# 1941: top 3 Allied fighters



## tomo pauk (Nov 27, 2014)

What Allied fighter aircraft types should earn the medals in 1941? The series produced examples are contenders, ones that made it in service in that year? So no F4U, Spit IX, P-51, La-5 etc. The carrier-based aircraft can also compete, but CV suitabiity yields no points in this thread.
The performance (speed, RoC, roll, dive), armament, protection, radius/range, 'all altitude' capability, lack of dangerous flaws - those are main categories for comparison, in order you see fit. Looking away from th own county products is encouraged - the less flag waving, the better.
Again, it's the top 3, not just the best.


----------



## fastmongrel (Nov 27, 2014)

Spit V. but not the horrible tropical version
Martlet I (F4F-3) picked an RN FAA version as the USN didnt get into the fighting till December.
Yak-1. Probably the most manouverable of the three. 

All better than a late model 109E and capable of mixing it with an early 109F powered by the DB601E with 1,200hp


----------



## Monkeyfume (Nov 27, 2014)

I'd put Spitfire V at the top, easy.
Not sure about the other two. Probably American.


----------



## wuzak (Nov 27, 2014)

Would the P-40 be in there?


----------



## thedab (Nov 27, 2014)

Spitfire

Hurricane

P40


----------



## BiffF15 (Nov 27, 2014)

Spitfire

P38

P40


----------



## parsifal (Nov 27, 2014)

Mosquito NF II

Spitfire V

Sea Hurricane

Sea Hurricane might raise a few eyebrows, but in the context of where they were needed they were more valuable than any land based aircraft. Effectively, IU am giving the points for being carrier based. Carrier aircraft were so vital to Allied efforts at that time that that you have to make allowances for them


----------



## wuzak (Nov 27, 2014)

BiffF15 said:


> Spitfire
> 
> P38
> 
> P40



Does the P-38 qualify as a combat-ready aircraft in 1941?




parsifal said:


> Mosquito NF II
> 
> Spitfire V
> 
> ...



Same deal for the NF II. It seems it went into service in early 1942.


----------



## KiwiBiggles (Nov 27, 2014)

Parsifal, you betray your own banner content. Given that the NF.II wasn't in service in 1941, the correct choice as the best heavy- and night-fighter of 1941 is of course your "Heavy Hitter", the glorious Beaufighter IF.


----------



## wuzak (Nov 27, 2014)

What about the Typhoon? Could that be considered a top three Allied service aircraft of 1941?


----------



## parsifal (Nov 27, 2014)

Beau is a worthy substitute if the Mossie is ruled out. I know the mossie was very late, but couldnt remember exactly the service delivery dates.


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 28, 2014)

No love for the MiG-3?

If the Zero was a combat-capable aircraft, think we can count the P-38D/E as such?


----------



## Vincenzo (Nov 28, 2014)

Zero actually fight in '41 (and also in 1940), the P-38 start combat in august '42

clearly the Spit V is in the top 3
for the others 2 is not so easy
Wildcat not the Martlet would be a good choice
Yak-1 would be the third

i try to list the allies SE fighter in combat in '41 (listed last variant (if applicable), omissis biplanes and others old design)
Spit V
Hurri II
Yak-1
MiG-3
LaGG-3
P-40E
Tomahawk
IK-3
Hawk 75
Buffalo 339
CW-21B
P-35A
P-36A
F4F-3
Martlet
I-16
P-24
MB 151


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 28, 2014)

Combat capable does not imply whether it took part in combat or not. The premise of the thread - aircaft in service - does not mean it took part in combat, but that it was in airforce's units.


----------



## Vincenzo (Nov 28, 2014)

if i remember right the USAAF don't count as combat ready the P-38D/E, the first were the F or the E upgraded to F standard.

for the list if they had combat were also in service


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 28, 2014)

Both the -E and -D featured self sealing tanks (the fuel capacity was down to 300 US gals vs. 400 gals vs. the 'straight (so suffix) P-38. The 'straight P-38 was also outfitted with pilot armor and BP windshield. 
The P-38Es were deployed to Alaska, they were 'winterized' and outfitted with drop tank capability; March 1942, though.


> for the list if they had combat were also in service



Of course


----------



## Vincenzo (Nov 28, 2014)

from the Joe Baugher page
"The first lightnings to be deployed overseas in the Pacific theatre were the small number of P-38Ds and P-38Es which were rushed to Fairbanks and Anchorage for service with the Alaska Defense Command. However, these aircraft were not considered combat ready. These were soon replaced by P-38Es of the 54th Fighter Squadron which were modified by Lockheed to P-38F-1-LO standards with two drop tanks. "


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 28, 2014)

> However, these aircraft were not considered combat ready.



That begs a question: why would they be considered as such?
The modification from P-38E to P-38F did not included addition of s-s tanks, nor the pilot's protection - it was already there. Drop tank(s) capability is not a determinant whether the fighter is combat ready or not.

Compared with IK-3, P.24, P-43, MB 151, Hawk 75, Buffalo 339, CW-21B, P-35A, P-36A, I-16, along with 4 major Japanese fighters (2 Nakajimas, 2 Mitsubishis), the P-38D/E is a true combat-worthy aircraft of 1941 IMO.


----------



## Vincenzo (Nov 28, 2014)

i hope that some american fighters expert can reply
looking on Baugher description of E and F, the drop tank capability was not present in the first batch of F, but the empty weight of F is 384 lbs heavier of E, and the engine of F were -49/53 versus the -27/29 of E.
I'm sure that many air forces would have not trouble to use also the original P-38


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Nov 28, 2014)

fastmongrel said:


> Martlet I (F4F-3) picked an RN FAA version as the USN didnt get into the fighting till December.



just a note to remind that the Martlet I isn't the F4F-3, which would be a hotter fighter than the martlet. I would expect the Martlet I to be comparable to the F4F-3A, which was the less preferred mount of USN aviators. Pure fighters: 

1. Spitfire
2. Hurricane
3. F4F-3


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 28, 2014)

I'm not sure that Hurricane and F4F-3 were better fighters than P-40B/C/D, P-39C/D, Yak-1, LaGG-3, Mig-3 or P-38D/E. 

Actually, just by looking at raw speed, the MiG-3 was fastest of the lot (especially the examples built before Germans invaded), closely followed by Spitfire V and P-38. Granted, the MiG carried quite a light armament, much more close to the Italian and Japanese fighters than what West was beginning to use.


----------



## stona (Nov 28, 2014)

Surely any US aircraft that wasn't operated either by the British and their allies or by proxy in China doesn't really count for 1941. Do they squeak in for three weeks when the conflict had been going on for over two years?
Cheers
Steve


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 28, 2014)

If we are going to rate world's aircraft by how much kills their pilots achieved, the Bf 109 is unsurpassed. Yet it was not the best fighter of ww2.
What are your picks here?


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Nov 28, 2014)

stona said:


> Surely any US aircraft that wasn't operated either by the British and their allies or by proxy in China doesn't really count for 1941. Do they squeak in for three weeks when the conflict had been going on for over two years?
> Cheers
> Steve



Not even sure the F4F-3 comes in for he last 3 weeks. I believe it wasn't equipped with armor or maybe even SST until the initial squadrons in the last weeks of 1941. Some even into early 1942 so, while it is equipping USN fleet units from January, 1941 forward, it's probably not exactly combat ready. I'd maybe go for P-40D except it'a produced in such low numbers (40?)


----------



## vinnye (Nov 28, 2014)

I would have the Typhoon - if it could keep its tail on!
Then the Spitfire V a or b but not the trop!
and my heavy would be the Beau.


----------



## vinnye (Nov 28, 2014)

I would have the Typhoon - if it could keep its tail on!
Then the Spitfire V a or b but not the trop!
and my heavy would be the Beau.


----------



## wuzak (Nov 28, 2014)

How does the Whirlwind rate in 1941?


----------



## wuzak (Nov 28, 2014)

tomo pauk said:


> I'm not sure that Hurricane and F4F-3 were better fighters than P-40B/C/D, P-39C/D, Yak-1, LaGG-3, Mig-3 or P-38D/E.
> 
> Actually, just by looking at raw speed, the MiG-3 was fastest of the lot (especially the examples built before Germans invaded), closely followed by Spitfire V and P-38. Granted, the MiG carried quite a light armament, much more close to the Italian and Japanese fighters than what West was beginning to use.



Wasn't the MiG-3 a bit of a handful?


----------



## parsifal (Nov 28, 2014)

P-38 in terms of its combat experience and record to the end of 1941 is extremely questionable. For one thing none were delivered until March 1942, though they had been ordered since before the fall of France. 524 were on order as of March 1941, but not a single example was provided until the following year.

When France fell in June1940, the entire French/British contract was taken up by Britain. By July 1941 the RAF recognized there would be a need for high-altitude capabilities, and the original contract was amended to deliver 143 Lightning Is with the V-1710-15 non-turbo-supercharged engines (this was stipulated because of the US embargo on export of its turbo technologies), and the remaining 524 as Lightning IIs with turbo-supercharged V-1710-F5L/-F5R engines (which were never delivered) . Because of its non-turbo, right-handed Allisons, RAF's Lightning I was christened the "Castrated P-38" by the factory. It turned out that the nickname was apt. The first three Lightnings arrived in the UK by sea transport in March 1942. was sent to Cunliffe-Owen at Southampton for examination and experiments. was sent to Boscombe Down for flight evaluation. went to the Royal Aircraft Establishment at Farnborough for experiments and evaluation.

Performance of the hybrid m which was the only one to anything even like squadron service for the RAF was very poor and RAF refused further deliveries after testing only three examples.

Arguing that the type was in US service is also a bit of a technical con job. The US was not an allied power until December 1941, so unless we are counting that last three weeks of 1941, seems even more of a stretch.


----------



## Vincenzo (Nov 28, 2014)

Soviet had 1029 MiG-3 on 1st june 1941 (but only 494 trained pilot)
MiG-3 was surely the fastest allied fighter in high altitude, the Yak-1 was probably the fastest in low medium altitude (taking out the Spit V), i've not counting the twin engined (the P-38D/E almost on paper is much faster and also the Whirlwind would be almost fast as Yak-1)


----------



## wuzak (Nov 28, 2014)

Vincenzo said:


> Soviet had 1029 MiG-3 on 1st june 1941 (but only 494 trained pilot)
> MiG-3 was surely the fastest allied fighter in high altitude, the Yak-1 was probably the fastest in low medium altitude (taking out the Spit V), i've not counting the twin engined (the P-38D/E almost on paper is much faster and also the Whirlwind would be almost fast as Yak-1)



The Typhoon must have been the fastest, or near to it, at low level of all Allied fighters in service in 1941?


----------



## wuzak (Nov 28, 2014)

Curse of the double post strikes again.


----------



## Greyman (Nov 29, 2014)

Quick n' dirty chart:






*Tomahawk IIb* (P-40C), russian data, A&AEE figures generally agree
*Yak-1*, russian data
*Whirlwind I*, A&AEE. Not running max boost. By my estimate it would be about the Spit's speed below 12,000
*MiG-3*, russian data
*Spitfire Vb*, A&AEE. With +12 boost estimated from an amalgamation of tests. Probably a couple mph optimistic under 16,000
*Typhoon Ib*, A&AEE, later test

The thin line way out in front is an early 1941 Typhoon with 12 x .303s. Tested at the AFDU.

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## Vincenzo (Nov 29, 2014)

The Typhoon was declared operational in May '42 (but was not trouble free, they not go in combat until november)


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 29, 2014)

wuzak said:


> Wasn't the MiG-3 a bit of a handful?



For a pilot coming from a biplane fighter, it probably was. We can recall that I-16 and Bf-109 were considered as such, the answer was 'more training'. 



parsifal said:


> P-38 in terms of its combat experience and record to the end of 1941 is extremely questionable. For one thing none were delivered until March 1942, though they had been ordered since before the fall of France. 524 were on order as of March 1941, but not a single example was provided until the following year.



There was no combat experience for the P-38s in 1941. The 1st were delivered in 1941, not in 1942, though, and took part in USAAC maneuvers in that year. 


> When France fell in June1940, the entire French/British contract was taken up by Britain. By July 1941 the RAF recognized there would be a need for high-altitude capabilities, and the original contract was amended to deliver 143 Lightning Is with the V-1710-15 non-turbo-supercharged engines (this was stipulated because of the US embargo on export of its turbo technologies), and the remaining 524 as Lightning IIs with turbo-supercharged V-1710-F5L/-F5R engines (which were never delivered) . Because of its non-turbo, right-handed Allisons, RAF's Lightning I was christened the "Castrated P-38" by the factory. It turned out that the nickname was apt. The first three Lightnings arrived in the UK by sea transport in March 1942. was sent to Cunliffe-Owen at Southampton for examination and experiments. was sent to Boscombe Down for flight evaluation. went to the Royal Aircraft Establishment at Farnborough for experiments and evaluation.



I'm not sure that there was ever the ban on the turbos - maybe that was repeated enough times so became a 'truth'? 
The non-turbo P-322 (no typo) was outfitted with the V-1710 C-15 (or V-1710-33) in order to allow commonality with the Tomahawks on order. In early 1940, when the Brits French were ordering, both F series of V-1710 and turbos were far from service use - the second prototype of P-38 (the 1st YP-38 - 'F' series V-1710 and turbo; the XP-38 was with 'C' series engines and turbo) was delivered in September of 1940!
We can recall that USAF was doing the same - in 1939/40, they skipped proposals and prototypes of turboed fighters with V-1710, in order to have ANY worthwhile fighters in 1941.



> Performance of the hybrid m which was the only one to anything even like squadron service for the RAF was very poor and RAF refused further deliveries after testing only three examples.



Of course - the 350-360 mph fighter might have been an asset in 1940, could pass in 1941, but was a dog in 1942. Plus, it was to be paid for, and the 2-engined fighters tend to be expensive  



> Arguing that the type was in US service is also a bit of a technical con job. The US was not an allied power until December 1941, so unless we are counting that last three weeks of 1941, seems even more of a stretch.



The USN was fighting U-boats for some time before P.H.  The LL was an act of Allied-ship, if there was any.


----------



## wuzak (Nov 29, 2014)

Vincenzo said:


> The Typhoon was declared operational in May '42 (but was not trouble free, they not go in combat until november)





> In 1941 the Spitfire Vs which equipped the bulk of Fighter Command squadrons were outclassed by the Focke-Wulf Fw 190 and suffered many losses. The Typhoon was rushed into service with Nos. 56 and 609 Squadrons in the summer of 1941, to counter the Fw 190. This decision proved to be a disaster and several Typhoons were lost to unknown causes and the Air Ministry began to consider halting production of the Typhoon.



Hawker Typhoon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So, it did see service in 1941, though nothing to be particularly proud of!


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 29, 2014)

Or did it (from the 'Hawker Typhoon, Tempest and Sea Fury by Kev Darling):



> Being the first unit to receive a new type of aircraft is an unnerving experience, especially for the pilots, and it is quite a steep learning curve for th e ground crew, too. No. 56 Sqn, commanded by Sqn Ldr Peter Prosser Hanks, at Duxford, received II first Typhoon lA s on 11 September 1941, with the others arriving throughout
> that month; the last one flew in at the beginning of October, to make sixteen on strength .



then:



> Training for the pilots of No. 56 Sqn continued unabated until I November 194 1, when one of their aircraft crashed with fatal consequences: this was R7592,



The book is less precise on when the No. 56 Sqn joined operations, the 1st operative sortie mentioned in the book was in May 1942, that undertaken by No 266 Sqn.

Service it was, but it was the familiarization and training.


----------



## Vincenzo (Nov 29, 2014)

Wuzak wiki is wrong, the 609th get the Typhoons only in april '42, and however as noted also from tomo pauk they were not rushed in operation in '41 (actually the shoot down first 190 only in january '43)
the 266th was the 2nd unit to get Typhoons from january '42


----------



## Milosh (Nov 29, 2014)

56 Sqn 1st operation May 30 1942, deliveries commenced Sept 11 1941
had ~9 months of familiarization and training

226 Sqn 1st operation May 28 1942, deliveries commenced Jan 6 1942
had ~5 months of familiarization and training

609 Sqn 1st operation July 30 1942, deliveries commenced April 10 1942
had ~4 months of familiarization and training

R7592, US-L, crashed due to CO fumes in the cockpit with predictable results for the pilot.


----------



## stona (Nov 29, 2014)

Vincenzo said:


> The Typhoon was declared operational in May '42 (but was not trouble free, they not go in combat until november)



The unit is declared operational. The aircraft gets a series of clearances. I agree that no Typhoon aircraft were serving with an operational unit in 1941 and it should not be included in a list of 1941 fighters. Otherwise you might as well include prototypes and other incomplete projects.

An initial Service Clearance was given in September 1941 and eight production aircraft were subsequently delivered to No. 13 M.U. They did not then go on to squadron service but were returned to Brockworth for examination of the gun bay heating trunk, but they were fitted with Service radio and IFF equipment at the M.U.

No. 56 Squadron received its first two Typhoons on 11th September 1941 at Duxford. The squadron received three more aircraft that month and then eight in October. The aircraft had a Provisional Service Clearance, but it must be emphasised that No. 56 Squadron continued to fly operational sorties in its old Hurricanes and the three month period allotted by Fighter Command for the squadron to 'work up' the Typhoon into operational service proved unrealistic.

The second Typhoon squadron,No. 266 Squadron, didn't even start to receive Typhoons until 1st January 1942 at King's Cliffe and so definitely falls outside any 1941 time line.

*No Typhoon squadrons, including No. 56, were operational in 1941.* No. 56 Squadron declared one Flight operational on 29th May 1942 and this was the first officially operational Typhoon equipped unit of the RAF.

All three Duxford squadrons (56, 266 and 609 (which was the last to be declared operational on 30th June)) struggled to maintain some semblance of operational capability throughout the second half of 1942.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## Timppa (Nov 29, 2014)

1. Spitfire Vb/Vc
2. P-40E
3. P-39D

Apart from the few FAF pilots flying Bf109G's they would have been grateful to have any of those even in 1943-44.


----------



## fastmongrel (Nov 29, 2014)

Timppa said:


> 1. Spitfire Vb/Vc
> 2. P-40E
> 3. P-39D
> 
> Apart from the few FAF pilots flying Bf109G's they would have been grateful to have any of those even in 1943-44.



I dont think the P-40E and P-39D were in service in 1941 were they. I dont know enough about the P-39 to comment but I am pretty sure the P-40E (Kittyhawk MkIA) didnt get to service units till May 42.


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 29, 2014)

The 1st deliveries of the P-39D were in April 1941. The P-40E was delivered in August 1941, and for the RAF (a Kittyhawk IA) in December 1941.
The P-40E was the worst performing P-40 - as heavy as possible, but without the horse power to provide necessary performance. Altitude notwithstanding.

BTW - maybe it would be good to say _why_ this or that fighter would be within top 3 here?


----------



## stona (Nov 29, 2014)

I'm not referring particularly to the US aircraft above but delivery and operational use are not the same thing.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 29, 2014)

Of course. We also have the USAF service dates and RAF/CV service dates, those were usually months apart. Then we have operational use dates, to spice the things up. Then we have combat use dates...


----------



## stona (Nov 29, 2014)

I think operational before the end of 1941 should qualify an aircraft. That's why I would disqualify the Typhoon. It was delivered in 1941 but didn't see any operational use until well into 1942.
Operational use by the US is always going to be pushing it for 1941, given the date of their entry into the war.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## Timppa (Nov 30, 2014)

According to America's Hundred-Thousand:
Nov 15, '41: Two squadrons in Philippines, 3rd and 17th, were equipped with P-40E. Dec 1 a total of 74 P-40Es had been received in the Philippines.
Dec 7, '41: Five pursuit groups were equipped with P-39D's; 8th, 31st, 36th, 52nd and 53rd.

P-40E was slightly faster than the C, but most importantly it had about twice the firepower.


----------



## Bernhart (Nov 30, 2014)

did the finns have the buffalos in 41? Not a great plane anywhere else but in thier hands has to rate as a top fighter


----------



## stona (Nov 30, 2014)

If we allow the P-40 in, which seems fair as they would certainly have been operational during the defence of the Philipines, then you either include both it and the Hurricane, or make a very tough choice between the two to make room for a third like the P-39 (not for me) or Beaufighter. It's very difficult to put the Beaufighter in competition with any of the single engine types as it was a very different aeroplane serving a very different purpose.

The Spitfire V is a no brainer, we're really only discussing 2 and 3.

Cheers

Steve

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 30, 2014)

The MiG-3 is at least the no. 2 here IMO. The only one to compete vs. the Bf-109F-1 to F-4 on equal footing above 5 km. Yak-1 is also a strong competitor, though under 5 km.
If we want the combat radius, the American aircraft come in front, though.

The F4F and Hurricane, for all their qualities, don't make an answer for LW competition.


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Nov 30, 2014)

Bernhart said:


> did the finns have the buffalos in 41? Not a great plane anywhere else but in thier hands has to rate as a top fighter



Yes, the Finns began receiving the B-239/(de-navalized F2A-1) as early as February, 1940. Except by common usage, this aircraft was NOT the (B-339B) sent to Belgium which began to arrive in Britain in June of 1940 and used initially for training after some modification and later by the FAA in the Med to no good purpose, or even the subsequent *Buffalo I* (B-339E) sent to SE Asia and received by the RAF and commonwealth arms in early 1941.


----------



## parsifal (Dec 1, 2014)

tomo pauk said:


> The F4F and Hurricane, for all their qualities, don't make an answer for LW competition.



have to disagree, because of the specialised usage of these types, at least the use of the Hurricane aboard ships, i mean. I have problems with the F4F because until late September or so it gave little return for the investment. Early versions had problems with the fuel systems, no folding wings, problems in the armament. Most of those delivered to the RN were never used until the martlet II.

Nevertheless, both types were well worth the investment (for the f4f...eventually) . Sea Hurricanes, and the CAM ship equivalents probably did more to save the British in 1941 than any other type, quite arguably preventing the loss of up to 1 million tons of shipping and later giving enough performance for the fleet air arm so that it could continue re-supply operations into Malta, and later still into Murmansk. It was an aircraft easy to maintain and fly, and handled deck ops better than the Seafire in its early guises. F4F and later marks of the Martlet should need no introduction, particualalry in the Pacific. 

Youve stated that carrier borne aircraft get no allowances. This is a mistake. Carrier borne aircraft were all generally of inferior performance to their land based counterparts until the Zeke, but still they outperformed land based aircraft to a marked extent because they could be carried on ships, and whenever the fight was over ships they had inherent advantages because of that. Time and again, a few carrier borne fighters would shoot down many times their numbers simply because they could be there, with no range or endurance penalties. Against the attacks on Pedestal for example, 650 axis aircraft were fought off by 70 carrier fighters (mostly sea Hurricanes) because the axis air fleets could not concentrate their numbers, were often forced to fly beyond normal endurance limits or without fighter cover because of range issues. These are all advantages inherent to carrier borne aircraft, and it is absolutely necessary to make allowance for their inferior performance if a true understanding of their vital importance to the Allies is to be understood.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Vincenzo (Dec 1, 2014)

tomo pauk sure MiG-3 was good high altitude fighter but its performance under 4,500 meters are low.

i try to put some numbers (from HoHun old graphs)
Speed
Hurricane IIB 535 km/h at 5.8km (475 km/h S.L.)(515 km/h at 8 km)
P40C 550 km/h at 5 km (460 km/h S.L.) (520 km/h at 8 km)
P40E 555 km/h at 3.8 km (485 km/h S.L.) (510 km/h at 8 km)
MiG-3 585 km/h at 7 km (475 km/h S.L.) (580 km/h at 8 km)
Yak-1 575 km/h at 5 km (485 km/h S.L.) (530 km/h at 8km)
P-36A 515 km/h at 0.8 km (500 km/h S.L.) (425 km/h at 8 km)
CW-21 505 km/h at 5 km (455 km/h S.L.) (470 km/h at 8 km)
Mohawk IV 565 km/h at 5.5 km (485 km/h S.L.) (540 km/h at 8 km)
M.B.152 515 km/h at 4 km (455 km/h S.L.) (460 km/h at 8 km)
F4F-3 530 km/h at 6.5 km (465 km/h S.L.) (515 km/h at 8 km)


----------



## Vincenzo (Dec 1, 2014)

continue 
climb rate at 0, at 4 km, at 8 km (m/sec, rounded)
Hurri IIB 17/ 14.5/ 8
P-40C 11,5/ 12/ 6
P-40E 11,5/ 11/ 3,5
MiG-3 16/ 15.5/ 10
Yak-1 15/ 15/ 6
P-36A 17.5/ 10/ 2.5
CW-21 17.5/ 14/ 6
Mohawk IV 18.5/ 15/ 8.5
F4F-3 15/ 13/ 7
M.B.152 18/ 16/ 5


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 1, 2014)

parsifal said:


> have to disagree, because of the specialised usage of these types, at least the use of the Hurricane aboard ships, i mean. I have problems with the F4F because until late September or so it gave little return for the investment. Early versions had problems with the fuel systems, no folding wings, problems in the armament. Most of those delivered to the RN were never used until the martlet II.



Sorry if my 1st post here was not 110% clear - my intention in this thread was the comparison between the fighters available to the Allies, where the CV birds can compete, but their CV compatibility is not a determinant. IOW, they don't score any point here for being CV compatible. 



> Nevertheless, both types were well worth the investment (for the f4f...eventually) . Sea Hurricanes, and the CAM ship equivalents probably did more to save the British in 1941 than any other type, quite arguably preventing the loss of up to 1 million tons of shipping and later giving enough performance for the fleet air arm so that it could continue re-supply operations into Malta, and later still into Murmansk. It was an aircraft easy to maintain and fly, and handled deck ops better than the Seafire in its early guises. F4F and later marks of the Martlet should need no introduction, particualalry in the Pacific.



Then one might rate the S.H. 1st, Fulmar 2nd, the 3rd being whatever the British had on the decks. Ie. no Mosquito NF as 1st and Spitfire 2nd. But, again, it is clearly stated in the 1st post: _The carrier-based aircraft can also compete, but CV suitabiity yields no points in this thread._



> Youve stated that carrier borne aircraft get no allowances. This is a mistake. Carrier borne aircraft were all generally of inferior performance to their land based counterparts until the Zeke, but still they outperformed land based aircraft to a marked extent because they could be carried on ships, and whenever the fight was over ships they had inherent advantages because of that.



Not a mistake, the CV fighters can easily be compared in another thread.
The Zero was also of inferior performance vs. top of the line land-based fighters, from day one further. 



> Time and again, a few carrier borne fighters would shoot down many times their numbers simply because they could be there, with no range or endurance penalties. Against the attacks on Pedestal for example, 650 axis aircraft were fought off by 70 carrier fighters (mostly sea Hurricanes) because the axis air fleets could not concentrate their numbers, were often forced to fly beyond normal endurance limits or without fighter cover because of range issues. These are all advantages inherent to carrier borne aircraft, and it is absolutely necessary to make allowance for their inferior performance if a true understanding of their vital importance to the Allies is to be understood.



As above - if we count in the CV suitability as a requirement, then the Sea Gladiator would've been between 3 best fighters n 1940, and that would've skewed the thread too much, hence me saying the related sentence in the 1st post here.


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 1, 2014)

Vincenzo said:


> tomo pauk sure MiG-3 was good high altitude fighter but its performance under 4,500 meters are low.
> 
> i try to put some numbers (from HoHun old graphs)
> ...



Looking at those numbers, the MiG 3 was very competitive. It sure out-climbs P-40s, though that was not some accomplishment - those carried heavier weapon set-up, with (in 1941) less power. We can see how the weight of structure, protection and weaponry can make the fighter a good climber or not.
Though, I'm not sure why the P-36-based fighters would be doing close to 500 km/h at SL. 

Table about the MiG-3, the speed at altitude is spread between 603 and 640 km/h at 7,8 km, and 462 and 495 km/h at SL. The fastest ones should be the pre-war builds? (open it separately)

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


----------



## Vincenzo (Dec 1, 2014)

looking better on HoHun graphs the fighter called P-36A has the engine of C and is heavier of both, so probably actual A is slower but climb better.

continuen and end
sustained turn rate, deg/sec, (at 0, at 4, at 8 km)
Hurri IIB 22/ 16/ 9.5
P-40C 18.5/ 14.5/ 7.5
P-40E 16.5/ 11/ 2.5
MiG-3 17/ 13/ 8
Yak-1 18.5/ 14/ 7
P-36A 22.5/ 14/ 5.5
CW-21 24.5/ 17/ 9.5
M.B.152 20/ 15/ 7
Mohawk IV 24.5/ 17.5/ 10.5
F4F-3 21/ 15/ 9


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 2, 2014)

A chart for what is, IMO, the best-case scenario. Soviet fighters are pre-war, and will be having a better performance than the examples produced once the shooting started. The Spit V* is the version with 8 Brownings, those are a bit better than nes with 2, let alone with 4 cannons. The thin line for the Spit is my approximation for +12 lbs boost (thick is for +9 lbs), that gives roughly up to 25 mph under the rated altitude. Data for the P-40 is from the wwiiaircraftperformancecom**.
Thin line for the Bf 109F is for over-revving to 2800 rpm, that according to the Kennblatt gives extra 10-15 km/h; only available above the rated altitude. 

*Spitfire VA X.4922 (km/h @ m)
542 @ 3000
604 @ 6340
582 @7920 

**P-40B A.C. No. 41-5205 (km/h @ m)
567 @4570
513 @1520

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 2, 2014)

Thank you for the work.

A problem we have with some of these fighters is that performance in the field sometimes did not match test performance. The Russian fighters were rather more prone to this than most others but a few of the US fighters seemed to have a credibility problem. 

The Mig-3 had several problems that meant that a _good_ example flown by a _good_ (but not great) pilot might be in the top three for certain missions. Unfortunately the handling characteristics of the Mig are rather suspect for rookie pilots. The canopy could NOT be jettisoned in an emergency so most pilots flew with it open or had it removed, slowing the plane by about 30km/h. That is separate from whatever other quality issues there were. The Mig had rather light armament. It also was rather heavy with a small wing. While it was _supposed_ to able to do a 360 turn in the same time as a 109 it's turn radius was about 25% larger.


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 3, 2014)

For Soviet aircraft, most of the problems begun once the Germans invaded. The urge was to have more aircraft produced, even if the fit finish were not up to the pre-war standard, meant that performance also dropped. As it can be seen from the table posted in the post #56, the loss of speed was some ~25 km/h (~15 mph) at all altitudes - quite a bit.
The MiG-3 was not only looser, the factory fresh Yaks and Lagg were also slower some 20 km/h )Autum of 1941 vs. SPring of 1941 production). The things went back to shape some times in the winter of 1942/43, the fighters tested in 1943 were better performing than the ones from 1942 (by that time the MiG-3 was out of production, of course).
The P-40s was an offender sometimes (barely exceeding 330 mph, for 6 HMG versions) - the manifold pressure used was 41.5 in Hg in those tests, vs. 44 in Hg recomended by the book'?

One can compare the speed here with the speed from above graph, to see the loss vs. pre-war produced fighters. The values for foreign fighters in the TsAGI graphs can be used with a truckload of salt, however  
The Spitfire comes easily ahead (not in the graph, compare with above) between Allied fighters, and should beat the MiG-3 both in RoC and maneuverability easily.
The shaded area (SL to ~4,5 km) is where most of the combat took place, per TsAGI (all pics need to be open separately for hi-res):






The Kennblatt for the Bf-109F-1/F-2 gives up to 18,5 m/s RoC up to 4,2 km, contrary to this:






The armament of the MiG was upgraded with 2 under wing Beresin HMGs, the induced performance loss meant those were often removed in the units. There was also a number produced with 2 synchronized HMGs, with or without the RS-82 launchers. The two BS (S - synchronized) gave 1800 rpm total, vs. 2 BMGs ~1100 (also synchronized), while firing a far better ammo (prior 1943). Granted, not that great, but not that shabby either.
Also a small series (52 pcs) was produced with 2 ShVAKs:

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Vincenzo (Dec 3, 2014)

no radio, ratzii

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 3, 2014)

Thanks, Vincenzo


----------



## Vincenzo (Dec 3, 2014)

in italian the reply to thanks is prego


----------



## BiffF15 (Dec 3, 2014)

Vincenzo said:


> in italian the reply to thanks is prego



Learned that one in 2006 when my very pregnant wife and I went to Italy.

We were wondering why every one kept saying Prego....


----------



## Vincenzo (Dec 3, 2014)

For not italian speaking, the prego in the courtesy reply is not linked with the prego 1st person singular present tense of the verb pregare (to prey)


----------



## bobbysocks (Dec 7, 2014)

how did the french ac fair against the ac in those charts? i had hear the D520 ( ?) and the MS401(?) were decent but i never did any research on them... i think in 41 the us was way behind the 8 ball and i am not too convinced the vvs wasnt as well. the uk probably had the monopoly on the best ac as they had been fighting for 2 years and had to adapt to what the lw was fielding. reliability had to be a big factor....charts of performance are one thing but if the chart topper is broke down on the ground its not doing any good.


----------



## KiwiBiggles (Dec 7, 2014)

In 1941 the French were not part of the Allies. See Syria, Madagascar, Operation Torch etc for proof. And besides the MS.401 is just too damned ugly to be a contender.

I think you're right that only the UK can really be considered here, or an honourable mention to the P-40. By all accounts the Soviet fighters were either obsolete, or not reliable or usable enough yet. Sure they were all evolved into very good fighters over the following couple of years, but in 1941 they had little to offer.


----------



## bobbysocks (Dec 7, 2014)

yeah...duh! it was over for them by that time...


----------



## Vincenzo (Dec 7, 2014)

MS.406 was the plane and was not in the top 3 allies fighter also in 1940, the D.520 would be a challenger for 1940


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 7, 2014)

And no _service_ French fighter was sufficiently _advanced_ in 1940 to be anywhere near the top of the heap in 1941. Of course no 109E or Spitfire MK I or Hurricane MK I was at the top of the heap either in 1941. 

The 1941 VVS fighters suffered from low build quality, pilots not experienced on type/s, and lower powered engines than the 1942 versions. The Mig was cut from production because while fast, it couldn't do the job required.


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 8, 2014)

The Soviet fighter produced before shooting started were of decent quality, though not flawless, of course. The pre-war production standards were not matched by 1943?
One more MiG-3 produced meant one less Il-2 produced, since they used the engines from the same factory. That was the problem. The MiG-3 was also tested with AM-38 engine, top speed of 585-595 at 3.4 km. Unfortunately, it was the fighter arm of VVS that could not done the job in 1st half of 1941, whenever the LW fighters appeared in strength - the VVS lacked radars, usable command centers, trained pilots indeed, experience, many times the radios in their fighters, etc. 



bobbysocks said:


> how did the french ac fair against the ac in those charts? i had hear the D520 ( ?) and the MS401(?) were decent but i never did any research on them... i think in 41 the us was way behind the 8 ball and i am not too convinced the vvs wasnt as well. the uk probably had the monopoly on the best ac as they had been fighting for 2 years and had to adapt to what the lw was fielding. reliability had to be a big factor....charts of performance are one thing but if the chart topper is broke down on the ground its not doing any good.



The D.520 received some refinements (6 exhausts per side, relocation of oil cooler, modified cooler housing), starting in late 1941, that brought the high speed to 575 km/h. The MS.410 was to be a refinement of the MS.406, but not all the changes planed were also realized; anyway the speed was to be barely above 500 km/h with all the changes (fixed radiator, exhaust stacks, new wing).



KiwiBiggles said:


> In 1941 the French were not part of the Allies. See Syria, Madagascar, Operation Torch etc for proof. And besides the MS.401 is just too damned ugly to be a contender.
> 
> I think you're right that only the UK can really be considered here, or an honourable mention to the P-40. By all accounts the Soviet fighters were either obsolete, or not reliable or usable enough yet. Sure they were all evolved into very good fighters over the following couple of years, but in 1941 they had little to offer.



What the SU was producing in 1941 was surely comparable with Spitfires produced in 1941, and better than the Hurricane by a land mile.


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 8, 2014)

If you are looking to find the best 3 then you have to consider how well they could substitute for each other. How well would the VVS fighters have substituted for British fighters in the west? Or in NA? How well would British fighters (or the P-40) have worked for the Russians in large numbers? You can't blow off the Lagg-3 and Yak-1s lack of altitude performance compared to the Spitfire and Hurricane by saying it wasn't needed on the eastern front _IF_ you are trying to claim they were as good as the Spitfire or Hurricane. The altitude performance wasn't needed as much on the eastern front but give the British 500-1000 Lagg-3s or Yak-1s in late 1941 to fly across the English channel and think about what would have happened. 

With the Russian fighters you have the problem of how good the _design_ was vs how good the actual aircraft were, not just "build quality" as regard to fit and finish of the airframe but lack of radios, lack of some basic instruments, poor quality canopy transparency ( another reason they often flew with canopies open, robbing them of "book" speed) and poor quality "systems" that lead to frequent landing collapses and other problems. 
A "western" Lagg or Yak might come a lot closer to the designers intentions.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 8, 2014)

> How well would British fighters (or the P-40) have worked for the Russians in large numbers?



What the Soviets needed in 1941-42 was the integrated air defense network, far more better trained pilots, proper tactics (and strategy?). Basically, the things where the RAF or/and LW excelled. Failing that, LW would've gained upper hand even if all of the VVS fighter arm consisted from Spitfires, let alone the Hurricanes or P-40s. 



> If you are looking to find the best 3 then you have to consider how well they could substitute for each other. How well would the VVS fighters have substituted for British fighters in the west? Or in NA?



The MiG-3 would've have no more problems than Spitfire V in 1941 in the West. The Yak-1 and LaGG-3 would've struggled there. 
In NA, all of the 3 would've been at least as good as P-40s and Hurricanes there.



> You can't blow off the Lagg-3 and Yak-1s lack of altitude performance compared to the Spitfire and Hurricane by saying it wasn't needed on the eastern front IF you are trying to claim they were as good as the Spitfire or Hurricane.



Maybe not really my words - I've never claimed that Yak and LaGG were as good as Spit V (Spit V was better) or as Hurricane II (IMO worse than Yak and MiG, about equal as Lagg). 
I've also never used the needs of the Easter front as an excuse for cherry picking a suitable combat altitude and performance there. 
The high alt performance of the Hurri IIa was ~315 mph at 25000 ft, vs. ~310 mph for the LaGG, ~330 mph of the Yak-1 (war production, 1941; the pre-war examples were 10-15 mph faster than that). The MiG-3 and Spit V were in another league all together. 



> With the Russian fighters you have the problem of how good the design was vs how good the actual aircraft were, not just "build quality" as regard to fit and finish of the airframe but lack of radios, lack of some basic instruments, poor quality canopy transparency ( another reason they often flew with canopies open, robbing them of "book" speed) and poor quality "systems" that lead to frequent landing collapses and other problems.
> A "western" Lagg or Yak might come a lot closer to the designers intentions.



Good points.


----------



## bobbysocks (Dec 8, 2014)

tomo pauk said:


> What the Soviets *needed in 1941-42 was the integrated air defense network, far more better trained pilots, proper tactics (and strategy?). Basically, the things where the RAF or/and LW excelled*. Failing that, LW would've gained upper hand even if all of the VVS fighter arm consisted from Spitfires, let alone the Hurricanes or P-40s.



it seems the SU's main strategy was to overwhelm by numbers. the stalingrad strategy but in the air. the lw accounts i have read basically reported that the germans were successful but when they shot down 20 vvs ac...they were replaced with 50. quality and experience was better than at the beginning of the war but i would like to see how it compared to us, and uk training and workmanship. it was attrition that took a bigger toll on the lw. the vvs had men galore they could train...an area far from the reach of the lw to do it...and factories that didnt have to worry about being bombed everyday. german output was the highest at the end of the war but what would it have been if the alled bombers couldnt reach them?


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 8, 2014)

tomo pauk said:


> What the Soviets needed in 1941-42 was the integrated air defense network, far more better trained pilots, proper tactics (and strategy?). Basically, the things where the RAF or/and LW excelled. Failing that, LW would've gained upper hand even if all of the VVS fighter arm consisted from Spitfires, let alone the Hurricanes or P-40s.



Well, failing better trained pilots, planes that were easier to fly would have been nice, which the Mig-3 was not. The Russians also needed larger quantities of domestic fighters than comparable western types because they had many quality issues that not only affected performance but serviceability/durability. Many of the pre-war planes were little better in this regard than early war-time planes. Fit and finish might have been better from some factories but (but not all) and many mechanical issues were being sorted out on early production batches. 

The early Lagg-3 fighters were pretty much dogs. Best level speed being 341mph with the radiator shutter fully closed, unfortunately both the Lagg and the Yak had cooling troubles and could not run at full power for more than few minutes (less than 5 ?) with the shutters closed. With the shutters open the Lagg-3s speed fell to 535kph (333mph) at 5,000 meters and 457kph (284mph) at sea level. Climb to 5,000 meters fell from the prototypes 5.85 minutes to 8.6 minutes. A Hurricane II could be 3600ft higher in the same amount of time or beat the Lagg with 2 full minutes to spare to 5000 meters. Service ceiling was around 30,000ft depending on exact production batch, armament fit and fit and finish, not any better than a P-40. There were also handling problems with the early service models, like an unpredictable stall. 
The Lagg-3 had about the worst quality of construction of _any_ combat aircraft anywhere in it's early production life (before the shooting started). 
Things actually improved by October/November of 1941 despite the war.

The Mig-3 was a difficult plane to fly, one comment was that it wasn't difficult for I-16 pilots to transfer to, but that has to be looked at hard because the I-16s had a number of vices and were not considered easy to fly. The AM-35A engine had a shorter life than the M-105 engine (and that is saying something right there) and while the plane had straight line speed it had little else going for it except altitude performance was up to par, and one questions altitude performance of pilots after 20-30 minutes of flight in open cockpit at 20,000ft and above. Poor turn and poor armament. 

Yak-1 was the best of the bunch and could match the Mig 3 pretty close at the lower altitudes which was one reason the Mig was allowed to fade away. The MIg had few, if any advantages, under 5,000 meters and had a lighter armament, a short life engine and was more difficult to fly than the Yak. 

Now figure if the Yak was close to western fighters.


----------



## KiwiBiggles (Dec 8, 2014)

I think the Hurricane is being far too lightly dismissed, here. By mid 1941 the IIC was a very capable platform, with few vices, reasonable if not sparkling performance, and the best armament of any fighter in the world. And as the Hurricane was giving good service as a pure day fighter against the Japanese above Arakan in 1943, it must be considered reasonable for 1941. When you also consider its ground attack (2 x 500 lb) and carrier capabilities (I know these were excluded from the initial premise, but...) then I think the Hurricane would be a more useful addition to ones fleet in 1941, compared to the Soviet types.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Vincenzo (Dec 9, 2014)

by George on All About Warfare II
LaGG-3 1st serie 498 km/h S.L., 575 km/h at 4.86 km, time to 5 km 6.8'
LaGG-3 11th serie 466 km/h S.L., 539 km/h at 5 km, time to 5 km 7.1'
Yak-1 0406 480 km/h S.L., 577 km/h at 4.95, time to 5 km 5.7'
Yak-1 3855 441 km/h S.L., 533 km/h at 5.3 km, time to 5 km 5.9'

Hurricane IIB (from RAE Chart by Williams&Stirling page) 
433 km/h S.L., 550 km/h at 6.7 km, time to 17,000 ft (5.18 km) 6.7'


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 9, 2014)

Figures I gave were from "Soviet Combat Aircraft of the Second World War, Vol. 1: Single-Engined Fighters" by Yefim Gordon and Dmitri Khazanov.


----------



## Vincenzo (Dec 9, 2014)

i don't remember the sources indicated from George however i think some test, because of serial number.
(LaGG-3 serial is 31211-2 for the 1st serie, serial is not indicated for the 11th serie, but the 3121855 of 8th serie with rocket and bomb racks did 462 km/h S.L., 554 km/h 4.85, climb to 5 km in 9.1')

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## thedab (Dec 10, 2014)

that test, Hurrcane is just running on 9lb boost so i don't think that will show the top speed or climb of a Hurrcane running 12lb boost
all need to do is fined a test of Hurrcane mkII running at 12lb boost,anyone seen one?


----------



## Vincenzo (Dec 10, 2014)

the RAE chart are calculated not from test and is not reported the boost 
however the same site report a actual test at +9 lbs, max speed 530 km/h at 7 km and 6.6' to 16,500 ft (5.03 km)


----------



## Greyman (Dec 10, 2014)

The RAE chart appears to take the A&AEE test of the Hurricane IIb and calculate the new figures using the updated Position Error Correction - as seen in the Hurricane I RAE performance chart.

Looking at the RAE Hurricane IIc chart (which I believe to be a tropical version), you can see the effect of +12 lb boost in 'M' gear - and it would probably be a safe bet to apply 12-14 mph to the RAE chart 10,000 feet and under for emergency boost.


----------



## CORSNING (Dec 14, 2014)

Hi Guys,
I have not come up with an answer to the original question yet. Tomo, asking for the top three put me deep into research. I have been studying the Russian A/C for 1941. My main source was Soviet Combat Aircraft Of The Second World War Vol.1. I also used the graphs from test performed by the NII VVS (Air Force Research Institute, USSR). I started with the Yak-1 and MiG-3. The Yak-7 and LaGG-1 were too underpowered for there weights and lacked the dynamic performance and maneuverability of the lighter A/C. The MiG was underpowered also but still managed a good high altitude performance. The following information is for Yak-1 No. O406 and ( MiG-3 No.3943 a late lengthened version).

Altitude.Speed/Climb
Meters..mph/fpm
S.L.....298/3090(289/2235)
1,000.313/3095(307/2285)
2,000.329/3095(319/2320)
3,000.344/2930(332/2340)
4,000.350/2735(344/2330)
5,000.357/2560(353/2295)
6,000.352/2065(369/2185)
7,000.332/1615(379/1850)
8,000.NG./1130(382/1435)
9,000.NG./-690(N.G./1045)

Maximums: 358 mph @ 15,650 ft. / 3100 fpm @ 9,020 ft. (382 mph @ 25,600 ft. / 2340 fpm @ 11,150 ft.)

Turn time 360 degrees: 20 (22) seconds.

Ceilings:
Combat (1000) fpm: 27,170 (29,910) ft.
Operational (500) fpm: 30,890 (33,380) ft.
Service (100) fpm: 33,770 (37,720) ft.

Time to 16,400 ft.: 5.3 (7.1) minutes.

Range: 434 (447) mls.

Engine: M-105P (M-35A) 1,100 (1,350) hp. in stage 1 supercharger. 1,050 (1,200) hp. 2nd stage.

Combat Weight: 6,269 (7,272) lbs.

Wing Loading (at take-off): 33.96- (38.74+) lbs/sq.ft.

Power Loading (at maximum output): 5.699+(5.387-) lbs/hp.

Armament: 1 x 20mm/120 rds. + 2 x 7.62/750 rpg. (1 x 12.7 mm/300 rds. + 2 x 7.62 mm/750 rpg.)

Jeff


----------



## CORSNING (Dec 14, 2014)

The numbers never tell the whole story. The following quotes are from Soviet Combat Aircraft by Gordon and Khazanov.

MiG-3:
The canopy was impossible to open at high speed and the glass gave a distorted view so pilots flew with the canopy open. This lowered top speed.
"At the end of the summer the MiG-3 underwent many changes. Aircraft delivered to the front at that time were equipped with slats, the gear ratio of their AM-35A engines was increased from 0.902 to 0.732, and they had automatic propellers instead of ...variable pitch..." "Consequently handling characteristics, stability and reliability improved. However, rate of climb and take-off performance changed for the worse."
Vs. Bf.109E:
At altitudes below 13,100 ft. where the majority of air combats took place in the summer of 1941, the MiG-3 was slightly faster, as flight test had shown. But the Soviet pilots knew that in critical situations they would not be able to open the canopy and escape fro the aircraft. and therefore preferred to fly with the canopy removed. This reduced the MiGs speed by some 18.6 mph, the Bf.109E gained superiority in that respect though the Bf.109E surpassed the MiG in a steep climb, the MiG's vertical maneuverability was better. The turning time of the two fighters was approximately the same though the Messerschmitt's turning radius was 25% tighter owing to its lighter wing loading. Being lighter, the German fighter also had more powerful armament. A comparison of the radio equipment was not in the MiG's favour. At altitudes above 16,400 to 23,000 ft. the MiG-3 completely outclassed the Bf.109E and, at least was not inferior to the more advanced 'F', but combats at such altitudes were rare."
"...MiG-3 landing gear often failed to extend, forcing pilots to make a belly-landing." "It was also difficult to repair fuselage structural damage because the fin was integral with the fuselage."

Yak-1:
"It seems that this is not a combat fighter but a primary trainer in terms of handling qualities"
"By early 1942 the Yak-1 had proved to be the best Soviet fighter with regard to overall performance, but it was still bettered in combat by the Messerschmitt Bf.109F. When the Bf.109F-2 was replaced by the 'F-4 with a more powerful, high altitude engine and improved armour and armament, the discrepancy was even more noticeable. " " It's (Bf.109F-4) superiority in climb rate became more impressive, and manoeuvrability was of the same order."
The following quotes are comparing the more powerful M-105PF fighter of 1942 to the Bf.109:
"To provide optimum performance, the engine's nominal speed at low altitudes was lowered to 2,550 rpm, and the superiority of the Bf.109F at these heights was reduced. A simulated combat between a Yak-1 and Bf.109F at the NII VVS revealed that the Bf.109F had only marginally superior manoeuvrability at 3,300 ft., though the German fighter could gain substantial advantage over the Yak-1 within four or five nose-to-tail turns. At 9,800 ft. the capabilities of both fighters were nearly equal,... As the Yak-1 was more manoeuvrable at altitudes over 16,400 ft. It was advantageous...to draw the Bf.109F to higher altitudes." "The 'F-4 with the more powerful DB601E engine...completely outperformed the Yak-1 M-105PF."

Jeff


----------



## nuuumannn (Dec 15, 2014)

Coming into this thread somewhat later, I'd go with Spitfire V, Hurricane II and Curtiss P-40D. Forget the Russian aircraft. Whilst they have good performance, this thread is about top 3 Allied fighters, which doesn't just include performance; build quality, handling, maintenance, armament, all those things need to be taken into consideration when choosing the best of in an aircraft and the Russian machines just don't make the grade. Also the Hawker Typhoon. It suffered innumerable issues, not just with the Sabre, but also structural and it wasn't really reliable enough for service in numbers for more than a year after 56 Sqn received its first examples and there were other problems other than the tailplane falling off that caused structural failure, some of whcih were never cured. Here's a quote from Chris Shores and Chris Thomas in _The Typhoon and Tempest Story_:

"Indeed the rate of failures did slow, but they still occurred. In the last three accidents, in 1945, the character of the failures seemed to have changed. Undercarriage doors or legs had apparently dropped in flight, initiating events which led to the aircraft breaking up. But by now the Typhoon was rapidly leaving service and the accident file was closed without an entirely satisfactory solution to the enigma, which had cost at least 25 Typhoons and the lives of 23 pilots."

Continuing with the Sabre and its issues;

"By April 1942 airframe production was exceeding engine production and with no suitable alternative powerplant available, large numbers of engine-less Typhoons were stored at maintenance units having been ferried to them using 'slave' engines, which were then removed and taken back to Glosters for reinstallation in another new Typhoon! The shortage of engines was exacerbated by the unreliability of the Sabre in service."


----------



## CORSNING (Dec 17, 2014)

The following information is for Yak-1 No. O406 and ( MiG-3 No.3943 a late lengthened version). The best information I could locate for the Hurricane II was on Mike Williams' Site (no surprise there). Speed taken from a calculation at +12psi graph dated 26 Aug.'41 and the climb data is from a climb graph for a standard Mk.IIB at 7,330 lbs. and dated 15 Jan.'42 

Altitude.Speed/Climb Yak-1 (MiG-3) Hurricane II.
Meters..mph/fpm
S.L.....298/3090.(289/2235).269/2750
1,000.313/3095.(307/2285).282/2695
2,000.329/3095.(319/2320).295/2645
3,000.344/2930.(332/2340).307/2610
4,000.350/2735.(344/2330).321/2190
5,000.357/2560.(353/2295).318/2120
6,000.352/2065.(369/2185).332/1875
7,000.332/1615.(379/1850).340/1525
8,000.NG./1130.(382/1435).332/1165
9,000.NG./-690.(N.G./1045).319/-825

Maximums: 358 mph @ 15,650 ft. / 3100 fpm @ 9,020 ft. (382 mph @ 25,600 ft. / 2340 fpm @ 11,150 ft.) Mk.II: 342 mph @ 22,000 ft. / 2,750 fpm @ S.L.

Turn time 360 degrees: 20 (22) 17L/18R seconds.

Ceilings:
Combat (1000) fpm: 27,170 (29,910) 27.850 ft.
Operational (500) fpm: 30,890 (33,380) 32,600 ft.
Service (100) fpm: 33,770 (37,720) 36,500 ft.

Time to 16,400 ft.: 5.3 (7.1) 6.45 minutes.

Range: 434 (447) 480 internal, 985 max. external mls.

Engine: M-105P (M-35A) 1,100 (1,350) 1,320 hp. in stage 1 supercharger. 1,050 (1,200) hp. 2nd stage.

Combat Weight: 6,269 (7,272) 7,330 lbs.

Wing Loading (at take-off): 33.96- (38.74+) 28.47 lbs/sq.ft.

Power Loading (at maximum output): 5.699+(5.387-) 5.553 lbs/hp.

Armament: 1 x 20mm/120 rds. + 2 x 7.62/750 rpg. (1 x 12.7 mm/300 rds. + 2 x 7.62 mm/750 rpg.) Mk.IIC: 4 x 20mm/90 rpg.

There is no question in my mind that the Hurricane Mk.II could turn tighter than either of the Russian A/C. It does appear that the Yak-1 probably had the ability to dictate the terms of battle below 20,000 ft. As far as the Russians were concerned the Yak-1 was the better air superiority fighter. Although the Hurricane is definitely the better fighter/bomber, because of its firepower.

So like every "Best" thread, it just boils down to what you want/need out of a fighter.

There is no doubt that one of the top three Allied fighters for 1941 is the Spitfire Vc, operational in October 1941.

I haven't made up my mind for the 2nd/3rd choice. I am pondering P-39D-1, Yak-1 and P-40 (early Tomahawks were very maneuverable (in the Spitfire class). I also like nuuuumannn's choice of P-40D (a lighter weight P-40E).

Jeff


----------



## thedab (Dec 17, 2014)

the Yak-1 from mid 41 it top speed down to 290mph @ sea level and 347 @ 15750ft climb to time is now 6.8 min to 16400ft

your climb for the Hurricane is on 9lb boost, well on that boost it climb to time to 16000ft about 6.5 min for the IIB and 7 min for the IIC

What the Hurrricane mkII climb is on 12lb boost I don't know,does anyone on here know what it climb is on 12lb boost?


----------



## CORSNING (Dec 17, 2014)

thedab, you could be right. I took a closer look and there is no boost listed on the Hurricane climb chart.

Yak-1: I agree the speed and climb with the M-105PA engine was down from the M-105P. They tried to increase performance by increasing the boost levels which overheated the engine. That is why I would pick the earlier version for 1941. With the bugs work out somewhat the M-105PF version was an improvement, but that was 1942.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 31, 2015)

In the light of recent Whirlwind thread - is it a contender here?


----------



## stona (Jan 31, 2015)

tomo pauk said:


> In the light of recent Whirlwind thread - is it a contender here?



No.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## CORSNING (Jan 31, 2015)

Well now wait a minute Steve, Tomo may have something here. (I haven't had a chance to read all the "Whirlwind thread" yet, but I lost the ability to remain silent.) In 1941 the Axis powers had the upper hand of preparedness. The Allies weren't all that we could have been at the time. (Wow that was profound!) The UK had been in it over neck deep for over a year and I believe they were making better decisions than the US in 1940 and early 1941. The Whirlwind was an excellent idea, it was just a wee bit underpowered. So was most of the other Allied aircraft of the time.

The Whirlwind could hold its own in speed and was an OK climber up to around 20,000 ft. compared to most of the other Allied fighters (Spitfire excepted) throughout 1941. Its firepower would make it an excellent low/medium altitude bomber interceptor and ground attack fighter.

That is all just my opinion at this time. I have not studied Westland's aircraft enough to say yes or no definitely. I'm now going to go read the "Whirlwind thread" because I am sure the crew on this site has posted a lot of good information about it. 

Jeff


----------



## Greyman (Jan 31, 2015)

Certainly a contender. Only the Spitfire V has any real performance advantage over the Whirlwind.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 31, 2015)

For 1941:
The firepower is top-notch, especially vs. what Soviet fighters were offering. Performance is decent at least. Canopy is the best in an Allied fighter, along with what P-38 and P-39 had.


----------



## stona (Feb 1, 2015)

The thread is about the top three allied fighters in 1941. The altitude performance of the Whirlwind excludes any possibility of it making that list in my opinion. It would struggle to attain the altitude at which much combat was taking place, never mind operate there. It would always find itself at an altitude disadvantage to Luftwaffe fighters it would encounter.
Fighter Command was well aware of this, which is why the Whirlwind was kept out of harm's way and used in other, secondary, roles.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## tomo pauk (Feb 1, 2015)

Soviet fighters were also rather weak at altitudes, and carried far weaker armament than the Whirlwind. My pet aircraft, MiG-3, was plagued with ill designed/executed canopy design, forcing pilots to fly with open canopy, so they can bail in case of being hit - costs a lots of speed.
P-39D was also not very useful above 15000 ft. The P-40B was not that great above 17-18 kft, sporting a far weaker armament; P-40E was as good/bad as the P-39D when it comes to above 15 kft work. 
OTOH, I don't buy that in 1941 such a great majority of combat was taking place at very high altitudes (20 kft and above). 
The Fighter Command bombed up the Whirlwind in mid-1941 and sent it in harms way.


----------



## CORSNING (Feb 1, 2015)

You mean the Whirlwind would have to be used similar to the P-39, P-40, and most of the Russian fighters? I'll bet the VVS would have made good use of the Whirlwind in 1941.


----------



## tomo pauk (Feb 1, 2015)

No - simply stating that Whirlwind's altitude capabilities were good, when we compare it with those fighters. 
There was lots of fighting under 20000 ft in 1941, even in ETO.


----------



## stona (Feb 1, 2015)

tomo pauk said:


> No - simply stating that Whirlwind's altitude capabilities were good, when we compare it with those fighters.
> There was lots of fighting under 20000 ft in 1941, even in ETO.



But where did the combat start? An altitude advantage can be a critical advantage to an attacker and the Whirlwind would almost invariably found itself at a disadvantage.

Why do you think Fighter Command deployed the Whirlwind in the East of England (10 Group) initially and had it chasing lone reconnaissance aircraft and KG 40s Fw 200s, for most of 1941? They never did catch a 'Condor'. St Eval was not exactly the front line.

The Whirlwind's first sortie to France was on June 13th 1941 and was a less than successful ground attack mission. They were covered by Spitfires of No. 234 Squadron. The Whirlwinds had been training for a ground attack role for which it was deemed more suitable. A comparison with a Hurricane IIc made in August 1941 caused one observer to comment:

_"Both the Hurricane and Whirlwind appear to be suitable aircraft for attack on tanks, the Hurricane being superior to the Whirlwind."_

Once again the Whirlwind had come up short. They then went back to various bases around Exeter for the rest of the summer and didn't meet the Luftwaffe again in June or July.

They did return to France in August, again as ground attack aircraft. Fighter Command's appreciation of their vulnerability was such that four Whirlwinds sent to attack tankers seen three miles of Cherbourg were escorted by thirteen Spitfires of No. 118 Squadron.

263 Squadron thought it's Whirwinds a match for the Bf 109 but 10 Group's assessment of the type was more realistic:

_"The Whirlwind aircraft has proved very satisfactory for hit and run ground strafing, but it is considered that its manoeuvrability compared with Spitfires and Hurricanes makes it unsuitable for close escort operations or operations when it will have to engage enemy fighters and cannot rely on its high speed at low level to make a getaway from a specific target."_ 

This is not the stuff of a top three fighter!

When twelve Whirlwinds did escort six Blenheims of 114 Squadron they were accompanied, _at higher altitude_, by thirty seven Hurricanes of the Exeter Wing.

The RAF did at least try to exploit the low altitude capability of the type, but once again it was an aircraft that really wasn't needed. The cannon armed Hurricane could do the same job at least as well, if not better. It certainly didn't have the performance required of a top three fighter in 1941.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 1, 2015)

stona said:


> It would always find itself at an altitude disadvantage to Luftwaffe fighters it would encounter.
> Fighter Command was well aware of this, which is why the Whirlwind was kept out of harm's way and used in other, secondary, roles.



The _out of harm's way_ and "secondary roles" included strafing Luftwaffe air fields and other targets in France and the low countries for quite a while _before_ they got bomb racks. 

They also included over water patrols at distances further from shore than they thought was prudent to operate Spitfires. 

The Whirlwind in MK I form certainly could not perform like a Spitfire at the higher altitudes but it hardly _kept out of harm's way_ in 1941. It was in 1940 when the first squadron was working up but many aircraft were_ kept out of harm's way_ for 3-6 months as the first squadron or two worked up to full strength and gained experience.


----------



## stona (Feb 1, 2015)

See my post above yours. In 1941 it was either kept out of harm's way (in the sense it performed roles like the interception of reconnaissance aircraft where it was unlikely to meet Luftwaffe fighters, long over water flights are another issue) or it was itself protected by the top two fighters in Britain's armoury.

As a 'Whirlybomber' it was escorted by other fighters. In November 1941 a force of eight Whirlwinds, intending to attack targets on the Cherbourg peninsula, were escorted by no less than three squadrons (118, 234 and 501) of Spitfires.
An aircraft that itself needs this sort of protection from enemy fighters cannot be considered a 'top' fighter, never mind a 'top three' fighter.

It almost defies belief that forum members imagine they see a role for the Whirlwind as a 'top three' fighter that was missed by 10 Group (which operated the aircraft), Fighter Command, the men observing the ground attack trials (at which the Hurricane was rated better) and just about everyone else involved in wartime British aviation 

Cheers

Steve


----------



## Edgar Brooks (Feb 1, 2015)

tomo pauk said:


> OTOH, I don't buy that in 1941 such a great majority of combat was taking place at very high altitudes (20 kft and above).


Knowing now what happened then doesn't help with trying to understand the decisions that had to be made 75 years ago. The 109s were coming over here at 27-30,000' in 1940 before the end of the Battle, Assuming that this wouldn't continue when (as was expected) the Battle was rejoined in mid-1941, and supplying the defenders with a fighter incapable of reaching those heights, would have been the height of irresponsible, even lunatic, folly. 
Even the Spitfires I II were at a disadvantage, which is why there was such an effort put into getting the Spitfire V.


> The Fighter Command bombed up the Whirlwind in mid-1941 and sent it in harms way.


Not according to the RAF; simple strafing came first, with bombs a year later (probably when they realised that the Germans tended to ignore fighter-only incursions (they weren't too bothered about Dutch, Belgian, or French targets being hit, either.)


----------



## stona (Feb 1, 2015)

Edgar is correct. The first suggestion for bombing up the Whirlwind was made in September 1941 by Sqn.Ldr. Tom Pugh of 263 Squadron but Fighter Command rejected the idea. All the ground attacks made in 1941 used the Whirlwind's cannon armament.

The change of heart evidenced in the document above, which took place in July 1942, was precisely because the Luftwaffe ignored fighter only sweeps. Fighter Command had also taken over responsibility for the 'Channel Stop', an effort to deny the central part of the Channel to enemy shipping. The only other available fighter bomber, the Hurricane bomber, was in short supply and the Whirlwind, which had already demonstrated a ground attack capability, therefore re-appeared on Fighter Command's radar as a potential additional fighter bomber.
It was on 3rd July 1942 that Fighter Command informed the Air Ministry and MAP that it would like Whirlwinds converted to fighter bombers. Westland had designed the modification (a tubular reinforcing structure in the wings) to take a standard Mk III Universal Carrier by August. It was never faired as on the Hurricane. Bomb selection and fusing switches were ordered to convert fifty aircraft.

Although there were few Whirlwinds available at the time and production had already finished, conversion of the two Whirlwind squadrons effectively doubled the number of fighter bombers within Fighter Command.

Nobody, least of all me, is denying the Whirlwinds low level performance. What it couldn't do was reach or compete at the altitudes at which first line fighters were operating in 1940/41.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## tomo pauk (Feb 1, 2015)

Thanks for correcting me on the year when the bombed-up Whirlwinds came about.


----------



## Greyman (Feb 1, 2015)

stona said:


> It almost defies belief that forum members imagine they see a role for the Whirlwind as a 'top three' fighter ...



What Allied aircraft are so far ahead of the Whirlwind that it is unable to be in contention?


----------



## stona (Feb 1, 2015)

Greyman said:


> What Allied aircraft are so far ahead of the Whirlwind that it is unable to be in contention?



The British already had the Spitfire and Hurricane, both of which were considered better fighters. In simple terms any fighter that could not operate above 25,000 feet would not be considered by Fighter Command then and neither should it be by us now. It would not compete with it's German adversaries in the ETO.
In 1941 the Hurricane was also deemed to be a better ground attack aircraft. This means, and I'm sorry to keep repeating myself, that the Whirlwind was not needed. Various roles were tried, it was initially reprieved with the intention of making it a reconnaissance aircraft. It did okay in its ground attack and later fighter bomber role but it was never a top fighter and was soon superseded by the Typhoon in the other role.

There was a war to be fought and limited resources to fight it with. By 1942/3 vast amounts were being poured into the bombing offensive (Mason estimates that 1.15 million people were involved in building the Lancaster alone in 1943). There was simply not the means or will to develop yet another design.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 1, 2015)

We often think limiting the time frame to a year gives us a 'snapshot' to compare aircraft. Unfortunately a year is often way too long. In 1941 the Spitfire went through the Va, Vb and Vc versions and there were changes in the max allowable boost.


----------



## stona (Feb 1, 2015)

Shortround6 said:


> We often think limiting the time frame to a year gives us a 'snapshot' to compare aircraft. Unfortunately a year is often way too long. In 1941 the Spitfire went through the Va, Vb and Vc versions and there were changes in the max allowable boost.



Which illustrates my point. Neither the Whirlwind, nor its engines developed in the same way as the RAF's principle fighters. There was virtually no difference between a Whirlwind in January 1941 and January 1942. It was not an important aircraft to the RAF. Fighter Command didn't really want it after the BoB, but did at least find some limited roles for it. The 'Whirlybomber' was just the last of these.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## Greyman (Feb 1, 2015)

stona said:


> The British already had the Spitfire and Hurricane, both of which were considered better fighters. In simple terms any fighter that could not operate above 25,000 feet would not be considered by Fighter Command then and neither should it be by us now. It would not compete with it's German adversaries in the ETO.
> 
> In 1941 the Hurricane was also deemed to be a better ground attack aircraft. This means, and I'm sorry to keep repeating myself, that the Whirlwind was not needed. Various roles were tried, it was initially reprieved with the intention of making it a reconnaissance aircraft. It did okay in its ground attack and later fighter bomber role but it was never a top fighter and was soon superseded by the Typhoon in the other role.



The question of the thread, however, isn't 'What fighter could completely replace the Spitfire and Hurricane in 1941 Fighter Command?'


----------



## stona (Feb 1, 2015)

Greyman said:


> The question of the thread, however, isn't 'What fighter could completely replace the Spitfire and Hurricane in 1941 Fighter Command?'



No, it was 'top three allied _fighters_'. Earlier there was some debate as to whether even the Hurricane should make the top three. The Hurricane was a much superior_ fighter _to the Whirlwind. If the Hurricane can't make it the Whirlwind is a long way from making it.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## Edgar Brooks (Feb 1, 2015)

Greyman said:


> What Allied aircraft are so far ahead of the Whirlwind that it is unable to be in contention?


Spitfire Va, Vb, Vc.


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 1, 2015)

What is amazing to me, is that the Whirlwind continued in use, even in limited, escorted roles into 1943 _without change_ from it's basic 1940 configuration. It wasn't being used as a target tug, or glider tug. It was flying combat missions over enemy held territory 3 years after they said it wasn't wanted. This is hardly out of harms way even if it was being escorted by large numbers of Spitfires. 

I would note that the Mosquito gained 13-15mph when fitted with Multi-stub exhausts instead of ducted saxaphone exhausts. 

Just one of a number _small_ changes that _might_ have been done to the Whirlwind had production continued. No new mark of engine. 

By 1943 Hurricanes were using Merlins that were cleared for 14lb boost in low gear and 16lbs boost in high gear and the Hurricane IVs coming into use in 1943 had Merlin 27s cleared for 18lb of boost. 

Hardly surprising that a plane using the _equivalent_ of a Merlin III was taken out of service in 1943. The surprise is that it lasted that long.


----------



## Greyman (Feb 1, 2015)

stona said:


> No, it was 'top three allied _fighters_'. Earlier there was some debate as to whether even the Hurricane should make the top three. The Hurricane was a much superior_ fighter _to the Whirlwind. If the Hurricane can't make it the Whirlwind is a long way from making it.



I'll ask in a different way: what is your #3 pick that leaves the Whirlwind in the dust?




Edgar Brooks said:


> Spitfire Va, Vb, Vc.



Well if those are the rules - I agree


----------



## Vincenzo (Feb 1, 2015)

VC start deliveries to fighter squadrons in april 1942


----------



## stona (Feb 2, 2015)

Greyman said:


> I'll ask in a different way: what is your #3 pick that leaves the Whirlwind in the dust?



I'd choose the P-40 but a very good case has been made for several Soviet types on which I don't feel qualified to comment.

Excluding Spitfire sub-types ( because the Spitfire was head and shoulders above other allied fighters at the time) a Spitfire, Hurricane, Whirlwind top three allied fighters of 1941 makes nice reading for the Brits, but would be hard to justify given the Whirlwinds actual performance. 

Cheers

Steve


----------



## Edgar Brooks (Feb 2, 2015)

Vincenzo said:


> VC start deliveries to fighter squadrons in april 1942


The first Vc AA873 flew 25-10-41, so qualifies for this thread.


----------



## Vincenzo (Feb 2, 2015)

i don't think so


----------



## Glider (Feb 2, 2015)

stona said:


> No, it was 'top three allied _fighters_'. Earlier there was some debate as to whether even the Hurricane should make the top three. The Hurricane was a much superior_ fighter _to the Whirlwind. If the Hurricane can't make it the Whirlwind is a long way from making it.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Steve


As you may expect I disagree with the view that the Hurricane was a better fighter than the Whirlwind. The Whirlwind was a lot faster and had a good overall performance. In 1941 you are up against the Me109f and that all over the hurricane whenever they met in combat. 
Granted the Whirlwind had problems at altitude but so did the Hurricane. On paper it was OK but it struggled and the pilots knew it. The Whirlwind was operating over Europe in daylight until 1943 long after the Hurricane was withdrawn from active combat over europe on a regular basis.


----------



## stona (Feb 2, 2015)

The Whirlwind's performance dropped of radically above 20,000ft. 5.7 minutes to 15,000ft is respectable but that is way too low for the sort of combats occurring in the BoB. The rate of climb fell to less than 1,00oft/min at 24,000ft (still too low) and it took just over 25 minutes to reach 30,000ft.
None of this is surprising given the rated altitude of 13,500 ft for the Peregrines as fitted to the Whirlwind. There were plans to fit an improved Peregrine, running at higher boost and giving a rated altitude of 20,000ft, but this came to nothing when the Peregrine was itself axed.

A report from Sqn. Ldr. Eeles on the Whirlwind's altitude performance, at a time when the Luftwaffe were regularly mounting fighter sweeps at 30,000ft said:

"The performance of the Whirlwind above 20,000ft falls off quite rapidly and it is considered that above 25,000ft it fighting qualities are very poor."

The Whirlwind only ever operated over Europe in daylight when escorted by Spitfires or, earlier, Hurricanes. Shades of the Bf 110 there. Later they were used often for shipping strikes which is arguably operating over occupied Europe, contested air space certainly. They did also attack targets in France.

The advantage of being used in a fighter bomber rather than fighter role was that they could use their low level performance. As 10 Group noted:

"It's manoeuvrability compared with Spitfires and Hurricanes makes it unsuitable ....for operations when it will have to engage enemy fighters and cannot rely on its speed at low level to make a getaway..."

I've given a lot of reasons and provided a lot of evidence why I wouldn't put the Whirlwind in my top three. I'm not seeing much evidence provided to support the contention that it should be in it. I respect your view that the Whirlwind was a better fighter than a Hurricane but it was not shared by Fighter Command for tactical and operational reasons. It was not shared by the Air Ministry and Ministry for Aircraft Production for economic reasons. I'd be interested to hear why you disagree with them, and me. 

Cheers

Steve


----------



## Glider (Feb 2, 2015)

The thread is the top three fighters in 1941. In 1941 the Hurricane was being withdrawn from combat over Europe by the RAF as it was totally outclassed. The RAF knew it as did the pilots. The Whirlwind wasn't withdrawn from combat over Europe until 1943 when the Typhoon arrived in sufficient numbers and with adequate reliability. So presumably the RAF considered the Whirlwind capable enough to operate in what was the most challenging air combat environment of the day.

In 1941 the Hurricane was not good enough for altitude combat, the Whirlwind never was any good at altitude which is why it operated at Low to Medium altitude. So any difference in practical terms in their performance at altitude was academic, as neither were able to take on the opposition at altitude. 

My basic point is that if the Hurricane was so much better than the Whirlwind, why was the Hurricane withdrawn over Europe in favour of the Typhoon before the Whirlwind?


----------



## tomo pauk (Feb 2, 2015)

Oh, no, the FTH for the peregrine was not 13500 ft, but 15000 ft (for +6.75 psi boost). For comparison sake, FTH for the the Merlin III was at 16250 ft (for +6.25 psi), and for the DB 601A 13120 ft or 14760 ft (4 or 4.5 km) depending on S/C version.
What let down the Whirlwind's performance above 20000 ft was the convoluted intake tubing before the air entered supercharger - each bend tends to lower the usage of ram effect, and hence it lowers airplane's critical height. Simple intake, like Spitfire, Hurricane, Bf-109 or P-40 used, is way better. Westland was trying to be too smart with intake, like Focke Wulf with Fw 190A air intakes? Second thing was the 'masked' exhaust, that means less exhaust thrust, that again lowers airplane's performance.
It is unfortunate that RR did not made some strong recommendations about intakes and exhausts on the Whirlwind. edit: or, if they did, Westland was not listening?


----------



## stona (Feb 2, 2015)

Glider said:


> My basic point is that if the Hurricane was so much better than the Whirlwind, why was the Hurricane withdrawn over Europe in favour of the Typhoon before the Whirlwind?



Because the Whirlwind was NOT OPERATED AS A FIGHTER at the time you refer to. In this respect the comparison with the Hurricane fighter in 1941 is completely irrelevant. The people of Malta would be surprised to hear that it was no longer a front line fighter in 1941. At the end of the war the RAF still had 651 Hurricanes in the UK and a total of over 2,000 in all commands.
The Whirlwind was operated as a ground attack aircraft (later a fighter bomber) in situations where it was unlikely to meet enemy fighters and was in any case escorted by RAF fighters (Spitfire or Hurricane).

How can an aircraft that because of its limitations was not even operated as a fighter be on a list of top three fighters in 1941?

Cheers

Steve


----------



## stona (Feb 2, 2015)

tomo pauk said:


> Oh, no, the FTH for the peregrine was not 13500 ft, but 15000 ft (for +6.75 psi boost).



There may be a confusion in terms. My figure (from Corduroy) matches the 'International Power Rating' on your chart. It depends on what was 'normal' rpm I suppose.

I just checked in 'Gunston' and he does say it was rated at 885 hp at 3,000rpm, 15'000ft on 87 grade fuel.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## CORSNING (Feb 2, 2015)

Hi guys,
I looked over Vincenzo's list in Post#13 and narrowed it slightly. I don't think anyone here has any objections to the Spitfire Vb as being the No.1 choice. I am curious what this group thinks we should be concentrating on for No.2 and No.3 at this stage in the discussion?

Hurricane II
Yak-1
MiG-3
P-40D/E
F4F-3
Whirlwind I
IK-3

Think of it this way. We have been retained as a group to find the best three aircraft that are within our grasp to deal with the Japanese, Italians and Germans in 1941.


----------



## Greyman (Feb 2, 2015)

A quick mash-up of a few graphs.







Sorry it's such a mess - if anyone is too confused by it let me know and I'll spend a bit more time on a new one.

*Hurricane IIb* - 7,397 lb
*Tomahawk IIb* - 7,270 lb
*Whirlwind I* - 10,720 lb

All figures are from A&AEE, except:
Dotted lines are my estimates of emergency boost. The Hurricane's using the Hurricane IIc RAE chart from WWII Aircraft Performance and the Whirlwind's by extrapolating the speed curve and the boost curve.


The Tomahawk seems particularly bad - and I could be accused of cherry-picking a bad test - but I chose it because Boscombe Down stated:

_Performance tests were required on a standard Tomahawk II aircraft, which is the standard American Tomahawk fully modified to British requirements.

The chief features likely to effect performance were - all guns fitted, but no blast tubes round the wing guns; no flame dampers or air cleaners were fitted; a wireless mast was fitted forward of the fin._

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Feb 2, 2015)

Thanks for the graph, no mess at all 
Just a note - the US tests official data show 350+ mph at 15000 ft for the 'sharp-nosed' P-40s, along with P-40D.


----------



## Glider (Feb 2, 2015)

stona said:


> Because the Whirlwind was NOT OPERATED AS A FIGHTER at the time you refer to. In this respect the comparison with the Hurricane fighter in 1941 is completely irrelevant. The people of Malta would be surprised to hear that it was no longer a front line fighter in 1941. At the end of the war the RAF still had 651 Hurricanes in the UK and a total of over 2,000 in all commands.
> The Whirlwind was operated as a ground attack aircraft (later a fighter bomber) in situations where it was unlikely to meet enemy fighters and was in any case escorted by RAF fighters (Spitfire or Hurricane).
> 
> How can an aircraft that because of its limitations was not even operated as a fighter be on a list of top three fighters in 1941?
> ...



In 1941 the Hurricane was being withdrawn as a fighter in Europe as it wasn't a match for the Me109. In the Middle East and Malta as soon as the Me109 arrived the Hurricane suffered huge losses. In the Far East they were totally outclassed by the IJAAF fighters. The RAF knew this as did the Pilots. To believe that the Hurricane was a match for the opposition from 1941 onwards flies in the face of all evidence. 
From 1941 its role was as a GA aircraft as was the Whirlwind.
In Europe the Hurricane units were the first to convert to the Typhoon a statement you can easily check, the Whirlwind squadrons were amongst the last, something else you can easily check. So the question still stands, why if the Hurricane was so much better than the Whirlwind, did the Whirlwind squadrons be amongst the last to convert to the Typhoon?

To say that the Whirlwind operated in areas where it was unlikely to meet enemy fighters is also incorrect. They flew a normal variety of missions, convoy patrols certainly but also targeted enemy airbases attacks on ports, blockade runners, factories, bridges and bomber escort, as I said the normal mixture of missions. In three years of combat in two squadrons 24 were lost in combat, 7 missing in action and 5 written off with battle damage after crash landings. 36 losses to enemy action in three years of combat across two squadrons in the most hostile air combat area around. I suspect these figures had something to do with the RAF delaying the conversion of the Whirlwind to Typhoons.

In dogfights with the Me109f at low altitude the Whirlwind more than held its own, something a Hurricane would struggle to do.


----------



## Edgar Brooks (Feb 2, 2015)

Glider said:


> In 1941 the Hurricane was being withdrawn as a fighter in Europe as it wasn't a match for the Me109.


It was actually being withdrawn to be sent to the Middle East, because there were no Spitfires to spare for that theatre.


> In the Middle East and Malta as soon as the Me109 arrived the Hurricane suffered huge losses.


It was still better than nothing, and desert filters could be fitted, unlike the Whirlwind.


> In the Far East they were totally outclassed by the IJAAF fighters.


In 1941?


> To believe that the Hurricane was a match for the opposition from 1941 onwards flies in the face of all evidence.
> From 1941 its role was as a GA aircraft as was the Whirlwind.


Except of course those that were employed as night intruders (see Kuttelwascher); while the Hurricane could fly at night, the Whirlwind's high landing speed meant that it was deemed to be unsuitable.


> In Europe the Hurricane units were the first to convert to the Typhoon a statement you can easily check, the Whirlwind squadrons were amongst the last, something else you can easily check. So the question still stands, why if the Hurricane was so much better than the Whirlwind, did the Whirlwind squadrons be amongst the last to convert to the Typhoon?


Out of 87 Hurricane II Squadrons, 10 converted onto the Typhoon, while 43 converted onto the Spitfire V, which seems to indicate that the Air Ministry were more interested in equipping as many Squadrons as possible with the best available fighter.
Perhaps you need reminding that, even though 263 Squadron converted straight onto the Typhoon, 137, in June 1943, converted onto the Hurricane IV, then to the Typhoon in January 1944, so somebody in the RAF/Air Ministry didn't share your view on the superiority of the Whirlwind over the Hurricane.


----------



## Vincenzo (Feb 2, 2015)

Greyman tomahawk is not too light?


----------



## Greyman (Feb 2, 2015)

Vincenzo said:


> Greyman tomahawk is not too light?



I'm no P-40 expert, but here's what the test had:

Tare weight: 5,630 lb
Weight light: 5,296 lb
Fixed military load: 334 lb
Service load: 963 lb
Fuel (84 gallons): 605 lb
Oil (8 gallons): 72 lb
Flying weight: 7,270 lb

84 gallons seems like wing tanks only.


----------



## stona (Feb 3, 2015)

Glider said:


> In 1941 the Hurricane was being withdrawn as a fighter in Europe as it wasn't a match for the Me109. In the Middle East and Malta as soon as the Me109 arrived the Hurricane suffered huge losses. In the Far East they were totally outclassed by the IJAAF fighters. The RAF knew this as did the Pilots. To believe that the Hurricane was a match for the opposition from 1941 onwards flies in the face of all evidence.
> From 1941 its role was as a GA aircraft as was the Whirlwind.
> In Europe the Hurricane units were the first to convert to the Typhoon a statement you can easily check, the Whirlwind squadrons were amongst the last, something else you can easily check. So the question still stands, why if the Hurricane was so much better than the Whirlwind, did the Whirlwind squadrons be amongst the last to convert to the Typhoon?
> 
> ...



The Hurricane started to suffer losses when the Bf 109 F turned up on Sicily.

The Hurricane was not principally a ground attack aircraft in 1941 (the time in question in this thread) it was one of the RAF's two front line fighters.

As regards conversion from the Hurricane, Edgar has made the point above. Most Hurricane units were fighter units and converted to the best available fighter, the Spitfire when it became available.

The Whirlwind flew low level hit and run raids for much of its career, somewhat like the Bf 110s of Erpr.Gr. 210 in 1940. They certainly did try to avoid enemy fighters. When 10 Group prepared instructions for the Whirlwinds carrying out 'Mandolin' (later 'Rhubarb') operations, on which they were anyway heavily escorted by real fighter, the instructions said:

_"...it is proposed to carry out raids by small numbers of fighter aircraft, operating in conditions which would allow cloud cover, against selected enemy aerodromes and other German military objectives within striking range of this Group....the main factor in this operation and in selecting targets is the safety of the fighters; thus particular attention must be paid to cloud cover, and the likelihood of the pilot locating the target on coming through the cloud without making himself vulnerable by prolonged search." _

The RAF sought to exploit the good low level performance of the Whirlwind. They typically crossed the Channel at 'low level' or 'sea level' before climbing over the French coast to 8-10,000 ft altitudes at which they could compete. This does not make them a good fighter. Combats were regularly taking place above 20,000ft.

Later the Whirlwind did operate by night. It was safer under cover of darkness. The fact that it was able to operate in this way is a testament to those who flew it as it was not initially deemed suitable for night flying.

The last time Whirlwinds crossed the French coast, on 26th November 1943, eight of them were escorted by the Spitfires of 610 Squadron, they were invariably escorted in daylight. Incidentally all eight were damaged by flak on this occasion. Flak is far more deadly than fighter to ground attack aircraft.
Of the 22 operational losses to known causes (excluding 'failed to return') 17 were to flak and just 5 to fighters.

The Whirlwinds role in daylight strikes was perhaps slightly unfairly summed up by No.263 Squadron's own intelligence officer. Having attacked Brest-Guipvas airfield the escorting squadrons of the Ibsley Wing (three of Spitfires and two of Typhoons) successfully engaged the Luftwaffe, the officer wrote, 

_"Whirlie-bait caused successful combats for the wing." _

There are very few instances when the Whirlwind engaged in combat with Luftwaffe fighter over its two and a half year service life, I don't have time now to trawl for them.

Beware of Wikipedia:

"The Whirlwind proved a match for German fighters at low level, as demonstrated on 6 August 1941, when four Whirlwinds on an anti-shipping strike were intercepted by a large formation of Messerschmitt Bf 109s, claiming three Bf 109s destroyed for no losses."

The four Whirlwinds were accompanied by thirteen Spitfires of 118 Squadron. Four not three Bf 109s were claimed, two by the Whirlwinds and two by the Spitfires. In fact the only loss was one Bf 109 of Erg/JG 2.
This may have been shot down by a Whirlwind flown by Flt.Sgt. Brackley who reported:

_"...the first enemy aircraft broke across my nose but was gone before I could fire. As the second broke away, also across my nose, I fired a 2.5 second barrage and saw it go straight into the sea." _

AIR 50/103/3 if you've got £3.30 to spare or fancy a trip to the National Archives. I know you know your way around 

As in many aerial combats the victim was shot down, probably unaware of the aircraft (in this case Brackley's Whirlwind) which attacked him and whose nose he was crossing. This does not in any way demonstrate the superiority of the Whirlwind to the Bf 109, rather it illustrates an unfortunate and fatal manoeuvre by the Messerschmitt pilot.

Here's an excerpt from another report which gives an idea of what happened when Whirlwinds saw Luftwaffe fighters:

_"From there he was about to deliver the projected attack on Lannion aerodrome when someone gave the warning: "ME. 109s: beat it." About 6 ME 109s were seen in all: 5 definitely F, and 1 definitely E. Three were at 1000 feet, and 2 were at sea level coming towards the Whirlwinds. They made as if to deliver an attack, but then refused combat, either because they saw the Spitfires or because the Whirlwinds were too fast for them: (A.S.I. at this point showed 310.). The pilots report that the fire from the ME 109s. took the form of a regular line of black puffs, very like a barrage. Possibly they were firing shells fitted with a time fuse. They followed the Whirlwinds about 50 miles out to sea."_

(AIR 27/1551)

The Whirlwinds made use of their low level performance to escape, exactly as 10 Group intended. The presence of escorting Spitfires gave the Bf 109 pilots food for thought.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## Glider (Feb 3, 2015)

Edgar Brooks said:


> It was actually being withdrawn to be sent to the Middle East, because there were no Spitfires to spare for that theatre.
> 
> It was still better than nothing, and desert filters could be fitted, unlike the Whirlwind.


Some were withdrawn to the Middle East some were converted to other types.



> Except of course those that were employed as night intruders (see Kuttelwascher); while the Hurricane could fly at night, the Whirlwind's high landing speed meant that it was deemed to be unsuitable.


True but night intruders and also Hurricanes deployed as nightfighters were there because they couldn't live in the air by day. Something the Whirlwind did right to the end of its service.



> Out of 87 Hurricane II Squadrons, 10 converted onto the Typhoon, while 43 converted onto the Spitfire V, which seems to indicate that the Air Ministry were more interested in equipping as many Squadrons as possible with the best available fighter.


Again True, but its interesting that they didn't convert the Whirlwind until the planes were more or less worn out. Had the Whirlwind been worse than the Hurricane they presumably would have been withdrawn first. Typhoons were used to escort Whirlwinds on some of the latter missions.


> Perhaps you need reminding that, even though 263 Squadron converted straight onto the Typhoon, 137, in June 1943, converted onto the Hurricane IV, then to the Typhoon in January 1944, so somebody in the RAF/Air Ministry didn't share your view on the superiority of the Whirlwind over the Hurricane.


No I hadn't forgotten but the story is stranger than that and is drawn from the book _263 and 137 Squadrons the Whirlwind Years_ 
137 were originally going to transfer directly to the Typhoon and started to prepare for this. The first they heard that this wasn't going to happen was the Station Equipment Officer came in and told the S/L that they were going to get Hurricanes, as he had the paperwork for the spares that were on route. The S/L went to 11 Group to see what was happening and was told that due to a shortage of Sabre engines no new Typhoon squadrons were going to be formed. As a result they were going to get the Vengeance which really depressed him, When he got back to Manton the official order came in confirming that they were getting the Hurricane. 
During the last week of the month the remaining aircraft squadron were transferred to 263 squadron and we took possession of our new Hurricane IVs. Despite S/L Wrays best intentions, 137 became non-operational for three weeks. The Hurricanes although armed with 40mm cannon or eight rockets, were much slower than the Whirlwind and were not popular.

The problem wasn't that the Hurricane was better than the Whirlwind, its simply that the RAF ran out of Whirlwinds and at the time didn't have any Sabre engines.


----------



## stona (Feb 3, 2015)

Glider said:


> The problem wasn't that the Hurricane was better than the Whirlwind, its simply that the RAF ran out of Whirlwinds and at the time didn't have any Sabre engines.



But it was a better fighter. At the ground attack trials in 1941 it was also deemed a better ground attack aircraft than the Whirlwind. I feel sorry for the poor old Hurricane, because it came up short of the Spitfire and was incapable of the same development it is often under estimated.

You can see above that when the 'Whirlybombers' encountered the Luftwaffe, even at low level (1,000ft or less) not only did they not engage, they did not press home their attack on the aerodrome but turned and ran for home. They were saved by their high speed at low altitude (hence the nickname 'Crickey') or the escorting Spitfires or both.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## Edgar Brooks (Feb 3, 2015)

Glider said:


> The problem wasn't that the Hurricane was better than the Whirlwind, its simply that the RAF ran out of Whirlwinds and at the time didn't have any Sabre engines.


You really must get away from this "better than" obsession; both aircraft were considered "past it" by mid-1941:-




The fact that "only" 34 Whirlwinds were lost is entirely inconsequential; 34 airframes = 17 weeks of Westland production time, and in 17 weeks they could (and did) produce around 136 Spitfires/Seafires. Replacing 34 Whirlwinds requires 68 obsolete engines, which would cost 136 Merlins. Both airframes were basically redundant, but had to soldier on, due to the Typhoon problems; building extra Hurricanes was easier, and less expensive, in time and materials, than building the equivalent number of Whirlwinds.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Feb 3, 2015)

Just something to note in this hurricane and BF 109 argument. In the MTO, both sides tended to send to the TO, their second string fighters. The majority of LW fighters until well into 1941 were Me 109es and various Me 110s. There were relatively few Fs delivered to the TO.

Over malta, the F was supreme, but still didnt knock the RAF out or manage to enforce the blockade. The RAF and RN, despite using inferior types, was still able to maintain a situation of disputed air space. In that sense the LW and the RA were both defeated. they both failed in their stated mission.....not that the mission was attainable in the first place.


----------



## pbehn (Feb 3, 2015)

If the Typhoon had come into service and been anything like a good serviceable aircraft then the Hurricane would have ended production very quickly. Surprising to see the Tornado still "getting the nod" for officials in April 41. A Typhoon/Tornado designed around the Griffon may have given us two complimentary front line fighters (with the Spitfire) upto 1945.


----------



## tomo pauk (Feb 3, 2015)

The Typhoon with single-stage supercharged Griffon would be more comparable with Spitfire V (and Hellcat?), rather than with Fw 190. It would not come in action until 1943, by when the Sabre is a bit more reliable than in 1942.
With a 2-stage supercharged Griffon, it would be there with Fw 190 and Spitfire IX (and F4U?), but that need to wait until winter of 1943/44, when 1st such engines are available.


Now, the Tempest with a 2-stage Griffon, that would be some aircraft  Albeit a late comer.


----------



## drgondog (Feb 3, 2015)

Vincenzo said:


> i hope that some american fighters expert can reply
> looking on Baugher description of E and F, the drop tank capability was not present in the first batch of F, but the empty weight of F is 384 lbs heavier of E, and the engine of F were -49/53 versus the -27/29 of E.
> I'm sure that many air forces would have not trouble to use also the original P-38



I wouldn't qualify as an "American Expert" but

1st FG was fully equipped with P-38E's in late November 1941. It deployed from Selfridge Field to San Diego for defense of the Naval Base on December 8, 1941, According to America's 100K there were 69 Lightning's (P-38D/E's) in active operational service with AAF units on December 7.

The engine for the YP-38, P-38D/E was V-1710-27/29 with GE B-2 Turbo. The P-38D/E had exactly the same internal fuel capacity as the F/G/H. The first F was delivered March 1942 with maneuver flap.

External wing racks and fuel feed capability was introduced in the F along with the more powerful engines and maneuver flap.

I comparison with the Hurricane, P-40B/C/D/E, the P-39 and F4F - the P-38E was certainly more capable with respect to speed, range, climb, and firepower so I don't understand the reluctance to include a 'top fighter 1941'..

The first production Mustang Mark I's arrived in Britain in October 1941 although do not get out of RAE evaluation until March 1942. At that time there were more than 90 fully modified by RAE and ready to go to war.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Feb 3, 2015)

pbehn said:


> If the Typhoon had come into service and been anything like a good serviceable aircraft then the Hurricane would have ended production very quickly.



No doubt, and that is reflected in Fighter Command and Air Ministry thinking from 1940 onwards. The document Edgar posted (April '41) is really the culmination and assertion of what was already known, that there was little or no room for development of the Hurricane.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## tomo pauk (Feb 3, 2015)

drgondog said:


> ...
> I comparison with the Hurricane, P-40B/C/D/E, the P-39 and F4F - the P-38E was certainly more capable with respect to speed, range, climb, and firepower so I don't understand the reluctance to include a 'top fighter 1941'..
> ...



+1 on this.


----------



## Edgar Brooks (Feb 3, 2015)

Camm wanted to have a go at fitting the Griffon into the Hurricane, but the extra weight, up front, would have meant bringing the wings forward, raking the centre section's spars forward to match, so he was told to forget it, and concentrate on the Typhoon.
Malta had received around 300 Hurricanes in 1941, but, in early 1942, refused any more saying that only Spitfires were good enough to cope with the 109F. At the end of 1942, Park was demanding the Spitfire IX, because the Spitfire V was outclassed by the 109G.


----------



## Vincenzo (Feb 3, 2015)

i'm ever reclutant to put a twin engined fighter in comparison with SE fighter (WW2 time) also if the P-38 would be the alone capable to do good.
AFAIK the 1st PG was not fully equipped with P-38 and had also P-43 when sent to San Diego.
On the change on the F so do you telling that info on Baugher page are wrong?


----------



## CORSNING (Feb 4, 2015)

Vincenzo,
The later P-38Js Ls and earlier P-38Js that were retrofitted with 3,000 psi hydraulically boosted ailerons and dive brakes had very little problems mixing it with the best single engine fighters of Germany and Japan.

drgondog,
Unfortunately the P-38E introduced in the later part of 1941 did not have these features. It was not using the eight degree maneuver flap setting of the P-38F-15 either. Its maximum speed of 381-393 mph. at 20,000 ft. and its ability to reach that altitude in 7.21 minutes would have put its speed and climb very near the top of the listed aircraft. Its range was also near if not on the top of the list. Its firepower was concentrated superbly in the nose.
BUT, all this information brings another aircraft to mind for me. MOSQUITO! Both aircraft shared the same shortcoming. They could not maneuver well enough to be first line DAY fighters. They were both extremely useful but not in a dog-fight situation.

Jeff


----------



## drgondog (Feb 4, 2015)

I'm not sure what you are referring to Jeff. I stated that the maneuver flap and bomb fuel racks were introduced in the P-38F and had the upgraded engines.

What features did you think I assigned to the E incorrectly?

Vincenzo - I have found far fewer errors in Dean's America's 100K" than Baugher. Not to say he is wrong but there is the source of the dispute. Also, my information is the same as as presented in Olynyk's Stars and Bars for the TOE beginning December 7, 1941 for all AAF/USN/USMC air combat units.

Which aircraft do you choose over the P-38E other than the Spitfire V in context of firepower, climb, operational ceiling and speed?

To summarize.
Fully organized and equipped P-38E's for the 1st Fighter Group.

P-38E had neither dive flaps nor maneuver flaps nor wing racks but did have the GE Turbo supercharger.

The P-38F-1 rolled off the Lockheed Assembly line at the end of March 1942.

The introduction of maneuver flaps and external fuel/wing tank racks started with the F. I do not know whether the series started with maneuver flaps or not and have not found a Lockheed source to validate..


----------



## CORSNING (Feb 4, 2015)

I did a little side by side comparisons of the P-40D and P-39D to the other aircraft being discussed. The P-40D can pretty much hold its own to any of the A/C listed in speed and horizontal maneuverability. The P-39D, while slightly less maneuverable than the P-40, has a slight speed advantage at most altitudes. 
Also a fact that needs to be taken into consideration is the performance figures listed in most reference books are at an Allison boosting of 40 to 48"Hg. In combat the earlier Allisons were cleared for 60" by General Motors and actually being push in combat to 66 and even 70"Hg. This level of boosting raised the rated hp. of the Allison from 1,150 to over 1,700 at very low altitudes. And I agree with anyone who brings up the fact that this rating was only at very low altitudes. The performance for the early Allisons with the 8.77 geared supercharger fell off rapidly above 15,000 to 16,000 ft.

Jeff


----------



## CORSNING (Feb 4, 2015)

What features did you think I assigned to the E incorrectly?

None Bill. Your statements were all valid. I was just trying to clear up (actually for everyone) why I had not considered the P-38 in 1941. I incorrectly directed information at you which I am sure you already knew.

Sorry, Jeff

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Feb 4, 2015)

No need to be sorry Jeff - I was just confused. BTW I do know that most reliable sources point to the F-15 as the introduction of the first production maneuvering flap - but the first F, converted to F-4A-1 had the wing tank and uprated engines for sure.

IIRC that F-4 went to Australia and flew the first AAF P-38 combat mission in mid April, 1942 as the Mustang I's were fully operational in the UK.

BTW - I don't consider lack of maneuver flaps or wing racks as indication of not being combat ready, particularly in context of P-39D and P-40E. It might not turn with those two but turning was a highly over rated attribute compared to speed and climb.


----------



## pbehn (Feb 4, 2015)

Edgar Brooks said:


> Camm wanted to have a go at fitting the Griffon into the Hurricane, but the extra weight, up front, would have meant bringing the wings forward, raking the centre section's spars forward to match, so he was told to forget it, and concentrate on the Typhoon.
> Malta had received around 300 Hurricanes in 1941, but, in early 1942, refused any more saying that only Spitfires were good enough to cope with the 109F. At the end of 1942, Park was demanding the Spitfire IX, because the Spitfire V was outclassed by the 109G.



Basically what I was saying was this. The Hurricane was a stop gap, known to be if not obsolete then almost at its limit when it first flew. Hawkers then went onto the "next generation" designed around large 2000hp+ engines. Hind sight says they would have done much better designing a modern stressed skin AC optimised for low level with a longer range high roll turn and dive performance and able to move from merlin to griffon. The effort put into the Vulture Sabre and Centaurus was completely out of proportion to their usefulness, but that is all hind sight, I know.


----------



## CORSNING (Feb 4, 2015)

drgondog said:


> Which aircraft do you choose over the P-38E other than the Spitfire V in context of firepower, climb, operational ceiling and speed?
> 
> *Concerning firepower, the P-38 was excellent. Only the Whirlwind could challenge concentrated firepower. I believe as a bomber interceptor the P-38E was possibly the best of the bunch including the Spitfire. So that boils down to WHAT IS THE AIRCRAFT NEEDED TO DO.
> Climb, speed and operation ceiling (I believe) are all at or near the top of the group. But once again, like the Mosquito's 4 x 20mm + 4 x .303in., if you do not have the maneuverability to bring your firepower to bear on another fighter in a dog-fight, it becomes mute.
> ...



*The first model of Lightning that I can find any reference to the maneuver flaps is the P-38F-15 where Dean talks about their eight degree maneuver setting.

Bill, do you happen to know the altitudes at which the P-38E's climb rate falls to 1,000, 500 and 100 fpm.?*


----------



## CORSNING (Feb 4, 2015)

drgondog said:


> IIRC that F-4 went to Australia and flew the first AAF P-38 combat mission in mid April, 1942 as the Mustang I's were fully operational in the UK.
> *Absolutely correct. 8th Photo Squadron, Australia 7 April 1942. You definitely have a better memory than I. *
> 
> BTW - I don't consider lack of maneuver flaps or wing racks as indication of not being combat ready, particularly in context of P-39D and P-40E. It might not turn with those two but turning was a highly over rated attribute compared to speed and climb.


*I agree with this to a certain limit. The P-38 was a BIG fighter. It had excellent speed and climb but it took more than your average pilot in 1941 to extract its potential in a 1 on 1 contest against another fighter.*

Jeff


----------



## stona (Feb 4, 2015)

pbehn said:


> The Hurricane was a stop gap, known to be if not obsolete then almost at its limit when it first flew.



Hardly. When it first flew it was one of the two highest performing single seat fighters in the world. When it entered service it was still that. It didn't have the room for development that it's near contemporary Spitfires and Bf 109s had, but it was not obsolete at the cutting edge until 1941, two years into the war, and continued to serve with distinction elsewhere.

It was never a stop gap. It was one of the two aircraft that Fighter Command was built around in the pre-war years. It didn't fill a gap until the Spitfire arrived. It was developed alongside the Spitfire and at the expense of other contenders.

After a visit to see the Spitfire mock up at Woolston in April 1935 Sorley wrote to the Air Ministry's Directorate of Technical Development:

_"I then suggest we should now speculate the costs of jigs and tools for both the Hawker [Hurricane] and Supermarine [Spitfire] aircraft while the prototypes are being completed. The risk of a dead loss is to my mind small since both designers have been notable for their first time successes. We could then select either, or both, for production to commence immediately we have satisfied ourselves of their flying capabilities. If by some chance they both should fail then we shall still have the Gloster F7/30 to fall back on." _

Not obsolete when it first flew and certainly not a stop gap. The poor old Hurricane, the backbone of Fighter Command in 1939/40 really does get a bad revisionist press sometimes these days 

How easily we forget that both some of the highest scoring individuals and squadrons of those crucial battles of the summer of 1940 flew the Hurricane.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## drgondog (Feb 4, 2015)

Jeff - being 'big' was an unalterable design feature. The P-38E IMO was still a better fighter to go to war with (than F4F, P-39D, P-40E) in the context of the best of 1941 given the ground rules of operational service by December 1941. The P-38 may not have been as good as the Mossie as an air to air fighter at that time so I have no problem with the Mosquito nominated for top three - but it would never significantly improve as a fighter while all its adversaries would grow in capability - including the P-38. The P-40 and F4F and P-39 would never improve vs the P-38 either.


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 4, 2015)

A problem with the P-38 vs Mossie comparison is that the P-38 was 'rated' at 8 Gs if I am not mistaken. Getting it to pull 8 Gs might be another story, but turns (and dive pull outs) are _never_ done at a _steady_ "G" loading. As the pilot controls the turn (or pull out) with minor changes of the elevator there can be some rather sizable changes in the G being "pulled" at any _given_ moment. Even racers doing a 'nominal' 2 g 180 degree turn (10 seconds) around a pylon (and not being shot at) could pull as much as 6 gs for a fraction of a second, they could also generate negative G for a fraction of second as they relaxed the stick and opened the turn as speed bleed off. 

I could be wrong but I don't believe the Mosquito was built to take the high G loadings of a day fighter. Night fighters seldom, if ever, maneuvered like day fighters.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## CORSNING (Feb 4, 2015)

I will agree that the P-38 had the potential in spades. I haven't seen enough evidence that it was the best in 1941.
HOWEVER, It still all depends on "WHAT ARE THE REQUIREMENTS OF WHAT YOU NEED THE PARTICULAR FIGHTER TO DO!"

If we (the group here) are based in Britain in December 1941 and facing the likelihood of German bombers in force coming across the channel in greater force than they had a year earlier, I would invest in all the P-38s and Spitfires I could get. I would start a mass program of training pilots in multi-engine aircraft.

Then again there is the MTO, PTO and Easter Front to consider.


----------



## CORSNING (Feb 4, 2015)

Uh, I was using the Mosquito and its performance as an example of why the P-38, even with its excellent performance on paper, may not be a true contender in 1941.

The biggest problem with the Mosquito being included as candidate is that AFAIK the first fighter version did not enter service until May 1942. So It doesn't count here.


----------



## CORSNING (Feb 4, 2015)

I wonder if using process of elimination might make this easier. I eliminated the MiG-3 because it may have good higher altitude performance but it took forever to get there. I eliminated the I-16 type 24-29 because they were just too slow to contend. All the others could dictate the terms of combat. CW-21: under gunned and way to fragile. P-35: Underpowered and too slow.
Buffalo: Too slow and not all that rugged. P-36/Hawk 75: Just too slow (enter P-40). LaGG-3: Even if all the bugs could be worked out in 1941, it was just too underpowered. P-24 and MB-151 way to underpowered.

F4F-3
P-38E
Hurricane IIb
Yak-1
Whirlwind
P-40D (P-40E with added weight a little too underpowered to make top 3)
Tomahawk (P-40B/C), I have read that this model was more of a pilots A/C than the Kittyhawk.
IK-3 (Supposedly could outturned the Hurricane. It had a slightly higher wing loading so maybe it had a faster roll rate.?)
P-39D

Does anyone have any climb rate / time to climb information on the IK-3? All I could come up with is 16,400 ft./6.9 minutes. I am close to eliminating this because of its lack of speed 261 mph./S.L. 327 mph./17,715 ft. Its limited firepower (only 60 rds. of 20mm ammunition + 2 x 7.92 mm). Range: 310 mls.


----------



## drgondog (Feb 4, 2015)

CORSNING said:


> I will agree that the P-38 had the potential in spades. I haven't seen enough evidence that it was the best in 1941.
> HOWEVER, It still all depends on "WHAT ARE THE REQUIREMENTS OF WHAT YOU NEED THE PARTICULAR FIGHTER TO DO!"
> 
> If we (the group here) are based in Britain in December 1941 and facing the likelihood of German bombers in force coming across the channel in greater force than they had a year earlier, I would invest in all the P-38s and Spitfires I could get. I would start a mass program of training pilots in multi-engine aircraft.
> ...



The P-38 did just fine in the MTO/PTO - would have done OK in East due to multiple role and heavy firepower. I prefer the P-51, step by step and model change by model change and it was only a month or so being out of phase. The P-51A and A-36 had far superior performance except for climb. Range about equal but the 51 would have more limitations performing escort above 20,000 feet in the 1943 timeframe vs the P-38F/G and H. 

But for the cross section of operations by the Allies the P-51A and up-engined Mark IA would have been superior from 20,000 feet to SL than the P-40, F4F, P-39 and the P-38 - other than high altitude escort in the case of the P-38. The P-38 high altitude engine failures makes even that as a questionable advantage.

But remember, even for the ETO it may have been better for a slightly less performer that was reliable in the P-51A, that could go far deeper than the P-47, in numbers better than the aborting P-38s (because of the massive intercooler/turbo problems of every P-38 prior to the P-38J showing up March 1944). I am not saying the individual, operating without engine problems, P-38H would not be superior to the 51A at 25K, but - if two to three FG's were equipped in ETO in July/August 1943 instead of the RAF (Mustang II's) and 311FG in India had been escorting 8th AF maybe Schweinfurt and Regensburg and Munster would not have been near as bad. P-51 losses would have been higher than P-51B's but the day of the un molested Me 110s and 410s would have been over far earlier than march 1944 and it would have carved out some pieces of the 109 and 190 JG's -IMO-


----------



## CORSNING (Feb 4, 2015)

Bill
I tend agree with you. That is a what if that would be very interesting to know the answer.

After my last post I took a look at the contenders still left and it was all clear to me in a murky kind of way. If I had to limit my choices to build a fighter force. I would take the following three:

Spitfire Vb: Air superiority. 
F4F-3: Carrier duty. (Best suited from a flight deck of the group).
P-38E: Interception duties. (It would not have to mix it 1 on 1 with fighters. All it would have to do is catch the intruders, get above and dive through.) 

IF the Spitfire did not exist then we would be traveling in the land of "WHAT IT" and I would have tried to put the Merlin 45 instead of the Allison into the P-36. Or left the high altitude supercharger in the P-39. 

All the best, Jeff

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Edgar Brooks (Feb 4, 2015)

Shortround6 said:


> I could be wrong but I don't believe the Mosquito was built to take the high G loadings of a day fighter. Night fighters seldom, if ever, maneuvered like day fighters.


The Mosquito was designed, and built, as an unarmed bomber, never a fighter; it was pressed into service as a nightfighter, and eventually became a fighter-bomber. It didn't enter service (as a bomber) until November 1941, and nightfighters did not become operational until April 1942.


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 4, 2015)

Thank you. 
Nothing against the Mosquito, it was a fine airplane and did a number of jobs very well indeed. 
In these forums however it tends to get compared to the P-38 and it seems that many people forget that it as NOT designed to be a day fighter. 
The P-38 could not do some of the jobs the Mosquito did as well as the Mosquito but it is doubtful the Mosquito could have done the P-38s _primary_ job. 

Just because both airplanes are small twins (compared to a Wellington or B-25) doesn't mean they were interchangeable.


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 4, 2015)

CORSNING said:


> IF the Spitfire did not exist then we would be traveling in the land of "WHAT IT" and I would have tried to put the Merlin 45 instead of the Allison into the P-36. Or left the high altitude supercharger in the P-39.



Merlin 45 in a P-36 is called a P-40F (P-40F did have an extra gear on the supercharger for even better low altitude performance though.) 

Leaving the _high altitude supercharger_ in the P-39 gets you a plane that wouldn't perform _anywhere_. 40mph slower at the low altitudes and high altitude performance is highly suspect due to a very doubtful inter-cooler set up.

The much bally-hooed 390mph at 20,000ft *never happened.* 
The plane was never cleared to use more than 2600rpm with the original drive shaft set up, Drive shaft was replaced _after_ the wind tunnel work that lead to the turbos removal. 
Radiators and oil coolers (and ducts) went where the turbo had been in order to solve chronic cooling problems with the original locations.


----------



## CORSNING (Feb 4, 2015)

OK, A lighter weight P-40F in 1941 it is then.


----------



## tomo pauk (Feb 4, 2015)

Shortround6 said:


> ...
> ...
> The much bally-hooed 390mph at 20,000ft *never happened.*
> ...



Very true:







The XP-39, as-is (unmodified), have had the Cd0 of 0.0329, a horrible value for an unarmed monoplane fighter prototype of late 1930s/early 1940s. The XP-38 was at 0.0252, most of radial-engined fighters were at about 0.025 (when armed), and V-12 powered were easily at .0022-0.0023 (apart the P-51 that further cut this figure). The badly cowled (uncowled?) turbo accounted for 10% of the value, the radiators were also draggy stuff. Control of air flow for the intercoolers was not provided (!). The canopy was also found to be too big = draggy.

The modified aircraft never flew with turbo. The XB-39B was 2nd, it was without turbo, received many of modifications that not just cut the Cd0 (for armed aircraft it was down to 0.0217), but also made possible for the USA and Allies to have a workable fighter in production and service.


----------



## pbehn (Feb 4, 2015)

stona said:


> Not obsolete when it first flew and certainly not a stop gap. The poor old Hurricane, the backbone of Fighter Command in 1939/40 really does get a bad revisionist press sometimes these days
> 
> How easily we forget that both some of the highest scoring individuals and squadrons of those crucial battles of the summer of 1940 flew the Hurricane.
> 
> ...


Nothing can take away the Hurricanes record in combat especially the BoB. The Hawker Tornado flew in October 1939 and it along with the Typhoon whose engines came much later should have replaced the Hurricane long before they actually did, Camm was designing the Hurricanes replacement before it was in production. The Typhoon/Tornado shared its thick wings which were obsolete before they even flew and needed the developments incorporated into the Tempest to be successful. The Hurricane was a "fury monoplane" it was modified with uprated engines and additional skinning and armament but it was not a front line fighter after 1940, it was out classed against the Bf109 in the Bob as a fighter but held huge tactical advantages. This takes nothing away from its service record, thank gawd we had it because its supposed replacements didnt really cut the mustard until 1944 and much of what the Typhoon did at and after D Day could have been done by a Hurricane anyway.


----------



## pbehn (Feb 4, 2015)

Shortround6 said:


> Thank you.
> Nothing against the Mosquito, it was a fine airplane and did a number of jobs very well indeed.
> In these forums however it tends to get compared to the P-38 and it seems that many people forget that it as NOT designed to be a day fighter.
> The P-38 could not do some of the jobs the Mosquito did as well as the Mosquito but it is doubtful the Mosquito could have done the P-38s _primary_ job.
> ...



Comparing a Mosquito to a P-38 is like comparing Sophia Loren with Brigitte Bardot, sure they are different but you wouldn't say no to either.

I looked all over but couldnt see anything about max G loads for a mossie, I dont think getting into turning with S/E fighters was the way to go.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 4, 2015)

> Not obsolete when it first flew and certainly not a stop gap. The poor old Hurricane, the backbone of Fighter Command in 1939/40 really does get a bad revisionist press sometimes these days
> 
> How easily we forget that both some of the highest scoring individuals and squadrons of those crucial battles of the summer of 1940 flew the Hurricane.



Sometimes _timing_ is everything. The Hurricane was perhaps one of the best fighters in the world when it first flew and it was still among the best in the Summer/Fall of 1940. Unfortunately it was running into a wall and the fitting of the Merlin XX engine _was_ sort of a stop gap. The Hurricane II was probably a very good match for the 109E, It certainly either closed up some performance gaps or exceeded the 109Es performance in some areas. Unfortunately the Germans were working on the 109F and as increasingly powerful engines were fitted to the 109F the Hurricane II was left further and further behind. With the debut of the Fw 190 the Hurricane was pretty much toast as far as a _fighter_ went. Such was the pace of fighter development. Please remember that the summer of 1941 not only saw the Better 109Fs and early Fw 190s start to show up but the start of production of the P-40D and E. The first flight of the prototype P-40F (same engine as the hurricane II for all practical purposes). XP-47 prototype first flew in May of 1941. Lagg-3s and Yak-1s going into service, First Italian squadrons were working up with the Macchi 202 (like many other aircraft first squadrons had to sort out a lot of problems) and so on. Late 1941 saw the first Typhoons showing up but problems limited their numbers. The Hurricane hung on and performed many valuable services but to say the Hurricane was still a _leading_ fighter in the second 1/2 of 1941 is stretching things.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Feb 4, 2015)

Just to state the obvious, Hawkers were not responsible for the engine (Merlin/Vulture/Sabre) or the prop but they were responsible for the wings (too thick) and fuselage (fell apart). The RR Merlin and Griffon kept the Brits in the game long after the Hurricane and indeed the Spitfire should have retired and in the P51 made the ultimate escort fighter, a happy coincidence but not North Americans original plan.


----------



## stona (Feb 5, 2015)

Shortround6 said:


> The Hurricane hung on and performed many valuable services but to say the Hurricane was still a _leading_ fighter in the second 1/2 of 1941 is stretching things.



I never said that it was. It was also realised by the British in early 1941 (see document posted by Edgar above). However it was still operating in its fighter bomber role, over France,in late 1942. It definitely did hang on and perform a valuable role, even when past its sell by date.

Once again hindsight is being used. Take yourself back to the mid 1930s. Hawker is already busy producing the various versions of the Hart (Demon, Audax, Osprey and then the Hardy, Hartebeeste, Hind,Hector and probably some I've forgotten). Camm concentrated a lot of effort on the development of the Fury, an aeroplane that mysteriously never gets remembered in 'most beautiful aircraft' threads!
Hawkers believed that an up-engined Fury would meet F.7/30 without all the expense of a new design. Given the other contenders like Mitchell's Type 224, Westland's PV.4 and Blackburn F.3 (a contender for ugliest aircraft, google K2892 to make your eyes bleed) this was quite reasonable.
Things moved very quickly in the mid 1930s, but by 1934 F.7/30 had failed to produce a new interceptor for the RAF.
It was Major Buchanan of the Air Ministry's DTD that pushed Camm to consider a monoplane design and whilst this was initially based around the extant Fury fuselage it would be a simplification to say that the Hawker 'Monoplane Fighter' which would become the Hurricane was a development of the Fury.
There are good reasons for the thick, rectangular, inner wing section on the Hurricane, not least for the undercarriage retraction system. There was also the matter of Fighter Command's airfields. The prototype Hurricane needed a take off run of only 265 yards and took off at 81 mph (figures that would obviously go up for heavier service versions). It landed at 57 mph with flaps and the landing run, with brakes, was just 205 yards. Not bad for a 300+mph fighter that for its 'thick' wing was only slightly slower than the sleeker Spitfire, with the same engine.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## CORSNING (Feb 5, 2015)

Tomo,
That was an enlightening thread. Thank you. You going to open a thread titled "Jan-Jun 1942: Top 3 Allied Fighters"?

Jeff


----------



## Greyman (Feb 5, 2015)

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


----------



## tomo pauk (Feb 5, 2015)

Thanks for reminding us other to that document  
Unfortunately, it is not stated what Hurricane and what Spitfire are in question. Going by date - Spitfire Vb and 12 gun Hurricane II?


----------



## Greyman (Feb 5, 2015)

I think it was a IIa that was sent over.


----------



## pbehn (Feb 5, 2015)

stona said:


> Once again hindsight is being used.



Steve firstly your post was not addressed to me but I made a similar point. Secondly we cannot help using hind sight. In my view Hawkers made a business decision. The Hurricane was developed from the fury and all other bi planes in the Hawker stable but it was at the limit of what it was. Hawkers had their eye on the next generation of circa 2000HP fighters. If the Vulture and Sabre were trouble free and on time then the Hurricane and possibly the Spitfires high water mark would be the BoB and the Typhoon Tornado and later the Tempest would have ruled the roost. Hind sight proves otherwise Hawkers would have done better with an advanced stressed skin design with the latest NACA aerofoil designs. The Typhoon made its name as a ground attack fighter bomber, the idea that it was designed as such is is strange, you do not design a plane to fly into ground fire with its radiator at the front. Both the Hurricane and the Typhoon were pressed into service as ground attack AC because they were not much use for anything else, after their first introduction.


----------



## tomo pauk (Feb 5, 2015)

CORSNING said:


> Tomo,
> That was an enlightening thread. Thank you. You going to open a thread titled "Jan-Jun 1942: Top 3 Allied Fighters"?
> 
> Jeff



Thank you and other members that contributed 



stona said:


> ...
> Things moved very quickly in the mid 1930s, but by 1934 F.7/30 had failed to produce a new interceptor for the RAF.
> It was Major Buchanan of the Air Ministry's DTD that pushed Camm to consider a monoplane design and whilst this was initially based around the extant Fury fuselage it would be a simplification to say that the Hawker 'Monoplane Fighter' which would become the Hurricane was a development of the Fury.
> There are good reasons for the thick, rectangular, inner wing section on the Hurricane, not least for the undercarriage retraction system. There was also the matter of Fighter Command's airfields. The prototype Hurricane needed a take off run of only 265 yards and took off at 81 mph (figures that would obviously go up for heavier service versions). It landed at 57 mph with flaps and the landing run, with brakes, was just 205 yards. Not bad for a 300+mph fighter that for its 'thick' wing was only slightly slower than the sleeker Spitfire, with the same engine.
> ...



The Hurricane was arguably the best fighter when introduced. Performance, firepower, handling - it excelled.
With that said - stating that Hurricane was only slightly slower than sleeker Spitfire with same engine is stretching it. The speed difference was around 40 mph with Merlin III on board, for production machines. Such difference was between Spitfire I/II and LF.VIII/IX, for example.

A question: how much different were the take-off and landing requirements for the future Spitfire?


----------



## pbehn (Feb 5, 2015)

tomo pauk said:


> Thank you and other members that contributed
> 
> 
> 
> ...



All true but dont forget how quickly things were changing, the Gloster Gladiator only became operational in february 1937

The first 50 Hurricanes had reached squadrons by the middle of 1938. 

In March 1938, Hawker received from the Air Ministry Specification F.18/37, for a fighter which would be able to achieve at least 400 mph (644 km/h) at 15,000 feet (4,600 m) and specified a British engine with a two-speed supercharger. 

In August 1940, Carter presented Gloster's initial proposals for a twin-engined jet fighter with a nosewheel undercarriage.[N 1] On 7 February 1941, Gloster received an order for twelve prototypes (later reduced to eight) under Specification F9/40.

When the Hurricane was introduced we were not at war but it was clear war was coming, as I see it Hawkers backed the next generation but never got the engines and the actual war intervened, the Typhoon well sorted in 1941 and the Tempest in 1942 may have been the plan but never happened.


----------



## CORSNING (Feb 5, 2015)

My favorite part of the document was in the statement that the Hurricane turned SLIGHTLY BETTER than the A-24 (Army Dauntless).


----------



## stona (Feb 6, 2015)

I'm not suggesting that the Huricane was the equal of the Spitfire and Hurricane vs Spitfire discussions litter the internet. There's no point in having another one

I think that the lack of affection for the Hurricane, at least in Britain, was summed up quite well by David Johnson writing in 'Aviation History' magazine.

_"The reason for the Hurricane's second-class status was that it was competing not with another fighter, but with a genuine legend. William Green wrote: 'The Supermarine Spitfire was much more than just a highly successful fighter. It was the material symbol of final victory to the British people in their darkest hour, and was probably the only fighter of the Second World War to achieve legendary status."_

That legendary status is a lens through which the perception of all other British aircraft, and most particularly the Spitfire's contemporary in the air battles of 1940, will be forever distorted.

In Britain numerous 'Spitfire Funds' were created, I've never heard of a 'Hurricane Fund'.

Cheers

Steve

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Neil Stirling (Feb 8, 2015)

Going through my files this morning and found this.







Neil.

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


----------



## CORSNING (Feb 8, 2015)

Neil,
Thank you for sharing all the great information you have compiled. Between the information you and Mike Williams have supplied over the years, the rest of us have a much better understanding of WW2 aircraft. The information the two of you have supplied has been priceless.

Thank you both, Jeff

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Feb 8, 2015)

The book titled 'United Kingdom's 100000' is long overdue

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## CORSNING (Feb 8, 2015)

Agreed.


----------



## Glider (Feb 8, 2015)

Superb paper, many thanks. The increased performance of the Beau with Merlin engines I didn't expect.


----------



## tomo pauk (Feb 9, 2015)

It performs a bit less per this sheet (provided by a member here  ):


----------



## Glider (Feb 9, 2015)

That is more like it


----------

