P36 vs Hurricane (1 Viewer)

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

pinsog

Tech Sergeant
1,667
658
Jan 20, 2008
General feelings are that the P36 was too slow and obsolete to fight in WW2, yet the Hurricane has a loyal following especially up through the Battle of Britain.

Yet, I was looking at the specs on wwiiaircraftperformance and the P36 was 17 mph faster than the Hurricane at 10,000 feet. It was equal in top speed to the Hurricane at 17,000 feet when equipped with the P&W R-1830-23 engine. It could beat the Hurricane in a time to climb to 23,000 feet and it could easily out turn it under any conditions. The Hurricane had 8 .303 machine guns, the P36 either 1 .50 and 5 30's or, I understand the later models had 2 .50's and 4 30's.

So why was the Hurricane ok and the P36 was obsolete? If the P36 had the 1830-23 engine or later, I don't see what the Hurricane had over it at all.
 
WW2 is more than 1939 to 1940. Hurricane was deployed in big numbers during that time, and during the BoB it served as the sharp end of the Fighter Command's command & control system, a great thing that P-36 was without in the theaters where served. We know that Hurricane when used in low numbers and away from the good C&C system was hard pressed to do it's job.
Neither Hurricane nor P-36 were as good as Spitfire or Bf 109 when it is about raw performance. Even the P-40 and P-39 can and will be faster than Hurri or P-36.

One thing that will make Hurricane less obsolete was introduction of 12 MGs, later 4 cannons in the Merlin XX powered Hurricane II. Still an underperformer, though. The greater power (via increased boost, that was possible due to the use of 100 oct fuel) will notably improve Hurricane's rate of climb under 15000 ft.
 
Are we talking the P-36 or the Curtiss Hawk 75 in it's best form? IMO this aircraft was one of the most underrated fighters of WW2. The French did very well with them.

From Wiki;

"During 1939–1940, French H75 pilots claimed 230 air-to-air kills (of a total of 1,009 air-to-air kills by the French Air Force during the 1939-40 time period) and 81 probable victories in H75s against only 29 aircraft lost in aerial combat. While making up only 12.6% of the French Air Force single-seater fighter force, the H75 accounted for almost a third of the air-to-air kills during the 1940 Battle of France. Of the 11 French aces of the early part of the war, seven flew H75s. The leading ace of the time was Lieutenant Edmond Marin la Meslée with 15 confirmed and five probable victories in the type."
 
Joe,

I entirely agree that the "P-36" (in quotes because there were just soooo many different variants!) is an underrated aircraft.

I suspect some of the negative press is related to the utility of the P-36 in the Battle of Britain where its relatively poorer high altitude performance would have been a hindrance. It's worth noting that although the Commonwealth air forces operated P-36s for a number of years, most notably in Burma, no operational units were ever deployed in the UK.

We also need to be careful about which variant we're discussing...hence my original caveat. The final armament option of 2x50 cal in the nose and 4x30 cal in the wings was adequate but earlier variants with fewer guns were probably not up to par for an early-1940s vintage fighter.

The performance of the P-36 in Finnish use is interesting, not least the comparison with that other unloved fighter the Brewster B239.

Cheers,
Mark
 
FLYBOYJ I guess I use Hawk75 and P36 interchangeably, I thought the Hawk75 was just the export name of the same airplane. Also, the Hawk75 used by the French did not have the best performing engine available and it was underarmed with 6 French RC machine-guns which, according to French pilots, caused many Hawk75 to be shot down by German defensive gunners because they had to close to about 50 yards for them to be effective.

TOMO PAUK I agree that it will never be as fast as a 109 or a Spitfire, but if it can climb with them, easily outturn them (a French pilot said a Hawk75 can do 1 360 degree turn with a 109 and be on its tail), its as tough as anything short of a P47, and with the late model P&W used in the Wildcat it would gain a tremendous boost in performance at altitude (625 hp at 20,000 feet for a P36 vs 1,000 hp at 19,000 feet for a Wildcat) The Spitfire didn't do well with the Zero in 1942-1943 and the Zero had terrible handling above 320-350 mph, something a P36/Hawk75 didn't have trouble with, in fact the roll rate on a P36/Hawk75 got better at high speed and the controls remained light
 
I'd say that P-36 was not that tough :) Most (all?) of it's iterations were without armor of any sort, so we have Zero/Oscar-style advantages and problems here. Great for climb and turning, less great when it needs to catch the bogey or to run away from it, while every burst that struck home will mean grave danger to the pilot.
Spitfire in 1942 have had problems with Zero, however, many of problems were less related to the aircraft, rather to the system it was employed. The P-36 have had a good roll rate, expecting it to attain more than 320 mph (in order to out-roll the Zero) would've been asking too much.
The 2-stage R-1830 in P-36 would've been a fairly good match, I agree with that. We'd still have the weight increase, due to heavier engine, s-s tanks, armor, better armament etc.
BTW, the single, and atop of that synchronised .50 will be hardly at advantage vs. multiple French 7.5mm MGs.
 
I'd say that P-36 was not that tough :) Most (all?) of it's iterations were without armor of any sort, so we have Zero/Oscar-style advantages and problems here. Great for climb and turning, less great when it needs to catch the bogey or to run away from it, while every burst that struck home will mean grave danger to the pilot.
Spitfire in 1942 have had problems with Zero, however, many of problems were less related to the aircraft, rather to the system it was employed. The P-36 have had a good roll rate, expecting it to attain more than 320 mph (in order to out-roll the Zero) would've been asking too much.
The 2-stage R-1830 in P-36 would've been a fairly good match, I agree with that. We'd still have the weight increase, due to heavier engine, s-s tanks, armor, better armament etc.
BTW, the single, and atop of that synchronised .50 will be hardly at advantage vs. multiple French 7.5mm MGs.


From what I read, the French and Finnish pilots evidently had armor behind the seat. Before Coral Sea, F4F-3 pilots used boilerplate, so a 100 pound sheet of armor behind the seat would be an easy fix.

2 synchronized .50's and 4 30's would be what I would spec out for an early war P36/H75, with an increase to 4 .50 BMG when the time came.

Along with the latest P&W engine as they were coming out. The -23 gave 950 hp at 17,000 while the -17 that they actually used gave 810 at 15,000. 140 more hp 2,000 feet higher is pretty substantial. The F4F-3 Wildcat had 1,000 hp at 19,000 feet. I'd like to see that in a P36 that weighed over 1,000 pounds less.

The official specs for the F4F-3 show protected fuel tanks weighing 164 pounds for 160 gallons, so that shouldn't be much of a weight penalty.

Official specs show a P36C weighed 5,840 pounds with 1 .50, 3 .30 machine-guns, 200 rounds of 50, 1500 rounds of .30 and 162 gallons of fuel. Lets add 100 pounds of armor plate behind pilot, and trade the synchro 30 and ammo for a 50 and ammo and you have gained 163 pounds. Plane is at 6,000 even now, so add another 100 for protected tanks and your still 1,300 pounds lighter than an F4F-3
 
There was far easier (and lighter) to make install the s-s liner in the single, semispherical fuel tank of the F4F, than it will be for the P-36. Once the P-40C (that used the same 3-piece tankage as P-36) got s-s protection, the fuel system went from 171 lbs in the P-40 (no suffix) to 420 lbs in the P-40C, a gain of almost 250 lbs.
After all is said and done, would we be any better with 4 HMG-armed, up-armored & up-engined P-36, or with P-40C/D? That is before we consider the ability to heavily over-boost the V-1710, unlike what R-1830 was capable for. The V-1710-33 was making 960 HP at 17000 ft.
 
There was far easier (and lighter) to make install the s-s liner in the single, semispherical fuel tank of the F4F, than it will be for the P-36. Once the P-40C (that used the same 3-piece tankage as P-36) got s-s protection, the fuel system went from 171 lbs in the P-40 (no suffix) to 420 lbs in the P-40C, a gain of almost 250 lbs.
After all is said and done, would we be any better with 4 HMG-armed, up-armored & up-engined P-36, or with P-40C/D? That is before we consider the ability to heavily over-boost the V-1710, unlike what R-1830 was capable for. The V-1710-33 was making 960 HP at 17000 ft.

In tests, the US said above 19,000 or 20,000 feet the F4F-4 had every advantage over the P40. Everything. That was straight from a US test. P39's and P40's couldn't even climb to the altitude of Japanese bombers to make an intercept, so yes, I think a re-engined P36 was the better plane in every respect except top speed, and that top speed would only have shown up at lower altitudes. Go ahead and add 250 pounds of self sealing fuel tank to the P36 and it will weigh 6,250. Still 600 pounds lighter than a P40B before you add armor and SS tanks
 
P-40s were very much able to climb to the altitudes where the Japanese bombers were coming in, provided a) there was enough of warning (15-20 min, like the ones above Rangoon enjoyed) and b) early P-40s were used (Rangoon again). P-39D was armed with a 37mm cannon, two HMGs and 4 LMGs (USAAF brass went overboard with armament suite here); leveling the field by what Soviets did (strip the LMGs and their ammo, an armor plate or two, a radio or two) brings to the table an increas in the RoC here.
As for the comparison between P-40 and F4F-4 - what versions were compared? The P-40C or P-40N will climb far better than the P-40D.
 
General feelings are that the P36 was too slow and obsolete to fight in WW2, yet the Hurricane has a loyal following especially up through the Battle of Britain.

Yet, I was looking at the specs on wwiiaircraftperformance and the P36 was 17 mph faster than the Hurricane at 10,000 feet. It was equal in top speed to the Hurricane at 17,000 feet when equipped with the P&W R-1830-23 engine. It could beat the Hurricane in a time to climb to 23,000 feet and it could easily out turn it under any conditions. The Hurricane had 8 .303 machine guns, the P36 either 1 .50 and 5 30's or, I understand the later models had 2 .50's and 4 30's.

So why was the Hurricane ok and the P36 was obsolete? If the P36 had the 1830-23 engine or later, I don't see what the Hurricane had over it at all.

Can you link the specs you used?

At 10,000ft the P-36A tests gave speeds in the region of 290-295mph.

At 10,000ft with constant speed prop the Hurricane I was good for ~290mph.

The P-36A also had only one 0.50" and one 0.30" machine guns.

Also, 10,000ft is not where the Hurricane I was optimised for - the engine's FTH was higher.
 
As for P-40s, they were very much faster than the Hurricane or P-36.

wwiiaircraftperformance.com Go to the bottom of the P36 page and look at the last 2 links, right below the 'supplemental" "Detail of Specifications of Hawk75" and "Handbook of Operations for P36"

P40 was faster than a Zero, P39 was faster than both. The Zero could simply fly above them and bounce them at will if he desired, or he could simply fly above them and ignore them. A Ferrari 458 is faster than a Piper Cub, but the Piper Cub can fly above it and avoid interception.....
 
Altitude can be converted to speed. So if Zero has an altitude advantage then P40 might not have a speed advantage when the turning & burning begins.
 
Altitude can be converted to speed. So if Zero has an altitude advantage then P40 might not have a speed advantage when the turning & burning begins.

I agree 100% DAVEBENDER. The P36 also didn't have the high speed handling problems the Zero had, it could dive at full speed and still be light on the controls, having no trouble out rolling a Zero, Spitfire or ME109.

The old trick to shake a Zero was to dive at full speed, roll to the right and pull out. A Zero couldn't follow this maneuver because the the ailerons would freeze up and it couldn't roll, so if you knew this and you had some altitude it was fairly easy to shake off a Zero even in an underperforming plane like an F4F-4. This trick wouldn't work on a P36.
 
mohawk_hurrie.jpg

(quick speed chart, A&AEE data except for blue, which is from a French manual)

Hawk 75 - R1830 SCG
Mohawk - R1830 SC3-G
Mohawk - GR1820 G205A
Hurricane - Merlin III


The British were very impressed with the flying characteristics of the Hawk 75, placing it above both the Hurricane and the Spitfire in that respect. I think high-altitude performance would certainly have been a factor in the Battle of Britain (where it wasn't so much for the AdA in the Battle of France), but I think the main thing is what tomo pauk alluded to - that the Mohawk wasn't quite ready for British service and in sufficient numbers numbers to play a role in 1940.
 
General feelings are that the P36 was too slow and obsolete to fight in WW2, yet the Hurricane has a loyal following especially up through the Battle of Britain.

Yet, I was looking at the specs on wwiiaircraftperformance and the P36 was 17 mph faster than the Hurricane at 10,000 feet. It was equal in top speed to the Hurricane at 17,000 feet when equipped with the P&W R-1830-23 engine. It could beat the Hurricane in a time to climb to 23,000 feet and it could easily out turn it under any conditions. The Hurricane had 8 .303 machine guns, the P36 either 1 .50 and 5 30's or, I understand the later models had 2 .50's and 4 30's.

So why was the Hurricane ok and the P36 was obsolete? If the P36 had the 1830-23 engine or later, I don't see what the Hurricane had over it at all.

Weight gain would have been much higher.

The R-1830 engine/s used in the P-36 were single speed engines. the -17 used a 7.15 supercharger gear and the -23 engine used a 8.0 supercharger gear. More power higher up but it cost 100hp at take-off or low level (1100hp for take-offat 2700rpm) .
-17 engine weighed 1403lbs, -23 engine went 1436lbs. The -33 engine used in the P-66 and early non-turbo B-24s was a two speed engine that went 1480lbs. gear ratios were 7.15 and 8.47. engine would give 1000hp at 14,500ft (no ram) compared to the -23 engine 950hp at 14,300ft, both at 2700rpm.

Only one P-36 was ever fitted with four wing guns in US service.
Tomo is quite correct in the weights for the self sealing tanks for the P-40s. I would also note that the fuel tank behind the pilot was referred to as a ferry tank or overload tank. In other words, much like the rear tank on the Mustang, full combat maneuverability was not AVAILABLE with the rear tank full.
You want four wing .30s? Add 222lbs to the US weight figures for guns and ammo.
You want four .50 cals? rip out the 100lbs of gins in a P-36/A and put in 314lbs worth of guns, 214lb increase. Instead of 83lbs worth of ammo even 200rpg for the four .50s is 200-240lbs

Wildcat engine used a two stage supercharger. it weighed 1550/1560lbs and needed inter-coolers.

The XP-40 was the 10th P-36 pulled off the production line.
Why is it so hard to understand that just about any "improvement" done to the P-36 would track the same sort of improvement done to the P-40 almost pound for pound?
Allison went about 1350lbs with a 290-295lb cooling system.
The P-40 gained around 150lbs of weight in the wing group compared to a Hawk 75. (P-36 weight unknown) Hawk 75 with P&W engine was about 300lbs heavier than a P-36 with both holding 105gals of fuel. P-36s had some trouble with wing skin wrinkling or buckling in the wing root landing gear area.
 
mohawk_hurrie.jpg

(quick speed chart, A&AEE data except for blue, which is from a French manual)

Hawk 75 - R1830 SCG
Mohawk - R1830 SC3-G
Mohawk - GR1820 G205A
Hurricane - Merlin III


The British were very impressed with the flying characteristics of the Hawk 75, placing it above both the Hurricane and the Spitfire in that respect. I think high-altitude performance would certainly have been a factor in the Battle of Britain (where it wasn't so much for the AdA in the Battle of France), but I think the main thing is what tomo pauk alluded to - that the Mohawk wasn't quite ready for British service and in sufficient numbers numbers to play a role in 1940.

Greyman, the thick green line for the Hurricane I is at +12psi boost? The other green line,which meets up at around 17,500ft, is +9psi?
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back