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
- Thread starter
- #782
Kevin J
Banned
I thought the Eifel Tower was in France and not the CBI.
- Thread starter
- #783
Kevin J
Banned
Wikipedia
wuzak
Captain
Hawker Hurricane variants - Wikipedia
Sea Hurricane Mk IIC
Hurricane Mk IIC version equipped with catapult spools, an arrester hook and full naval avionics; 400 aircraft were converted and used on fleet and escort carriers. The Merlin XX engine on the Sea Hurricane generated 1460 hp at 6,250 feet (1,900 m) and 1435 hp at 11,000 feet (3,400 m). Top speed was 322 mph (518 km/h) at 13,500 ft (4,100 m) and 342 mph (550 km/h) at 22,000 ft (6,700 m).
Hurricane Mk V
Two Hurricane Mk Vs were built as conversions of Mk IVs, and featured a Merlin 32 engine driving a four-bladed propeller. As the ground attack role moved to the more capable Hawker Typhoon, production of the Hurricane ended, and only a handful were delivered with the Merlin 32.
By this time, the Hurricane was no longer a frontline fighter in the United Kingdom. However, it still saw extensive service overseas as a fighter, playing a prominent role in the Middle East and Far East. It was also critical to the defence of Malta during 1941 and early 1942.
Hawker Hurricane - Wikipedia
Hurricane Mk V
The final variant to be produced. Only one was built and 2 mark IV converted, and the variant never reached production. This was planned to be powered by a Merlin 27 but also tested with a Merlin 32 boosted engine to give 1,700 hp at low level and was intended as a dedicated ground-attack aircraft to use in Burma. All three prototypes had four-bladed propellers. Speed was 326 mph (525 km/h) at 500 ft, which is comparable with the Hurricane I despite being one and a half times as heavy.
Do you think there may have been a typo there?
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/seafirel2cads.jpg
The critical latitude of the Merlin 32 was 1,750ft in the Seafire IIC and the maximum speed was at 5,000ft.
- Thread starter
- #785
Kevin J
Banned
Reply embedded after Hurricane V.
Shortround6
Major General
"Speed was 326 mph (525 km/h) at 500 ft, which is comparable with the Hurricane I despite being one and a half times as heavy".
And this is a big part of the trouble with Wiki. Misprints/typing and somebody confusing or leaving out such minor details as the height at which speeds were achieved. Also comparing gross weights and not the weights at which the speeds were achieved.
Assuming the 326mph is correct (and not the 322mph) and that 5000ft is the correct altitude a MK I Hurricane using 12lbs of boost did make 326mph. but it did it at 10,000ft. at 5,000ft it did about 304mph and at 2000ft it was doing about 293mph. This is on 12lbs of boost, yes using 14lbs or 16lb will show improvement but few, if any, land based Hurricanes used thos boost settings.
The "one and a half times as heavy" is a real laugher. As noted the speed seems to be for the clean MK V and a clean MK V was in now way, shape or form 1 1/2 times heavier than a MK I.
No combat ready MK 1 (armor, self sealing tanks and at least a two pitch prop) was under 6,000lbs. actual gross weight for most was 6600-6700lbs? Max gross weight for the MK V was 8500lbs. without under wing loads it was 7500lbs or under.
I would say the chances of a MK I PR Hurricane hitting 350mph, especially at 7000ft, are about zero.
From, obviously, Spitfire performance.
Now the 16lbs boost was only good at 5,500ft and it slowly tapered off to the 12lbs boost at 9,000ft, granted you can pick up 1000ft or more due to RAM. We can see the difference the 12lb boost rating made, expecting another 4lbs of boost to get the plane anywhere near 350mph is pretty hopeless at the lower altitudes.
My information on the PR MK I is sketchy so please add to it. One source says 8 were converted in North Africa, complete with Vokes filters, but the tactical recon versions kept their guns. A few Hurricane Is were converted to high altitude Photo Reconnaissance (PR) Mark I Hurricanes with fuel tanks replacing the guns, number unknown (to me anyway) and there were MK II versions of both which might lead to confusion on performance?
And this is a big part of the trouble with Wiki. Misprints/typing and somebody confusing or leaving out such minor details as the height at which speeds were achieved. Also comparing gross weights and not the weights at which the speeds were achieved.
Assuming the 326mph is correct (and not the 322mph) and that 5000ft is the correct altitude a MK I Hurricane using 12lbs of boost did make 326mph. but it did it at 10,000ft. at 5,000ft it did about 304mph and at 2000ft it was doing about 293mph. This is on 12lbs of boost, yes using 14lbs or 16lb will show improvement but few, if any, land based Hurricanes used thos boost settings.
The "one and a half times as heavy" is a real laugher. As noted the speed seems to be for the clean MK V and a clean MK V was in now way, shape or form 1 1/2 times heavier than a MK I.
No combat ready MK 1 (armor, self sealing tanks and at least a two pitch prop) was under 6,000lbs. actual gross weight for most was 6600-6700lbs? Max gross weight for the MK V was 8500lbs. without under wing loads it was 7500lbs or under.
I would say the chances of a MK I PR Hurricane hitting 350mph, especially at 7000ft, are about zero.
From, obviously, Spitfire performance.
Now the 16lbs boost was only good at 5,500ft and it slowly tapered off to the 12lbs boost at 9,000ft, granted you can pick up 1000ft or more due to RAM. We can see the difference the 12lb boost rating made, expecting another 4lbs of boost to get the plane anywhere near 350mph is pretty hopeless at the lower altitudes.
My information on the PR MK I is sketchy so please add to it. One source says 8 were converted in North Africa, complete with Vokes filters, but the tactical recon versions kept their guns. A few Hurricane Is were converted to high altitude Photo Reconnaissance (PR) Mark I Hurricanes with fuel tanks replacing the guns, number unknown (to me anyway) and there were MK II versions of both which might lead to confusion on performance?
- Thread starter
- #787
Kevin J
Banned
Bullshit. You could add 35 mph to a Spitfire V if you took out all those features that made it combat ready and cleaned it up, so unlikely in the field. Even the Sea Hurricane Ib could do 317 at 7000 and that had arrestor hook, catapult spools, even had 8 m/c guns. Sort of combat ready?
Last edited:
wuzak
Captain
Hurricane I had a maximum speed of 316mph at 17,750ft with the Merlin III.
Find it hard to believe the Sea Hurricane would get the same speed 10,000ft lower.
Find it hard to believe the Sea Hurricane would get the same speed 10,000ft lower.
Shortround6
Major General
care to expand on that?
You are ignoring the difference in Altitude by bringing in the Spitfire MK V, do you have an actual test report for such a cleaned up Spitfire?
Some Spits were rebuilt several times, One MK XIII PR Spit started as a MK fighter, got converted to a MK V and then had it's cannon yanked, left with 4 machine guns, had a Merlin 32 and 4 blade prop installed. There were 26 MK XIII PRs built and they were converted from Spitfire MK IIs, MK Vs and PR MK IGs.
On page 214 of "The Spitfire Story" By Price there is a test of such a PR MIII. It has a rearview mirror with hemispherical fairing, external BP glass windscreen, no IFF aerials.
test is from March 1943. Top speed was 349mph at 5400ft. boos tis not given but since climb figures of 4,920fps at 2,000ft and 3,690fpm at 10,000ft are give I think we can assume it was not limited to 9lbs boost.
Internal machine guns cause little drag. most of it would be from the ejection slots in the bottom of the wing. There is also some question as the actual armament of the Sea Hurricane MK Ib.
Most sources say 8 guns, There appear to have been two different MK IBs. the first 300 were converted MK Is and retained the 8 gun armament. In Nov 1941 25 MK IIAs with eight guns were converted with arrestor hooks and catapult spools. IIAs had eight guns, for record keeping these screwed things up because they were called both Sea Hurricane MK IBs and Hooked Hurricane IIs in official documents, (source "Hawker Aircraft since 1920) the Sea Hurricane IC used 4 cannon wings on a late production Sea Hurricane Is. No mention is made of a Sea Hurricane with 12 machine guns. Other sources may differ.
Sea Hurricane at 317mph at 7000ft fits nicely on the above chart. about 5-6mph faster at 7,000ft using 16lbs boost and with the extra drag of the arrestor hook, catapult spools, etc.
Certainly doesn't prove anything one way or the other about 350mph photo recon Hurricanes.
Shortround6
Major General
well, it was using 16lb boost instead of 6lb boost
it is getting Hurricane much beyond 340mph at any altitude that is the problem.
Official company figures (claimed to be averages) call for 342mph for MK IIA, 340mph for a MK IIB and 336mph for a MK IIC. These are all at best altitude for a Merlin XX in high gear.
An official test of an early IIA shows 330mph at 20,800ft using 8.8lbs boost,(engine may have been slightly off calibration as it never got over 8.8lbs in high gear, allowable tolerance but a few mph off perfect)
Hurricane II Z-3564 Trials Report
- Thread starter
- #791
Kevin J
Banned
'The Spitfire Story' by Alfred Price, 2nd edition, published 2002. Farnborough 1943. EN946, a Spitfire VB, max speed 357 mph. Page 140.
Multi ejector exhausts, 7 mph.
Carborettor ice guard, 8 mph.
New rear view mirror, 3 mph.
Whip aerial, 0.5 mph.
Flush cartridge case and ejector chutes, 1 mph.
Sealing all cracks, rubbing down, painting and polishing leading edge, 6 mph.
Waxing rest of aircraft, 3 mph.
Total 28.5 mph increase in speed.
Last edited:
The AVG reported doing many of these exact things in China in 1942 to achieve the same (speed) goals. IIRC they got a 10 mph speed improvement overall.
- Thread starter
- #793
Kevin J
Banned
The Tomahawk was a good plane, just totally unsuitable for the channel front.
Think too much is written about boosting the Spitfires bonifidies over P40 and Hurricane.
P40 was used by everyone during WW2 a lot..! It was a more useful versatile plane.
The platform was successful with a radial or the two inline engines installed in it.
Actually the Brits did use the Tomahawk for raids into France and patrolling low level defense interdiction from Germans because of its range.
Not much written about these missions.
Figure their use was short lived when P51 came along as a better platform.
The Brits were already boosting the P40 using its 100/130 octane fuel.
Suspect the same 70 inches they were getting out of the P51 was using the same fuel.
This was commented in WW2 aircraft performance but there is little actual performance documentation beyond that link.
The issue with British aircraft was not that they were not good or useful.
They never had the fuel capacity for sustained fight.
Which is where the P40 faired well.
Understated...the P40 would burned 500/600 lbs of fuel off lightening it for better performance.
Meeting a full weight gassed up Axis plane.
Even the Late model Spitfires during Bodenplatte ran out of gas while US craft stayed in the air.
Reading Japanese journals the Zero was still liked by their pilots.
On documented battles over Japanese Homeland they fought against Navy Planes to some wins and break even fights.
Both combatants had the range to stay in the fight.
wuzak
Captain
I don't think that the P-40 have a much greater range than the Spitfire V, which was the standard Spitfire at the time of the P-40 (Kittyhawk) being used in the ETO.
Wiki gives a combat radius of 410 miles for the Spitfire VB and a range of 716 miles for the P-40E. Joe Baugher gives 650 miles Curtiss P-40E (Kittyhawk IA).
I will have to confirm that later.
The US aircraft during Bodenplatte were P-51s, which had a better range than the P-40.
Kittyhawks were apparently used as fighters in the ETO:
"When the Tomahawk was used by Allied units based in the UK from February 1941, this limitation relegated the Tomahawk to low-level reconnaissance with RAF Army Cooperation Command and only No. 403 Squadron RCAF was used in the fighter role for a mere 29 sorties, before being replaced by Spitfires. Air Ministry deemed the P-40 unsuitable for the theater. UK P-40 squadrons from mid-1942 re-equipped with aircraft such as Mustangs."
Curtiss P-40 Warhawk - Wikipedia
Wiki gives a combat radius of 410 miles for the Spitfire VB and a range of 716 miles for the P-40E. Joe Baugher gives 650 miles Curtiss P-40E (Kittyhawk IA).
I will have to confirm that later.
The US aircraft during Bodenplatte were P-51s, which had a better range than the P-40.
Kittyhawks were apparently used as fighters in the ETO:
"When the Tomahawk was used by Allied units based in the UK from February 1941, this limitation relegated the Tomahawk to low-level reconnaissance with RAF Army Cooperation Command and only No. 403 Squadron RCAF was used in the fighter role for a mere 29 sorties, before being replaced by Spitfires. Air Ministry deemed the P-40 unsuitable for the theater. UK P-40 squadrons from mid-1942 re-equipped with aircraft such as Mustangs."
Curtiss P-40 Warhawk - Wikipedia
- Thread starter
- #796
Kevin J
Banned
Let's not talk range, but combat radius, so 85/100 for a clean Spitfire Vb / Seafire Ib, 175 for a clean Kittyhawk I or Spitfire VIII with 30 gal slipper tank. That's twice the distance. Say 185 miles for a Seafire III with a 60 gal Kittyhawk tank slung underneath.
Last edited:
wuzak
Captain
Checked in Morgan and Shacklady and the range was 395 miles for a Spitfire V without overload tank.
- Thread starter
- #798
Kevin J
Banned
Doesn't give you much of a combat radius for a Spitfire VB as you can only add a 30 gal combat tank, or 45 gal drop tank, both slipper types.
Spit VB / VC had very short range which was a Strategic problem for the DAF since it was arguably their best fighter until 1943. In the Med the issue was not (partly) addressed until the arrival of the Spit VIII, and there weren't enough of those.
Spit IX (arriving in small numbers from early 43) seemed to have slightly better but still too short range / endurance but they did sometimes use slipper tanks and later drop tanks from P-40s to extend it. Spit IX was the first really dominant Allied fighter type in Theater. The only other with a similar impact was the P-51 but it didn't arrive until 1944. The P-38 (great range but the early models were mediocre against Axis fighters) and P-47 (better in air combat but range was considered mediocre) both more or less held their own against Axis fighters but neither had a major edge, nor did the Spit V or the Merlin P-40s. They were basically even against Bf 109s and MC 202s, victory largely came down to who had numerical or situational advantage.
For the Spit the major problem seemed to center around the Tropical filters, which may have affected range as well as performance.
I was surprised to read recently though that far out to sea, Fulmars and even Skuas were doing some real damage to Axis torpedo bombers, particularly the SM. 79s and He 111s, which were statistically the most lethal Axis torpedo bombers. The advantage for the Fulmar aside from being a carrier aircraft was definitely range. There is also some anecdotal evidence that having the second crewman helped with spotting enemy aircraft early.
Ju 87s, very lethal but short ranged, were often escorted and seemed to take surprisingly few losses even when intercepted, while the Ju 88 was definitely the most effective Axis bomber overall in the Theater as they were very hard to intercept for the likes of Fulmars, Gladiators or Hurricanes and both dive bomb and launch torpedoes, while they could also attack allied bombers.
The rough equivalent for the Allies in Theater was the versatile and deadly Beaufighter.
Spit IX (arriving in small numbers from early 43) seemed to have slightly better but still too short range / endurance but they did sometimes use slipper tanks and later drop tanks from P-40s to extend it. Spit IX was the first really dominant Allied fighter type in Theater. The only other with a similar impact was the P-51 but it didn't arrive until 1944. The P-38 (great range but the early models were mediocre against Axis fighters) and P-47 (better in air combat but range was considered mediocre) both more or less held their own against Axis fighters but neither had a major edge, nor did the Spit V or the Merlin P-40s. They were basically even against Bf 109s and MC 202s, victory largely came down to who had numerical or situational advantage.
For the Spit the major problem seemed to center around the Tropical filters, which may have affected range as well as performance.
I was surprised to read recently though that far out to sea, Fulmars and even Skuas were doing some real damage to Axis torpedo bombers, particularly the SM. 79s and He 111s, which were statistically the most lethal Axis torpedo bombers. The advantage for the Fulmar aside from being a carrier aircraft was definitely range. There is also some anecdotal evidence that having the second crewman helped with spotting enemy aircraft early.
Ju 87s, very lethal but short ranged, were often escorted and seemed to take surprisingly few losses even when intercepted, while the Ju 88 was definitely the most effective Axis bomber overall in the Theater as they were very hard to intercept for the likes of Fulmars, Gladiators or Hurricanes and both dive bomb and launch torpedoes, while they could also attack allied bombers.
The rough equivalent for the Allies in Theater was the versatile and deadly Beaufighter.
Some of that translates to CBI situation, some doesn't of course. P-38s were much more effective against IJ aircraft, as were P-40s, I don't think they had a lot of Spit Vs. Beaufighters of course were still effective. Spit VIII was one of the best assets until P-51s came along.
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
