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

[pinsog]

Only if the Spitfire is denied overboost.

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

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

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

Zero had overboost available as well

 

[slaterat]

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

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

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

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is its anemic rate of climb, its just too heavy, with the Kittyhawks actually being worse than the Tomahawks they superseded.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

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

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

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

 

[RCAFson]

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

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

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

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

 

[pinsog]

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

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

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

 

[pinsog]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[pinsog]

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

Also please address post 201

 

[Greyman]

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

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

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

Zero had overboost available as well

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

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

 

[pinsog]

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

 

[Schweik]

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

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

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

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

From that memo, this is interesting:

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

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

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

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

S

 

[slaterat]

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

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

 

[Greyman]

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

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

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

 

[Schweik]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

S

 

[slaterat]

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

The volkes air filter was bypassed after take off.

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

 

[Schweik]

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

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

S

 

[pinsog]

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

S

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

 

[Schweik]

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

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

 

[pinsog]

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

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

 

[pinsog]

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

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

 

[slaterat]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Greyman]

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

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