Rather less of the drag. Therefore modern jet planes have "sharp" noses.
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
Rather less of the drag. Therefore modern jet planes have "sharp" noses.
Njaco
The Pop-Tart Whisperer
Curtiss P-40N Warhawk 10AF 80FG 89FS W49 Burma Banshee 1943-45
.
.
fubar57
General
Nice find Chris. Looking down the flight-line, the first six have the fuel tank mounted in the usual manner. Experimental?
Geo
Geo
Shortround6
Major General
One would think the ground clearance is getting a little iffy with the reversed tank.
Airflow and drag can change with speed. Without flight test or wind tunnel it is hard to say if it would bring any improvement.
Airflow and drag can change with speed. Without flight test or wind tunnel it is hard to say if it would bring any improvement.
It looks like there's more hardware between the aircraft and tank than just the support lug or lugs, sway braces and fuel connection.
Could that be some sort of spray system ? Smoke screen ? The turned backward tank would increase turbulence at the back and maybe increase dispersion of what was being sprayed.
Is the tailwheel on that P-40 the same as others?
Could that be some sort of spray system ? Smoke screen ? The turned backward tank would increase turbulence at the back and maybe increase dispersion of what was being sprayed.
Is the tailwheel on that P-40 the same as others?
CORSNING
Tech Sergeant
Thanks Njaco, the pictures are in squadron/signal AIRCRAFT NO.26 pages 49 and 50. I just haven't figured out how to scan and post.
Thanks again Chris, Jeff.
Thanks again Chris, Jeff.
Procrastintor
Senior Airman
Wow, I have been looking for days and hadnt found a pic, Chrislock Holmes does it again!
wuzak
Captain
The rear is as important as the front to prevent turbulent airflow, which causes drag.
1968billsfan
Recruit
- 3
- May 25, 2017
Well a few things to point out that have not been mentioned.
[1] To those praising the hurricane for being better because of all the modifications made..... well the British had a very limited number of alternates in production or existence to use for light ground attack aircraft or bomber destroyers.(Beaufighter) They did buy and use US Boston bombers, A-20, Ventura and Baltimore bombers and converted the hurricanes with 20mm and 40mm guns. Perhaps this was done not because it was such a wonderful airframe, but because it was available and not worth a lot as a short ranged fighter?
[2] Bombers are tough to bring down. Rifle calibre rounds are not very useful, so the standard Hurricane armament is poor for that. 13mm and 20mm are good. 20mm is not a good choice for dogfighting because of the slow rate of fire and weight of the gun. You have only a second of firing time, so a big gun can not put many bullets at the target and the heavier gun hurts the performance of the airplen. The 50 calibre (13mm) is the best comprise for dogfighting and that was the main weapon for the P-40. The 20mm and 40mm Hurricanes were not intended for dogfighting but as cheap bomber destroyers and light ground attack. Comparing the explosive effect of these specialized weapons with lighter 13mm weapons meant for dogfighting is not valid.
[3] The Hurricane success in the BoB was a special situation that the P-40 seldom was offered. With radar, they were allowed to have an altitude advantage and a loiter time advantage. They had plenty of targets to select from or to disengage from- so they could pick their battles and fight when they had the advantage. The targets that they were defending were quite resilant ones- grass airfields and large cities, so there was never a need to fight to the bitter death. They were fighting over friendly ground, so they survived minor damage, whereas the Germans were always fuel limited and in danger of going down from minor damage on the trip home over the Channel. Note also that they were NOT asked to be the air superiority fighter, since that was the short ranged Spitfire's job. So the hurricanes could do the dive shoot and zoom away method against slower bombers, or decide not to engage. (The American volunteer P-40's in China did have an early warning system and did quite nicely against the Japanese) .... By the way, there are very few instances of the hurricane being used successfully as a bomber escort over enemy territory- a role that the P-40 was often asked to perform.
[1] To those praising the hurricane for being better because of all the modifications made..... well the British had a very limited number of alternates in production or existence to use for light ground attack aircraft or bomber destroyers.(Beaufighter) They did buy and use US Boston bombers, A-20, Ventura and Baltimore bombers and converted the hurricanes with 20mm and 40mm guns. Perhaps this was done not because it was such a wonderful airframe, but because it was available and not worth a lot as a short ranged fighter?
[2] Bombers are tough to bring down. Rifle calibre rounds are not very useful, so the standard Hurricane armament is poor for that. 13mm and 20mm are good. 20mm is not a good choice for dogfighting because of the slow rate of fire and weight of the gun. You have only a second of firing time, so a big gun can not put many bullets at the target and the heavier gun hurts the performance of the airplen. The 50 calibre (13mm) is the best comprise for dogfighting and that was the main weapon for the P-40. The 20mm and 40mm Hurricanes were not intended for dogfighting but as cheap bomber destroyers and light ground attack. Comparing the explosive effect of these specialized weapons with lighter 13mm weapons meant for dogfighting is not valid.
[3] The Hurricane success in the BoB was a special situation that the P-40 seldom was offered. With radar, they were allowed to have an altitude advantage and a loiter time advantage. They had plenty of targets to select from or to disengage from- so they could pick their battles and fight when they had the advantage. The targets that they were defending were quite resilant ones- grass airfields and large cities, so there was never a need to fight to the bitter death. They were fighting over friendly ground, so they survived minor damage, whereas the Germans were always fuel limited and in danger of going down from minor damage on the trip home over the Channel. Note also that they were NOT asked to be the air superiority fighter, since that was the short ranged Spitfire's job. So the hurricanes could do the dive shoot and zoom away method against slower bombers, or decide not to engage. (The American volunteer P-40's in China did have an early warning system and did quite nicely against the Japanese) .... By the way, there are very few instances of the hurricane being used successfully as a bomber escort over enemy territory- a role that the P-40 was often asked to perform.
buffnut453
Captain
Oh dear....so much to say about those comments:
One could apply exactly the same arguments to the P-40. It was extensively used in the ground attack role because it could not perform at the altitudes demanded in western Europe. Where it did perform well was those theatres where operations were undertaken at lower altitudes. Even then, it was seldom the primary air superiority fighter of choice.
The 50cal was only a good air-to-air weapon from late 1942 onwards. Every (yes EVERY) US fighter had problems with wing installation of 50 cals until around August of that year. The issue with Buffalos is frequently reported but problems also occurred with F4Fs, P-40s and even early P-51s. At the time of the Battle of Britain, the 50cal was a non-starter because it simply could not be trusted to operate reliably in fighter installations. Your statement about the 20mm "not intended for dogfighting" is simply WRONG. That weapon was used in every front-line RAF fighter from the Spitfire MkVb onwards through to the end of the war. You may not prefer it as a weapon but it absolutely WAS implemented as a dogfighting weapon.
Radar provided early warning but the ability of the Hurricane (and Spitfire) to get up to altitude rapidly was a vital attribute...just ask the pilots of 11 Group (who, incidentally, would ardently disagree with your contention that the Hurricanes had an altitude advantage). The P-40 would have been a liability under the conditions pertaining in the summer of 1940.
"Never a need to fight to the bitter death" and "decide not to engage"? Really? So the pilots went up for the fun of it and didn't attack enemy formations if they didn't like the look of things? Have you read any contemporary reports from the Battle? The pilots of Fighter Command understood that if they gave way, the consequences would be monumental given the collapse of France just a few months beforehand. They went into the fray with all they had, often at a severe tactical disadvantage both numerically and from an altitude perspective. The war was going badly and the British Empire was alone in fighting Nazi Germany and fascist Italy. Loss of the Battle of Britain would have left all London exposed to almost unopposed air attack, which probably would have brought down the Churchill government...and who knows where that would have left the world. This absolutely WAS a fight to the bitter death. It was a fight for survival which Fighter Command HAD to win.
"NOT asked to be the air superiority fighter"? Yes, the PLAN was for Spitfires to engage the Messerschmitts while Hurricanes took on bombers...but, as is so often the case, the plan did not survive contact with the enemy. The messy reality of air combat meant that frequently Hurricanes took on Messerschmitts. The fact that the Hurricane scored more kills than all other RAF fighters COMBINED strongly indicates that it absolutely was asked to be the air superiority fighter.
As to not being used as a bomber escort, how about the campaigns in France, North Africa, Malaya and Burma where they were often used in that role?
I have no problem with the contention that the P-40 was a better airframe than the Hurricane. It was, after all, a more modern design using monocoque rather than frame-and-fabric construction. Compared to the Hurricane, the P-40 had the advantage of 3 years' additional design/development time before its first flight. There was a further advantage of it starting combat operations some 18 months after the Hurricane (and this was with the RAF - its first operational use with the USAAF came another 10 months after that). However, let's base our arguments on more realistic factors than those you cited.
One could apply exactly the same arguments to the P-40. It was extensively used in the ground attack role because it could not perform at the altitudes demanded in western Europe. Where it did perform well was those theatres where operations were undertaken at lower altitudes. Even then, it was seldom the primary air superiority fighter of choice.
The 50cal was only a good air-to-air weapon from late 1942 onwards. Every (yes EVERY) US fighter had problems with wing installation of 50 cals until around August of that year. The issue with Buffalos is frequently reported but problems also occurred with F4Fs, P-40s and even early P-51s. At the time of the Battle of Britain, the 50cal was a non-starter because it simply could not be trusted to operate reliably in fighter installations. Your statement about the 20mm "not intended for dogfighting" is simply WRONG. That weapon was used in every front-line RAF fighter from the Spitfire MkVb onwards through to the end of the war. You may not prefer it as a weapon but it absolutely WAS implemented as a dogfighting weapon.
Radar provided early warning but the ability of the Hurricane (and Spitfire) to get up to altitude rapidly was a vital attribute...just ask the pilots of 11 Group (who, incidentally, would ardently disagree with your contention that the Hurricanes had an altitude advantage). The P-40 would have been a liability under the conditions pertaining in the summer of 1940.
"Never a need to fight to the bitter death" and "decide not to engage"? Really? So the pilots went up for the fun of it and didn't attack enemy formations if they didn't like the look of things? Have you read any contemporary reports from the Battle? The pilots of Fighter Command understood that if they gave way, the consequences would be monumental given the collapse of France just a few months beforehand. They went into the fray with all they had, often at a severe tactical disadvantage both numerically and from an altitude perspective. The war was going badly and the British Empire was alone in fighting Nazi Germany and fascist Italy. Loss of the Battle of Britain would have left all London exposed to almost unopposed air attack, which probably would have brought down the Churchill government...and who knows where that would have left the world. This absolutely WAS a fight to the bitter death. It was a fight for survival which Fighter Command HAD to win.
"NOT asked to be the air superiority fighter"? Yes, the PLAN was for Spitfires to engage the Messerschmitts while Hurricanes took on bombers...but, as is so often the case, the plan did not survive contact with the enemy. The messy reality of air combat meant that frequently Hurricanes took on Messerschmitts. The fact that the Hurricane scored more kills than all other RAF fighters COMBINED strongly indicates that it absolutely was asked to be the air superiority fighter.
As to not being used as a bomber escort, how about the campaigns in France, North Africa, Malaya and Burma where they were often used in that role?
I have no problem with the contention that the P-40 was a better airframe than the Hurricane. It was, after all, a more modern design using monocoque rather than frame-and-fabric construction. Compared to the Hurricane, the P-40 had the advantage of 3 years' additional design/development time before its first flight. There was a further advantage of it starting combat operations some 18 months after the Hurricane (and this was with the RAF - its first operational use with the USAAF came another 10 months after that). However, let's base our arguments on more realistic factors than those you cited.
Last edited:
Oct 1941 USAAC comparison of Hurricane II and the P-40E:
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/P-40/PHQ-M-19-1307-A.pdf
and other types, including the P-39, P38, and Spitfire V.
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/P-40/PHQ-M-19-1307-A.pdf
and other types, including the P-39, P38, and Spitfire V.
buffnut453
Captain
Interesting reading. Shame it doesn't identify the mark of Hurricane or Spitfire since that has a big impact on performance.
The USAAC had published memos on the Hurricane IIA in Sept 1941:
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/Hurricane_II_Z-2974_Level.pdf
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/Hurricane_II_Z-2974_Climb.pdf
So I suspect that it was a Hurricane IIA but I don't have any guesses as to which Spitfire V variant was used.
Buffnut adressed this, I'll just add my two cents about this particular part:
We don't have much of a say what was valid to compare between air-combat wepons, since that was done by people whose it was the job in many countries.
With that said: The cannon (earstwhile different 20mm jobs, later sometimes moving to bigger and/or faster firing canons) became a preferred weapon. Even before the war of 1939, cannon was a main airborne gun in 3 major airforces of the world.
This is before noting that not all 0.50 in class weapons were created the same.
The notion that 'you have only one second of firing time', thus a cannon is out of question is also very questionable. So is a notion that one can install one .50 instead of one cannon and somehow improve it's kill probability just because on that. The heavy 0.50, 6 of them, along with their heavy ammo and mounts, were ones of main culprits for the P-40E being a slow aircraft that was also bad in climb.
We don't have much of a say what was valid to compare between air-combat wepons, since that was done by people whose it was the job in many countries.
With that said: The cannon (earstwhile different 20mm jobs, later sometimes moving to bigger and/or faster firing canons) became a preferred weapon. Even before the war of 1939, cannon was a main airborne gun in 3 major airforces of the world.
This is before noting that not all 0.50 in class weapons were created the same.
The notion that 'you have only one second of firing time', thus a cannon is out of question is also very questionable. So is a notion that one can install one .50 instead of one cannon and somehow improve it's kill probability just because on that. The heavy 0.50, 6 of them, along with their heavy ammo and mounts, were ones of main culprits for the P-40E being a slow aircraft that was also bad in climb.
In 1940? I suspect that the crews, at least those who survived, of the roughly 1000 Luftwaffe bombers lost would disagree with you.
I doubt that the survivors of the 870+ Bf 109s and Bf 110s lost would think that rifle calibre machine guns were anything less than effective against them either.*
Much is made of the Bf 109 Es cannon armament, but the aircraft only carried about 7 seconds worth of ammunition for them. After that it was reduced to just two machine guns and was seriously outgunned by both the RAF's principle day fighters.
It's easy to criticise the eight gun fighter with hindsight, but it was not developed randomly, but rather as a result of much debate, analysis and testing. It is self evident that it had a limited future as bomber armour increased, but in the BoB it was very effective. It is also significant that generally the fighters the eight gunnners replaced were armed with just two rifle calibre machine guns.
* Overall losses from BoBT&N, numbers vary, but the overall result is always similar. Obviously not all those aircraft were lost to Hurricanes or Spitfires, but a significant proportion were.
Josef "Beppo" Schmid shared your opinion of British fighter armament. In an August 10th 1940 report he concluded that it was so poor that Luftwaffe bombers would be able to operate in day light over the UK mainland. He was wrong about that, as well as much else.
Cheers
Steve
Last edited:
It was an airframe which could be used, stable and capable of carrying other weapons, it ceased to be a front line fighter in the Autumn of 1940, by that I mean being capable of holding its own against the best the enemy had.
We are discussing the Hurricane which faced three bombers Ju88 He111 and Do17. It was noted that the Ju88 was becoming more protected and difficult to bring down during the BoB but Hurricanes and Spitfires were perfectly capable of bringing down any bomber they encountered. As I understand it it was expected that a bomber should be taken down if hit by a 2 second burst, the basis of this was the reason why guns were increased from 4 to 8.
With very little respect, this is bordering on fantasy where do you get it from. The range of both the Spitfire and Hurricane were only short ranged in comparison to P51s and maritime fighters, pilots returned to base in the BoB because they were short of ammunition or targets. Spitfires engaging fighters while Hurricanes took on the bombers is one of history's most enduring myths.
My two cents is that the Hurricane was the base model in monoplane design, all other allied planes mentioned were more advanced, but they weren't there. In performance it could out turn its competitor in a momentary not sustained turn but little else. Its one saving grace is that it was basic, easy to build and fly and just good enough. The British sent hundreds to France but those remaining still formed the major part of the RAF during the BoB. It had many faults, a shortage of them was never a problem. Post 1940 it found a use in ground attack, but that was the fate of all fighters even the P51 and Corsair were used in ground attack. The P40 could not have won the BoB, neither could the Spitfire. The Hurricane could have done it completely alone simply by not sending so many planes and pilots to France.
Shortround6
Major General
A lot packed into a short paragraph.
Leaving out all the axis aircraft and the Russian aircraft lets examine what is left. As noted in 1940 the eight rifle caliber machine guns in the Hurricane did a pretty good job. They would have done even better IF the guns had been concentrated and not had their fire spread out so much in the hopes of making up for poor marksmanship which brings us to #2. If marksmanship and training are such that pilots are opening fire at 900yds or more instead of the instructed 300yds the type of armament makes little difference although long firing times gives the pilot a chance to get closer before running out of ammo. The British were also short of both AP ammo and incendiary ammo for the .303 during the BoB.
Next we have which armament for the Hurricane after the BoB. Eight .303sin the IIA? twelve .303s in the IIB or the four 20mm guns in the IIC? The 40mm guns were special purpose and were never intended for air to air fighting even against bombers.
Now compare to which P-40? The P-40, P-40B, P-40C/Tomahawk? or the P-40E?Warhawk and later? The long nose planes only carried two .50 cal guns and what with the synchronizers the rate of fire was miserable, lower than the 20mm guns in the Hurricane.
So you are comparing 150-160rps from the eight gun Hurricane and 225-240 rps from the twelve gun Hurricane and 40 shells a second from the Huricane IIC to the 15-16 rps of .50 cal and the 75-80 rps of .30 cal/.303 of the long nose P-40s.
I am sorry but I am not seeing much, if any advantage for the early P-40? The later ones got to 75-80rps of .50 cal IF the carried all six guns and IF they fired at near 800rpm (a lot of the early installations didn't even after the gun was rated at that speed in ground tests) and IF they didn't jam. a BIG IF in early 1942.
A P-40E with six .50s was carrying 470-480lbs worth of guns and 423lbs worth of ammo for about 18-19 seconds of firing time.
A Hurricane IIC was carring 588lbs worth of guns and about 225lbs worth of ammo (90rpg) for 9 seconds of firing time.
Weights do not include ammo boxes, gun heaters, charging systems or gun mounts.
The explosive content of the 20mm ammo is certainly valid for fighter vs fighter combat.
Spitfire hit by German 20mm shells.
other side
