Most Overrated aircraft of WWII.....?

The most over-rated aircraft of WW2

  • Total voters
    409

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

I am amused by the rant on the Allison V-1710 as a "POS". It did not have a two speed/two stage supercharger in time for the Mustang but it was a superb engine designed by Allison with a very small start up design team and little experience in building a world class Manufacturing group. The early years were characterized by failures to deliver promised production, their Liaison teams did not communicate changes well with the customer, but they got much better by 1942. RR and subsequently Packard got the jump with the better two speed/two stage design of the RR 61 and the packaging of the supercharger made it work in the Mustang whereas the much longer new V-1710 was a 'no show' for even consideration.

Yes, they had 'corporate leverage' both at GM and USAAF Material Command. There were many attempts to steer Rolls Royce 28(Packard 1650-1) away from installation in the Mustang when NAA tried to force the issue at GM Board late 1941. The British actions, without hindrance from our political swamps forced the decision by clearer heads at AAF-GHQ like Muir Fairchild and Barney Giles to enable the go ahead to proceed in parallel with RR/RAF for the XP-51B and set the framework for re-allocating Packard splits between RAF and AAF with a Priority 1 for NAA/Packard in summer 1942.

That said, the engine was lighter, longer times between overhauls, easy to maintain, cheaper and excellent Hp/weight ratio. The lower performance of the P-40 in comparison to Spitfire was due to weight and drag, not the engine through FTH of the V-1710

As mentioned above, the P-40Q increased performance over the P-40K/N but largely due to low drag wing radiators introduction as well as much higher power due to Water Injection.

Ask the current maintainers about their perspective of RR vs Allison for a better balance of professional opinion.
 
Last edited:
drgondog said:
...
V-1710 was a 'no show' for even consideration.
...
That said, the engine was lighter, longer times between overhauls, easy to maintain, cheaper and excellent Hp/weight ratio. The lower performance of the P-40 in comparison to Spitfire was due to weight and drag, not the engine through FTH of the V-1710

As mentioned above, the P-40Q increased performance over the P-40K/N but largely due to low drag wing introduction to combine with the new two stage/two speed Allison V-1710 design. Ditto P-63 over P-39.

Ask the current maintainers about their perspective of RR vs Allison for a better balance of professional opinion.
Click to expand...

I'd add a few things. Spitfire got even better engines vs. what P-40 got, so it (Spit) remained competitive until the end of the war. On comparable engines, indeed the P-40 was as fast as Spitfire, the Spitfire climbed much better being lihgter.
There was no new, low drag wing on the XP-40Q, it used leagcy wing from P-40 production. V-1710 never used 2-speed S/C, apart from prototypes, and then it was only 1-stage supercharged. 2-stage V-1710s used 1-speed drive for engine-stage S/C, and variable drive for auxiliary stage.
The 2-stage supercharged V-1710 was considered for the XP-51J.
 
The US had some very good aerodynamicists, which is demonstrated by the simple fact that the P-40 showed comparable performance to the much smaller, lighter Bf109 on similar power. The US also had alternatives to the P-40 which was, at its base, an old design, older than the Spitfire.

Don't get me wrong: I think the P-40 was an under-rated aircraft, but I don't think it was as good as the aircraft which replaced it, and I don't think the USAAF erred in placing more effort into more modern aircraft.
 
swampyankee said:
The US had some very good aerodynamicists, which is demonstrated by the simple fact that the P-40 showed comparable performance to the much smaller, lighter Bf109 on similar power. The US also had alternatives to the P-40 which was, at its base, an old design, older than the Spitfire.

Don't get me wrong: I think the P-40 was an under-rated aircraft, but I don't think it was as good as the aircraft which replaced it, and I don't think the USAAF erred in placing more effort into more modern aircraft.
Click to expand...
I recall reading about a problem the early P-40 had in the fuel system. It was gravity fed and the flow would be interrupted in a tight turn causing the engine to stop. They lost one or two on the landing approach. Can any one verify this to be true?
 
tomo pauk said:
I'd add a few things. Spitfire got even better engines vs. what P-40 got, so it (Spit) remained competitive until the end of the war. On comparable engines, indeed the P-40 was as fast as Spitfire, the Spitfire climbed much better being lihgter.
There was no new, low drag wing on the XP-40Q, it used leagcy wing from P-40 production. V-1710 never used 2-speed S/C, apart from prototypes, and then it was only 1-stage supercharged. 2-stage V-1710s used 1-speed drive for engine-stage S/C, and variable drive for auxiliary stage.
The 2-stage supercharged V-1710 was considered for the XP-51J.
Click to expand...
Tomo - you are correct about the legacy wing for Q-1 and -2. I had read on a source I can no longer find that the Q-3 used the same engine as the P-63 as well as a NACA 66xxx low drag wing. I can not find any reference to low drag for the Q except the wing mounted radiators.
 
drgondog said:
Tomo - you are correct about the legacy wing for Q-1 and -2. I had read on a source I can no longer find that the Q-3 used the same engine as the P-63 as well as a NACA 66xxx low drag wing. I can not find any reference to low drag for the Q except the wing mounted radiators.
Click to expand...

Claim for the Xp-40Q having laminar-flow wing can be read at the 'Vee's for victory', the entra about the XP-40Q lineup, pg. 184. Unfortunately, that claim is not references in a book that is othewise awash with footnotes.
The test report of the XP-40Q (here) mentions just clipped wings on the specimen tested, plus radiators in the wing.
On same HP vs. altitude, the P-63E was faster than XP-40Q. XP-40Q was barely faster than P-51A (with 1-stage V-1710, obviously).
 
The P-39 can hardly be called the most over-rated fighter in WW2 as it, as is my impression, it is usually highly criticised, while the P-40 is not. I hold the P-39 in higher regard than the P-40E and the "B" version was a better dogfighter. That said the best dogfighter the AA had at the beginning of the war was the P-36, and I don't mean the Hawk 75. Even the Hawk 75 (heavier than the P-36) outflew the Spitfire in early comparison tests. Compare the P-36 with the Zero regarding speed, climb, turn rates and high-speed controllability. Under otherwise equal conditions I believe the P-36 was the only allied fighter that could dogfight the Zero at the beginning of the war.

It compared favourable with the F4F except in armament.

Fred
 
fredleander said:
The P-39 can hardly be called the most over-rated fighter in WW2 as it, as is my impression, it is usually highly criticised, while the P-40 is not. I hold the P-39 in higher regard than the P-40E and the "B" version was a better dogfighter.
Click to expand...

Agreed pretty much.

That said the best dogfighter the AA had at the beginning of the war was the P-36, and I don't mean the Hawk 75. Even the Hawk 75 (heavier than the P-36) outflew the Spitfire in early comparison tests. Compare the P-36 with the Zero regarding speed, climb, turn rates and high-speed controllability. Under otherwise equal conditions I believe the P-36 was the only allied fighter that could dogfight the Zero at the beginning of the war.

It compared favourable with the F4F except in armament.
Click to expand...

Several things might need a clearing up. Like - what month is start of the war? It certainly was not December of 1941. Did the P-36 really outflew the Spitfire in early comparison tests? State of amament and protection of the two during the tests? Yak-1 or La-5 vs. Zero? Spitfire IX or P-39N vs. Zero? Stripped-down P-39 vs. Zero? Ability to dogfight with few bursts/shells received prior the dogfight? What is altitude and speed at begining of dogfight? P-36 vs. Zero in 1941 or 1943, at 10000 or 20000 ft? Zero vs. Spitfire Va in 1941?
 
tomo pauk said:
Several things might need a clearing up. Like - what month is start of the war? It certainly was not December of 1941. Did the P-36 really outflew the Spitfire in early comparison tests? State of amament and protection of the two during the tests? Yak-1 or La-5 vs. Zero? Spitfire IX or P-39N vs. Zero? Stripped-down P-39 vs. Zero? Ability to dogfight with few bursts/shells received prior the dogfight? What is altitude and speed at begining of dogfight? P-36 vs. Zero in 1941 or 1943, at 10000 or 20000 ft? Zero vs. Spitfire Va in 1941?
Click to expand...


Hi, tp - below is a transcript showing the results of RAF comparison tests made in 1939. I would like to comment a little on my earlier remarks. When I use the word "dogfighting" I mean an aerial engagement where the opponents fight it out, either in the capacity of the defense of own bombers or against enemy fighters defending their bombers. Also when refusing enemy fighters to enter, and stay in, a given air space. Everything else equal, the better dogfighter would eventually either shoot the other party down or chase it away, in both cases the dogfight is won.

The better dogfighter shall either chase the escorting fighter away because it is not able to defend itself, or shoot it down. The same applies if the better dogfighter is the escorting fighter. The P-40E was a good example. Apart from the fact that it had great difficulties in reaching the altitude of the enemy (Japanese) bombers in time, when/if it got there it had to dive away to save itself from the enemy escort fighters. The same applied if an allied bomber unit escorted by P-40 was attacked by Zeros. In both examples the P-40B was the better dogfighter than the "E" version because it climbed faster and handled better because it was lighter.

It is said that the P-40 had a better roll rate than the Zero. That might be but this was neutralized when starting to pull the turn because it was (nose) heavier than the Zero with higher wing loading. The Zero would always turn inside it. That the P-40 had better protection and an armament that could shoot down a Zero didn't help as, everything else being equal, it was not able to get on the Zero's tail. The P-40 could out-dive the Zero but the Zero out-climbed the P-40. The P-39 had the same weight problem as the P-40 (they had the same engine) and a similar roll rate but better longitudinal (fore-aft) balance. Sometimes too good.

This brings us to the P-36 - and I mean the P-36, not the Hawk 75, which was the export version. The Hawk 75 was heavier, because it had more weaponry, armour and sealed fuel tanks. So, the basic P-36 did not have any armour to speak of and it only had two .50 calibre Brownings in the nose. This is not an impressive armament but it worked against the equally unprotected Japanese fighters. It also had the 1.050 hp. Twin Wasp, the most reliable radial engine in the US. What this cooks down to is that it flew and climbed as fast as the Zero, handled as good, much better in the dive, actually, and flew as far. As a matter of fact a P-36 set a world dive speed record in 1939 in connection with the French acceptance tests. It blew the measuring instruments when passing 550 mph.

The P-36 also had a good development potential. In December 1941 the few samples in US service still had the 1.050 hp. Twin Wasp engine when Hawks ordered by the French and Norwegians already in 1940 had theirs delivered with the 1.200 hp. Twin Wasp. The Navy's F4F Wildcats were also delivered with this engine in this period. In other words the USAAC could have had several times more improved P-36s than P-40s simply because it was in production years before the war started. Pilots may like planes that can save them from destruction by leaving the battlefield, but that means aborting their mission.

Just to reiterate some info on the Hawk 75: The early French versions with the 850 and 1.050 hp. Twin Wasps and four, later 6, machine guns, held up well against the German Bf109's during the "phony war". The French pilots loved them. The 1.200 hp. versions arrived too late in France and many were taken over by the British and sent to other parts of the Empire. They flew in the CBI theatre as "Mohawks" till 1943 - if I remember correctly. The Finns got some of the ex-Norwegian ones captured by the Germans in Norway. The Finns were also quite fond of these. They flew till well after the war ended.

Fred

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From Green & Swanborough's US Army Air Force Fighters, Part 1, part of Arco's WW2 Aircraft Fact Files, published in the mid-seventies:

"The Curtiss fighter was by no means an unknown quantity to the RAF, for as early as November 1939 a Hawk 75A-1 had been flown (in France) by Sqn Leader J F X McKenna on behalf of the A and AEE. His report had said that the Hawk was "exceptionally easy and pleasant to fly, the aileron control being particularly powerful" and that it was "more manoeuvrable at high speed than the Hurricane or Spitfire". This report naturally aroused considerable interest in official circles in Britain, and as a result arrangements were made for a Hawk 75 to be borrowed from l'Armee de l'Air for further evaluation in Britain. The 88th Hawk 75A-2 was used, in consequence, at the RAE from 29 December 1939 to 13 January 1940 for a 12-hr flight programme covering handling in general, and specificallyby comparison with the Spitfire, Hurricane and Gloster F.5/34; mock combats were staged between the Hawk and a production Spitfire I (K9944), fitted with the early two-pitch propeller (3-bladed De Havilland two-speed prop-HB).

"The Hawk 75A-2 was flown with aft tank empty at a loaded weight of 6,025 lb (2 733 kg) and the three RAF pilots participating in the evaluation were unanimous in their praise for the US fighter's exceptional handling characteristics and beautifully harmonised controls. In a diving attack at 400mph (644 km/h) the Hawk was far superior to the Spitfire, thanks to its lighter ailerons, and in a dogfight at 250 mph (402 km/h) the Hawk was again the superior machine because of its elevator control was not over-sensitive and all-around view was better; but the Spitfire could break off combat at will because of its very much higher maximum speed. In a dive at 400 mph (644km/h), the Spitfire pilot, exerting all his strength, could apply no more than one-fifth aileron because of high stick forces whereas the Curtiss pilot could apply three-quarter aileron.

"When the Spitfire dived on the Hawk, both aircraft travelling at 350-400 mph (560-645 km/h), the Curtiss fighter's pilot could avoid his opponent by applying its ailerons quickly, banking and turning rapidly. The Spitfire could not follow the Hawk round in this manoeuvre and consequently overshot the target. In the reverse situation, however, the Hawk could easily follow the Spitfire until the latter's superior speed allowed it to pull away. The superior manoeuvrability of the Hawk was ascribed mainly to the over-sensitiveness of the Spitfire's elevator, which resulted in some difficulty in accurately controlling the 'g' in a tight turn; over-correction held the risk of an inadvertent stall being induced.

"Because of the difference in propellers, the Hawk displayed appreciably better take-off and climb characteristics. The swing on take-off was smaller and more easily corrected than on the British fighter and during the climb the Hawk's controls were more effective; but the Curtiss fighter proved to be rather slow in picking up speed in a dive, making the Spitfire the more suitable machine of the two for intercepting high-speed bombers (which was, of course, the primary role for which the British aircraft had been designed).
 
Last edited:
fredleander said:
...
The better dogfighter shall either chase the escorting fighter away because it is not able to defend itself, or shoot it down. The same applies if the better dogfighter is the escorting fighter. The P-40E was a good example. Apart from the fact that it had great difficulties in reaching the altitude of the enemy (Japanese) bombers in time, when/if it got there it had to dive away to save itself from the enemy escort fighters. The same applied if an allied bomber unit escorted by P-40 was attacked by Zeros. In both examples the P-40B was the better dogfighter than the "E" version because it climbed faster and handled better because it was lighter.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the detailed post.
I've already agreed that P-40B was a better dogfighter than the over-weight P-40E.

It is said that the P-40 had a better roll rate than the Zero. That might be but this was neutralized when starting to pull the turn because it was (nose) heavier than the Zero with higher wing loading. The Zero would always turn inside it. That the P-40 had better protection and an armament that could shoot down a Zero didn't help as, everything else being equal, it was not able to get on the Zero's tail. The P-40 could out-dive the Zero but the Zero out-climbed the P-40. The P-39 had the same weight problem as the P-40 (they had the same engine) and a similar roll rate but better longitudinal (fore-aft) balance. Sometimes too good.
Click to expand...

If the P-40 is flown at reasonably high speed, trading altitude for even more speed, executing rolls while doing all of that, Zero can't initiate a turn in desired direction since it can't roll fast enough. Granted, the aircraft need to be already at suitable altitude and speed if it is to do all of that. Each pilot need to fly his A/C to it's stregths.
BTW - I don't think that either P-40 nor P-39 have suffered a loop-sided axchange ratio vs. Zero.

This brings us to the P-36 - and I mean the P-36, not the Hawk 75, which was the export version. The Hawk 75 was heavier, because it had more weaponry, armour and sealed fuel tanks. So, the basic P-36 did not have any armour to speak of and it only had two .50 calibre Brownings in the nose. This is not an impressive armament but it worked against the equally unprotected Japanese fighters. It also had the 1.050 hp. Twin Wasp, the most reliable radial engine in the US. What this cooks down to is that it flew and climbed as fast as the Zero, handled as good, much better in the dive, actually, and flew as far. As a matter of fact a P-36 set a world dive speed record in 1939 in connection with the French acceptance tests. It blew the measuring instruments when passing 550 mph.
Click to expand...

P-36 did not flew was fast as Zero, difference was 20-50 mph. Zero also climbed better.
I'd like to read a bit more about that 550 mph dive.

The P-36 also had a good development potential. In December 1941 the few samples in US service still had the 1.050 hp. Twin Wasp engine when Hawks ordered by the French and Norwegians already in 1940 had theirs delivered with the 1.200 hp. Twin Wasp. The Navy's F4F Wildcats were also delivered with this engine in this period. In other words the USAAC could have had several times more improved P-36s than P-40s simply because it was in production years before the war started. Pilots may like planes that can save them from destruction by leaving the battlefield, but that means aborting their mission.

Just to reiterate some info on the Hawk 75: The early French versions with the 850 and 1.050 hp. Twin Wasps and four, later 6, machine guns, held up well against the German Bf109's during the "phony war". The French pilots loved them. The 1.200 hp. versions arrived too late in France and many were taken over by the British and sent to other parts of the Empire. They flew in the CBI theatre as "Mohawks" till 1943 - if I remember correctly. The Finns got some of the ex-Norwegian ones captured by the Germans in Norway. The Finns were also quite fond of these. They flew till well after the war ended.

Fred
Click to expand...

The 1200 HP engines the P-36 migth got were not the same as what powered most of F4Fs. Those F4Fs (-3, -4) used engines with 2-stage, 2-speed supercharger. The R-1830-17, installed on some P-36s, was with 1-stage 1-speed S/C, making indeed 1200 HP for take off, but only 1050 at just 6500 ft. The 1-stage, 2-speed supercharged R-1830, like the -90 (1200 HP for take off and at 4900 ft, 1000 HP at 14500 ft) that was used on some F4Fs, was never installed on a P-36.
The P-40, with same degree of protection, armament and structural integrity, will be faster than a P-36 with then-current R-1830 - drag is cruel. P-40 was initially same as P-36 with new front part, and at any rate the production was excellent. USAF needed performers, not just another odd thousand worth of 320-330 mph fighters.

...
"Because of the difference in propellers, the Hawk displayed appreciably better take-off and climb characteristics. The swing on take-off was smaller and more easily corrected than on the British fighter and during the climb the Hawk's controls were more effective; but the Curtiss fighter proved to be rather slow in picking up speed in a dive, making the Spitfire the more suitable machine of the two for intercepting high-speed bombers (which was, of course, the primary role for which the British aircraft had been designed).
Click to expand...

Thank you again. 'Outflying' would've mean being better in crucial properties of a fighter, the P-36 did not offered that vs. Spitfire as far as we can read it.
 
I am not sure where this adulation for the P-36 comes from. The US Army bought P-40s for some very good reasons.

People seem to think they can take the good handling P-36 and by the waving of some sort of magic wand turn it into some sort of Zero killer.

Please see : http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/P-36/P-36_Operation_and_Flight_Instruction.pdf

For some real numbers. P-36 did NOT carry two .50 cal guns in cowl. It carried ONE. 2nd gun was a .30 cal. P-36C added a single .30 cal in each wing.
the .50 weighed 73lbs while the .30 weighed 27lbs. so for those export Hawk 75s four RCMGs weighed within a few pounds (single digits) of the two guns in the P-36A, also please note that the ammo for the .50 cal gun weighed 50lbs. (which may be a bit light) while the ammo for the RCMG guns went 30-33lbs for 500 rounds. Yes there is some increase in weight for the ammo, about 50lbs for the four gun fighter.

Now lets take a look at the "range" of the P-36A & C. The plane held 105 US gallons in the two normal tanks. Or about 87.5 IMP gallons, with a higher drag airframe I am having a tough time believing this plane is going to have more range than even a Hawker Hurricane if flown at similar speeds and altitudes.

I would note that ALL performance figures (speed and climb) are with the rear fuel tank empty.

Yes there was the 57 US gallon (47.5 Imp gal) tank behind the pilots seat, however we run into two problems real quick. One, the normal gross weight of the P-36A without the rear tank filled was 5605lbs. max gross for safe flight was 5840lbs, only a 235lb margin. the extra fuel in the rear tank weighed 342 lbs and you need another 26lbs of oil to keep form running the engine dry when using the the fuel in the rear tank. SO you are 131lbs overweight for safe flight.
Problem two was that all the fuel weight was behind the CG and there were prohibitions about doing hard maneuvers with the rear tank full ( and the French and other operators found that the prohibitions were not to be ignored, crashing several Hawk 75s due to loosing control with rear tank filled.)
Please note the P-36C with the wing guns had all of 2lbs (yes 2lbs) of margin between normal gross and max gross for safe flight.

Look at the range charts, yes the P-36 could fly just over 900 miles IF you flew at 140-160mph at sea level or perhaps 160-185mph at 10,000ft.

however with rear tank empty and flying at 210mph at 10,000ft this theoretical range (does not include warm up, take off or reserve let alone a combat allowance)
the "range" drops to around 550miles. Actual range was probably a lot closer to 400 miles if you include warm up, take 0ff and and even 20 minutes of reserve.

As far as "development" goes for the R-1830 engine, yes it was a great engine but development took time and cost weight. The -13 engine in the First P-36As weighed 1370lbs, the -17 engines were higher powered but it took more than just pouring 100 octane in the tanks and checking for lead fouled spark plugs.
The -17s used lead coated silver main bearings, strengthened cylinders and a rigid propeller drive. weight went to 1403 lbs. When you get to the two speed R-1830s the weight goes to around 1480-1495lbs. The two stage engines as used in the F4F wildcat went 1550-1560lbs not including intercoolers and ducting.
I would note that the 2 speed engines don't seem to show-up until mid 1940 (May and June leaving the P & W loading docks) and the two stage engines only show up to the tune of 98 engines in 1940 (81 of them in the last four months) and 507 in all of 1941. P & W built over 3000 single speed R-1830s in 1941 and 2862 two speed engines in 1941. 65 F4F-3A were built with two speed engines instead of two stage because of the shortage of two stage engines. Also all Martlet II & III aircraft were built with two speed engines.

Hmmm, that 1350lb Allison is starting to look a a bit better isn't it? Granted it needed 292lbs of radiator and coolant for a total of 1642lbs but I hope people get the idea.

Unless you leave the P-36 at 1938/39 level of development and performance it is going to mirror the wight increases in the P-40. more powerful engine means greater weight, better armament than one .50 and one .30 means an increase in weight. US authorities by the summer of 1940 considered any plane without armor or protected tanks a trainer. Unless you can change that and send P-36s into combat that will go up in flames like a Zero or Ki 43 you are going to gain weight.
Unfortunately the increase in equipement weight is going to call for increased structural weight in order to keep the Government required "G" loading levels.

I would also note that the initial P-36s had problems with wing skin buckling in service and spent periods of time grounded while fixes were worked out and put into place (read weight added).

I would also note that the ONLY TIME the P-36 met enemy aircraft in combat was on Dec 7th over Hawaii. The sampling of combat results is simply too small to draw any valid conclusion from. One way or the other. That leaves the combat record of the Hawk 75.
 
As a further note, from P-40 Performance Tests

A P-40B at 6,835lbs take-off

Climb at 30,000ft was 360fpm with the engine running at 2600rpm and making 490hp. time to 30,000ft was 20.3minutes with the engine being reduced in power from 3000rpm to 2600rpm after the first 5 minutes of climb climb speed was 195mph.

For the P-36C at 5,800lbs take-off climb at 30,000ft was 350fpm with the engine running 2550rpm making 410hp, time to 30,000ft was 19.5 minutes with the engine being reduced in power from 2700rpm to 2550 rpm after the first 5 minutes. climb speed at 30,000ft was 170mph.

Power is estimated from ground tests and power curves as neither engine was fitted with a torque meter to give direct readings in flight.

I just don't see any big change in altitude performance for the P-36C (higher ceiling or that much better climb) that would justify the sacrifice in speed or firepower vs the P-40B (which had rudimentary armor, BP glass and self sealing tanks)
 
You don't use the 57 gallon P36 tank unless you need it, just like a P51. You don't top it off and then try to dogfight a Zero or 109 60 seconds after take off. You can also put 20 or so gallons in it, warm up, take off climb to 20,000, it runs dry, then you have a full fuel load in the other tanks. Or you fill it completely, take off escort your dive bombers to the target where it runs dry. Or you use it to ferry your fighters long distance between bases etc.

Weight alone doesn't tell all the P36/P40 story. The P36 had a shorter nose, the P40 was not only heavier but the weight was farther out front, obviously more of an effect on turn. Would you rather have 300 extra pounds directly below your cockpit or 150 pounds hanging off each wingtip?

The H75 the brits flew in 1939 test had armour, 6 light machineguns and weighed 6025 pounds during the test where it had no trouble out turning the Spitfire. (I read somewhere an H75 could be on the tail of a Spitfire in 1 360 degree turn) If the H75 jumped the Spitfire, the H75 stayed on him until the Spitfire could outrun him.

Performance testing done in early 1942 by the brits on Cyclone powered H75 gave 302 mph at 14,000. The Cyclone powered P36 was 9 mph faster than the Martlet II tested by the British in April 1942 at 14,000 feet. The Martlet IV could do 298 at 21,000 while the H75 could do 292
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

T
Early records of UK preparation for WWII
Replies
3
Views
501
yulzari
yulzari
M
Mission 760 WWII
Replies
1
Views
387
Snautzer01
Snautzer01
G
Ditching qualities of WW2 Aircraft
Replies
14
Views
2K
ThomasP
T
K
Hard runways in WWII
2
Replies
31
Views
2K
Thumpalumpacus
Thumpalumpacus
N
The B-17 Flying Fortress Was The Most Overrated Bomber Of World War 2
8 9 10
Replies
196
Views
12K
pbehn
P
Back