?

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


----------



## Kevin J (Aug 4, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> "Speed was *326 mph (525 km/h) at 500 ft*, which is comparable with the Hurricane I despite being *one and a half times as heavy*".
> 
> And this is a big part of the trouble with Wiki. Misprints/typing and somebody confusing or leaving out such minor details as the height at which speeds were achieved. Also comparing gross weights and not the weights at which the speeds were achieved.
> 
> ...


Bullshit. You could add 35 mph to a Spitfire V if you took out all those features that made it combat ready and cleaned it up, so unlikely in the field. Even the Sea Hurricane Ib could do 317 at 7000 and that had arrestor hook, catapult spools, even had 8 m/c guns. Sort of combat ready?


----------



## wuzak (Aug 4, 2019)

Hurricane I had a maximum speed of 316mph at 17,750ft with the Merlin III.

Find it hard to believe the Sea Hurricane would get the same speed 10,000ft lower.


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 4, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> Bullshit. You could add 35 mph to a Spitfire V if you took out all those features that made it combat ready and cleaned it up, so unlikely in the field. Even the Sea Hurricane Ib could do 317 at 7000 and that had arrestor hook, catapult spools, even had 12 m/c guns. Sort of combat ready?




care to expand on that?

You are ignoring the difference in Altitude by bringing in the Spitfire MK V, do you have an actual test report for such a cleaned up Spitfire?

Some Spits were rebuilt several times, One MK XIII PR Spit started as a MK fighter, got converted to a MK V and then had it's cannon yanked, left with 4 machine guns, had a Merlin 32 and 4 blade prop installed. There were 26 MK XIII PRs built and they were converted from Spitfire MK IIs, MK Vs and PR MK IGs.

On page 214 of "The Spitfire Story" By Price there is a test of such a PR MIII. It has a rearview mirror with hemispherical fairing, external BP glass windscreen, no IFF aerials.
test is from March 1943. Top speed was 349mph at 5400ft. boos tis not given but since climb figures of 4,920fps at 2,000ft and 3,690fpm at 10,000ft are give I think we can assume it was not limited to 9lbs boost. 

Internal machine guns cause little drag. most of it would be from the ejection slots in the bottom of the wing. There is also some question as the actual armament of the Sea Hurricane MK Ib.

Most sources say 8 guns, There appear to have been two different MK IBs. the first 300 were converted MK Is and retained the 8 gun armament. In Nov 1941 25 MK IIAs with eight guns were converted with arrestor hooks and catapult spools. IIAs had eight guns, for record keeping these screwed things up because they were called both Sea Hurricane MK IBs and Hooked Hurricane IIs in official documents, (source "Hawker Aircraft since 1920) the Sea Hurricane IC used 4 cannon wings on a late production Sea Hurricane Is. No mention is made of a Sea Hurricane with 12 machine guns. Other sources may differ.

Sea Hurricane at 317mph at 7000ft fits nicely on the above chart. about 5-6mph faster at 7,000ft using 16lbs boost and with the extra drag of the arrestor hook, catapult spools, etc.

Certainly doesn't prove anything one way or the other about 350mph photo recon Hurricanes.


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 4, 2019)

wuzak said:


> Hurricane I had a maximum speed of 316mph at 17,750ft with the Merlin III.
> 
> Find it hard to believe the Sea Hurricane would get the same speed 10,000ft lower.



well, it was using 16lb boost instead of 6lb boost 

it is getting Hurricane much beyond 340mph at any altitude that is the problem. 

Official company figures (claimed to be averages) call for 342mph for MK IIA, 340mph for a MK IIB and 336mph for a MK IIC. These are all at best altitude for a Merlin XX in high gear. 

An official test of an early IIA shows 330mph at 20,800ft using 8.8lbs boost,(engine may have been slightly off calibration as it never got over 8.8lbs in high gear, allowable tolerance but a few mph off perfect) 
Hurricane II Z-3564 Trials Report


----------



## Kevin J (Aug 4, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> care to expand on that?
> 
> You are ignoring the difference in Altitude by bringing in the Spitfire MK V, do you have an actual test report for such a cleaned up Spitfire?
> 
> ...



'The Spitfire Story' by Alfred Price, 2nd edition, published 2002. Farnborough 1943. EN946, a Spitfire VB, max speed 357 mph. Page 140.
Multi ejector exhausts, 7 mph.
Carborettor ice guard, 8 mph.
New rear view mirror, 3 mph.
Whip aerial, 0.5 mph.
Flush cartridge case and ejector chutes, 1 mph.
Sealing all cracks, rubbing down, painting and polishing leading edge, 6 mph.
Waxing rest of aircraft, 3 mph.
Total 28.5 mph increase in speed.


----------



## Schweik (Aug 5, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> 'The Spitfire Story' by Alfred Price, 2nd edition, published 2002. Farnborough 1943. EN946, a Spitfire VB, max speed 357 mph. Page 140.
> Multi ejector exhausts, 7 mph.
> Carborettor ice guard, 8 mph.
> New rear view mirror, 3 mph.
> ...



The AVG reported doing many of these exact things in China in 1942 to achieve the same (speed) goals. IIRC they got a 10 mph speed improvement overall.


----------



## Kevin J (Aug 5, 2019)

Schweik said:


> The AVG reported doing many of these exact things in China in 1942 to achieve the same (speed) goals. IIRC they got a 10 mph speed improvement overall.


The Tomahawk was a good plane, just totally unsuitable for the channel front.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Dan Fahey (Aug 7, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> The Tomahawk was a good plane, just totally unsuitable for the channel front.



Think too much is written about boosting the Spitfires bonifidies over P40 and Hurricane. 
P40 was used by everyone during WW2 a lot..! It was a more useful versatile plane.
The platform was successful with a radial or the two inline engines installed in it.

Actually the Brits did use the Tomahawk for raids into France and patrolling low level defense interdiction from Germans because of its range.
Not much written about these missions. 
Figure their use was short lived when P51 came along as a better platform.
The Brits were already boosting the P40 using its 100/130 octane fuel. 
Suspect the same 70 inches they were getting out of the P51 was using the same fuel.
This was commented in WW2 aircraft performance but there is little actual performance documentation beyond that link.

The issue with British aircraft was not that they were not good or useful.
They never had the fuel capacity for sustained fight.
Which is where the P40 faired well. 
Understated...the P40 would burned 500/600 lbs of fuel off lightening it for better performance. 
Meeting a full weight gassed up Axis plane. 
Even the Late model Spitfires during Bodenplatte ran out of gas while US craft stayed in the air.

Reading Japanese journals the Zero was still liked by their pilots.
On documented battles over Japanese Homeland they fought against Navy Planes to some wins and break even fights.
Both combatants had the range to stay in the fight.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Aug 8, 2019)

I don't think that the P-40 have a much greater range than the Spitfire V, which was the standard Spitfire at the time of the P-40 (Kittyhawk) being used in the ETO.

Wiki gives a combat radius of 410 miles for the Spitfire VB and a range of 716 miles for the P-40E. Joe Baugher gives 650 miles Curtiss P-40E (Kittyhawk IA).

I will have to confirm that later.


The US aircraft during Bodenplatte were P-51s, which had a better range than the P-40. 

Kittyhawks were apparently used as fighters in the ETO:
"When the Tomahawk was used by Allied units based in the UK from February 1941, this limitation relegated the Tomahawk to low-level reconnaissance with RAF Army Cooperation Command and only No. 403 Squadron RCAF was used in the fighter role for a mere 29 sorties, before being replaced by Spitfires. Air Ministry deemed the P-40 unsuitable for the theater. UK P-40 squadrons from mid-1942 re-equipped with aircraft such as Mustangs."

Curtiss P-40 Warhawk - Wikipedia


----------



## Kevin J (Aug 8, 2019)

wuzak said:


> I don't think that the P-40 have a much greater range than the Spitfire V, which was the standard Spitfire at the time of the P-40 (Kittyhawk) being used in the ETO.
> 
> Wiki gives a combat radius of 410 miles for the Spitfire VB and a range of 716 miles for the P-40E. Joe Baugher gives 650 miles Curtiss P-40E (Kittyhawk IA).
> 
> ...



Let's not talk range, but combat radius, so 85/100 for a clean Spitfire Vb / Seafire Ib, 175 for a clean Kittyhawk I or Spitfire VIII with 30 gal slipper tank. That's twice the distance. Say 185 miles for a Seafire III with a 60 gal Kittyhawk tank slung underneath.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Aug 8, 2019)

Checked in Morgan and Shacklady and the range was 395 miles for a Spitfire V without overload tank.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Aug 8, 2019)

wuzak said:


> Checked in Morgan and Shacklady and the range was 395 miles for a Spitfire V without overload tank.



Doesn't give you much of a combat radius for a Spitfire VB as you can only add a 30 gal combat tank, or 45 gal drop tank, both slipper types.


----------



## Schweik (Aug 8, 2019)

Spit VB / VC had very short range which was a Strategic problem for the DAF since it was arguably their best fighter until 1943. In the Med the issue was not (partly) addressed until the arrival of the Spit VIII, and there weren't enough of those.

Spit IX (arriving in small numbers from early 43) seemed to have slightly better but still too short range / endurance but they did sometimes use slipper tanks and later drop tanks from P-40s to extend it. Spit IX was the first really dominant Allied fighter type in Theater. The only other with a similar impact was the P-51 but it didn't arrive until 1944. The P-38 (great range but the early models were mediocre against Axis fighters) and P-47 (better in air combat but range was considered mediocre) both more or less held their own against Axis fighters but neither had a major edge, nor did the Spit V or the Merlin P-40s. They were basically even against Bf 109s and MC 202s, victory largely came down to who had numerical or situational advantage.

For the Spit the major problem seemed to center around the Tropical filters, which may have affected range as well as performance.

I was surprised to read recently though that far out to sea, Fulmars and even Skuas were doing some real damage to Axis torpedo bombers, particularly the SM. 79s and He 111s, which were statistically the most lethal Axis torpedo bombers. The advantage for the Fulmar aside from being a carrier aircraft was definitely range. There is also some anecdotal evidence that having the second crewman helped with spotting enemy aircraft early.

Ju 87s, very lethal but short ranged, were often escorted and seemed to take surprisingly few losses even when intercepted, while the Ju 88 was definitely the most effective Axis bomber overall in the Theater as they were very hard to intercept for the likes of Fulmars, Gladiators or Hurricanes and both dive bomb and launch torpedoes, while they could also attack allied bombers.

The rough equivalent for the Allies in Theater was the versatile and deadly Beaufighter.


----------



## Schweik (Aug 8, 2019)

Some of that translates to CBI situation, some doesn't of course. P-38s were much more effective against IJ aircraft, as were P-40s, I don't think they had a lot of Spit Vs. Beaufighters of course were still effective. Spit VIII was one of the best assets until P-51s came along.


----------



## wuzak (Aug 8, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Spit IX (arriving in small numbers from early 43) seemed to have slightly better but still too short range / endurance but they did sometimes use slipper tanks and later drop tanks from P-40s to extend it.



The Spitfire IX's combat debut was in August 1942. There were 4 squadrons equipped with the IX.


----------



## Schweik (Aug 8, 2019)

In the CBI, the Japanese Army had a major edge in the early years with their aircraft led by the Ki-43, with the less capable Ki-45 twin engined fighter also playing a role, and in the early months the comparative fragility of their bombers like the Ki-21 didn't seem to matter much. We tend to focus a lot on the fighters, for obvious reasons, but as air superiority remained at least contested for most of the war in the CBI, it's important to consider the role of the bombers as well.

The Ki-21 "Sally" was fast (300 mph at 15,000 feet, cruise speed 236 mph, defended by 5 x 7.7mm and 1 x 12.7mm mgs) and had a fantastic range for an early war bomber of 1,680 miles. But as the war shifted away from Blitzkrieg type shock warfare and settled into attrition, that vulnerability particularly for the relatively cumbersome bombers started to tell. The IJN's G4M "Betty", also used in Theater, was a bit more robust but slower, (266 mph, 196 mph cruise speed, 1,700 mile range, 4 x 7.7mm mg and 1 x 20mm cannon) seemed to do more damage in bombing raids and suffer less attrition, as well as being a fairly lethal torpedo bomber particularly against merchant shipping. This edge may have just come down to the better training standard of IJN flight crews compared to the IJA. The IJA also had a very useful recon asset in their excellent and beautifully designed Ki-46 "Dinah" recon plane.

The British potentially had an advantage but they deployed older aircraft types and took a long time to adjust Tactics. We already discussed the limitations of the Hurricane, (though it proved quite capable of shooting down Ki-21s) the other big weakness on the British side (to me) was the Blenheim bomber, which remained one of their most important attack types through the end of 1942. Blenheims (266 mph, 198 mph cruise, a good range of 1,460 miles, defended by 3 or 4 x .303 mgs), though they did have some protection and self-sealing tanks, seemed to be as vulnerable to fighters as the Japanese types. It carried a light bomb load and did not have great bombing accuracy and overall contributed relatively little to the war effort in the CBI while costing the lives of many trained crew and using up valuable resources.

However the British were able to make a major leap forward in (theoretical) capability with the introduction of the Beaufighter and to a lesser extent the Mosquito in Theater in April / May 43 initially in small numbers. The Mosquito proved to be a valuable recon asset, though the wood construction caused some problems in the humid and rainy environment. The Beaufighter in particular had a significant impact. This would have been more telling if more of these planes had been available sooner. Both were accurate bombers and in the ground attack role and had comparatively low loss rates on missions. The Brits also used fighters in the fighter-bomber role with success, as they bombed accurately and could do some real damage strafing, while suffering relatively low attrition (compared to a Blenheim or a Ki-21).

The Japanese did also produce some good new bombers, the Ki-49 Storm Dragon / "Helen" (operational from late 1941) had armor and self sealing tanks, yet still managed 306 mph / cruise 217 mph, with a 1,200 mile range, albeit with small bomb load. The even better Ki-67 Flying Dragon / "Peggy" which didn't become operational until 1944, had armor and self-sealing tanks, could make 334 mph, cruised at 249 mph, had a 1,700 mile range and was armed with 1 x 20mm and 5 x 12.7mm machine guns. It too had a light bomb load but was accurate due to dive bombing capability. The Japanese Navy developed the similarly performing Yokosuka P1Y Ginga "Frances" (arriving in 1944), which had 340 mph at 19k feet, an incredible 3,300 mile range, 1 x 13mm and 1 x 20mm guns and a light bomb load. It was used in the CBI but was severely hampered with engine problems. However none of these bomber ever really found their niche. The Ki 49 though good, was not available in sufficient numbers in time to have a telling effect in the crucial mid-war years, while the Ki-67 and P1Y did not become operational in time. The Ki-67 was roughly comparable to a German Ju-88 but two years too late. The P1Y could have been almost comparable to a Mosquito but was so crippled with design and maintenance problems it's hard to say if it was really as good as it looked on paper... and it too arrived two years too late. Nor did the IJA field a satisfactory replacement fighter in time in the same period to protect them.

The problem with the Ki-49, Ki-67 and P1Y were basically production, especially the engines. This, to me, was the major Strategic advantage the British had over the Japanese: they were able to keep producing good new engines through the war and get them in working order relatively quickly (albeit with some exceptions of course, Napier Sabre comes to mind). Engine production as well as indecisive meddling on the planning / procurement side really hamstrung Japanese aircraft development leading up to the crucial mid-war period, and they famously never did really introduce satisfactory replacements for their early war fighters (the excellent Ki-43 and A6M) and instead only made incremental improvements*. The new bomber types came in very small numbers - Japan only produced ~ 700 Ki-49s through the whole war, while almost 6,000 Beaufighters and roughly 6,000 Mosquitoes were produced by 1945. The British meanwhile had the Spit VIII coming into the theater and the US had the P-38 and P-47 coming available in 1943, and later the P-51, while around the coastline, the Navy Hellcat and Corsair also arriving in 1943, all of the above used as fighter-bombers as well as fighters (something neither Japanese fighters or dive bombers ever really worked out well for against land targets), while early war B-25s and A-20s were kept in the game (albeit not quite as good as a Mosquito or a Beaufighter), when they were modified for strafer and skip bombing Tactics that made them quite dangerous to the enemy and effective as bombers.

I think the British could have better leveraged their advantage in producing excellent engines like the RR Merlin and Bristol Hercules by hurrying the retirement of aircraft like the obsolescent Hurricane and obsolete Blenheim, and producing even more of their excellent and much more effective aircraft like the Beaufghters and Mosquitoes, (and of course Spitfires) if that could have been possible. The production of newer and better engines was the Achilles heel and a major bottleneck for the Japanese, the Italians, the Russians, and to some extent the Americans**. The British and the Germans were the world leaders in this department, and both could have leveraged that advantage better. Of course certain design struggles like with the British planned replacement for the Hurricane, the Typhoon, and the Germans planned replacement for the Stuka, the He 177, complicated this agenda. Design hell was a serious pitfall which could be difficult to perceive as it was happening.


* of course they did get the Ki-61 in time to make a difference but it was plagued with mechanical problems and was not really dominant over mid-war Allied types. The really good new Japanese fighters like the N1K1 and Ki-84 came about a year too late and in too small of numbers, and they too suffered from engine problems.

** The Americans eventually did produce effective and reliable radial "second gen" engines in the Pratt and Whitney R-1830 and R-2800 etc., but their inline engine industry, represented mainly by Allison, clearly suffered from a Strategic deficiency in altitude performance remedied only by the adoption of Rolls Royce two stage supercharger technology. The Allison did eventually work well with a turbo in the P-38 but this wasn't truly in working order until 1944 which is a year too late, though the P-38 still played an important role (despite many problems) in the Far East during the mid-war years.

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


----------



## Schweik (Aug 8, 2019)

wuzak said:


> The Spitfire IX's combat debut was in August 1942. There were 4 squadrons equipped with the IX.



I was referring to it's availability in the Med. Spit IX were kept in England for a while to protect the homeland from Fw 190s.


----------



## Kevin J (Aug 8, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Spit VB / VC had very short range which was a Strategic problem for the DAF since it was arguably their best fighter until 1943. In the Med the issue was not (partly) addressed until the arrival of the Spit VIII, and there weren't enough of those.
> 
> Spit IX (arriving in small numbers from early 43) seemed to have slightly better but still too short range / endurance but they did sometimes use slipper tanks and later drop tanks from P-40s to extend it. Spit IX was the first really dominant Allied fighter type in Theater. The only other with a similar impact was the P-51 but it didn't arrive until 1944. The P-38 (great range but the early models were mediocre against Axis fighters) and P-47 (better in air combat but range was considered mediocre) both more or less held their own against Axis fighters but neither had a major edge, nor did the Spit V or the Merlin P-40s. They were basically even against Bf 109s and MC 202s, victory largely came down to who had numerical or situational advantage.
> 
> ...



The Spitfire Vb / Vc was outclassed by the Bf 109F-4 / G-2's that opposed it. You'd be better off flying the P-40 as it had structural strength, dive speed, roll rate, low altitude WEP speed and turn circle on its side.


----------



## Schweik (Aug 8, 2019)

I should also add- another important bomber type for the British in the CBI was the Vickers Wellington which arrived in 1942. Slower than the Blenheim (at least on paper) at roughly 250 mph top speed for the Mk X which was used in the Far East, it had an excellent range of 1,800 - 2,500 miles depending on type and load. The Wellington was less vulnerable than the Blenheim at least in terms of outcomes, probably because it was both much better armed defensively (8 x .303 mg with two turrets) and more strongly made with the innovative geodesic structure. It also carried roughly twice the bomb load as the Blenheim or any of the Japanese types and appears to have been a pretty good torpedo bomber, posing a threat to Japanese shipping around the coasts.

Overall you could say the Wellington was maybe half again as good as a Ki-21 or a Blenheim, which is good enough to make a noticeable difference. Not nearly as much as the Beaufighters but still an improvement.

Toward the end of the war the British also got B-24 Liberators which were good in that they were fast (297 mph / 215 cruise speed) had pretty long range (1,500 miles), four engines, and were too heavily armed (10 x 12.7mm mg with 4 turrets) to be seriously threatened by most Japanese fighters. Though they could carry a lot of bombs they were not particularly accurate as bombers most of the time so they were probably more useful as patrol aircraft and in a recon role.

I'm not sure about the A-20 / Boston did the British have any of those in the CBI?

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Aug 8, 2019)

Schweik said:


> I should also add- another important bomber type for the British in the CBI was the Vickers Wellington which arrived in 1942. Slower than the Blenheim (at least on paper) at roughly 250 mph top speed for the Mk X which was used in the Far East, it had an excellent range of 1,800 - 2,500 miles depending on type and load. The Wellington was less vulnerable than the Blenheim at least in terms of outcomes, probably because it was both much better armed defensively (8 x .303 mg with two turrets) and more strongly made with the innovative geodesic structure. It also carried roughly twice the bomb load as the Blenheim or any of the Japanese types and appears to have been a pretty good torpedo bomber, posing a threat to Japanese shipping around the coasts.
> 
> Overall you could say the Wellington was maybe half again as good as a Ki-21 or a Blenheim, which is good enough to make a noticeable difference. Not nearly as much as the Beaufighters but still an improvement.
> 
> ...


No A-20's a handful of B-25's. The Vengeance was widely used. Compared to a Blenheim, better armed, more accurate, faster, more bombs.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Aug 8, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> The Spitfire Vb / Vc was outclassed by the Bf 109F-4 / G-2's that opposed it. You'd be better off flying the P-40 as it had structural strength, dive speed, roll rate, low altitude WEP speed and turn circle on its side.



I wouldn't say that. As much as I like the P-40 I think the Spit was still a bit better against a Bf 109F or G, and similarly against an MC 202 / 205. It's certainly arguable. But the Spit still had better turn rate and especially climb. Probably depending on the variant and the altitude it had better acceleration than a P-40 and less drag. Most importantly though the Spit V still performed well way above the performance ceiling of the best (Merlin engined) P-40s which was a major limitation of the latter.

I think the Spit Vs were about equal to the Bf 109 in the Med. The P-40 F/L worked out pretty well but mainly due to tactics, the pilots liked the plane because it had a relatively high pilot survival rate but hated the fact that they almost always started combat by being bounced from above. Spits got bounced from above too but less often as they could 'comfortably' operate at 25,000 ft, and could get there much quicker. US tactics of escorting bombers in attacks over Axis airfields helped even the score quite a bit.

The single real advantage of the P-40 IMO is that it apparently had a more effective escape maneuver using dive. But the Spits could keep up with the 109 and MC 202 in the vertical so they didn't need to escape as often.


----------



## Schweik (Aug 8, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> No A-20's a handful of B-25's. The Vengeance was widely used. Compared to a Blenheim, better armed, more accurate, faster, more bombs.



Yeah good point the Vengeance is another one I should have mentioned, though I am not precisely sure of the details as I gather it was only used by the RAAF? As a dive bomber it would be more accurate.


----------



## Kevin J (Aug 8, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Yeah good point the Vengeance is another one I should have mentioned, though I am not precisely sure of the details as I gather it was only used by the RAAF? As a dive bomber it would be more accurate.


The RAAF didn't use it for very long. The P-40N was just as accurate and a better bomb truck. It was mainly used by us Brits and Indians over Burma.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Aug 8, 2019)

Schweik said:


> I wouldn't say that. As much as I like the P-40 I think the Spit was still a bit better against a Bf 109F or G, and similarly against an MC 202 / 205. It's certainly arguable. But the Spit still had better turn rate and most importantly, climb. Probably depending on the variant and the altitude it had better acceleration. Most importantly though the Spit V still performed well way above the performance ceiling of the best (Merlin engined) P-40s which was a major limitation of the latter.
> 
> I think the Spit Vs were about equal to the Bf 109 in the Med. The P-40 F/L worked out pretty well but mainly due to tactics, the pilots liked the plane because it had a relatively high pilot survival rate but hated the fact that they almost always started combat by being bounced from above. Spits got bounced from above too but less often as they could 'comfortably' operate at 25,000 ft, and could get there much quicker. US tactics of escorting bombers in attacks over Axis airfields helped even the score quite a bit.
> 
> The single real advantage of the P-40 IMO is that it apparently had a more effective escape maneuver using dive. But the Spits could keep up with the 109 and MC 202 in the vertical so they didn't need to escape as often.



The Brits needed the Mk IX to establish parity with the Bf 109F-4 / G-2 at altitude. A lot of Spitfire folklore is propaganda, you didn't get many Spitfire V aces considering the numbers built.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Aug 8, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> The Brits needed the Mk IX to establish parity with the Bf 109F-4 / G-2 at altitude. A lot of Spitfire folklore is propaganda, you didn't get many Spitfire V aces considering the numbers built.



I would say if you look through the battles in MAW III and IV, the Spit V was roughly equal, depending on the subtype and other factors, while the Spit IX was dominant over the 109 G series and 202 / 205. The 109F's were mostly gone by the time Spit IX showed up in 1943.

This is just my memory and in aggregate, but typically if you had 12 x Spit IXs go up against 12 x Bf 109G-2 or G-4, the latter were in trouble, based on typical outcomes. G-6 maybe a little more so.

The Spit V may not have been as good at altitude but it could easily out-turn the 109s and remained pretty close in performance in terms of actual combat speeds. Also the Axis fighters didn't always have time to get much above 20 - 25,000 ft as combat quite often took place shortly after takeoff. A lot of times they would keep a pair or a rotte as high cover with the rest further down below. In the early days those 2-4 planes could cause havoc on Allied fighters but as tactics improved (wingmen / pairs) and with the arrival of the Spit V, this wasn't as effective.

I hear what you are saying about the Spitfire myth but there was something to it.


----------



## Schweik (Aug 8, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> The RAAF didn't use it for very long. The P-40N was just as accurate and a better bomb truck. It was mainly used by us Brits and Indians over Burma.



The P-40N had a very good combat record in the CBI. I've read quite a bit about the record of some of the US fighter groups using them in India and China, but I didn't realize the British and Indians were using them there as well.


----------



## Kevin J (Aug 8, 2019)

Schweik said:


> The P-40N had a very good combat record in the CBI. I've read quite a bit about the record of some of the US fighter groups using them in India and China, but I didn't realize the British and Indians were using them there as well.


We didn't use them in the CBI. The Aussies and Kiwis used them in the Pacific. I was referring to the Vengeance. The Vengeance was better than the Blenheim for jungle warfare. The Blenheim IV was designed as a coastal reconnaissance bomber.


----------



## Schweik (Aug 8, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> We didn't use them in the CBI. The Aussies and Kiwis used them in the Pacific. I was referring to the Vengeance. The Vengeance was better than the Blenheim for jungle warfare. The Blenheim IV was designed as a coastal reconnaissance bomber.



Ah, ok understood. Yes the P-40N was probably better as a bomber plus it could be used for escort or air superiority missions.


----------



## Kevin J (Aug 8, 2019)

Schweik said:


> I would say if you look through the battles in MAW III and IV, the Spit V was roughly equal, depending on the subtype and other factors, while the Spit IX was dominant over the 109 G series and 202 / 205. The 109F's were mostly gone by the time Spit IX showed up in 1943.
> 
> This is just my memory and in aggregate, but typically if you had 12 x Spit IXs go up against 12 x Bf 109G-2 or G-4, the latter were in trouble, based on typical outcomes. G-6 maybe a little more so.
> 
> ...


The Bf 109F-1/2 was opposed by the Spitfire I/II, the F-4 by the V. Go back and do your comparisons now. The results are not so good. Less than a thousand IX's were built between Summer 42 and Spring 43 to oppose the G-1/2.


----------



## Schweik (Aug 8, 2019)

Well I can't say what happened in the Channel front as I don't know the combat history up there, but in the Med, it was about even (I think). Not that "even" is nice for the pilots involved in the combats mind you nor perceived as a good situation. But aside from the Spitfire myth I'd say there is also very much a Bf 109 myth, and they too suffered from tropical conditions and the adaptations to them. Maybe we need to find another thread to discuss that in.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Aug 8, 2019)

And don't forget, 109G were also badly needed on the Russian Front, which by Spring 1943 was starting to tip from dangerous to terrifying for the Luftwaffe and the Heer.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Aug 8, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> The Brits needed the Mk IX to establish parity with the Bf 109F-4 / G-2 at altitude. A lot of Spitfire folklore is propaganda, you didn't get many Spitfire V aces considering the numbers built.



Not that meaningless stat again.


----------



## Kevin J (Aug 9, 2019)

wuzak said:


> Not that meaningless stat again.


Okay smartass, give me a metric.


----------



## wuzak (Aug 9, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> Okay smartass, give me a metric.



Let me put it this way:


The number of aircraft built does not directly correlate with the number of aircraft in combat units. The more you build, the more you can have in combat units, but not all go to those units. 
The number of aircraft in combat units does not directly correlate with the number of sorties. Some units will have higher sortie rates than others, based on their role, location, weather and, doubtless, other factors.
The number of sorties does not correlate with the frequency of encounters* with enemy aircraft.
The number of encounters with enemy aircraft does not directly correlate with the number of combats.

The number of victories a given type has is related to opportunity. The Spitfire as a short range interceptor held back in the UK for home defence for the first half of the war does not help it gain a lot of victories. 

That the Lutwaffe would generally not engage Spitfires "leaning into France" except on their own, favourable, terms denied the Spitfire opportunities to rack up kills.

That by early to mid 1943 the Luftwaffe would avoid engaging Spitfires because they could not be sure, until perhaps too close, if the Spitfire was V, IX or XII also denied an opportunity to rack up the kills.

That when the Luftwaffe withdrew the bulk of its fighter forces from France to Germany so that they could take on the "Boeings" unhindered from P-47 and Spitfire escorts meant that there was little opportunity for kills.

I assume you mean a metric for an aircraft's effectiveness? I'm not sure there is one, as there are too many variables.

Take your example of aces. Is an aircraft more effective if there have been 20 pilots with 5 kills, or 50 pilots with 2 kills, or 100 pilots with 1 kill?

* by encounters I mean that the pilot can see enemy aircraft.


----------



## Kevin J (Aug 9, 2019)

wuzak said:


> Let me put it this way:
> 
> 
> The number of aircraft built does not directly correlate with the number of aircraft in combat units. The more you build, the more you can have in combat units, but not all go to those units.
> ...



The Spitfire V was the first Spitfire operated everywhere before it's opponents withdrew beyond their reach. Forget the rest.


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 9, 2019)

Dan Fahey said:


> Think too much is written about boosting the Spitfires bonifidies over P40 and Hurricane.
> P40 was used by everyone during WW2 a lot..! It was a more useful versatile plane.
> The platform was successful with a radial or the two inline engines installed in it.



On the other hand there is too much written about boosting the P-40s bonafides over the British aircraft. 



Dan Fahey said:


> Actually the Brits did use the Tomahawk for raids into France and patrolling low level defense interdiction from Germans because of its range.
> Not much written about these missions.



In part because only 29 such missions were ever flown? 
It also depends when and where and by which versions of the Tomahawk you are claiming these missions were flown by, more later. 



Dan Fahey said:


> Suspect the same 70 inches they were getting out of the P51 was using the same fuel.



The Tomahawk used the -33 engine and the Mustang used the -39 engine. Due to the better streamlining of the Mustang it was about 25-30mph faster than the P-40 on the same power. 
This meant it got slightly more ram. Please also note that the engine chart for the -33 engine that gives just over 61in at sea level (no ram) is down to 52-53in at 5000ft. 
The faster speed of the Mustang gave it a better shot at hitting 70in or allowed less over revving of the engine, more later.





Dan Fahey said:


> The issue with British aircraft was not that they were not good or useful.
> They never had the fuel capacity for sustained fight.
> Which is where the P40 faired well.
> Understated...the P40 would burned 500/600 lbs of fuel off lightening it for better performance.



Actually you are rather over stating the case, a P-40B that has burned off 600lbs of fuel has 60 US gallons (50 imp gal) left for combat, the return flight and any reserve deemed appropriate. 
P-40Bs and Tomahawks up until the IIB version did not carry drop tanks. That capability came with the P-40C and the Tomahawk IIB. 

It gives it better range/endurance than the British fighters but not by the margins being claimed. 

The suitability of the early Tomahawks and P-40/P-40Bs for combat is subject to question. The P-40 no letter and the Tomahawk Is had no armor, no BP wind screen, no self sealing fuel tanks. Depending on when (late 1940 and early 1941) there is a serious question about their engines. Allison had to rebuild 277 -33 engines for the US Army at company expense to get them up to the rated power at the desired engine life. No mention if the British got any of these early engines or what remedy there was. US flew the unmodified engines at 2770 rpm and lower boost until the engines were overhauled/upgraded. 

When touting the virtues of the the early P-40s there are four engines to consider even though there are only two model numbers. As mentioned the very early -33 engines had to be upgraded, which included new crankshafts and other parts. The -33 also used the epicyclic reduction gear which Allison had recognized as a weak point pretty early on which is why they designed the spur reduction gear. In testing they were getting failures at around 1300hp with the epicyclic reduction gear, confusingly it was the crankshaft that was failing right behind the front bearing. Ability to use 70in MAP or anything to close to it is highly suspect except in the most extraordinary circumstances. 
The -39 engine used in the P-40D/E and Mustang also came in two versions which do not have seperate designations. You have the engines built up until Dec 1941/Jan 1942 and the engines built afterwards. The early engines had shot peened crankshafts and the later engines were both nitrided and shot peened. The late engines also got a new crankcase that was stronger. Pulling 70in in a Mustang with a late -39 engine for 15-20 minutes is absolutely no guarantee that you could do such a thing with an early -33 engine. 

The P-40B and the Tomahawk IIA had armor and externally protected tanks, the P-40C and Tomahawk got internally protected tanks and the drop tank. however the internal protection for the tanks cost about 12 gallons of fuel. 

For the US some of the published performance specs for the long nosed P-40s are at ridiculously low gross weights. Like filling the tanks with only 120 gallons of fuel. 
The published ranges are often "yard stick" ranges. P-40B could fly 805 miles at 202mph at 15,000ft. on 120 gallons of fuel, But only if you could magically levitate the plane to 15,000ft with an already warmed up engine as it was rated at 4 hours endurance at 30 gal an hour on that 120 gallons (speed and climb were figured on an 6,833lb gross weight)

British evaluations are mixed, early versions (Tomahawk Is) are given good ratings for performance (speed, climb maneuverability) but are lacking operational equipment. 
British also had a lot trouble with the .50 cal guns in the Early P-40s which tended to limit their firepower. 

Mention is made of the fitting of cameras to the Tomahawks for recon/army co-operation and while the pilots of the first squadrons are pleased (they had been Flying Lysanders as late as June 1941). However this book claims that the automatic cameras fitted to the Tomahawks required the plane to fly at 150mph when taking pictures (to get proper overlap? guessing) or misprint? In any case the Tomahawks in these squadrons (eight in winter/spring of 1941/42) were replaced by Mustangs as rapidly as possible. 


The early P-40s did do a lot of good work but also had a number of problems. We should be careful not to project some of the capabilities of later P-40s backwards onto them.

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


----------



## Dan Fahey (Aug 9, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> On the other hand there is too much written about boosting the P-40s bonafides over the British aircraft.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Shortround6 said:


> On the other hand there is too much written about boosting the P-40s bonafides over the British aircraft.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



This is great information.
Interesting, peacetime little of this showed up as urgent to get fixed.
The same technology to improve reliability are the same used in my drag racing engines.

Still not finding performance numbers with British 100/130 octane fuels used in P40 or early Mustangs boosting at 70 inches.
IMO the Allison was the better stronger easier to build platform than the Merlin.
No magic between the performance of the engines.
They got the same power at the Boost from the SG or TC.

Closer you got to 5000 rpm the more horsepower but what turned a Prop was Torque.
Most cars sustained peak Torque is reached by 3000 rpm, see that from dyno testing.
Tractor pulls Allisions are being pushed to 4500rpm.

One question; At what speed does the ram affect an engine performance?

d


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 9, 2019)

Dan Fahey said:


> Interesting, peacetime little of this showed up as urgent to get fixed.
> The same technology to improve reliability are the same used in my drag racing engines.



actually 1940 and 1941 were a desperate scramble to get new designs into production and increase production overall. Granted the US was not involved in a shooting war but you can't be too lackadaisical and improve production numbers as fast as Allison (and P&W and Wright) did. 

Allison from the end of 1938 to the end of 1939 increased their floor space by 4 times, number of employees almost 2 1/2 times and engine production over 3 times (from 14 to a whopping 46) By the end of 1940 the floor space went up 3 times over 1939, employees went up about 6 times and engines delivered for the year went to 1175. In 1941 production went to around 6400 with 1100 built in Dec alone. Back in 1937-38 the Allison engineering dept consisted of 25 people and that included 2 men who ran the blueprint machine. 



Dan Fahey said:


> IMO the Allison was the better stronger easier to build platform than the Merlin.



there are a lot of years to consider. The Allison wound up being a very fine engine, however in the summer of 1940 when the British came calling for an American factory to make Merlins fewer than 200 Allisons had been built (of all models), production would not hit triple digits until Sept of 1940 (and when it did it did was over 200 engines in one month) and the Allison was having a variety of problems were not really the engine's fault in addition to the ones that were. The governor on the CUrtiss electric propeller was slow to react (later improved) and did not control the rpm rapidly enough to prevent overspeeding. Some oil tanks were poorly designed for fighter aircraft and would not provide a constant flow of oil when flying inverted. 
Niether engine stayed static and both saw a number of improvements during the years but yes, RR never used one fastener (screw/nut) when they could fit 3-6 in the same area  







Dan Fahey said:


> One question; At what speed does the ram affect an engine performance?



as soon as the plane is moving, much like sticking your hand out a car window. However at around 160-200mph when climbing, even though you get some boost over static air pressure, it is nothing like the boost in the intake before the carb that you get at 300-400mph. 
However the amount of actual pressure increase you get in the much thinner air at 20,000 compared to sea level may also enter into it.


----------



## Dan Fahey (Aug 9, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> actually 1940 and 1941 were a desperate scramble to get new designs into production and increase production overall. Granted the US was not involved in a shooting war but you can't be too lackadaisical and improve production numbers as fast as Allison (and P&W and Wright) did.
> 
> Allison from the end of 1938 to the end of 1939 increased their floor space by 4 times, number of employees almost 2 1/2 times and engine production over 3 times (from 14 to a whopping 46) By the end of 1940 the floor space went up 3 times over 1939, employees went up about 6 times and engines delivered for the year went to 1175. In 1941 production went to around 6400 with 1100 built in Dec alone. Back in 1937-38 the Allison engineering dept consisted of 25 people and that included 2 men who ran the blueprint machine.



I own and run a business with as many as 160 employees.
We were running at about 30-40 people for 20 years and then grew to 160 in 3 months.

My background is Engineering and was in it a few years.
So got great experience seeing an engineering organization run.

Allison's growth was huge and the documentation, drawings, process planning must have been daunting.
How they were able to build so many engines consistently was outstanding.
They had their failures but sure did well in a 6 year ramp up.

IMO Allison should have built the 2 Stage 2 Speed supercharger.
Installed it just gave it to Curtis to put in the P40 and Allison Mustang
Curtis was already constructing the P40Q and P60. 
The engine would not be that much longer and may have forced the Army to say ok !

BUT agree with an earlier comment that is was potentially criminal that they did not build it.
More so were the players who conducted the Arbitrage Take Over of Curtis.


----------



## Dan Fahey (Aug 9, 2019)

[QUOTE="Shortround6, post:

as soon as the plane is moving, much like sticking your hand out a car window. However at around 160-200mph when climbing, even though you get some boost over static air pressure, it is nothing like the boost in the intake before the carb that you get at 300-400mph.
However the amount of actual pressure increase you get in the much thinner air at 20,000 compared to sea level may also enter into it.[/QUOTE]

Think this is correct.
300 mph ISA at Sea Level the Ram would be same 300 mph IAS at 20,000 ft.


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 9, 2019)

Dan Fahey said:


> Think this is correct.
> 300 mph ISA at Sea Level the Ram would be same 300 mph IAS at 20,000 ft.



This where I start to get out of my expertise (such as it is) as you have 29.92in pressure at sea level vs 13.75in at 20,000ft and the air is 0.5327 times as dense. 

You do have the same speed of air flow but the mass is different and the pressure ratio may be different (or pressure rise in the intake duct?)


----------



## BiffF15 (Aug 9, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> This where I start to get out of my expertise (such as it is) as you have 29.92in pressure at sea level vs 13.75in at 20,000ft and the air is 0.5327 times as dense.
> 
> You do have the same speed of air flow but the mass is different and the pressure ratio may be different (or pressure rise in the intake duct?)



Gents,

I don’t know the answer either, but don’t think the RAM is the same. This I believe is do to density. An F15 at 300 knots at 1K can pull way more G’s than one at 20k (without moving the throttles at either altitude)(this might not be the best analogy) but believe it’s due to density. Also think about your normally aspirated auto engine on a cool sea level day. It puts out more power (cool and sea level both mean the air is more dense). Now run that same car in Denver and your power has gone down commensurate with your climb in altitude. Supercharged or turbo only delay onset with RAM being affected similarly. Jet engines fall under the same set of rules.

Wes do you concur?

Cheers,
Biff


----------



## Schweik (Aug 9, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> On the other hand there is too much written about boosting the P-40s bonafides over the British aircraft.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



All basically true but a couple of points, first in general about new fighters...

The Spitfire and Bf 109 initially also lacked armor or self sealing tanks and got some in stages, I know the Spit got a 'bullet resistent' windscreen in 1939 and a little bit of alluminum alloy armor, but this was just 3mm thick on the fuel tanks, barely enough to stop a .357 at close range let alone a 20mm cannon. Some time in mid 1940 they started adding a reasonable amount of pilot armor, externally 'sealed' tanks around the same time and true self sealing tanks a bit later. The first Hurricane Mk I's also lacked armor which was added around the same time (in mid 1940). I could be wrong but I think some Spits and Hurricanes flying in first couple of months of the BoB did not actually have armor. A 'modern' level of armor with added pilot protection and some coverage for the ammunition boxes was incorporated into the much maligned Spit V series some time in 1941. I'm not certain but I think the first real bullet proof windscreens were being experimented with around that time too.

The first P-40s were about a year behind this development cycle because the US wasn't yet fighting for their life in a war, but this oversight was remedied quickly enough.

Teething problems with new engines were also basically the rule rather than exception. The Allison V-1710 did pretty well for being first deployed in 1937. Everyone underestimated the power and endurance that was really going to be needed in the war, but the Allison did pretty well as they go.

*The Tomahawk*
We think of the early P-40B and C / Hawk 81 as an American war machine but it's most important service was actually in the hands of the British, and to a lesser extent the Soviets. Their heyday was not at Peal Harbor or with the AVG, but two months earlier in the Western Desert and the Steppes of Russia in October 1941. The first batch (lacking armor and self-sealing tanks, and with only 4 guns) was supposed to be a run of 524, but only 200 were finished for the US order. 140 were supposed to be made for the French, and by April 1940 they were ready and already in French markings* getting finishing touches before being shipped... but the Battle of France ended abruptly in June 1940.

These were sent to England in September 1940, not as Lend Lease incidentally. Most were used as training aircraft, though a few were send to the Middle East as Tomahawk Mk I. As far as I can tell only one squadron No. 112 Sqn RAF, actually got the Tomahawk I starting in July 1941, which even without armor etc. were an improvement over their Gladiators.

Once they did get the armor and self sealing tanks into them the British were much keener on these planes. Curtiss quickly built 110 Tomahawk IIA explicitly for the British, equivalent to P-40B with armor and externally self sealing tanks, but no drop tank plumbing. About ~20 of these were sent strait to the Soviets. Britain asked for some more changes and these were implemented by Curtis as the Tomahawk IIB (P-40C equivalent), heavier and a bit slower but far more robust. The British ordered 930, with 195 being diverted to the Soviets after June 1941. A few were also sent to the Turks. In England, 2 Sqn RAF and 26 Sqn RAF was using Tomahawks briefly for interdiction over France.

*Tomahawks in the Western Desert*
As I can determine, in addition to ~40 Tomahawk I sent to 112 Sqn in July 1941, ~100 Tomahawk IIA, and ~700 Tomahawk IIB were sent to Egypt in August and September to join the rapidly intensifying war there, starting an expedited training work up. They were assigned to no less than 5 RAF squadrons, 2 SAAF squadrons and 1 RAAF (3 Sqn). The need was pressing. I./JG 27 had been deployed to Africa since April 1941 and were taking a heavy toll on the Gladiators, Hurricanes, Lysanders and Blenheims of the DAF, and II./JG 27 deployed to Libya at the end of September doubling their numbers.

In October about half of these RAF units went operational with the Tomahawk II and it immediately started taking a toll on enemy aircraft. The Italians retired their older Cr 32s from combat and relegated Cr 42s to fighter bomber duties. The Regia Aeronautica lost over 600 aircraft between Oct 41 and Feb 42. The Germans pulled Bf 110 from fighter operations and asked for the newer Bf 109F-2 to replace their older "Emils" at an accelerated rate. Tomahawks were immediately engaged in heavy fighting covering Operation Crusader and the retreating forces after the battle of Tobruk in November, and allied victories at Capuzzo and Ed Duda in December. DAF policy was to protect the bombers and concentrate on ground support, but they would fight when attacked. After a battle on Nov 22, 1941 over Bir Hachim in which 20 Bf 109F-2s engaged 13 Tomahawk IIB's of 112 RAF and 3 RAAF, losing 4 Bf 109s, the German's changed policy not to engage this type in close air combat, but instead to focus exclusively on hit and run attacks. They still had an advantage, but they couldn't press home their attacks as much as previously.

*Tomahawks in Russia*
At the same time, in October, about 200 Tomahawk IIA and IIBs sent to Russia earlier in the year went into action in the critical battles at Moscow and Leningrad fronts. There they scored many victories and the Soviet squadrons that flew them became guards units. By February however nearly all of the remaining Tomahawks were grounded due to maintenance issues associated with the Winter. But considering the razor thin margins by which the Soviets were able to slow and then stop the German advance in these two cities, and the high number of claims (compared to other Soviet squadrons) made by the Tomahawk units, it's reasonable to assume they did play a role in this outcome. If those had been just another handful of I-16 or Mig-3 squadrons, who knows? Maybe the battle could have tipped the other way. So compared to the brief battles in Hawaii and the exploits of the AVG, as important as those were, these Campaigns in foreign use were far _more_ important air battles (in my opinion), in the sense that the Tomahawk actually played a significant role, if only as a 'speed bump', in slowing down the German onslaught on two fronts.

Interestingly when the first Kittyhawks first arrived around Dec 1941, (with again nearly the whole production run of 560 Kittyhawk I / P-40D going to the British), they were not as well liked by the pilots. With the extra weight from the 6 heavy machine guns and other gear, and the lower factory rated engine settings, they were more sluggish, definitely losing a step in terms of climb rate (just under 2,000 fpm vs. 3,000 fpm for the Tomahawk) and speed. It wasn't until increased power settings, not just actual full fledged overboosting as increased manifold pressure used for most regimes. This seems to have been sorted out by around April or May of 1942, after which the performance of the Kittyhawk I and IIA (P-40E) greatly improved, and with it the fortunes of the hard pressed DAF. This incidentally coincides nicely with the improvements made to the V-1710-39 starting around Dec 1941.

*Oh and yes, overboosting*
Incidentally, there seems to be more and more of these books coming out now about WWII air combat where they actually check the records from both sides. I just got another new one which I really liked called "South Pacific Air War". The first volume is out with two more coming in November, according to Amazon. This first volume covers just_ two months _- March and April of 1942, and centers mostly on the exploits of a couple of USAAF medium bomber (B-25 and B-26) squadrons and 75 Sqn RAAF (Kittyhawk IA) in defending Port Morseby in New Guinea, and on their Japanese opponents in two A6M squadrons, one of them the elite and famous _Tainan Air Group_, and two units of G4M medium bombers.

The brave and hard suffering pilots of 75 Sqn had very little training on type before being thrown into the breach, so to speak, and got few re-inforcements before being rotated out for a rest in May 1942 having used up almost all of their aircraft about a third of their pilots. They did well at first but by the 5th or 6th week of combat, after the second Japanese fighter group had joined the battle, and with almost every pilot suffering dysentery or malaria or both, they were really suffering. One Aussie pilot seems to have perhaps discovered a hidden capability in his aircraft that saved his life, which I will now share with you here. This is from page 164 describing an engagement on 26 April, the day after ANZAC Day. A flight of four Kittyhawks had just attacked 7 A6M2s of Tainan Kokutai who were doing a sweep over Port Morseby. The Japanese pilots turned into the attack and engaged, and none were hit sufficient to cause any real damage in the initial bounce. The Kittyhawks dove to disengage but maybe didn't have enough room to dive, instead getting chased around the harbor by the angry Tainan Ko pilots. The rest is directly from South Pacific Air War, Volume II:

_"The most excitement was had by Michael Buttler in [Kittyhawk Ia] A29-48, who found himself chased through the Port Moresby foothills by a lone Zero. Then as he emerged over the sea, other Zeroes joined the chase until he had five on his tail. *By dangerously overpowering his engine he could just draw away from them at around 300 miles per hour.* But then he'd have to relax the power slightly and the Zeros would gain on him and fire ranging shots. Butler later estimated this went on for 120 miles before he got back to Morseby._

_ ..."I thought "Now, bust you," I'd lost them... I thought they'd turned inland but would wait for me to try to land at Seven Mile. So I thought "Well, I'll trick you. I'll land at the civil 'drome.' So I ... landed at Three Mile instead. I was absolutely stonkered. I got out of the aeroplane. I couldn't talk. A Yank came up to me and I think I smoked about half a packet of cigarettes before I was sensible.... I've never been so scared in my life and I was really in a mess."_

_Incredibly, Butler had survived without a single hit to his aircraft. Overall there were no losses to either side in this combat, although four Zeros had again receive minor damage."_

The bold emphasis is by me. Sounds like he discovered overboosting right there in April 1942. Managed to do it for a while too, sounds like about 25 minutes on and off, probably watching the temperature gauge. Probably wouldn't have pushed the throttle past the stop if he wasn't in such dire peril. But I bet it wasn't the last time he used that trick, seeing as he survived the war.



*just imagine if the Battle of France had started 3 months later... the French would have had a lot more to use and not just the Tomahawk, but the Tomahawks would have probably made a difference since the Hawk 75 was the top scoring fighter for the French. I think the VG-33 and about 200 more D.520s might have helped too.

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


----------



## Kevin J (Aug 10, 2019)

Schweik said:


> All basically true but a couple of points, first in general about new fighters...
> 
> The Spitfire and Bf 109 initially also lacked armor or self sealing tanks and got some in stages, I know the Spit got a 'bullet resistent' windscreen in 1939 and a little bit of armor, but this was just 3mm thick on the fuel tanks, barely enough to stop a .357 at close range let alone a 20mm cannon. Some time in mid 1940 they started adding a reasonable amount of pilot armor, externally 'sealed' tanks around the same time and true self sealing tanks a bit later. The first Hurricane Mk I's also lacked armor which was added around the same time (in mid 1940). I could be wrong but I think some Spits and Hurricanes flying in first couple of months of the BoB did not actually have armor. A 'modern' level of armor with added pilot protection and some coverage for the ammunition boxes was incorporated into the much maligned Spit V series some time in 1941. I'm not certain but I think the first real bullet proof windscreens were being experimented with around that time too.
> 
> ...


A few inaccuracies as follows:-
140 Tomahawk I's to Army Co-operation Command
110 Tomahawk IIa's: 24 to USSR; 86 to RAF, 29 operational sorties then to Army Co-operation Command.
930 Tomahawk IIb's of which 635 to Middle East.
560 Kittyhawk I's, 464 to Middle East.
5 ME RAF ME Tomahawk squadrons, one Marine squadron and IIRC initially 4 Kittyhawk squadrons, 10 overall by end 1942.


----------



## wuzak (Aug 10, 2019)

Dan Fahey said:


> IMO Allison should have built the 2 Stage 2 Speed supercharger.
> Installed it just gave it to Curtis to put in the P40 and Allison Mustang
> Curtis was already constructing the P40Q and P60.



The XP-60 was being built in 1941, using the Packard V-1650-1/Merlin 28, based on the XP-53, which was to be powered by the Continental IV-1430. The Allison versions of the XP-60 were to be to be turbocharged.

The XP-40Q was being built in 1943, based on a couple of P-40Ks and a P-40N. Aircraft that didn't exist early in the war. The XP-40Q was not constructing the P-40Q in 1940, 1941 or 1942.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 10, 2019)

The P-40s ordered by France and Britain were ordered in the fall of 1939, very few countries were fitting protection at this time, however when delivered in the fall of 1940 both the British and Germans considered any fighter without armor or self sealing tanks (even if rudimentary) as not fit for front line combat. It is more a matter of timing. 
The US aften gets a bit of a bd rap for this time period in the war and perhaps it is deserved but not for the common reasons. The US deferred delivery of their early P-40s so France (and basically Britain) could take early delivery of their planes which had been ordered after the American planes. The Americans were not entirely altruistic doing this, they fully intended to take delivery of later, improved airplanes at the same or similar prices as the early aircraft. 
The early P-40s were not suitable for the situation Britain found itself in in the fall/winter of 1940, however well they may have performed in the desert in 1941. The Altitudes were different, the first P-40s were lacking protective equipment and all the other reasons that have been gone over. The British were apparently having quite a bit of trouble with th .,50 cal guns in cowl which also limited the usefulness of the early P-40s. How long it took to straighten that out I don't know, they were having trouble with the guns in the P-39s they got, at least a very low rate of fire. 

The engine in the P-40D and E, while listed as having a lower critical altitude than the one in the B&C actually made the same power at altitude, however the ratings were different . the early engine was rated at 1040hp at one altitude, 1090hp a bit lower, the engine in the D&E was rated at 1150hp several thousand feet below that but would put out 1090 at teh same altitude as the early engine and 1040 hp at the same altitude as the early engine. Yes the D&E were rather severely overloaded.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## taly01 (Aug 10, 2019)

> Still not finding performance numbers with British 100/130 octane fuels used in P40 or early Mustangs boosting at 70 inches.


 
Here is an Allison Official report about visiting the British after hearing about the Mid-East RAF (66") and Australia Pacific RAAF (70") using un-approved boosting (60") they were using on the -39 and -73 engines!

LINK- Service Use of high Power Outputs on Allison V-1710 Engines December 1942

Allison letter confirms by December 1942 it was known units were boosting their V1710 allisons to 70" giving around 1780hp at sea level! (only possible by overspeeding engine to 3200rpm on the "low altitude" 8.8 supercharger) *Allison warned not to use this boost setting on the newer 9.6 supercharger gearing (P-40M/N?).*

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Aug 10, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> A few inaccuracies as follows:-
> 140 Tomahawk I's to Army Co-operation Command



You forgot the Tomahawk I's sent to 112 Sqn RAF



> 5 ME RAF ME Tomahawk squadrons, one Marine squadron and IIRC initially 4 Kittyhawk squadrons, 10 overall by end 1942.



Ok I looked it up. I actually show a total 15 squadrons with Tomahawks in 1941. Seven in the UK, seven in the Middle East and 1 in between. Seven in the UK were:
No 2, 26, 168, 239 and 403 Sqn RAF and 414 and 430 RCAF in the UK (Army Co-operation command I guess). Most of these units had Tomahawk I, with just a few IIB. All of these units switched to Mustang I by 1942. Given that only 29 sorties were flown I assume most of these were effectively training units until they got their Mustangs.

241 Sqn RAF flew Tomahawk IIBs and then Mustangs in England, but later switched to Hurricane IIBs as a Tac-R unit in the Middle East

And the following seven fighter squadrons in the Middle East got Tomahawk IIB and (mostly) IIC:
73 Sqn RAF (244 Wing, later switched to Hurricanes)

112 Sqn RAF (239 Wing)
250 Sqn RAF (239 Wing)
3 Sqn RAAF (239 Wing)

2 Sqn SAAF (233 Wing)
4 Sqn SAAF (233 Wing)
5 Sqn SAAF (233 Wing)

All of the RAF units except 73 and 241 switched to Kittyhawks in late 1941 or early 1942. Only the South Africans kept using some Tomahawks after that, most getting Kittyhawks in late 1942, a few Tomahawks were still flying with the SAAF in 1943.

There were also at least two more units that either started with Kittyhawks or converted from Hurricanes to Kittyhawks in 1942:

450 RAAF (239 Wing)
260 RAF (233 Wing)

6 & 10 SAAF initially had Mohwaks and later Kittyhawks for home defense of South Africa


----------



## Schweik (Aug 10, 2019)

I am surprised how many units in the UK were doing the "army cooperation" gig, I originally had thought some of those were DAF units. It seems like there were only 8 RAF or Commonwealth P-40 Units in the Western Desert by the time of El Alamein near the end of 1942: 3 x British, 3 x South African, and 2 x Australian. They got additional US units (with the P-40F/L) starting in mid 1942.


----------



## Greyman (Aug 10, 2019)

Schweik said:


> The Spitfire and Bf 109 initially also lacked armor or self sealing tanks and got some in stages, I know the Spit got a 'bullet resistent' windscreen in 1939 and a little bit of armor, but this was just 3mm thick on the fuel tanks, barely enough to stop a .357 at close range let alone a 20mm cannon. Some time in mid 1940 they started adding a reasonable amount of pilot armor, externally 'sealed' tanks around the same time and true self sealing tanks a bit later. The first Hurricane Mk I's also lacked armor which was added around the same time (in mid 1940). I could be wrong but I think some Spits and Hurricanes flying in first couple of months of the BoB did not actually have armor. A 'modern' level of armor with added pilot protection and some coverage for the ammunition boxes was incorporated into the much maligned Spit V series some time in 1941. I'm not certain but I think the first real bullet proof windscreens were being experimented with around that time too.



RE: Spitfire (and Hurricane) fuel tank armour - yes it was only 10-swg duralumin, but the angle of incoming fire is key. At 200 yards that thickness is capable of deflecting .303-in AP rounds impacting up to 13 degrees, which is very useful protection vs. enemy defensive gunners.

The protective value of the bullet-proof windscreens was essentially the same from the beginning, the revisions mainly concerned lessening the impact on aircraft performance.

With regard to Tomahawk overboost - there's no "discovering" overboost. Early US fighters didn't have automatic boost control, so as soon as you "discovered" the throttle in pilot training you discovered how to overboost the engine. All you had to do was not heed the restrictions from the manual.


----------



## pinsog (Aug 10, 2019)

taly01 said:


> Here is an Allison Official report about visiting the British after hearing about the Mid-East RAF (66") and Australia Pacific RAAF (70") using un-approved boosting (60") they were using on the -39 and -73 engines!
> 
> LINK- Service Use of high Power Outputs on Allison V-1710 Engines December 1942
> 
> Allison letter confirms by December 1942 it was known units were boosting their V1710 allisons to 70" giving around 1780hp at sea level! (only possible by overspeeding engine to 3200rpm on the "low altitude" 8.8 supercharger) *Allison warned not to use this boost setting on the newer 9.6 supercharger gearing (P-40M/N?).*


Great info with documentation. Do you by any chance have the rest of the pages or only page 1?

If you apply these power settings to the P39D and also remove 500 pounds of guns, ammo and equipment, then factor in the cold weather they operated in, it would sure explain how the P39 was able to handle a 109 or even a 190 at low altitude.


----------



## Schweik (Aug 10, 2019)

Greyman said:


> RE: Spitfire (and Hurricane) fuel tank armour - yes it was only 10-swg duralumin, but the angle of incoming fire is key. At 200 yards that thickness is capable of deflecting .303-in AP rounds impacting up to 13 degrees, which is very useful protection vs. enemy defensive gunners.



I am not an expert on Spitfires but I do know ballistics and metallurgy quite well. 3mm of steel is unlikely to stop a modern rifle bullet at 200 yards, and 13 degrees of slope angle would barely have any effect (about 5-6%). Even taking into consideration up to a 45 degree angle (which makes 3mm equivalent to 5mm). 3mm of tempered medium carbon steel could _maybe_ protect from rifle bullet at that range depending on the angle. 3mm of duralumin or alclad would offer very little protection against a rifle bullet at 200 yards except maybe against fragments.



> The protective value of the bullet-proof windscreens was essentially the same from the beginning, the revisions mainly concerned lessening the impact on aircraft performance.



Seems like a thicker windscreen was applied in the mid-war but again, not a Spitfire expert so I'll defer to you on that. I know they also did try different configurations for the glass (external vs. internal).



> With regard to Tomahawk overboost - there's no "discovering" overboost. Early US fighters didn't have automatic boost control, so as soon as you "discovered" the throttle in pilot training you discovered how to overboost the engine. All you had to do was not heed the restrictions from the manual.



I have not (yet) discovered any direct evidence of the use of overboost on a Tomahawk or with the V-1710-33. There are some allusions which may imply it in AVG memoirs but nothing specific or solid that I've been able to find. The example I cited was with a Kittyhawk Ia / P-40E in April 1942 with a V-1710-39, probably the strengthened (tempered crank shaft) version. When I say the pilot "discovered" overboosting what I mean is that he learned that he could do it (on and off) for about 25 minutes without blowing up his engine, which I suspect he did not know before he tried it. 

As in all the other early cases I know of, he only pushed the throttle past the manual's limits because he was within seconds of death.

However, per the well known Allison memo this clearly became much more common with this specific unit and several others, so I would say that the news of the "discovery" rapidly spread and the experiment was repeated many times.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Aug 10, 2019)

pinsog said:


> Great info with documentation. Do you by any chance have the rest of the pages or only page 1?
> 
> If you apply these power settings to the P39D and also remove 500 pounds of guns, ammo and equipment, then factor in the cold weather they operated in, it would sure explain how the P39 was able to handle a 109 or even a 190 at low altitude.



That one is on WWIIAircraftPerformance.org, along with the other equally interesting one about Mustangs using the same engine. The Allison memo (3 pages) is here:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/P-40/V-1710_Service_Use_of_High_Power_Outputs.pdf


----------



## pinsog (Aug 10, 2019)

Schweik said:


> That one is on WWIIAircraftPerformance.org, along with the other equally interesting one about Mustangs using the same engine. The Allison memo (3 pages) is here:
> 
> http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/P-40/V-1710_Service_Use_of_High_Power_Outputs.pdf


Thank you


----------



## Schweik (Aug 10, 2019)

pinsog said:


> Thank you



This is the other memo about overboosting the V-1710-39 on Allison engined Mustangs at up to 72" Hg with no apparent problems. As Shortround said, the Mustang may have gotten a little big more Ram, but there is no reason to assume that a slightly lower but still very high boost rating (like the 70", 66" and 60" Hg mentioned in the Allison memo) would be a problem for a Kittyhawk with the same engine, and of course other sources corroborate this. What we don't unfortunately have is a speed test for a Kittyhawk running at 66" or 70" boost, although the boost would only work at lower altitude, it seems to have contributed to a useful escape manuever / disengagement option for P-40 pilots.

E-GEH-16

The Mustang I incidentally, would have been a viable low altituide fighter but for problems with the ailerons which were corrected in the packard-merlin V-1650-3 engined P-51B and later versions.


----------



## Greyman (Aug 10, 2019)

Schweik said:


> I am not an expert on Spitfires but I do know ballistics and metallurgy quite well. 3mm of steel is unlikely to stop a modern rifle bullet at 200 yards, and 13 degrees of slope angle would barely have any effect (about 5-6%). Even taking into consideration up to a 45 degree angle (which makes 3mm equivalent to 5mm). 3mm of tempered medium carbon steel could _maybe_ protect from rifle bullet at that range depending on the angle. 3mm of duralumin or alclad would offer very little protection against a rifle bullet at 200 yards except maybe against fragments.



My terminology is probably off -- maybe I should have said 77 degrees. Here is a quick n' rough sketch of the 10-swg armour (Hurricane's was similar) protecting the petrol tank from return fire. The engine would obviously afford most of the protection in that instance.







*EDIT*: Though I said otherwise above -- I should mention that this armour was actually meant to protect the pilot from rounds going around the engine and through the petrol tank. Any incidental protection to the tank was just a bonus.


----------



## Schweik (Aug 10, 2019)

Greyman said:


> My terminology is probably off -- maybe I should have said 77 degrees. Here is a quick n' rough sketch of the 10-swg armour (Hurricane's was similar) protecting the petrol tank from return fire. The engine would obviously afford most of the protection in that instance.
> 
> View attachment 548578



Any extra protection is better than nothing, and 77 degrees of deflection would make it a bit better even just using duralumin, but I would call that 'glancing blow' or 'bullet resistent' protection rather than true bullet proof. For the latter you need a steel plate of about 6mm, or tempered steel of about 4mm, maybe a bit less with sloping... just to protect against rifle caliber bullets at ~ 200 meters. During WWII they started with the former and eventually kind of 'rediscovered' the latter. They also experimented with some steel alloys adding vanadium and molybdenum and so on to make stronger and therefore lighter aircraft amor. On the other hand steel core or tungsten core bullets which cold punch through even thick airplane armor were also widely used.

For comparison to the above, on a Sturkmovik the 'bathtub' armor was 4-8mm and the armor plate behind the pilot was 13mm. I don't know if that was steel or tempered steel.


----------



## Greyman (Aug 10, 2019)

'Glancing blow' it may be, but that's the target presented to a Heinkel. And from a gunner's perspective it's a centre-of-mass direct hit that would have potentially killed the pilot.


----------



## Dimlee (Aug 10, 2019)

fubar57 said:


> According to the book, Soviet Hurricanes shot down 281 aircraft.



Shot down or claimed to shoot down? I know this is rhetoric question...


----------



## Dimlee (Aug 10, 2019)

Schweik said:


> For comparison to the above, on a Sturkmovik the 'bathtub' armor was 4-8mm and the armor plate behind the pilot was 13mm. I don't know if that was steel or tempered steel.



"Bathtub" - homogeneous tempered steel. The one behind the pilot - so called "cemented" steel of different composition, at least until 1943. It was probably changed later.


----------



## Kevin J (Aug 10, 2019)

Schweik said:


> You forgot the Tomahawk I's sent to 112 Sqn RAF
> 
> 
> 
> ...



We obviously have different sources of information. Based on 50 aircraft per squadron for every 6 months in front line then:-
635 Tomahawk IIb's should last 12 months in 6 squadrons so 1941/42
1000 Kittyhawk I/Ia's should last 12 months in 10 squadrons so 1942/43
Etc


----------



## Schweik (Aug 10, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> We obviously have different sources of information.



In what sense? All of the squadrons I listed flew Tomahawks in 1941, that is not hard to verify from a variety of sources.


> Based on 50 aircraft per squadron for every 6 months in front line then:-
> 635 Tomahawk IIb's should last 12 months in 6 squadrons so 1941/42
> 1000 Kittyhawk I/Ia's should last 12 months in 10 squadrons so 1942/43
> Etc



I think the 50 aircraft per squadron for 6 months is just a rule of thumb, there is nothing hard and fast about it.

Obviously the rate aircraft were actually used in the war depended on a lot of factors like attrition from combat, maintenance and accidents; training and other needs; availability of spare parts (whether some planes have to be cannibalized etc), availability of fuel, ammunition and pilots (which will affect the sortie rate) and so on. Do you think 50 aircraft lasted 6 months in Malta? Or during the BoB? Or over Stalingrad? A lot of units in the Western Desert had quite high attrition rates too.

By contrast a unit doing coastal patrol from say, Panama, Vancouver or Durban, had a much lower attrition rate (at least from combat losses).

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Aug 10, 2019)

Schweik said:


> In what sense? All of the squadrons I listed flew Tomahawks in 1941, that is not hard to verify from a variety of sources.
> 
> 
> I think the 50 aircraft per squadron for 6 months is just a rule of thumb, there is nothing hard and fast about it.
> ...



My source was an Osprey book on the British P-40's. So the American Cobra's were one of the safest aircraft to fly as they were restricted mainly to coastal patrols in the Med and rear area air defence in the Pacific, so yes agreed on that one. As for the Yak-1/7, riding shotgun as an Il-2 escort as it's main task no doubt was the major contributing factor in the paucity of high scoring aces.


----------



## Dan Fahey (Aug 11, 2019)

Just read Subject: Production of P51 Fighter airplane production from WWIi aircraft performance...
In the NNA memorandum...
It was talking about increasing blower ratings on the P51 Mustang.
“Allison is preparing to bring out a two speed engine which will increase speed substantially 
more than 400 mph at at least 21000 ft”

So they knew this !

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Aug 11, 2019)

But they made a really crude, oversized one without all the important bits you need to prevent detonation like intercoolers

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Aug 11, 2019)

Schweik said:


> But they made a really crude, oversized one without all the important bits you need to prevent detonation like intercoolers



If you are responding to Dan Fahey, he was talking about a _*2 speed*_ supercharged engine, not a _*2 stage*_ supercharged engine.

Generally speaking, 2 speed, single stage supercharged engines did not use an aftercooler/intercooler.

As for size, a 2 speed engine shouldn't be much bigger than the single speed engine, except in Allison's case where the impeller of the eventual 2 speed engine was 10.25" in diameter, compared with the regular 9.5" for the regular single speed engines.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 12, 2019)

From the timing of that Memo they may have been talking about the first batch of engines that used 9.60 gears for the 15,000ft altitude. about 25 were made for P-40s and 25 for P-39s, numbers differ as while that was the planned number they ran into the gear failure problem pretty quick and a number of the engines were converted back to the 8.80 gears. It took Allison almost a year to actually get the 9.60 gears into service. Allison may have hoped to develop and put into service a 2 speed engine with a bigger basic supercharger, but other stuff kept getting in the way, Like the two stage engine program. The Army had placed a contract for one two stage engines (not two speed) in Dec of 1940. a contract for 3 two stage remote gearbox engines (P-39?) was placed in June of 1941.
Everybody knew what the problem/s were. Finding a solution with the limited engineering manpower Allison had (and many other companies) was the roadblock to rapid development. 

Just fixing the existing basic engine during 1940-41 took up a lot of time and effort. A lot of people deride the backfire screens but the "solution" was multi pronged. 

It included switching the intake manifolds to a heavier aluminium one instead of a very light weight magnaismum one which was know to burst open on occasion (in flight) when the engine backfired and sometimes resulted in the loss of the plane, the manifold itself actually catching fire on occasion. 

All of the changes that affected this problem (and others?) needed hundreds of hours of test stand time and in the air time. Getting the existing engines to work took priority of future engines.


----------



## Schweik (Aug 12, 2019)

wuzak said:


> If you are responding to Dan Fahey, he was talking about a _*2 speed*_ supercharged engine, not a _*2 stage*_ supercharged engine.
> 
> Generally speaking, 2 speed, single stage supercharged engines did not use an aftercooler/intercooler.
> 
> As for size, a 2 speed engine shouldn't be much bigger than the single speed engine, except in Allison's case where the impeller of the eventual 2 speed engine was 10.25" in diameter, compared with the regular 9.5" for the regular single speed engines.



Yeah my bad, I misread that I thought he was talking about their two stage engine. I gather part of the problem was that the single speed supercharger was integral to the V-1710 engine so putting in a geared one like the Merlin XX had or a hydromatic one like in the DB 600 series would have required changing that. Maybe they could have borrowed some technology from Pratt and Whitney... the R-2800-8 had two stages and two speeds and seeemed quite reliable.

Even just a two speed Allison would have been a nice asset to have - just look at how much better P-40F performance was over P-40E. I understand that Allison had limited engineering manpower and were very busy in 1940-41 but by 42 or 43 I would think they could have come up with something. Seeing how P-40s were still in use through the end of the war (and P-39's too, at least in Russia) and the Allison engined ones especially remained plagued by their altitude limitation. It could have come in handy.

I think the issue is that all the focus in the US leadership was on turbos, which did eventually work out, it's just unfortunate it took so long to get them sorted out and that they ended up being so big. This is often a thing in US military procurement, particularly for planes. They want to take a quantum leap past everyone else but often take on very expensive and difficult technical challenges that don't pan out initially. It went this way with air to air missiles, mach 2, stealth, etc.

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


----------



## wuzak (Aug 12, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Yeah my bad, I misread that I thought he was talking about their two stage engine. I gather part of the problem was that the single speed supercharger was integral to the V-1710 engine so putting in a geared one like the Merlin XX had or a hydromatic one like in the DB 600 series would have required changing that. Maybe they could have borrowed some technology from Pratt and Whitney... the R-2800-8 had two stages and two speeds and seeemed quite reliable.



The V-1710's supercharger was "integral" in that it was fitted to the rear of the engine and driven off the back of the crankshaft via a gear set that increased the shaft speed.

What the supercharger lacked, compared to the Merlin XX, was a second set of ratios and a system to decouple each of the ratio sets.


----------



## Schweik (Aug 12, 2019)

Yeah or like the P&W R-2800 though it also had a two stage system.


----------



## Schweik (Aug 12, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> My source was an Osprey book on the British P-40's. So the American Cobra's were one of the safest aircraft to fly as they were restricted mainly to coastal patrols in the Med and rear area air defence in the Pacific, so yes agreed on that one. As for the Yak-1/7, riding shotgun as an Il-2 escort as it's main task no doubt was the major contributing factor in the paucity of high scoring aces.




For Yak 1 and 7 specifically, in part any 'paucity' of high scoring aces would be due to the incredibly desperate circumstances and dire straits for the Soviet Air forces in general in the early war. However that said, there seem to be quite a few high scoring Yak aces - the Osprey book on them has two pages of aces starting with 52 victory claims on the top of the first page and ending with 24 victory claims on the bottom of page two.

Unfortunately it doesn't break it down by type but from looking at the units names, many started with Yak 1, then got Yak 7, then Yak 1B or 7B, then Yak 9 and etc. A few also flew Lend Lease types or Illuyshin / Lavochkins in the early war.

Bottom line is to me it seems like there were quite a large number of Yakovlev fighter aces, their top 3 got more than all Anglo-American Aces and they had considerably more with 30 or more claims than the US and Britain combined. Looks like the counting Commonwealth / colonials RAF had 5 (per wikipedia- Roland Stanford Tuck, Buzz Buerling, Johnnie Johnson, Cherry Vale, and Pady Finucane) with 30 or more victory claims, and the US had 3, (Bong, McGuire, and David McCampbell). The Osprey book on Yak Aces lists 19 with 30 or more victory claims. So I think the Yak looks pretty damn good actually. Probably most of those are Yak 9s and Yak 3s, but plenty are also with earlier marks.


----------



## Kevin J (Aug 12, 2019)

Schweik said:


> For Yak 1 and 7 specifically, in part any 'paucity' of high scoring aces would be due to the incredibly desperate circumstances and dire straits for the Soviet Air forces in general in the early war. However that said, there seem to be quite a few high scoring Yak aces - the Osprey book on them has two pages of aces starting with 52 victory claims on the top of the first page and ending with 24 victory claims on the bottom of page two.
> 
> Unfortunately it doesn't break it down by type but from looking at the units names, many started with Yak 1, then got Yak 7, then Yak 1B or 7B, then Yak 9 and etc. A few also flew Lend Lease types or Illuyshin / Lavochkins in the early war.
> 
> Bottom line is to me it seems like there were quite a large number of Yakovlev fighter aces, their top 3 got more than all Anglo-American Aces and they had considerably more with 30 or more claims than the US and Britain combined. Looks like the counting Commonwealth / colonials RAF had 5 (per wikipedia- Roland Stanford Tuck, Buzz Buerling, Johnnie Johnson, Cherry Vale, and Pady Finucane) with 30 or more victory claims, and the US had 3, (Bong, McGuire, and David McCampbell). The Osprey book on Yak Aces lists 19 with 30 or more victory claims. So I think the Yak looks pretty damn good actually. Probably most of those are Yak 9s and Yak 3s, but plenty are also with earlier marks.



Agreed, but if you look at the Osprey book for the Yak-1/7 aces it makes for pretty grim reading. Basically, like the Spitfire V they were outclassed by the Bf 109F-4/G-2's, more so than was the case with the Spitfire V.


----------



## Dan Fahey (Aug 12, 2019)

Just curious ! 
The early P51's with the Allison engine...the Brits them working reliably at 70 inches.
One of the admiring aspects was it ability to fly at very low RPM in economy mode.

But that plane had to be fast at low and medium altitude.
Just no documentation how fast they got it.

Does any one have a calculated guess. 
The Brits claim it was never chased down from planes that had an altitude advantage.

D


----------



## Kevin J (Aug 12, 2019)

Dan Fahey said:


> Just curious !
> The early P51's with the Allison engine...the Brits them working reliably at 70 inches.
> One of the admiring aspects was it ability to fly at very low RPM in economy mode.
> 
> ...



It's all on wwiiaircraftperformance.org, somewhere around 370/380 mph at ground level IIRC.


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 12, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Even just a two speed Allison would have been a nice asset to have - just look at how much better P-40F performance was over P-40E.



The supercharger itself may have been too small. 

The -33 engine in the long nosed P-40s was good for around 1040 hp at several thousand feet below where the Merlin III made 1030hp and the supercharger only had minor changes aside from the supercharger gears. The Merlin XII in the Spitfire II moved that up by about 2,000ft and the Merlin 45 with the Hooker designed/modified inlet Mover that up another few thousand ft. 
What the Merlin XX did for the P-40F was to use an even higher gear than the Merlin 45 used (but not by much) and couple it with low gear that allowed a good amount of power for take-off or low altitude flying. 
Just putting two gears on a standard Allison supercharger doesn't get you much better performance than the 9.60 gear engines at altitude but it does allow for higher take-off or military powers at low altitude. Merlin XX had around 100hp for take-off over a Merlin 45 at the same boost and RPM because it's low gear didn't take as much power to drive and it heated the intake air less. 
100/130 fuel and WEP settings reduced the need for low gears in the superchargers.


----------



## Dan Fahey (Aug 12, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> The supercharger itself may have been too small.
> 
> The -33 engine in the long nosed P-40s was good for around 1040 hp at several thousand feet below where the Merlin III made 1030hp and the supercharger only had minor changes aside from the supercharger gears. The Merlin XII in the Spitfire II moved that up by about 2,000ft and the Merlin 45 with the Hooker designed/modified inlet Mover that up another few thousand ft.
> What the Merlin XX did for the P-40F was to use an even higher gear than the Merlin 45 used (but not by much) and couple it with low gear that allowed a good amount of power for take-off or low altitude flying.
> ...




That is not what the memorandum said...it said it the 2 speed engine would allow the Allison Mustang to exceed 400 mph at 21000ft


----------



## Schweik (Aug 13, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> The supercharger itself may have been too small.
> 
> The -33 engine in the long nosed P-40s was good for around 1040 hp at several thousand feet below where the Merlin III made 1030hp and the supercharger only had minor changes aside from the supercharger gears. The Merlin XII in the Spitfire II moved that up by about 2,000ft and the Merlin 45 with the Hooker designed/modified inlet Mover that up another few thousand ft.
> What the Merlin XX did for the P-40F was to use an even higher gear than the Merlin 45 used (but not by much) and couple it with low gear that allowed a good amount of power for take-off or low altitude flying.
> ...



I don't know if it's so hard to replace a supercharger with a larger one, seems like that was done. But your last comment there while quite interesting seems to contradict the warning in the Allison memo - namely that the 9.60 ratio engines that were coming out (with the higher altitude rating up around 16 or 17,000 ft vs. 12,000 ft for the earlier ones) would not be able to handle the overboosting, at least not to the nice levels they were getting with the V-1710-73. 

If you had two gears conceivably you could have your cake and eat it too that way. Two stages ala the Pratt and Whitney engine even more so.


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 13, 2019)

Schweik said:


> I don't know if it's so hard to replace a supercharger with a larger one, seems like that was done. But your last comment there while quite interesting seems to contradict the warning in the Allison memo - namely that the 9.60 ratio engines that were coming out (with the higher altitude rating up around 16 or 17,000 ft vs. 12,000 ft for the earlier ones) would not be able to handle the overboosting, at least not to the nice levels they were getting with the V-1710-73.
> 
> If you had two gears conceivably you could have your cake and eat it too that way. Two stages ala the Pratt and Whitney engine even more so.



You need a new supercharger. For some reason many companies didn't want design or build a number of different superchargers (inlets, impellers, diffusers.) when they thought they could get away with tinkering (changing gear ratios). It may have been penny wise and pound foolish? 

As to the Allison and the 9.60 gears, the altitude was improved from about 12,000ft to 15,500ft static (no ram), with ram it went from about 14,000ft (or a bit over) to the 16-17,000ft range. The 9.60 gears did NOT improve things by 4-5000ft. We have to compare like to like and unfortunately some of the manuals either don't specify ram or put the numbers in the wrong column. 
Now please note the -73 engine was rated at 1325hp for take-off and that was not WEP, it was also never going to happen with 100/100 octane fuel. Better fuel and stronger engine parts allowed for an increase of 175hp at take-off over the -39 engine using the same supercharger gears (and almost 300hp over the -33 engine in the long nosed P-40s) 

The British went to two speed superchargers when they had 87 octane fuel because the fuel would't stand much more than 6lbs of boost. Wright was the first American company to use two speed superchargers, P&W jumped to two stage (with two/three speeds on the extra stage, three if you count neutral) and this was done when most of their engines (commercial) were running on 87 or 91 octane fuel. Allison's were never used in a production bomber or transport and the need for high HP for take-off and climbing out wasn't there. 

It would have been nice if Allison had a two speed supercharger but without a whole new supercharger it wouldn't have really changed things much.


----------



## Schweik (Aug 14, 2019)

The V-1710-73 on the P-40K / Kittyhawk III (which as you note, is essentially a strengthened V-1710-39, both are classified V-1710-F series by Allison) made *1,550 hp* at the official WEP rating (standard by third quarter of 1942) of 60" Hg, compared to the V-1710-39 on the P-40E / Kittyhawk Ia WEP of 1,470 hp at it's official rating of 56" Hg. Without even getting into unsanctioned overboost ratings*, this is a very helpful increase of power for low altitude, saving the lives of many pilots by allowing them to easily disengage from A6M or Ki-43s and keep up with Bf 109s at low altitude. The problem is both engines are on the 8.8-1 supercharger gear which resulted in a critical altitude of about 12,000 ft, and an effective performance ceiling of about 14 - 15,000 ft. Above that, the airplane is anemic. And this is a problem since so many medium bomber raids were coming in at about 18,000 - 22,000 ft especially in the early to mid war years.

The 9.6-1 geared V-1710-81 of the P-40M had a critical altitude almost 4,000 ft higher and the V-1710-115 of the P-40N-5 at 16,400 ft (meaning reasonable performance up to about 19,000 anecdotally). This is a big advantage in certain Theaters, and for example makes it much easier to catch those medium bombers, but it comes at the price of having that very useful low altitude performance. So I think if you had one gear at 8.10-1 or 8.8-1 and the second gear at 9.6-1 you would have a much wider band of effective performance. Still not a high altitude plane but more of a legitimately medium altitude plane that didn't have to dive so far to recover genuine fighter-like performance.

In other words, I don't see why a two speed V-1710 would have been that different from the Merlin XX, maybe a little more power down low and not quite as high of a critical altitude, but pretty close. And the sortie to loss and victory to loss ratios tell us that the Merlin powered P-40s fared much better, particularly in the MTO.

* which the Allison memo documents were producing 1,770 hp at 2,000 feet with ram at 66" Hg

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


----------



## Schweik (Aug 14, 2019)

Per wikipedia V-1710-101, -119, and -121 had an "auxiliary supercharger with an aftercooler". Those are in fact two stage engines which gave great performance but they were just developed a year or two too late.







This was the engine they put in the doomed P-40Q, (itself just a P-40K with clipped wings, a bubble canopy and the new engine) which probably got cancelled due to a prototype crash (and politics / since War Dept was already fed up with Curtiss by then). They should have just done it a bit earlier, instead of their bizarre designs for the P-46 and P-60.

However I'm not sure if Allison had really figured out how to make a reliable two stage engine.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Friendly Friendly:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Aug 14, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Per wikipedia V-1710-101, -119, and -121 had an "auxiliary supercharger with an aftercooler". Those are in fact two stage engines which gave great performance but they were just developed a year or two too late.
> 
> View attachment 548903
> 
> ...



Bottom line is that the Q doesn't have any customers for it. The USAAF, RAAF & RAF want the Merlin powered Mustang and the USSR wants the Kingcobra.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Aug 14, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Per wikipedia V-1710-101, -119, and -121 had an "auxiliary supercharger with an aftercooler". Those are in fact two stage engines which gave great performance but they were just developed a year or two too late.
> 
> View attachment 548903
> 
> ...



I think it was less to do with politics and more to do with the XP-40Q being about 2 years too late. The initial P-40Q flew in June 1943 and the P-40Q2, which had the bubble canopy, followed in December 1943. To put it in context, the prototype P-80 first flew in January 1944. In short, the P-40Q was too late and offered insufficient advantage over current in-service types, at least compared to the emerging jet fighters that were coming down the pike.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Aug 14, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> Bottom line is that the Q doesn't have any customers for it. The USAAF, RAAF & RAF want the Merlin powered Mustang and the USSR wants the Kingcobra.



Well the RAF and RAAF were still using a significant quantity of P-40s quite late, so I think they could have used some of the Q, The Aussies and New Zealanders in particular liked P-40s I'm sure they would have welcomed a 420 mph version. North American could only produce so many Mustangs and Mustangs weren't ideal as fighter-bombers anyway (better for high altitude). As for the Kingcobra, I think the P-40Q is just a better fighter all around and the Soviets would have liked it, though by the time it was available they already had the La-7, Yak-3 and Yak-9T etc.

Aside from just arriving too late, after Curtiss wasted all that time on the P-46 and P-60 etc., it was clear by late 1944 that Curtiss was having some serious problems, including with P-40 production. The company had just become corrupt, it wasn't a good candidate for investing money in. Better to focus on newer companies that were not so top heavy.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Aug 14, 2019)

buffnut453 said:


> I think it was less to do with politics and more to do with the XP-40Q being about 2 years too late. The initial P-40Q flew in June 1943 and the P-40Q2, which had the bubble canopy, followed in December 1943. To put it in context, the prototype P-80 first flew in January 1944. In short, the P-40Q was too late and offered insufficient advantage over current in-service types, at least compared to the emerging jet fighters that were coming down the pike.



I don't disagree with any of that, but I do also think politics (the problems with Curtiss) were real. I also think the P-40Q was on the edge of being accepted for (limited) production in spite of everything, if it weren't the prototype crash(es)


----------



## Schweik (Aug 14, 2019)

Would those engines work properly with just an aftercooler or did they need an intercooler too?


----------



## wuzak (Aug 14, 2019)

Schweik said:


> I don't disagree with any of that, but I do also think politics (the problems with Curtiss) were real. I also think the P-40Q was on the edge of being accepted for (limited) production in spite of everything, if it weren't the prototype crash(es)



Where do you get that idea from?

In a country that has P-38s, P-47s and P-51s, where does the P-40Q fit?


----------



## wuzak (Aug 14, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Well the RAF and RAAF were still using a significant quantity of P-40s quite late, so I think they could have used some of the Q, The Aussies and New Zealanders in particular liked P-40s I'm sure they would have welcomed a 420 mph version.



I'm sure that a faster version would have been useful, but I'm not sure they would have preferred that over an even faster P-51.




Schweik said:


> North American could only produce so many Mustangs and Mustangs weren't ideal as fighter-bombers anyway (better for high altitude).



You do know that P-51s were being licence built in Australia from 1943 or 1944?

And that a P-40Q with 2 stage supercharger would be a "high altitude" aircraft?




Schweik said:


> As for the Kingcobra, I think the P-40Q is just a better fighter all around and the Soviets would have liked it, though by the time it was available they already had the La-7, Yak-3 and Yak-9T etc.



Which is exactly the point. By the time the P-40Q got into service it would be late 1944, at the earliest. Probably early to mid 1945.

And there were far better options by then.




Schweik said:


> Aside from just arriving too late, after Curtiss wasted all that time on the P-46 and P-60 etc.,



Not sure that the time spent on the P-46 and P-60 would have made much difference to the P-40 program.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Aug 14, 2019)

Schweik said:


> They should have just done it a bit earlier, instead of their bizarre designs for the P-46 and P-60.



What exactly was so bizarre about the P-46 and P-60.

As originally flown, the P-60 was a P-40 with a new wing and engine (the Merlin 28).


----------



## wuzak (Aug 14, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Would those engines work properly with just an aftercooler or did they need an intercooler too?



I believe they had an intercooler, but not an aftercooler. 

I cannot confirm at the moment, as I am away from my books.


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 14, 2019)

despite the numerical designations the P-46 and P-60 were much earlier in timing than the P-40Q, 

So early that their impact on the P-40Q project was just about nonexistent. (my opinion)
The Army ordered two XP-46s in Sept of 1939. They were to use the newly announced (but not anywhere production) V-1710-39. the Stripped prototype (no guns, armor, self sealing tanks, etc) flew in Feb 1941, the fully equipped version flew in Sept 1941 but it was an academic exercise. It had been decided in 1940 to build the P-40D using the same engine and without a miracle (fully equipped P-46 does well over 400mph?) the XP-46 was a dead duck in late 1940 to mid 1941. The P-40D entered production in May of 1941. The Prototype P-40F flew June 30th 1941.

The XP-60 started as the XP-53 (from Joe Baugher's web site) 
"_This was the Curtiss Model 88, which was basically an improved XP-46 powered by the yet-to-be-built 1600-hp Continental XIV-1430-3 twelve-cylinder liquid-cooled inverted Vee engine. The Model 88 was to use the fuselage and tail assembly of the P-40D combined with a NACA laminar flow wing_."

"_On October 1, 1940, the USAAC ordered two examples of the Model 88 under the designation XP-53_"

"_However, in a conference held six weeks later, the USAAC informed Curtiss-Wright of its need for a fighter combining laminar flow wing technology with the British Rolls-Royce Merlin engine. Since the XP-53 was already being designed for laminar-flow wings, Curtiss proposed to convert the second XP-53 airframe (41-19508) to the Merlin engine while it was undergoing construction"_

_"The Model 90 (XP-60) flew for the first time on September 18, 1941, only eleven days before the first flight of the disappointing XP-46. The performance of the XP-60 was disappointing as well, with a top speed of only 387 mph at 22,000 feet."_

Yes the XP-60 project staggered on for while but it was just desperate attempts to find a powerful enough engine for an oversized and overweight airframe. 

_" However, on *November 17, 1941*, it was concluded that the P-60A would be underpowered if the Allison engine were used, and that either a more powerful engine should be found or else another fighter be built instead of the P-60A" _

So three weeks before Pearl Harbor the 3rd version of the P-53/60 is considered to be underpowered with a turbocharged Allison of a proposed 1425hp model. 

The P-40Q was nearly 2 years later. Two P-40Ks were modified and one P-40N. Several different 2 stage Allisons were used (one airframe got two, if not three, different engines) and while fast there seems to be a disconnect between the weight/armament of the prototypes and the intended service armament. The first pilot's report on http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org 

says that they were flying the plane at 8200lb with 160 gallons but armament is not listed, This was in Nov 1943. 
By April of 1944 (how many Mustangs being built per month by then?) using a different engine the weight is given as 9000lbs with full fuel (unspecified but 150-160 gallons?) full oil, 11 gallons of water for the injection system but only four .50 cal guns with 235rpg. Production armament was suggested to be either six .50 cal guns or four 20mm cannon. 

Six guns with 275 rpg would add around 360lb or more to the weight. 

I don't know when Allison was promising what with the 2 stage supercharger but in 1942 and very early 1943 they were fooling around with a prototype engine that used the same size impeller in the auxiliary supercharger as the main supercharger, direct mechanical (single speed-drive) and a few other features that would not see the light of day on a production engine. Until Allison could come up with at least a viable prototype 2 stage engine the P-40Q project was going nowhere and having the Curtiss engineers and prototype shop workmen sit on their hands for several years by canceling the XP-46 and P-60 projects was not going to speed up the P-40Q/
The first V-1710-101 as used in the early P-40Q was not tested on a ground stand until July of 1943.

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


----------



## Schweik (Aug 15, 2019)

It's late so just three quick points.

P-60 development may have started in 1941 _but it continued until 1944_. The P-60A flew on Nov 1942, the P60C flew on January 1943, and the P-60E flew in January 1944, and the complete version not until July 1944. Even Curtiss thought that was a waste of time and asked the War Dept to be let out of their contract.
You mentioned the P-40Q weight was 9,000 lbs and you try to nudge it up from there, but the P-60Chad a gross weight of 11,835 lbs! With four .50 cal guns.
It also had a 41' wingspan, vs. the 35' span of the P-40Q. (the latter was heading in the right direction)





_P-60E, they all looked radically different_

It may have been impossible to have gotten it working early enough to matter due to the trouble with the two stage Allison, but I think you can look at that, and compare it to the P-40Q I posted, and tell which one was a more viable design.

So what I mean by saying they shouldn't have wasted their time with it is they should have gone in that design direction (longer, slimmer, more streamlined, shorter wings, and yes a two stage or at least two speed supercharger but _not_ a turbo) earlier instead of wasting their time for three years with the P-60.


----------



## wuzak (Aug 15, 2019)

The XP-60 first flew in September 1941 with a Merlin 28.

The XP-60A with Allison V-1710 and turbo first flew a year later.

Curtiss apparently did not ask to get out of P-60 development until May 1944. The whole program amounted to 5 or 6 prototypes.

XP-60 (Merlin 28, first flight September 1941)
XP-60A (V-1710 + turbo, first flight November 1942)
XP-60B (V-1710 + different turbo - completed as XP-60E)
XP-60C (originally to be Chrysler IV-2220 but ended up with R-2800 and contra-props, first flight January 1943)
XP-60D (XP-60 was changed to fit the V-1650-3) - this crashed in May 1943, still before the XP-40Q was a thing.
XP-60E (XP-60B airframe completed with R-2800 and single rotation propeller, first flight May 1943).

The XP-60 had disappointing performance, but it was still 20mh faster than a P-40F, despite having a huge wing (45ft span), weighing more and using from an engine that wasn't producing full rated power.


----------



## wuzak (Aug 15, 2019)

Wiki's caption for this one is the XP-60B, but it is either the XP-60 or XP-60D






This one is labelled as the XP-60D





Curtiss P-60 - Wikipedia

With a 3 blade propeller I suspect that is the XP-60.

The fuselage for these was that of the P-40D.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Milosh (Aug 15, 2019)

Curtiss wanted their own version of the P-47.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Aug 15, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Would those engines work properly with just an aftercooler or did they need an intercooler too?





wuzak said:


> I believe they had an intercooler, but not an aftercooler.
> 
> I cannot confirm at the moment, as I am away from my books.



Just looked at Dan Whitney's _Vee's for Victory_ and can confirm that I was mistaken and that it was an aftercooler, not an intercooler.

There really wasn't enough space for an intercooler and an aftercooler in the Allison design.


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 15, 2019)

Schweik said:


> It's late so just three quick points.
> 
> P-60 development may have started in 1941 _but it continued until 1944_. The P-60A flew on Nov 1942, the P60C flew on January 1943, and the P-60E flew in January 1944, and the complete version not until July 1944. Even Curtiss thought that was a waste of time and asked the War Dept to be let out of their contract.
> You mentioned the P-40Q weight was 9,000 lbs and you try to nudge it up from there, but the P-60Chad a gross weight of 11,835 lbs! With four .50 cal guns.
> ...






wuzak said:


> XP-60 (Merlin 28, first flight September 1941)
> XP-60A (V-1710 + turbo, first flight November 1942)
> XP-60B (V-1710 + different turbo - completed as XP-60E)
> XP-60C (originally to be Chrysler IV-2220 but ended up with R-2800 and contra-props, first flight January 1943)
> ...



The wing and landing gear had been designed for the P-53 and carried on pretty much unchanged through the whole series. The original armament of the P-53 and early P-60s was (or supposed to be) eight .50 cal machine guns, ammo load unknown (at least to me). Army requirement or Curtiss suggestion? 

Say what you will about Curtiss management, they were not dumb enough to think they could sell the P-36/P-40 airframe forever. Seversky/Republic had been a main competitor since the P-35 days. Once they are building an eight .50 cal fighter can Curtiss do less? So you get the 45ft wing of 275sq ft. at which point the Allison, regardless of supercharger is too small, the Merlin is too small, the wonderful (sarcasm) IV-1430 is too small (even if it had worked) and the search was on the bigger engine. The Chrysler IV-2220 was wonderfully streamlined but would never be available time. Leaving the P & W R-2800 and sticking an R-2800 into a P-40 fuselage was going to take a lot of work  

Curtiss had been a main supplier of Army fighters since the late 20s, if it wanted to remain in that position it could not offer fighters _almost_ as good as the other companies, they had to better, more innovative. 

The P-40Q was not a change in design in direction, it was a last desperate gasp to keep Curtiss in the game while they worked on something better than the P-60 (making P-47s under licence _might_ have been profitable but it was no way to ensure the future of the company). Cutting a few feet of wing tip off the old P-36 wing was not an example of innovation or modern thinking. 

Unfortunately for Curtiss the basic design talent seemed to be lacking, the P-60 series dropped to six guns and then to four guns in an attempt to get the planes lighter to keep the performance up even as they got the more powerful engine (the R-2800). 

You also have to compare the military power of the engines, not the WEP power (which didn't officially exist until late 1942 and some engines got it sooner than others). 
The high performance of the P-40Q was using 75in manifold pressure and water injection. Please compare to P-51 using 150 octane fuel.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 15, 2019)

To add or modify the above post, the US Air Material Command was also pushing for the P-40Q in Dec of 1943 to help with an anticipated shortage of fighters in 1944.
It was seen as a way to keep numbers up and keep the P-40 in production at higher numbers than earlier plans called for (at least 200 planes per month).

As I've said before, planning and allocation of resources often occurred months or year before the production planes rolled out the door. 
Unfortunately Allison's two stage engine was not quite ready for service use, the 2nd P-40Q prototype was out of service for about 40 days out of the 70 days it was under test in the summer of 1944. 

ammo capacity of the P-40Q is given as 1208 rounds for 4 guns,

Ammo capacity for the P-53 was given as 2000 rounds for eight guns.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Aug 15, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> Curtiss had been a main supplier of Army fighters since the late 20s, if it wanted to remain in that position *it could not offer fighters almost as good as the other companies, they had to better, more innovative.*
> 
> The P-40Q was not a change in design in direction... Cutting a few feet of wing tip off the old P-36 wing was not an example of innovation or modern thinking.
> 
> Unfortunately for Curtiss the basic design talent seemed to be lacking, the P-60 series dropped to six guns and then to four guns in an attempt to get the planes lighter to keep the performance up even as they got the more powerful engine (the R-2800).



Thanks, you articulated exactly the point I've been making about US weapon procurement for years. But I would rephrase your statement above slightly.

They didn't want an incremental improvement, they wanted a quantum leap.

This is a frequent pattern, the desire to make a quantum leap past what was already available and into something truly new and innovative. Like the B-70 Valkyrie, or the F-102, or the P-55 Acender (another zany project that Curtiss wasted time with) it could easily become a costly failure. Or like the ultimately successful P-38 and P-47, it might struggle through years of teething problems and issues with over-ambitious systems (turbo comes to mind).

Sometimes all the ambition for greatness builds up pressure that dooms a new design. A lot of times the best new designs started out as cheap alternatives mean to buy time until the next great idea came along. The Mosquito was made mainly to save on strategic materials. The F-16 was supposed to be a cheap stop gap. Yet these were some of the best new designs of their eras.

Any real quantum leap to make in 1944 or even 1943 was obviously going to be jet powered. So any more or less conventional pro driven fighter design _was_ incremental, the only question was how far of an improvement would it be - two steps, three or four? And if Allison really couldn't get the two stage supercharger working then P-40Q was dead in the water regardless. That is probably what in fact happened.

However, *if *they could, perhaps with a bit more effort (putting a few more engineers on the project, whatever) have gotten the V-1710-101 working reliably by some time in 1942, I think that aircraft would have been more viable than the P-46, P-53, and P-60 series among other wasted efforts.

The P-40 itself was just a simple incremental upgrade over the P-36, as you have pointed out, basically just adding a better engine. And yet it proved to be vastly more capable and useful, extending the operational use of the P-36 to the end of the war. The P-51B was, similarly, an incremental update of a promising but not really viable fighter in the P-51A. The B model basically just put in a new, much better engine and fixed a problem with the ailerons. The Tempest was originally just an incremental improvement of the Typhoon, and yet it turned out to be _vastly _more useful.

Of the aircraft available in 1943 or 1944, the Mustang to me is the one that clearly was far above and beyond the P-40. It was the ideal escort fighter. It could contend with the Bf 109 at altitude and Fw 190 in terms of speed. But the Mustang wasn't great at everything. It's closest competitors, the P-38 and P-47, having lost out in the prestige battle for the escort role, were often used as low altitude fighters and fighter-bombers. But neither was ideal for that.

The P-38 was a very innovative design (certainly a quantum leap) but did not come into it's own until the late J and L models in 1944 when the dive flaps fixed the compressibility problems, boosted ailerons improved maneuverability, they had a second generator, cockpit heating, and most of the turbo issues were resolved. But even then it wasn't an ideal low altitude fighter or fighter bomber, size alone made it vulnerable to ground fire. The earlier P-38s were still very useful in the Pacific, and the P-38L could have rivaled the P-51 as an escort but that decision had already been made. The P-47 went through similar teething problems though for not quite as long. It's main issue was ultimately just range, due largely to the thirsty engine with the huge turbo (which was a circular problem in that the big turbo contributed to the huge overall size of the plane which meant it needed more power to drag it through the sky drinking more fuel etc.). It too got relegated largely to ground attack, and while it is celebrated in that role and the radial engine helped it survive being hit, it's large size and the fact that it was generally speaking, draggy down low and designed to be a high altitude fighter meant that it really wasn't ideal for that role.

The reality is that the P-40 soldiered on longer than it should have of course. To wit:



wuzak said:


> You do know that P-51s were being licence built in Australia from 1943 or 1944?



Be that as it may, if you look at the Australian victory claims for 1944, you'll notice that the majority of their victory claims were still by P-40s. I don't see any by Mustangs. By my count it's 17 from P-40s, 4 from Beaufighters, and 9 from Spitfires. So clearly there was still a need and a role for the P-40s.

If you accept the idea however that the Mustang should have been the _only _American made fighter in use after Jan 43, which I could agree with provisionally except for the problem of production, then the notion that there is no need for a P-40Q is valid. But since the production capacity for P-51s and their engines was limited, and other fighter types could compliment the mission, the P-40Q seems viable. P-40s were more maneuverable than Mustangs and seemed to hold up better to battle damage. The P-40Q was just a P-40 that had less drag, a much higher operational ceiling (39,000 ft vs. 31,000 for the P-40N) was 44 mph faster and had 300 miles more range. Four guns to me is also not a problem, does anyone doubt that a P-51B with four .50 cal guns was a better fighter than a Hurricane IIC with four 20mm cannon?


----------



## wuzak (Aug 15, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Be that as it may, if you look at the Australian victory claims for 1944, you'll notice that the majority of their victory claims were still by P-40s. I don't see any by Mustangs. By my count it's 17 from P-40s, 4 from Beaufighters, and 9 from Spitfires. So clearly there was still a need and a role for the P-40s.



The point is they were going to get P-51s from Australian production before they got P-40Qs.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Aug 15, 2019)

wuzak said:


> The point is they were going to get P-51s from Australian production before they got P-40Qs.



The genuine usefulness of the Q hinges entirely on it's being available _earlie_r. I agree (and stipulated from the beginning of this segue) that by 1944 there wasn't much of a market for it. I think the War Dept might have accepted it anyway if not for the prototype crashes (the first one may have happened in 1943, but there were three more in March, April and July of 44) which don't bode well for production aircraft, but sometimes are just purely accidents.

But to reiterate, the plane was at least a year too late. The only way it could have been viable is if Allison had been able to sort out the two-stage engine by late 42 or early 43, that way it could have been (arguably) in the field by mid 1944. If so it probably could have played a useful role in Burma and Italy among other places.


----------



## Kevin J (Aug 15, 2019)

Schweik said:


> The genuine usefulness of the Q hinges entirely on it's being available _earlie_r. I agree (and stipulated from the beginning of this segue) that by 1944 there wasn't much of a market for it. I think the War Dept might have accepted it anyway if not for the prototype crashes (the first one may have happened in 1943, but there were three more in March, April and July of 44) which don't bode well for production aircraft, but sometimes are just purely accidents.
> 
> But to reiterate, the plane was at least a year too late. The only way it could have been viable is if Allison had been able to sort out the two-stage engine by late 42 or early 43, that way it could have been (arguably) in the field by mid 1944. If so it probably could have played a useful role in Burma and Italy among other places.


Not even Italy, especially not Burma as its range that everyone wants. It's only the USSR that's uninterested in range.


----------



## Schweik (Aug 15, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> Not even Italy, especially not Burma as its range that everyone wants. It's only the USSR that's uninterested in range.



I've seen various estimates for the P-40Q range but with an external tank it appears to be 994 miles. Not as good as a Mustang but considerably better than any Spitfire (most marks around 430 miles, VIII seems to have been best at about 660 miles), Tempest (420 miles - with an extra fuel tank), or P-47 (best I've seen is 800 miles, most were realistically more like 500*) all of which were still in use in 1944 and 1945.

The main point though is that they were using P-40K, M and N from 1943 through early 1945 in many places including Italy and Burma, and also in the South Pacific. P-40s were still scoring victories in late 1944. If you had replaced those aging P-40N with P-40Q in say, early or mid 1944, that probably would have been a useful improvement. Given A) there aren't enough P-51s and B) there aren't enough P-38s either, the latter still experiencing teething problems into 1944... and the P-47 never really excelled in the CBI where the P-40 scored more victories than all other US types combined. For that matter P-40 units scored more than twice as many victories in the MTO as P-47s did too.

You could make the same argument for the Hurricane - an incrementally improved (say clip winged, two stage supercharger) Hurricane would have been very helpful in 1943 or 1944, IMO. If you could improve the top level speed to over 350 or 360 mph and increase the maximum dive speed and acceleration by about 20% each you would have put it back into a viable place.

*The special long range P-47N with an extra 100 gallons of gas in the wings, apparently could fly 2,300 miles ferry range, but it didn't see action until 1945 as far as I could determine googling it just now.


----------



## Kevin J (Aug 15, 2019)

Schweik said:


> I've seen various estimates for the P-40Q range but with an external tank it appears to be 994 miles. Not as good as a Mustang but considerably better than any Spitfire (most marks around 430 miles, VIII seems to have been best at about 660 miles), Tempest (420 miles - with an extra fuel tank), or P-47 (best I've seen is 800 miles, most were realistically more like 500*) all of which were still in use in 1944 and 1945.
> 
> The main point though is that they were using P-40K, M and N from 1943 through early 1945 in many places including Italy and Burma, and also in the South Pacific. P-40s were still scoring victories in late 1944. If you had replaced those aging P-40N with P-40Q in say, early or mid 1944, that probably would have been a useful improvement. Given A) there aren't enough P-51s and B) there aren't enough P-38s either, the latter still experiencing teething problems into 1944... and the P-47 never really excelled in the CBI where the P-40 scored more victories than all other US types combined. For that matter P-40 units scored more than twice as many victories in the MTO as P-47s did too.
> 
> ...



The Kiwis opted for the Corsair, the Aussies the Mustang, the Brits Mustangs and Thunderbolts, CBI USAAF the Mustang, USAAF Europe Mustang and Thunderbolts, Soviet VVS Kingcobra, USAAF Pacific Thunderbolts and Mustangs, Soviet PVO Spitfire and Thunderbolts, so maybe just maybe Soviet Naval Aviation to back up their Thunderbolts and P-40N's.

By late 1944, Spitfires also have rear fuselage fuel tanks. So what would you choose for the UK and USSR, Spitfire LXVI or P-40Q? When will it enter service, late 44 or early 1945?

I only see one potential customer for it, Soviet Naval Aviation.


----------



## Schweik (Aug 15, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> The Kiwis opted for the Corsair, the Aussies the Mustang, the Brits Mustangs and Thunderbolts, CBI USAAF the Mustang, USAAF Europe Mustang and Thunderbolts, Soviet VVS Kingcobra, USAAF Pacific Thunderbolts and Mustangs, Soviet PVO Spitfire and Thunderbolts, so maybe just maybe Soviet Naval Aviation to back up their Thunderbolts and P-40N's.
> 
> By late 1944, Spitfires also have rear fuselage fuel tanks. So what would you choose for the UK and USSR, Spitfire LXVI or P-40Q? When will it enter service, late 44 or early 1945?
> 
> I only see one potential customer for it, Soviet Naval Aviation.



Those picks were based on what was available, we are speculating about another plane that wasn't - presumably if it was it may have been part of the mix.

By the time the Kiwi's got their Corsairs (I think this was basically decided by the US) they weren't encountering Japanese planes. As you can see yourself their last 20 victory claims were all with P-40.

I already pointed out that similarly, the Australians got all their final victories with P-40s, Spitfires and Beaufighters. They did not seem to have any claims with the P-51 so I would say it's a safe bet they got them into combat too late. As CAS / fighter-bombers they were not ideal (they would have been better with Corsairs probably).

VVS did accept some Kingcobras but the P-40Q would have been better (fast enough to keep up with Fw 190s but also much longer range which did actually matter even to the VVS). The Soviets definitely did not care for the P-47 which they declared "not a fighter" and I believe would certainly have used P-40Q for PVO as well as VVS if available. They were still using P-40N in Naval aviation by the end of the war as you probably know.

The Brits would have accepted P-40Q in 1944 I think since they were still using Hurricanes (!) in the CBI and P-40N's in Italy, and didn't have enough Mustangs. I don't think they ever particularly loved the Thunderbolt.

USAAF was still using P-40s in the CBI into November 1944 (23rd and 51st FG). The 80th FG for example actually switched from the P-47 to the P-40 before rotating to the Theater.

So again, all I believe candidates to use any available P-40s with 40 mph faster speed, 5,000 higher ceiling, 300 miles better range, and double the rate of climb if it was available really any time in 1944.


----------



## Kevin J (Aug 15, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Those picks were based on what was available, we are speculating about another plane that wasn't - presumably if it was it may have been part of the mix.
> 
> By the time the Kiwi's got their Corsairs (I think this was basically decided by the US) they weren't encountering Japanese planes. As you can see yourself their last 20 victory claims were all with P-40.
> 
> ...



Us Brits has better fighters to deploy in all our theatres. There's no need for the P-40Q, likewise our Commonwealth, and if we gave them to the Soviets then maybe they wouldn't have stopped in the Kuriles but marched into Hokkaido too, so not a good idea.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Aug 15, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> Us Brits has better fighters to deploy in all our theatres. There's no need for the P-40Q, likewise our Commonwealth, and if we gave them to the Soviets then maybe they wouldn't have stopped in the Kuriles but marched into Hokkaido too, so not a good idea.



If that were true they wouldn't have been using P-51s and P-47s

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Aug 15, 2019)

Schweik said:


> If that were true they wouldn't have been using P-51s and P-47s



The later Spitfire IXe's and L XVI's had 66 Imp gals more fuel than the VIII's so are a much better option.


----------



## Schweik (Aug 15, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> The later Spitfire IXe's and L XVI's had 66 Imp gals more fuel than the VIII's so are a much better option.



What was their range with and without external tanks?


----------



## Kevin J (Aug 15, 2019)

Schweik said:


> What was their range with and without external tanks?



Don't know mate, can't exactly remember, somewhere around 1000/1200 on full internal IIRC, but if you add external you can't add a centre line bomb or 2 rockets under each wing and you can only fill all the rear tanks for ferrying, otherwise it's half fill only. Would have been useful in 1945 for liberating Malaya. It's certainly better than the P-40Q.

Reactions: Optimistic Optimistic:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Aug 15, 2019)

Lol I find that doubtful, I'd really need to see some data on that. 1,000 miles range on internal fuel? Combat radius, combat range or ferry range?

This seems to be devolving yet again into one of those patriotic type debates.


The Spit was the best medium to high altitude interceptor and short range air superiority fighter on the Allied side, maybe for any side of the war (with the only real rival being the Bf 109). Once LF variants became available in 1941 it was also an excellent low altitude interceptor / air superiority fighter, though it would be challenged for supremacy in this role by the Yak-3 and some of the other Soviet types, as well as by the Fw 190. By continuous upgrading, the Spitfire stayed in dominant role in the interceptor niche through the end of the war, but it was never a good escort fighter or fighter-bomber. At best the VIII and other extended range variants seem to have given medium range.
The P-51B and later marks, once they arrived, were the ultimate escort fighter of the late war with not long but very long range and good outcomes in air to air combat. The mantle was probably owned by the A6M for the early war and maybe the P-38 for the mid-war, at least in the Pacific. But P-51s were never particularly good interceptors or ground attack planes. Neither were P-38s.
P-47s were contenders as arguably the best high altitude fighter on the Allied side and did well in the FB role in spite of massive drag and large target size. The rare Fw 190D and even rarer Ta-152 were probably the best for the Axis.
The A6M was the best carrier fighter of the early war, the F6F Hellcat was hands down the best carrier fighter of the late war, followed by the F4U.
The Soviets, as I said already, probably had the best short range, low altitude fighters of the war, chief among with was probably the Yak 3, but only once they were fully shaken out and developed, with the earliest really good ones probably not really making their presence felt until Spring of 1943. Before that the general purpose Bf 109, seemingly good at all altitudes, was clearly dominant. By the end of the war the Tempest is also highly competitive in this specific role.

In other words there were different niches that different aircraft were good at. No one aircraft was good at doing everything - those with the greatest versatility perhaps had the most applications, but not necessarily the most important applications. The Mustang was never as important as the Spitfire because the Spitfire defended the homeland and that was the priority mission of the war.


----------



## Kevin J (Aug 15, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Lol I find that doubtful, I'd really need to see some data on that. 1,000 miles range on internal fuel? Combat radius, combat range or ferry range?
> 
> This seems to be devolving yet again into one of those patriotic type debates.
> 
> ...


Best I've seen in an old book I have is Spitfire IX tested in states. 284 Imp gal total with 2 X 62 Imp gal drop tanks so 160 Imp internal so slightly more than original Mustang. You need to Google Spitfires range.


----------



## Schweik (Aug 15, 2019)

I have, needless to say. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence Kevin.


----------



## Kevin J (Aug 15, 2019)

Schweik said:


> I have, needless to say. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence Kevin.



It's out there. The Spitfire Story' by Alfred Price. Revised 2nd Edition 2002. I think it was about 160 gal max for combat for later marks. So 95 front fuselage, 33 wing, 66 rear. Rockets never used operationally in WW2. Don't think they ever used them in Burma though. War ended.


----------



## Schweik (Aug 15, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> It's out there. The Spitfire Story' by Alfred Price. Revised 2nd Edition 2002. I think it was about 160 gal max for combat for later marks. So 95 front fuselage, 33 wing, 66 rear. Rockets never used operationally in WW2. Don't think they ever used them in Burma though. War ended.



I don't doubt you are referring to something real, but I don't buy your interpretation. I think you are referring to either ferry range or to untenable fuel loads they could barely fly with or both. 160 gallon isn't even that much fuel if you are including external tanks, Mustang carried 184 internal + 150 external for long range flights.

If they had a Spit IXe or XVI with a 1,200 miles range I would think P-51 production would rapidly wind down and Spitfires would immediately take over all escort missions to Germany. Hell Lancasters could start flying during the day. The Spit was a much better dogfighter than a P-51 so if it had the same range I think maybe you switch NA production to the P-82 or P-80 or something.


----------



## Milosh (Aug 15, 2019)

Spit ILF X with 150 gal ferry tank - 2301mi. (Spit: The History)


----------



## Schweik (Aug 15, 2019)

I don't think you can fight with a ferry tank. A Mustang had a ferry range of 2,740 miles, P-38 of 2500 miles... but these don't translate into combat range.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Aug 15, 2019)

Schweik said:


> I don't doubt you are referring to something real, but I don't buy your interpretation. I think you are referring to either ferry range or to untenable fuel loads they could barely fly with or both. 160 gallon isn't even that much fuel if you are including external tanks, Mustang carried 184 internal + 150 external for long range flights.
> 
> If they had a Spit IXe or XVI with a 1,200 miles range I would think P-51 production would rapidly wind down and Spitfires would immediately take over all escort missions to Germany. Hell Lancasters could start flying during the day. The Spit was a much better dogfighter than a P-51 so if it had the same range I think maybe you switch NA production to the P-82 or P-80 or something.



We're talking late 1944 for first production deliveries, so same timescale as P-40Q.


----------



## Schweik (Aug 15, 2019)

Then why weren't Spits escorting 4 engine bombers all the way to Berlin in 1945?


----------



## Kevin J (Aug 15, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Then why weren't Spits escorting 4 engine bombers all the way to Berlin in 1945?



They were escorting Lancaster's on daylight raids. Why Berlin? I thought we'd already wrecked it.


----------



## Schweik (Aug 15, 2019)

Hell why not fly to Tokyo and back I'm sure they could make it with plenty of gas to spare...

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Aug 15, 2019)

Just to be clear, I do _not _think this is actually the case, but* if *a Spitfire IX or XVI could actually fly *1,200 mile combat sorties*, then it would be by far the best Allied fighter available (IMO) and the immediate solution to any problems the RAF or the Allies in general were having in Burma or the CBI. Or the Pacific or anywhere else. 

I am left with only three question in that case which would be 

why wasn't this done sooner and 
why were they still making other types and 
how did they do such a good job keeping this secret? 
I googled this several times with different keywords and all I can find are 'what-if' threads on forums like this one and Ubisoft.


----------



## Milosh (Aug 15, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> They were escorting Lancaster's on daylight raids. Why Berlin? I thought we'd already wrecked it.



Taking off from continental bases. The 303rd BG bombed Berlin March 28 1945.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greyman (Aug 15, 2019)

Generic figures for a Spitfire IX with a 90 gallon drop tank, minus take off and climb to 20,000 feet:
- range at most economical: 980 miles (tank dropped when empty)​- range at most economical: 900 miles (tank carried all the way)​- range at max weak mix: 520 miles​
For every 5 min at combat power reduce:
- most economical range by 82 miles​- max weak mix range by 45 miles​​Most economical ranges of 1,300 or 1,200 miles required the 170 gallon tank:

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Aug 15, 2019)

I think the Spitfire Kevin is referring to is the experimental USAAF long range Spitfire.

Escort Spitfire - a missed opportunity for longer reach? - Royal Aeronautical Society

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Aug 15, 2019)

Greyman said:


> Generic figures for a Spitfire IX with a 90 gallon drop tank, minus take off and climb to 20,000 feet:
> - range at most economical: 980 miles (tank when empty)​- range at most economical: 900 miles (tank carried all the way)​- range at max weak mix: 520 miles​
> For every 5 min at combat power reduce:
> - most economical range by 82 miles​- max weak mix range by 45 miles​​Most economical ranges of 1,300 or 1,200 miles required the 170 gallon tank:
> ...



Which you obviously can't fight while carrying.... that looks to me like a ferry tank.


----------



## Schweik (Aug 15, 2019)

wuzak said:


> I think the Spitfire Kevin is referring to is the experimental USAAF long range Spitfire.
> 
> Escort Spitfire - a missed opportunity for longer reach? - Royal Aeronautical Society



From the article "No Spitfire flew deep escort missions and this makes the claim for the Mk V having Berlin capability somewhat questionable. "

I'd say that is a fair bet! Lol....

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Milosh (Aug 15, 2019)

The only Spits that were capable of flying to Berlin from GB were Mk Xs and XIs.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 15, 2019)

Schweik said:


> If you accept the idea however that the Mustang should have been the _only _American made fighter in use after Jan 43, which I could agree with provisionally except for the problem of production, then the notion that there is no need for a P-40Q is valid. But since the production capacity for P-51s and their engines was limited, and other fighter types could compliment the mission, the P-40Q seems viable. P-40s were more maneuverable than Mustangs and seemed to hold up better to battle damage. The P-40Q was just a P-40 that had less drag, a much higher operational ceiling (39,000 ft vs. 31,000 for the P-40N) was 44 mph faster and had 300 miles more range. Four guns to me is also not a problem,


The production prob;em was significant in that Jan 1943 was 4-5 months before the Merlin powered Mustang entered production. Perhaps you meant Jan 1944?

Four guns may have been fine for combat, just don't quote speed and climb figures for a 4 gun airplane and then say the production planes would have been much more heavily armed.
I would also love to see how the P-40Q was going to get 300 miles more range than a P-40N using just about the same amount of fuel. They sure didn't reduce the drag that much..
P-40Q did 365mph at 10,000ft on military power (59.5in or about 15lbs boost) which falls between the exceptionally fast P-40N-1 and the other P-40s using similar boost pressure.


Also let's not compare to the ability of the Mustang to absorb battle damage to an experimental aircraft that uses a much different radiator and oil cooler lay out than the P-40s in service.
Note the difference between the F4U and the F6F of which a fair amount of the difference was in oil cooler location.
The P-40Q went from radiator and oil coolers in the nose to wing mounted radiators. oil coolers of larger size and more spread out.

Building the P-40Q a year early requires an awful lot of work on the part of Allison and it requires the appreciation or knowledge that boost pressures actually used in mid to late 1943 and early 1944 were possible or practical in 1942. It may have been true or it may not have been. The two stage Allisons got a number of different parts in the engine that the single stage engines did not have or didn't get until later.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 15, 2019)

We have a number of these arguments about range before.

Unless you have the speed and altitude at which the range figures are listed they are almost useless for comparing planes and that is before you get to the fuel capacity. 

Combat radius is determined by internal fuel, how far you can fly once the external tanks are gone ( a few planes did use small external tanks with self sealing, Japanese sometimes kept the drop tanks on due to supply shortages). 

operating over Europe called for higher cruise speeds than operating in most of the CBI or South Pacific, which means shorter range/radius. North Africa/med may be mixed. Might depend on operating over land or water and what year (or month) 

When comparing British and American planes don't forget to convert from Imperial gallons to US gallons or vice versa. 

for the first point.






Now is the range on internal fuel 400 miles (left hand column) or 1210 miles (right hand column)?

Would you want to fly over Germany and France at 170-180mph at 9,000 to 12,000ft? 
Do you need to fly at 280-300mph over hundreds of miles of open ocean? 

Some "performance specifications" will take the miles per gallon and multiply it by the full fuel capacity with no allowance for warm up, take-0ff and climb to 5,000ft (or more importantly, to operational hight). Which is pretty useless for figuring out what a plane could really do even if it it gives some idea of the relative merits between planes (but only if you KNOW they are both/all being measured the same way).

In 1940/41 the British figured the radius of the Spitfire and Hurricane were either identical or about 10 miles different from each other. This was for general operational planning, which included where to base the fighters to get the coverage desired. This is different than specific mission planning. Operational planning has to take into account reserves for_ average_ wind and weather. Operational planning sometimes also used different numbers over land and water (shorter distance over water to increase chance of plane (and pilot) making it back to dry land (not airfield) in case of battle damage or mechanical failure. Whirlwinds at this time were allowed 20-30 (?) miles more radius over water due to their supposed twin engine safety. This was actually an illusion (or wishful thinking) as the fuel system was not set up to cross feed, the props would not feather, and only one engine had a generator (like all early P-38s). 

Be careful when quoting some books that you are comparing the same things.

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


----------



## Kevin J (Aug 16, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Which you obviously can't fight while carrying.... that looks to me like a ferry tank.


Not according to the book I quoted earlier.


----------



## Kevin J (Aug 16, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Just to be clear, I do _not _think this is actually the case, but* if *a Spitfire IX or XVI could actually fly *1,200 mile combat sorties*, then it would be by far the best Allied fighter available (IMO) and the immediate solution to any problems the RAF or the Allies in general were having in Burma or the CBI. Or the Pacific or anywhere else.
> 
> I am left with only three question in that case which would be
> 
> ...



A1. Why would we want to. We only need to look at it when the final showdown with Japan occurs. We have Mustangs anyway.
A2. The Spitfire is light weight compared to a P-51. It's still nowhere near as good as a Mustang or Thunderbolt when it comes to load carrying capabilities.
A3. I've known about it for almost 20 years.

The Spitfire was best as an interceptor and battlefield air superiority fighter. Put in all those extra fuel tanks and maybe you get the range of a Thunderbolt but not it's big load of bombs and rockets. Mustangs and Thunderbolts are far better.

As for the P-40Q, I love it, but do we really want to give it to the USSR.


----------



## Stig1207 (Aug 16, 2019)

Schweik said:


> For that matter P-40 units scored more than twice as many victories in the MTO as P-47s did too.



P-38's scored twice as many 'victories' in the MTO as the P-40

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Wildcat (Aug 16, 2019)

Hi guys. RE spitfire range, I posted this question years ago. Longest Spitfire raid of WWII.. Can anyone confirm the claim of being the longest spitfire raid?


----------



## Kevin J (Aug 16, 2019)

Wildcat said:


> Hi guys. RE spitfire range, I posted this question years ago. Longest Spitfire raid of WWII.. Can anyone confirm the claim of being the longest spitfire raid?



They both sound feasible. La Palice raid with 45 gal slipper tank? East Timor raid with 60 gal Curtiss P-40 tank? Both over water raids. Normal max LXVI radius of action was about 230 miles but that's over hostile territory.


----------



## Schweik (Aug 16, 2019)

Stig1207 said:


> P-38's scored twice as many 'victories' in the MTO as the P-40



True, but if you are looking at US units - they also took substantially more losses


----------



## Schweik (Aug 16, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> Not according to the book I quoted earlier.



1,200 mile range on a Spitfire means one of three things:

No guns and extra fuel tanks (that aren't protected) i.e. special recon flights.
Huge amount of extra fuel that makes the aircraft nearly unflyable and extremely vulnerable, with external tanks that aren't protected, reduce performance and can't safely be dropped if you want to get home..
Flying at such a low speed as to be a sitting duck, plus all or most of the above.

In other words, not really reality.

There is no genuine combat mission by a Spitfire in which it is meant to shoot down enemy aircraft or strafe ground targets with a range of 1,000 miles or more. If they really


----------



## Schweik (Aug 16, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> The production prob;em was significant in that Jan 1943 was 4-5 months before the Merlin powered Mustang entered production. Perhaps you meant Jan 1944?



Yes, my bad.



> Four guns may have been fine for combat, just don't quote speed and climb figures for a 4 gun airplane and then say the production planes would have been much more heavily armed.



I think the extra guns would come if and when they figured out how to make it work and still keep good performance, like in the transition from P-51B/C to D and later models. But again, for me four .50 cal guns is enough for dealing with enemy fighters and light or medium bombers.



> I would also love to see how the P-40Q was going to get 300 miles more range than a P-40N using just about the same amount of fuel. They sure didn't reduce the drag that much..
> P-40Q did 365mph at 10,000ft on military power (59.5in or about 15lbs boost) which falls between the exceptionally fast P-40N-1 and the other P-40s using similar boost pressure.



I think the difference is two external (wing mounted) fuel tanks like on the P-51 instead of one (centerline) tank as was typical on the P-40.



> Also let's not compare to the ability of the Mustang to absorb battle damage to an experimental aircraft that uses a much different radiator and oil cooler lay out than the P-40s in service.
> Note the difference between the F4U and the F6F of which a fair amount of the difference was in oil cooler location.
> The P-40Q went from radiator and oil coolers in the nose to wing mounted radiators. oil coolers of larger size and more spread out.



Fair point, some of the reduced vulnerability of the P-40 compared to the P-51 was apparently (anecdotally) due the coolant plumbing being in the nose. But that may not have been the only reason, the P-40 was very strongly built - to a fault as we know.



> Building the P-40Q a year early requires an awful lot of work on the part of Allison and it requires the appreciation or knowledge that boost pressures actually used in mid to late 1943 and early 1944 were possible or practical in 1942. It may have been true or it may not have been. The two stage Allisons got a number of different parts in the engine that the single stage engines did not have or didn't get until later.



True, and it's a what-if scenario which we know didn't actually happen so the point is kind of moot anyway. But to restate my theory - if they hadn't wasted so much time on the P-46, P-53 and P-60 (not to mention other zany projects like the P-55) they_ might _have gotten there early enough. Sadly we'll never know.


----------



## Kevin J (Aug 16, 2019)

Schweik said:


> 1,200 mile range on a Spitfire means one of three things:
> 
> No guns and extra fuel tanks (that aren't protected) i.e. special recon flights.
> Huge amount of extra fuel that makes the aircraft nearly unflyable and extremely vulnerable, with external tanks that aren't protected, reduce performance and can't safely be dropped if you want to get home..
> ...



The US Spitfire IX tests had 284 Imp gals of fuel, the Gibraltar to Malta Spitfire Vc ferry flights of 1200 miles had 285 Imp gals. The late Spitfire IX / LXVI could carry about 195 internal for ferry, about 160 practical. I would have thought about 680 for a Spitfire VII with a 45 gal slipper drop tank so SW England to La Palice return okay as it's all over water. Maybe a Spitfire VIII with a 90 Imp gal drop tank, Darwin to East Timor return, 900 miles is no problem over water. So late Spitfire IX's should be okay for about 1100 mile range again over water, but over hostile territory at low altitude, perhaps as little as 400 mile range. Seafire III with 60 Imp gal drop tank and 85 internal had combat radius of 185 miles


----------



## Schweik (Aug 16, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> The US Spitfire IX tests had 284 Imp gals of fuel, the Gibraltar to Malta Spitfire Vc ferry flights of 1200 miles had 285 Imp gals. The late Spitfire IX / LXVI could carry about 195 internal for ferry, about 160 practical. I would have thought about 680 for a Spitfire VII with a 45 gal slipper drop tank so SW England to La Palice return okay as it's all over water. Maybe a Spitfire VIII with a 90 Imp gal drop tank, Darwin to East Timor return, 900 miles is no problem over water. So late Spitfire IX's should be okay for about 1100 mile range again over water, but over hostile territory at low altitude, perhaps as little as 400 mile range.



Yeah exactly - most planes can fly a lot further on ferry flights.

Most of those tests with the fuel overloads were configurations in which the Spit could barely fly (especially toward the beginning of the flight), was degraded in performance and vulnerable due to the unprotected tanks. If you are flying over empty water beyond the range of land based fighters it's Ok, but for a combat sortie it's unrealistic.

And while in the MTO, if you are in the middle of the Mediterranean you are well beyond the range of Bf 109s in most cases, so that the worst surprise you would be likely to run into are some Ju 88s, in the Pacific the A6M had quite a bit longer range and the Japanese had Carriers active so you would be at much higher risk. You wouldn't want to be in a Spit facing an A6M while carrying 194 gallons of fuel.


----------



## wuzak (Aug 16, 2019)

Schweik said:


> True, and it's a what-if scenario which we know didn't actually happen so the point is kind of moot anyway. But to restate my theory - if they hadn't wasted so much time on the P-46, P-53 and P-60 (not to mention other zany projects like the P-55) they_ might _have gotten there early enough. Sadly we'll never know.



Not going to happen because the engine wasn't going to be available earlier.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Aug 16, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> The US Spitfire IX tests had 284 Imp gals of fuel, the Gibraltar to Malta Spitfire Vc ferry flights of 1200 miles had 285 Imp gals. The late Spitfire IX / LXVI could carry about 195 internal for ferry, about 160 practical. I would have thought about 680 for a Spitfire VII with a 45 gal slipper drop tank so SW England to La Palice return okay as it's all over water. Maybe a Spitfire VIII with a 90 Imp gal drop tank, Darwin to East Timor return, 900 miles is no problem over water. So late Spitfire IX's should be okay for about 1100 mile range again over water, but over hostile territory at low altitude, perhaps as little as 400 mile range.





Schweik said:


> Yeah exactly - most planes can fly a lot further on ferry flights.
> 
> Most of those tests with the fuel overloads were configurations in which the Spit could barely fly (especially toward the beginning of the flight), was degraded in performance and vulnerable due to the unprotected tanks. If you are flying over empty water beyond the range of land based fighters it's Ok, but for a combat sortie it's unrealistic.
> 
> ...



I agree, it will depend on whether you have opponents on the way. Later Spitfire IX's with about 160 internal should be good for 680 mile range. Perhaps useful for final campaign to liberate Malaya that never happened.


----------



## RCAFson (Aug 16, 2019)

Schweik said:


> 1,200 mile range on a Spitfire means one of three things:
> 
> No guns and extra fuel tanks (that aren't protected) i.e. special recon flights.
> Huge amount of extra fuel that makes the aircraft nearly unflyable and extremely vulnerable, with external tanks that aren't protected, reduce performance and can't safely be dropped if you want to get home..
> ...



Spitfire VIII datasheet:





The above range is achieved after a climb to 20K ft (and a 24.5 gal allowance is made for that and warmup) and a 220mph cruise. The same aircraft, refueled after warmup, and flown low-low-low, would have a substantially longer range.

Having said that, it was typically advisable to only use the DT after TO, so this limited available fuel after the DT was released. However a Spit8 could have flown a carefully planned mission to ~500 miles radius, and still have had time to use combat power for a few minutes.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Aug 16, 2019)

RCAFson said:


> Spitfire VIII datasheet:
> View attachment 549110
> 
> 
> ...



Problem with 90 gal drop tank is no manouvres allowed. 30 gal slipper is combat tank, so okay, 45 gal drop tank okay too.


----------



## Glider (Aug 16, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> Problem with 90 gal drop tank is no manouvres allowed. 30 gal slipper is combat tank, so okay, 45 gal drop tank okay too.


I think you will find that the 90 gal drop tank was often used in combat missions. No doubt they would have been dropped before combat but that was common on most types

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Aug 16, 2019)

I'm still firmly convinced Spit VIII or any other mark can't do a combat mission with a 1,000 mile radius, unless you count recon flights.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Aug 16, 2019)

Glider said:


> I think you will find that the 90 gal drop tank was often used in combat missions. No doubt they would have been dropped before combat but that was common on most types


From what I've read, you could retain the 90 gal tank in combat on a Spitfire XIV.


----------



## Schweik (Aug 16, 2019)

I'm guessing it's not a self sealing tank.... if not don't get hit


----------



## Milosh (Aug 16, 2019)

Schweik said:


> I'm still firmly convinced Spit VIII or any other mark can't do a combat mission with a 1,000 mile radius, unless you count recon flights.



What single engine fighter could?


----------



## RCAFson (Aug 16, 2019)

Schweik said:


> I'm still firmly convinced Spit VIII or any other mark can't do a combat mission with a 1,000 mile radius, unless you count recon flights.


You mean 1000 mile range (500 mile radius)?


----------



## Kevin J (Aug 16, 2019)

RCAFson said:


> You mean 1000 mile range (500 mile radius)?


Likewise 500 mile radius unlikely.


----------



## Schweik (Aug 16, 2019)

RCAFson said:


> Spitfire VIII datasheet:
> View attachment 549110
> 
> 
> ...



Obviously you can play with the numbers, you can yes indeed, pack dangerously vulnerable external ferry tanks (which may or may not be jesittsonable) and fly at lowest possible economic speed etc., and quote ferry ranges. Note the Mustang has several different ranges too.






Notice how much longer the ranges are?

Ranges go from 920 miles, at "most economical speed (~250 mph)" on internal fuel only, to 1,660 miles with 2 x 52 gallon tanks, and 2,190 miles with 2 x 125 gal tanks
At max cruise power / 48" Hg which (at it could make an astonishing 400 mph) this drops a bit to 580 miles on internal fuel, 1,050 miles on two 52 gallon tanks, or 1,420 miles with the big tanks.

That translates to ~500 miles radius with the two external drop tanks that they so often and routinely used if they fly at top speed, or about 800 miles if flying at 'economical cruise', or as much as 1,000 miles (yes, a single engine fighter could do it) with the really big 125 gallon tanks). 

But in the real world the normal radius was about 700 miles under typical wartime conditions with the two 52 gallon tanks, with part of the trip in a relatively 'safe' area and part not.



No mark of a Spitfire had ranges anywhere close to this.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Milosh (Aug 16, 2019)




----------



## RCAFson (Aug 16, 2019)

Glider said:


> I think you will find that the 90 gal drop tank was often used in combat missions. No doubt they would have been dropped before combat but that was common on most types



Yes, Seafires used the 90gal slipper DTs for combat missions along with ~90 gal ex-P-40 DTs.


----------



## RCAFson (Aug 16, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Obviously you can play with the numbers, you can yes indeed, pack dangerously vulnerable external ferry tanks (which may or may not be jesittsonable) and fly at lowest possible economic speed etc., and quote ferry ranges. Note the Mustang has several different ranges too.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



What relevancy does a Mustang's range have to do with a Spitfire's range? The Spit8 data card clearly stated that the 90gal slipper DT was jettisonable.

The data cards do show that with the same fuel the Spit has a longer range.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Aug 17, 2019)

RCAFson said:


> What relevancy does a Mustang's range have to do with a Spitfire's range? The Spit8 data card clearly stated that the 90gal slipper DT was jettisonable.
> 
> The data cards do show that with the same fuel the Spit has a longer range.



Once those lend lease supplies of P-51K's arrived in Burma, us Brits wouldn't be worrying about Spitfire's range anymore, but they never did.


----------



## Stig1207 (Aug 17, 2019)

Schweik said:


> True, but if you are looking at US units - they also took substantially more losses



Overall claims to combat losses (all causes) is about 1:1 for both the P-40 and P-38 in the MTO.

However, the comparison you make with the P-47 is more about opportunity, or lack of it in the Thunderbolt's case, as Axis opposition in the air was decreasing when the P-47 was arriving in the Mediterranean.

Reactions: Dislike Dislike:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Aug 17, 2019)

Stig1207 said:


> Overall claims to combat losses (all causes) is about 1:1 for both the P-40 and P-38 in the MTO.
> 
> However, the comparison you make with the P-47 is more about opportunity, or lack of it in the Thunderbolt's case, as Axis opposition in the air was decreasing when the P-47 was arriving in the Mediterranean.



How about sticking to the CBI?


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 17, 2019)

RCAFson said:


> The data cards do show that with the same fuel the Spit has a longer range.



The data cards show the Spitfire flying 940 miles on 150 Imp gallons of fuel while the Mustang does 920 miles on 150 imp gallons.

_however. _the cards also show that the Spit is doing 220mph (apparently) to get that range while the Mustang is doing 253mph.
Just about all British data cards use most economical speed to figure range and often give range at max rich cruising. 

 Both are too low for flight in enemy airspace.

For fighting in the CBI theater this might mean that the two are actually not that far apart _except _for the fact that the mustang is flying clean has the ability to add drop tanks.
The Spit is already using a drop tank and while it can certainly use larger drop tanks even the 90 gallon tank is only going to add 60 gallons to the fuel total (30 gallon drop tank has to be removed to fit larger one) used to get the 940 mile range. Mustang is going to add a pair of 62.5 gallon tanks or possible for special operations a 500lb bomb and single drop tank? 

Increasing the Speed of the Spit to match the Mustang's cruise speed is going to shorten the Spitfire's range.

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


----------



## Kevin J (Aug 17, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> The data cards show the Spitfire flying 940 miles on 150 Imp gallons of fuel while the Mustang does 920 miles on 150 imp gallons.
> 
> _however. _the cards also show that the Spit is doing 220mph (apparently) to get that range while the Mustang is doing 253mph.
> Just about all British data cards use most economical speed to figure range and often give range at max rich cruising.
> ...



I've just been reading aerosociety.com/news/escort-spitfire-a-missed-opportunity-for-longer-reach . P-51C does 955 miles at 397 mph on internal fuel, so difficult to beat as an escort fighter over hostile territory. Scroll down to 'g' then read on. With 216 internal and 170 external you reach max take off weights. That's with a 45 gal centreline slipper drop tank and two Mustang 62.5 gal drop tanks which foul the wings when dropped and undoubtedly overstress the wings. 

Max practical internal is 97 front, 66 rear, 33 wings. Total 196. Minus 33 for combat missions out of rear tank. Total 163.

Since you'll use say 33 gals for take off, I think that limits your max external fuel to about 130 gals, so perhaps a 30 gal slipper tank under the fuselage and 2 X Hurricane 45 gal tanks under the wings. So 120 not 130. Alternately, a 50 gal Typhoon tank under the fuselage and you have 140 external.

Overall total 283 / 303 gals compared with 25% more with a Mustang which cruises 18% faster.

What are we looking at here, maybe range at Econ cruise of 1500 miles as per Spitfire Vc Trop with 170 gal tank and extra 29 gals under pilots seat, 85 in front fuselage? Combat radius at max cruise, 500 miles? Not enough to get to Berlin and back!


----------



## Schweik (Aug 17, 2019)

Stig1207 said:


> Overall claims to combat losses (all causes) is about 1:1 for both the P-40 and P-38 in the MTO.
> 
> However, the comparison you make with the P-47 is more about opportunity, or lack of it in the Thunderbolt's case, as Axis opposition in the air was decreasing when the P-47 was arriving in the Mediterranean.



According to what, Air Force Journal?


----------



## RCAFson (Aug 17, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> The data cards show the Spitfire flying 940 miles on 150 Imp gallons of fuel while the Mustang does 920 miles on 150 imp gallons.
> 
> _however. _the cards also show that the Spit is doing 220mph (apparently) to get that range while the Mustang is doing 253mph.
> Just about all British data cards use most economical speed to figure range and often give range at max rich cruising.
> ...



Some Spitfires and Seafires were modded to allow for underwing bombs and, IIRC, experimentally DTs
For CBI the difference in cruise speed is not much of a factor, especially if they are performing an escort mission, since the chances of interception are low. Even in the ETO the need to escort slow bombers limited cruise speeds. However, I'm not really sure what we are discussing. The Spitfire VIII, using drop tanks could perform ~500 mile radius strike or point intercept missions using a low-low-low profile that was not suited to the ETO but was useful in the CBI and PTO. For example, I think that Spitfire VIIIs could have been used during Operation Vengance in lieu of P-38s.

This is an interesting article (as mentioned previously but not hyperlinked properly) that explores the Spitfire's potential as a long range high altitude escort fighter:

Escort Spitfire - a missed opportunity for longer reach? - Royal Aeronautical Society

The Mustang had greater potential as a LR escort, but the Spitfire could have replaced it and/or supplemented it if given the necessary developmental work and increased production, say via US production of the Spitfire alongside or in place of the Mustang.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Aug 17, 2019)

We've all read that article, and I think it's pretty clear from reading it how far of a stretch (in more than one sense) a Spitfire long range escort actually was. I'd love to see some evidence of actual wartime sorties, in the CBI or anywhere else, of Spitfires of any mark flying 500 mile radius (again, other than a recon mission).

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Aug 17, 2019)

RCAFson said:


> Some Spitfires and Seafires were modded to allow for underwing bombs and, IIRC, experimentally DTs
> For CBI the difference in cruise speed is not much of a factor, especially if they are performing an escort mission, since the chances of interception are low. Even in the ETO the need to escort slow bombers limited cruise speeds. However, I'm not really sure what we are discussing. The Spitfire VIII, using drop tanks could perform ~500 mile radius strike or point intercept missions using a low-low-low profile that was not suited to the ETO but was useful in the CBI and PTO. For example, I think that Spitfire VIIIs could have been used during Operation Vengance in lieu of P-38s.
> 
> This is an interesting article (as mentioned previously but not hyperlinked properly) that explores the Spitfire's potential as a long range high altitude escort fighter:
> ...



Except you're not even going to start thinking about this until 1943 after the problems the VIII Air Force encountered over Europe. So by the time you've got the escort Spitfire ready, all that's left to liberate is Malaya, Borneo, Indonesia, Vietnam and Hong Kong. Then it's too late, the atom bombs have been dropped. As for Europe, the Mustang is available immediately. Just imagine Spitfire VIII's with 90 gal P-40 drop tank and floats for starters followed by the definitive IX version with extra fuel.


----------



## Kevin J (Aug 17, 2019)

Schweik said:


> We've all read that article, and I think it's pretty clear from reading it how far of a stretch (in more than one sense) a Spitfire long range escort actually was. I'd love to see some evidence of actual wartime sorties, in the CBI or anywhere else, of Spitfires of any mark flying 500 mile radius (again, other than a recon mission).



I agree, maybe a 500 mile radius, but let's hope there's no combat. Alternately put some floats on them and recover the crews by submarines if necessary.


----------



## Schweik (Aug 17, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> Except you're not even going to start thinking about this until 1943 after the problems the VIII Air Force encountered over Europe. So by the time you've got the escort Spitfire ready, all that's left to liberate is Malaya, Borneo, Indonesia, Vietnam and Hong Kong. Then it's too late, the atom bombs have been dropped. As for Europe, the Mustang is available immediately.



I think the British (and the Germans, the Russians, the Italians and the Japanese) were well aware of the need for a long range escort to do sustained bombing. The Brits had been bombing Germany since 1940 and they knew how fraught that was for bombers. The Americans had their very heavily armed aircraft and their Norden bomb sight and they had that faction we call the "Bomber Mafia" and they thought once again they could take a quantum leap past everyone else and defy the hard won lessons of their Allies. But they were proven wrong, and I doubt many in the RAF were exactly amazed when they were.

The problem was a matter of priorities - as I said before, interceptors and defending the homeland are really the #1 mission of the RAF, and the one they did best at- and the puzzle that is aircraft design. No one fighter could be all things. Planes great for escort did not necessarily excel at interception and vice versa. Planes great for high altitude did not always do as well down low. And so on. Even more interesting, planes that did well in cold weather maybe didn't do as well in the Tropics.

It took a long time to design a new plane and get it into action. That is why sometimes more incremental improvements like the Hellcat or the Mustang did better than more ambitious or radical designs like the P-38 or the He 177. The biggest achievement of the Hellcat for example was the rapidity with which they got it into action (first flight in June 1942, first combat deployment in March 1943). You could say the same about the Anglo-American (Merlin 60 series engined) version of the Mustang which I think is clearly a different plane from the American original - it proceeded from successful experiment in Oct 1942 to mass production (June 43) to flying missions (Dec 43) in quite rapid order. Something like say the Me 262 looks like a war-winner on paper but going from first flight in 1942 to arriving in the field in 1944 makes it less impressive to me than the Fw 190, which went from first flight to deployment in little over a year and got into the war in time to make a difference (if not to actually bring about victory).

The Japanese, as we know, started the war with the excellent, lethal Ki 43 and A6M, but fell behind in speed and performance, and their engine industry wasn't up to the task of creating a competitive fighter in the mid war years, so they didn't get their next generation killer warplanes into action until way too late. Most spent their service life in mostly futile efforts to stop the slaughter of the B-29 fire bombing raids.

You never know if a new design is going to work out, or which of many designs you start experimenting with will come to fruition... and which will suffer delays that prevent it arriving in time to matter. It was a crap shoot in many ways, and the way it ended up the British had an excellent interceptor from the start, thank God because it may have spelled the difference from the Nazi's winning the war. The Americans and Soviets had some 'pretty good' planes in the early war but no world beaters, and had to scramble to get some good fighters into the field in late 1942 and 1943. The Germans started with the excellent Bf 109 which started out dominant and stayed competitive, though always limited by short range, through the end of the war. To this they added the Fw 190 early enough to matter, but luckily for us all their incremental improvements to both were not enough to stay ahead through the tipping point of the war and none of their more radical designs really panned out. The jets got delayed and never came in enough numbers, the Me 309 didn't pan out, & the Fw 190D arrived too late.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## RCAFson (Aug 17, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> Except you're not even going to start thinking about this until 1943 after the problems the VIII Air Force encountered over Europe. So by the time you've got the escort Spitfire ready, all that's left to liberate is Malaya, Borneo, Indonesia, Vietnam and Hong Kong. Then it's too late, the atom bombs have been dropped. As for Europe, the Mustang is available immediately. Just imagine Spitfire VIII's with 90 gal P-40 drop tank and floats for starters followed by the definitive IX version with extra fuel.



The Mustang wasn't available immediately and was only available because of a UK order that got the P-51 into production. It was also fortuitous that the two stage Merlin was fitted to the Mustang, just in time. It was the availability of the Mustang that probably prevented development of a longer range high altitude Spitfire escort. The USAAF Spitfire range trials show that the USAAF was thinking about using the Spitfire as an escort fighter.


----------



## Kevin J (Aug 17, 2019)

Schweik said:


> I think the British (and the Germans, the Russians, the Italians and the Japanese) were well aware of the need for a long range escort to do sustained bombing. The Brits had been bombing Germany since 1940 and they knew how fraught that was for bombers. The Americans had their very heavily armed aircraft and their Norden bomb sight and they had that faction we call the "Bomber Mafia" and they thought once again they could take a quantum leap past everyone else and defy the hard won lessons of their Allies. But they were proven wrong, and I doubt many in the RAF were exactly amazed when they were.
> 
> The problem was a matter of priorities - as I said before, interceptors and defending the homeland are really the #1 mission of the RAF, and the one they did best at- and the puzzle that is aircraft design. No one fighter could be all things. Planes great for escort did not necessarily excel at interception and vice versa. Planes great for high altitude did not always do as well down low. And so on. Even more interesting, planes that did well in cold weather maybe didn't do as well in the Tropics.
> 
> ...


We had the Mosquito so didn't need escort fighters.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Aug 17, 2019)

RCAFson said:


> The Mustang wasn't available immediately and was only available because of a UK order that got the P-51 into production. It was also fortuitous that the two stage Merlin was fitted to the Mustang, just in time. It was the availability of the Mustang that probably prevented development of a longer range high altitude Spitfire escort. The USAAF Spitfire range trials show that the USAAF was thinking about using the Spitfire as an escort fighter.


It's more like they were trying to help us fight the final stages of war in the Asia-Pacific theatre.


----------



## Schweik (Aug 17, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> We had the Mosquito so didn't need escort fighters.



No argument here, I think they should have ditched all the four engine heavies (British and American) and replaced them with Mosquitoes. For Burma, where the wooden structure tended to rot or delaminate in monsoon rain and jungle humidity, they could either have just used Beaufighters or made an all-metal Mossie.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Aug 17, 2019)

RCAFson said:


> The Mustang wasn't available immediately and was only available because of a UK order that got the P-51 into production. It was also fortuitous that the two stage Merlin was fitted to the Mustang, just in time. It was the availability of the Mustang that probably prevented development of a longer range high altitude Spitfire escort. The USAAF Spitfire range trials show that the USAAF was thinking about using the Spitfire as an escort fighter.



Just because they investigated the possibilities doesn't mean they were ever realistic. I'm sure if the Spitfire could have been made into an escort fighter the RAF would have done it long before the Americans looked into the notion.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Aug 17, 2019)

Speaking of escorts that could have been. I once read( so who knows if its really true) but I once read that the USAAF briefly gave consideration to using F4Us as bomber escorts in Europe early on. 
Quite a thought, hundreds of Corsairs escorting B17s over Europe.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## rednev (Aug 17, 2019)

In the what if quest for long range . What if we bring the first flight of the f82 ahead by 12 months

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Aug 17, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> Except you're not even going to start thinking about this until 1943 after the problems the VIII Air Force encountered over Europe. So by the time you've got the escort Spitfire ready, all that's left to liberate is Malaya, Borneo, Indonesia, Vietnam and Hong Kong. Then it's too late, the atom bombs have been dropped. As for Europe, the Mustang is available immediately. Just imagine Spitfire VIII's with 90 gal P-40 drop tank and floats for starters followed by the definitive IX version with extra fuel.



Floats?

You do know that the IX was the "interim" Merlin 60-series Spitfire, the VIII was the "definitive" version?


----------



## wuzak (Aug 17, 2019)

rednev said:


> In the what if quest for long range . What if we bring the first flight of the f82 ahead by 12 months



How?

Did they complete the prototype but hold the first flight back a year?


----------



## rednev (Aug 17, 2019)

wuzak said:


> How?
> 
> Did they complete the prototype but hold the first flight back a year?


 
a tongue in cheek what if but it does show someone had decided neither drop tanks or single engined fly fuel tanks where the answer


----------



## RCAFson (Aug 17, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> It's more like they were trying to help us fight the final stages of war in the Asia-Pacific theatre.




The P51B/C didn't even enter production until Mid 1943 and didn't enter the ETO until Dec 1943. In 1942, this was USAAF thinking on the issue of LR fighter escort:


> ...In the absence of a specific escort plane, Arnold wrote
> to Air Marshall Portal in April, "It is possible that with
> the greater defensive firepower of our bombers, and a care-
> fully developed technique of formation flying with mutually
> ...



The study looks at the development of the fighter escort in the USAAF before and during WW2, but it also makes it clear that the USAAF did not have any purpose built LR fighters and that the development of the P-47 and P-51 into a successful escort fighters was a happy accident. There is no mention of an USAAF effort to develop the Spitfire as a LR escort, yet given the number of Spitfires in US service it seems likely that the USAAF did explore that possibility.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## RCAFson (Aug 17, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Just because they investigated the possibilities doesn't mean they were ever realistic. I'm sure if the Spitfire could have been made into an escort fighter the RAF would have done it long before the Americans looked into the notion.



The RAF had no need for a long range escort fighter because they bombed at night. The Spitfire VIII was a logical response to giving the Spitfire greater tactical range to allow it to operate as short range escort when needed. The USAAF however did need a long range escort fighter, and would have used the Spitfire for this purpose if it had the range to escort daylight bombing missions into central Europe.

The prospects for a LR Spitfire were realistic as a Spitfire with ~160IG of internal fuel and a ~90IG DT would have a useful escort radius of about 300-400 miles and maybe more if used for shuttle missions where the fighters caught up with the bombers rather than providing continuous escort. This would have placed much of the 8th AFs target area within range of Spitfire escort.


----------



## Kevin J (Aug 17, 2019)

wuzak said:


> Floats?
> 
> You do know that the IX was the "interim" Merlin 60-series Spitfire, the VIII was the "definitive" version?


Yes.


----------



## Milosh (Aug 18, 2019)

RCAFson said:


> The P51B/C didn't even enter production until Mid 1943 and didn't enter the ETO until Dec 1943.



Oct '43. First combat mission was Dec. 1 '43. Inexperienced pilots and ground crews and numerous technical problems limited operations with the P-51B/C until about eight weeks into 1944.

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


----------



## Stig1207 (Aug 18, 2019)

Schweik said:


> According to what, Air Force Journal?



Qualities that made for a great aircraft that don't show up in performance stats.


----------



## Schweik (Aug 18, 2019)

RCAFson said:


> The RAF had no need for a long range escort fighter because they bombed at night.



The RAF bombed at night because they had no long range escort fighter 



> The Spitfire VIII was a logical response to giving the Spitfire greater tactical range to allow it to operate as short range escort when needed. The USAAF however did need a long range escort fighter, and would have used the Spitfire for this purpose if it had the range to escort daylight bombing missions into central Europe.



Yes, I'm sure they would have. The Mustang and late model P-38s had some advantages but everyone agreed -with the exception of the year or so where the Fw 190 was dominant- the Spitfires were excellent in air to air combat, so long as the battle was taking place within their reach.



> The prospects for a LR Spitfire were realistic as a Spitfire with ~160IG of internal fuel and a ~90IG DT would have a useful escort radius of about 300-400 miles and maybe more if used for shuttle missions where the fighters caught up with the bombers rather than providing continuous escort. This would have placed much of the 8th AFs target area within range of Spitfire escort.



Spitfire couldn't fly safely with 160 IG of internal fuel, 130 is more likely (as already discussed) and the addition of the large external tanks designed for ferry flights degraded the performance sufficiently, while increasing vulnerability, that it was no longer going to be dominant against Fw 190s or late model Bf 109s, or even necessarily competitive. 300 miles radius, for the Spit VIII, might be plausible, but they needed more range than that for escort flights.

Sorry mate but it's just out of reach.

They did incidentally use overlapping escort flights with all types of fighters (including Spitfires) to give bombers the maximum level of coverage, though there were still often gaps.

The US did have Spitfire squadrons, they had three whole fighter groups, the 4th FG fighting out of England, which switched to P-47s in early 1943, the 31st and 52nd in the Med (31st switched from Spit IX to P-51B in March 1944, 52nd switched from Spit IX to P-51B in April 1944).


----------



## Schweik (Aug 18, 2019)

Stig1207 said:


> Qualities that made for a great aircraft that don't show up in performance stats.



Not claiming to be sure that is accurate b ecause I already see one glaring error, but if we assume it is "mostly" correct, _it shows almost double the loss rate for the P-38 than for the P-40_. 0.8 *losses per Sortie* for the P-40 vs. 1.4 for the P-38. That is in agreement with my sources and with the point I was making that you sought to contradict.

This chart combines what we traditionally call ETO (flights from England and Northwest Europe) with MTO (Italy, the Middle East and North Africa). P-40 as we know was only in combat in the MTO. So it's not really comparing like with like and it rather muddies the water.

It also shows the P-38 flew roughly twice as many sorties as the P-40 (ETO+MTO combined) which accounts for the higher claim total.

He also shows 481 claims by P-40 units in the MTO whereas the normally accepted total for US P-40 units is more than a hundred more - 592, such as you can see here. The total for the Med if you include Commonwealth claims is 1042.

It is fun if not necessarily enlightening to compare claimed victories vs. losses to all causes - on that chart the P-47, P-38 and P-40 all have roughly the same number of victory claims as losses as you said, but the Spitfire has 130% victories to losses and the P-51 has 196% victories to losses.

P-47 had 100.1% claims to losses
P-51 had 196% claims to losses
P-38 had 100.7% claims to losses
P-40 had 107% claims to losses*
P-39 had 13% claims to losses (you can see why they were relegated to 'maritime patrol')
Spit had 134% claims to losses**
A-36 had 47% claims to losses (but it was really a dive bomber not a fighter so that is pretty good)
Beau had 38% claims to losses (somewhat surprising to me though I think the Brits did better with them)
P-61 had 232% claims to losses (making it techically the best! But that was only 58 claims)

* using the 592 number instead of 480
** These were mostly Spit VC's, with Spit IX coming available shortly before those units transitioned to P-47s

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Aug 18, 2019)

Schweik said:


> The RAF bombed at night because they had no long range escort fighter
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The Spitfire could take off safely with 160 gals of internal fuel, but would burn 30 off in the process. So 130 left for the flight. Add 2 X 45 gal underwing drop and 1 slipper tank. My guess is 370 mile combat radius.it might not get you to Berlin and back, but it would get you from Penang to Singapore and back. First take Penang though.

The RAF had the Mosquito which could evade German fighters.


----------



## Dan Fahey (Aug 18, 2019)

Stig1207 said:


> Qualities that made for a great aircraft that don't show up in performance stats.


I read this...not noted as a statistic. 
The P47 flew a lot of escort missions which forced them to turned back because they did not have the range to escort the bombers.
When the bombers returned a new flight would meet them to ward off chasing fighters. 
Plus it needed bomber long airfield to get up to speed. This limited where the P47 was stationed. 
As the P51 became the dominant fighter it got all the tough roles. 
6-8 hours much of it in the thick of enemy territory. 
Then relegated to low altitude roles which was not suited for but did ok as a fighter truck.

Regarding the Spitfires lack of range. Had it been redesigned and fitted with larger fuel tanks.
It would have had to have a heavier more rigid airframe..
Then like a Mustang heavily fueled up is no match for any competing fighter.
Like the Zero when it got over enemy territory figuring half it fuel was burned off..
It was a good bit lighter..and more nimble.

All things considered. All the fighter airplanes were dangerous and fairly equal one on one.
Thing that made the difference was well supplied and organized logistics and a decent plane to fight over the enemies territory.


----------



## Milosh (Aug 18, 2019)

Leppla flew with VS-2, *VF-10* and claimed 5 enemy a/c. Two of those claims were with F4Fs.


----------



## Schweik (Aug 18, 2019)

I have a question related to speed and WEP. On page 66 the Osprey book on the 49th FG, there is a section describing an incident over New Guinea in October 1943 where one of their pilots - (14 victory Ace and future Korean War F-86 Ace) Lt James Hagerstorm shot down a Ki-46 recon plane. The American was flying a P-40N (subtype not given) and the chase was at 18,000 ft. He said he had a hard time catching the plane and had to fly at WEP for 12 minutes indicating 270 mph and 2700 rpm.

I was a bit confused by this because based on what I've been reading in this forum I didn't think WEP would be available on a single speed Allison at 18,000 ft.

Looks like that is about 370 mph TAS (depending on various factors) which sounds about right for both aircraft.


I'm a little confused about these Dinah interceptions, the Japanese planes seem to never take any evasive maneuvers. They get chased, they keep fleeing at the same altitude or maybe climb slightly, and either get away or are intercepted and shot down. I don't get why not dive for example to pick up speed, or try some evasive maneuvers.

Interceptions were pretty rare though, I only know of one other by a P-40 over Darwin IIRC and that was subsantially lightened by taking down all but two guns and half the fuel. An RAF Flight Officer named Wittridge shot one down in a modified Spit VIII over Burma in 1944, and Richard Bong shot one down in a P-38G over New Guinea in 1942 and another in later 1943 right before Hagerstorm's victory.


----------



## Kevin J (Aug 18, 2019)

Schweik said:


> I have a question related to speed and WEP. On page 66 the Osprey book on the 49th FG, there is a section describing an incident over New Guinea in October 1943 where one of their pilots - (14 victory Ace and future Korean War F-86 Ace) Lt James Hagerstorm shot down a Ki-46 recon plane. The American was flying a P-40N (subtype not given) and the chase was at 18,000 ft. He said he had a hard time catching the plane and had to fly at WEP for 12 minutes indicating 270 mph and 2700 rpm.
> 
> I was a bit confused by this because based on what I've been reading in this forum I didn't think WEP would be available on a single speed Allison at 18,000 ft.
> 
> ...



It seems to me that we don't need a long range Spitfire IX in the ETO as we have Mustangs (2000), Tempests (1200) and Spitfire LF XVI (1000). IMO we will only need them in the final stages of war in the Far East where distances are huge and many flights over water. Every fighter will need long range. Find a distance calculator and see for yourself. We even trialled a Spitfire IX floatplane for the PTO. In the ETO we have the Americans to help us, but in South East Asia as opposed to the CBI, we're going to be on our own, recovering our empires and those of our allies.


----------



## wuzak (Aug 18, 2019)

Schweik said:


> I have a question related to speed and WEP. On page 66 the Osprey book on the 49th FG, there is a section describing an incident over New Guinea in October 1943 where one of their pilots - (14 victory Ace and future Korean War F-86 Ace) Lt James Hagerstorm shot down a Ki-46 recon plane. The American was flying a P-40N (subtype not given) and the chase was at 18,000 ft. He said he had a hard time catching the plane and had to fly at WEP for 12 minutes indicating 270 mph and 2700 rpm.
> 
> I was a bit confused by this because based on what I've been reading in this forum I didn't think WEP would be available on a single speed Allison at 18,000 ft.



In that case WEP would have been maximum rpm (3,000 or 3,200 depending on model of V-1710) and wide open throttle.


----------



## RCAFson (Aug 18, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Spitfire couldn't fly safely with 160 IG of internal fuel, 130 is more likely (as already discussed) and the addition of the large external tanks designed for ferry flights degraded the performance sufficiently, while increasing vulnerability, that it was no longer going to be dominant against Fw 190s or late model Bf 109s, or even necessarily competitive. 300 miles radius, for the Spit VIII, might be plausible, but they needed more range than that for escort flights.
> 
> Sorry mate but it's just out of reach.
> 
> ...



I guess you didn't read the linked article:

*



Fuel management and CoG

Click to expand...

*


> Careful fuel management would have been important. The rear fuselage fuel moved the centre of gravity sufficiently far aft to make the Spitfire longitudinally unstable. As a result, the aircraft could not be trimmed, so tended to diverge in pitch and tighten into turns. These characteristics were certainly undesirable (the latter was unacceptable in combat) but could be tolerated in the early stages of a sortie, ie climb to height and the first part of the outbound cruise leg. A&AEE tests showed that when 35 gallons of the rear fuel had been consumed, longitudinal stability was regained. Conversely, additional leading edge fuel would have caused little problem, as it was far closer to the centre of gravity so causing only small changes in trim as it was consumed. The sequence of fuel use in an escort sortie might have followed this pattern:
> 
> Start-up, taxi and take-off with rear tank selected
> 
> ...



This was essentially the same logic used for P-51 missions, as it also had CG problems with the rear fuselage tank full. So we have our Spitfire with185IG of internal fuel on TO and 150 IG of fuel remaining after TO and climb on the rear tank to restore CoG to safe limits. A 30 or 45IG combat slipper tank is retained during combat for a effective 180/195 IG of internal fuel after the wing torpedo tanks are released prior to combat. This was completely achievable with existing mods to Spitfires except for the wing mounted DTs and that could have been done with little effort.

It wasn't done because there wasn't any specific customer for such a mod, and there wasn't sufficient production capacity to provide the USAAF with sufficient Spitfires for them to mod them. However, if the Spitfire was license built in North America, then the USAAF would probably have gone ahead with it, especially if the Mustang was never ordered by the BPC.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 18, 2019)

RCAFson said:


> I guess you didn't read the linked article:



I have read it.

I didn't like about a year or more ago and I don't like it now.

It makes several assumptions or glosses over a few things.

Like near the end.

"_The sequence of fuel use in an escort sortie might have followed this pattern: 

Start-up, taxi and take-off with rear tank selected

Climb to height and cruise commenced on remaining rear tank fuel

Outbound cruise continued on underwing tanks fuel – jettisoned when empty (or on entering combat)

Combat on slipper tank fuel

Return on internal fuel_" 

Just about every manual I have read (and others may have read a lot more than me and can find exceptions) has the plane starting, warming up and taking off on the main tank or one of the mains, several reasons for this, one of which is more reliable fuel feed. Mustangs for instance used one of the wing tanks. A certain one more later. 

the author rather glosses over the outward bound cruise, like cruise speed and altitude but that is minor and outward bound is NOT where the problem is. You can hang big enough drop tank/s on a number of planes to get them to the bomber's target. 

combat on slipper fuel tank? the combat rated tank is 30 gallons, a MK IX Spit burned about 130gph at 3000rpm and 15lb boost. consumption at 18lbs boost would be a bit higher. 
Fuel consumption at 2850rpm and 12lbs boost (1 hour rating) was 105 gph. Americans figured the combat allowance as 5 minutes at WEP and 15 minutes at military power. The 30 gallon slipper tank comes up a bit short (cut time to 10 minutes at the one hour rating? or even less time at 3000rpm and 12lbs boost?) which puts you on the internal fuel while still in combat, that in itself is not the big the problem.

The big problem is just how much _internal fuel _do you have left. According the author's plan you have already burned up all the fuel the rear tanks leaving just the forward tanks (85-96 gallons?) and whatever sized wing tanks may have been stuffed in. The next flaw in the "plan" is he does not specify return speed and altitude. The US figured a high altitude (around 25,000ft) return and around 315-325mph ground speed cruise speed to keep from being bounced by Luftwaffe fighters (this changed on some missions and as Luftwaffe opposition got less) I don't have the figures for a MK IX but a MK V burned burned about 50 gallons an hour at 300mph true and at 20,000ft. Now please figure about a 12-15 gallon reserve for once you hit the British coast to find the home airfield (or any any airfield if navigation has not been spot on or if the weather has changed) as a bare minimum. 

it doesn't matter how much fuel you can put in rear tanks or hang outside. Operational radius is figured on how much fuel is left inside after combat and allowing for that reserve to find the home (or any) field and allowing for a higher enough speed to minimize (but not eliminate) the chances of being bounced. 

On starting and taking off on the main tank/s. Most fighters had a return line from the carburator/injection unit back to one of the main tanks that handled excess fuel delivered to the carb/injection unit instead of venting it overboard. This might amount to a few gallons an hour, but unless there is room in the main tank the fuel goes overboard. On most airplanes one of the main tanks was also the "reserve" tank, the fuel pick up had two intakes, one at the bottom of the tank and one part way up. when the selector switch was in normal position it drew from the higher pickup. On the Mustang one wing tank was fitted out this way, the other tank just picked up fuel from the bottom. the return line went to the tank with the two position pickup. Motorcycle riders will be very familiar with how this works. 

I would also note that some aircraft carried some rather impressive loads of fuel and/or bombs but there were limits. The MK IX manual states that when carrying under wing bombs take-offs should only be done from hard, smooth runways. The Spitfire was often operating at the edge of it's structural strength. Assuming that you can add hundreds of pounds of drop tanks and operate from existing fields without increased accidents and/or structural/landing gear problems is ignoring reality. 

I do like this bit "_The Wright Field modified Mk IX weighed 10,150 lb and *the undercarriage was fully compressed* under this load._ "
Bolding by me. It is not just a matter of pumping up the oleos. 

I would note that a MK IX could carry (smooth hard runway) 1000lbs of bombs but that is only about 140 imp gallons of fuel and that does not include the weight of the tanks. 

I am not trying to bash the Spitfire, it did an amazing job at a number of different things, but expecting it to equal (or come close) to a plane that was not only newer but was several thousand pounds heavier when loaded is stretching things to the breaking point.

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


----------



## Stig1207 (Aug 19, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Not claiming to be sure that is accurate b ecause I already see one glaring error, but if we assume it is "mostly" correct, _it shows almost double the loss rate for the P-38 than for the P-40_. 0.8 *losses per Sortie* for the P-40 vs. 1.4 for the P-38. That is in agreement with my sources and with the point I was making that you sought to contradict.
> 
> This chart combines what we traditionally call ETO (flights from England and Northwest Europe) with MTO (Italy, the Middle East and North Africa). P-40 as we know was only in combat in the MTO. So it's not really comparing like with like and it rather muddies the water.
> 
> ...



I have noted before that American sources don't always agree on number of victories, in the posted link the P-38 also has 1928 victories combined in the ETO/ MTO. You are of cause right on the sortie/ loss rate being higher for the P-38; but the P-38 also has a higher ratio of victories to sorties: 67 sorties per victory vs. 113 for the P-40, using the highest numbers.


----------



## RCAFson (Aug 19, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> I have read it.
> 
> I didn't like about a year or more ago and I don't like it now.
> 
> ...



Stating that a Spitfire with increased internal and external fuel will have an increased combat radius, is simply stating a fact and in no way implies that it would equal a Mustang as a LR escort fighter.

Where to begin... It almost sounds as though you're arguing that the Spitfire was incapable of engaging in any combat because it didn't have enough fuel...yet we all know that this isn't true. The Mustang with the fuselage tank carried 224IG of internal fuel. A Spitfire VIII with a 75IG fuselage tank, 124IG main tanks and 45IG slipper tank carried 245IG of (effectively) internal fuel. If the Mustang had to engage in manoeuvring combat, it needed to release the DTs, so the aircraft's combat radius was always predicated on the basis of remaining internal fuel. If the Mustang had a combat range of 500 miles after releasing it's DTs, what would be the range of the Spitfire? Fuel consumption on a Merlin 60 series was more or less identical on the Mustang and Spitfire at the same throttle setting, with the main point being that the Mustang flew about 10% faster. The Merlin 40 series was a bit more economical than the 60 series in terms of GPH. This is from Morgan and Shacklady:

Spitfire 8:


> MT818 (Furlong 20-7-44). First Mk VIII with 75 gallon
> fuel tank behind pilot. Unstable but not viciously so. MT818
> (Furlong 27-7). It is estimated that aeroplane becomes stable
> after 37 gallons have been used from rear tank.



A Spitfire VIII with 124IG of fuel had a TO weight of ~7800lb; with 244IG (including 45IH Slipper tank) of internal fuel has a TO weight of about 8800lb. If we add another 720lb of fuel via wing DTs we get an AUW of about 9700lb and about 100IG of additional fuel. This gives us about 60Ig of internal fuel (for TO + climb and mandatory burn of fuel from rear fuselage tank) and 100IG of DT fuel, to reach our combat zone; or about 2 hrs at Max weak mixture. After DT release the aircraft has ~185IG of internal fuel; keeping 100IG in reserve for return flight at MWM (~1. 3hrs plus 20IG reserve), this leaves 85IG (the same as a BoB Spitfire) for ~45min of combat.

Spitfire V's were flown regularly for ferry missions with 114IG (29IG aux tank) of internal fuel and 170IG DTs. A LR MkV escort fighter could have carried 200IG of internal fuel and a 90IG DT and so have about 45IG of fuel for combat where the Mk VIII had 85IG.

As I stated the Mustang had the same CoG problems and had to burn fuel from the rear fuselage tank for safe flight:


> In P-51B, C, D, and K aircraft incorporating the aft fuselage
> fuel tank, added for range extension, longitudinal stability was lost
> with that tank more than half full, since this condition moved the
> airplane center of gravity aft. The instability was particularly dan-
> ...



If we postulate that the USAAF has 180 LR Spitfires available in August 1943, they could have flown them in 3 rendezvous missions of 60 aircraft each, and thus covered about 2 hrs of the Schweinfurt Raid, at the target and on either side of the target.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Aug 19, 2019)

RCAFson said:


> Stating that a Spitfire with increased internal and external fuel will have an increased combat radius, is simply stating a fact and in no way implies that it would equal a Mustang as a LR escort fighter.
> 
> Where to begin... It almost sounds as though you're arguing that the Spitfire was incapable of engaging in any combat because it didn't have enough fuel...yet we all know that this isn't true. The Mustang with the fuselage tank carried 224IG of internal fuel. A Spitfire VIII with a 75IG fuselage tank, 124IG main tanks and 45IG slipper tank carried 245IG of (effectively) internal fuel. If the Mustang had to engage in manoeuvring combat, it needed to release the DTs, so the aircraft's combat radius was always predicated on the basis of remaining internal fuel. If the Mustang had a combat range of 500 miles after releasing it's DTs, what would be the range of the Spitfire? Fuel consumption on a Merlin 60 series was more or less identical on the Mustang and Spitfire at the same throttle setting, with the main point being that the Mustang flew about 10% faster. The Merlin 40 series was a bit more economical than the 60 series in terms of GPH. This is from Morgan and Shacklady:
> 
> ...



My guess is that if the USAAF had 180 LR Spitfires at the start of the raid, few would be left at the end. Distance from Debden ( fighter base ) to Schweinfurt ( target ) is 452.90 miles by air. The Mustang could do 950 miles at 397 mph on internal fuel. Put on 2 drop tanks of 45 IG each should provide enough fuel for combat. So you need 240 IG Overall. The Spitfire is slower, so let's add 10% more fuel, say 264 IG req'd. So front, wing and rear tanks all internal gives 196 plus 60 IG drop tank from P-40 which was used in Med an Pacific gives 256 IG. So a pretty close match here. Hmm, just about marginally plausible.

The Americans are never going to build the Spitfire, perhaps the Canadians could have and should have built the LR Spitfire instead of the Curtiss Helldiver.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## RCAFson (Aug 19, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> My guess is that if the USAAF had 180 LR Spitfires at the start of the raid, few would be left at the end. Distance from Debden ( fighter base ) to Schweinfurt ( target ) is 452.90 miles by air. The Mustang could do 950 miles at 397 mph on internal fuel. Put on 2 drop tanks of 45 IG each should provide enough fuel for combat. So you need 240 IG Overall. The Spitfire is slower, so let's add 10% more fuel, say 264 IG req'd. So front, wing and rear tanks all internal plus gives 196 plus 60 IG from P-40 which was used in Med an Pacific gives 256 IG. So a pretty close match here. Hmm, just about marginally plausible.
> 
> The Americans are never going to build the Spitfire, perhaps the Canadians could have and should have built the LR Spitfire instead of the Curtiss Helldiver.






The Spitfire needs about 80IG to fly 452 miles at Max weak mixture, so add a 20IG reserve and there's 100IG for the return flight. It will burn about 100IG to the target zone, leaving 85IG for combat, if we have 200IG of internal fuel and a 90IG DT. Of course there's no reason to fly at MWM over water or over the UK, so about 1/3 of the mission can be flown at ME speed:





with greatly reduced fuel consumption, so an allowance of 200IG for transit and 85IG for combat is more than sufficient.

There in no reason that Spitfire losses from fuel exhaustion would be excessive. The main difference, compared to a Mustang is that the Spitfire will have to spend less time at it's assigned leg of the escort mission, before breaking off to return to base. Spitfires and P47s were flying escort for the Schweinfurt raids, and did not suffer excessive losses from fuel exhaustion because they RTB when their fuel state required it but, of course, that meant that they couldn't cover the entire bombing mission. LR Spitfires would have to provide escort in stages by overtaking the bombers along their route, rather than flying continuous close escort.


----------



## Kevin J (Aug 19, 2019)

RCAFson said:


> The Spitfire needs about 80IG to fly 452 miles at Max weak mixture, so add a 20IG reserve and there's 100IG for the return flight. It will burn about 100IG to the target zone, leaving 85IG for combat, if we have 200IG of internal fuel and a 90IG DT. Of course there's no reason to fly at MWM over water or over the UK, so about 1/3 of the mission can be flown at ME speed:
> View attachment 549370
> 
> with greatly reduced fuel consumption, so an allowance of 200IG for transit and 85IG for combat is more than sufficient.
> ...



You don't want to be carrying the 90 IG slipper tank because even an Me 110 will make mincemeat out of you if it bounces you while you fly in a straight line only making gentle manoeuvres, that's why I suggested the P-40 tank. Longest Spitfire raids are to La Palice, 370 miles, Mk VII with slipper tanks mostly over water, East Timor 445 miles, with Mk VIII, totally over water. I do agree though that the idea is marginally plausible but you don't want to be lumbered with that big slipper tank over hostile territory.

Even the post war Mk XVIII with its strengthened wing only carried 176 internal.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## PAT303 (Aug 19, 2019)

The biggest problem I see trying to perform LR escort missions in 41/42 early 43 is dealing with JG 2 and JG 26 who were at their height in fighting power and confidence. Trying to fly LR missions with a premium fighter group sitting just across the channel in a heavily fuel loaded fighter is going to be folly regardless if it's a Spit or P51. If the opposing fighter group used tactics such as Parks peeling off the escorts of BoB fame range is pointless because you'll never use it, the last thing you will see will be a ground directed FW190 if you are below 20,000ft, a Me109F if above.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## RCAFson (Aug 19, 2019)

Spitfire IX handling with 160IG internal fuel:
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/Spitfire_IX_ML-186_Handling.pdf


Kevin J said:


> You don't want to be carrying the 90 IG slipper tank because even an Me 110 will make mincemeat out of you if it bounces you while you fly in a straight line only making gentle manoeuvres, that's why I suggested the P-40 tank. Longest Spitfire raids are to La Palice, 370 miles, Mk VII with slipper tanks mostly over water, East Timor 445 miles, with Mk VIII, totally over water. I do agree though that the idea is marginally plausible but you don't want to be lumbered with that big slipper tank over hostile territory.
> 
> Even the post war Mk XVIII with its strengthened wing only carried 176 internal.





Of course if they get intercepted they'll have to release their DTs (Ditto for the Mustang), but the Luftwaffe didn't have fighters everywhere, and if were expending fighter sorties to engage Spitfires, then they weren't attacking bombers. Of course there was alternatives to the 90IG slipper, such as the twin 45IG Hurricane tanks used by Malta Spitfires in mid 1942 or the P-40 tanks.

We know that Mk IXs were being fitted with ~200IG of internal fuel by 1945 (96+75+27).

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## RCAFson (Aug 19, 2019)

PAT303 said:


> The biggest problem I see trying to perform LR escort missions in 41/42 early 43 is dealing with JG 2 and JG 26 who were at their height in fighting power and confidence. Trying to fly LR missions with a premium fighter group sitting just across the channel in a heavily fuel loaded fighter is going to be folly regardless if it's a Spit or P51. If the opposing fighter group used tactics such as Parks peeling off the escorts of BoB fame range is pointless because you'll never use it, the last thing you will see will be a ground directed FW190 if you are below 20,000ft, a Me109F if above.



The need for a LR escort doesn't really exist until the 8th AF gets into high gear in 1943. However, its better to lose single seat fighters than 4 engine bombers.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Aug 19, 2019)

RCAFson said:


> The need for a LR escort doesn't really exist until the 8th AF gets into high gear in 1943. However, its better to lose single seat fighters than 4 engine bombers.



Can an average of 60 Spitfires at a time defend 240 - 300 bombers. It sounds doubtful. All you need is Me 110's to bounce the Spitfires with their 90 IG tanks still on them over the North Sea and they're mincemeat.


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 19, 2019)

RCAFson said:


> Stating that a Spitfire with increased internal and external fuel will have an increased combat radius, is simply stating a fact and in no way implies that it would equal a Mustang as a LR escort fighter.



Not in dispute.



RCAFson said:


> Where to begin... It almost sounds as though you're arguing that the Spitfire was incapable of engaging in any combat because it didn't have enough fuel...yet we all know that this isn't true.



Not what I am arguing at all. what we are arguing about is _how far from bases_ the Spitfire could engage in combat. 



RCAFson said:


> A Spitfire VIII with a 75IG fuselage tank, 124IG main tanks and 45IG slipper tank carried 245IG of (effectively) internal fuel



in my mind internal fuel only counts if you have it for the return trip, this may be in stark contrast to some other people. 

Maybe I am simple minded but what is the difference between stuffing 71 gallons of fuel in the rear fuselage that has to burned/used to make the plane safe to fly before you reach the area where enemy fighters may be encountered (let alone the bombers target) and simply using drop tank/s that hold 71 gallons more than the drop tanks used with the rear fuselage tanks? You can't fly home on fuel you used to take-off and climb to operational hight with no matter what tank it was in. 

Question on the 45 gallon slipper tank. Was it self-sealing or not? 

Given enough time (projected started early) I don't see the plumbing of the wings for wing drop tanks as an insurmountable problem. The bigger problem is using wing leading edge tanks and drop tanks on wings not designed to hold the weight. WHich is part solved by limiting maneuvers with the drop tanks, which just about everybody did. 
Likewise I don't worry too much about how difficult it was to jettison the slipper tanks as I assume that given enough interest either the problem would have been sorted out or alternative tank/s designed. Using twin 44 gallon Hurricane tanks sounds like too much of a bodge to get very far, you want the simplest fuel system possible to cut down on accidents caused by either pilot error (wrong tank selected) or leaky fittings, sucking air into the system is as bad as leaking fuel. 

I don't know how difficult it was to put wing tanks in the MK IX. If any rib noses had to be taken out? or how hard it was to run fuel lines in an existing wing. the rear fuselage tank set up may have been seen as an easy way to modify existing aircraft. 

The Main problems as I see it for the escort Spit is properly engineering the wing for the increased loads (and that includes loads imposed by taking off on less than perfect airfields) and getting the plane to fly properly (solve a lot of the problems by just sticking 33-37 of fuel behind the pilot and forgetting the remainder of the 71 gallons). 
If doesn't give the impressive number on paper though

Reactions: Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 19, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> Can an average of 60 Spitfires at a time defend 240 - 300 bombers. It sounds doubtful. All you need is Me 110's to bounce the Spitfires with their 90 IG tanks still on them over the North Sea and they're mincemeat.


 If the Spits spot the 110s at several miles it might be the 110s that are mincemeat.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Aug 19, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> If the Spits spot the 110s at several miles it might be the 110s that are mincemeat.



I believe there was an incident off the coast of The Hague in 1941/42 where a Spitfire squadron with those tanks attached got annihilated by Me 110's.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Aug 19, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> Not in dispute.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 Lets see if ive got this right( and it seems logical, to me anyway) the range of an escort fighter would be limited to the miles it could fly on internal fuel only from the point at which it was likely to encounter enemy fighter oposition to the target and then home again. Because you've got to drop your tanks at that point. 
Could this, and perhaps it was, be mitigated by aditional waves of fighters scootin along at a pretty high cruise speed ( difficult to intercept therefore not likely to have to be forced to drop there tanks)to rondevue with the bombers farther out.


----------



## Schweik (Aug 19, 2019)

Stig1207 said:


> I have noted before that American sources don't always agree on number of victories, in the posted link the P-38 also has 1928 victories combined in the ETO/ MTO. You are of cause right on the sortie/ loss rate being higher for the P-38; but the P-38 also has a higher ratio of victories to sorties: 67 sorties per victory vs. 113 for the P-40, using the highest numbers.




I agree, this is interesting - perhaps it is because the P-38s didn't really have an escape maneuver against Axis fighters (until their dive flaps got added on and even then I'm not sure) so until then they basically had to fight to the death whenever they got attacked.

P-40 units also flew a lot of fighter-bomber missions, probably about 2/3 to 3/4 of their missions overall, so didn't always engage in air to air on every sortie. This happened to the P-38s toward the end of the war (I think after Mustangs arrived in early to mid 1944 most of the ETO units were shifted over to a ground attack role) but their MTO use was mostly as long range escort fighters.

Success though is going to hinge on the combination of victories per sortie _and _losses per sortie. I know if I was a pilot which one of those two factors would matter more to me! I think this is part of why so many P-40 pilots liked their plane even when commanders did not.


----------



## Schweik (Aug 19, 2019)

RCAFson said:


> I guess you didn't read the linked article:



I had read it long before you posted it sir. I just didn't reach the same conclusions you did. To me the article was saying 'maybe' with a lot of strong caveats. It's the same thing we are doing here, exploring an idea, it's not some scientific proof that it actually was plausible. I remember a lot about bent wings and drop tanks bouncing off the plane and all kinds of other problems.



> A 30 or 45IG combat slipper tank is retained during combat for a effective 180/195 IG of internal fuel after the wing torpedo tanks are released prior to combat. This was completely achievable with existing mods to Spitfires except for the wing mounted DTs and that could have been done with little effort.



This is where my eyebrows raise the highest. As Shortround6 asked you, are those slipper tanks self-sealing? Because if not, you are essentially taking an A6M2 into combat with Bf 109G and Fw 190s..

Similarly, what is the drag penalty for carrying that tank? How much does it affect top speed? Cruise speed? acceleration? Climbg? High G turns? Power dives (escape!)



> It wasn't done because there wasn't any specific customer for such a mod, and there wasn't sufficient production capacity to provide the USAAF with sufficient Spitfires for them to mod them. However, if the Spitfire was license built in North America, then the USAAF would probably have gone ahead with it, especially if the Mustang was never ordered by the BPC.



I don't agree, it wasn't done because it wasn't feasible. The problem with the Spit was a big part of what made it great- that thin, high efficiency, low drag wing. Couldn't fit both gas and guns in it. Those 'bag' tanks in the leading edges of the wings... were those self-sealing?

You are talking about a scenario that sounds like getting into a knife fight while carrying a stack of dishes in one hand and a bucket of water in the other.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Aug 19, 2019)

RCAFson said:


> The need for a LR escort doesn't really exist until the 8th AF gets into high gear in 1943. However, its better to lose single seat fighters than 4 engine bombers.



The need for a long range escort existed from the time of the first long range RAF bombing missions in 1940. They didn't bomb at night because they loved looking at the stars, bombing at night made already abyssmally low bombing accuracy drop to sub-marginal levels. They were lucky if they even hit the right city and quite often they didn't. 

If the RAF had a daytime escort fighter available in 1941 or 1942, and one that could take on Fw 190s and Bf 109F and G, I am pretty sure they would have used it.

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


----------



## Schweik (Aug 19, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> I believe there was an incident off the coast of The Hague in 1941/42 where a Spitfire squadron with those tanks attached got annihilated by Me 110's.



Would not surprise me

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Aug 19, 2019)

Schweik said:


> I had read it long before you posted it sir. I just didn't reach the same conclusions you did. To me the article was saying 'maybe' with a lot of strong caveats. It's the same thing we are doing here, exploring an idea, it's not some scientific proof that it actually was plausible. I remember a lot about bent wings and drop tanks bouncing off the plane and all kinds of other problems.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yes, and that 452.90 miles from Debden to Schweinfurt which is marginally feasible is also the direct air distance taking you over Antwerp, Aachen, Dusseldorf, Bonn and Koblenz, so over concentrated AAA and the fighters defending these cities. You're gonna have to detour big time to avoid all this. I've changed my mind it's definitely not feasible.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Aug 19, 2019)

The Spit was turned from a short range interceptor to a medium range fighter with the Spit VIII and subsequent marks. It just wasn't possible to really make it into a truly long range fighter. Same thing basically happened to the P-40 in the Pacific, that is what Robert DeHaven said anyway, it was just left behind in 1944 due to range limitations and gave way to the P-38.

I was reading up on the P-47N, that was quite a long ranged beast but it came too late to matter. The P-51 was really quite useful despite it's limitations, there is no denying that.

I'm a little confused about some of the statements on the CBI to the effect that the Brits were isolated there. The USAAF (including 23rd, 51st and 80th FG) was operating there at the same time, weren't they working together closely? I have never quite understood that.

Wikipedia says:

_"After consultation among the Allied governments, Air Command South-East Asia was formed in November 1943 to control all Allied air forces in the theater, with Air Chief Marshal Sir Richard Peirse as Commander-in-Chief.[11] Under Peirse's deputy, USAAF Major General George E. Stratemeyer, *Eastern Air Command* (EAC) was organized in 1943 to control Allied air operations in Burma, with headquarters in Calcutta.[12] Unlike the strained relations and confusion encountered in coordinating Allied ground force commands, air force operations in the CBI proceeded relatively smoothly. _

_Relations improved even further after new U.S. military aid began arriving, together with capable USAAF officers such as Brigadier General William D. Old of CGI Troop Carrier Command, and Colonels Philip Cochran and John R. Alison of the 1st Air Commando Group.[13] Within Eastern Air Command, Air Marshal Sir John Baldwin commanded the Third Tactical Air Force, originally formed to provide close air support to the Fourteenth Army. Baldwin was later succeeded by Air Marshal Sir Alec Coryton. U.S. Brigadier-General Howard C. Davidson and later Air Commodore F. J. W. Mellersh commanded the Strategic Air Force. In the new command, various units of the Royal Air Force and the U.S. Tenth Air Force worked side-by-side. In the autumn of 1943 SEAAC had 48 RAF and 17 USAAF squadrons; by the following May, the figures had risen to 64 and 28, respectively.[12] "_

It sounds from all that as if RAF and US 10th & 14th Air Force etc. should have been working together fairly efficiently. I'm surprised RAF couldn't get some replacements for their Hurricanes. I think even Martlets would have been more useful for that Theater. Again from the Wiki, it sounds like by summer of 1944 (which is pretty late) Anglo-American forces had come to dominate the air battle:

_"After a period of reshuffling, Eastern Air Command's air operations began to show results. In August 1944, Admiral Mountbatten noted in a press conference that EAC fighter missions had practically swept the Japanese air force from Burmese skies. Between the formation of SEAAC in November 1943, and the middle of August 1944, American and British forces operating in Burma destroyed or damaged more than 700 Japanese aircraft with a further 100 aircraft probably destroyed.[15] This achievement considerably reduced dangers to Air Transport Command cargo planes flying in support of the Hump airlift operation. By May 1944, EAC resupply missions in support of the Allied ground offensive had carried 70,000 tons of supplies and transported a total of 93,000 men, including 25,500 casualties evacuated from the battle areas. These figures did not include tonnage flown in the Hump airlift missions to China.[15] "_

That sounds like an extremely high number of ground-troop casualties ... feel sorry for anyone stationed in that Theater it must have been really tough.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Aug 19, 2019)

70,000 tons really doesn't sound like much though, how much does a C-47 or C-46 carry, 3 or 4 tons? So what is that 15,000 sorties? Presumably most of the supplies went down the Burma road...?


----------



## Kevin J (Aug 19, 2019)

Schweik said:


> The Spit was turned from a short range interceptor to a medium range fighter with the Spit VIII and subsequent marks. It just wasn't possible to really make it into a truly long range fighter. Same thing basically happened to the P-40 in the Pacific, that is what Robert DeHaven said anyway, it was just left behind in 1944 due to range limitations and gave way to the P-38.
> 
> I was reading up on the P-47N, that was quite a long ranged beast but it came too late to matter. The P-51 was really quite useful despite it's limitations, there is no denying that.
> 
> ...



In the case of Vietnam and Indonesia, the Brits used Japanese troops for a while to maintain order before French and Dutch troops arrived. The liberation of Malaya, Singapore and Hong Kong was a purely British affair, likewise Borneo and Timor liberated by the Australians and New Zealanders. So no Americans.

N.B. The Martlet was a low altitude fighter, unlike the American Wildcat and British Hurricane.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Aug 19, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> In the case of Vietnam and Indonesia, *the Brit*s *used Japanese troops for a while to maintain orde*r before French and Dutch troops arrived.



Wow that's dark! No wonder all the revolutions so soon after the war.... I know Malaya went into a revolt very soon after right?



> N.B. The Martlet was a low altitude fighter, unlike the American Wildcat and British Hurricane.



Didn't know that! Different engine variant I guess? RN / Fleet Air Arm seemed to have a preference for low altitude engines for so many of their planes which I never did grasp. They must have had the strangest procurement policies of the war and that is saying something.

Well, FM-2s then the US had plenty of those I think.


----------



## Schweik (Aug 19, 2019)

Apparently Royal Navy had FM-2s as Wildcat Mk VI


----------



## Kevin J (Aug 19, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Apparently Royal Navy had FM-2s as Wildcat Mk VI



We had both FM-1's and -2's, but by then the Spitfire had arrived in India. The F4F-4 with its two stage supercharger was a purely American affair.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Aug 19, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Wow that's dark! No wonder all the revolutions so soon after the war.... I know Malaya went into a revolt very soon after right?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I agree, Japanese soldiers as policemen is pretty wicked. The Malayan Emergency lasted from 1948 - 1960. We ended up fighting our Chinese Communist allies of WW2.

The Sea Hurricane Ib was fast low down, 317 mph at 7000 ft, faster than any other naval fighter low down in 1941/42.


----------



## RCAFson (Aug 19, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Wow that's dark! No wonder all the revolutions so soon after the war.... I know Malaya went into a revolt very soon after right?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Most naval air combat in 1942 took place well under 20K ft. The Martlet used single stage, two speed engines, and were basically F4F-4A or -4Bs, where the F4F-3/4 used two stage engines. Consequently the Martlet was a bit lighter than the equivalent -3/4. The The FM-2 (Wildcat-6) reverted to a single stage engine.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## RCAFson (Aug 19, 2019)

Schweik said:


> The need for a long range escort existed from the time of the first long range RAF bombing missions in 1940. They didn't bomb at night because they loved looking at the stars, bombing at night made already abyssmally low bombing accuracy drop to sub-marginal levels. They were lucky if they even hit the right city and quite often they didn't.
> 
> If the RAF had a daytime escort fighter available in 1941 or 1942, and one that could take on Fw 190s and Bf 109F and G, I am pretty sure they would have used it.



From 1939 up to May 1940, the RAF had access to French Airfields, but bomber command was forbidden from attacking civilian targets. If Bomber Command had the strength to undertake large scale daylight bombing, they could have used existing single seat fighters, just as the Luftwaffe did during the BofB. Bomber Command did not have sufficient aircraft to undertake large scale bombing raids until 1942 when the night bombing policy was well entrenched. Additionally most RAF heavy bombers were not suited to daylight bombing because they were designed with medium altitude engines.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## RCAFson (Aug 19, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> Can an average of 60 Spitfires at a time defend 240 - 300 bombers. It sounds doubtful. All you need is Me 110's to bounce the Spitfires with their 90 IG tanks still on them over the North Sea and they're mincemeat.



How is that different from P-47s and P-51s carrying drop tanks? You are arguing that it's impossible for any single seat fighter to undertake long range escort missions. The 90IG tank could be dropped at up to 300mph IAS, and so the Me-110s pilots who dared to intercept a formation of Spitfires are going to be awarded their Iron Crosses posthumously.

Using Schweinfurt as an example, if we randomly insert 60 Spitfires over the bombers at any given point, it causes severe headaches for the Luftwaffe, who are forced to divert fighters away from attacking bombers, and the results is more Luftwaffe fighter losses and fewer 8th AF bomber losses.


----------



## Kevin J (Aug 19, 2019)

RCAFson said:


> How is that different from P-47s and P-51s carrying drop tanks? You are arguing that it's impossible for any single seat fighter to undertake long range escort missions. The 90IG tank could be dropped at up to 300mph IAS, and so the Me-110s pilots who dared to intercept a formation of Spitfires are going to awarded their Iron Crosses posthumously.
> 
> Using Schweinfurt as an example, if we randomly insert 60 Spitfires over the bombers at any given point, it causes severe headaches for the Luftwaffe, who are forced to divert fighters away from attacking bombers, and the results is more Luftwaffe fighter losses and fewer 8th AF bomber losses.



I'm making the point that 180 Spitfires each 60 defending one third of each leg of the mission is woefully insufficient.


----------



## RCAFson (Aug 19, 2019)

michael rauls said:


> Lets see if ive got this right( and it seems logical, to me anyway) the range of an escort fighter would be limited to the miles it could fly on internal fuel only from the point at which it was likely to encounter enemy fighter oposition to the target and then home again. Because you've got to drop your tanks at that point.
> *Could this, and perhaps it was, be mitigated by aditional waves of fighters scootin along at a pretty high cruise speed ( difficult to intercept therefore not likely to have to be forced to drop there tanks)to rondevue with the bombers farther out.*



Yes, and that's exactly what was done, so the fighter escort detailed to provide cover at the most distant legs of the bomber's route didn't have to tag along with the bombers as close escort.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Aug 19, 2019)

RCAFson said:


> Yes, and that's exactly what was done, so the fighter escort detailed to provide cover at the most distant legs of the bomber's route didn't have to tag along with the bombers as close escort.



When the RAF sent 12 Bombers across the Channel, there were 12 fighter squadrons in support.


----------



## RCAFson (Aug 19, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> Not in dispute.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The fuel in the 75IG fuselage tank has to be partially (50%) consumed prior to combat, just as per the Mustang. The Mk VIII carried wing mounted 250lb bombs.

The 30/45IG slipper tanks were SS and caused a loss of about 20MPH at maximum speed. AIUI, the use of bag tanks required minimal mods to the wings as they fitted between existing ribs and spars.

Mustang pilots had exactly the same fuel management problems as a Spitfire and they somehow managed to fly those long range missions.


----------



## RCAFson (Aug 19, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> I'm making the point that 180 Spitfires each 60 defending one third of each leg of the mission is woefully insufficient.



As opposed to no fighter escort at all, which is what the 8th AF had during the Schweinfurt raids. The Luftwaffe didn't have unlimited numbers of fighters either which is why the raids were even possible, in the first place.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## RCAFson (Aug 19, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> When the RAF sent 12 Bombers across the Channel, there were 12 fighter squadrons in support.



Those raids were strictly short range affairs and had very little in the way of strategic value and they were designed to try and draw the Luftwaffe up. The RAF simply didn't have bombers capable of long range daylight missions, even with adequate LR fighter escort until much later in the war.


----------



## RCAFson (Aug 19, 2019)

Schweik said:


> I
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The Spitfire VIII had integral wing tanks and it carried cannon and MGs... I don't know if the bag tanks were SS, but even SS tanks are of little use against cannon fire and some risk has to be accepted, because in the grand scheme of things a single seat fighter was more expendable than a 4 engine bomber.

How do you think the Mustang was able to succeed? Please stop arguing that LR single seat fighter escort is impossible, when it obviously wasn't.

Reactions: Creative Creative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Aug 19, 2019)

RCAFson said:


> The Spitfire VIII had integral wing tanks and it carried cannon and MGs... I don't know if the bag tanks were SS, but even SS tanks are of little use against cannon fire and some risk has to be accepted, because in the grand scheme of things a single seat fighter was more expendable than a 4 engine bomber.
> 
> How do you think the Mustang was able to succeed? Please stop arguing that LR single seat fighter escort is impossible, when it obviously wasn't.



It's definitely possible, but you're looking at 1944/45 service entry. I was in computing for 30 years, developing new systems. First you get your system developed and installed, you learn a bit, respond to customer needs, upgrade it, then you look back and think to yourself "now why didn't I think of that in the first place"? So Spitfire IX 1942/43, VIII 1943/44, XVI 1944/45. So to me the progressive development path seems reasonable. Then you look back and think to yourself "cobbled together systems", what a pile of CRAP ( Concurrent Retail Application Package), and you start all over again.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## RCAFson (Aug 19, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> It's definitely possible, but you're looking at 1944/45 service entry. I was in computing for 30 years, developing new systems. First you get your system developed and installed, you learn a bit, respond to customer needs, upgrade it, then you look back and think to yourself "now why didn't I think of that in the first place"? So Spitfire IX 1942/43, VIII 1943/44, XVI 1944/45. So to me the progressive development path seems reasonable. Then you look back and think to yourself "cobbled together systems", what a pile of CRAP ( Concurrent Retail Application Package), and you start all over again.



The Mustang and P-47 had cobbled together systems as well (with severe limitations with full fuel loads), but they were also the focal point of large design teams. The Spitfire with Merlin 60 series engines entered production nearly a year before the P-51B and if given similar engineering priority could have been available as a LR fighter 6 months to a year prior to the Mustang.


----------



## Schweik (Aug 19, 2019)

RCAFson said:


> The Spitfire VIII had integral wing tanks and it carried cannon and MGs... I don't know if the bag tanks were SS, but even SS tanks are of little use against cannon fire and some risk has to be accepted, because in the grand scheme of things a single seat fighter was more expendable than a 4 engine bomber.



I think the bigger problem is actually the great big slipper tank which is quite vulnerable, bulky and large... and apparently expected to be carried during combat in this scenario you are laying out. That is foolish.



> How do you think the Mustang was able to succeed? Please stop arguing that LR single seat fighter escort is impossible, when it obviously wasn't.



Because the Mustang could fly 900+ miles on internal fuel (in protected tanks) and do so at close to 400 mph. That way it could fly out to a target say, 600 miles away, _drop_ it's external tanks when attacked, fight for a while and then fly home with fuel to spare.

Lol! I never made such an argument - I am saying that the SPITFIRE could not be and never in fact was a long range fighter escort. I know it's always tempting to win an argument by claiming that somebody said something foolish that they didn't actually say, but let's not go there.

As for flying with unprotected fuel tanks, it wasn't normally done - even by the Japanese, after 1943... and for good reason. There is a big difference between an aircraft with a few holes in it (even big holes from 20mm cannon) vs. one that has caught on fire. The former can and does fly home, the latter very rarely survives (sometimes fires do go out of course).







That is a 20mm cannon hole, one of 5 this aircraft received, but the pilot made it back home due to the armor and strong structure of the aircraft. This very likely hit the fuselage tank.






Same with those - shrapnel from the lower cannon hole almost certainly pierced the main wing fuel tank.






Also a 20mm hole, right behind the armor plate. And right above or into the rear fuselage fuel tank.


If you assume it's Ok to not have protected fuel tanks "because four engine planes are more important than single engine" then just take the self-sealing tanks out altogether, that would seriously reduce the weight and increase fuel capacity at the same time. But that vastly increases the vulnerability of the pilot.


----------



## Schweik (Aug 19, 2019)

Anyway, while I fear the Spitfire Long Range escort is a pipe dream, the Beaufighter could do it down low!


----------



## RCAFson (Aug 19, 2019)

Schweik said:


> I think the bigger problem is actually the great big slipper tank which is quite vulnerable, bulky and large... and apparently expected to be carried during combat in this scenario you are laying out. That is foolish.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You are really not making much sense here. As I stated I don't know if the bag tanks were SS and you showing pictures of aircraft with holes in the aluminum skin is quite meaningless and quite pointless especially since the 2nd photo seems to show a shot down aircraft... The wing tanks in a MK VIII were SS.

The 30 and 45IG SS slipper tanks are not huge and have a small effect on performance. I postulated that a Spit8 could carry a 75IG rear fuselage tank as actually tested, (and twin wing torpedo style DTs with ~50IG each), and a 30 or 45IG slipper tank (229-244IG). This creates a fighter with very similar range, using SS tanks, as a Mustang on internal fuel (221-224IG), when using the same throttle settings. The Mustang must burn about 40IG from it's rear fuselage tank before engaging in combat versus about 35IG for the 75IG rear fuselage tank in the Spit8.

If the Mustang could fly 900 miles on internal fuel then a Spit8, as above, could fly 800-900 miles at the same throttle settings, especially as the slipper tank is released when empty.

Reactions: Disagree Disagree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Milosh (Aug 19, 2019)

RAF used the following allocations for its SE fighters:

5 minutes at Take-off power
2 minutes at climb
5 minutes at combat power (full power)
15 minutes at high speed cruise
Remainder at economical cruise
20% reserve

The RAF's standard radius of action was about 40% of still air cruising range on internal fuel. With tanks this changes by a few percent, as aircraft are expected to spend more time at efficient cruise speeds.

So, a Mk IX with a 450 mile still air cruising radius would have a combat radius of approximately 180 miles. With a 30 gal tank about 240 miles, with a 45 gal tank about 275 miles.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Aug 19, 2019)

RCAFson said:


> The Mustang and P-47 had cobbled together systems as well (with severe limitations with full fuel loads), but they were also the focal point of large design teams. The Spitfire with Merlin 60 series engines entered production nearly a year before the P-51B and if given similar engineering priority could have been available as a LR fighter 6 months to a year prior to the Mustang.



Don't you mean the Spitfire VIII of May 1943? The IX was the CTS, BECAUSE THE RAF WANTED THE VIII YESTERDAY. You've obviously not been in the development creativity lark. You keep your customer satisfied with their priority needs. The all singing, all dancing version comes later.


----------



## RCAFson (Aug 19, 2019)

The concept of LR Fighter escort by rendezvous is explained in this film, starting at about 16:25:

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Aug 19, 2019)

RCAFson said:


> You are really not making much sense here. As I stated I don't know if the bag tanks were SS and you showing pictures of aircraft with holes in the aluminum skin is quite meaningless and quite pointless especially since the 2nd photo seems to show a shot down aircraft... The wing tanks in a MK VIII were SS.



I believe I am making sense, you are just repeatedly missing the point. I really don't know, but you appear to have the power of ideology locking you in to a particular belief, and if that is the case anything I say will never dissuade you from your belief. I suspect we are rapidly approaching an impasse beyond which we should agree to disagree.

The second image isn't a shot down fighter it's one, like the one above it (which had 5 x 20mm holes in it) that made it back to base and had what is called a forced landing. Not ideal, but much better than burning alive at 20,000 feet. You were saying (or seemed to be saying) that the power of 20mm cannon made self sealing tanks pointless. Those three images show just a few examples among many thousands of aircraft which had 20mm cannon hits that almost certainly punctured one or more fuel tanks and yet they made it back to base in part because they had self-sealing tanks. Including the Spitfire. But extra tanks and especially _external_ tanks don't always have protection. And one more thing.



> The 30 and 45IG SS slipper tanks are not huge and have a small effect on performance. I postulated that a Spit8 could carry a 75IG rear fuselage tank as actually tested, (and twin wing torpedo style DTs with ~50IG each), and a 30 or 45IG slipper tank (229-244IG). This creates a fighter with very similar range, using SS tanks, as a Mustang on internal fuel (221-224IG), when using the same throttle settings. The Mustang must burn about 40IG from it's rear fuselage tank before engaging in combat versus about 35IG for the 75IG rear fuselage tank in the Spit8.
> 
> If the Mustang could fly 900 miles on internal fuel then a Spit8, as above, could fly 800-900 miles at the same throttle settings, especially as the slipper tank is released when empty.



According to that datasheet you posted, the Spit VIII could fly 940 miles with "aux tanks full". With "permanent tanks full" (143 IG) it could manage 740 miles but doesn't that mean a full rear fuel tank which makes the thing unstable? Realistically the actual range is ~650 miles after dropping the tanks and that includes a bit of margin for landing, weather etc. but doesn't, I believe, include WEP or military power time for combat.

Also, in your scenario, you were suggesting that they fight with the external tank in place. Not only would that put a Spit VIII or IX at a disadvantage against a Fw 190 or late model 109G, it would create a variety of hazards.

If the external tank is indeed self sealing then I'll retract that from the list of additional perils that it would bring to a dogfight but I'd really like to see some proof of that before I signed off. I don't believe any Amercian made external tanks were. But aside from those issues, there are reasons why it was generally considered a bad idea to get into combat with external tanks on - especially against other fighters where hard maneuvering may be required. You still have the weight and drag, and stability effects of an external tank. I think you might find even worse effects than the dreaded vokes filter.

In short, I think it's very unlikely the Spit VIII could fly a Schweinfurt raid escort, and Berlin is just grasping at straws.

If they actually could then they would have done so, in my opinion, because in a dogfight a Spitfire is a bit better than a P-51, depending on the models.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Aug 19, 2019)

If I'm reading this right only the bottom front tank on the Spit IX was self-sealing. Using the rear fuel tanks sounds dicey and required the area commander sign off.

It also introduces the issue of fuel tank pressurization, which may be needed in the CBI if you wanted to fly at a reasonably high altitude.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Milosh (Aug 19, 2019)

That is from a post WW2 manual.


----------



## RCAFson (Aug 19, 2019)

Schweik said:


> According to that datasheet you posted, the Spit VIII could fly 940 miles with "aux tanks full". With "permanent tanks full" (143 IG) it could manage 740 miles but doesn't that mean a full rear fuel tank which makes the thing unstable? Realistically the actual range is ~650 miles after dropping the tanks and that includes a bit of margin for landing, weather etc. but doesn't, I believe, include WEP or military power time for combat.
> 
> Also, in your scenario, you were suggesting that they fight with the external tank in place. Not only would that put a Spit VIII or IX at a disadvantage against a Fw 190 or late model 109G, it would create a variety of hazards.
> 
> ...



The Spitfire8 data sheet is for a Spitfire with the standard 124IG internal fuel with no CoG restrictions. Adding a 75IG rear fuselage tank would extend range considerably. As I have repeatedly pointed out the limitations on CoG due to the rear fuselage tank were the same on the Mustang, yet they managed to use them with great success.


The 30 and 45IG tanks were SS, per Morgan and Shacklady but a variety of slipper tanks were developed, and AIUI, not all were SS. The Fulmar 60IG slipper tank was SS (as per the Pilot's Notes), for example. A combat trial was done between a Spit Mk 14 with a combat rated 90IG slipper tank and:



> About 20mph knocked off maximum speed...turning circle still within those of FW190 and Me109G... Conclusions. Even with the 90 gallon long range tank the Spitfire 14 can equal or outclass the FW190 (BMW801D) and Me109G in every respect...
> Price, The Spitfire Story.


And the same would apply to a Mk8, albeit, with lower max speed. The slipper tanks had more drag than a torpedo tank (still not that much in total), but they had the advantage of being very near the CoG and their shape made it relatively easy to design in SS. Hence they could be retained in combat.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## RCAFson (Aug 19, 2019)

Schweik said:


> If I'm reading this right only the bottom front tank on the Spit IX was self-sealing. Using the rear fuel tanks sounds dicey and required the area commander sign off.
> 
> It also introduces the issue of fuel tank pressurization, which may be needed in the CBI if you wanted to fly at a reasonably high altitude.
> 
> View attachment 549410



The Forward fuselage tanks are the standard fuel tank arrangements as used on all Spitfires. All SS tanks that are pressurized will have some impairment of their SS properties and this is true for the Mustang as well.

I think LR escort is one of the "special operations" where the rear fuselage tank could be used, and as we've discussed the Mustang had CoG restrictions as well when using the rear fuselage tank. But your typical spitfire pilot wasn't fully trained in their use.


----------



## Schweik (Aug 19, 2019)

I just don't buy the idea of fighting with the external tank. I don't believe it's self sealing either. I think you are comparing the slow crawl range at minimum cruise speed with the 400 mph cruise of the Mustang... which can fly a lot further at slower speeds and lower altitudes. I think you are grasping at straws. Like I said before, it's out of reach mate.

But we probably have to agree to disagree, because it will just go on forever.


----------



## Schweik (Aug 19, 2019)

Milosh said:


> That is from a post WW2 manual.



So what?


----------



## Milosh (Aug 19, 2019)

So what? Restrictions were added that would not have been so in WW2.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 19, 2019)

I have seen in several places that some of the 30 gallon drop tanks were self sealing, apparently there were several different styles/methods of construction. I wasn't sure on the 45 (or they came both ways?) while the 90 gallon tank was pretty much a plain tank and the 170 gallon was never sealing. that is my understanding anyway. 

Both the Spitfire and the Mustang had restrictions placed on them post war for rear tank usage.


----------



## RCAFson (Aug 19, 2019)

Schweik said:


> I just don't buy the idea of fighting with the external tank. I don't believe it's self sealing either. I think you are comparing the slow crawl range at minimum cruise speed with the 400 mph cruise of the Mustang... which can fly a lot further at slower speeds and lower altitudes. I think you are grasping at straws. Like I said before, it's out of reach mate.
> 
> But we probably have to agree to disagree, because it will just go on forever.



Spitfire VIII self sealing tanks:


> Fuel. 100 octane.
> Capacity Fuselage (upper) 47gals, lower 49, wing leading edge 2
> x 14. Total 124gals. Plus 30, 45, 50 and 90 0/ld tanks. All tanks
> except l/edge self seal. Fuel system pressurised. At 20,000ft self
> ...




OK, let I'll Spitfire pilots tell you:


> MkXII
> 
> F/O C. R. Birbeck of 41 Squadron recorded in his Combat Report for 27 April, 1943:
> I was Blue 2 on a weather recco to Calais and the Somme area. We flew down the French coast at zero feet, climbing North of the Somme to about 2,000 feet. Controller then told us to steer 330 degrees and we were just turning on to this course, West of the Somme Esturary, when I saw two F.W. 190's approaching from three o'clock at our height. I warned Blue 1, who turned towards them. I dived down to the deck, pulling up in a steep turn towards the E/A. One of these, which I saw through thin cloud, was climbing. I climbed after him and fired a full beam shot at him, giving him a six seconds cannon and m/g burst, starting at 700 yards and closing to 300 yards. The E/A did a gentle turn towards the French coast and I saw flames on the port side which seemed to be coming from just in front of the cock-pit. I broke away and was pursued up the French coast by another F.W. 190 for about five minutes. This E/A kept firing from about 600 yards, missing to port. I was taking violent skidding evasive action on the deck and he was just about holding me at 340 I.A.S. *I had not jettisoned my extra tank*. He finally abandoned the chase and turned towards France. I claim one F.W. 190 Destroyed.​ Mk9
> ...


http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/130_Clay_13march45.jpg​(Above from WWII Aircraft Performance encounter reports)

So pilots could engage in violent manoeuvring combat with their slipper tanks in place. Of course they typically dropped them (max drop speed was 300mph IAS which was not a limitation on high altitude missions). Testing on the Mk IX gave these results:






Morgan and Shacklady give results of a Mk V Trop fitted with/without a 90IG slipper tank. Vmax = 354/337.5 mph at 17.4k ft

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Creative Creative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## RCAFson (Aug 19, 2019)

Schweik said:


> I think you are comparing the slow crawl range at minimum cruise speed with the 400 mph cruise of the Mustang... which can fly a lot further at slower speeds and lower altitudes.



Spitfire 9 HF range at max weak mixture with 85IG internal and 170IG external = 800 miles. Versus 880 for the Mustang with 221IG (Pilots notes states 224IG) internal:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/mustang-III-ads-7.jpg 

Of course carrying the fuel all internal caused considerably less drag for the Mustang. So a Mk VIII with 200IG internal (75IG fuselage tank) and a 30 or 45IG slipper tank would do considerably better than the Mk IX with a 170IG slipper tank and would probably get about 850 miles.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Creative Creative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Aug 19, 2019)

Schweik said:


> In short, I think it's very unlikely the Spit VIII could fly a Schweinfurt raid escort, and Berlin is just grasping at straws.
> 
> If they actually could then they would have done so, in my opinion, because in a dogfight a Spitfire is a bit better than a P-51, depending on the models.



They didn't because the development hadn't been done and the RAF weren't pushing for LR escorts.


----------



## wuzak (Aug 19, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Because the Mustang could fly 900+ miles on internal fuel (in protected tanks) and do so at close to 400 mph. That way it could fly out to a target say, 600 miles away, _drop_ it's external tanks when attacked, fight for a while and then fly home with fuel to spare.



To get that range they wold have to fly much slower. 

I think it was posted in this thread earlier that the maximum range for the Mustang III/P-51B was at a cruise speed of ~265mph TAS, compared to the Spitfire's ~225mph.


----------



## Schweik (Aug 19, 2019)

Most of those encounters you listed described decreased or severely decreased performance with the extra tank on - couldn't catch the FW, etc. If I cared enough about it I'm sure I could find plenty of anecdotes where the degradation of performance (especially with anything larger than a 30 gal tank) actually caused losses.

You are clearly dead set to believe your theory and we very clearly read the exact same data completely differently. Kudos for persistence, but you haven't come close to convincing me, there was no long range Spitfire it's a joke to pretend there was or could have been. Yes they can reach Calais, but deep into Germany from England? Not operationally. And the notion that they didn't need a long (or even medium) ranged Spitfire during the war is also a joke. Of course they needed it and they could and would have equipped bombers for daytime operations if they had them. There was certainly a desperate need for them in the Med and they got the most of the Mk VIII when they arrived even though their range wasn't that great either.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Aug 19, 2019)

wuzak said:


> They didn't because the development hadn't been done and the RAF weren't pushing for LR escorts.



Even Mosquitoes could have benefited from escorts - they were pretty good at surviving but hardly invulnerable. They did also have to use Lancasters for daylight operations sometimes and would have loved to have escorts available. Daytime bombing is always more accurate than night bombing, and particularly needed for Tactical and Operational targets not just Strategic.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Aug 19, 2019)

wuzak said:


> To get that range they wold have to fly much slower.
> 
> I think it was posted in this thread earlier that the maximum range for the Mustang III/P-51B was at a cruise speed of ~265mph TAS, compared to the Spitfire's ~225mph.



According to this, (I have Americas 100,000 five feet away as I write this but can't be bothered to walk over there for this ridiculous conversation) cruise speeds and ranges are

P-51B/C
325 mph @ 10K for 1180 miles (internal)
294 mph @ 20K for 1900 miles (with drop tanks)

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## RCAFson (Aug 20, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Most of those encounters you listed described decreased or severely decreased performance with the extra tank on - couldn't catch the FW, etc. If I cared enough about it I'm sure I could find plenty of anecdotes where the degradation of performance (especially with anything larger than a 30 gal tank) actually caused losses.
> 
> You are clearly dead set to believe your theory and we very clearly read the exact same data completely differently. Kudos for persistence, but you haven't come close to convincing me, there was no long range Spitfire it's a joke to pretend there was or could have been. Yes they can reach Calais, but deep into Germany from England? Not operationally. And the notion that they didn't need a long (or even medium) ranged Spitfire during the war is also a joke. Of course they needed it and they could and would have equipped bombers for daytime operations if they had them. There was certainly a desperate need for them in the Med and they got the most of the Mk VIII when they arrived even though their range wasn't that great either.



The encounter reports show some decreased performance, but as the tests show, it was not a severe decrease, only amounting to about 14mph for the Spit9 with a 30IG slipper tank and 20mph for the Spitfire14 with a 90IG tank. By late war the Luftwaffe had some very high performance aircraft, including jets, so naturally pilots wanted all the performance they could get...as long as it meant they didn't have to walk home, hence the desire in some cases to retain the tanks, which were SS and fully stressed for combat. Spitfires were using DTs from 1941 and all slipper tanks were tested to 7G to which, amongst other things, allowed for catapult TO from carriers.

The first production Spitfire VIIs (basically a pressure cabin version of the Mk VIII) were built in Sept 1942. Given production and development priority there could have been LR escort spitfires available in time for the Schweinfurt raids.

You are basically admitting that no amount of evidence is going to sway you, and that's OK because I did this research for my own benefit.

This is from Morgan and Shacklady, from their chapter on the SpitfireV when the RAF began large scale development of extended range mods for the Spitfire in 1941:

Spitfire V potential escort and ferry ranges:

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


----------



## Schweik (Aug 20, 2019)

RCAFson said:


> You are basically admitting that no amount of evidence is going to sway you, and that's OK because I did this research for my own benefit.



No, yet again it's a fine distinction you are missing here - I have yet to see any evidence that you posted in this thread that has convinced me. That is a far cry from "no amount of evidence" - you are just not as convincing here as you think you are. You read that article you linked and got something out of us none of the rest of us did. I also get the sense that you are indifferent to reality and evidence, I think you actually do believe the Spitfire potentially had the range, or better than the range of a Mustang. Which is ludicrous.

But I'm not ruling out the possibility could exist that somebody could show me something that actually did convince me of this, I've certainly learned a lot on this forum so while I'm highly dubious I wouldn't rule it out. Somebody might capture Bigfoot tomorrow too.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## slaterat (Aug 20, 2019)

Looking at the data cards RCAFson makes a very valid point. You have two single engined fighter planes here, with essentially the same engine. The Mustang is aerodynamically cleaner, but heavier. The Spit 8 is a bit more draggy, but is lighter and a better climber. Both planes have flight limitations with a full internal rear tank.
The Spit 8 holds 200 IG internal and the Mustang 221 IG, thats pretty close with a 10% advantage to the Mustang. As Shortround6 has already pointed out carrying more fuel in your drop tanks then you do in your internal fuel tanks is not of much value for extending operational range on a combat mission. The exception is if your external tanks are stressed for combat. I know that the Hurricane could carry 2x 45 IG tanks that were self sealing and fully stressed for combat but they were not jettisonable. The 45 and 90 IG drop tanks were not stressed for combat.

It seems that RCAFson has shown that the slipper tanks on the Spit 8 offer the best of both worlds being , pressurized, self sealing stressed for combat and jettisonable. 

Does anyone know the details of how the Mustangs external tanks worked?


----------



## RCAFson (Aug 20, 2019)

Some more info regarding the USAAF mods to the Spitfire IX in performed at Wright field in early 1944, from M&S:



> Boscombe Down 6 July 1944. MK210. Effect of two
> underwing drop tanks on level speed performance and position-
> al error correction. Modifications installed at Wright Field,
> USA (1) 43gal tank behind pilot (2) two leading edge tanks of
> ...


= 161IG internal fuel. Adding a 30/45/90IG slipper tank gives 191/206/251IG of SS fuel. changing the rear fuselage tank to 76IG and the 30/45IG slipper = 221/236IG of SS fuel.

High speed, high altitude, cruise fuel consumption on the Mk V:

Reactions: Disagree Disagree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Aug 20, 2019)

RCAFson said:


> The encounter reports show some decreased performance, but as the tests show, it was not a severe decrease, only amounting to about 14mph for the Spit9 with a 30IG slipper tank and 20mph for the Spitfire14 with a 90IG tank. By late war the Luftwaffe had some very high performance aircraft, including jets, so naturally pilots wanted all the performance they could get...as long as it meant they didn't have to walk home, hence the desire in some cases to retain the tanks, which were SS and fully stressed for combat. Spitfires were using DTs from 1941 and all slipper tanks were tested to 7G to which, amongst other things, allowed for catapult TO from carriers.
> 
> The first production Spitfire VIIs (basically a pressure cabin version of the Mk VIII) were built in Sept 1942. Given production and development priority there could have been LR escort spitfires available in time for the Schweinfurt raids.
> 
> ...


Interesting chart for a Spitfire V. Norwich to Berlin, 441 miles, escort range; London to Brest, Belarus, 1015 miles, reinforcing range, so must be a 90 IG slipper. Seafire III, navalised Spitfire V had a combat radius of 100 miles clean and 185 with a 60 IG torpedo tank. Whilst theoretically, with a 90 IG you could fly escort Norwich - Berlin, realistically you can't because you're flying too slow, you're flying over hostile territory, and finally manoeuvres are restricted with that big 90 IG slipper; it's just not going to happen. Longest Spitfire raid in Europe is SW England to La Palice, all over water in 1944, 370 miles in the Mk VII, so yes you could do that out and back at econ cruise perhaps with only a 45 IG slipper, and likewise you don't want the 90 IG slipper if at all possible because manoeuvres are restricted. The Australians did Darwin to East Timor return, 884 miles, only possible with a 90 IG slipper, but it's all over water, no other land anywhere in sight, unlike the La Palice raid. IIRC the LF XVI had an effective combat radius of 230 miles over Europe; I'm assuming this is using 66/75 IG rear fuselage and 45 IG slipper, but again over hostile territory.

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


----------



## RCAFson (Aug 20, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> Interesting chart for a Spitfire V. Norwich to Berlin, 441 miles, escort range; London to Brest, Belarus, 1015 miles, reinforcing range, so must be a 90 IG slipper. Seafire III, navalised Spitfire V had a combat radius of 100 miles clean and 185 with a 60 IG torpedo tank. Whilst theoretically, with a 90 IG you could fly escort Norwich - Berlin, realistically you can't because you're flying too slow, you're flying over hostile territory, and finally manoeuvres are restricted with that big 90 IG slipper; it's just not going to happen. Longest Spitfire raid in Europe is SW England to La Palice, all over water in 1944, 370 miles in the Mk VII, so yes you could do that out and back at econ cruise perhaps with only a 45 IG slipper, and likewise you don't want the 90 IG slipper if at all possible because manoeuvres are restricted. The Australians did Darwin to East Timor return, 884 miles, only possible with a 90 IG slipper, but it's all over water, no other land anywhere in sight, unlike the La Palice raid. IIRC the LF XVI had an effective combat radius of 230 miles over Europe; I'm assuming this is using 66/75 IG rear fuselage and 45 IG slipper, but again over hostile territory.



I guess you missed this from a prior post, a Spitfire Mk XIV was pitted against a captured a FW190D and 109G:


> About 20mph knocked off maximum speed...turning circle still within those of FW190 and Me109G... Conclusions. Even with the 90 gallon long range tank the Spitfire 14 can equal or outclass the FW190 (BMW801D) and Me109G in every respect...
> Price, The Spitfire Story.


So the Mk XIV was flown to it's limits with the 90IG DT; the 30 and 45IG tanks were combat stressed as well. The Mk XIV airframe was basically just a MkVIII with a Griffon engine.

You keep forgetting that the 76IG rear fuselage tank was tested and found suitable for combat but only after about half the fuel was used, just like the Mustang. It would have increased internal fuel in a MK VII/VII to 200IG, and greatly increased the range so that the Timor raid could have been done on internal fuel alone. The Spitfire was just as capable of flying high and fast like the Mustang (albeit not quite as fast), because it had the same engine, if it could have similar internal fuel capacity, and the fact is that it could have had 90% of a Mustang's internal fuel capacity along with combat stressed SS slipper tanks, and it could have been modded to carry wing torpedo DTs, as the USAAF proved.

Reactions: Creative Creative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Aug 20, 2019)

RCAFson said:


> I guess you missed this from a prior post, a Spitfire Mk XIV was pitted against a captured a FW190D and 109G:
> 
> So the Mk XIV was flown to it's limits with the 90IG DT; the 30 and 45IG tanks were combat stressed as well. The Mk XIV airframe was basically just a MkVIII with a Griffon engine.
> 
> You keep forgetting that the 76IG rear fuselage tank was tested and found suitable for combat but only after about half the fuel was used, just like the Mustang. It would have increased internal fuel in a MK VII/VII to 200IG, and greatly increased the range so that the Timor raid could have been done on internal fuel alone. The Spitfire was just as capable of flying high and fast like the Mustang (albeit not quite as fast), because it had the same engine, if it could have similar internal fuel capacity, and the fact is that it could have had 90% of a Mustang's internal fuel capacity along with combat stressed SS slipper tanks, and it could have been modded to carry wing torpedo DTs, as the USAAF proved.



Exactly, it was a XIV with a 2000 hp engine and a 20 mph speed advantage with tank fitted, as opposed to a V with a 20/30 mph speed disadvantage when clean. It's a no brainer, the V will be shot from the skies, even the VII, VIII, IX & XVI will be 20 mph slower than their opponents with the 90 IG slipper fitted, so inferior just like the clean V maybe worse.

As for the underwing tanks, well maybe 45 IG only because the wings are able to only carry 250 not 500 lb bombs, and like the XVI, clip the wings when using the rear tanks. Then you have a fighter only good for less than 20/25 thou feet as the controls become sloppy above that height with the clipped wings. Not exactly ideal for an escort fighter.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Mike Williams (Aug 20, 2019)

Spitfires used 90 gallon drop tanks for rodeos, sweeps and escort missions - into Germany from the UK when called for.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/131-Brothers-7aug44.jpg

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/610-ORB-1sept44.jpg

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/350-ORB-11Sept44.jpg

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/130_Oprep-12Sept44.jpg

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/41-OpRep-17Sept44.jpg

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Mike Williams (Aug 20, 2019)

Mike Williams said:


> Spitfires used 90 gallon drop tanks for rodeos, sweeps and escort missions - into Germany from the UK when called for.
> 
> http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/131-Brothers-7aug44.jpg
> 
> ...



Another interesting document showing Spitfire IX LF plus 25 lbs. boost operational with 90 gallon drop tanks:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/150grade/1-squadron-oprep-27aug44.jpg

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Aug 20, 2019)

Mike Williams said:


> Another interesting document showing Spitfire IX LF plus 25 lbs. boost operational with 90 gallon drop tanks:
> 
> http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/150grade/1-squadron-oprep-27aug44.jpg



But none of these had rear fuselage fuel tanks too.


----------



## Kevin J (Aug 20, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> But none of these had rear fuselage fuel tanks too.



And all would have had 130/150 fuel and almost 2000 hp, so that's mid 44 onwards.


----------



## Schweik (Aug 20, 2019)

It's one thing to accidentally engage with your drop tank still on, because you didn't have time to drop them or because they were stuck etc., and survive it with a little luck and perhaps a situational advantage (spotting the enemy first, while above them for example), this also happened with P-51s and P-47s and P-38s etc., it was somewhat possible to fight anyway but it was not considered ideal. It is also true that with the fuel tanks on Allied fighters frequently got into trouble.

For example here is an example of a Spit Vc being lost in an engagement with Fw 190s over Nice, France on 8 Feb 1944 because the slipper tank caught fire. Six Spits engaged two Fw 190s and lost 3 in total, claiming one but apparently none were lost. Even the smaller slipper tanks also apparently contributed to accidents as seen here

The text reads: "_To extend the VC's relatively short range, a cumbersome slipper tank could be fitted to the underside of the fighter..._"

It is quite another thing, in my opinion, to select this option as a baseline. This would allow enemies to adapt and form tactics to exploit the weaknesses. Dropping 20 mph of speed, along with what would obviously also include degradation of climb, turning, dive speed and acceleration, could negate any combat advantages that a Spit VIII or IX had, and drop it back down into the realm of a Spit V... and we do remember what happened with Spit V and Fw 190s in 1942?

Top speed for a Spit V was around 360-370 mph, an early Fw 190 around 390 mph. A speed difference of 20-30 mph in other words, which was sufficient to successfully "boom and zoom" against the Spits. Spit IX had a top speed around 400 - 410 mph at altitude, Spit VIII up to 414, while the later model Fw 190As and D models had top speed of ~410-420 mph with boost, and late model Bf 109G up to 426 mph. Dropping that Spit IX down to 380 or 390 might put it right back into that vulnerable side of the envelope.


As for the feasibility of even flying with all the extra fuel, it's notable that for the ferry flight from Gibraltar to Malta (with 170 gal slipper tanks) the Spits had to have all but two machine guns removed and an extra oil tank added to the nose.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## RCAFson (Aug 20, 2019)

Schweik said:


> It's one thing to accidentally engage with your drop tank still on, because you didn't have time to drop them or because they were stuck etc., and survive it with a little luck and perhaps a situational advantage (spotting the enemy first, while above them for example), this also happened with P-51s and P-47s and P-38s etc., it was somewhat possible to fight anyway but it was not considered ideal. It is also true that with the fuel tanks on Allied fighters frequently got into trouble.
> 
> For example here is an example of a Spit Vc being lost in an engagement with Fw 190s over Nice, France on 8 Feb 1944 because the slipper tank caught fire. Six Spits engaged two Fw 190s and lost 3 in total, claiming one but apparently none were lost. Even the smaller slipper tanks also apparently contributed to accidents as seen here
> 
> ...





Yeah, the only Spitfire V ever shot down by an FW190 was due to carrying a 90IG slipper tank...LoL. C'mon, this is no longer a rational argument. It's exactly the same as claiming the Mustang or P-47 was useless because some were lost while carrying drop tanks.

The slipper tanks are drop tanks and can be released if needed, at up to 300mph IAS (= ~420mph TAS at 20Kft) and the idea for LR bomber escort is to use the 30 or 45IG DT along with wing mounted torpedo DTs rather than the 90IG tank. Although a Spitfire with a rear fuselage tank and a 90IG DT is still a potentially useful way to fly rendezvous escort missions over the portions of the bomber route that are nearer to the UK.

The 170IG slipper had 4x the drag of the 90IG slipper, and was very aerodynamically inefficient and meant strictly for ferry missions, OTOH the USAAF modded Spitfire IXs flew the Atlantic carrying full armament.

If the Spitfire is used as a LR escort and the Luftwaffe engages the escort rather than the bombers then the escort is serving it's purpose.

Reactions: Disagree Disagree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Aug 20, 2019)

RCAFson said:


> I guess you missed
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You missed, the bit about clipping the wings if using the fuselage tanks and reducing effective combat altitude to 20/25 thou feet, overstressing the airframe if using underwing tanks, keeping your speed up over hostile territory, safety in having large numbers of escorts, development life cycle, having lots of excess power available, to name but a few.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## RCAFson (Aug 20, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> You missed, the bit about clipping the wings if using the fuselage tanks and reducing effective combat altitude to 20/25 thou feet, overstressing the airframe if using underwing tanks, keeping your speed up over hostile territory, safety in having large numbers of escorts, development life cycle, having lots of excess power available, to name but a few.



The use of clipped wings and rear fuselage tanks are independent of one another.

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


----------



## Kevin J (Aug 20, 2019)

RCAFson said:


> The use of clipped wings and rear fuselage tanks are independent of one another.


Not if carrying bombs, I imagine drop tanks would have same wrinkling effect on wings if fuselage tanks used.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## RCAFson (Aug 20, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> Not if carrying bombs, I imagine drop tanks would have same wrinkling effect on wings if fuselage tanks used.



The wing torpedo tanks are not meant to be flown in dive bomber missions. The USAAF was able to fly two Spitfire 9s with rear fuselage tanks, and twin 62IG wing DTs and full armament across the Atlantic and the aircraft were then throughly tested in the UK with no problems due to wing load. 

If you have a source stating that rear fuselage tanks could only be used on clipped wing Spitfires, I hope you can share it with us.


----------



## Kevin J (Aug 20, 2019)

RCAFson said:


> The wing torpedo tanks are not meant to be flown in dive bomber missions. The USAAF was able to fly two Spitfire 9s with rear fuselage tanks, and twin 62IG wing DTs and full armament across the Atlantic and the aircraft were then throughly tested in the UK with no problems due to wing load.
> 
> If you have a source stating that rear fuselage tanks could only be used on clipped wing Spitfires, I hope you can share it with us.



Someone's put the info up on here already, as for the American tests, it's all in the Spitfire Escort document about the airframe being overstressed. Look, even the Spitfire XVIII W


RCAFson said:


> The wing torpedo tanks are not meant to be flown in dive bomber missions. The USAAF was able to fly two Spitfire 9s with rear fuselage tanks, and twin 62IG wing DTs and full armament across the Atlantic and the aircraft were then throughly tested in the UK with no problems due to wing load.
> 
> If you have a source stating that rear fuselage tanks could only be used on clipped wing Spitfires, I hope you can share it with us.



It's all on here, mate. Just go back reading everything again.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## RCAFson (Aug 20, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> Someone's put the info up on here already, as for the American tests, it's all in the Spitfire Escort document about the airframe being overstressed. Look, even the Spitfire XVIII W
> 
> 
> It's all on here, mate. Just go back reading everything again.



Sorry, I don't see it.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (Aug 20, 2019)

If I may interject here. The clipping of the wings was due to the impact of having the increased internal fuel tanks and a full bomb load as mentioned in my earlier message. Clearly the tanks were fitted before the clipping of the wings was found necessary. The evidence is as follows:-

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## RCAFson (Aug 20, 2019)

Glider said:


> If I may interject here. The clipping of the wings was due to the impact of having the increased internal fuel tanks and a full bomb load as mentioned in my earlier message. The evidence is as follows:-
> 
> View attachment 549505



Thanks. However, as I stated before, the wing DTs would not used for divebombing style sorties where a combination of high speed dives and high speed pullouts with bombs in place occur, as typically the Spitfire nose has to to be raised prior to bomb release, to ensure adequate prop clearance. The memo does seem to indicate, though, that Spitfires were being flown with the rear fuselage tanks in place and full of fuel. 

Wing DTs would be released prior to engaging in combat and so the above is not relevant.


----------



## Glider (Aug 20, 2019)

RCAFson said:


> Thanks. However, as I stated before, the wing DTs would not used for divebombing style sorties where a combination of high speed dives and high speed pullouts with bombs in place occur, as typically the Spitfire nose has to to be raised prior to bomb release, to ensure adequate prop clearance. The memo does seem to indicate, though, that Spitfires were being flown with the rear fuselage tanks in place and full of fuel.
> 
> Wing DTs would be released prior to engaging in combat and so the above is not relevant.



Re you comment '_the wing DTs would not used for divebombing style sorties where a combination of high speed dives and high speed pullouts with bombs in place occur_' I would have thought it was pretty blindingly obvious that you are not going to carry wing drop tanks with bombs in place. It's either bombs or drop tanks.

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


----------



## RCAFson (Aug 20, 2019)

Glider said:


> Re you comment '_the wing DTs would not used for divebombing style sorties where a combination of high speed dives and high speed pullouts with bombs in place occur_' I would have thought it was pretty blindingly obvious that you are not going to carry wing drop tanks with bombs in place. It's either bombs or drop tanks.



I think it is obvious to you and me and that the wing DTs are meant to be released prior to combat, just as on the Mustang.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Aug 20, 2019)

Glider said:


> Re you comment '_the wing DTs would not used for divebombing style sorties where a combination of high speed dives and high speed pullouts with bombs in place occur_' I would have thought it was pretty blindingly obvious that you are not going to carry wing drop tanks with bombs in place. It's either bombs or drop tanks.



I'm not convinced that you could put anything under the wings, either bombs or drop tanks, if you have a fuselage full of fuel and a bomb or slipper under the fuselage, without clipping the wings. The Brits rejected the American mod because the airframe was overstressed, to me that means the wings. I agree you're not going to dive bomb someone with drop tanks but that Spitfire wing was pretty thin. Let's be frank, you could put a 29 gal tank behind the pilot and a 170 gal slipper on so it can't be the fuselage with the overstressing problem.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## RCAFson (Aug 20, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> I'm not convinced that you could put anything under the wings, either bombs or drop tanks, if you have a fuselage full of fuel and a bomb or slipper under the fuselage, without clipping the wings. The Brits rejected the American mod because the airframe was overstressed, to me that means the wings. I agree you're not going to dive bomb someone with drop tanks but that Spitfire wing was pretty thin.



I quoted the UK evaluation of the USAAF mods and the test flights were fine ( A Critical Analysis of the RAF Air Superiority Campaign in India, Burma and Malaya in 1941-45 ) We have to remember that the Mk IX airframe was basically the same as a Mk V, which in turn derived from the MK II. Whereas the MK VII/VIII airframe was reworked for greater strength. 

But lets look at a long duration, high altitude, mission with a rear fuselage tank, two wing DTs and a 45IG DT.

TO on main tanks (15IG), switching to rear tank, to drain it to 1/2 full (-35IG). Switch to wing DTs, which are dropped when empty or contact is made with the enemy. At the point of contact, the Spitfire VIII has ~150IG in internal fuel and a 45IG DT and about is about ~400lb under the weight of the Spitfire loaded with 120IG fuel and 1000lb of bombs . (Mustang would be at about 160IG of internal fuel at this point) and about 1000lb under the weight of a Mk XIV with a full bomb load.


----------



## Kevin J (Aug 20, 2019)

RCAFson said:


> I quoted the UK evaluation of the USAAF mods and the test flights were fine ( A Critical Analysis of the RAF Air Superiority Campaign in India, Burma and Malaya in 1941-45 ) We have to remember that the Mk IX airframe was basically the same as a Mk V, which in turn derived from the MK II. Whereas the MK VII/VIII airframe was reworked for greater strength.
> 
> But lets look at a long duration, high altitude, mission with a rear fuselage tank, two wing DTs and a 45IG DT.
> 
> TO on main tanks (15IG), switching to rear tank, to drain it to 1/2 full (-35IG). Switch to wing DTs, which are dropped when empty or contact is made with the enemy. At the point of contact, the Spitfire VIII has ~150IG in internal fuel and a 45IG DT and about is about ~400lb under the weight of the Spitfire loaded with 120IG fuel and 1000lb of bombs . (Mustang would be at about 160IG of internal fuel at this point) and about 1000lb under the weight of a Mk XIV with a full bomb load.



No read that escort document again, it says that the Spitfire airframe is overstressed, but it doesn't say where.


----------



## RCAFson (Aug 20, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> I'm not convinced that you could put anything under the wings, either bombs or drop tanks, if you have a fuselage full of fuel and a bomb or slipper under the fuselage, without clipping the wings. The Brits rejected the American mod because the airframe was overstressed, to me that means the wings. I agree you're not going to dive bomb someone with drop tanks but that Spitfire wing was pretty thin. Let's be frank, you could put a 29 gal tank behind the pilot and a 170 gal slipper on so it can't be the fuselage with the overstressing problem.



I'm replying twice because there's two factors here. You provided a link where it was shown that a Spitfire V was shot down while carrying a 90IG slipper tank:



> Wednesday, 9 February 1944
> Pilots of the 52nd Fighter Group's 4th Squadron *undertook a bombing sweep* against shipping off the
> southern France coast during the afternoon, but as they completed their attacks they were engaged by
> what they described as being "four in-line engine FW 1905" off Nice. They had actually come up against
> ...



So we have Spitfire V (Vc Trops BTW) with a 90IG DT and, presumably 2 x 250lb bombs under the wings... This is about the same weight as a non-trop Vc aircraft would carry if it had a 75IG rear tank and twin internal (25IG total) wing tanks, which seems to suggest that a Vc could have been fitted with a 200IG of internal fuel and a 90IG slipper tank for long range escort duty. possibly during the Schweinfurt raids.


----------



## Schweik (Aug 20, 2019)

Remind me where in that passage is says those were 90 gallon tanks?


----------



## slaterat (Aug 20, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> No read that document again, it she that the Spitfire is overstressed, but it doesn't say where.



The American test is for a Spit MK 9 not a Spit 8.

If a Mustang gets bounced its going to shed its wing tanks as fast as a Spitfire, many of those tanks were made of paper. We do know that the Hurricane could carry self sealing wing tanks stressed for combat and the Spitfire could carry self sealing slipper tanks stressed for combat. What options does the Mustang have?


----------



## Schweik (Aug 20, 2019)

That it could fly 1,000+ miles on internal fuel, at over 300 mph? So it didn't need to fight with the tanks?

And that it was used as a long range escort in the real world as opposed to in certain peoples imagination?

The idea of fighting with the tanks still on by the way came from RCAFs post. As a reminder, he wrote:



RCAFson said:


> This was essentially the same logic used for P-51 missions, as it also had CG problems with the rear fuselage tank full. So we have our Spitfire with185IG of internal fuel on TO and 150 IG of fuel remaining after TO and climb on the rear tank to restore CoG to safe limits. *A 30 or 45IG combat slipper tank is retained during combat for a effective 180/195 IG of internal fuel after the wing torpedo tanks are released prior to combat. *This was completely achievable with existing mods to Spitfires except for the wing mounted DTs and that could have been done with little effort.
> 
> It wasn't done because there wasn't any specific customer for such a mod, and there wasn't sufficient production capacity to provide the USAAF with sufficient Spitfires for them to mod them. However, if the Spitfire was license built in North America, then the USAAF would probably have gone ahead with it, especially if the Mustang was never ordered by the BPC.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Aug 20, 2019)

RCAFson said:


> I'm replying twice because there's two factors here. You provided a link where is was shown that a Spitfire V was shot down while carrying a 90IG slipper tank:
> 
> 
> 
> So we have Spitfire V (Vc Trops BTW) with a 90IG DT and, presumably 2 x 250lb bombs under the wings... This is about the same weight as a non-trop Vc aircraft would carry if it had a 75IG rear tank and twin internal (25IG total) wing tanks, which seems to suggest that a Vc could have been fitted with a 200IG of internal fuel and a 90IG slipper tank for long range escort duty. possibly during the Schweinfurt raids.



With the 170 IG slipper plus 114 IG internal there is 284 IG, armament was reduced to 2 LMG. So why? Is there something adversely affecting the wings with all that fuel in the fuselage?

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## RCAFson (Aug 20, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Remind me where in that passage is says those were 90 gallon tanks?



The only mention of slipper tanks in that book is for the 90IG type which were supplied to USAAF Spitfires. But we can be certain that it was a 90IG tank because it still had fuel in it, where the 30 and 45IG tanks would have been empty by the time the squadron reached the French coast.


----------



## RCAFson (Aug 20, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> With the 170 IG slipper plus 114 IG internal there is 284 IG, armament was reduced to 2 LMG. So why? Is there something adversely affecting the wings with all that fuel in the fuselage?



Yes, and as I stated earlier it was drag. The 170IG tank had 4 times the drag of the 90IG tank. Additionally, these were MkV Trops.


----------



## RCAFson (Aug 20, 2019)

Schweik said:


> That it could fly 1,000+ miles on internal fuel, at over 300 mph? So it didn't need to fight with the tanks?
> 
> And that it was used as a long range escort in the real world as opposed to in certain peoples imagination?
> 
> The idea of fighting with the tanks still on by the way came from RCAFs post. As a reminder, he wrote:



I stated that the slipper tank (and ideally this would a 30 or 45IG slipper) could be retained in combat because it was stressed for combat and was SS. I've stated over and over that the wing tanks would be dropped ASA contact with the enemy occurred.


----------



## BiffF15 (Aug 20, 2019)

RCAFson said:


> I stated that the slipper tank (and ideally this would a 30 or 45IG slipper) could be retained in combat because it was stressed for combat and was SS. I've stated over and over that the wing tanks would be dropped ASA contact with the enemy occurred.




RCAFson,

I realize this is an exercise in “what if” and the trouble shooting/ problem solving associated with that endeavor.

With that in mind I will share a line of thought and ask a question or two. First, thoughts on combat with drop tanks. While I can’t verify what the line guys were taught or the expectation was in combat I can make a few assumptions. 

My background is mostly F-15A/C model (air to air versions), just shy of 2700 hours in type, Instructor Pilot (IP) with 106 combat sorties over Iraq. The question of when to jettison tanks, which ones, and under what circumstances was openly debated and ebbed / flowed a bit during the 17 years I flew the plane.

When entering the combat arena one must have situational awareness (SA) on the mission (offensive counter air AKA sweeps, defensive counter air or protection of something that isn’t moving (air base, city, ship, etc) or escort). Each has its drivers with escort being focused on effective use of time on station. That means cruising at a speed that allows quick acceleration to combat speed, at an effective distance from the asset you are protecting, while minimizing fuel use to prolong time on station or in actual fights.

With that in the open one must know when to jettison tanks and the ramifications for doing so. Do it to early and your time on station drops below what’s desired. To late and you have lost the offensive and are going to finish the war in a POW camp or worse, pay for your error with your or someone else’s life. The Eagle had two different quality tanks. Ones suitable for training, and others for basically combat or ferrying only.

When entering an engagement with high SA, one has the initial luxury of deciding when to jettison the last of the tanks (assumption is the wing tanks are punched off at power up). With high SA, and superior numbers I would be comfortable fighting with a centerline external tank. If my SA dropped, more enemy aircraft entered the fight, or I perceived there was a chance of going neutral (in other words prior to going defensive) that tank would be gone. I also have the benefit of years of flying fighters that those kids did not. Also I might have a unique point of view but a self sealing jettisonable fuel tank means it will with stand gunfire? Okay, why does a guy still have it on if he is being shot at? The self sealing part is an oxymoron. You did give some excellent examples of guys fighting with external tanks. In a MkXIV with its monster motor and huge performance advantage over just about everything else I can see it. Or in a very benign fight. Otherwise I think it’s a performance detriment at least and disaster at worst. Think Tommy McGuire. I also have literally hundreds of engagements experience to fall back on to help me determine MUCH earlier when things are turning against me as well as knowledge / discipline to not do something that rapidly puts me on the defensive. Those kids did not have that. I’m sure there were guys who were quick learners and well above average SA, but the program was pointed towards a guy with more “normal “ skills and capabilities. 

The long and short of it is please be very leery of thinking a guy will routinely fight with external tanks on.

Okay here are the questions I have. 

1. What airspeeds/altitudes were you planning for the outbound leg, the escort leg, and the return leg? If I’m not mistaken the Mustang guys had three different speeds (probably four speeds as the RTB could be with or without drop tanks). 

2. Is your outbound / rendezvous leg direct to the rejoin point, or does it vary to make it more difficult to determine (by the enemy) where the rejoin will occur? This obviously eats up range since it’s not direct or a straight line. I’m under the impression this is how the US escorts operated.

Lots covered. I apologize if covered things you already understand, I was just attempting to build a level foundation.

Cheers,
Biff

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


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 20, 2019)

RCAFson said:


> and it could have been modded to carry wing torpedo DTs, as the USAAF proved



The "mods" as proved by the USSAF would have required modified landing gear, to a greater or lesser degree. And quite possibly some beefed up structure. Neither are impossible, but the extent of the modifications are unknown.

P-51a routinely took off using, I believe, the left wing tank, switched to the rear tank to use up some of the fuel (post war, we may be comparing postwar P-51 restrictions to wartime Spitfire restrictions?) then switched to one or the other drop tanks (which sometimes had to switched back and forth to maintain lateral balance) when either combat was joined or the drop tanks were empty they were dropped and fuel switched to one of the wing tanks.
On the P-51D (post war) they wanted the pilot to keep some fuel in the rear tank (25 US gallons) until landing. Post war they also placarded the rear 85 gallon tank at 65 gallons.


I am not sure what the dive proves or disproves or why Gs in a pull out count different than Gs in a turn?
The post war manual for the P-51 says 

"Combat Maneuvers should never be attempted when the fuselage tank contains more than 25 gallons of fuel, as the tail heavy condition could cause a reversal of control stick forces during any abrupt maneuver *approaching 6.75G*. At this point, forward pressure is needed to prevent the pull-out or turn from tightening up to the point were structural failure results. With the fuselage tank empty, stick forces are normal with slightly less pull force required above 6 G. However, a positive back pressure is needed up to maximum G load. "

On the next page in the section on diving under a WARNING banner it says that "The anti-G suit should be used with a constant 6 G pull-out."

During WW II the Mustang (before G suits) was being operated at what G rating in most combat turns????? there are always exceptions.

For sticking fuel tanks behind the pilot in the Spitfire please remember that there are 4 (or 4 1/2) different Spitfires. 

The single stage Merlin powered ones.

The ones with the two stage Merlin, several hundred pounds more engine and prop let you stick a few more things in the rear of the plane( one weight and loading chart has 72lbs of ballast in the tail of a MK IX before rear tanks are fitted)

The MK XII with the single stage Griffon weight only a bit more than the two stage Merlin and only about 100 built

the MK XIV and later with the two stage Griffon that was hundreds of pounds heavier than the two stage Merlin. 

The last of the 2 stage Griffon engines with counter rotating propellers.

While all of these planes need about the same center of gravity the increasing weight (and greater spread of the weights) meant a few more liberties could be taken with the later ones (which often got larger tail surfaces) as regards to weight placement. 

We have to be careful as to which planes and in what condition/s we are using for comparisons. 

I would also note that a dive bombing mission in which the bombs are released while the plane is pretty much traveling in a straight line (little additional G force) and once the bombs are gone a 4-6 G pull out is done is a bit different than trying to pull a 4-6 G turn in dog fight with external tanks still attached. 

I would also note that in my opinion a single encounter proves nothing. If single encounters could be relied on as predictors of future combat performance then the RAF should have stopped production of both the Hurricane and Spitfire after the 1st of June 1940 and built Avro Ansons instead 
Deadly Avro Anson 

There is little doubt in my mind that the range of the Spitfire could have been improved. The questions seems to be by how much, when, and would it be enough?
Escorting to the Ruhr should have been no problem, escorting past middle Germany may have been a lot harder.

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


----------



## RCAFson (Aug 20, 2019)

BiffF15 said:


> RCAFson,
> 
> I realize this is an exercise in “what if” and the trouble shooting/ problem solving associated with that endeavor.
> 
> ...



Lets state to begin with that there's several assumptions being made. The first is that LR high altitude escort fighters, based on the Spitfire MKVII/VIII are introduced in numbers in time for the Schweinfurt raids in Aug 1943. In August 1943 (and later) the performance of a Spitfire VII/VIII has to be compared to the fighters available to the Luftwaffe in the same time frame. 2ndly, Luftwaffe fighters flying Reich defence were also encumbered with a variety of external tanks and extra ordnance that effected their performance as well, so we can't fall into the trap of always comparing the best performing Luftwaffe fighters against that of a slipper tank encumbered Spitfire. If we look at a SpitV based LR escort fighter we have to bear this in mind as well.

AIUI SS was added to the slipper tank to help it withstand defensive fire from bomber rear gunner LMGs and maybe light shrapnel. WW2 SS tanks were not of much use against anything bigger than that. Additionally it was probably protection from tank leakage induced through stress on the tank seams during manoeuvre or simple defects. Slipper tanks were not considered as expendable as torpedo style tanks and the Pilot's Notes stress returning with them if possible.

We have to remember that in WW2 Allied bombers and fighters were built in the tens of thousands and were considered expendable, but fighters much more so than 4 engine bombers. If your Group draws the short straw and has to make the deepest penetration, you may have little choice but to keep the slipper tank and only drop it as a very last resort.

1) I don't have exact numbers, but as we've discussed the Spitfire had the same engine as a Mustang, so route planning could be essentially the same but with a ~10% reduction in cruise speed and the limitation that outward route planning has to be based upon smaller wing DTs than on the Mustang. This is where retaining the slipper tank, for as long as possible also makes things easier to equate to the historical 1944 route planning. Given the small wing DTs, I suspect that these would never be retained for more than a small portion of the return leg.

Our LR Spitfire starts with 200IG internal fuel, a 45IG slipper tank (ST) and two x 50IG DTs. TO, cruise climb to the French/Dutch coast to use the mandatory 50IG (TO on main, switch to rear Fuselage, burn 35IG for CoG reasons) So we reach the coast with the two DTs full, 150IG in internal fuel and 45IG in the ST. My educated guess is that the 100IG in the DTs is enough fuel for ~1.5 hrs at Max weak mixture, or about 450 miles @300mph TAS at 25-30k ft. 30K ft makes route planning easier because flak is not very effective at that altitude and interception from above is less likely. So the route plan has to intercept the bombers somewhere within a maximum of 450 miles flight distance from the French/Dutch coast. Given that Schweinfurt was about 300 miles from the coast, this provides a fair cushion for deceptive route plans.

2) This is somewhat answered above, and the total miles flown outbound cannot increase the distance to UK coastal airfields beyond the safe minimum fuel remaining after subtracting cruise and combat allowances along the rendezvous point. I suspect that about 100IG would be required to return from a mission to Schweinfurt (IE furthermost rejoin point).

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Aug 20, 2019)

You put those big slipper tanks on it, it handles like an overloaded truck, and even with that great big thing messing up your air flow, you still can't actually make it to the Regensburg and back at a realistic, safe speed - or even for the Pacific or CBI. 

It's a pipe dream, and that is why it was never done. Not because "they didn't need an escort fighter" they did, or "their bombers couldn't fly day missions" - they did. 

They were desperate for a longer range Spitfire through the whole war but the best they got was the Spit VIII and later equivalents (in terms of reach).

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Aug 20, 2019)

Some really good posts here so that's gonna be a tough act to follow but im thinking its not a matter of could the Spitfire be made into a long range escort yes or no but a matter of degree. The range of the Spitfire shurly could have been extended, probably substantially but it's going to be less and less feasible the more fuel is added. Cog issues , possibly just not enough room for internal fuel past a certain point?
So I'm thinking it could have been done. It's just a matter of to what degree.

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


----------



## RCAFson (Aug 20, 2019)

Schweik said:


> View attachment 549521
> 
> 
> You put those big slipper tanks on it, it handles like an overloaded truck, and even with that great big thing messing up your air flow, you still can't actually make it to the Regensburg and back at a realistic, safe speed - or even for the Pacific or CBI.


That's a 170IG slipper tank and was never intended for combat. Yes, it had 4 times the drag of the 90IG slipper.


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 20, 2019)

Trying to stick much fuel behind the cockpit of the Spitfire MK V seems like a non-starter. The Merlin 45 was about 260lbs lighter than than the Merlins used in the MK VIII and IX. Prop was probably lighter too. granted they used the larger radiators to help balance the two stage planes but unless you start using armoured air intakes or lead weights in the engine compartment putting a lot of fuel behind the cockpit of a MK V is going to get you into trouble a lot faster than the same amount of fuel in MK IX.

The US figured 419 US gallons in/on a Mustang was good for a 700 mile radius with all the _standard_ allowances. That 85 gallon rear tank was good for 225 miles. Without it and using a pair of 75 US gallon tanks the radius was 475 miles with 334 US gallons of fuel. 

Distances may be rounded to the nearest 25 miles. Fuel is not exact, while the Mustangs wing tanks held 92 gallons only 90 gallons was actually useable. 

The extra 65 gallons they stuck in the P-47 was good for 175 miles of radius. It improved the radius when using a pair of 150 gallon drop tanks from 425 miles to 600 miles. 

The chart might have been made to make the P-47 look good or it might be a coincidence. The return flight is figured at 210 mph IAS at 25,000ft and 210 mph IAS is just about the limit for a P-47 running max lean power (105gph) 

The extra 65 gallons was only worth about 100 miles of radius (125miles vs 225 miles) with no drop tanks as some of the fuel had to used in other parts of the flight aside from just the return. 


getting back to the Spitfire, if it needs 10% more fuel than the Mustang to do the same thing (and this may be an error) then it needs over 2000lbs more fuel than the 96 gallons in the main tanks for a 700 mile radius. adjsut as needed for shorter radius. Yes you burn off quite a bit on the way in but how much does the Spitfire really need to fight and then escape/withdraw at similar speeds and altitudes to the P-51???

A Mustang carrying 419 gallons of fuel was carrying just about 2500lbs of fuel. 2500lbs of fuel (or 2750lbs for the extra 10%) is a bit much for the Spitfire so the question is what was a reasonable amount of fuel and when.


----------



## RCAFson (Aug 21, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> Trying to stick much fuel behind the cockpit of the Spitfire MK V seems like a non-starter. The Merlin 45 was about 260lbs lighter than than the Merlins used in the MK VIII and IX. Prop was probably lighter too. granted they used the larger radiators to help balance the two stage planes but unless you start using armoured air intakes or lead weights in the engine compartment putting a lot of fuel behind the cockpit of a MK V is going to get you into trouble a lot faster than the same amount of fuel in MK IX.
> .



The Spitfire V was fitted with a 29IG fuselage tank for ferry purposes but this tank was installed at the top of the rear fuselage and so this was analogous to only having the the upper 40% of the 75IG tank full, which is what led to the CoG problems. I don't think we can rule out a rear fuselage tank, albeit with the same CoG limitations with full fuel.


----------



## PAT303 (Aug 21, 2019)

Schweik said:


> View attachment 549521
> 
> 
> You put those big slipper tanks on it, it handles like an overloaded truck, and even with that great big thing messing up your air flow, you still can't actually make it to the Regensburg and back at a realistic, safe speed - or even for the Pacific or CBI.
> ...



I think you are arguing for the sake of arguing, I suggest you read the links M Williams put up a page back, theirs evidence a plenty of Spitfires flying long range missions.

Reactions: Disagree Disagree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 21, 2019)

michael rauls said:


> Some really good posts here so that's gonna be a tough act to follow but im thinking its not a matter of could the Spitfire be made into a long range escort yes or no but a matter of degree. The range of the Spitfire shurly could have been extended, probably substantially but it's going to be less and less feasible the more fuel is added. Cog issues , possibly just not enough room for internal fuel past a certain point?
> So I'm thinking it could have been done. It's just a matter of to what degree.




I agree and that often quoted article does not help, burning up the rear fuselage tank/s on take-off-climb to op altitude is not a good solution. U the drop tanks for climb out and early cruise and save even 1/2 the rear tank for the flight home if it s true it does not degrade flight characteristics.


I was just looking at ATH and we really have to be careful about which version of which airplane we are using for our examples. late model P-51Ds got metal covered elevators (like late model Spits) and this changed high speed handling to the point where they changed the incidence of the horizontal stabilizer from + 1 1/2 degrees to + 1/2 a degree. this also changed the amount of stick pressure needed for some flight maneuvers or trim changes.

I would also like to bring up the British cautions about not flying the Spitfire with the rear tanks on instruments or in close formation. Just what was the weather/cloud cover over europe on many days during the bombing campaign? are we going from a daylight fighter to a only minor clouds fighter? Or the comments about it being tiring to fly? You want worn out pilots entering combat after 2-3 hours in the cockpit? shades of the frozen P-38 pilots.

Edit, everybody opened up formations when flying through cloud so I didn't mean to count that against the Spitfire.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 21, 2019)

PAT303 said:


> I think you are arguing for the sake of arguing, I suggest you read the links M Williams put up a page back, theirs evidence a plenty of Spitfires flying long range missions.


I looked at them, several of them have Spit XIVs with 90 gallon tanks flying about 2 hours give or take from take-off to landing. While quite useful it is hardly in the same league as flying to Schweinfurt is it?
The first one posted has a victory near the French town of Fleche is roughly the same distance as Paris depending on where in England you take off from.

There is no doubt that the 90 gallon tanks were used on operations, however the 90 gallon tank alone (or better said,_ in conjunction with standard fuselage tanks_) does not give the needed range for missions much past the Rhine.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Aug 21, 2019)

PAT303 said:


> I think you are arguing for the sake of arguing, I suggest you read the links M Williams put up a page back, theirs evidence a plenty of Spitfires flying long range missions.



I did indeed read them. As I already pointed out, some of those links and the speculative article about turning a Spit into a LR fighter were already quite familiar to me before this thread even started. Seems to be difficult for some of you guys to grasp that other people look at that data and come to completely different conclusions.

Since you offered an assessment of my mentality in this discussion, I'll do the same - I think a couple of you are caught up in wish-fulfillment fantasy.

Of course if you somehow strap enough fuel on to a Spitfire it can fly as long (or almost as long) as any other plane. Depending on the version it has basically the same engine as the Mustang -with enough fuel flowing through it and enough oil lubricating it, it will keep chugging along for the same amount of time on either airframe. So if you connect it to a supertanker you can fly around the world... fly to the moon if there was atmosphere to fly through.

The Mustang has some advantages due to it's rather freakishly low drag and the push from the exhaust etc., but the main difference here is the very reason the Spitfire was so great - it's thin wings and small body. It was an agile dogfighter and an interceptor. This is why it has a great climb rate, turn rate, good combat speed and so on. But it _doesn't_ have a lot of room for fuel in those wings (it barely had room for big guns). That is really the problem.

And you can try to wiggle out of it by strapping ugly 'slipper' tanks to the bottom and stuffing some bags full fuel in parts of the wings, overloading rear fuselage tanks and so on. But if you do too much of that you are losing the elegant interceptor and creating something more like an overloaded delivery truck. Or a Fairey Fulmar.

If you degrade the performance sufficiently and require pilots to fight with those external boxes on the bottom, you no longer have a fighter with an advantage over the enemy planes. Your escorts are also going to have to chug along at relatively low speed and altitude and be vulnerable to being bounced on the way to the target. It defeats the purpose. And it _still_ didn't have the kind of range you really needed. THAT, and no other spurious reason, is why it wasn't done. If they could have done it they definitely would have.

No one fighter was good at everything. There is a bit of a paper / scissors / rock aspect to fighter design.

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


----------



## RCAFson (Aug 21, 2019)

Just for reference, here's some extracts from the June 1944 Mustang III Pilot's Notes:



> (iv) Aerobatics and spinning are permitted, except when
> carrying wing bombs or tanks, or when carrying fuel in
> auxiliary fuselage tank. See paras. 44, 46.
> Rolls of any sort should only be practised above 10,000
> ...


----------



## Schweik (Aug 21, 2019)

I don't think that it's a surprise to anyone here that the fuselage tank being full made Mustangs unstable... ?


----------



## RCAFson (Aug 21, 2019)

Schweik said:


> And you can try to wiggle out of it by strapping ugly 'slipper' tanks to the bottom and stuffing some bags full fuel in parts of the wings, overloading rear fuselage tanks and so on. But if you do too much of that you are losing the elegant interceptor and creating something more like an overloaded delivery truck. Or a Fairey Fulmar.
> 
> If you degrade the performance sufficiently and require pilots to fight with those external boxes on the bottom, you no longer have a fighter with an advantage over the enemy planes. Your escorts are also going to have to chug along at relatively low speed and altitude and be vulnerable to being bounced on the way to the target. It defeats the purpose. And it _still_ didn't have the kind of range you really needed. THAT, and no other spurious reason, is why it wasn't done. If they could have done it they definitely would have.
> 
> No one fighter was good at everything. There is a bit of a paper / scissors / rock aspect to fighter design.



You declaim the use of rear fuselage tanks on the Spitfire even when you have the data presented to you that the Mustang had exactly the same cautions whilst using the rear fuselage tank, yet they seemed do well in combat. The Spitfire VII/VIII had integral wing tanks as part of the design. Without the fuselage tank the Mustang carried only ~28IG more internal fuel than an Spitfire VII.

The 90IG ST caused a loss of 20mph on a Spit14 and the 30IG tank caused a loss of 14mph on a Spit9 and I'd guesstimate that the 45IG tank would cause a loss of about 15-16mph on a Spit9. This is less speed loss than with the twin DTs on a Mustang or Spit9 which must be released when in contact with enemy fighters, as the STs are fully stressed for combat manoeuvre. You do seem to argue for the sake of it rather than simply admitting that the ST had some advantages over a DT and that the loss of performance was small, in exchange for the ability to carry the fight to the enemy. I suspect that if LR escort Mustang pilots were offered another 90IG of fuel in exchange for a temporary loss of 20MPH that they would have happily used the slipper tank if it was technically feasible.


----------



## Schweik (Aug 21, 2019)

They did both have wing tanks, true...












As for arguing - it takes two to tango, or in this case more than two - I am hardly the only one here who disagrees with you mate. There are about three others posting in this thread not to mention the historical record which also defies your theory.

Both the Spitfire and Mustang have trouble flying with a full rear fuselage tank. The difference is that the Spitfire also needs to have a slipper tank and probably external wing tanks to get to the target, fight and fly back to base, whereas the Mustang can get there with drop tanks, using up the rear fuel tank and drop-tank gas on the way. And fly home on internal fuel (from the wing tanks). The Mustang can also keep up a much higher cruise speed both there and back.

Fighting with a slipper tank on I suspect causes more than a 15-20 mph speed loss - there would also be impact to climb, acceleration etc.. Even if speed was the only effect, I* do not agree that Mustang pilots would choose an extra 90 gallons of fuel for a 20 mph speed loss*. Speed was the only real advantage they had and was the trait their tactics depended on most. Mustangs were (usually) faster than their opponents and this enabled them to disengage. For the Spit it was more complicated. The Spitfire turned better and was generally more maneuverable, but speed was comparable or a little less than Fw 190 or late model 109, depending on variants of course. When close to parity on performance Spitfires had the edge.

But we know from the historical record if the Spitfire's performance dropped below a certain threshold compared to the 109 or (especially) the Fw 190, they suffered severe losses. Speed is life in air combat, and apparently in the mix of tactics used by the two (three) aircraft types, the Spit pilot very much needed his airplane to be within striking distance performance wise. In 1943 or later that meant the performance of a Spit IX, Spit VIII, or later mark... not a Spit VB or a Fulmar.

So I guess a big part of our debate hinges on precisely how much of a 'drag' (pun intended) the famous 'slipper tank' really was in combat. We do know that some aircraft scored victories with them still attached, and we know also that some were lost with these attached. Kevin mentioned something about 110s vs Spits but I couldn't find it. Probably more detail on this point might help us put this to rest, unless someone is arguing for the sake of it...

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Dan Fahey (Aug 21, 2019)

Side note here...!
The combatants all designed Combat planes suitable for their combat terrains. 
US and Japanese aircraft built with long range considerations.
Japan because of China, Korea and Pacific Ocean.
USA with a large continent and two oceans.

Europe thought in terms of the next country, including Russia..!
Planes tended short ranged though lighter and slightly more maneuverable.
Heck they fought each other for centuries.
Few considered another far away country could support a war from long distances.

Had the British relied on the Spitfire as a prime fighter they would have lost the war quickly.
It was a tough plane to build using fitment technology vs mass manufacturing.
Much like the Watch Maker Rolls Royce Merlin's...and a lousy engine as far as durability.

It was an outstanding aircraft but every plane builder could turn out 3 combat planes for every Spitfire.
Except for maybe the P-38 Lighting but it was a bomber sized fighter.

Three Hurricanes will shoot down one Spitfire in combat.
The Spitfire was never that much better than any other combat fighter aircraft.

I stressed this before...range and ability to hit at your opponent effectively from a distance was the winning formula.
All the combat planes had useful performance even if they were a generation younger than their opponent.
Late war Zero with seasoned pilots proved that fighting against British and US carrier group fighters off the coast of Japan.

Cost effectively and Performance wise the Mustang was the best most effective & versatile fighter in WW2.
IMHO should have developed the A and B/C/D Mustangs at the same time.
Would have filled a huge performance envelop.

The Mustang was used in every role including Bomber.
Lighten up became an interceptor !
You (Shoulda Coulda Woulda ) put the H-Tail on it and made a fine Carrier plane too.

WW2 was a short war that required everything built to be fault free quickly.
The unsung players of the war were the Engineers, Designers and Testers, some to their demise !

For all the wind about the Spitfire..
IMHO it was a bit player compared to other Combat Aircraft.

D


----------



## Schweik (Aug 21, 2019)

I don't agree about the Spitfire, there was a need in the war for different combat types. Not every aircraft could be a generalist. You needed escort planes and fighter-bombers and carrier fighters and you definitely needed interceptors especially early in the war. The Spitfire was the only fighter in the Allied arsenal through 1943 that could reasonably be claimed to be as good as, or arguably better than the German fighters. That mattered. And for the Battle of Britain I think you did need a purpose-built interceptor. Casualties were high enough as it is, the British could not have afforded three times more casualties.

The Rolls Royce Merlin was probably the best inline engine of the war, in my book. Only close comparison was the DB 600 series.

After all, it was the engine in the Mustang right?


----------



## Schweik (Aug 21, 2019)

Also they built ~20,000 Spitfires during the war so they must have figured out the demanding production requirements ...


----------



## RCAFson (Aug 21, 2019)

Schweik said:


> T
> Both the Spitfire and Mustang have trouble flying with a full rear fuselage tank. The difference is that the Spitfire also needs to have a slipper tank and probably external wing tanks to get to the target, fight and fly back to base, whereas the Mustang can get there with drop tanks, using up the rear fuel tank and drop-tank gas on the way. And fly home on internal fuel (from the wing tanks). The Mustang can also keep up a much higher cruise speed both there and back.
> 
> Fighting with a slipper tank on I suspect causes more than a 15-20 mph speed loss - there would also be impact to climb, acceleration etc.. Even if speed was the only effect, I* do not agree that Mustang pilots would choose an extra 90 gallons of fuel for a 20 mph speed loss*. Speed was the only real advantage they had and was the trait their tactics depended on most. Mustangs were (usually) faster than their opponents and this enabled them to disengage. For the Spit it was more complicated. The Spitfire turned better and was generally more maneuverable, but speed was comparable or a little less than Fw 190 or late model 109, depending on variants of course. When close to parity on performance Spitfires had the edge.



Total internal fuel on a Mustang was 221IG including all internal fuel tanks. Total internal fuel on a Mk VII/VIII with the rear fuselage tank was 200IG.

I earlier presented the data from a Spitfire IX with a 30IG slipper tank and here's a link to the full report:

Spitfire F Mk IX BF274 Test

Maximum speed drops from 404mph to 389mph. Time to climb to 20K ft increases by 30secs using normal climb power. As this report was being written boost levels were increased and maximum speed increased to 409mph.

This is from the report on the Mk XIV with a 90IG ST:



> The account below is taken from the report of the tactical trial
> of an early production Mark XIV, RB 179, flown by the Air
> Fighting Development Unit at Wittering in February and March
> 1944.
> ...



Depending on the opponent, the Mustang typically had more than a 40mph edge at high altitude (being the same speed as a Mk XIV) and losing 20mph in exchange for increased endurance equal to 35mins at full WEP seems like a fair trade.


----------



## Schweik (Aug 21, 2019)

"*As the Spitfire XIV has a very short range* it has been
assumed that when a long-range tank is to be carried, it is
most likely to be the 90 gallon tank rather than the 30 gallon or
45 gallon. "

Sounds like they must be talking about a different fighter than you have been eh? Very short range? Did they read all those reports?

The first series of tests you linked are for effects with a 30 gallon tank, and those are bad enough, showing a clear decline in performance

The above points out you needed a lot more fuel to make it a viable long range fighter, so 90 gallons is more likely.

Even the 30 gallon tanks drops the top speed for that Spit IX is down to 389 at 30,000 ft, and *365 mph at 20,000 ft *which is getting close to Spit V performance I'd say... and there was a corresponding decline in speed at lower power settings.

The report on the Spit XIV + 90 gal tank sounds like the 90 gal tank affects turning circle, climb, and acceleration. I'd sure bet stability as well. Still, it patriotically insists that this is still _way _better than a Fw 190 or Bf 109G, and maybe it is for specific versions, but peers of the Spit XIV included the Fw 190D-9 and the 109G-10 and 109K. Both I think are going to have a substantial performance edge over the older type Fw 190 and 109G. Bf 109K-4 is making 440 mph at WEP at 24,000 ft and an initial climb rate of 4,822 fpm. Spit XIV seems to have a slight performance edge even over the K-4 under normal flight conditions but with a 20 mph speed hit that would go away.

You need to bring your "A game" to handle the oppo that late in the war.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## BiffF15 (Aug 21, 2019)

RCAFson said:


> Total internal fuel on a Mustang was 221IG including all internal fuel tanks. Total internal fuel on a Mk VII/VIII with the rear fuselage tank was 200IG.
> 
> I earlier presented the data from a Spitfire IX with a 30IG slipper tank and here's a link to the full report:
> 
> ...




RCAFson,

Adding a 90IG ST to a MkXIV will also add drag. Yes you get more fuel, but how much range do you really get after the increased drag is taken into account, and at escort speeds?

Cheers,
Biff

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Aug 21, 2019)

Just to explore the speeds a bit further...






this shows Spit IX, Fw 190 A-5, A-3, and G-3, as well as a P-47 and some others for comparison.

Spit IX peaks at ~ 407 mph at about 22,000 feet and maintains close to that through 26,000

Fw 190A-5 peaks at ~ 410 mph at about 21,000 ft which drops below 400 at 23,000

So they have comparable speed, Fw has the fast roll rate and dive, Spit IX has a bit better altitude performance, climb and turns better etc. so it has an advantage.

The speeds on the charts you posted show slightly inferior performance (before slipper tank) for the Spit IX of 402 mph with 15.2 lbs boost at 27,400 ft and 380 mph at 20,000 ft. down to 15,000 ft.

With the 30 gal slipper tank, you get a 19 mph drop in top speed and a 15mph drop in speed at 20,000 ft. That is again, like I said putting it very close to Spit V performance, in fact it's a bit slower than test data for example here showing 372 mph at 20,000 ft for a Spit V, declining to 364 at 25,000 ft. In part, the Spit V suffered from declining performance at higher altitudes, which the two stage engine on the Spit IX largely alleviates, but it's worth pointing out that at that crucial height of 15-20k, where so many of the British bombers were cruising, *you have turned your thoroughbred Spit IX back into a Spit V.*

At 20,000 ft the Spit IX with the 30 gallon tank* has a 45 mph speed disadvantage against a Fw 190A-5. I say that spells doom, based on prior history.

(*not even the 90 gallon tank which per your report was probably more realistic)

Of course if they were unlucky enough to run into a Fw 190D-9 it's even worse.

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


----------



## pinsog (Aug 21, 2019)

.


----------



## RCAFson (Aug 21, 2019)

BiffF15 said:


> RCAFson,
> 
> Adding a 90IG ST to a MkXIV will also add drag. Yes you get more fuel, but how much range do you really get after the increased drag is taken into account, and at escort speeds?
> 
> ...



At the same throttle setting speed is reduced by about 20mph TAS, so at full power this would result in a ~5% decrease in range, compared to an additional 90IG internal fuel, and maybe ~7% at Max weak mixture and ~9% at Most economical,. 

For reference this is the effect of a 90IG ST on the MkV Trop:

_SpitV trop without / with 90IG ST
Time to 20,000ft 8 mins / 10 mins
Max speed @ 17,400ft 354mph / 337.5_
20K ft economical range 600 / 1230miles (unclear if with allowance for TO and climb)
_(M&S)_

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinsog (Aug 21, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Wow that's dark! No wonder all the revolutions so soon after the war.... I know Malaya went into a revolt very soon after right?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I may be wrong, but I believe the reason the British got 2 speed engines in the Martlet instead of the 2 stage engine the Wildcat had was due to there not being enough 2 stage engines available, not because that’s what the British wanted.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## RCAFson (Aug 21, 2019)

Schweik said:


> "*As the Spitfire XIV has a very short range* it has been
> assumed that when a long-range tank is to be carried, it is
> most likely to be the 90 gallon tank rather than the 30 gallon or
> 45 gallon. "
> ...



Are you interested in a serious discussion or just in making snide comments? The RAF knew full well that a Griffon Spitfire was short on range, which is why they developed a method of adding 90IG of external fuel that could be retained in combat (or not at the pilot's discretion), with only a minimal reduction in performance. Again, the Spit XIV proved superior to the 190 and 109 even with the 90IG ST and we are talking about mid 1943 not mid 1945. The thing to take away from this is that a Spitfire VIII with a 45IG ST is still going to compare well against the Luftwaffe in mid 1943 and while any escort fighter is better than none, a MKVIII with a 30/45IG ST is still a formidable aircraft in Mid 1943.

The Spit IX is going to be able to run at full overboost for 12/18mins with the 30 / 45IG tank, versus how long for the FW190A/109G? The small reduction in speed is balanced by the ability to use higher power, and as I stated earlier actual maximum speeds would be about 5mph faster so about 394 at 27400ft and 370 at 20K ft and again as I stated earlier Luftwaffe Reich defence fighters often carried DTs and/or extra ordnance so, in mid 1943, the numbers for the MK VIII/IX are still pretty good even with the ST attached.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## RCAFson (Aug 21, 2019)

pinsog said:


> I may be wrong, but I believe the reason the British got 2 speed engines in the Martlet instead of the 2 stage engine the Wildcat had was due to there not being enough 2 stage engines available, not because that’s what the British wanted.



The FAA specified single stage engines because they were lighter and more efficient at low altitude. 
The F4F-4B weighed about 300lb less than the -4 and a USN comparative trial stated _"...the difference in performance was very small, the F4F-4B being slightly superior in speed and climb at low altitudes and the F4F-4 slightly superior at 15000ft and above..._"


----------



## pinsog (Aug 21, 2019)

RCAFson said:


> The FAA specified single stage engines because they were lighter and more efficient at low altitude.
> The F4F-4B weighed about 300lb less than the -4 and a USN comparative trial stated _"...the difference in performance was very small, the F4F-4B being slightly superior in speed and climb at low altitudes and the F4F-4 slightly superior at 15000ft and above..._"


Apparently I was wrong. Thank you for the correction


----------



## RCAFson (Aug 21, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Just to explore the speeds a bit further...
> 
> 
> 
> With the 30 gal slipper tank, you get a 19 mph drop in top speed and a 15mph drop in speed at 20,000 ft.



The test data showed a 14mph drop in Vmax and a 10mph drop at 20k ft (15mph using lower gear or stage). You've read the data incorrectly as there are dual entries for some altitudes that are close to the supercharger gear and stage changes.

For reference a Mk VII HF was about 10mph faster than the MK IX F:

20k ft 400mph
26k ft 412mph
29.4k ft 424mph
(Price)


----------



## PAT303 (Aug 21, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> I looked at them, several of them have Spit XIVs with 90 gallon tanks flying about 2 hours give or take from take-off to landing. While quite useful it is hardly in the same league as flying to Schweinfurt is it?
> The first one posted has a victory near the French town of Fleche is roughly the same distance as Paris depending on where in England you take off from.
> 
> There is no doubt that the 90 gallon tanks were used on operations, however the 90 gallon tank alone (or better said,_ in conjunction with standard fuselage tanks_) does not give the needed range for missions much past the Rhine.



How far do they need to go?, no one is saying the Spit can match the P51 but if set up like this http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spitfire9-fuelsystem-lr.jpg they could cover a lot of territory.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Aug 21, 2019)

RCAFson said:


> The test data showed a 14mph drop in Vmax and a 10mph drop at 20k ft (15mph using lower gear or stage). You've read the data incorrectly as there are dual entries for some altitudes that are close to the supercharger gear and stage changes.



I was reading that directly from Table IV ("Level Speed Without 30 gallon tank ") and Table V ("Level Speed With 30 gallon tank ") here: Spitfire F Mk IX BF274 Test

Spit IX

20k without tank 380 mph
20k with tank 365 mph

That is 15 mph. And more importantly_ it's 365 mp_h which ain't fast enough for an escort in NW Europe.[/QUOTE]


----------



## PAT303 (Aug 21, 2019)

Schweik said:


> I was reading that directly from Table IV ("Level Speed Without 30 gallon tank ") and Table V ("Level Speed With 30 gallon tank ") here: Spitfire F Mk IX BF274 Test
> 
> Spit IX
> 
> ...


[/QUOTE]

Why the hang up on slippers?, put 30 gallons in the rear fuselage, or better yet 66 gallons, problem solved.


----------



## Schweik (Aug 21, 2019)

PAT303 said:


> Why the hang up on slippers?, put 30 gallons in the rear fuselage, or better yet 66 gallons, problem solved.



The problem is with any external tank, because there is a reason why miliatary airplanes in particular are made aerodynamic. The slipper tank, particularly the big one, decidedly isn't.

The rear fuselage tank would be Ok except that it causes severe stability issues in the Spitfire (and in a P-51)

What they really needed was a wing tank, a real one not that tiny one they used, but that would have required a new wing.

Which is where we started.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## RCAFson (Aug 21, 2019)

Schweik said:


> I was reading that directly from Table IV ("Level Speed Without 30 gallon tank ") and Table V ("Level Speed With 30 gallon tank ") here: Spitfire F Mk IX BF274 Test
> 
> Spit IX
> 
> ...


[/QUOTE]

And Vmax is down 14mph and is still 390+mph at 27.4k ft.


This is data from late 42-43 which fits well with our Aug 1943 Schweinfurt scenario, and it shows that even with a 30/45 ST a MkVII/MkVIII/IX HF will be faster than a typical 109G. 20k ft was close to the 109G's Vmax and right at the gear change point for the Merlin, so it's more than a bit misleading. In any event our Spitfire pilot can always choose to dump his ST, assuming he meets a 109G that's done the same, or isn't carrying extra ordnance.






Spitfire Mk IX versus Me 109 G - Flight Testing

Note the performance of the bomber killing 109G6 with gondola guns.
Again, remember that this is not 1945 that we're discussing.


----------



## RCAFson (Aug 21, 2019)

PAT303 said:


> Why the hang up on slippers?, put 30 gallons in the rear fuselage, or better yet 66 gallons, problem solved.



I'm not hung up on STs but they were a very inexpensive way to give the Spitfire a lot more fuel with only minimal performance loss during combat. Again, over Schweinfurst there were no Allied fighters so any fighter would be huge advantage for the 8th AF.


----------



## Schweik (Aug 21, 2019)

You are presuming (conveniently) that all LW fighters are going to be configured for taking down B-17s, but that is not what I understand to be the case - some were configured to attack bombers, others were configured to attack the fighter escort. To do otherwise would be suicidal.

So you can't assume that any interceptors are going to be laden down with heavy guns.

If the Spit were escorting Lancasters that would be at 20,000' or lower, not 'vmax'

Depending when in 1943 you will certainly find faster messerschmitts, but the problem for the ~ 360 mph Spit V was the Fw 190, and a Spit IX or VIII with a slipper tank is going to have the same problem, clearly.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## RCAFson (Aug 21, 2019)

Schweik said:


> You are presuming (conveniently) that all LW fighters are going to be configured for taking down B-17s, but that is not what I understand to be the case - some were configured to attack bombers, others were configured to attack the fighter escort. To do otherwise would be suicidal.
> 
> So you can't assume that any interceptors are going to be laden down with heavy guns.
> 
> ...



Why the fudge are you talking about Lancasters? We're discussing adding Spitfire escort fighters in time to cover the 8th AF raid on Schweinfurt.

There were no Allied fighters at Schweinfurt so the Luftwaffe was free to use TE night fighters and rocket lobbing JU-88s, along with underwing cannon 109Gs. These would have been slaughtered by the Spitfires, even with STs attached. To get above the escort fighters and gain advantage the Luftwaffe fighters needed to climb well above 25K ft, and even their best fighters are at a disadvantage at that altitude and above.


----------



## Schweik (Aug 21, 2019)

I guess it's a circular argument - they were using all the heavy cumbersome stuff at Schweinfurt because there were no escorts, but would they still send them in, without any normally configured fighters if they didn't? I think that is a bit unlikely. 

If your aim though is to be able to handle Ju 88s though then fine, you are probably safe there lol... just watch out for those Fw 190s


----------



## RCAFson (Aug 21, 2019)

Schweik said:


> I guess it's a circular argument - they were using all the heavy cumbersome stuff at Schweinfurt because there were no escorts, but would they still send them in, without any normally configured fighters if they didn't? I think that is a bit unlikely.
> 
> If your aim though is to be able to handle Ju 88s though then fine, you are probably safe there lol... just watch out for those Fw 190s



So the mere presence of the Spitfires has severely curtailed the Luftwaffe's firepower....thanks for pointing that out.

Again, if we trade Spitfire losses for B-17 losses, it's still a big win for the 8th AF.


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 21, 2019)

You really need to stop reading the history of WW II by M. A. Larkey



Dan Fahey said:


> Much like the Watch Maker Rolls Royce Merlin's...and a lousy engine as far as durability.



The Merlin was not a watchmaker engine, or else Packard and Ford of Englane would not have been able to turn them out by the 10s of thousands. 
If fact the Men from Ford of England complained that the tolerances were too loose. 
Durability is relative, The Merlin being much more durable than any German, Italian, French, Russian or Japanese engines. 
It is also evolving, a 1945 Merlin had about 40-50% more life than a 1939 Merlin despite making much more power. 




Dan Fahey said:


> IMHO should have developed the A and B/C/D Mustangs at the same time.



Would have been a real great idea, had they access to a time machine to get a 2 stage Merlin engine in 1940 or 1941, of course they would also have needed the 1942/43 fuel in 1940.early 1941 to get the two stage Merlin to work like it did in 1943.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Airframes (Aug 21, 2019)

It's worth noting that the slipper tank (and other types) were normally jettisoned after crossing the coast of Europe, the tank being used first, during form-up, and subsequent RV with the bomber formation.
If Spitfires were on a fighter sweep ( i.e. not escorting), the tank may have been retained until empty, but either way, _*any*_ external tank would be jettisoned before encountering enemy aircraft, and would certainly_* not*_ be retained during combat.


----------



## Kevin J (Aug 21, 2019)

Big question. Why the Schweinfurt raid in August 1943? Wait until September 1943, then you have 3 squadrons of P-38H in ETO, 8 squadrons of Spitfire VIII in MTO, and 2 squadrons of Spitfire VII in ETO. So providing you redeploy the Spitfire VIII from the MTO should give you your 150 fighters to escort the Schweinfurt mission. Problem solved.

Want to do it again, don't do it in October, wait for the P-38J to arrive. Do it in December. Problem solved.

So the second big question is, were the VIII Air Force trying to prove that 'the bomber will always get through' before the arrival of suitable escorts?

Anyway, back to the CBI. Spitfire IX / XVI with wing and rear fuselage tanks would have come in very handy in 1945 in Burma. The degradation of performance carrying ST insignificant as these Spitfires significantly outclassed the Ki-43. Instead of flying over contested airspaces they would have been flying over trees so better ranges could have been achieved.

N.B. The Spitfire XVIII with strengthened wing, and both wing and rear fuselage tanks was only used in the Far East, albeit post-war.

Forget the Spitfire V/IX with rear fuselage tanks. It wasn't going to happen at that stage of the Spitfires development life cycle. The best you could hope for in 1943 would be allowing the fitment of the 29 IG rear fuselage tank giving IMO a combat radius of 312.5 miles over hostile territory for the Spitfire VII/VIII, 270 miles for the Spitfire IX carrying the 90 IG ST.

So you could have either P-47D and / or Spitfire IX escort to Aachen, Spitfire VII, Aachen to Koblenz, P-38H from Koblenz to Schweinfurt.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 21, 2019)

PAT303 said:


> How far do they need to go?, no one is saying the Spit can match the P51 but if set up like this http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spitfire9-fuelsystem-lr.jpg they could cover a lot of territory.




I don't know how far they _needed_ to go but someone in this thread is talking about escorting the Schweinfurt mission/s which is over 400 miles one way,
Even using relays so one fighter group doesn't have to fly the whole way that is a fair distance, a distance that P-51s would have needed a pair of 75 gallon drop tanks and no rear fuselage tank (334 US gallons) to do ( and that barely allows for a dog leg or two) or P-47s with 305 gallons inside and 300 gallons outside. 

Set up in the drawing is 220 Imp gallons or 264 US gallons. This is a considerable increase over normal Spit MK 9s but if the Spit needs 10% more fuel (?) to go the same distance at the same speed then the Spit needs over 50 Imp gallons more than the drawing shown for a radius of 450-475 miles. 

And once again, it is not the total amount of fuel, it is the fuel left after what ever external tanks were used are punched off, and the internal fuel drawn down to acceptable flying characteristics (33 gallons?), figured against 15-20 minutes of combat power (5 minutes WEP and 10-15 minutes at military or rated power) and then the trip from Schweinfurt (or other similar distance target) to the channel at about 210mph* IAS *at over 20,000ft, at the channel they can start descending and slowing down. You still need 20-30 minutes fuel at most economic after reaching the English coast. a bit more if the fighter base is not right on the coast.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 21, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> Instead of flying over contested airspaces they would have been flying over trees so better ranges could have been achieved.



This is one of the big differences between ranges/radius in the CBI (or south pacific ) and NW Europe. If they weren't flying over trees they were flying over water, altitudes did not have to be nearly as high and ingress and egress speeds could be much lower at distances around 50-75 miles from the target instead of high cruise speed being maintained for hundreds of miles.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Stig1207 (Aug 22, 2019)

Dan Fahey said:


> Three Hurricanes will shoot down one Spitfire in combat.



That very much depends on the situation.



Kevin J said:


> Wait until September 1943, then you have 3 squadrons of P-38H in ETO



Have to wait longer than that; the 55th FG were only operational from mid-October, and they weren't called on to provide escort for even the 2nd Schweinfurt raid.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Dan Fahey (Aug 22, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> You really need to stop reading the history of WW II by M. A. Larkey
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I read a ton on the Merlin Engine...it was coined the Watch Makers Engine.
Because it had so many little parts and before Packard engines were handmade.
You could not easily interchange parts from one engine to another.

Was not until Ford and Packard shut down the arrogance of Merlin.
Who thought their engines were built with high tolerances.
Packard redesigned the drawings so it could be manufactured and made identically. 
Did their best not to redesign the engine and oil and cooling system.
Though made many improvements, used better materials especially the horrible bearings.
Packard double the life of the Merlin yet would never be an Allison.

The Allison was key making the venerable P40 into a great aircraft.
Did not have need all the work arounds. 
Allison was just a much tighter engine platform and took half as long to rebuild.
Because it had half the parts and progressed to be a better platform as the war progressed. 

D


----------



## Dan Fahey (Aug 22, 2019)

Schweik said:


> I don't agree about the Spitfire, there was a need in the war for different combat types. Not every aircraft could be a generalist. You needed escort planes and fighter-bombers and carrier fighters and you definitely needed interceptors especially early in the war. The Spitfire was the only fighter in the Allied arsenal through 1943 that could reasonably be claimed to be as good as, or arguably better than the German fighters. That mattered. And for the Battle of Britain I think you did need a purpose-built interceptor. Casualties were high enough as it is, the British could not have afforded three times more casualties.
> 
> The Rolls Royce Merlin was probably the best inline engine of the war, in my book. Only close comparison was the DB 600 series.
> 
> After all, it was the engine in the Mustang right?


Over the course of the war 20k Spitfires were built.
The plane that got to fight the most was the Hurricane.
As an engine foundation the Merlin was and expensive time consuming engine to build.
What made the Merlin was one thing..
....some brilliant person designed a 2 speed 2 stage Supercharger that was fault free.
Allison built a better single speed SC and coulda should had a British one adopted.
Except for NIMBY and other reluctance for other reasons to to make one.

Once the TurboCharger issues were solved on the P38.
Then the reliability of the airframe come on to its own with an improved combat record.

Spitfire took a back seat to the Mustang. 
In fact every fighter plane eventually did. 
Few counties after WW2 bought Spitfires up.
The Italian Fighters and British Fury were more desired. 
The French liked the P63 and Grumman Aircraft 
The late Spitfire marks were Spitfire in name only.
Mk22 in Korea was a horrible carrier plane.

To give you some Boxing terms...
The Spitfire was a 4 round fighter..done and gassed out in 5th round!
The Mustang a 12 round fighter.and venerable for another round if necessary.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Aug 22, 2019)

Dan Fahey said:


> I read a ton on the Merlin Engine...it was coined the Watch Makers Engine.



By people who did not understand how it was made.




Dan Fahey said:


> Because it had so many little parts and before Packard engines were handmade.
> You could not easily interchange parts from one engine to another.



Not true. 

Ford UK was one of the contractors to build the Merlin, and it is true they tightened the tolerances for manufacture.

The only engines that were hand made were in Rolls-Royce's own experimental department.




Dan Fahey said:


> Was not until Ford and Packard shut down the arrogance of Merlin.
> Who thought their engines were built with high tolerances.



The story is that Rolls-Royce thought Ford UK could not make the Merlin because the tolerances were too tight, but Ford said they were too loose.

This was before Packard was involved (or Ford US, who the BPC first approached).




Dan Fahey said:


> Packard redesigned the drawings so it could be manufactured and made identically.



Packard redrew the drawings to US standards so their fitters could make the parts. 

Rolls-Royce drawings were in 1st angle, US standard was 3rd angle.




Dan Fahey said:


> Did their best not to redesign the engine and oil and cooling system.



Huh?

As they were contracted to manufacture the engine and not design them, they would not have been allowed to redesign the engine without permission.

As it was, Packard was the first to introduce the two piece block, Rolls-Royce having to delay their changeover due to production and, you know, trying to win the fucking war.

Packard introduced their own system for connecting the block cooling passages to the cooling passages in the head. But they changed back to the definitive Rolls-Royce solution later.




Dan Fahey said:


> Though made many improvements, used better materials especially the horrible bearings.



The improvements they made weren't that many. 

The materials were, mostly, the same. Except where they couldn't get the same as what Rolls-Royce used.

They used some US parts, because it was convenient - such as the carburettor. 

The two stage engines used a different supercharger drive system - but Packard did not design it. From what I understand, it was done by Wright. (Rolls-Royce Merlins and the single stage V-1650-1 used a Farman type gear drive, for which a royalty had to be paid to Farman. Maybe this is why it was ditched in US production.)

That the bearing material that Packard used was better than the one Rolls-Royce used, does not make the original bearings "horrible".




Dan Fahey said:


> Packard double the life of the Merlin yet would never be an Allison.



No, they really didn't.




Dan Fahey said:


> The Allison was key making the venerable P40 into a great aircraft.
> Did not have need all the work arounds.
> Allison was just a much tighter engine platform and took half as long to rebuild.
> Because it had half the parts and progressed to be a better platform as the war progressed.
> D



The parts count may be not as big an advantage for the Allison as you think. Many of the extra parts in a Merlin were fasteners, used to secure covers, such as the cam covers.

The Allison never did get on the same performance terms as the Merlin, mainly because the supercharger wasn't as good.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Aug 22, 2019)

If only the Air Ministry had told Rolls-Royce to put the Merlin 61 into the Miles M20 and ordered mass production. The Merlin powered Mustang would have been unnecessary and the RAF could have provided escorts for the US VIII from the start.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Aug 22, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> If only the Air Ministry had told Rolls-Royce to put the Merlin 61 into the Miles M20 and ordered mass production. The Merlin powered Mustang would have been unnecessary and the RAF could have provided escorts for the US VIII from the start.



Actually, I was being half serious, if you look at that power egg on the M20, it doesn't provide much extra boost from the engine exhaust. So, replace it with a Merlin 61 with individual exhausts and put a Mustang style radiator underneath to take advantage of the Meridith effect. Now would we then have a fighter with twice the internal fuel of a Hurricane and the speed of a Spitfire? Any takers on this idea?


----------



## PAT303 (Aug 22, 2019)

Schweik said:


> The problem is with any external tank, because there is a reason why miliatary airplanes in particular are made aerodynamic. The slipper tank, particularly the big one, decidedly isn't.
> 
> The rear fuselage tank would be Ok except that it causes severe stability issues in the Spitfire (and in a P-51)
> 
> ...



Again you are arguing for the sake of arguing, who cares where the fuel is, there is plenty of room in the rear fuselage and by the time you are at 25,000ft and set up for cruise it's down around 30G so instability is a mute point. You seem determined to make a non issue a major one.

Reactions: Optimistic Optimistic:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## PAT303 (Aug 22, 2019)

RCAFson said:


> I'm not hung up on STs but they were a very inexpensive way to give the Spitfire a lot more fuel with only minimal performance loss during combat. Again, over Schweinfurst there were no Allied fighters so any fighter would be huge advantage for the 8th AF.



I agree with you but why stuff around, just put a rear tank in, even if it's just 40G plus add a slipper as required.


----------



## Kevin J (Aug 22, 2019)

PAT303 said:


> I agree with you but why stuff around, just put a rear tank in, even if it's just 40G plus add a slipper as required.



40 IG and a slipper isn't going to get you there and back over hostile territory. If we could flood out the entire North German plain first than that would help. The La Palice raid was 370 miles radius, the East Timor raid was 445, both were over water with little chance of interception.


----------



## Dan Fahey (Aug 22, 2019)

wuzak said:


> By people who did not understand how it was made.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Called the Watchmakers engine by those who built and rebuilt the Merlin


----------



## michael rauls (Aug 22, 2019)

Dan Fahey said:


> Side note here...!
> The combatants all designed Combat planes suitable for their combat terrains.
> US and Japanese aircraft built with long range considerations.
> Japan because of China, Korea and Pacific Ocean.
> ...


While its true 3 Hurricanes are better than one Spitfire something to consider is can you pruduce 3 competent pilots to fly them and 3 times the fuel, parts etc. I don't know the answer to that something to think about.


----------



## BiffF15 (Aug 22, 2019)

Dan Fahey said:


> Called the Watchmakers engine by those who built and rebuilt the Merlin




Dan,

Do you have any sources used to get to your opinion?

Cheers,
Biff


----------



## Schweik (Aug 22, 2019)

PAT303 said:


> Again you are arguing for the sake of arguing, who cares where the fuel is, there is plenty of room in the rear fuselage and by the time you are at 25,000ft and set up for cruise it's down around 30G so instability is a mute point. You seem determined to make a non issue a major one.



It only seems that way PAT because you aren't paying attention. Go back and read the past few pages. The Spit couldn't get there and back on internal fuel alone, if it could there would be no argument. The scenario under discussion (escorting a Schweinfurt raid) is regular (in front of the cockpit) tanks, + rear tanks + slipper tank + probably wing-mounted external tanks too.

"Who cares where the fuel is" is relevant only to the issue of how much can you fit, and how much can you fit _inside_ the airframe vs. outside. Any fuel you can fit inside the airframe has no effect on drag. Outside means it's going to cause drag plus extra problems in dogfighting.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Aug 22, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> Actually, I was being half serious, if you look at that power egg on the M20, it doesn't provide much extra boost from the engine exhaust. So, replace it with a Merlin 61 with individual exhausts and put a Mustang style radiator underneath to take advantage of the Meridith effect. Now would we then have a fighter with twice the internal fuel of a Hurricane and the speed of a Spitfire? Any takers on this idea?



The M.20 seems like a really neat and promising design, but was the extra fuel capacity related to the fixed undercarriage? Wheels and wheel struts seem to take up a lot of that wing space...

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Dan Fahey (Aug 22, 2019)

BiffF15 said:


> Dan,
> 
> Do you have any sources used to get to your opinion?
> 
> ...



Here you go !

The Packard Merlin: How Detroit Mass-Produced Britain’s Hand-Built Powerhouse - Tested.com

Few engines throughout history have achieved a near mythical status among its admirers. Fewer still can share credit for the rescue of an entire nation. Perhaps only the Rolls-Royce Merlin engine can claim both distinctions. During the Battle of Britain, it was the Merlin that powered the Royal Air Force Hurricanes and Spitfires that were England’s only effective defense against German air attacks. With the battle won, and the engine’s reputation thus established, the Merlin would become the stuff of legend and the powerplant of choice for numerous other aircraft.

Even before the 1940 air battles over England, it was apparent that demand for the Merlin was far outpacing Rolls-Royce’s ability to produce them. The Ford Motor Company was asked to build 9,000 Merlins for both England and the US. Ford initially accepted the deal, but later reneged. Henry Ford explained that he would only produce military items for US defense. Interestingly, Ford of Britain in Manchester, England ultimately produced 36,000 Merlin engines, beginning at the same time period. Of course, Ford’s American factories would indeed become vital to the war effort. They manufactured unfathomable quantities of airplanes, jeeps and other war materiel--but not Merlins.

*Two Countries Divided By A Common Language*

There are many obvious challenges posed by producing a British-designed engine in America. Just the task of converting all of the measurements from metric imperial to US Standard units was daunting enough. This job was made even more difficult by the unprecedented complexity of the Merlin. The 1,649 cubic inch V-12 engine is comprised of more than 14,000 individual parts (knoll that!). It was, and still is, often called *“a watchmaker’s nightmare.*

Engineers at Packard soon discovered that Rolls-Royce did not design the Merlin for mass-production. The manufacturing tolerances were much looser than Packard’s standards. This was because Rolls-Royce had never implemented mass-production techniques to their assembly lines. Rather, they employed highly-trained “fitters” to assemble the engines. The fitters filed or otherwise massaged individual parts to achieve a precise fit. They even tightened critical bolts by trained feel, rather than with calibrated torque wrenches. In effect, each Rolls-Royce-manufactured Merlin was a hand-built engine that reflected the company’s traditions of premium quality and craftsmanship.


----------



## Dan Fahey (Aug 22, 2019)

michael rauls said:


> While its true 3 Hurricanes are better than one Spitfire something to consider is can you pruduce 3 competent pilots to fly them and 3 times the fuel, parts etc. I don't know the answer to that something to think about.



YES you always train pilots to be competent or they are washed out or dead..


----------



## michael rauls (Aug 22, 2019)

Dan Fahey said:


> YES you always train pilots to be competent or they are washed out or dead..


No I meant did they have the capacity to train that many more pilots to the same degree in the same amount of time.


----------



## Schweik (Aug 22, 2019)

Six Hurricanes wasn't necessarily useful against two Bf 109F


----------



## Kevin J (Aug 22, 2019)

Schweik said:


> The M.20 seems like a really neat and promising design, but was the extra fuel capacity related to the fixed undercarriage? Wheels and wheel struts seem to take up a lot of that wing space...



Yes, something like that.


----------



## Schweik (Aug 22, 2019)

I wasn't trying to be flip, I like the M.20 as a design, I really do think it was quite promising. What I mean is, as a quick fixed undercarriage design it had extra space in the wings because the wheels didn't retract. Could they put in retractable wheels and still have space for fuel in the wings? If so ... it seems like it could have been a great fighter and a good alternative to or replacement for the Hurricane...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Dan Fahey (Aug 22, 2019)

michael rauls said:


> No I meant did they have the capacity to train that many more pilots to the same degree in the same amount of time.



YES !! or you went to the Army unless trained as an Engineer, Mechanic or other educational qualities.


----------



## Schweik (Aug 22, 2019)

Dan Fahey said:


> YES you always train pilots to be competent or they are washed out or dead..



The reality is that in the early days of WW2 quite a few Allied pilots were pretty hastily trained in terms of actual fighter combat. They usually had pretty good basic flight training but quite often little or no marksmanship, formation flying, or air combat maneuvering training. Many went into combat unaware of the specific flight envelope of the aircraft they were fighting in, some went into action within days of their first flight in a real fighter.


----------



## Kevin J (Aug 22, 2019)

Schweik said:


> I wasn't trying to be flip, I like the M.20 as a design, I really do think it was quite promising. What I mean is, as a quick fixed undercarriage design it had extra space in the wings because the wheels didn't retract. Could they put in retractable wheels and still have space for fuel in the wings? If so ... it seems like it could have been a great fighter and a good alternative to or replacement for the Hurricane...



IIRC there was a paper project with a retraction system like the P-35.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Aug 22, 2019)

I think my comment in reply to Dans" 3 Hurricanes are better than one Spitfire "are being universally misunderstood.
I meant 3 Hurricanes may by better but without the capacity to build 3 times the planes, train 3 times the pilots, produce 3 times the fuel etc. the point is mute.
My bad for not making that clear.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Aug 22, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> IIRC there was a paper project with a retraction system like the P-35.



Compared to a Mustang, internal fuel tankage was higher ( without rear fuselage tanks ), dive speed was 450 not 525 mph, speed with Merlin XX was 345 ( actual ) not 393 ( projected ) mph. With Mustang style radiator perhaps 20 - 30 mph faster, and of course it's made of wood, so can you safely operate it in the tropics?


----------



## rednev (Aug 22, 2019)

YES !! or you went to the Army unless trained as an Engineer, Mechanic or other educational qualities .

The Germans and Japanese must have missed that memo


----------



## RCAFson (Aug 22, 2019)

I found this in: Ethell's Mustang, a documentary history of the P-51 but then found it on Mike Williams' site:




> TACTICAL COMPARISON WITH SPITFIRE IX





> 14. A very close comparison can be made because the engines are of very similar design and capacity. The tactical differences are caused chiefly by the fact that the Mustang III is a much cleaner aircraft, is slightly heavier, and has a higher wing loading than the Spitfire IX (43.8lbs. per sq.ft of the Mustang III. against 31 lbs. Per sq.ft)
> 
> Endurance
> 15. The Mustang III with maximum fuel load has between 1.5 and 1.75 the range of a Spitfire IX with maximum fuel load. The fuel and oil capacities are 154 gallons and 11.2 gallons respectively, as opposed to 85 gallons 7.5 gallons of the Spitfire IX, both without long-range tanks. With long range tanks, the Mustang can carry a total of 279 gallons of petrol (2 62.5 gall. long range tanks) as opposed to the Spitfire IX’s maximum of 177 gallons (1 90 gall. "Slipper tank").
> ...



If we look at a Spitfire VII/VIII (especially the HF) we note that the internal fuel comparison is 124IG versus 150IG for the Mustang, and these Spitfires narrow the gap slightly in terms of speed. It would have been interesting to compare the Spitfire XIV with the 90IG slipper tank to the Mustang and to a Mustang with the rear fuselage tank 1/3 full.


Ethell makes it clear that the speed improvement over the Spitfire was due to the Mustang's overall low drag design, especially the wings. He states emphatically that the radiator and cooling design of the Mustang was not a factor and that the Mustang did not benefit from the "Meredith effect".

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## RCAFson (Aug 22, 2019)

*The Slipper Tank Advantage*​
Mustang with 2 x 62.5IG DTs:




> COMBAT PERFORMANCE WITH LONG-RANGE TANKS
> Speed





> 52. There is a serious loss of speed of 40-50 mph at all engine settings and heights. It is, however, still faster than the FW.190 (BMW.801D) above 25,000 ft. Although slower than the Me.109G.
> 
> Climb
> 53. The rate of climb is greatly reduced. It is outclimbed by the FW.190 (BMW.801), Me.109G and FW.190 (DB.603).
> ...



Spitfire XIV and 90IG ST:



> COMBAT PERFORMANCE WITH 90 GALLON LONG-RANGE TANKS





> 50. As the Spitfire XIV has a very short range it has been assumed that when a long-range tank is to be carried, it is most likely to be the 90 gallon tank rather than the 30 gallon or 45 gallon. Pending further instructions, no drops or trials have been carried out with the 30 gallon or 45 gallon tanks. The aircraft's performance with either can be estimated from the results given below of trials with the 90 gallon long-range tank.
> 
> Drops
> 51. The aircraft was fitted with assistor springs as for the Spitfire IX. Two drops were made with empty tanks at 50 ft and 25,000 ft, A.S.I. 250 mph, with no trouble. Cine photographs were taken and show the tank dropping quite clear of the aircraft. Further trials would be necessary to check these results thoroughly.
> ...



So the 90IG ST causes a loss of ~20mph on the Spitfire whereas twin 62.5IG DTs cause a loss of ~45mph on the Mustang.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## RCAFson (Aug 22, 2019)

How Mustang Range was Calculated:








This is from Ethell and was drawn from USAAF sources. The stated cruise conditions are not very strenuous. Theoretically a stock Spitfire VIII with a 90IG slipper would have about a 325 mile radius using the above assumptions.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Aug 22, 2019)

Dan Fahey said:


> Here you go !
> 
> The Packard Merlin: How Detroit Mass-Produced Britain’s Hand-Built Powerhouse - Tested.com
> 
> ...



You don't think there is a bit of patriotic chest thumping there?

Comparing parts counts between the Allison and the Merlin has to take into account the fact that Rolls-Royce used a multitude of small fasteners in places where Allison used a smaller number of large fasteners.

Packard Merlins were all 2 speed engines (apart from the experimental -11), compared to most V-1710s which were single speed. That meant extra gears, clutches, shafts, fasteners.

The statement "Just the task of converting all of the measurements from metric imperial to US Standard units was daunting enough" shows that the article is not entirely accurate. They originally stated metric, but changed it to imperial, which means they are saying it was a difficult job for Packard to convert the drawings from inches to inches.


----------



## Dan Fahey (Aug 22, 2019)

Schweik said:


> The reality is that in the early days of WW2 quite a few Allied pilots were pretty hastily trained in terms of actual fighter combat. They usually had pretty good basic flight training but quite often little or no marksmanship, formation flying, or air combat maneuvering training. Many went into combat unaware of the specific flight envelope of the aircraft they were fighting in, some went into action within days of their first flight in a real fighter.



In early days nobody had any real fighter combat but had good enough training that fought on near equal terms. Reading about New Guinea and Guadalcanal. We actually did an outstanding job against the Japanese. The P-39 was an effective dive bomber and low altitude fighter. Credited for saving Guadalcanal strafing Japanese positions. They did a lot more than shoot down planes.

Did an evaluation of Pearl Harbor and Philippines. Just a 15 minute warning before Japanese planes struck. Enough of our combat planes would have created a different result. They were trained enough to do substantive damage, just based off what few fighters got off the ground. Battle of Midway was another good example despite losing most of our Fighters. They still caused a good 20+% loss or out of action of Japanese aircraft.

But then again most pilots perished in all countries with a good percentage becoming aces. So the Training process in all countries typically recruited the ones that were quick learners. The Education systems at the time in the US recruited heavily from the Colleges and noted brilliant High School students. In 1940 the US Army became our largest public education system, Navy not far behind. US had the option of bringing back experienced combat pilots back to the states to help the training processes. Something that none of the other combatants had. Japan tried a bit of that with their surviving combat pilots. Biggest issue with the Axis opponents they had little fuel for training but somehow managed to train a good batch of new pilots into competent flyers.


wuzak said:


> You don't think there is a bit of patriotic chest thumping there?
> 
> Comparing parts counts between the Allison and the Merlin has to take into account the fact that Rolls-Royce used a multitude of small fasteners in places where Allison used a smaller number of large fasteners.
> 
> ...



If you read further...and other material....most everything was being moved to SAE standards. Rolls Royce did not want to go that route. Hense since there were no US suppliers to provide them all the fasteners were made in-house at Packard. As for engineers most of us have egos but fascinated how other engineers come up with solutions. US and Brits worked very hard on agreeing to the many upgrades, improvements and changes to the Merlin. Allowing a 1000hp Designed engine to exceed 2000hp. When a upgrade was approved both sides implemented the change. It was amazingly smooth. 

In fact Rolls Royce engineers gave Allison some good solutions for their supercharging issues they were having and thumbed their noses up. But that was the Allison Management not the engineers. 

The Allison was a much better stronger cost efficient platform than the Merlin...dominated the low mid Altitude combat scene.


----------



## wuzak (Aug 22, 2019)

Dan Fahey said:


> If you read further...and other material....most everything was being moved to SAE standards. Rolls Royce did not want to go that route.



Most everything of what was going to SAE standards? The British aero engine industry before and during WW2?

The fact is that the Merlin was designed in Britain and was in production in Britain prior to Packard making a single Merlin. To change to SAE threads to suit one factory over sevaral others does not seem like a war winning production strategy. 

They had to maintain the same fasteners so there was interchangeability with UK built engines.

Packard Merlins for US consumption used SAE spline output shafts to fit with US propellers. UK engines all had SBAC spline output shafts.

Remembering that it was 1942 before Packard started making engiines in any sort of quantity.




Dan Fahey said:


> Hense since there were no US suppliers to provide them all the fasteners were made in-house at Packard.



Yes, they had to make their own fasteners, which I doubt was a big deal. 




Dan Fahey said:


> US and Brits worked very hard on agreeing to the many upgrades, improvements and changes to the Merlin. Allowing a 1000hp Designed engine to exceed 2000hp. When a upgrade was approved both sides implemented the change. It was amazingly smooth.



Pretty much all the major upgrades were developed by Rolls-Royce and then implemented across the factories.




Dan Fahey said:


> In fact Rolls Royce engineers gave Allison some good solutions for their supercharging issues they were having and thumbed their noses up. But that was the Allison Management not the engineers.



When did Rolls-Royce engineers have anything to do with Allison? And why would they?




Dan Fahey said:


> The Allison was a much better stronger cost efficient platform than the Merlin...dominated the low mid Altitude combat scene.



Yes, the Allison V-1710 was a good, solid design.

Don't know about it being more "cost efficient" and I doubt it could be claimed that the V-1710 "dominated the low mid Altitude combat scene".

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 23, 2019)

Nope.

Miles M20




The Merlin XX was pretty much the same engine as the V-1650-1 used in the P-40F.
Granted shifting 306lbs worth of radiator and coolant to the rear of the plane vs the chin helps balance the longer heavier Merlin 61 engine.

The plane as it stood was slower than a Hurricane II using the same engine, it was a lot slower than the P-40F using the same basic engine.
Wiki says 154 imp gallons of fuel which is not double what the Hurricane carried but a bit over 60% , Wiki could be wrong.
A P-40f carried about 123 IMP gallons of fuel in the internal tanks.

The Miles M 20 was designed so fast because they used a Lancaster (and Beaufighter) "power egg". change the engine and change the radiator location (and add retracting landing gear) and you are changing things considerably.


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 23, 2019)

Dan Fahey said:


> US and Brits worked very hard on agreeing to the many upgrades, improvements and changes to the Merlin. Allowing a 1000hp Designed engine to exceed 2000hp. When a upgrade was approved both sides implemented the change. It was amazingly smooth.



Actually RR had a very good idea that the basic engine would survive power in the high teens (1500-1800hp) due to work on the engine for the Speed Spitfire record attempt plane. 
That power level was achieved using a special racing fuel but they did it at time when the Allison was lucky to break 1000hp (late 1938 and early 1939) 
Yes a few minor tweaks were needed to really get the reliability RR wanted but over 10 hours on the test stand at those power levels and peak output of over 2000hp showed there were no fundamental flaws in the Merlin engine. 

It would have been stupid for Packard to try to make the Merlin to SAE standards when the main customer (the British) wanted as much intercanagbility as possible with the British built engines. And indeed in North Africa the British gave the US up to 600 engines (many used) to help the US overhaul the engines in the P-40F & L, something that would not have worked had the engines been built to different standards. 
It also would have been stupid for the US to try to redesign the Merlin in 1943 to SAE standards with the hit to production that would have entailed or the problems of setting up 2nd production line with the British still getting British standard engines and the US getting the SAE engines. 

Please note that the lead in fuel swapped back and forth just a bit. British using 87 octane (rich number unknown but quite possibly higher than US 87 octane or even 91 octane?) 
US went to 100 octane first but the Under 2% aromatic fuel had no rich rating or no improvement in rich response while the British 100 octane not less than 20% aromatic fuel offered the performance of 100/115-120 in the later rating numbers. The US specified a 125 PN number fuel but quickly changed to a joint specification of 100/130 with the British. 

It was this fuel that allowed much higher pressures (and temperatures) inside the cylinder that allowed the engines to make so much more power than when they started.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Informative Informative:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Aug 23, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> Actually, I was being half serious, if you look at that power egg on the M20, it doesn't provide much extra boost from the engine exhaust. So, replace it with a Merlin 61 with individual exhausts and put a Mustang style radiator underneath to take advantage of the Meridith effect. Now would we then have a fighter with twice the internal fuel of a Hurricane and the speed of a Spitfire? Any takers on this idea?



What makes you think the radiator doesn't gain from some of the Meredith Effect?

So, you take a Merlin 61 and put it into the Miles M20 and get the speed of a Spitfire V? IX? XIV? I'm going to go with the speed of a Spitfire V.

Meanwhile, you are taking a Merlin 61 away from an actual Spitfire IX.

Where's the advantage in that?


----------



## wuzak (Aug 23, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> Actually RR had a very good idea that the basic engine would survive power in the high teens (1500-1800hp) due to work on the engine for the Speed Spitfire record attempt plane.
> That power level was achieved using a special racing fuel but they did it at time when the Allison was lucky to break 1000hp (late 1938 and early 1939)
> Yes a few minor tweaks were needed to really get the reliability RR wanted but over 10 hours on the test stand at those power levels and peak output of over 2000hp showed there were no fundamental flaws in the Merlin engine.
> 
> ...



Just to add that when Packard were struggling to get the V-1650-3 into volume production in 1943 Rolls-Royce were developing the 65/66 (which would become the V-1650-7 in US production) and by mid 1943 were attempting to run the Merlin 66 at +18psi boost for 100 hours continuously, succeeding in late 1943. This was part of the development of the 100 series, a version of which would become the Packard V-1650-9.

By early 1944 Rolls-Royce were working on the RM.17SM, which was rated at 2,200hp in MS gear and 2,100hp @ 15,000ft in FS gear. Notably this was without ADI, which the V-1650-9 used to get similar ratings. The RM.17SM was flight cleared for 2,380hp.


----------



## Kevin J (Aug 23, 2019)

Correction. The M20 had twice the fuel of the Hurricane after take off, climb to height and forming up for combat. The objective is to have in service by 1943 a single seat, single engine fighter escort for the USAAF for the Schweinfurt raids. So first individual exhaust ejectors should bring the speed up to 350-360 mph for the 1941/42 timeframe and 2x 62.5 IG drop tanks should bring range up to 1840 miles. For 1942/43, install Merlin 61/63/66, shift the radiator a la Mustang under the fuselage, 33 IG rear fuel tank, 2x 75 IG underwing drop tanks, range 2210 miles, speed a la Spitfire. So fuel load and performance should be sufficient for Schweinfurt raids. For 1944/45, put second 33 IG fuel tank in rear fuselage, use 90 IG tanks and range goes up to 2650 miles, so Iwo Jima to Tokyo and back so that we can help the Yankees out again as they would never have built the Mustang.


----------



## wuzak (Aug 23, 2019)

You're expecting 20-30mph from the ejector exhausts?


----------



## Kevin J (Aug 23, 2019)

wuzak said:


> You're expecting 20-30mph from the ejector exhausts?



I'm expecting a performance 3% down on the P-40F/L because of the fixed undercarriage, or 5% up on the prototype M20.


----------



## Kevin J (Aug 23, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> Correction. The M20 had twice the fuel of the Hurricane after take off, climb to height and forming up for combat. The objective is to have in service by 1943 a single seat, single engine fighter escort for the USAAF for the Schweinfurt raids. So first individual exhaust ejectors should bring the speed up to 350-360 mph for the 1941/42 timeframe and 2x 62.5 IG drop tanks should bring range up to 1840 miles. For 1942/43, install Merlin 61/63/66, shift the radiator a la Mustang under the fuselage, 33 IG rear fuel tank, 2x 75 IG underwing drop tanks, range 2210 miles, speed a la Spitfire. So fuel load and performance should be sufficient for Schweinfurt raids. For 1944/45, put second 33 IG fuel tank in rear fuselage, use 90 IG tanks and range goes up to 2650 miles, so Iwo Jima to Tokyo and back so that we can help the Yankees out again as they would never have built the Mustang.



The Canadians build the M20, the Americans end up building the P-38K and the P-40Q.


----------



## wuzak (Aug 23, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> The Canadians build the M20, the Americans end up building the P-38K and the P-40Q.



Still don't know why you'd build the P-40Q. You already have the P-51B/D/H and P-47D/M/N (and the P-38K in your scenario) by that time.


----------



## Kevin J (Aug 23, 2019)

wuzak said:


> Still don't know why you'd build the P-40Q. You already have the P-51B/D/H and P-47D/M/N (and the P-38K in your scenario) by that time.



The Brits by building the M20 have built the perfect army cooperation fighter with its fixed undercarriage so the Mustang never gets built.


----------



## wuzak (Aug 23, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> The Brits by building the M20 have built the perfect army cooperation fighter with its fixed undercarriage so the Mustang never gets built.



The Mustang was not designed for army cooperation.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Milosh (Aug 23, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> *The Canadians build the M20*, the Americans end up building the P-38K and the P-40Q.



They did???


----------



## Kevin J (Aug 23, 2019)

Milosh said:


> They did???


They would have had to without the Mustang.


----------



## PAT303 (Aug 23, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> 40 IG and a slipper isn't going to get you there and back over hostile territory. If we could flood out the entire North German plain first than that would help. The La Palice raid was 370 miles radius, the East Timor raid was 445, both were over water with little chance of interception.



96G main, 66 or 75G rear, 26G wings, 50 or 90G dropper, fixed.


----------



## PAT303 (Aug 23, 2019)

Schweik said:


> It only seems that way PAT because you aren't paying attention. Go back and read the past few pages. The Spit couldn't get there and back on internal fuel alone, if it could there would be no argument. The scenario under discussion (escorting a Schweinfurt raid) is regular (in front of the cockpit) tanks, + rear tanks + slipper tank + probably wing-mounted external tanks too.
> 
> "Who cares where the fuel is" is relevant only to the issue of how much can you fit, and how much can you fit _inside_ the airframe vs. outside. Any fuel you can fit inside the airframe has no effect on drag. Outside means it's going to cause drag plus extra problems in dogfighting.



Get where?, the Spit could carry 197G internally plus dropper, that covers every square inch of enemy territory as far as Dortmund, including the Ruhr.


----------



## Kevin J (Aug 23, 2019)

PAT303 said:


> 96G main, 66 or 75G rear, 26G wings, 50 or 90G dropper, fixed.


So? Not in 1943, it was 96 main, 36 wing, 30/45/90 slipper.


----------



## Kevin J (Aug 23, 2019)

PAT303 said:


> Get where?, the Spit could carry 197G internally plus dropper, that covers every square inch of enemy territory as far as Dortmund, including the Ruhr.


Eventually, in 1945.


----------



## Kevin J (Aug 23, 2019)

PAT303 said:


> Get where?, the Spit could carry 197G internally plus dropper, that covers every square inch of enemy territory as far as Dortmund, including the Ruhr.



In 1943, the Spitfire VII/VIII had max fuel of.221 IG, on 225 the Mustang had a combat radius of 325/350 miles. Say 10% less for the Spitfire. Even if you add the Spitfire Vc Trop rear fuselage tank of 29 IG, that's only going to get you back to the Mustang's combat radius. Schweinfurt is another 100 miles.


----------



## PAT303 (Aug 23, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> In 1943, the Spitfire VII/VIII had max fuel of.221 IG, on 225 the Mustang had a combat radius of 325/350 miles. Say 10% less for the Spitfire. Even if you add the Spitfire Vc Trop rear fuselage tank of 29 IG, that's only going to get you back to the Mustang's combat radius. Schweinfurt is another 100 miles.



It's enough to cover the Ruhr Battle of the Ruhr - Wikipedia


----------



## PAT303 (Aug 23, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> Eventually, in 1945.



Rear tanks plus DT's were introduced from the MkV in '41.

Reactions: Disagree Disagree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Aug 23, 2019)

PAT303 said:


> Rear tanks plus DT's were introduced from the MkV in '41.


Rear tank was introduced in 1942.


----------



## Kevin J (Aug 23, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> Rear tank was introduced in 1942.


No, only used on Vc Trop in late 42.


----------



## Kevin J (Aug 23, 2019)

PAT303 said:


> It's enough to cover the Ruhr Battle of the Ruhr - Wikipedia



Battle of the Ruhr, March to July 1943. By September 1943, 2 squadrons of VII and 8 squadrons of VIII available. It's not a goer.


----------



## Dan Fahey (Aug 23, 2019)

Was not trying to get emotional about SAE rated fittings..
Every country was moving to these standards because there were so many custom designed parts.
SAE started because of consensus of pitch shape depth strength of materials yields of fasteners.
Moving to SAE fitting would have made the Merlin easier less costly to build.
It was just a decision to not to do that as the topic also lead to redesign of the whole engine.
Like with other programs tools and jigs had to be custom made to manufacture those parts..

I know about developing SAE standards working on a program decades ago to get what engineering design SAE certified.
Merlin did adopt some SAE standard and processes like how and what to tighten each bolt.

Topic two....Merlin engineers did offer a solution to Allison Engines.
Allison was struggling to put the engine in the F82 and make enough power but having severe backfiring problems.
You can dig this up reading about F82.

Take time to view building schematics of the Merlin and Allison.
Allison was just a much better design. Starting with half the parts.
Rebuilds were quick compared to a Merlin.
It had Roller Rockers, much better oiling System and was just cleaner engine.
Like the Merlin got useful upgrades as RPM and power increased.
The Allison could go to 1500 hours before rebuild.
Few Merlin got past 500 hrs...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Dan Fahey (Aug 23, 2019)

wuzak said:


> Still don't know why you'd build the P-40Q. You already have the P-51B/D/H and P-47D/M/N (and the P-38K in your scenario) by that time.



Widen the flight performance as they were still using and shipping the P40 to combat theaters to end of war.
Would have even been a better ground attack fighter than the P47.


----------



## Kevin J (Aug 23, 2019)

Dan Fahey said:


> Widen the flight performance as they were still using and shipping the P40 to combat theaters to end of war.
> Would have even been a better ground attack fighter than the P47.



If us Brits buy the M20, isn't the Mustang prototype going to languish in some hanger somewhere until December 7th 1941? If it gets ordered then by when? Does it only get into squadron service same time as the Kingcobra?


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Aug 23, 2019)

PAT303 said:


> Again you are arguing for the sake of arguing, who cares where the fuel is, there is plenty of room in the rear fuselage and by the time you are at 25,000ft and set up for cruise it's down around 30G so instability is a mute point. You seem determined to make a non issue a major one.


BULLCRAP!! Clearly you've never flown a plane loaded out of limits aft. It wallows like a wounded pig, over reacts to every control input, won't trim up for level flight, and has to be "herded" by hand every inch of the way. And that was in a normally highly stable commuter airliner with 400 pounds of illegal undocumented cargo in the aft baggage compartment, for which the captain and I almost lost our licenses. Now try that in an at best neutrally stable overloaded fighter plane climbing in formation through the soupy skies over the UK, and you've got a recipe for disaster. There's a reason they didn't do it back then.
DON'T LET PAT303 ANYWHERE NEAR A REAL AIRPLANE!!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## slaterat (Aug 23, 2019)

XBe02Drvr said:


> There's a reason they didn't do it back then.


 But they did do it back then. Both the Spitfire and the Mustang operated with rear fuselage tanks and both planes required the rear tanks to be about half emptied asap to restore normal handling and control. This has all been quite adequately covered in this thread.

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


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Aug 23, 2019)

slaterat said:


> But they did do it back then. Both the Spitfire and the Mustang operated with rear fuselage tanks and both planes required the rear tanks to be about half emptied asap to restore normal handling and control. This has all been quite adequately covered in this thread.


I'm aware of that; so, I presume, is p303. That's why I took his statement to advocate another tank even further aft. It was the comment: "Who cares where the extra fuel is, there's plenty of room in the rear fuselage" that set me off. Fallout from many a battle with UPS drivers when I had to refuse additional packages in my freighter, even though there was visible empty space in the way-back fuselage compartment. Non-pilots seem to have a hard time comprehending CG as an item of worship.
Cheers,
Wes

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


----------



## RCAFson (Aug 23, 2019)

I found this in M&S:


> Furlong 28-7-44. MK317. All tanks full, The engine
> apparently running at about 65 gallons/hr, What have Rolls
> Royce to say about this? Continuation of trials with one 62
> gallon American drop tank on each wing (a) and with British
> ...


----------



## Kevin J (Aug 23, 2019)

RCAFson said:


> I found this in M&S:


Except max overload weight is 9500 lbs, so you need to remove 70 IG from somewhere.


----------



## RCAFson (Aug 23, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> Except max overload weight is 9500 lbs, so you need to remove 70 IG from somewhere.



Mk VIII with a 90IG ST = 8650lb;with 90IG ST and 77IG rear tank = ~9200lb.
So @ 9200lb we have 200IG internal fuel and a 90IG ST = 290IG (348USG) compared to the 269USG for the Mustang and a 350 mile radius.
or
MkVIII with a 45IG slipper and 77IG in rear tank = ~8800lb + 2 x 44IG (860lb) Hurricane DTs = ~9650lb ( 2x Hurricane DTs were ~150lb heavier than later tanks).

So this combo might get us down to ~9500lb, and a total of ~335IG (400USG) which the stronger MkVIII airframe should handle. Extrapolating from the Mustang figures this should give us our ~500 mile radius and a Schweinfurst mission.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Aug 23, 2019)

RCAFson said:


> Mk VIII with a 90IG ST = 8650lb;with 90IG ST and 77IG rear tank = ~9200lb.
> So @ 9200lb we have 200IG internal fuel and a 90IG ST = 290IG (348USG) compared to the 269USG for the Mustang and a 350 mile radius.
> or
> MkVIII with a 45IG slipper and 77IG in rear tank = ~8800lb + 2 x 44IG (860lb) Hurricane DTs = ~9650lb ( 2x Hurricane DTs were ~150lb heavier than later tanks).
> ...



Maybe 90 IG ST and 30 IG underwing. I'm dubious about putting anything under the wings unless you clip them. Okay, the document posted says problem with 250 lb bombs underwing is dive and pullout, but do you tell your guys that it's unsafe to carry underwing bombs without clipping, or the official line. The XVIII had strengthened wing, not the VIII IIRC. You can carry 284 IG in and under fuselage, that's a fact. The XVIII only 266 with no underwing drop tanks, but it's not going to happen on the VII/VIII. Developing systems is an iterative process. Most you're going to get in 1943/44 is 29 IG rear fuselage and 90 IG ST, total 241 IG or 290 USG, or 10% more than Mustang on internal only, so same combat radius, and you're 100 miles short of target. Or 90 IG underwing and 30 IG ST and clip the wings. You're still 100 miles short.


----------



## Milosh (Aug 23, 2019)

RCAFson said:


> Mk VIII with a 90IG ST = 8650lb;with 90IG ST and 77IG rear tank = ~9200lb.
> So @ 9200lb we have 200IG internal fuel and a 90IG ST = 290IG (348USG) compared to the 269USG for the Mustang and a 350 mile radius.
> or
> MkVIII with a 45IG slipper and 77IG in rear tank = ~8800lb + 2 x 44IG (860lb) Hurricane DTs = ~9650lb ( 2x Hurricane DTs were ~150lb heavier than later tanks).
> ...



Lets see a mission plan instead of theoretical.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## RCAFson (Aug 23, 2019)

Milosh said:


> Lets see a mission plan instead of theoretical.



I've ready presented a rough outlinebut here it is again:
At start.
200IG internal fuel, 45IG ST, 2 x 50IG DTs,

50IG of internal fuel for TO, cruise climb to reach the coast at 30K ft.
Cruise for ~1.5 hrs at 300mpg at Max weak mixture = 100IG in DT's to reach rendezvous point.
Rejoin bombers with 150IG internal fuel and 45IG ST.
Expend 70-95IG covering bombers 
Return to UK when fuel reached 130-100IG remaining.

Here's map of the Schweinfurt raid:








And these fuel numbers match up with Spitfire Data cards and seem tp present no problems with flying the mission.


----------



## BiffF15 (Aug 23, 2019)

BiffF15 said:


> Dan,
> 
> Do you have any sources used to get to your opinion?
> 
> ...



Dan,

Do you have more than one guys opinion that the Merlin was not a good/great engine? That is the first negative comments I’ve seen regarding the Merlin. I have heard that the parts count was higher, but there was another stage to the supercharger which means the associated parts count will increase as well. Also one data point does not a trend make.

Would you want to be in an Allison powered BCD Mustang deep over Germany? With only a single stage of SC. I would not due to the large power disadvantage I would have against my adversaries. Maybe the Merlin isn’t as reliable as the Allison, however it was good enough. And that’s a big maybe. Also realize that the more power an engine makes the greater stress it’s under and the potential for less reliability goes hand in hand with that. Don’t get me wrong, I think the Allison was a good/great engine too. Modular, easy to overhaul and work on, able to reverse rotation easily and in mass production. It just didn’t offer the power needed to make the Mustang competitive / more than competitive with expected threats.

Also realize there is a difference between a pilots point of view vice the MX officer / logistics guy.

The pilot wants more power and longevity. He is the guy whose life is on the line over bad guy land and who has the most to lose.

The MX officer wants easy to work on and reliable. He is the guy who spends all night turning / preparing the plane for tomorrows sortie/sorties.

The logistician wants lots of spares and a reliable shipping method. All US F15s have Pratt engines. They consist of three major sections, front middle and back for the purpose of this discussion. Should one portion get damaged you can pull the motor, swap the appropriate section out, and put it back in the jet. A logisticians dream. The equivalent GE engine is one big motor. Should any internal part be damaged, out the motor comes and back to the nearest overhaul/ repair base (not usually located in theater). You need more engines to support this set up, more lift to move engines, more people to support this endeavor.

Big picture the GE engine is lighter and makes more thrust. Which one would you want?

Cheers,
Biff

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Aug 23, 2019)

BiffF15 said:


> Should one portion get damaged you can pull the motor, swap the appropriate section out, and put it back in the jet. A logisticians dream. The equivalent GE engine is one big motor. Should any internal part be damaged, out the motor comes and back to the nearest overhaul/ repair base


The eternal dichotomy of aviation: robustitude, versatility, and maintainability vs power to weight ratio and fuel efficiency. In WW1 it was liquid cooled V8s vs air cooled rotaries, then next war, it was Allison vs Merlin then in early jet days, centrifugal vs axial flow. In general aviation, Lycoming vs Continental, and in the commuters, Pratt vs Garrett. And then when jet airliners got big, all of a sudden customers could get a smorgasbord of engine options on their Boeing, Lockheed, or McD. Having been a maintainer and a pilot, but never a bean counter, it's pretty obvious where my prejudices lie.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 23, 2019)

Dan Fahey said:


> The Allison could go to 1500 hours before rebuild.
> Few Merlin got past 500 hrs...



would love to know where those numbers came from. 
The Allison did reach around 1000 hours in some P-40s used as trainers in the US, Good runways, good maintenance, no flying in crappy conditions like sand storms. Little or no operation at WEP power settings, in fact in some cases little or no operation at military power. 

Merlins were rated at 500 hours in 1945 when used in transports compared to 360 hours in 1945 when used in fighters.

I wish people would not confuse the time expired life with some sort of guarantee that the engine was supposed to last that long. 
Engine life figures are the number of hours an engine was allowed to run before it was pulled for overhaul regardless of the condition it was in when reached that time limit. 
The US training command was violating the Allison time limit. 




Dan Fahey said:


> Widen the flight performance as they were still using and shipping the P40 to combat theaters to end of war.
> Would have even been a better ground attack fighter than the P47.



The last P-40 built ( A P-40N-40) was completed on Nov 30th 1944. It was part of a contract issued on June 30th of 1944 for 1000 aircraft which was cut to 220 aircraft well before Nov 1944.

There were 13788 P-40s built according to one source, of those 11,995 went to the US Army for it's use or for lend lease. 5482 went ot lend lease which leaves the US Army with 6,503 P-40s of all types. Yes the P-40 was used up until the end of the war but in rapidly decreasing numbers. Units were converting to newer airplanes as fast as the supply of new aircraft would allow. 

The idea that the P-40Q would have been better at ground attack than a P-47 is pretty far out there, some people condemn the P-47 as a ground attack plane because it was lugging around a turbo-charger and intercooler that it didn't need for ground attack.
The P-40Q was lugging around a hydraulically driven auxiliary supercharger anda water injection system that was not needed for ground attack.

(sarcasm) I KNOW, lets take out the aux supercharger and water injection, that will lighten up the plane so we can stick in two more .50 cal guns for ground strafing bring the total to six, then we can extend the wings for more wing area to handle high weight-high temperature take offs and help with pull outs from dives, then we can.............................wait a minute this is beginning to sound like a late model P-40N  (end sarcasm)

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


----------



## michael rauls (Aug 23, 2019)

XBe02Drvr said:


> BULLCRAP!! Clearly you've never flown a plane loaded out of limits aft. It wallows like a wounded pig, over reacts to every control input, won't trim up for level flight, and has to be "herded" by hand every inch of the way. And that was in a normally highly stable commuter airliner with 400 pounds of illegal undocumented cargo in the aft baggage compartment, for which the captain and I almost lost our licenses. Now try that in an at best neutrally stable overloaded fighter plane climbing in formation through the soupy skies over the UK, and you've got a recipe for disaster. There's a reason they didn't do it back then.
> DON'T LET PAT303 ANYWHERE NEAR A REAL AIRPLANE!!


 As an aside, I've never flown a plane and I'm sure that is much more difficult but aside from the trim that is exactly how an overloaded 18 wheeler handles.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## PAT303 (Aug 23, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> No, only used on Vc Trop in late 42.



The argument is the Spit could not fly escort missions, my argument is just because it did doesn't mean it couldn't. Sydney Cotton had no issues fitting extra fuel in his PR spits like the under seat 20G tank, if the Spit was given to men like him, men that found solutions to problems instead of excuses the Spit could have had modifications to greatly improve it's range, the Mk111 was a good example of what improvements could have been done to the basic design, but there was a war to be won.


----------



## PAT303 (Aug 23, 2019)

XBe02Drvr said:


> BULLCRAP!! Clearly you've never flown a plane loaded out of limits aft. It wallows like a wounded pig, over reacts to every control input, won't trim up for level flight, and has to be "herded" by hand every inch of the way. And that was in a normally highly stable commuter airliner with 400 pounds of illegal undocumented cargo in the aft baggage compartment, for which the captain and I almost lost our licenses. Now try that in an at best neutrally stable overloaded fighter plane climbing in formation through the soupy skies over the UK, and you've got a recipe for disaster. There's a reason they didn't do it back then.
> DON'T LET PAT303 ANYWHERE NEAR A REAL AIRPLANE!!



So the Mustang with full wing tanks, rear aux and a pair of droppers handled beautifully did it?, spare us the dramatics because it was done, I've posted the link twice.


----------



## PAT303 (Aug 23, 2019)

michael rauls said:


> As an aside, I've never flown a plane and I'm sure that is much more difficult but aside from the trim that is exactly how an overloaded 18 wheeler handles.



As a former HV fitter and driver I agree, not the best idea but at least in a plane by the time you get settled at 25,000ft the rear upper tank is gone and as per this report http://www.spitfireperformance.com/Spitfire_IX_ML-186_Handling.pdf the handling is back to normal. I'm not arguing about whether the Spit could be an escort plane, it could never be a P51 but it's range could be easily tripled with the technology Supermarine had at the time.


----------



## PAT303 (Aug 23, 2019)

XBe02Drvr said:


> I'm aware of that; so, I presume, is p303. That's why I took his statement to advocate another tank even further aft. It was the comment: "Who cares where the extra fuel is, there's plenty of room in the rear fuselage" that set me off. Fallout from many a battle with UPS drivers when I had to refuse additional packages in my freighter, even though there was visible empty space in the way-back fuselage compartment. Non-pilots seem to have a hard time comprehending CG as an item of worship.
> Cheers,
> Wes



You jumped to conclusions, when I said it doesn't matter where it is I didn't mean way back aft or the tail.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Aug 23, 2019)

PAT303 said:


> You jumped to conclusions, when I said it doesn't matter where it is *I didn't mean way back aft or the tail.*


Explanation accepted. My apologies for the sharp retort. Your frivolous sounding comment hit a sore spot, given the experiences I've had and the funerals I've been to. Are we good now?
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 23, 2019)

Dan Fahey said:


> Widen the flight performance as they were still using and shipping the P40 to combat theaters to end of war.
> Would have even been a better ground attack fighter than the P47.


----------



## PAT303 (Aug 24, 2019)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Explanation accepted. My apologies for the sharp retort. Your frivolous sounding comment hit a sore spot, given the experiences I've had and the funerals I've been to. Are we good now?
> Cheers,
> Wes



No worries mate, if we were having this discussion standing around a BBQ drinking beer there'd be no need for explanations or apologies.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Aug 24, 2019)

PAT303 said:


> standing around a BBQ drinking beer


Your on, man! You find your way to Vermont, and I'll find the beef and brew. Vermont has more breweries per capita than any other state in the US. Something for every taste you can imagine.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Aug 24, 2019)

PAT303 said:


> The argument is the Spit could not fly escort missions, my argument is just because it did doesn't mean it couldn't. Sydney Cotton had no issues fitting extra fuel in his PR spits like the under seat 20G tank, if the Spit was given to men like him, men that found solutions to problems instead of excuses the Spit could have had modifications to greatly improve it's range, the Mk111 was a good example of what improvements could have been done to the basic design, but there was a war to be won.



The overseas Spitfire VIII version did fly long missions, over the seas. The Spitfire VII was a limited production run, 141 only, it too flew an over the seas mission. The debate here is about how far into Europe you can safely go. You being the optimist.
What we have to play with in 1943/44 is the Spitfire IX. So 85 IG main, 29 rear ferry tank, 90 IG ST total 204 IG so almost the same as the Mustang with rear fuselage tank total 210 IG. So it should be good for 300-325 mile radius over NW Europe. We know that the Spitfire Vc could carry 284 IG with the cannons removed. We know that it can carry 2 X 250 lb bombs under the wings if you clip them. We know that the Spitfire XVIII could carry 266 safely with full armament. So maybe 2 X 30 IG drop tanks under clipped wing LF IX adding another 85 miles to the combat radius, making max effective radius of 385/410 miles. Total fuel 264 IG.

Between Nov 43 and Jan 44, 9 squadrons equipped with the Halifax B.III, which cruised at 20k ft powered by Hercules radials,. So this would be your bomber to escort all the way to the Ruhr in daylight.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 24, 2019)

lol

Just saw what the picture in my post said. Not what I was trying to post in response to Dan’s P-40 vs. P-47 ground attack post.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 24, 2019)

PAT303 said:


> As a former HV fitter and driver I agree, not the best idea but at least in a plane by the time you get settled at 25,000ft the rear upper tank is gone and as per this report http://www.spitfireperformance.com/Spitfire_IX_ML-186_Handling.pdf the handling is back to normal. I'm not arguing about whether the Spit could be an escort plane, it could never be a P51 but it's range could be easily tripled with the technology Supermarine had at the time.



Part of the argument is that range and operational radius are not the same thing for a fighter. Obviously radius is, in theory, 1/2 the range but _operational radius_ is NOT figured using max range of the aircraft using auxiliary tanks.
It is figured using the fuel capacity of the plane in combat condition. 
Any none combat rated external fuel tanks are gone with whatever fuel was still in them. 
The fighter must be in condition to at least make some sort of credible fight, A Spit MK XIV might haul a 90 gallon slipper tank around in a fight, a Spit MK V would be in serious trouble trying to do that. From power to weight, thrust to drag and structural strength standpoints. A MK VIII or IX falls where?

As the pilots _may_ tell us at these aft center of gravity situations it is not like flipping a switch. At some point it might be but I believe that there is a more gradual shift/change in flying characteristics. The Mustang is a real puzzle, somehow at 25 US gallons in the rear tank the plane is not only safe to fly, they want you to keep that 25 gallons in the rear tank as the reserve and use every other drop of fuel in the plane because the plane lands better (handles better) with 25 gallons in the rear tank, but at 26 gallons the plane is dangerous???

The RAF allowed the Mustang III to use 40imp gallons in the rear tank as the change over point from aceptable (my word, I am going from memory here) to not acceptable?

A wartime manual for the P-51 says things rather different than the post war manual. 
For one thing they figured the stick reversal at 4 Gs rather than 6.75 and the manual is somewhat contradictory. 

"When you are carrying more than 40 gallons of fuel in your rear tank do not *any* acrobatics. The weight of this fuel shifts the center of gravity back so that the airplane is unstable for any but straight and level flight."
which is followed by
"Be sure you are accustomed to the changed flying characterics of the airplane before engaging in any maneuvers with full fuselage tank. You need at least one or two hours of flying with the airplane in this condition to accustom yourself to it."

Apparently acrobatics and maneuvers are not the same thing. Not sure where _straight and level_ falls 

The manual is for planes fitted with tail warning radar and many of them had a 20lb bob weight fitted to the elevator controls. I have no idea if that really fixed things or if they only thought it did at time. 

The manual also states (under fuel tank usage) that fuel return line from the carb went to the left wing tank on early planes and the rear fuselage tank on later planes, the return line could send *up to* 10 gallons an hour depending on flight conditions back to the tank. If space was not available in the tank the fuel was vented overboard. 

There is no need to try to warm up and tank off on auxiliary tanks as the main tank used for those purposes will be partially (or fully) refilled in flight. 
apparently there was little problem in partially filling the Mustang rear tank in flight????

getting to another post 


PAT303 said:


> The argument is the Spit could not fly escort missions, my argument is just because it did doesn't mean it couldn't. Sydney Cotton had no issues fitting extra fuel in his PR spits like the under seat 20G tank, if the Spit was given to men like him, men that found solutions to problems instead of excuses the Spit could have had modifications to greatly improve it's range,



Photo recon planes were not expected to maneuver like a fighter, they were expected to use speed and altitude to evade interception so CG location was much less critical (or if you prefer lousy cg location was considered more acceptable for them). 

Some of the "solutions" only became possible with the fitting of more powerful engines that used better fuel. And lets not forget better runways/flying fields. AN extra 500-1000ft of take-off distance to the proverbial 50 ft obstacle is a big help in getting a heavily loaded plane off the ground regardless of how much extra power the plane had. 
A plane that has 250imp of fuel on board that crashed into the trees at the end of the runway isn't escorting anything anywhere. 
We also have to see what the different Merlins were rated at for take-off power vs combat power and when (or if) the take-off power ratings were changed. 
The Merlin 61 was rated at 1280hp for take-off at 12lbs, the V-1650-3 was rated at 1380hp at 15 1/4 lbs and the V-1650-7 was rated at 1490hp at 15 1/4 lbs, some of the later British Merlin's had increased take-off power settings. Using WEP power for take-off might have been possible but would have been frowned upon. A Manual for the P-51 says that each use and duration of WEP power had to logged and when the engine reached 5 hours of WEP use the engine ws to be pulled for a complete knock down inspection (this assumes the engine made it that far without particles in the oil or some other sign of distress). 

Please note that I am not trying to Criticize the British Merlins or degrade the Spitfire here, simply noting that there were other considerations that somewhat depended on time that might have prevented or counted against a much earlier development of the escort fighter.

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


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Aug 24, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> Apparently acrobatics and maneuvers are not the same thing. Not sure where _straight and level_ falls


Not sure where WWII falls, but in my days attached to the jet fighter community, maneuvers were anything other than S&L that was more or less right side up and less than 2-3 Gs, such as joining up, tanking, flying the landing pattern break, etc. Acrobatics was anything more strenuous or spectacular than that.
Not exactly "flipping a switch", but in most planes the aft CG limit is where annoying behaviour starts to deteriorate exponentially into dangerous. A Cessna 150 with two big guys in it stalls like your proverbial pussycat, but add 100 pounds in the aft baggage, and it turns into an infuriated bronco that will rear up at the slightest back pressure, stall sharply with little warning, and spin if you sneeze or blink. Spin recovery has to be with kid gloves or it will go flat on you, or you'll overstress it pulling out of the dive. This the result of a (not quite legal) demonstration by my acro instructor in a 150 Acrobat.
I suspect the bob weights in the P51 were there to add a little stick force gradient in aft CG ops. Stick forces get really light in aft CG conditions, and an adrenalated pilot can easily overstress the airframe. The T34 with a large back seat passenger and the small allowable bit (30lb? I've forgotten) in baggage was scarily light on the stick and you could easily put an uncomfortable level of G on it without intending to.
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## michael rauls (Aug 24, 2019)

Dan Fahey said:


> Widen the flight performance as they were still using and shipping the P40 to combat theaters to end of war.
> Would have even been a better ground attack fighter than the P47.[/QUOTEh
> Have to disagree just a bit. As much as I think the p40 was a good plane and under rated in general I can't think of anything the p47 cant do better in relation to ground attack. It's tougher, it can lift more, has more fire power, it's faster( more difficult to intercept), and I believe the later models had a greater range as well.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## BiffF15 (Aug 24, 2019)

SR6,

Did not the Griffon engine burn fuel at a higher rate than the Merlin (Spitfires)? That would no doubt cut into range / time on station/ actual combat time.

Cheers,
Biff


----------



## michael rauls (Aug 24, 2019)

Dan Fahey said:


> Widen the flight performance as they were still using and shipping the P40 to combat theaters to end of war.
> Would have even been a better ground attack fighter than the P47.


To be fair I did think of one area where the p40 has it on the p47 and alot of other planes for that matter in ground attack or in general. That is the p40s ability to operate well from shorter unimprooved airstrips. 
The p47, so I have read, needed quite the long runway.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 24, 2019)

BiffF15 said:


> SR6,
> 
> Did not the Griffon engine burn fuel at a higher rate than the Merlin (Spitfires)? That would no doubt cut into range / time on station/ actual combat time.
> 
> ...


 The Griffon not only burned fuel a bit faster, it cut into the room needed for the upper fuselage tank. The combination certainly cut into "range / time on station/ actual combat time."
until (or even after) more fuel stowage could be arranged. Slightly larger wing tanks than the Spit VIII for instance.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## BiffF15 (Aug 24, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> The Griffon not only burned fuel a bit faster, it cut into the room needed for the upper fuselage tank. The combination certainly cut into "range / time on station/ actual combat time."
> until (or even after) more fuel stowage could be arranged. Slightly larger wing tanks than the Spit VIII for instance.




Okay, with that being the case how would one be able to get enough fuel into or on such a small frame to get deep into Germany? I’m missing something here I think.

Cheers,
Biff


----------



## Dan Fahey (Aug 24, 2019)

The reasoning that the P40 was better at ground attack. After that task, it was just a much better smaller more agile fighter at low medium altitude. Compared to the P47 designed with a high altitude Turbo Supercharger. The P47 performed well. It was a rugged expensive airplane to operate. What made it an effective fighter. It had time to climb to altitude. It attributes were maximized and was a good combat weapon but at very high altitude and top cover. This was a key complaint about the P47 and would have been if the P38 could dive without hitting compressibility. High diving speed and maneuvering through it was critical and made the P40 a survivable Aircraft. The P40 was phased out as the war moved away from its effective range. Just like the Spitfire...taken over by combat aircraft that could fight effectively from a long distance. Sure great to get to altitude to fight the enemy but to damn low on fuel to fight and extended battle which was a critical attribute of the P40.

This issue would have been the same for the Corsair and Helcat if it were not for mobile airbases (carriers) and ability to share combat space with land base fields. The beauty of the Mustang was its flexibility and ability grow and morph into every combat situation effectively, and cost effectively and Enough speed to take on the Jets of the era. 

When Korea began we had the Mustang and Corsair as the dominant WW2 aircraft available. For some reason the French ended up with the Hellcat and Bearcat. 
For all the whipping up that the P47 would have been a better CAS Ground attack plane than the Mustang. There was no place it could be used in Korea for the first year, The Spitfire was a disaster in Korea...but the Fury was outstanding... had the P40Q been built it would have done well in that combat environment. 

Two aircraft that would have been a significant upgrade to the war efforts was the Martin Baker MB3 and MB5.. But then again hindsight is 50-50..!


----------



## RCAFson (Aug 25, 2019)

BiffF15 said:


> Okay, with that being the case how would one be able to get enough fuel into or on such a small frame to get deep into Germany? I’m missing something here I think.
> 
> Cheers,
> Biff



Total internal fuel on the Mk XIV was 111IG but the FR MkXIV carried a 31IG fuselage tank for 142IG (in addition to rear fuselage mounted cameras). The MkXIV could have carried a 77IG fuselage tankw with a total of 186IG internal. The PR recon version carried 217 IG internally and the pressurized variant carried 257IG internally, but these variants deleted the armament.

As we've seen, the Mk XIV had excellent performance and handling with a 90IG ST, and total fuel on that was potentially 277IG. Max TO weight was 10280lb, so the aircraft could have handled wing mounted DTs and increased total fuel to ~375IG.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
1 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Mad Dog (Dec 14, 2019)

PAT303 said:


> The fact that Hurricane pilots only attacked from a position of advantage and continued diving away after the engagement, and were forbidden to dogfight JAAF aircraft only strengthens the argument as to it's obsolescence.


 Not when you consider that was also the standard orders for the 7./JG26 pilots flying Bf109E-7s against Hurricane I Trops over Malta in 1941. The 109s were far superior to the Hurricanes available, but the Germans wanted to minimize their losses by choosing tactics that maximized their chances of success. It's not about obsolecence, it's just smart tactics.

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


----------



## MiTasol (Apr 15, 2022)

Schweik said:


> Spitfire couldn't fly safely with 160 IG of internal fuel



There were also severe restrictions on the Mustang and other aircraft when they had a full fuselage tank but the procedure in all cases was to draw from that tank first so your comment is basically of no consequence,


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Apr 15, 2022)

MiTasol said:


> There were also severe restrictions on the Mustang and other aircraft when they had a full fuselage tank but the procedure in all cases was to draw from that tank first so your comment is basically of no consequence,


Not necessarily. A long range escort fighter generally has a long period of climbing and cruising before being required to engage in combat maneuvering. A point defense interceptor doesn't have that option unless it can empty that tank in the climb. How long would 160 IG last with a Merlin in "buster" climb mode?


----------



## pbehn (Apr 15, 2022)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Not necessarily. A long range escort fighter generally has a long period of climbing and cruising before being required to engage in combat maneuvering. A point defense interceptor doesn't have that option unless it can empty that tank in the climb. How long would 160 IG last with a Merlin in "buster" climb mode?


About an hour I think. In the roundest of round figures it used 150 gph on full power and 50 gph on cruise.


----------



## MiTasol (Apr 15, 2022)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Not necessarily. A long range escort fighter generally has a long period of climbing and cruising before being required to engage in combat maneuvering. A point defense interceptor doesn't have that option unless it can empty that tank in the climb. How long would 160 IG last with a Merlin in "buster" climb mode?



You don't need to burn off the lot - just the volume that causes pushes the CG envelope into the restricted area. I don't have the numbers handy but as example on the Mustang the rear tank restrictions only applied when you had more than x gallons in that tank. Taxi, takeoff and climb to above your intended target so you can hit them at full speed instead of climb speed when an interceptor is going to burn a lot of that off and probably move you out of the restrictions though maneuvering will still suffer while you have fuel sloshing around in that tank.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 15, 2022)

MiTasol said:


> You don't need to burn off the lot - just the volume that causes pushes the CG envelope into the restricted area. I don't have the numbers handy but as example on the Mustang the rear tank restrictions only applied when you had more than x gallons in that tank. Taxi, takeoff and climb to above your intended target so you can hit them at full speed instead of climb speed when an interceptor is going to burn a lot of that off and probably move you out of the restrictions though maneuvering will still suffer while you have fuel sloshing around in that tank.


You are quite right but you do have know which airplane you are dealing with and what mods may have been done or not done to the planes. 
One some of these planes the take-off and climb to somewhere around 5,000ft was done on the main (normal) tank/s and then the rear fuselage tank was drawn down to the "safe" level before the drop tanks were used. On a P-51 that still left a lot of fuel in the rear tank.
Then you can get into arguing about which radios were fitted where, any other extra gear, different safety margins between war time flying and peace time and other things.
Not having flown any of these planes my opinion doesn't mean much but I think the Spitfire could have used some sort of rear tank. The question is how big a one and when.
Look at the games they played just fitting different propellers to the MK I Spits and the different amounts of ballast that was used, Wooden stick got lead shoved in the engine mounts tubes and other weights. two Pitch props go the lead taken out, DH prop with constant speed pump fitted had different ballast, Rotol prop had even more ballast shoved in the tail. That is if I remember right. Four different weight set ups just for the propellers on the MK I.
Now which Spitfires got the tanks in rear of the fuselage? Any difference in the engines? A Merlin 66 or 79 was supposed to weigh 1645lbs while a Merlin 266 was supposed to weigh 1675lbs, I don't know if the Packard was actually heavier or if they included something RR didn't. Engine weights were not always the same, Allison included things like the exhaust flange, gasket and nuts/washers but the exhaust pipes were the responsibility of the airframe maker for instance. 

Also consider that even a MK IX Spit was a 7250lb airplane with full normal load, A P-40E with only 37 gal (US) in the rear tank was over 8000lbs and a P-51B without the rear tank and clean was approaching 9000lbs. Now lets stick a tank with even 25 imp gallon in the rear fuselage of all three planes at the same point aft of the CG and see what happens to each plane.
And we are not considering the tail plane size, the elevator size and any trim tabs to help control things when they get out of whack.

Saying the Mustang could do it so the Spitfire should be able to it too ignores a whole bunch of things. Now maybe you could modify the Spitfire to improve things.

My friends full size pickup truck can tow a 3500lb trailer, the trailer will fit behind my Hyundai Tucson and you could get the hitch to line up. Doesn't mean I should drive the rig on the hi-way let alone try to drive it down hill.

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


----------



## SaparotRob (Apr 15, 2022)

If you do drive it down hill, could you post it to YouTube?


----------



## glennasher (Apr 15, 2022)

Shortround6 said:


> My friends full size pickup truck can tow a 3500lb trailer, the trailer will fit behind my Hyundai Tucson and you could get the hitch to line up. Doesn't mean I should drive the rig on the hi-way let alone try to drive it down hill.


As you've noted, it ain't the GO!, it's the WHOA! that matters most when towing. If you can't stop or steer effectively, your vehicle is too small for the chore, kinda like the Groundhog.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 15, 2022)

glennasher said:


> As you've noted, it ain't the GO!, it's the WHOA! that matters most when towing. If you can't stop or steer effectively, your vehicle is too small for the chore, kinda like the Groundhog.


Sort of like when the tail of the aircraft tries to pass out the front. Just you have empty space in the tail doesn't mean you should try to fill it with something.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Apr 15, 2022)

MiTasol said:


> an interceptor is going to burn a lot of that off and probably move you out of the restrictions though maneuvering will still suffer while you have fuel sloshing around in that tank.


You mean there aren't any baffles in that tank? Any tank whose contents potentially compromises stability or maneuverability is supposed to be baffled against slosh effect.


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 15, 2022)

XBe02Drvr said:


> You mean there aren't any baffles in that tank? Any tank whose contents potentially compromises stability or maneuverability is supposed to be baffled against slosh effect.


Well, the rear tank in the Hawk 75 doesn't have any baffles in the description while the two wing tanks are described with baffles?
An error or disinformation or a a cunning plan?

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Apr 15, 2022)

Shortround6 said:


> An error or disinformation or a a cunning plan?


I go with error of omission.


----------



## MiTasol (Apr 15, 2022)

XBe02Drvr said:


> You mean there aren't any baffles in that tank? Any tank whose contents potentially compromises stability or maneuverability is supposed to be baffled against slosh effect.


Two things.

Baffles slow down the movement of fuel from compartment to compartment but they do not eliminate it, and
The compartments themselves are big enough that the fuel sloshes inside them. 
It is always a compromise where more baffles equals less slosh equals less fuel volume and equals a heavier tank. The object is to keep the fuel movement to a level that does not compromise safety.


----------



## MikeMeech (Apr 16, 2022)

Shortround6 said:


> You are quite right but you do have know which airplane you are dealing with and what mods may have been done or not done to the planes.
> One some of these planes the take-off and climb to somewhere around 5,000ft was done on the main (normal) tank/s and then the rear fuselage tank was drawn down to the "safe" level before the drop tanks were used. On a P-51 that still left a lot of fuel in the rear tank.
> Then you can get into arguing about which radios were fitted where, any other extra gear, different safety margins between war time flying and peace time and other things.
> Not having flown any of these planes my opinion doesn't mean much but I think the Spitfire could have used some sort of rear tank. The question is how big a one and when.
> ...


Hi
From 'Spitfire, The History' page 334, Loading and C.G. diagram for Mk. IX and Mk. XVI, numbers 9 and 17 reference rear tanks:




Official drawing of Mk. IX rear tanks from SAM Modellers Datafile 3, page 115:




And, for information from same publication, the Mk. VIII leading edge tank:





Mike

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


----------



## Zipper730 (Apr 17, 2022)

Okay, so the fuel tanks are on the C/G, the wing tanks are slightly aft of it, and the aft tanks are clearly aft of it. So you can work with the forward tanks and wing tanks, or forward tanks and aft tanks, but not both simultaneously on the Mk.VIII?

I'm not sure why the Mk.IX could pull it off, but maybe it had to do with the difference in fuel carried up front.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Apr 17, 2022)

Zipper730 said:


> I'm not sure why the Mk.IX could pull it off, but maybe it had to do with the difference in fuel carried up front.


Or increased weight firewall forward.


----------



## Zipper730 (Apr 17, 2022)

X
 XBe02Drvr
the firewall on the Mk.IX is heavier than the Mk.VII/VIII?


----------



## EwenS (Apr 17, 2022)

With regard to the rear fuselage tanks in the Mk.VIII vs the IX/XVI is there not a much simpler explanation. It is not that it couldn't be done to a Mk.VIII but that it just wasn't worth the hassle as production was coming to an end anyway in Dec 1944 when all the flight testing of the rear fuselage tanks was going on.

Spitfire Mod 1335 is the modification of high backed Spitfires to include the rear fuselage tanks.
Spitfire mod 1414 is the same for low backed Spitfires.

The first LF.IX with the rear fuselage tank was ML186 which flew in April 1944. They were still testing it for CoG issues in Aug 1944, then Nov, Dec and into Jan 1945. Low back Spitfire XVI production seems to have begun around Feb 1945 with low backed Mk.IX a bit more of a mystery.

And as for CoG issues there seems to have been a lot more to consider than just the fuel tanks. This from the resident Spitfire expert (now sadly deceased) on Britmodeller in a discussion about the Mk.XVI posted way back in 2012:-

_"The big thing about the XVI was that it was a sort of combination of "For want of a nail, a horseshoe was lost," and Burl Ives's "There was an old lady."_

_The Air Ministry wanted to fit them (and possibly all Spitfires) with the gyro gunsight, but the black boxes, etc., associated with the GGS, had to be installed before the extra fuel tanks were fitted.

The GGS also needed a completely new (first HOTAS?) throttle lever.

Fitting the fuel tanks displaced the compressed-air tanks, which had to go somewhere else; the tanks also affected the CofG, so the oxygen tanks had to come out of the back end of the fuselage.

The air and oxygen tanks had to go somewhere, so the outer .303" compartments were used for them, which meant that the wings had to be converted to E armament.

The extra flying time meant a need for a third oxygen bottle, with a central filling point fitted on the starboard cockpit wall.

Because the XVI was to be used for ground attack, wings had to wired for carrying bombs.

Bomb-carrying entailed the use of "stronger" (four-spoke) wheels, possibly torque links, as well, but that's uncertain.

Because of the extra strain, wingtips had to removed; this was not, as so often thought, a 10-minute job, but took 8 man-hours.

As well as needing the extra control of the elevators, the larger "Mark XII" rudder was also needed.

The fuel tanks filled the rear fuselage, so a Sutton harness couldn't be used, meaning a new (QL) harness with parachute-style quick-release box, and a strengthened seat to accept the new style of hip strap in a different position.


Originally, all of the work was allocated to a single M.U., but, as time went on, it's possible that it had to be further delegated (paperwork, so far, is not definite on this.) At the very least, the change to the E wing could not be undertaken at Squadron level, since it involved the removal, and blanking off, of heating and compressed air pipework. That, too, needed the "working parties," so it made sense to keep everything in the one unit._


_Edgar"_

In response to further queries he noted:-

_"The metal elevators mod is/was specifically tied in with use of the rear fuel tank, which would have left "normal" aircraft equipped with the original fabric-covered type. The pointed rudder was also a "must" for tank-equpped aircraft, but not for others."_

_"...Both 1335 and 1414 are marked "S.O.O.," which means Special Order Only, so it's fairly safe to take this as not being 100% of production."_

And on the need for the modification to add metal ailerons:-

_"It was entirely designed for getting the heavily-laden XVI off the ground; there's evidence that (possibly due to 11 Group's objections) the mod was never incorporated into escort fighters (and that includes IXs & XIVs,) so the elevator mod would have been unnecessary."_

And note that the Mk.VIII retained the 'C' wing armament throughout its production run. And it was fitted with shorter span ailerons than the MK.IX/XVI.

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


----------



## MikeMeech (Apr 17, 2022)

EwenS said:


> With regard to the rear fuselage tanks in the Mk.VIII vs the IX/XVI is there not a much simpler explanation. It is not that it couldn't be done to a Mk.VIII but that it just wasn't worth the hassle as production was coming to an end anyway in Dec 1944 when all the flight testing of the rear fuselage tanks was going on.
> 
> Spitfire Mod 1335 is the modification of high backed Spitfires to include the rear fuselage tanks.
> Spitfire mod 1414 is the same for low backed Spitfires.
> ...


Hi
The fitment of a rear tank in the Mk. V also meant a relocation of other equipment (from page 148 of 'Spitfire, The History':





Drawings from the same source show the location of the 29 gallon rear tank (plus the ferry drop tank fitment for the Mk. V):




Mike

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


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Apr 17, 2022)

Zipper730 said:


> X
> XBe02Drvr
> the firewall on the Mk.IX is heavier than the Mk.VII/VIII?


No, not the firewall itself. A common aviation term is "firewall forward", meaning everything upfront: cowling, engine mount, engine, accessories, prop, spinner, and any ordnance mounted up there, with its ammunition. The reason I mentioned it was in reference to W&B concerns RE the aft fuel tank in various marks of the Spit. The Mk IX had a more potent supercharger setup than earlier Mks, which might imply more weight FwF, easing the tail heavy situation with the aft tank.


----------



## buffnut453 (Apr 17, 2022)

Zipper730 said:


> X
> XBe02Drvr
> the firewall on the Mk.IX is heavier than the Mk.VII/VIII?



No. The MkX was taking design hints from the P-39 and had added nose armour.

I’ll get my coat….

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Apr 17, 2022)

Meet you outside.


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 17, 2022)

MK IX used a heavy cabin heater?

Reactions: Funny Funny:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Apr 17, 2022)

On a more serious note, the MkVIII and onwards were slightly longer to accommodate the larger (in physical size) supercharger. Moving the mass of the engine even just a few inches forward will make a big difference in balance.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Apr 17, 2022)

buffnut453 said:


> On a more serious note, the MkVIII and onwards were slightly longer to accommodate the larger (in physical size) supercharger. Moving the mass of the engine even just a few inches forward will make a big difference in balance.


Every moment counts!

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 17, 2022)



Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Apr 17, 2022)

Shortround6 said:


> MK IX used a heavy cabin heater?



Maybe...but they clearly missed the standard RAF requirement for a second, superfluous, cabin heater. That's why the P-400 was such a success in RAF service....er....oh, wait....I think I've slipped into that alternate universe again.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## MiTasol (Apr 17, 2022)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Or increased weight firewall forward.


From the bigger engine


----------



## MiTasol (Apr 17, 2022)

Zipper730 said:


> X
> XBe02Drvr
> the firewall on the Mk.IX is heavier than the Mk.VII/VIII?


The Mk IX was basically a Mk V with a bigger heavier engine


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 17, 2022)

MiTasol said:


> The Mk IX was basically a Mk V with a bigger heavier engine


and bigger radiators

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Apr 18, 2022)

I have it, and the speed for dropping tanks is not stated. It DOES say that the aircraft is restricted to straight and level flight when on drop tanks. My take on that is "more or less straight and level, but you can cruise climb and cruise dive with it as required for takeoff and landing." They talk a lot about how to operate the drop tanks and I was surprised to note things like, "when the engine cuts out, switch to main tanks ..." and the like. Seems like there was quite a bit of thinking about operating drop tanks. For instance, if you had the rear main tank and drop tanks on at the same time, you would vent the rear main tank fuel out of the aircraft! So, switching tanks involved turning on a tank and turning off a tank in specific order, and the engine cut out when a main tank ran dry as the sign to change to another tank!

I bet that REALLY got the pilot's attention!

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Apr 18, 2022)

GregP said:


> I bet that REALLY got the pilot's attention!


In the flying club we had a Cherokee Six with four tanks and a Doyn Conversion Apache with six. Given the accuracy of old tired Piper fuel gages, if you didn't want to carry around up to 1/3 of your capacity as unusable fuel, you had to use the "stutter-switch tanks" method of fuel management. Maintaining balance required a conscious schedule of tank switching to stay out of "heavy wing syndrome". Fortunately, the Apache had header tanks with a noticeable slosh factor, which led to a decent interval of hiccuping before an engine would quit on you.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Apr 18, 2022)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Fortunately, the Apache had header tanks with a noticeable slosh factor



I think that's called a "feature".

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


----------



## gingerbob (Apr 19, 2022)

Zipper730 said:


> So you can work with the forward tanks and wing tanks, or forward tanks and aft tanks, but not both simultaneously on the Mk.VIII?



The main reason the VIII didn't get the rear tank is that by the time the installation was in the works, the VIII had mutated into the XIV.

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


----------

