P-40 vs. Hurricane
- Thread starter DerAdlerIstGelandet
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
CobberKane
Banned
- 706
- Apr 4, 2012
The RAF did not operate the Kittyhawk Mk.II.
There are actually TWO P-40s in New Zealand now, I'll have you know, as well as two P-51s, two Spitfires, Two Yak-3s, an FG-1 and an Fw 190 (all airworthy).
I've heard of those aircraft. I think collectively they are referred to as the RNZAF
I am glad to hear that the RNZAF finally got rid of those obsolete biplanes!
Procrastintor
Senior Airman
While the Hurricane was great, the Warhawk had better armor, roll rate, firepower, and outright speed. That said, the Hurricane could out turn the P-40 fairly easily.
Procrastintor
Senior Airman
Pictured above: New Zealand's most recent fighter under construction.
buffnut453
Captain
Procrastintor, I think you're oversimplifying things here. Your comparison is highly dependent on the variants being compared. For example, the early P-40B/C variants didn't have much, if any, firepower advantage over the early Hurricane MkIs (4x30 cal and 2x50 cal compared to 8x303). For later variants of the MkII Hurricane, I'd compare their 4x20mm cannon favourably against any armament combination in the P-40 family.
Outright speed is also highly dependent on altitude and while the P-40 probably did better at lower altitudes, there probably wouldn't be much in it at higher altitudes. Also, the performance differential between the early variants of both aircraft was probably less than the case with the later marks of Warhawk.
Now, it must be borne in mind that the Warhawk had more growth potential - the fact that it remained in front-line service from 1941 thru the end of the war is indicative of that. However, the Warhawk simply wasn't available en masse when the Hurricane was most needed during the first 18 months of the war in Europe.
Outright speed is also highly dependent on altitude and while the P-40 probably did better at lower altitudes, there probably wouldn't be much in it at higher altitudes. Also, the performance differential between the early variants of both aircraft was probably less than the case with the later marks of Warhawk.
Now, it must be borne in mind that the Warhawk had more growth potential - the fact that it remained in front-line service from 1941 thru the end of the war is indicative of that. However, the Warhawk simply wasn't available en masse when the Hurricane was most needed during the first 18 months of the war in Europe.
A. A.E.E. testing showed that the early P-40s were slightly slower than the HHII but somewhat faster under 15000ft. Typical maximum speed was ~330mph at ~15000ft.
buffnut453
Captain
Yeah, my paragraph wasn't well worded. I was trying to say that the early P-40 variants probably didn't have much performance advantage over the Hurricane, and certainly not at high altitudes. Lower altitudes, yes but the performance gap increased as later P-40 variants became available.
Procrastintor
Senior Airman
Buffnut, while the P-40 wasn't much good high altitude, the Hurricane's performance (in respective models/marks, mind you) didn't start to see any improvement over the P-40 until between 15k and 20k feet depending on the models in question. And as for the armament, the 4x 20mm Hispano's in the Hurricane model you are talking about had far less ammunition and were slightly less accurate then the P-40's .50's. No denying the Hurricane was a fantastic plane, but between it and a Warhawk I'd pick the P-40 every time.
buffnut453
Captain
But the early P-40s weren't equipped with totally with .50s - there were only 2 of those and the other 4 were 30 cals. That's much less hitting power than the 6x50 cals in the later variants. Given that the P-40B/C was still in extensive service when the Hurri MkIIC became available in numbers, I think my comment of "it depends on the variants being compared" is still valid.
As for the altitude performance, the Hurricane gained ascendency over the P-40 in the 15f-20K ft range but was superior at all altitudes above that to the Hurri's upper ceiling limit. So the performance comparison is highly dependent on the nature of the combat. Over the Western Desert where aircraft typically flew at lower altitudes, the P-40 had a clear advantage. During the Battle of Britain where fights extended to well above 20,000ft I'd prefer the Hurricane.
Both were great aircraft and, as I've said before, the P-40 had much more growth potential because, frankly, it was a generation later in design concept than the Hurri.
As for the altitude performance, the Hurricane gained ascendency over the P-40 in the 15f-20K ft range but was superior at all altitudes above that to the Hurri's upper ceiling limit. So the performance comparison is highly dependent on the nature of the combat. Over the Western Desert where aircraft typically flew at lower altitudes, the P-40 had a clear advantage. During the Battle of Britain where fights extended to well above 20,000ft I'd prefer the Hurricane.
Both were great aircraft and, as I've said before, the P-40 had much more growth potential because, frankly, it was a generation later in design concept than the Hurri.
Shortround6
Major General
Which tends to show just how far behind the Hurricane was. The "first" P-40 (OK, Hawk 75 with radial engine) flew exactly 6 months BEFORE the Hurricane. Engine was more than just a bit of a dud though and the Hawk began it's long and often troubled search for an engine.
The Hawk may hold the record for most different engines/engine-supercharger combinations ever used on ONE air frame.
buffnut453
Captain
Whereas the Hurricane was a viable combat aircraft pretty much from the beginning. It took the RAF a while to figure out that armour plate to protect the pilot was a good thing, and the changeout of fabric wings for metal and the installation of variable pitch props were vital upgrades but the essentials of firepower, engine performance and rugged build were all there from the beginning. I'd argue the Hawk family didn't really get into its stride until the P-40D...but that's just another opinion.
The Hurricane may have been behind from the design perspective but it delivered the required performance when it was most needed...in 1940.
wuzak
Captain
I'd prefer the Hurricane over the P-40 in the BoB too. Mainly because they were actually available!
Shortround6
Major General
A few of the Hawks from 1940 might be an interesting comparison. Six .30 cal mgs with more ammo total than the Hurricane. Again, unfortunately for the Hawks the Cyclone with the 2 speed supercharger tended to have oil problems while the Twin Wasp usually only had a single speed supercharger. Engine used in the Martlet II III was supposed to be good for 1000hp at 14,500ft. Not quite as good as the Merlin III but in the hunt.
few Mohawks lasted in combat in India until 1944 which is certainly past their " best use" date.
few Mohawks lasted in combat in India until 1944 which is certainly past their " best use" date.
oldcrowcv63
Tech Sergeant
Apparently, in the early Pacific campaign, modifications to both the available Hurricane II's and the P-40Es to improve their performance, especially desirable when intercepting escorted enemy bombers was not uncommon and suggests that attempts to make comparisons based strictly on factory stock airframe tests may be a bit misleading. I believe both the Commonwealth Air Forces and some individual USAAF pilots made modifications to their fighters in an attempt to counter both the IJAAF and IJN bombers and fighters. According to Shores et al., (Bloody Shambles) the RAF reduced the Huricane IIB's 12 .303 MG to just the innermost two in each wing, while Batrsch states that (only?) John Brownwell in the PI pulled the two outer 0.5" guns from his P-40E when flying recon missions from Mindanao airfields. Later, (according to Ferguson and Pascalis) at least one pilot (George Kiser) of the 49th Fighter group defending Australia resorted to similar modifications and was apparently more successful. I assume a Hurricane IIb with the improved Merlin but only 4 .303's would be a more sprightly performer as would a P-40D compared to the heavier 'E.' It would be interesting to discover just how widespread such field modifications were and whether the practice extended to the ETO or MTO. I've attached a photo from an earlier post by another forum member (couldn't find his identity or the original post) showing USAAF 49th FG Pilot Joe KIng with his P-40E (or it might be a K) with what appears to be two outboard guns removed.
Attachments
Last edited:
Procrastintor
Senior Airman
Oldcrow, the real question is how many pilots ADDED guns to their planes, imagine it, a P-40 with all 6 .50's in the wings plus two more over the engine, and some 20mms in under-wing pods. Or a Hurc with a 37mm AT gun under the fuselage.
