Comparison of the Gloster F.5/34 and the Mitsubishi A6M2.

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

I think the early Canadian Hurricanes retained in Canada used the very early Merlins intended for Battles. Hence the open VP propellor.
 
Worth noting that until 12 June 1942 Canada did not have diplomatic relations with the USSR (there had been various trade wars in the 1930s between the two countries to sour relations). It was only with the Third Lend Lease Protocol effective July 1943, that Canada became a signatory and a Lend Lease supplier to the Soviets in its own right.

So officially until then all war materials were supplied to Britain or the USA who then supplied on to the USSR under their First and Second Lend Lease Protocols. That of course is the period during which Hurricanes were being manufactured in Canada (production having ceased by June 1943 per the extract posted by MikeMeech in an earlier post).

Also interesting to note the routing of Canadian aid being largely via the Pacific.


Worth remembering the Arctic convoys to Murmansk were suspended altogether in the Oct-Dec 1942 and March-Nov 1943 periods.
 
The Britmodeller discussion contains various non Canadian items and ideas later shown incorrect. In many ways it was the examination of the evidence rather than the conclusions.

The basic rule should be CCF built incomplete Hurricane airframes unless for the RCAF. A report in December 1941 noted stored mark I airframes were complete less wheels, brakes, tyres and tubes but needing engines, propellers, instruments, and all other appendix A Serial 1160 Embodiment Loan Equipment. The mark II then in production emerged from the factory in a similar state to those stored, "require from England, wheels, brakes, air compressors and drives and couplers for same, hydraulic pump drives and couplings, airscrews and instruments". The brakes being magnesium alloy castings.

To repeat all Canadian built Hurricanes either retained in Canada or shipped to Britain to be fitted with engines and other parts. Also Merlin 28 sent to Canada for Hurricanes were sent to Britain, either stand alone or attached to a Hurricane airframe. Apart from a few test flights as Hurricane mark III the Merlin 28 were used in Lancasters.

486 mark I, disposition of the final 60 were 30 to RCAF with new serials using engines and propellers from Fairey Battles, 30 shipped to Britain where they were recorded as mark II.
50 Sea Hurricane I, meant as a pool in Canada for the Cam ships, in practice used as RCAF, retained RAF serials.
514 mark IIB
1 to Dutch standards flown as serial HC3-287 with US Merlin, instruments etc., it shared its RAF serial AM270 with a Catalina.
400 mark IIB (Can) for the RCAF (became mark XII 16 April 1943 under RCAF AFRO 690), 150 were sent to Britain and given RAF serials.

Survivors of the mark I transferred to the RCAF and the Sea Hurricanes in Canada were upgraded with Merlin 29 to become XIIA and Sea XIIA respectively though by that stage the Sea versions had become land planes.

On 27 August 1941 Canada ordered 400 Hurricanes, 100 for the Netherlands East Indies, 300 for China, this changed to 72 for the Netherlands East Indies, 328 for the USSR, to use Merlin 28 and US built propellers and shipped across the Pacific. By the time production started it was 400 mark IIB (Can) for the RCAF, but in 1943 it was 250 RCAF mark XII and 150 RAF IIB, the 150 giving rise to the claim of the mark XI (Merlin 28 RCAF equipment), these 150 RAF PJ serial airframes were stripped so as to be the same standard as exported mark II production.

Britain records the arrival of 419 mark I airframes including the returning L1848, sent to Canada as the CCF Pattern aircraft, 447 mark II airframes and 234 mark II with engine fitted, 8 mark I and 11 mark II were lost at sea, 80 mark I and Sea retained in Canada, 250 mark XII, total 1,448 (plus L1848), leaving 3 unaccounted for, the Dutch aircraft and probably AM321 and AM322, these two have no known documentation.

When it came to allocations CCF built Hurricanes arriving in Britain were treated like those from British factories, sent to destinations as required. The one major exception was the 1942 rush order for Sea Hurricane II, the incomplete CCF airframes being easier to modify.

According to the RAF few IIB were fitted with wing racks, while most IIC were. CCF built mark IIB but many delivered in Britain as IIC.

And so on......
 
In order to get CC&F building Gloster F5 "Goshawks" in time for deliveries in 1940 we need to start earlier, basically soon after the initial prototypes flew in Dec 1936, or beforehand in 1934 when Hawker acquires Gloster Aircraft Co., when the F5/34 still napkinwaffe.
 
Last edited:
And yet the P-35 with an almost identical sized wing (and thinner) and very similar landing gear (if we take off the large shrouds) and with a more powerful engine with better streamlining (the engine, the rear fuselage may be questionable) was judged a turkey.

What am I not seeing???

High gross weight for the P-35A includes either 200 US gallons of fuel or 350lbs of bombs.
 
Going by memory, the Venom's skin was an alloy material.

Starting with Junkers' early monoplane fighter like the D.1, corrugated skin was used on several types.

Tupolev also used corrugation on several types.

Ford's trimotor used it as well.
 
Geoffrey Sinclair said:
When it comes to holding Singapore maps say you need to hold Northern Malaya/Southern Thailand as well as Sumatra/Java,
Click to expand...
That was some of my thinking for the great airlift of summer 1941.

Feasibility of a large scale 10.2k mile transit flight UK to Singapore

Earlier this year I posted a possible route to fly twin-engined RAF bombers from Britain to Singapore in early to mid 1941, Why so few single engine Hercules applications?. Here's the route I chose using RAF airfields then in use, A map from Great Circle Mapper. I used the Bristol Blenheim's...
ww2aircraft.net

The short range Gloster F5s will have to ship by sea, either transport or ferried on an aircraft carrier. I find it amazing that the A6M could match the ranges I propose above. Though without autopilot our IJN pilot is going to be exhausted.
 
Admiral Beez said:
Though without autopilot our IJN pilot is going to be exhausted.
Click to expand...
I've read several accounts by Japanese pilots, who mentioned that during long flights, one (or more) of their flight member's aircraft would drift away and eventually plunge into the ocean.

This was not unique to the IJN, as the IJA had to make long transits with their fighters, particularly during the New Guinea/Solomon campaign, when the had to transit between there and the Philippines (Mindanao).
 
In relation to the proposed direct air route from Gibraltar to Nigeria, it involves transitting some of the harshest terrain in the world. First over the Atlas Mountains (heights up to 13,700ft in Morocco). Then across the Sahara Desert (with its extremes of temperature). All the while avoiding interception by Vichy French fighters that might be around (the Vichy French fought to defend their territory& airspace whenever possible).

And if you survive a crash landing or bale out and are "lucky" enough to find your way to what passed for civilisation, you face the prospect of time in a Vichy French prison camp in the depths of the Sahara or Timbuktu with no realistic hope of escape. These camps were pretty hellish places. One description from a history of HIS Manchester sunk in Aug 1942 during OP Pedestal:-

"Some of the other survivors crew managed to get ashore in Tunisia and were interned by
the Vichy French authorities in conditions which can only described as horrendous and
without compassion. They were held in appalling circumstances until allied force occupied
Tunisia after landings in North Africa (Operation TORCH)."

And

"Like the Japanese, the Vichy French withheld medicines, Red Cross parcels, clothing and footwear, leaving them
rotting in the sun."



Edit:- Aircraft flown across Africa from Takoradi did go straight to MUs in East Africa for servicing, removal of any non essential fittings like ferry tanks, and to be brought up to a standard fit for issue to front line units. By way of example, in Dec 1941 2 Hurricane squadrons being diverted to the DEI flew across Africa, left those aircraft behind at an MU, and collected another batch to take aboard Indomitable for transport east.

Another little known WW2 story concerns Project 19, a US repair depot established in Eritrea, inland from Massawa, to service and rebuild US aircraft types in service with the RAF from early 1942

PROJECT 19 "Secret" Documents

Here is an interesting little item. It was a "bonus" thrown in with a bunch of other letters I had purchased. At first glance it looks rather ordinary. However, when I made a search of the APO and the date, I realized it needed to be researched further. The APO was for Gura, Eritrea, in Africa. T...
www.usmilitariaforum.com
 
Last edited:
Was there any sort of rudimentary autopilot in existence at that time to help reduce the workload, especially one light enough for the A6M.
 
Admiral Beez said:
Was there any sort of rudimentary autopilot in existence at that time to help reduce the workload, especially one light enough for the A6M.
Click to expand...
Sperry had developed a gyroscopic autopilot system around the time of WWI and successfully demonstrated it on several occasions during the interest period.

The unit itself wasn't all that large, so it would have certainly been able to be used aboard an A6M or KI-43 without much of a penalty.
 
GrauGeist said:
The unit itself wasn't all that large, so it would have certainly been able to be used aboard an A6M or KI-43 without much of a penalty.
Click to expand...
It's an odd thing that Mitsubishi designed a fighter that can fly for ten hours over 1,900 miles at a cruise speed of 200 mph, but seemingly forgot about the physical limitations of its operator. This reminds me of tank designers whose last consideration are the lilliputian contortionists who they assume will be operating their tanks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

Paper comparing the flight performance of the P-40E Warhawk and the A6M2 Zero
Replies
8
Views
717
Ivan1GFP
I
A
The Myth of the British "Fixing" The Corsair
8 9 10
Replies
183
Views
12K
EwenS
E
617th squadron and the bunkers in Ijmuiden.
2
Replies
23
Views
658
DerAdlerIstGelandet
The poor performance of the 343 Kokutai against USAAF fighters
2 3 4
Replies
60
Views
6K
GrauGeist
A
Was the Hispano-Suiza 12Y the worst ≥25L V-12 of WW2?
2 3
Replies
46
Views
2K
ThomasP
T
Menu
Log in
Register