This account is from Terence Kelly's, "Hurricane Over the Jungle", he was an eye witness to the event. The Hurricane pilot was 258 squads Flt Sgt Scott , who was on his final landing approach when he was bounced. In his follow up book "Battle for Palembang", Kelly identifies the Japanese pilot as LT Masabumi Kunii, of the 64 Sentai.( fromYasuo Izawa"s Combat Diary).
A Critical Analysis of the RAF Air Superiority Campaign in India, Burma and Malaya in 1941-45
- Thread starter Kevin J
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
This account is from Terence Kelly's, "Hurricane Over the Jungle", he was an eye witness to the event. The Hurricane pilot was 258 squads Flt Sgt Scott , who was on his final landing approach when he was bounced. In his follow up book "Battle for Palembang", Kelly identifies the Japanese pilot as LT Masabumi Kunii, of the 64 Sentai.( fromYasuo Izawa"s Combat Diary).
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/naca868-rollchart.jpg
I have seen others link to this report, but I do not see a graph for the Hurricane in it. I have posted some roll rate info on the Hurricane earlier in this thread, where at 1/4 aileron deflection the Hurricane out rolls a Spit 1 and a P36 and has a similar rate to the Buffalo.
Here's a better quote from Greyman
- Thread starter
- #324
Kevin J
Banned
It wasn't only the top speed of the Spitfire that was limited when carrying the 90/170 gal slipper tanks, yes 90 gal tanks too, but they could only fly in a straight and level line, no manoeuvres were allowed so you would be a sitting target for an enemy fighter. In the case of the 45 gal slipper tank, those extra restrictions didn't apply. In practice, the 45 gal slipper tank was only used for patrol work and the 30 gal slipper tank did not need to be jettisoned and could be retained in combat. So imagine, a Spitfire Vc TROP with a 30 gal slipper tank, your top speed is probably 350+ mph, so you'd have a hard task intercepting a Ki-46-II which would be 20+ mph faster or you're a Seafire IIc on patrol with a 45 gal slipper tank, well you might as well use a Wildcat, a much better plane for carrier work.
Last edited:
I've looked at this chart before, I was just confused because there was a chart that was dated 1941, and possible other detail changes made over the years.
Are you saying the Hurricane, P-63 and F2A have similar roll-rates with 25% deflection with varying control-loads?
So these were functionally ferry tanks? What made them unsuitable for maneuvers?
So the 45 gallon tank was the biggest that could take maneuver forces, and the 30-gallon tank couldn't be jettisoned?
- Thread starter
- #326
Kevin J
Banned
The recommended use of 90 gal and 170 gal slipper tanks was for ferry use only as manoeuvres were restricted when flying with them, also IIRC the max speed permitted with them was under 200 mph, but I can't remember the precise figure, its out there somewhere on the internet somewhere. The 30,45 and 90 gal slipper tanks could be jettisoned but IIRC the retaining hooks that held them on didn't always work in unison with unpleasant results. Loss of speed with them fitted varied from 5 mph to 16.5 mph.
Last edited:
MIflyer
1st Lieutenant
Actually, I got the account from Terrence Kelly's "Hurricane & Spitfire Pilots at War," which includes personal accounts of both his experiences and those of many other Hurricane and Spitfire pilots in various theaters of WWII. It's a good book; I recommend it.
Glider
Captain
Limiting the speed to 240mph wouldn't have been a major problem as the bombers normally cruise at around that speed so less weaving would be needed. On the journey to the danger area a lot of this extra fuel would have been used, tanks released and normal performance returned.
Mk VIII Spits often used 90 gallon slipper tanks the only problem was supplies keeping up with demand.
Shortround6
Major General
It may depend on the model of the aircraft and the extent of testing done at a given point in time.
There are a number of flight manuals available on this website and those give the limitations. For late MK IX aircraft for instance (might be post war?)
The tanks were not to be jettisoned at over 300mph IAS.
aerobatics and combat maneuvers are not permitted carrying any external stores (except the 30 gal "blister" type drop tank).
As a thought (with nothing to back it up) performing acrobatics or combat maneuvers with a fuel tank not stressed for such things (will the seams or attachment points stand up to a 6-7 G load in a turn or pull out?) Please note that such maneuvers were not permitted when carrying iron bombs let alone fuel tanks where the fuel could slosh about (subject to some baffling?)
There are a number of flight manuals available on this website and those give the limitations. For late MK IX aircraft for instance (might be post war?)
The tanks were not to be jettisoned at over 300mph IAS.
aerobatics and combat maneuvers are not permitted carrying any external stores (except the 30 gal "blister" type drop tank).
As a thought (with nothing to back it up) performing acrobatics or combat maneuvers with a fuel tank not stressed for such things (will the seams or attachment points stand up to a 6-7 G load in a turn or pull out?) Please note that such maneuvers were not permitted when carrying iron bombs let alone fuel tanks where the fuel could slosh about (subject to some baffling?)
wuzak
Captain
So a Spitfire V may not have had the power to or performance to manoeuvre with the drop tank in place, but a IX possibly could, and the XIV definitely could.
Spitfire Mk XIV Tactical Trials
Spitfire Mk XIV Tactical Trials
MIflyer
1st Lieutenant
One of the things mentioned in "Hurricane & Spitfire Pilots at War" is that the wing mounted ferry tanks used by Hurricanes were not jettisonable. They had accumulated a large quantity of the tanks on Malta and they were not good for much. They took a couple of Hurricanes, fitted them with the tanks and used them as night intruders over the enemy airbases on Sicily. Also added to those duties was dropping supplies of money to a spy in the same area.
As for the Spitfire V drop tanks, see the attached.
The Spit V manual also says that the drop tanks are only pressurized above 20K ft and that activating the pressurization system impairs the self-sealing capabilities. I believe that all American drop tanks were pressurized when in use and that ours were not self-sealing.
As for the Spitfire V drop tanks, see the attached.
The Spit V manual also says that the drop tanks are only pressurized above 20K ft and that activating the pressurization system impairs the self-sealing capabilities. I believe that all American drop tanks were pressurized when in use and that ours were not self-sealing.
Of course, but if jumped by enemy fighters, you might not be able to gain a sufficient amount of speed to engage in effective aerial combat.
Glider
Captain
You are of course correct but normally by the time you get into enemy territory the extra fuel would have been used and the tanks dropped. Its a risk that you might get caught out, but war is about taking calculated risks.
If you're talking about SEA, you're right... however this was based on operations into Germany. You'd be over their territory in like 100 miles...
wuzak
Captain
But not necessarily defended by fighters.
In any case, the Allies covered that by using a relay system. The escort would happen in 2 or 3 stages, with the initial stage being performed by Spitfires or P-47s, the intermediate stage by P-47s (or P-38s or P-51s?) and the final stage by P-51s.
This also allowed the final stage fighters to fly at a more optimum speed and altitude until they rendezvoused with the bombers, allowing for greater range.
In fact Soviet pilots were not very fond of Hurri and at least over Artic it was an underdog against 109Fs or even against FiAF's Brewster B-239s. Of course the skills of pilots had marked effects on the results of the air combats. And the armament of 2 x 20 mm and 2 x 12,7 mm was effective.
Juha
Have you source for that? because following graph says something different.
Attachments
Thanks for the source, even if I knew the docu beforehand. But who hell would use 5 lb stick force, except maybe badly wounded pilot, in a life and dead situation? The 30 lb or more is much more realistic for real life combat situation.
Juha
As asked, from Christer Bergström's old message to another board, IIRC Prien gives the same in some of his books.
Below 10 %: Minor damage that can be repaired by the aircraft's ground crew.
10 % - 24 %: Medium damage that can be repaired through small repair works at the unit.
25 % - 39 %: Damage that requires a major overhaul at the unit.
40 % – 44 %: Damage to that requires whole replacements of landing gears or other systems, such as hydraulic systems.
45 % - 59 %: Severely damaged aircraft where large parts of the aircraft needed to be replaced.
60 % - 80 %: Write-off category. Certain parts could be used as spare parts for other aircraft.
81 % - 99%: Totally destroyed, crashed on German-controlled area.
100 %: Totally lost, crashed or disappeared over enemy-controlled area or over sea.
And sometimes planes deemed as over 60% dam were repaired after all and on the other hand sometimes planes deemed as say 50% dam were scrapped.
Juha
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
