Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
The point that I was trying to make was that the expected engine life far exceeds the average life expectancy of the aircraft using the engine. I.E. If the average fighter survives for 100 three hour flights then why do you need an engine for it that lasts five times as long, surely it would be better to use them as the Soviets did.Do you have real source for that or are we back to the bearing failure thing again.
RR themselves only claimed a "life" for the Merlin in 1945 of 360 hours for a fighter engine, 420 hours for a bomber engine and 500 hours for a transport engine.
"The Merlin in Perspective- the combat years" Rolls-Royce Heritage trust Historical series No2 page 90.
You have to very careful reading and interpreting some of these figures.
For instance if you had 30 fighters with Allisons and ran them for 100 hours each (3000 hours total) and got 2 bearing failures you would be averaging one bearing failure every 1500 hours of operation. Do the same thing with 30 Merlin engines and if you had 6 bearing failures in 3000 hours of operation you would be averaging 500 hours between bearing failures.
It may not mean that the engines lasted either 1500 hours or 500 hours in service. Only a really desperate squadron commander or technical officer would fly a plane in combat that was hundreds of hours past the manufacturers recommended overhaul life.
The hours I listed earlier were the not a guaranteed life. They were a MAX life. IF the engine made to that number of hours without being pulled for some sort of problem (excessive oil consumption, low compression, metal bits in the oil, etc) the Manufacturer strongly recommended pulling the engine for overhaul regardless of how well it was running. In the early part of the war it was quite common to order 50% more engines than the number of single engine airframes in order to allow for a good supply of spare engines/parts. If engines lasted for 1500 hours why bother to do that?
I would note that even in transport service it took until after WW II for engines to get approved for over 1000 hours.
Pre war there were some DC-3s that had gone through 12 sets of engines in just 4-5 years.
Please not I am not claiming the Merlin was the equal of the Allison in regards to strength or durability.
I am questioning the use of a particular type of engine failure as a measuring stick for overall engine durability/life. There are plenty of other ways for an engine to fail (in sometimes spectacular fashion) aside from bearing failure.
Schweik, you mentioned something about japan not intending to invade northern Australia. That's not entirely correct.
This is a link to some source material that you may find interesting
Battle for Australia: Japanese debate Invasion of Australia
Yeah I mistyped that initially and went back to correct.
So it sounds like they did continue development on the Hurricane, at least to some extent.
Since you are the resident expert on the Hurricane can you break down performance (max level speed, ceiling, climb rate, Hp, max boost, dive speed, critical altitude etc.) for the various subtypes?
Mk 1
Mk IIa
Mk IIb
Mk II (Russian Field Mod)
Mk IV
Mk XX
Mk XI
Mk XII
Mk XIIa
And max roll rate if you know or care to estimate ?
Supposedly, 11500 claims and 10410 confirmed, Hurricane got 55%, Spitfire 33%. I know what you're getting at, its rather high for the 1939/41 period and maybe even a handful in 1942. My guess would be halve the number confirmed. It includes Battle of France, Dunkirk, Battle of Britain, the Blitz, Dieppe plus any other minor ops. It must be at least 2000 for everything excluding Dieppe and other minor ops.
Victory claims / credits that I have been able to find by Hurricanes in the ETO amount to '41= 173½; '42= 45 and ' 43 none.
I would think that the Hurricane would have a couple of thousand claims up until the end of '40; but that still leaves a few thousand unaccounted for?
My guess would be at least several hundred in the Med, maybe more. The Hurricane was superior to most Italian fighters, and when operated at 2000 to 3000 metres, the Hurricane II with boost was comparable in performance to the Mc 202 Folgore in 1942.They must have had at least a couple of hundred claims in the Med, probably the same in Russia and CBI. Would love to see the total numbers.
My guess would be at least several hundred in the Med, maybe more. The Hurricane was superior to most Italian fighters, and when operated at 2000 to 3000 metres, the Hurricane II with boost was comparable in performance to the Mc 202 Folgore in 1942.
I'm sure you're right for 1941. I'm just quoting Eric Brown who thought the Hurricane should beat the Folgore in a dogfight. I'd be interested in seeing the figures if you have them. The (Sea) Hurricane would have fought many battles in 1941/42; Western Desert, Greece, Crete, Syria, Malta, the Malta convoys, Operation Torch and of course over Yugoslavia. By the end of 1942, replacement with Tomahawks, Kittyhawks and Spitfires, was I'm sure the right move.I can tell you that Hurricanes did not score a lot of air to air victories in 1942, per Christopher Shores records. They racked up a few before the Bf 109 showed up. I don't think they fared well against MC 202s either.
We can dive into it a bit if you want I have the books handy.
I think most of the Hurricane victories in the Med were in 1941 and against Italian G.50 and MC.200, German Bf 110 (which came before the Bf 109s did), German and Italian bombers, and Vichy French types. They did get some kills of Bf 109E too but by the time the 109F got there the Hurricanes seem to have been focusing on bombing or sometimes attacking bombers.
S
I'm sure you're right for 1941. I'm just quoting Eric Brown who thought the Hurricane should beat the Folgore in a dogfight. I'd be interested in seeing the figures if you have them. The (Sea) Hurricane would have fought many battles in 1941/42; Western Desert, Greece, Crete, Syria, Malta, the Malta convoys, Operation Torch and of course over Yugoslavia. By the end of 1942, replacement with Tomahawks, Kittyhawks and Spitfires, was I'm sure the right move.
You'd think the RAF would publish a few more totals, but then the narrative is that the Spitfire was the wonder plane.I don't have overall figures but if you want me to look up any particular battles on specific days I can check that for you. There were certainly a few 'good days' for Hurricanes I can try to find some examples later.
S
Unless I misunderstood Kevin, the figure of 5871 victory credits (or claims?) awarded Hurricanes was for the ETO only; any other claims/ credits in other theatres would be on top of that. I just can't see how they could get such a large of victories in the ETO?They must have had at least a couple of hundred claims in the Med, probably the same in Russia and CBI. Would love to see the total numbers.
I think you'll find that its awarded victories, but if you look at the awarded victories in 1941/42 for Fighter Command alone they were about four times reality and these were mainly Spitfire claims. From the Battle of France to the end of the Blitz there were about 2000 genuine Hurricane victories then whatever Hurricane victories as close escort and night intruder in 1942 which probably didn't amount to a lot. My guess would be at least an additional 1000 Hurricane victories in the Med from 1940 to 1942, plus maybe another 500 for the Eastern Front and the Far East, but I really don't know. I was just quoting a second hand source from these forums.Unless I misunderstood Kevin, the figure of 5871 victory credits (or claims?) awarded Hurricanes was for the ETO only; any other claims/ credits in other theatres would be on top of that. I just can't see how they could get such a large of victories in the ETO?
Unless I misunderstood Kevin, the figure of 5871 victory credits (or claims?) awarded Hurricanes was for the ETO only; any other claims/ credits in other theatres would be on top of that. I just can't see how they could get such a large of victories in the ETO?