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

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

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.

I'm a professional author and researcher too and also write books, academic articles, and so on, though admittedly not on aviation. I am not ignorant enough about aircraft to just take anybody's word for it though, unless I'm talking to a veteran about their own experiences which I have done several times. Sadly not many of the WW2 guys left though.

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.

Well if I'm referring to a source like Shores 'Bloody Shambles' or MAW series, and you counter with one or two specific anecdotes, no it doesn't convince me. I've read dozens of specific anecdotes where the Hurricanes got shot down in droves. I mentioned one of them (Ceylon) upthread.

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?

Well it did quite poorly in both the CBI and the Med compared to the P-40

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.

I think you'll find that many many Hurricanes were shot down by enemy fighters, if you look.

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?

Yes but not on merit right? Personally, i don't think that argument holds water either. The Aussies went for the best aircrarft they could get. When the Spitfire was made available they snatched them up, and when the Spit VIII arrived they got as many as they could. I think they just decided the Hurri was past it's sell by date, and they were right.

Anyway, perhaps we focus on the Gloster F.5 for the Australian "Empire Fighter" scenario?

 

[EwenS]

Gentlemen,
Why not take a look at the database of SEAC aircraft losses both operational and non-operational. In fact it covers much more than the SEAC period (1939-1946). And the aircraft names are a bit misleading. "Hurricane IIC" covers all Hurricane Marks. Same for other types.

http://www.rafcommands.com/database/losses/

 

[MiTasol]

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.

And you need a supply of cut and dried wood. As a rule of thumb most wood requires one year to dry for every inch of thickness. Alloy is ready to use the moment it arrives.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

Gentlemen,
Why not take a look at the database of SEAC aircraft losses both operational and non-operational. In fact it covers much more than the SEAC period (1939-1946). And the aircraft names are a bit misleading. "Hurricane IIC" covers all Hurricane Marks. Same for other types.

http://www.rafcommands.com/database/losses/

Wow great resource. It only covers the far east or is there a database like this for the Western Desert and the Med too?

Looks pretty grim for the poor Hurricane pilots... 1273 shot down. 474 in 1944 alone (a bit more than six). To be fair though they lost quite a few Spits and Thunderbolts too.

 

[Shortround6]

in the mean time maybe we can focus on the Gloster F5 for this Aussie scenario

Lets not.

From Wiki:

"Compared to its contemporaries, test pilots found the F.5/34 prototypes had a shorter take off run, offered better initial climb and were more responsive and manoeuvrable due to ailerons that did not become excessively heavy at high speed."

The F.5/34 was hundreds of pounds lighter than the Hurricane or Spitfire.
The F.5/34 was fitted with a variable pitch prop (at least 2 speed) while the early Hurricane and Spitfire production machines were fitted with oversized cricket bats.
When fitted with a two pitch prop the Hurricane demonstrated a reduction in take off run from 370yds to 280 yds. Take off to 50 was similarly shortened up by about 100yds.

We are making guesses as to the power that was being used for all three planes in the initial climb.
The Hurricane prototype was not only throttled down at sea level (well below 880hp) but when climbing in could not use more than 2300rpm until 6500ft was passed.
Spitfires were similarly handicapped.
Here is test using a two speed on a Spitfire.
", and for this setting and normal take-off procedure the climbing speed reaches 170 m.p.h. (A.S.I.), and the r.p.m. 2850 at 2,000 ft. The change over to coarse pitch at this speed and height reduces the engine r.p.m. to 2070 at +6¼ lb. boost. Speed should then be increased to 185 m.p.h. - the best climbing speed in coarse pitch."

So basically the Spitfire could now take off in fine pitch and use 2850rpm (not the 880hp at 3000rpm it could use flight) and at about 2000ft switch to coarse pitch until it was time to land? climbing at 2000-3000ft at 2070-2100rpm isn't going to get you close to the 880hp engine was capable of at low altitude but then the Mercury engine was down around 725hp at sea level.
So we don't know what the actual take-off distances were. We do know that all three planes would have been handicapped compared to planes using constant speed or even variable pitch props with infinite adjustments between stops. Initial climb rates are all low. The early Merlin's were limited to 2600rpm when climbing as that was the 30 minute rating and not a combat climb. The Mercury would have had a similar reduced rate.

The Gloster speed wise just looks like the 316mph speed was too good to be true.

The Cowl was crap, the exhausts were air brakes and the only thing you can say about the landing gear was that it was better than a P-35.

 

[EwenS]

Wow great resource. It only covers the far east or is there a database like this for the Western Desert and the Med too?

Looks pretty grim for the poor Hurricane pilots... 1273 shot down. 474 in 1944 alone (a bit more than six). To be fair though they lost quite a few Spits and Thunderbolts too.

No, not all shot down. If you read it carefully it covers all losses. Accidents, engine failures, landing accidents etc etc etc.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

No, not all shot down. If you read it carefully it covers all losses. Accidents, engine failures, landing accidents etc etc etc.

Good point, lost to all causes.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

Lets not.

From Wiki:

"Compared to its contemporaries, test pilots found the F.5/34 prototypes had a shorter take off run, offered better initial climb and were more responsive and manoeuvrable due to ailerons that did not become excessively heavy at high speed."

The F.5/34 was hundreds of pounds lighter than the Hurricane or Spitfire.
The F.5/34 was fitted with a variable pitch prop (at least 2 speed) while the early Hurricane and Spitfire production machines were fitted with oversized cricket bats.
When fitted with a two pitch prop the Hurricane demonstrated a reduction in take off run from 370yds to 280 yds. Take off to 50 was similarly shortened up by about 100yds.

We are making guesses as to the power that was being used for all three planes in the initial climb.
The Hurricane prototype was not only throttled down at sea level (well below 880hp) but when climbing in could not use more than 2300rpm until 6500ft was passed.
Spitfires were similarly handicapped.
Here is test using a two speed on a Spitfire.
", and for this setting and normal take-off procedure the climbing speed reaches 170 m.p.h. (A.S.I.), and the r.p.m. 2850 at 2,000 ft. The change over to coarse pitch at this speed and height reduces the engine r.p.m. to 2070 at +6¼ lb. boost. Speed should then be increased to 185 m.p.h. - the best climbing speed in coarse pitch."

So basically the Spitfire could now take off in fine pitch and use 2850rpm (not the 880hp at 3000rpm it could use flight) and at about 2000ft switch to coarse pitch until it was time to land? climbing at 2000-3000ft at 2070-2100rpm isn't going to get you close to the 880hp engine was capable of at low altitude but then the Mercury engine was down around 725hp at sea level.
So we don't know what the actual take-off distances were. We do know that all three planes would have been handicapped compared to planes using constant speed or even variable pitch props with infinite adjustments between stops. Initial climb rates are all low. The early Merlin's were limited to 2600rpm when climbing as that was the 30 minute rating and not a combat climb. The Mercury would have had a similar reduced rate.

The Gloster speed wise just looks like the 316mph speed was too good to be true.
View attachment 664744
The Cowl was crap, the exhausts were air brakes and the only thing you can say about the landing gear was that it was better than a P-35.

Let's make it! It's still loads better than an NA-16

 

[MiTasol]

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.

As someone who has worked on both the P-40 and Hurricane the P-40 was a far better choice for manufacture in Aus than the Hurricane, or the other options suggested.
Given the long nose P-40 is basically a re-engined P-36 and was not available in 1937/8 when the project needs to start that means the P-36 was a best option for Aus manufacture.

The problems with building the Hurricane start with the wing and tail spars that have thin high strength non weldable steel that is rolled in about 20 stages into an basically circular shape with lots of flats with two wide flanges that in themselves have narrow flanges That is then riveted together to the rolled and shaped webs with spacers inside where any bolts go through to prevent crushing. That requires a lot of specialized tooling, and a lot of special material, that is not used on any other aircraft and requires very high man-hours. Given Australia had not even manufactured vehicles at that time, and did not have the ability to manufacture such steels until about 1940, that requires a lot of specialized training for the management and staff and the vast majority of that training is useless for use on any other aircraft production.

The lead time to manufacture the Hurricane or other options is many months at least. You must remember the Boomerang was weeks from first concept to first flight and had comparable performance.

Then there is the fuselage frame. Unlike the Boomerang that uses a simple to make welded steel tube frame the Hurricane uses a bolted steel frame, again using a non weldable steel that has no other use. The Boomerang frame is 4130 steel, a common steel used not only on aircraft but in many other applications. At every joint on the Hurricane the round longeron is rolled square and the diagonal tubes are also rolled square at all joints. (If I was at home I could include diagrams of these Heath Robinson nightmares to make and assemble). These square sections are held together using steel plates that are bolted to the tubes with spacers inside every tube where a bolt is used to prevent crushing. This of coarse results in a flexible joint that has to be made rigid by installing internal tensioning bracing wires which must be tensioned just so to keep the structure square and rigid. That takes many many more manhours than welding round to round like the Boomerang. Then to provide the shape for the fuselage there are dozens of wooden formers that are fastened to the steel tubes. Each of those formers consists of two thin sheets of ply separated by square wooden sticks on the tube side with bent laminated sticks on the outer side and supports between the frame side ones for stiffeners. On the outer side the former there are hat shaped stringers running fore and aft and the plywood former is not only scalloped between those stringers but has scalloped wood filler blocks as well, Each of these formers is glued together and has alloy brackes fitted where it attaches to the steel tube frame. I have never worked on the wood monocoque on a Boomerang but I have seen the airworthy ones Matt Denning has produced at various stages of construction and I would say with 90% confidence that the Hurricane woodwork takes about double the manhours, maybe more, than the Boomerang woodwork, which is far more aerodynamic.

Later the P-36 line could have been adapted to long or short nosed P-40s as required and a large number of P-36 parts were used right to the very end of the P-40 production. Furthermore many of the 87- part numbers were identical to the P-36 part except for the type and/or thickness of material used. In many cases Alclad was replaced with pure alloy which is stronger but has little corrosion resistance - an insignificant factor when you are manufacturing a disposable aircraft rather than a type you expect to remain in service for 10-20 years.

Ironically the biggest change would have been from the long nose P-40s to the short nosed P-40s as the H87 (P-40D on) retains a lot of H75 (P-36) parts but almost no H81 (long nose P-40) parts.

The P-36 on the other hand used the same general manufacturing processes as the Wirraway wing and empennage and the Beaufort and used the same alloys as the Wirraway. As such the P-36 was a far more viable option with the greatest potential for progressive upgrade.

To me, none of the other options offered offer this crucial benefit.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

Well, you talked me into it. Back on Team Mohawk.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

Speaking of which, that PHD Thesis on RAF in Burma, has these interesting comments on the Mohawk:

"Both the Spitfire and Hurricane had been designed as short-range interceptors, and neither
had the range to participate in deep interdiction operations without auxiliary fuel tanks.
Portal was correct about the difficulty of successfully adapting the Hurricane as its
performance with long range tanks in the Far East did not match that of Japanese fighters,
but the lack of any development in adapting any other fighter, such as the Spitfire, would
eventually prove a serious oversight.274 The only operational British long-range aircraft
available at the beginning of 1942 were the Mosquito, which was only just entering service
in Britain, and the Beaufighter which was in demand in Europe and the Middle East as an
interdictor and night-fighter. The Air Ministry informed A.H.Q. India on 21 st April 1942 that
the Mosquito was experiencing "teething problems" and:
The need for long-range fighters your command already fully realized here
and ways and means of providing Beaufighters are being urgently considered
in consultation Admiralty.275
The Beaufighter was introduced into Far East service at the end of 1942 but its impact on the
counter-air offensive was minimal owing to its lack of numbers. The Americans possessed
the P-40 which had a longer range than the Hurricane with a similar performance, but these
aircraft were largely based in the North of India defending the transport route into China and
were in short supply. There were therefore limited resources for a counter-air offensive at the
end of the monsoon in October 1942.
The only suitable aircraft the R.A.F. possessed was the American built Curtiss P-36
Mohawk, a single-engine fighter aircraft armed, in British service, with six .303 inch
machine guns and provision for bombs and auxiliary fuel tanks.276 Common to most
American aircraft the Mohawk had a large internal fuel capacity which gave the aircraft a
range of 620 miles in comparison to the Hurricane IIC's 460.277 This long-range ability
made the aircraft ideal for bomber escort and interdiction operations, and combined with its
manoeuvrability made it popular with its pilots:

"Make no mistake, the Mohawk was a good aircraft. Beautiful to fly, very
manoeuvrable and very reliable. A number of pilots returned safely to base
with cylinder pots shot up; a bullet anywhere in the cooling system of a
Merlin and you'd had it. The Cyclone air-cooled engine of the Mohawk could
take a lot of punishment and still put-put along. The weaknesses of the
Mohawk were, of course, poor height performance and lack of fire power –
six machine guns was not very good. But she was a real nice aircraft and did
us proud.27"

However, there were only two squadrons of these aircraft in the Far East, 5 and 155, and
they had to perform many tasks in addition to bomber escort and interdiction: tactical
reconnaissance; ground support and air defence to accompany the Hurricane squadrons.
Furthermore they were heavily committed at the end of 1942 and beginning of 1943
supporting the Army during the first Arakan campaign and resisting Japanese air attacks on
airfields and installations

 

[Geoffrey Sinclair]

I can tell you that of the first few hundred P-40s the Australians got, they lost about half of them in training accidents and crashes during transportation to the front. The pilots had no time on them before they were thrown into the breech.

The RAAF weekly Chiefs of Staff reports give the current aircraft holdings, the main complication in 1942 is the attempts to treat the RAAF order and transferred USAAF P-40 separately then as one. Week ending 6 March 1942, a total of 25 USAAF P-40 delivered to the RAF, by week ending 13 March up to 30, week ending 20 March 68, w/e 27 March 75, w/e 3 April 79 (4 as attrition replacements), plus 10 RAAF order. Losses to w/e 17 April 1942 were 10, by w/e 1 May there were 20 losses, by end July 31 losses, end August 39 losses. In September 1942 there was a reconciliation, a total of 162 delivered from both sources, by end October 55 losses. By week ending 15 January 1943, just before the next P-40 arrived, 59 losses out of 162 delivered. Apart from the declared losses there were often others awaiting write off and the occasional write back on.

Week ending 18 December 1942, a note on P-40 being shipped to Australia, 17 aircraft have now left 3 United Nations Depot California by rail to Vancouver to be placed on a vessel due to sail shortly.

But the P-36 had a proven track record in combat (Battle of France) and was deemed good enough by the British to still try to use them in Burma in 1944.

RAF Aircraft Census. As of 28 February 1943 of 209 Mohawks, 5 were in Britain, 21 in the Middle East, 55 in South Africa, 63 in India, 16 had been transferred to other powers, 2 had become instructional airframes, 22 lost in Britain, 25 lost overseas. India had 61 Hurricane I, 5 IIA, 422 IIB, 196 IIC and 6 IID.

31 December 1943, 3 Mohawk in Britain, 2 in Middle East, 73 in South Africa, 52 in India, 16 had been transferred to other powers, 2 had become instructional airframes, 24 lost in Britain, 37 lost overseas. India had 112 Hurricane I, 5 IIA, 368 IIB, 221 IIC, 52 IID, 2 IIBB, 566 IICB (B for bomber) and 67 IV.

30 June 1944, 2 Mohawk in Britain, 4 in India, 1 instructional, 16 to other powers, 25 lost in Britain, 88 overseas, 73 to Dominion air forces, which totals 203. India had 112 Hurricane I, 7 IIA, 337 IIB, 307 IIC, 99 IID, 9 IIBB, 870 IICB (B for bomber) and 101 IV.

1941/42 was the low point in average RAF aircrew quality, the loss of so many pre war aircrew, the need for numbers and a training system that was expanding and still learning to do its own job, for example there were no fighter OTU in Canada at the end of 1941.

Performance Tables of British Service Aircraft, Air Publication 1746, dated August 1939 but data includes 1940/41 aircraft. "The ranges of fighters are shown as ranges at maximum economic cruising power on the fuel available, after deducting fuel used in 15 minutes at maximum power at sea level. This allowance is for warming up and climbing to operational height". At 165 to 170 mph at 15,000 feet, 97 gallons, Hurricane mark I 600 miles, IIA 524 miles, IIC 500 miles. Still cruising at 15,000 feet with 97 gallons of fuel mark I 455 miles at 275 mph (DH airscrew) 445 miles at 272 mph (Rotol airscrew), IIA 314 miles at 281 mph, IIC 311 miles at 278 mph. The 97 gallons on the Hurricane I weighs 725 pounds, the 97 gallons on the mark II weighs 698 pounds. The 15 minutes allowance on the mark I burns 145 pounds of fuel, the mark II 209 pounds.

The Curtiss Mohawk, with 84 gallons of fuel could climb to 15,000 feet faster than any Hurricane, but was 30 mph slower than the Hurricane II, range with a 15 minutes allowance was 345 miles at 248 mph at 15,000 feet, with 132 gallons of fuel at 161 mph range was 800 miles, at 235 mph 615 miles. (the 15 minutes allowance cost 25 gallons of fuel). If I understand things correctly 48 gallons was in an optional tank behind the pilot's seat.

The CAC produced Boomerangs right to the end of the war.

Boomerang production ended in January 1945. The final 49 Boomerangs (June 1944 on) were called CA-19 by the maker but only the last 31 are classified as mark II in the RAAF aircraft cards. The final 39 were built with F.24 cameras to be fighter reconnaissance.

Grumman started Martlet production in July 1940

The RAAF had one Hurricane I delivered in 1941, officially as a gift. If serviceable it was the entire modern fighter force in Australia in early December 1941.

The P-40 probably could go a bit further on the same fuel but again was it enough change target selection that much?

I would have thought 26 extra gallons of fuel would make a real difference to the effective range of the P-40 versus the Hurricane, once you deduct all the fixed allowances for take off, climb, combat and reserves, using internal fuel only. The P-40 might have carried 25% more fuel but after allowances that was more like 50% for range.

In 1942 the proposal was to use the 1,700 HP Wright Cyclone 2600B with exhaust driven supercharger in the Boomerang, and 10 of the engines had arrived in the country by mid September 1942 but no superchargers. While the July 1942 performance tests showed the standard Boomerang 10 to 25 mph slower than the P-40 and 40 to 65 mph slower than the P-400 depending on altitude, the Boomerang could easily out climb both US types, 9.2 minutes to 20,000 feet versus 13 and 12 minutes respectively, take off run for the three types was 320, 600 and 500 yards. The Boomerang was carrying 884 pounds of fuel versus 725 pounds.

 

[Shortround6]

Portal was correct about the difficulty of successfully adapting the Hurricane as its
performance with long range tanks in the Far East did not match that of Japanese fighters,

We can get a bit too selective.
The main JAAF fighter in the Far East was the Ki-43.
According to one source it held 125 Imp gallons in the internal tanks and could carry a pair of 44 imp gallon drop tanks (in the Ki 43II version).
A lot of the range/radius is going to depend on the altitudes and speeds the planes could actually fly at.

The Americans possessed
the P-40 which had a longer range than the Hurricane with a similar performance,

Now this takes a bit of swallowing.
The P-40E and the other early ones (like the K) held about 164.5 imp gallons including the drop tank.
The Hurricane carried 185 imp gallons with two 44 gallon drop tanks.
Yes the P-40 held more inside. Yes the P-40 had bit lower drag so it could fly a bit further on the same fuel.
I will discount the 90 gallon ferry tanks because, except in rare circumstances, the Hurricane could further into enemy territory than it could get back out with such large tanks.
I don't know how often the Hurricanes used a "mixed" load but they tested just about all the combinations. One 40mm cannon and set of rocket rails under other wing didn't work. The recoil from the cannon almost tore the rails off the wing and some of the rockets were lost?

The only suitable aircraft the R.A.F. possessed was the American built Curtiss P-36
Mohawk, a single-engine fighter aircraft armed, in British service, with six .303 inch
machine guns and provision for bombs and auxiliary fuel tanks.276 Common to most
American aircraft the Mohawk had a large internal fuel capacity which gave the aircraft a
range of 620 miles in comparison to the Hurricane IIC's 460

It would be interesting to see what the "provision for bombs and auxiliary fuel tanks" was.
The commercial brochure lists all kinds of options, but unless the particular aircraft was fitted for some of the options they were not used.
The "large internal fuel capacity" also needs careful looking at. The P-36 was rated as carrying 105 US gallons (87 Imp), in overload condition the rear (Aux tank) could be filled with 57 US gallons (47.5 Imp) which also required an additional 14 quarts of oil in the oil tank.
Several French Hawk 75s were lost when then the French pilots/ground crew got the CG out of whack and they tried doing acrobatics with fuel in the rear tank.
A number of the ex French (and British) aircraft did a get a bomb rack under the wings for 3-5 light bombs under each wing.
The sales brochure says it could be fitted with a 500lb under the fuselage but this is one of those options where the plane had to ordered that way.

"Make no mistake, the Mohawk was a good aircraft. Beautiful to fly, very
manoeuvrable and very reliable. A number of pilots returned safely to base
with cylinder pots shot up; a bullet anywhere in the cooling system of a
Merlin and you'd had it. The Cyclone air-cooled engine of the Mohawk could
take a lot of punishment and still put-put along. The weaknesses of the
Mohawk were, of course, poor height performance and lack of fire power –
six machine guns was not very good. But she was a real nice aircraft and did
us proud.

The Mohawk was supposed to flown at around 5700-5900lbs Normal gross weight. It depended a bit in if you had a P&W engine (heavier) or the Cyclone.

Somebody was putting a brave face on it. The the radial might well have stood up to enemy fire better than the Merlin but the Mohawks, as built, had no BP glass and if you were lucky armor plate behind the seat. The big "oops" was the fuel tanks were not self sealing. The Cyclone may stay running with a few hits but you may not make it back to base with a few bullet holes in the fuel tanks even if they don't result in fire.
Enterprising mechanics might might put in fuel tanks from a P-40 but that could cut the fuel capacity in the forward two tanks from the 105 gallons to 83 US gallons. It would also increase the empty weight of the aircraft by a few hundred pounds.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

Don't shoot the messenger! I'm just quoting the source (the PHD thesis which was posted on another thread in this forum). He also lists the ranges for various Allied fighter types, see page 343-45, with and without external fuel. He lists the following:

P-40B/C Tomahawk as 600 mile normal range, 805 max, 133 IG internal fuel
P-40D/E Kittyhawk 750 mile normal range, 1308 max (presumably with one external tank), 166.6 IG internal fuel
P-38, 850 mile normal range, 1512 max, 279 IG internal
P-51A 640 mile normal, 1500 max, 186 IG internal
P-51B 950 mile normal, 2250 max, 150 IG internal (this seems to be a mistake?)
P-51D 950 miles, 2190 miles, 150 IG internal
P-47 835 miles, 2100 miles, 254 IG internal
Mohawk 620 mile normal range, 860 max, 132 IG internal
Hurricane IIB 480 mile normal range, 1090 max (presumably with 44 gallon tanks), 97 IG internal fuel
Hurricane IIC 460 mile normal range, 1090 max, 97 internal
Spit Vc, 469 mile normal range, 1135 max (slipper tank?) 84 IG
Spit VIII, 660 mile normal range, 1530 max (external for sure), 120 IG
Beaufighter 1480 mile normal range, 1640 max, 550 IG internal
Mosquito FB.IV, 1120 mile normal range, 1500 max, 536 IG internal

Needless to say, you can find different ranges for all of these aircraft if you try. But I think it's fairly accurate overall.

He also notes that the Hurricane apparently had performance issues when carrying external fuel tanks. Maybe this is why they were not typically used for escort.

I agree it does sound like they were putting 'a brave' face on the P-36 a bit, but it's quite interesting that they seemed to like them so late in the war. I think they did add some armor to them but no SS fuel tanks (and I don't think they could borrow them from P-40s in India, as they didn't have enough of those)

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

How about a Miles M.20 for this project? I love this little thing. Looks good overall though it was made for a Merlin, and it has fixed undercarraige. But the design seems to have potential!

Miles M.20 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Shortround6]

Got a number of other threads and a number of mentions.

Part of the problem is....................once again..............timing.

It is only a really viable project when you have the Merlin XX going into production as it uses the engine nacelle/installation that used on several other aircraft. Also has the constant speed propeller. Miles didn't have to design the radiator/oil cooler and other parts forward of the firewall.

I would note that the Wiki entry is not one of the better ones with several dubious factoids. This is not helped by the 2nd prototype that flew in April of 1941 and may have had a number of differences from the first prototype.

Trying to start up the project in 1939 means the Merlin XX doesn't exist. The constant speed props are just under going trials in England although the US was sticking them in anything much bigger than a Piper Cub.
Miles was working on the Miles Master trainer and at some point in the summer of 1940 they converted 24 of them to be emergency fighters.

Rear cockpit was blanked off and six guns mounted in the wing. It used Kestrel engine which was out of production but hundreds were in storage.


I would note that the landing gear changed on the M.20. I don't know if the first plane was changed before the landing accident or not.

Something else to watch for when looking at some the 1940 British Aircraft was that the allowable boost on the Merlin engines almost changed by the month. A bit of an exaggeration but some models had the allowable boost changed several times during the year which could affect tests and performance numbers.
This could affect things much later as the famous Australian test of the Spitfire was running boost settings well below what the British had been using for well over a year.
At any rate I have an old book that has been copy many times that lists the Merlin XX used in the Miles M.20 as being a 1460hp engine. The Merlin XX got to 1460hp but not until after it started a 9lbs of boost and was uprated to 12lbs and then uprated to 14lbs in low gear and 16lbs in high gear. There may have been another intermediate setting upon which gear was used? They certainly were NOT getting 1460hp out of the Merlin XX in 1940, that or the old book had misprint and it was supposed to be 1260hp.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

Something else to watch for when looking at some the 1940 British Aircraft was that the allowable boost on the Merlin engines almost changed by the month. A bit of an exaggeration but some models had the allowable boost changed several times during the year which could affect tests and performance numbers.
This could affect things much later as the famous Australian test of the Spitfire was running boost settings well below what the British had been using for well over a year.
At any rate I have an old book that has been copy many times that lists the Merlin XX used in the Miles M.20 as being a 1460hp engine. The Merlin XX got to 1460hp but not until after it started a 9lbs of boost and was uprated to 12lbs and then uprated to 14lbs in low gear and 16lbs in high gear. There may have been another intermediate setting upon which gear was used? They certainly were NOT getting 1460hp out of the Merlin XX in 1940, that or the old book had misprint and it was supposed to be 1260hp.

That's a very common issue with the boost ratings during tests, and it certainly cuts both ways - almost all the British tests done at Boscombe Down on a variety of US types, Martlet, Hellcat, Corsair, P-39, P-40 etc. were routuinely done at low boost ratings, for example the Allisons were at military power 40-42" etc (+5 boost)., which severely limited the peak performance. Not that it matters, so long as they are consistently testing all aircraft all the same way, but not all British types were tested with such restrictions. The Hurricane Mk II tests I've seen for example were done at the max allowed boost levels at the time, at 50.5' Hg. (+10 boost), or +12, or +14

This is where some people get the idea that the Hurricane had a higher top speed relative to various US types than it actually did.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

By the way, does anyone have a link to that Mildura test of the P-40E vs. Spit V? I can't find it on ww2aircraftperformance. I think it's on there somewhere...? I have the transcription of it but would like to see the original.

 

[MiTasol]

We can get a bit too selective.
The main JAAF fighter in the Far East was the Ki-43.
According to one source it held 125 Imp gallons in the internal tanks and could carry a pair of 44 imp gallon drop tanks (in the Ki 43II version).
A lot of the range/radius is going to depend on the altitudes and speeds the planes could actually fly at.


Now this takes a bit of swallowing.
The P-40E and the other early ones (like the K) held about 164.5 imp gallons including the drop tank.
The Hurricane carried 185 imp gallons with two 44 gallon drop tanks.
Yes the P-40 held more inside. Yes the P-40 had bit lower drag so it could fly a bit further on the same fuel.
I will discount the 90 gallon ferry tanks because, except in rare circumstances, the Hurricane could further into enemy territory than it could get back out with such large tanks.
I don't know how often the Hurricanes used a "mixed" load but they tested just about all the combinations. One 40mm cannon and set of rocket rails under other wing didn't work. The recoil from the cannon almost tore the rails off the wing and some of the rockets were lost?

It would be interesting to see what the "provision for bombs and auxiliary fuel tanks" was.
The commercial brochure lists all kinds of options, but unless the particular aircraft was fitted for some of the options they were not used.
The "large internal fuel capacity" also needs careful looking at. The P-36 was rated as carrying 105 US gallons (87 Imp), in overload condition the rear (Aux tank) could be filled with 57 US gallons (47.5 Imp) which also required an additional 14 quarts of oil in the oil tank.
Several French Hawk 75s were lost when then the French pilots/ground crew got the CG out of whack and they tried doing acrobatics with fuel in the rear tank.
A number of the ex French (and British) aircraft did a get a bomb rack under the wings for 3-5 light bombs under each wing.
The sales brochure says it could be fitted with a 500lb under the fuselage but this is one of those options where the plane had to ordered that way.

The Mohawk was supposed to flown at around 5700-5900lbs Normal gross weight. It depended a bit in if you had a P&W engine (heavier) or the Cyclone.

Somebody was putting a brave face on it. The the radial might well have stood up to enemy fire better than the Merlin but the Mohawks, as built, had no BP glass and if you were lucky armor plate behind the seat. The big "oops" was the fuel tanks were not self sealing. The Cyclone may stay running with a few hits but you may not make it back to base with a few bullet holes in the fuel tanks even if they don't result in fire.
Enterprising mechanics might might put in fuel tanks from a P-40 but that could cut the fuel capacity in the forward two tanks from the 105 gallons to 83 US gallons. It would also increase the empty weight of the aircraft by a few hundred pounds.

Re It would be interesting to see what the "provision for bombs and auxiliary fuel tanks" was. The 52 USG P-40 drop tanks and the majority of its mounting hardware and plumbing could be fitted to the P-36 with no structural modification as the tank and the majority of the parts have 75- part numbers which means they were originally designed for the P-36. Later P-40s had provision for larger drop tanks though most of the hardware is the same. Much later ones had provision for wing drops and that does include a large number of new components.
This means the P-36 installation can be covered by the below diagrams which actually come from the early N models where some of the parts have 87- part numbers and are heavier/thicker to allow for larger volume/weight drop tanks but are otherwise basically identical. The only parts that would need changing, rather than adding, are the fuel selector valve and the plate under the fuel selector as these need to reflect the extra tank position.

Schematically the above fuel system differs from the P-36 only in the fuselage tank.

Re the self sealing tanks. While I agree in general with what you say I am fairly sure that, despite the lessons from Spain, the Mk 1 Hurricanes, like the Mohawk, did not have self sealing tanks until after the war started. This is supported by the excerpt from AP 1746 dated 1939 but amended in 40/41 quoted by Geoffrey Sinclair above where he quotes The 97 gallons on the Hurricane I weighs 725 pounds, the 97 gallons on the mark II weighs 698 pounds. The specific gravity of the fuel did not change that significantly so the more likely reason for the 29 pound difference in fuel weight is the manual was only partially revised to show the reduction in fuel volume when bullet proof tanks were fitted but the fuel weight was left at what applied to any aircraft which was not modified to bullet proof tanks at the stage the manual was revised.

 

[wuzak]

That's a very common issue with the boost ratings during tests, and it certainly cuts both ways - almost all the British tests done at Boscombe Down on a variety of US types, Martlet, Hellcat, Corsair, P-39, P-40 etc. were routuinely done at low boost ratings, for example the Allisons were at military power 40-42" etc (+5 boost)., which severely limited the peak performance. Not that it matters, so long as they are consistently testing all aircraft all the same way, but not all British types were tested with such restrictions. The Hurricane Mk II tests I've seen for example were done at the max allowed boost levels at the time, at 50.5' Hg. (+10 boost), or +12, or +14

This is where some people get the idea that the Hurricane had a higher top speed relative to various US types than it actually did.

Pretty sure A&AEE Boscombe Down tested aircraft at the manufacturer's recommended boost settings.

The Hurricane was only tested at +12psi boost when the Merlin was cleared for +12psi boost. Before that it was tested at +6psi boost, then +9psi.

American engines did not have WEP early in the war, and Allison tended to lag behind Rolls-Royce on boost, at least officially.