CORSNING
Tech Sergeant
OK, A lighter weight P-40F in 1941 it is then.
1941: top 3 Allied fighters
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
- Thread starter
- #162
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.
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.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
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.
Last edited:
Shortround6
Major General
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.
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.
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
Last edited:
CORSNING
Tech Sergeant
Tomo,
That was an enlightening thread. Thank you. You going to open a thread titled "Jan-Jun 1942: Top 3 Allied Fighters"?
Jeff
That was an enlightening thread. Thank you. You going to open a thread titled "Jan-Jun 1942: Top 3 Allied Fighters"?
JeffPertinent document:
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/P-40/PHQ-M-19-1307-A.pdf
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/P-40/PHQ-M-19-1307-A.pdf
- Thread starter
- #170
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.
- Thread starter
- #173
Tomo,
That was an enlightening thread. Thank you. You going to open a thread titled "Jan-Jun 1942: Top 3 Allied Fighters"?
Thank you and other members that contributed
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?
Thank you and other members that contributed
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?
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.
Last edited:
CORSNING
Tech Sergeant
My favorite part of the document was in the statement that the Hurricane turned SLIGHTLY BETTER than the A-24 (Army Dauntless).
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
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
Neil Stirling
Airman 1st Class
Going through my files this morning and found this.
Neil.
Neil.
CORSNING
Tech Sergeant
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
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
- Thread starter
- #179
CORSNING
Tech Sergeant
Agreed.
