1941: top 3 Allied fighters
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
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.
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
Tech Sergeant
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
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
Last edited:
CORSNING
Tech Sergeant
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
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
Last edited:
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."
"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
Tech Sergeant
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
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
Last edited:
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?
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
Tech Sergeant
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.
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.
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #89
CORSNING
Tech Sergeant
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
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
- Thread starter
- #93
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
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
- Thread starter
- #95
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.
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
Tech Sergeant
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.
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #97
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
Last edited:
Shortround6
Major General
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.
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
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
