P-40 vs. Yak-1 vs. Hurricane

[CORSNING]

Kevin,
I am having a hard time understanding why you believe the
Hurricane was competitive with any of the other first line
aircraft at 0 - 2,000 ft.....? The Hurricane IIc/tropical had a
maximum speed of 274 mph./S.L. and 302 mph./17,720 ft.
Its initial climb rate was 2,625 fpm. and took 7.1 minutes to
reach 16,404 ft.

 

[Kevin J]

Kevin,
I am having a hard time understanding why you believe the
Hurricane was competitive with any of the other first line
aircraft at 0 - 2,000 ft.....? The Hurricane IIc/tropical had a
maximum speed of 274 mph./S.L. and 302 mph./17,720 ft.
Its initial climb rate was 2,625 fpm. and took 7.1 minutes to
reach 16,404 ft.

It depends what boost setting that you're using. A Hurricane II could do 327/328 mph between 7000 and 10500 feet with 16 lbs boost for 3 minutes. An Mc 202 Folgore did 338 mph at 2000 m and 354 at 3000 m. Yes, an Mc 202F is slightly faster. Eriic Brown reckoned that the Hurricane II would defeat it in a dogfight.

 

[CORSNING]

It depends what boost setting that you're using. A Hurricane II could do 327/328 mph between 7000 and 10500 feet with 16 lbs boost for 3 minutes.

Not sure at this time, but a IIc tropical or Sea Hurricane absolutely could not.

An Mc 202 Folgore did 338 mph at 2000 m and 354 at 3000 m. Yes, an Mc 202F is slightly faster. Eriic Brown reckoned that the Hurricane II would defeat it in a dogfight.

What Eric Brown said was:
"The Italian fighter possessed a speed advantage, but it was not critical,
especially as the British fighter was more maneuverable and had the
heavier firepower. A dogfight would slightly favor the Hurricane.
Verdict: This would be a finely balanced affair, the outcome depending
primarily on pilot skill."

I completely agree that pilot skill combined with advantages of height
and seeing the other aircraft first are golden. However, in this case I
believe the MC.202 had a slight advantage in roll rate and could outclimb
the Hurricane. Also, as altitude increased, so did the advantage of the
Italian fighter. In this comparison I am going to have to lean towards
what Erik Pilawskii had to say about the comparison.

What Erik Pilawskii had to say:
With its increased power and improved streamlining, the C.202 was a
significant improvement over the radial engine C.200, though by all means
retaining the earlier machine's fine handling and behavior. Virtually no
aircraft in Europe (except P-36) could turn with a Hawker Hurricane, but
this and its utterly powerful armament of four Hispano cannon would have
been the only advantages at the disposal of the British fighter. The contest
would see the Macchi attack and break off at will, and largely with the
ponderous Hurricane left to turn in ever smaller defensive circles to save
itself.

 

[Kevin J]

What Eric Brown said was:
"The Italian fighter possessed a speed advantage, but it was not critical,
especially as the British fighter was more maneuverable and had the
heavier firepower. A dogfight would slightly favor the Hurricane.
Verdict: This would be a finely balanced affair, the outcome depending
primarily on pilot skill."

I completely agree that pilot skill combined with advantages of height
and seeing the other aircraft first are golden. However, in this case I
believe the MC.202 had a slight advantage in roll rate and could outclimb
the Hurricane. Also, as altitude increased, so did the advantage of the
Italian fighter. In this comparison I am going to have to lean towards
what Erik Pilawskii had to say about the comparison.

What Erik Pilawskii had to say:
With its increased power and improved streamlining, the C.202 was a
significant improvement over the radial engine C.200, though by all means
retaining the earlier machine's fine handling and behavior. Virtually no
aircraft in Europe (except P-36) could turn with a Hawker Hurricane, but
this and its utterly powerful armament of four Hispano cannon would have
been the only advantages at the disposal of the British fighter. The contest
would see the Macchi attack and break off at will, and largely with the
ponderous Hurricane left to turn in ever smaller defensive circles to save
itself.

As an escort for bombers, all you need to do is to drive off the enemy fighters and return to protecting the bombers. As a fighter bomber, you need to drop your bombs and flee, if necessary turn fight. Your opponent has to shoot you down. You have to wait until your top cover escort comes to your assistance. So the Hurricane is still a useful fighter to have in North Africa in 1942. Also, both Hurricane and Spitfire had been designed as both day and night fighters, although the Spitfire didn't prove adequate for that task. The Hurricane IIc was still operating successfully as a night intruder in 1942 over France. In 1942 in the Western Desert, you have the Tomahawk fighter, Kittyhawk fighter bomber, but both are day fighters only, the Hurricane has been designed for both day and night use. The Spitfire VB is not as structurally strong as a Tomahawk for offensive fighter duties although it is a better interceptor with better altitude capability. The Spitfire Vc with the strengthened wing doesn't appear until later in 1942. The Hurricane is still a useful plane to operate in the fighter role until the much improved Spitfire Vc comes along. Its underrated.

 

[CORSNING]

Kevin,
I never said the Hurricane was not still useful in the second half
of WW2. All I was trying to let you know is that it was not a first
class, front line fighter by 1942. Many early WW2 fighters found
great usefulness in the last half of the war. The P-40N, FM-2,
Hurricane IV and the P-39N/Q are perfect examples of this.
, Jeff

 

[Elvis]

As an escort for bombers, all you need to do is to drive off the enemy fighters and return to protecting the bombers. As a fighter bomber, you need to drop your bombs and flee, if necessary turn fight. Your opponent has to shoot you down. You have to wait until your top cover escort comes to your assistance. So the Hurricane is still a useful fighter to have in North Africa in 1942. Also, both Hurricane and Spitfire had been designed as both day and night fighters, although the Spitfire didn't prove adequate for that task. The Hurricane IIc was still operating successfully as a night intruder in 1942 over France. In 1942 in the Western Desert, you have the Tomahawk fighter, Kittyhawk fighter bomber, ]b]but both are day fighters only, the Hurricane has been designed for both day and night use.[/b] The Spitfire VB is not as structurally strong as a Tomahawk for offensive fighter duties although it is a better interceptor with better altitude capability. The Spitfire Vc with the strengthened wing doesn't appear until later in 1942. The Hurricane is still a useful plane to operate in the fighter role until the much improved Spitfire Vc comes along. Its underrated.

Not to skew the thread, but what makes a fighter (or any other airplane) both Day/Night capable, as opposed to Day Only?


Elvis

 

[Kevin J]

Not to skew the thread, but what makes a fighter (or any other airplane) both Day/Night capable, as opposed to Day Only?


Elvis

Exhaust guards to prevent the sparks blinding the pilot. Instrumentation, I presume. Having a radio that works, the earliest Yak radios weren't very good. I'm sure there's other things that are useful like wide track undercarriage. You are limited to moonlight nights or having lots of searchlights blazing away, but it could be done. Maybe with the P-40 you're limited by the long approach before touch down.The Hurricane was Britain's most numerous night fighter during the Blitz.

 

[Shortround6]

Basically in the 1930s and early 40s any fighter that could take-off and land at night was a night fighter.
Many carried a couple of flares to help illuminate the landing site if there wasn't enough light there already.
Effectiveness was a totally different story.

 

[Elvis]

Great. Thanks guys.

 

[Shortround6]

Parachute flare tubes behind cockpit and oxygen bottles. A retractable landing light was (or could?) fitted to the early planes, Stopped around the Vc ????

 

[Shortround6]

As far as the Hurricane night fighter goes please notice the high tech solution used to shield the pilots eyes from the glare of the exhaust.

The only practical difference between the Hurricane and Spitfire for night fighting duties may have been the landing gear or something about they way they landed. I see no reason that the Spitfire could not have been fitted with a similar hi-tech solution to the exhaust glare problem if they really want to use them.
and indeed some SPitfires were fitted with them.

Once again, effectiveness of this "solution" may be subject to question.

 

[Kevin J]

As far as the Hurricane night fighter goes please notice the high tech solution used to shield the pilots eyes from the glare of the exhaust.
View attachment 508244

The only practical difference between the Hurricane and Spitfire for night fighting duties may have been the landing gear or something about they way they landed. I see no reason that the Spitfire could not have been fitted with a similar hi-tech solution to the exhaust glare problem if they really want to use them.
and indeed some SPitfires were fitted with them.
View attachment 508245
View attachment 508246

Once again, effectiveness of this "solution" may be subject to question.

Sometimes the simplest solutions are the best. IIRC, it was the Spitfire's narrow undercarriage which was the problem. As a night fighter, a single seat fighter can be used on moon lite nights or if you have plenty of search lights.The RAF even tried fitting searchlights to the Douglas Havoc, the Havoc Turbinlite, each of which was meant to be accompanied by two Hurricanes. The Germans used Fw 190's. Again, a plane with a wide undercarriage, unlike the Bf 109. Nice photos of yours. Personally, I believe two sets of eyes are better than one, and as for having upwards firing armament, even better. The Defiant was also designed as a day and night fighter and was the most successful of all our fighters during the Blitz.

 

[Shortround6]

The Defiant was also designed as a day and night fighter and was the most successful of all our fighters during the Blitz.

Well, that depends on what dates are included in the Blitz, not for me to decide that.
But from Sept 1940 to Feb of 1941 the number of German aircraft shot down by night fighters per month was in the single digits. Some months it was in the low single digits (very low) so statics are almost meaningless. March saw double digits (22), April 48 and the first two weeks of May saw 96. The numbers may be claims and not match Luftwaffe losses?
There are a number of overlapping reasons for the this rapid increase in the effectiveness of the British nightfighter forces. The Defiant was not one of them.

 

[Reluctant Poster]

Sometimes the simplest solutions are the best. IIRC, it was the Spitfire's narrow undercarriage which was the problem. As a night fighter, a single seat fighter can be used on moon lite nights or if you have plenty of search lights.The RAF even tried fitting searchlights to the Douglas Havoc, the Havoc Turbinlite, each of which was meant to be accompanied by two Hurricanes. The Germans used Fw 190's. Again, a plane with a wide undercarriage, unlike the Bf 109. Nice photos of yours. Personally, I believe two sets of eyes are better than one, and as for having upwards firing armament, even better. The Defiant was also designed as a day and night fighter and was the most successful of all our fighters during the Blitz.

Actually the Germans used Me 109s as well as FW 190s

 

[Reluctant Poster]

Sorry double clutched

 

[Reluctant Poster]

Not sure where the idea that the Merlin could not be cruised at fairly good fuel consumption figures comes from. Not quite as good as the Allison is certainly believable but some pilots manuals give engine settings for long range cruise as low as 30 gals an hour (granted imperial gallons) if not a bit lower. The Merlin may very well have sounded rougher than the Allison but if such settings were either dangerous or damaging to the engine I doubt they would be in the pilots manuals

The myth that the Merlin was a fuel hog seems to have been started by Dan Whitney in Vee's for Victory in which he compares the fuel consumption of a P-51 vs a P-38. He bias the comparison by using data for the P-51 cruising at much higher speeds ( and hence RPM) than the P-38. The P-51 is running at 2100 rpm vs the P-38s 1600 rpm. In point of fact according to the P-51D Flight Operation Instructions the most economical cruise setting for the P-51 is also 1600 rpm.
Regardless the fuel hog myth flies in the face of actual performance. Merlin powered Mosquitoes and Spitfires flew recon missions the length and breadth of Germany, Merlin powered P51s flew the longest fighter missions of the war from Iwo Jima to Japan. A Merlin powered P-82B flew from Hawaii to New York without refueling ( over 5,000 miles), the longest nonstop flight ever made by a propeller driven fighter.

 

[Reluctant Poster]

Thank you, mental math error on the 58in.
I know the British used higher boost pressures on the British built Merlin XX engines. what I don't know is if they used higher boost pressures on the Packard Built Merlin XX engines. also known as the Merlin 28 & 29 and not the Merlin XX. When you get to Packard built Merlin 224s you have different pistons, stronger supercharger drive parts, stronger supercharger clutches and beefed up engine block side panels (and a few other changes).

The Lancaster I's used on the Dambuster mission were re-engined with Parkard built Merlin 28s to match their Mark III brethren specifically because of the higher boost pressure allowed by the 2 piece block (14 psi vs 12 psi). From the Merlin in Perspective by Alec Harvey Bailey.

 

[Greyman]

I'm not too sure on all of this (especially when dates/timeframes start getting tossed in) but it was my understanding that:

Merlin XX, Merlin 22, Merlin 23, Merlin 28, Merlin 38: +16 lb boost (M ratio), +14 lb boost (S ratio)
Merlin 24, Merlin 25, Merlin 224: +18 lb boost (M ratio), +18 lb boost (S ratio)

 

[CORSNING]

The Merlin XX powered Hurricane Mk.II began to be delivered to
the RAF in September 1940.
15 November 1940: +12 for 5 min. is approve for M (low) gear. +9 S (high).
21 November 1942: +14 is approved for low and high supercharger gears.
There is also a note stating that boost in high supercharger will be approximately
+16 psi.
+16 psi boost in Merlin XX, 21, 22 & 23 using 100 octane was allowed, but
I do not have a date (yet) on when.

 

[Elvis]

The myth that the Merlin was a fuel hog seems to have been started by Dan Whitney in Vee's for Victory in which he compares the fuel consumption of a P-51 vs a P-38. He bias the comparison by using data for the P-51 cruising at much higher speeds ( and hence RPM) than the P-38. The P-51 is running at 2100 rpm vs the P-38s 1600 rpm. In point of fact according to the P-51D Flight Operation Instructions the most economical cruise setting for the P-51 is also 1600 rpm.
Regardless the fuel hog myth flies in the face of actual performance. Merlin powered Mosquitoes and Spitfires flew recon missions the length and breadth of Germany, Merlin powered P51s flew the longest fighter missions of the war from Iwo Jima to Japan. A Merlin powered P-82B flew from Hawaii to New York without refueling ( over 5,000 miles), the longest nonstop flight ever made by a propeller driven fighter.

Interesting you bring up the P-38.
Lindbergh's interaction with flyers in the S. Pacific showed them how to extend the range of their P-38's by upping the boost and prop pitch to maintain speed, while turning the engines at a much slower speed, thus gaining better fuel efficiency.
Chances are, the figures you quoted were a result of that interaction.


Elvis