A Radial Engined Fighter for the Australians to build (and maybe the Chinese and Indians)

[FLYBOYJ]

Plus partly fabric and wood construction would probably be easier to make.

Yes and no - metal aircraft construction takes a considerable investment in tooling, fixtures and jigs. Once you're over that, airframes can be assembled quite rapidly with minimally skilled labor. Building wood and fabric aircraft requires a bit of skill. Fabric and wood aircraft and assemblies can be simpler to manufacture (once trained) but time consuming; forming and stitching fabric and applying dope finishes will have to be done under climate controlled conditions. Minor holes in fabric can be easily repaired up to a certain size (depending on the aircraft). Despite the success of the Mosquito, wood structures can be horrible to maintain and repair in the field.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

Yes and no - metal aircraft construction takes a considerable investment in tooling, fixtures and jigs. Once you're over that, airframes can be assembled quite rapidly with minimally skilled labor. Building wood and fabric aircraft requires a bit of skill. Fabric and wood aircraft and assemblies can be simpler to manufacture (once trained) but time consuming; forming and stitching fabric and applying dope finishes will have to be done under climate controlled conditions. Minor holes in fabric can be easily repaired up to a certain size (depending on the aircraft). Despite the success of the Mosquito, wood structures can be horrible to maintain and repair in the field.

Good point, i am aware of the problems with the mosquito and also Russian wood aircraft in more humid climes / seasons.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

And this is part of the argument.

A lot of people seem to want the aircraft construction to start early. Like 1939 it order for the factories to come on line in 1941 in order to actually have a useable number of airplanes in Jan 1942. But the 1200hp engines don't exist in 1939 (or barely) and are scarce even in 1940.

ALL of the export Buffaloes in 1940/early 41 got 1100hp versions of the Cyclone.
Heck the USN was loading 1000hp Cyclones into SBDs in 1942. Granted a lot of aircraft were getting the 1200hp versions.

Martin Marylanders got R-1830s with 1050hp for take-off and 900hp at 12,000ft in the MK I version (Those Mercuries don't look so bad) and went to about 1000hp at 12,500ft in the MK IIs.
A lot is going to depend on the fuel. The US was making engines for American 100 octane fuel in late 1938 and into 1939/40 for the US Military and for the commercial airlines that wanted to use it. They were also making engines that would run on 87 octane or 90 octane for countries that didn't have 100 octane or countries/ companies that didn't want to pay for 100 octane fuel. As I have said many times before the British fuel that the British were dumping into Spitfires/ Hurricanes/ Bristol Blenheim's etc in 1939/40 was not the same fuel. It was about 15-20 points higher on the Performance number scale than US 100 octane fuel. The US fuel was a lot better than 87 octane but it wasn't what the British were using.

I think the idea is that, just like with the SBDs, Marylands etc., they may start with 1,000 hp engines (which is already a step up for many of these types that had ~850 hp engines) and upgrade to 1,200 hp or more as they became available. The main thing is to get production going and the manufacturing process started as early as possible, once the war draws nearer many smaller improvements could be made.

Also please note that just about all of these planes used four rifle caliber machine guns for 1/2 the fire power of a Hurricane I.
Which means you need more aircraft (and pilots) to get similar firepower into the sky to combat incoming air raids.

lets test that claim:

Brewster B.239 / Buffalo - Four 12.7 mm (in US service)
Bristol Beaufighter* - Four 20mm and six .303
Fiat G.50** - Two 12.7mm nose guns
Re 2000 - Two 12.7mm nose guns
Re 2002 - Two 12.7mm nose guns and two 7.7mm guns
Fokker D.XXI - Four 7.5mm guns but had provision (apparently) for two 20mm Madsen cannon
Koolhaven FK.58 - Four 7.5mm guns
Gloster F.5/34 - Eight .303 guns
Gloster F.9 - four .303 and two 20mm
P-36 / Hawk 75 - provision for two 12.7 mm in nose plus up to four .30 cal wing guns
CW-21 - Two 12.7mm and two .30 cal (all in nose?)
Re 2000** - Two 12.7mm in nose
Seversky P-35 - Two 12.7mm and two .30 guns
F4F / Martlet - Four 12.7mm
P-51A - Four 12.7mm

So I'd say all but two of these are at least roughly equivalent to a Hurricane's armament, while most are superior. Four 12.7mm HMG are certainly enough for shooting down Japanese aircraft I think. Two 12.7mm nose guns is, IMO, also sufficient to shoot down Japanese fighters and most bombers. The D.XXI and FK.58 could probably carry at least a pair of 12.7mm instead of the 7.5mm, and the Gloster F.5 could probably carry four 12.mm instead of the eight .303s.

I do think heavy machine guns or if at all possible, cannon, are better than the larger number of .30 or .303 guns because they can more effectively out-range defensive gunners on the early Japanese bombers.

 

[nuuumannn]

whereas the Hurricanes took fairly extreme losses against Japanese fighters, and were also limited by their short range / endurance.

I suspect you're projecting previously held conceptions here. The Hurri's losses were no worse than other types doing the same jobs in theatre. I quoted above, six losses to enemy fighters in six months (of 1944, within the time period of the Imphal and Kohima campaigns), that's not all that many. Yes, attrition and losses through ground fire in a ground attack role in that same period, but that can be expected, ground attack sorties always suffer high losses, and the Hurris were especially employed in that role. Argentine IV Brigada Aerea had 16 A-4s at the start of the Falklands war, only six remained by the end.

As for the Hurricane's range, what was so bad about it in relation to other types? Hurricanes were fitted with drop tanks in theatre, and with two 90 gallon tanks the Hurri II's range was up to 1,500 miles (provided the tanks were jettisoned when empty). The smaller 44 gal tanks gave an endurance of five hours.

 

[Admiral Beez]

But with the Hurricane they never did seem to work out how to use it effectively against the Japanese.

Apparently the Hurricanes sent to Malaya were the desert variant with the speed-killing chin air cleaner.

 

[nuuumannn]

They just didn't match up well for the Theater, IMO.

I'm glad you're not writing a history of the Hurricane in-theatre. I was trying to find your statement that they didn't match well against the Japanese, well, they did a pretty good job for not matching well in theatre. Go back a few posts to where I quoted an author who has written quite a few books on aircraft, including one specifically about Hurricanes when he said that "...it had been the Hurricane which had first of all blunted the spearhead of the Japanese advance, then slowed it down and finally stopped it altogether." So much for not being used effectively (your words) when it is a type credited with halting the Japanese advance at a crucial stage of the campaign.

Here's a little data regarding kills and losses by Hurricane squadrons engaged in escort duties in 1943. In six months, 67 and 136 Sqns destroyed fourteen enemy aircraft, probably destroyed ten more and damaged a further eighteen for the loss of four pilots. 79 Sqn in the same time period had destroyed 17 EA, 135 Sqn claimed over twenty but with the loss of thirteen of its own pilots.

Sure, I'm not saying Hurricanes didn't suffer losses or have shortcomings, but it fought hard and well in theatre and the evidence doesn't match at all what you are saying about it. Hurricane pilots claimed that the Ki-43 in particular was deadly and during ground attack sorties was most effective at countering them, but a good experienced pilot in a Hurricane could tackle a Ki-43 and come out on top, particularly in the IIc with its four cannon, which proved very effective against Japanese fighters.

Gordon Conway of 136 Sqn in March 1943:

"A week later the [Japanese] repeated this raid using 15 plus bombers at 18,000 feet, with 20 plus fighters at 22,000 feet. Joe Edwards was leading, and as he dived on the top fighters, another fighter from a different flight turned onto his tail. I gave this Oscar a long burst of cannon, closing from astern, as he literally fell apart. He seemed to stop in mid-air, his port wheel came down followed by his flaps, and with pieces flying off all around he flicked and spun vertically into the sea, just by the airfield. We claimed five, one and two, while 67 [Sqn] claimed three probables and one damaged. So ended a good month in which our only casualties were two pilots, both of whom escaped with slight injuries."

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

I suspect you're projecting previously held conceptions here. The Hurri's losses were no worse than other types doing the same jobs in theatre.

It's not 'projecting' or based on previously held conceptions on my part. I was actually surprised to learn Hurricanes were used in the CBI and was interested to read about their use in Theater. My understanding from what I have read (mainly some excerpts of Shores 'Bloody Shambles' series, and articles like this which were posted to this site) is that the Hurri's losses whenever they were in air to air combat in Theater were quite extreme and one-sided, and not just in the first few months of the war. They were considered particularly vulnerable to the Ki-43 but also the A6M when they did encounter those. One example I know of off-hand of a clash with A6M is the infamous Ceylon raid, but I know there are a lot more action from Burma. However, I'll grant you I have not drilled down into this in detail.

I quoted above, six losses to enemy fighters in six months (of 1944, within the time period of the Imphal and Kohima campaigns), that's not all that many.

True, if that was the ratio in 1942-1943, and the rest of 1944 as well then I would agree with you. I'll see if I can find some more stats. What sources would you recommend on this?

Yes, attrition and losses through ground fire in a ground attack role in that same period, but that can be expected, ground attack sorties always suffer high losses, and the Hurris were especially employed in that role. Argentine IV Brigada Aerea had 16 A-4s at the start of the Falklands war, only six remained by the end.

I think they were used mainly in the ground attack role precisely because they proved incapable in the air to air role. Various other types were also used for ground attack in that Theater (P-40s, P-51s, Vultee Vengeance, Mohawks, Beaufighters, B-25) and didn't necessarily suffer extreme losses. Blenheims did though.

As for the Hurricane's range, what was so bad about it in relation to other types? Hurricanes were fitted with drop tanks in theatre, and with two 90 gallon tanks the Hurri II's range was up to 1,500 miles (provided the tanks were jettisoned when empty). The smaller 44 gal tanks gave an endurance of five hours.

I guess it varies by version and some other factors, but the numbers I see show Hurricanes internal fuel load gave a range of under 500 miles. I've seen some estimates as high as 600 miles but I don't know how they arrive at that (does that mean an external tank?). Internal fuel is usually quoted as 97 imp gal / 116 US gallons. Yes they could put 90 gallon external (ferry?) tanks on them, but I suspect that 1500 mile range you quoted is very misleading, they certainly couldn't fight with these and for a return trip, they are still limited by their internal fuel. How fast could they fly with two 90 gallon tanks?

And needless to say, they can't carry 180 gallons of extra fuel plus bombs, so you aren't going to fly ground attack missions with that extra fuel load. From what I've read the combat radius of the Hurricane was quite short. They certainly complained about the short range of Hurricanes in the Med, and the critique of the Sea Hurricanes range and endurance was quite bitter (see armored carriers here for example). If it is the case that they really used to fly missions in the CBI with two 90 gallon tanks and had the kind of combat radius which that implies, I'll stand corrected and this will certainly revise my perception of the aircraft!

On paper, it doesn't seem like the Hurricane should be so outmatched by a Ki-43, especially given that P-40s and F4Fs / Martlets seemed to hold their own against them fairly well once they adjusted their tactics. I admit i don't fully understand it.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

I'm glad you're not writing a history of the Hurricane in-theatre.

Woah nelly! Maybe this is personal for you, it's not for me. I'm interested in the war particularly in that Theater, as I had some distant family who served there, (and it's just interesting, isn't that why we are all here?) but I'm not going to die on the hill of whether this or that plane performed well. I guess we have just read some (apparently radically!) different sources on this topic. If there is new actual data to learn, as opposed to opinions or individual anecdotes, I'm always interested to learn more. But don't take it personally that I learned something different about the role of a particular aircraft type in the war.

To be honest, from what I have read, Hurricane units did quite well during the Battle of Britain, but had fairly dismal combat outcomes pretty much everywhere by late 1942. If that is incorrect I'd be glad to learn it. I kind of like Hurricanes I think they look cool.

 

[nuuumannn]

I think they were used mainly in the ground attack role precisely because they proved incapable in the air to air role.

Perhaps your choice of phrasing needs adjusting. Incapable is definitely not what the Hurricane was in theatre. Again, this is evidence your preconception is misleading you. The Hurricane was superceded by better types, not because it was incapable, but because better types were available - there is a big difference. These were Spitfires and Thunderbolts, but the Hurricane didn't disappear from the battlezone.

As mentioned, during the Imphal and Kohima campaign in 1944, the Hurricanes took on the majority responsibility of ground attack and was the type largely responsible for destroying the Japanese forces on the ground. Despite replacement as a fighter interceptor, its numbers didn't diminish in theatre, in fact following some squadrons replacing their Hurricanes with Spitfires, Blenheim squadrons converted onto Hurricanes as they made better bombers. They could, once they had dropped their ordnance, turn and face enemy fighters, too, a capability the Blenheims didn't have.

but I suspect that 1500 mile range you quoted is very misleading, they certainly couldn't fight with these and for a return trip, they are still limited by their internal fuel. How fast could they fly with two 90 gallon tanks?

Misleading? In what what way? 1,500 miles was the maximum range the Hurricane could fly with the two 90 gal tanks fitted. The 44 and 90 gal tanks were not just ferry tanks and they could be dropped in flight, the 43 gal tanks were fixed ferry tanks that could not be dropped. Does it matter what speed they were flying? If they are performing fighter escort duties they are gonna fly at whatever speed they need to maintain pace with the bombers. If you are looking for a speed restriction on the carriage of the tanks, I can't see one in the Mk.II manual for the type, but restrictions were put on aerobatics, diving and strenuous manouevres with them fitted, but obviously, as drop tanks, they were to be discarded, as with any fighter should do with long range tanks before it goes into a dogfight.

On paper, it doesn't seem like the Hurricane should be so outmatched by a Ki-43, especially given that P-40s and F4Fs / Martlets seemed to hold their own against them fairly well once they adjusted their tactics. I admit i don't fully understand it.

Well, I provided evidence of a combat claim by a Hurricane pilot, which shows that the Ki-43 could be outmatched by the type when flown well. Again, your perceptions are not matching the reality.

Bloody Shambles is a great read and good info, but it covers the opening phases (late 1941 to April 1942) of the campaign, not the entire CBI campaign to the end of the war. Also, again, the losses that Britain suffered in Singapore and Malaya in 1941/1942 couldn't be avoided and don't necessarily reflect the capabilities of the Hurricane, more the lack of capability of the British as a whole in theatre. You appear to be hanging your hat on this as your basis for critiquing the Hurricane, whilst ignoring its use in the CBI from late 1942/1943 onwards.

As for a reference, any good book on the Hurricane should detail its career in the CBI. Robert Jackson's book simply titled Hawker Hurricane is a good starting point.

 

[nuuumannn]

Just looking at the figures, the Hurricane IIc and the P-40E or British Kittyhawk I were pretty evenly matched in terms of performance, the Hurri IIc was faster in level flight at a higher altitude than the P-40, but the P-40 had a better range by 50 to 100 miles depending on the source - without drop tanks. The Hurricane had a higher ceiling by 7,000 feet. The Kittyhawk was heavier at empty and gross by around 1,000 lbs compared to the Hurricane. The Hurricane IIc had a faster rate of climb by nearly 500 feet per minute over the P-40. As for armament, horses for courses, six fifties or four 20mm cannon. Both effective.

Statistically there wasn't much in it and if the two were to get into a scrap, as always, the pilot is the key. The Hurricane was excellent at low speed manoeuvrability, which proved deadly against unwary Bf 109 pilots during the Battle of Britain. It was an excellent dog fighter and at low speed a Hurricane I could out turn a Spitfire I. Obviously against Japanese types it is at a disadvantage in that area, but the Hurricane has advantages in its higher maximum speed and diving speed over the Ki-43 and its heavier armament. The Hurri IIc model with its four cannon proved very effective.

Needless to say, choosing between the Hurricane and P-40 comes down to supply. The reason why Australia, Canada and New Zealand, for example received P-40s was because they were available in a much shorter space of time than Hurricanes, and the USA already had produced P-40s for Britain, so these were diverted relatively swiftly, aside from the P-40s the USAAF diverted to Australia in March 1942. This shouldn't be looked at as a slight against the Hurricane, but Britain was at war before the USA and fighter production was geared to supplying its own needs. If these Commonwealth nations had to take Hurricanes instead of P-40s - the Canadians had both, building the Hurri, of course and the RAAF had both, but not many Hurris at all and the P-40 was its principal fighter, I'm sure not much would have changed in terms of the usage these nations would have gotten out of them.

 

[Shortround6]

I think the idea is that, just like with the SBDs, Marylands etc., they may start with 1,000 hp engines (which is already a step up for many of these types that had ~850 hp engines) and upgrade to 1,200 hp or more as they became available. The main thing is to get production going and the manufacturing process started as early as possible, once the war draws nearer many smaller improvements could be made.

It you have a lot more latitude with bombers when you try to stick in larger engines.
The Fokker XXI was a about 1/2 the weight of a P-40E or F when empty. A Martin Marylander went about 10,600lbs empty or about 1800lbs more than an Empty Typhoon. Granted they stuck two slightly improved engines in the bomber instead of a single engine but I hope you get the Idea. The smaller the fighter the harder it will be to stick in bigger engines as development takes place, and a big fighter to begin with with a small engine is pretty much worthless as a fighter.

lets test that claim:

Well, I meant the slightly different Fokker XXI's but lets go with it.

Brewster B.239 / Buffalo - Four 12.7 mm (in US service)
Bristol Beaufighter* - Four 20mm and six .303
Fiat G.50** - Two 12.7mm nose guns
Re 2000 - Two 12.7mm nose guns
Re 2002 - Two 12.7mm nose guns and two 7.7mm guns
Fokker D.XXI - Four 7.5mm guns but had provision (apparently) for two 20mm Madsen cannon
Koolhaven FK.58 - Four 7.5mm guns
Gloster F.5/34 - Eight .303 guns
Gloster F.9 - four .303 and two 20mm
P-36 / Hawk 75 - provision for two 12.7 mm in nose plus up to four .30 cal wing guns
CW-21 - Two 12.7mm and two .30 cal (all in nose?)
Re 2000** - Two 12.7mm in nose
Seversky P-35 - Two 12.7mm and two .30 guns
F4F / Martlet - Four 12.7mm
P-51A - Four 12.7mm

First lets get rid of the twin engine aircraft, twins were supposed to carry more firepower than single engine fighters. If your twin only carries the guns of a single engine fighter you are paying too much for twin for what you get out in most cases.

The famous Fokker with 20mm guns.
Not a Fokker but a fixed landing gear Hawk 75

Granted it a Museum bird and may not be in original shape but hanging 20mm (or 23mm Madsen?) cannon under a wing is going to make for a significant performance penalty.

we can discuss the Italian fighters all in one go, in large part because not all 12.7mm machine guns were created equal.
Fiat G.50** - Two 12.7mm nose guns
Re 2000 - Two 12.7mm nose guns
Re 2002 - Two 12.7mm nose guns and two 7.7mm guns
Re 2000** - Two 12.7mm in nose

The Italian 12.7mm gun was heavy, almost as heavy as three .303 or .30 cal Brownings and it fires slow, especially when synchronized.
The bullets were about 3 -3 1/2 times heavier than the .303 ammo but with the synchronized guns firing under 600rpm each you were only putting out as many bullets as a single wing mounted Browning. Granted some of the ammo was HE but look up the weight of the HE.
Of course the Italian 7.7mm gun didn't fire as fast as the Browning either so the Italians were kind of behind the 8-ball. What was innovative in the mid 30s was obsolete in 1940.

The Americans, after falling behind in the 30s, went a bit overboard in 1940 as we have discussed before.
And here is where timing, timing, timing raises it's head again. The US was dealing with two rather different .50 cal guns and with two different ammunition specifications in 1940.
The old guns were supposed to fire at 600rpm (unsynchronized) but could only do that if they were lucky, they were carrying short belts of ammo and if they were flying straight and level (or not banking, diving was ok) The US .50 was almost as heavy as 3 smaller guns. The Ammo was longer (heavier) than the Italian 12.7mm and used a heavier bullet (about over 4 times what the .303 bullet weighed) which meant it did hit harder BUT the 1940 ammo and older fired at just over 2500fpm which means it wasn't any faster than the .303 ammo.
Not sure it this is part of the reason for those big numbers of .50 cal in 1940 US specifications?
However, the Americans managed to modify the guns in late 1940 or in 1941 to fire at 800-850rpm (unsynchronized) which certainly helped the fire power (assuming you could get the guns to fire when you wanted in 1941, by no means guaranteed). In 1940 they also introduced new propellent in the cartridge case and increased the muzzle veleocity by about 300fps for a very significant increase in kinetic energy. The British stuck with the old loads in 1940-41 and beyond when the British were paying for the ammo. What Australia, China, India or even Canada my have gotten in 1940-41 is certainly subject to question. Also it took the US awhile to get incendiary ammo for the .50 that worked well (the British developed their own?)
Most of the problems with the .50 were pretty much gone by 1943 but that doesn't do the 1938-40 commonwealth fighter much good.

So I'd say all but two of these are at least roughly equivalent to a Hurricane's armament, while most are superior. Four 12.7mm HMG are certainly enough for shooting down Japanese aircraft I think. Two 12.7mm nose guns is, IMO, also sufficient to shoot down Japanese fighters and most bombers. The D.XXI and FK.58 could probably carry at least a pair of 12.7mm instead of the 7.5mm, and the Gloster F.5 could probably carry four 12.mm instead of the eight .303s.

I do think heavy machine guns or if at all possible, cannon, are better than the larger number of .30 or .303 guns because they can more effectively out-range defensive gunners on the early Japanese bombers.

The .50 cal guns imposed a significant weight problem for low powered fighters. A Spitfire with eight .303 guns and 350rpg was carrying about 440lbs worth of guns and ammo, mounts, ammo boxes and ways to cock and fire the guns are separate.
If you take the bare minimum weight of .50 cal guns you are going to wind up with just about 150rpg of .50 cal ammo for 4 guns, In all likelihood you are going to be closer to 135 rpg. For four guns every 25rpg is going to cost you 30lbs.
If you are trying to build fighters with 840-1000hp engines you have a real problem with US .50 cal guns and ammo.

For the most part the idea that you can "out range" defensive machine guns needs a rethink. A lot of pilots/air crew may have believed it but ballistics show it isn't true. At least not enough to make any difference in targets the size of an airplane. Now many pilots and aircrew were opening fire a way beyond the distances they should have been firing at. Trying to aim a hand aimed machine gun at several hundred mph is very hard in itself. And every few degrees of angle from the flight path demands a different hold-off (lead) just like the the fighter plane needs to "lead" the target if it is firing at anything except either 12 o'clock or 6 o'clock. The aiming errors are way worse than trajectory errors and trying to figure out where the target is going be when the bullets/shells get there at anything more that a few hundred meters or yards takes a lot of skill, practice and luck.

A German 7.9mm bullet took .45 seconds to travel 300 meters. The German 20mm Mine shell from the MG-FFM cannon took .55 seconds to cover the same distance.
even a 180mph bomber is covering 80.5 meters a second (call it 40 meters in 0.5 seconds. ) so where is a Bf 109 in 1940 going to aim to put it's shells on target?

Once the US got the .50 cal sorted out it did have an advantage in shorter time of flight than most other guns. But the idea you could line up outside the effective range of the bomber's guns needs to be tossed in the trash heap.

 

[Shortround6]

Just looking at the figures, the Hurricane IIc and the P-40E or British Kittyhawk I were pretty evenly matched in terms of performance, the Hurri IIc was faster in level flight at a higher altitude than the P-40, but the P-40 had a better range by 50 to 100 miles depending on the source - without drop tanks. The Hurricane had a higher ceiling by 7,000 feet. The Kittyhawk was heavier at empty and gross by around 1,000 lbs compared to the Hurricane. As for armament, horses for courses, six fifties of four 20mm cannon. Both effective.

Statistically there wasn't much in it and if the two were to get into a scrap, as always, the pilot is the key. The Hurricane was excellent at low speed manoeuvrability, which proved deadly against unwary Bf 109 pilots during the Battle of Britain. It was an excellent dog fighter and at low speed a Hurricane I could out turn a Spitfire I. Obviously against Japanese types it is at a disadvantage in that area, but the Hurricane has advantages in its higher maximum speed and diving speed over the Ki-43 and its heavier armament. The Hurri IIc model with its four cannon proved very effective.

Needless to say, choosing between the Hurricane and P-40 comes down to supply. The reason why Australia, Canada and New Zealand, for example received P-40s was because they were available in a much shorter space of time than Hurricanes, and the USA already had produced P-40s for Britain, so these were diverted relatively swiftly, aside from the P-40s the USAAF diverted to Australia in March 1942. This shouldn't be looked at as a slight against the Hurricane, but Britain was at war before the USA and fighter production was geared to supplying its own needs. If these Commonwealth nations had to take Hurricanes instead of P-40s - the Canadians had both, building the Hurri, of course and the RAAF had both, but not many Hurris at all and the P-40 was its principal fighter, I'm sure not much would have changed in terms of the usage these nations would have gotten out of them.

I would agree with pretty much everything you have said.
The Hurricane is interesting because you can look at test results and see the differences in some of the things we are talking about. The P-40F used the same engine as the Hurricane II and while few, if any P-40Fs operated in the CBI theater we can guess how it would have done, it's over 1000lb weight disadvantage would have somewhat spit the difference between the Hurricane and Allison P-40s. The P-40s extra fuel capacity was useful but 123 Imp gallons to 97 Imp gallons internal fuel wasn't going to translate into a lot of extra range. The P-40 probably could go a bit further on the same fuel but again was it enough change target selection that much? Most P-40s had the single drop tank but the Hurricane with 2 of 44 imp drop tanks could probably go further. However the P-40s, until late in the war had the choice of bomb or drop tank. Some Hurricanes had the choice of one bomb and one drop tank which made up for the shorter range a bit.

 

[nuuumannn]

To be honest, from what I have read, Hurricane units did quite well during the Battle of Britain, but had fairly dismal combat outcomes pretty much everywhere by late 1942. If that is incorrect I'd be glad to learn it.

The Hurricane I was considered obsolete as a fighter interceptor from late 1940 onwards by the British. The IIc was certainly considered an advance over the Hurricane I, but its performance could not match the Spitfire V or, more importantly the Bf 109F. Thi is the reason why Hurricanes were sent to the Desert Air Force in North Africa and over to the Far East. Dismal is again a little unfair and doesn't take into consideration its widespread use in combat, the type proved efficient in the North African desert both as a fighter and ground attack type, even if its performance was overtaken by Bf 109s. Again, in the CBI/Pacific theatre it gets a bad rap because of its showing in Singapore and Malaya, but as mentioned many times before, even if the RAF had the best fighters in the world in theatre, they had so much else against them, they still would have lost to the invading Japanese.

In the CBI the Hurricane was effective because it was there in numbers, when the chips were down for the British and Indian armed forces. Its role was crucial in keeping the Japanese at bay and as mentioned, proved essential in halting the Japanese advance during two major campaigns in 1944.

The Hurricane wiki page (if that is a measure) doesn't do the type's service in the CBI much justice at all, but has this to say.

"The battles over the Arakan in 1943 represented the last large-scale use of the Hurricane as a pure day fighter. But they were still used in the fighter-bomber role in Burma until the end of the war and they were occasionally caught up in air combat as well. For example, on 15 February 1944, Flg Off Jagadish Chandra Verma of No. 6 Squadron of the Royal Indian Air Force shot down a Japanese Ki-43 Oscar: it was the only RIAF victory of the war. The Hurricane remained in service as a fighter-bomber over the Balkans and at home as well where it was used mainly for second-line tasks and occasionally flown by ace pilots. For example, in mid-1944, ace Sqdn Leader 'Jas' Storrar flew No 1687 Hurricane to deliver priority mail to Allied armies in France during the Normandy invasion."

Woah nelly! Maybe this is personal for you, it's not for me.

It's not personal for me either (I should add that I certainly don't mean you any disrespect, Wild Bill), but I see a lot of people underestimating the Hurricane without evidence, basing its action entirely on its performance in the Pacific in late 41/42. Yet it doesn't take much to see just how effective its usage was in the CBI if you are prepared to look. There are loads of books on the type out there and compared to the P-40 both were very similar to each other, with discrepancies here and there, but even the total number built are within 1,000 examples of each other (more Hurris were built in total). Yet Americans in particular - and this is not a criticism of where you are from at all, but a trend I've noticed in amounts of disregard for the Hurricane, don't rate the Hurricane at all compared to the P-40.

I've met and spoken to both P-40 and Hurricane pilots and while I never asked either which they prefer, neither had much bad to say about their respective aircraft, the consensus with both being pretty much the same, good sturdy aircraft in a fight but increasingly out-performed by better types as the war went on.

 

[nuuumannn]

I would agree with pretty much everything you have said.

The two are very evenly matched across the board, and you're right, the weight difference kind of affects the P-40F, even in the case of the lighter P-40E the Hurricane has a superior rate of climb and is faster and therefore its acceleration is going to be better as well. The Hurricane's range deficiency isn't much compared to the P-40, as mentioned, between 50 and 100 miles, but again, mitigated by the fitting of drop tanks. In theatre you'd be hard pushed to find a job that either aircraft could do that the other could not.

I'd hate to choose between them. It would boil down to situation. If the decision had to be made before the war, given my country is Commonwealth, it'd be the Hurricane (with the promise of better props from DH or ROTOL rather than sticking with that naaasty lump of wood on the front), but if it were made after the shooting starts and Hurri supplies dry up because Britain is busy, it'd be the P-40. The USA was not hampered by the logistics issues that Britain was and it's much more convenient cosying up to Uncle Sam.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

Well I don't know where the rivalry comes from, for me I like a variety of types including British and US aircraft, I know that sources back in the 20th Century were often biased toward the parochial / patriotic point of view, but I don't rely on those kinds of books. I'm not responsible for what Martin Caidin wrote in the 60s.

For this particular discussion, I am just interested in figuring out the truth as best it can be determined. My sources are mostly British - I believe Christopher Shores for example is British, and I have the Osprey Publishing book P-40 vs. Ki-43 and Osprey is a British company.

By the way, Shores "Bloody Shambles" series continues through 1945. I'd also recommend his Mediterranean Air War series.

I'll say this about the Hurricane vis a vis the P-40: It was a good fighter before the P-40 existed as a fighter. It really seems to have performed well during the Battle of Britain in 1940.

From those books, and the Osprey books, various pilot memoirs and a bunch of others, I learn that the Hurricane was phased out as an air superiority fighter in North Africa in favor of Tomahawks and then Kittyhawks. From everything I have read the Hurricane was a disaster in the Burma, and nothing you have posted has led me to believe otherwise.

As for the alleged performance edge of the Hurricane, it seems to have evaporated in the field. I've yet to read any pilot, Axis or Allied, who said that the Hurricane out performed the P-40. Bottom line is, I think the Hurricane was great when it was most needed, but it was done as a fighter by the end of 1942, whereas P-40s remained useful for a couple more years, which is to be expected as it is a later design.

 

[nuuumannn]

I have the Osprey Publishing book P-40 vs. Ki-43 and Osprey is a British company.

Osprey is a British publisher, but it's a publisher, that commissions books from different authors. Osprey employs authors from all over the world and consequently its quality does suffer between standards of research. There are some good ones and bad ones, as anyone who collects them can attest to. It's knowing which author is good and which isn't.

I have read the Hurricane was a disaster in the Burma, and nothing you have posted has led me to believe otherwise.

I don't have to convince you. It's up to you to change your perspective, but only if you wish to. It seems that even with a book reference, actual combat quotes and advice to do more reading about the type, you can't be convinced, so it is up to you now, Bill.

Go out and read some books on the Hurricane.

 

[Shortround6]

There is little doubt that the P40 was faster, unless you have really rose tinted glasses and several large glasses of beer.
However the Hurricane seems to have climbed better, that varied with altitude and also depends on how over boosting was going on at which altitudes and at what point in the war.
We also have the test results done in Britain or America vs the Pilots flying the CBI weather (Hot and High?)

Perhaps a few hundred fpm climb difference isn't enough to make a difference if the Japanese fighter is climbing a lot faster. Or has a lot more power to help it turn.
While the speed didn't change a lot on the Ki-43 the addition of the two speed supercharger may have made a big difference at higher altitudes vs the Allied fighters.

The Allison P-40s were good for about 850hp no RAM at 20,000ft with the 8.80 supercharger gears which means the Ki-43 II had more power at 20,000 ft in a plane that weighed about a ton less.

The thing that allowed the P-40 and Hurricane to be used for so long in the CBI area was that the Japanese should have replaced the Ki-43 at the end of 1942 or beginning of 1943. Building about 45% if the total number of Ki 43s in 1944 alone was a total failure of planning.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

Osprey is a British publisher, but it's a publisher, that commissions books from different authors. Osprey employs authors from all over the world and consequently its quality does suffer between standards of research. There are some good ones and bad ones, as anyone who collects them can attest to. It's knowing which author is good and which isn't.

I'm well aware, the book I listed is by one of the good ones

I don't have to convince you. It's up to you to change your perspective, but only if you wish to. It seems that even with a book reference,

I linked several sources for you, which you seem uninterested in. What makes Shores stand out of course is that he is one of the new breed of aviation authors who actually checked the stats on both sides of the conflict. Contrary to what you said, "Bloody Shambles" doesn't end in 1941 or 1942- I linked you the volume that covers the rest of the war. The Hurricane doesn't look good in those pages, nor in Mediterranean Air War. I don't think it's likely that Shores and his various collaborators had a bias against British aircraft in general or the Hurricane in particular. To the contrary, Shores makes quite clear that he personally has a low opinion of the P-40, P-39, P-38, and various other US made aircraft. But the records speak for themselves. As do the historical facts such as how the British themselves decided to to use the Hurricane vis a vis the other aircraft types.

actual combat quotes and advice to do more reading about the type, you can't be convinced, so it is up to you now, Bill.

I thought it was obvious, but I'll spell it out. The plural of anecdote does not equal statistics. I can show you an individual case where an Avro Anson shot down a Bf 109. Does that mean it was the superior air to air combat aircraft? I don't think so. Of course when you can find a case where the Hurricane pilots caught some Ki-43s below them and blasted one out of the sky. I certainly never suggested that they couldn't ever shoot down any Japanese fighters. The problem was they lost more Hurricanes than they managed to shoot down Ki-43s, and that remained the case for as long as they were fighting. That is what I meant by 'incapable'.

Go out and read some books on the Hurricane.

I have done, but you are right about that, I'll see if I can find some more... in the mean time maybe we can focus on the Gloster F5 for this Aussie scenario so as not to ruffle any nationalist feathers...

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

There is little doubt that the P40 was faster, unless you have really rose tinted glasses and several large glasses of beer.

Yep. In one famous Aussie test the P-40 was actually faster than the Spit V down below 16k feet.

However the Hurricane seems to have climbed better, that varied with altitude and also depends on how over boosting was going on at which altitudes and at what point in the war.
We also have the test results done in Britain or America vs the Pilots flying the CBI weather (Hot and High?)

In theory, the Hurricane climbed better. I've read tests where the Hurricanes couldn't maintain full power during climbs in the Tropical heat (I think Australian again?)

Perhaps a few hundred fpm climb difference isn't enough to make a difference if the Japanese fighter is climbing a lot faster. Or has a lot more power to help it turn.
While the speed didn't change a lot on the Ki-43 the addition of the two speed supercharger may have made a big difference at higher altitudes vs the Allied fighters.

The Allison P-40s were good for about 850hp no RAM at 20,000ft with the 8.80 supercharger gears which means the Ki-43 II had more power at 20,000 ft in a plane that weighed about a ton less.

The thing that allowed the P-40 and Hurricane to be used for so long in the CBI area was that the Japanese should have replaced the Ki-43 at the end of 1942 or beginning of 1943. Building about 45% if the total number of Ki 43s in 1944 alone was a total failure of planning.

The P-40s were able to escape from a Ki-43 or an A6M by rolling (they could roll very fast) and entering an 'escape maneuver' into a high speed dive. This allowed them to disengage which was all the edge they needed. They would fight until it wasn't going well, disengage, then go back and fight again. This is what all the Pacific and CBI units relied on over and over to deal with Japanese fighters, along with certain specific maneuvering tricks. They could more or less disengage at will.

Double Ace Robert De Haven described using what sounds like a Low-Yo-Yo in a P-40 against a Zero, and what to do if it didn't work:

"[Y]ou could fight a Jap on even terms, but you had to make him fight your way. He could outturn you at slow speed. You could outturn him at high speed. When you got into a turning fight with him, you dropped your nose down so you kept your airspeed up, you could outturn him. At low speed he could outroll you because of those big ailerons ... on the Zero. If your speed was up over 275, you could outroll [a Zero]. His big ailerons didn't have the strength to make high speed rolls... You could push things, too. Because ... f you decided to go home, you could go home. He couldn't because you could outrun him. [...] That left you in control of the fight."

Apparently they never figured out an equivalent technique with the Hurricane, so they were kind of doomed.

The telling evidence is in the victory scores. The were over 900 by US P-40 pilots in the CBI alone. Look at the Aussies record with it... (well hell, I was gonna link "Pacific Victory Roll" but it seems to be missing...? Dang... ) I don't see those kinds of results for the Hurricane. To get back to the point of the thread, I think the Aussies could have had Hurricanes if they had wanted them. There were certainly enough floating around.

 

[nuuumannn]

I thought it was obvious, but I'll spell it out. The plural of anecdote does not equal statistics. I can show you an individual case where an Avro Anson shot down a Bf 109.

Yeaaaah, I've been doing this sorta thing for years so, ye cannae teach me to suck eggs, mate. I worked at aviation museums for years, I do professional research and write for aviation publications, so I'm kind'a aware of the value of source info. But what you perhaps are missing is that the example was placed simply as an example, not to judge the operational career of the type on, which you appear to be doing.

Perhaps that's your mistake. You appear to be convinced by your sources and won't take convincing other wise, yet there is a lot more out there that doesn't agree with you.

Yes, I'm well aware of the Shores books and the others you recommend and just because I haven't mentioned them doesn't mean I'm not familiar with them; the data they produce is certainly thorough and yes, as I said lots of Hurricanes were shot down, but contextually, what do you have to compare it with of the same ilk when you say its performance was a disaster? Which standard are you judging Hurricane losses on?

From what I have read, and including combat records etc, more Hurricanes were lost on the ground and shot down by ground fire rather than were lost in air combat and Shores will confirm this.

Again, as I have said, national pride has nothing to do with it. Yup, I'm from the Commonwealth, so my opinion would be split even if it were down to national pride. Kiwis flew Hurricanes during the Battle of Britain, in North Africa and the Far East, but the RNZAF operated P-40s in the Pacific. It's not a thing, honestly. Have you not read what I posted earlier about which one I'd choose if I had to?