- Thread starter
-
- #81
Wild_Bill_Kelso
Senior Master Sergeant
- 3,231
- Mar 18, 2022
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
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.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?
I think you'll find that many many Hurricanes were shot down by enemy fighters, if you look.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?
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.
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.
Lets not.in the mean time maybe we can focus on the Gloster F5 for this Aussie scenario
No, not all shot down. If you read it carefully it covers all losses. Accidents, engine failures, landing accidents etc etc etc.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.
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.
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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.The CAC produced Boomerangs right to the end of the war.
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.The P-40 probably could go a bit further on the same fuel but again was it enough change target selection that much?
We can get a bit too selective.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,
Now this takes a bit of swallowing.The Americans possessed
the P-40 which had a longer range than the Hurricane with a similar performance,
It would be interesting to see what the "provision for bombs and auxiliary fuel tanks" was.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
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."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.
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.
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.
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.