Qualities that made for a great aircraft that don't show up in performance stats.
- Thread starter michael rauls
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
That would explain a lot - in the Med P-39s were relegated to flying mostly out over the Med and rarely even had enemy contact. On the few occasions they were used in the combat areas over the desert they suffered unacceptable casualties.
Did they show the sortie to loss rate for P-40s or American Spitfires?
The Soviets got many, many more victories with their P-40s (both verified and claimed) than with Spits or Hurricanes and had far more aces with the P-40. Their favorite and most successful Lend Lease fighter though was certainly the P-39 which they received in the greatest abundance.
The best Spitfires (Mk IX) were used for PVO "glorified AAA' but it was an important mission, as they needed to ensure the safety of certain rear area targets from German intruders and long range bombers which had caused major damage in the early years of the war (for example blowing up the factory which was on the verge of producing the Yak-3 two years early)
S
Soviets were also supposedly using the P-47s for PVO. An excellent fighter, though, in 1944, nothing special for the altitudes the bulk of the VVS fought - sea level to 15000 ft. I have no doubt that PVO is/was important, relegating Hurricanes for that service was a way to put them out of harm's way, while still having the use for them.
I'd love to see how any Soviet factory is on the verge of producing the Yak-3 (= the real Yak-3, with thinner and smaller wing, improved cooler layout and the VK-105PF2 engine, not the I-30 with M-105) in early 1942, since the prototype of Yak-3 was from mid-1943.
In my opinion the key factors that are less quantifiable are:
Combat Speed per Golodnikov, as already mentioned. This is a subtle issue as it is also dependent on the nature of the battle. The nature of the battle often depends on the bombers. If dive bombers or tactical ground attack aircraft are being used (fighter bombers, SBD, D3A, Sturmovik, Stuka) then combat speed means speed at low altitude. If it's escorting or intercepting two engine medium bombers it's another (medium-high) altitude, if it's four engine heavy bombers then it's very high. As we all know pretty well now from various other discussions here, different engines perform better or worse at different altitudes.
Beyond that, more generally combat speed is determined by acceleration (which can be measured as power to weight ratios), drag (which can also be measured but is harder to find), dive acceleration (as diving is the most common way to pick up speed) and also what the cruising speed is (which can vary and depend on circumstances such as if escorting slower bombers).
Aircraft with large / big wings generally have better overall performance and better speed at higher altitude while shorter and smaller wings are better at lower altitude. So a plane with a top speed of 400 mph operating in a low altitude Theater may never exceed 290 mph down at Sea Level where most of the fighting is, whereas another plane with a top speed of 330 mph might be able to make 310 mph at Sea Level making it zippier in the Theater. Top speed is going to usually be at higher altitude even for an aircraft with engines that perform better down low.
From what I understand the A6M (A6M2 power to mass 0.18), Ki-43 (Ki-43 IIb power to mass 0.20), Bf 109 (Bf 109G6 power to mass 0.21), Spitfire (Spit VB power to mass 0.22) and Yak series fighters (Yak 1b power-mass 0.19) all had good combat speed, which were among the less tangible characteristics that made them effective in combat.
Weight I believe could also sometimes help an aircraft retain speed, this is why the Fw 190 (power to mass between 0.18 - 0.21) anecdotally seemed to have a higher combat speed than the lighter and zippier Bf 109 which depending on the model almost always looks faster on paper.
Cruising Speed as I said mainly because it affects Combat Speed, but also time in the air and time in the danger area.
Landing Gear and ground handling though of relatively little interest to aviation enthusiasts this is one of the most important thing for pilots. Losses during takeoff and landing were often higher than combat losses
Serviceability- already discussed. Very important!
Suitability to the Theater - A given aircraft could be terrible in one Theater and excellent in another. A good example is the P-39 in the Med vs. the Russian Front. Aside from training and cultural issues, a combination of things like the typical altitudes being fought at, suitability for cold or hot weather (one thing I've learned in this forum is how widely different performance and handling can be in different climates), serviceability in front line or primitive fields, over or near the sea vs. over land and so on. Suitability to the Theater sometimes also required either versatility or specialization. In the BoB, the Spitfire which was specialized as a high speed interceptor, was ideal. Carrier aircraft did a job that land based planes couldn't, and some fighters were better suited for carrier operations than others (the F6F excelled in this area for example). The A6M was specialized for carrier operations and long range but was also versatile enough to fight from land, be great as an interceptor and could easily contend with short range interceptors itself. In other Theaters sometimes versatility was needed most because seasons changed wildly, missions changed, and combat could move from low to high altitude and back again, or naval or land based targets. A fighters mission could shift from escort to interceptor to fighter bombers multiple times over in a matter of weeks.
Ability to Disengage - this depends both on the Theater and also on the characteristics of the enemy aircraft. One of the main things that made P-38s useful in the Pacific was their ability to disengage from Zeros or Ki-43s by going into a shallow high-speed climb. Bf 109s used similar strategies against Hurricanes, P-40s and sometimes Spitfires. P-40's disengaged by diving and relying on good high speed (roll and turn) maneuverability. Mustangs could disengage thanks to their high combat speed.
Ammunition capacity - one of the best things about the Mustang was that it had so many rounds per gun. Thus for a lot longer time could answer back when attacked. I think this is one of the greatest flaws of many of the Soviet planes they had very few rounds per gun, sometimes as few as 40 or 50 rounds per gun for cannon or 100 rounds for HMG. Early Zeros and Spits too with their 60 rounds per cannon. This means they are basically out of the fight already when they may still in a combat area. It also means they are going to me much more hesitant to strafe targets of opportunity and so on.
Accuracy of the guns / gunsights. Another well known thing about the Mustang is how much combat success rates improved with the addition of the new gyro gunsight. I know this is controversial but from hundreds of anecdotes from pilots I also believe very generally speaking nose mounted guns were more accurate than wing mounted, at least for closer range. Easier to aim. This helps account for example why the comparatively light armed Bf 109F was not considered at any disadvantage against RAF fighters.
Radios. I think this is one of the biggest ones. It's really suprising how many early war aircraft on all sides (including for example the Japanese and the British / Commonwealth in the early war years) either lacked radios altogether or had radios which were barely functional, sometimes for simple things like being properly grounded, sometimes because the radios were of foreign make and spare parts were not available, sometimes because the radios had to be constantly fiddled with. If the radios were working properly it could be a huge advantage, I think this was one of the main advantages the Germans had in Russia early on.
Combat Speed per Golodnikov, as already mentioned. This is a subtle issue as it is also dependent on the nature of the battle. The nature of the battle often depends on the bombers. If dive bombers or tactical ground attack aircraft are being used (fighter bombers, SBD, D3A, Sturmovik, Stuka) then combat speed means speed at low altitude. If it's escorting or intercepting two engine medium bombers it's another (medium-high) altitude, if it's four engine heavy bombers then it's very high. As we all know pretty well now from various other discussions here, different engines perform better or worse at different altitudes.
Beyond that, more generally combat speed is determined by acceleration (which can be measured as power to weight ratios), drag (which can also be measured but is harder to find), dive acceleration (as diving is the most common way to pick up speed) and also what the cruising speed is (which can vary and depend on circumstances such as if escorting slower bombers).
Aircraft with large / big wings generally have better overall performance and better speed at higher altitude while shorter and smaller wings are better at lower altitude. So a plane with a top speed of 400 mph operating in a low altitude Theater may never exceed 290 mph down at Sea Level where most of the fighting is, whereas another plane with a top speed of 330 mph might be able to make 310 mph at Sea Level making it zippier in the Theater. Top speed is going to usually be at higher altitude even for an aircraft with engines that perform better down low.
From what I understand the A6M (A6M2 power to mass 0.18), Ki-43 (Ki-43 IIb power to mass 0.20), Bf 109 (Bf 109G6 power to mass 0.21), Spitfire (Spit VB power to mass 0.22) and Yak series fighters (Yak 1b power-mass 0.19) all had good combat speed, which were among the less tangible characteristics that made them effective in combat.
Weight I believe could also sometimes help an aircraft retain speed, this is why the Fw 190 (power to mass between 0.18 - 0.21) anecdotally seemed to have a higher combat speed than the lighter and zippier Bf 109 which depending on the model almost always looks faster on paper.
Cruising Speed as I said mainly because it affects Combat Speed, but also time in the air and time in the danger area.
Landing Gear and ground handling though of relatively little interest to aviation enthusiasts this is one of the most important thing for pilots. Losses during takeoff and landing were often higher than combat losses
Serviceability- already discussed. Very important!
Suitability to the Theater - A given aircraft could be terrible in one Theater and excellent in another. A good example is the P-39 in the Med vs. the Russian Front. Aside from training and cultural issues, a combination of things like the typical altitudes being fought at, suitability for cold or hot weather (one thing I've learned in this forum is how widely different performance and handling can be in different climates), serviceability in front line or primitive fields, over or near the sea vs. over land and so on. Suitability to the Theater sometimes also required either versatility or specialization. In the BoB, the Spitfire which was specialized as a high speed interceptor, was ideal. Carrier aircraft did a job that land based planes couldn't, and some fighters were better suited for carrier operations than others (the F6F excelled in this area for example). The A6M was specialized for carrier operations and long range but was also versatile enough to fight from land, be great as an interceptor and could easily contend with short range interceptors itself. In other Theaters sometimes versatility was needed most because seasons changed wildly, missions changed, and combat could move from low to high altitude and back again, or naval or land based targets. A fighters mission could shift from escort to interceptor to fighter bombers multiple times over in a matter of weeks.
Ability to Disengage - this depends both on the Theater and also on the characteristics of the enemy aircraft. One of the main things that made P-38s useful in the Pacific was their ability to disengage from Zeros or Ki-43s by going into a shallow high-speed climb. Bf 109s used similar strategies against Hurricanes, P-40s and sometimes Spitfires. P-40's disengaged by diving and relying on good high speed (roll and turn) maneuverability. Mustangs could disengage thanks to their high combat speed.
Ammunition capacity - one of the best things about the Mustang was that it had so many rounds per gun. Thus for a lot longer time could answer back when attacked. I think this is one of the greatest flaws of many of the Soviet planes they had very few rounds per gun, sometimes as few as 40 or 50 rounds per gun for cannon or 100 rounds for HMG. Early Zeros and Spits too with their 60 rounds per cannon. This means they are basically out of the fight already when they may still in a combat area. It also means they are going to me much more hesitant to strafe targets of opportunity and so on.
Accuracy of the guns / gunsights. Another well known thing about the Mustang is how much combat success rates improved with the addition of the new gyro gunsight. I know this is controversial but from hundreds of anecdotes from pilots I also believe very generally speaking nose mounted guns were more accurate than wing mounted, at least for closer range. Easier to aim. This helps account for example why the comparatively light armed Bf 109F was not considered at any disadvantage against RAF fighters.
Radios. I think this is one of the biggest ones. It's really suprising how many early war aircraft on all sides (including for example the Japanese and the British / Commonwealth in the early war years) either lacked radios altogether or had radios which were barely functional, sometimes for simple things like being properly grounded, sometimes because the radios were of foreign make and spare parts were not available, sometimes because the radios had to be constantly fiddled with. If the radios were working properly it could be a huge advantage, I think this was one of the main advantages the Germans had in Russia early on.
Last edited:
I am talking about the I-30 / Yak 3, not quite the beast that the Yak-1M / Yak 3 would be but I believe certainly an improvement over the existing 1941 version of the Yak 1
Last edited:
Most of the above counts for fighters, but for bombers in particular I'd say cruising speed and bombing accuracy are very important. The latter being the main thing that made the Stuka, the D3A and the SBD excel. It was also part of what was good about the Mosquito (to a lesser extent). Most WW2 bombers had terrible bombing accuracy.
Last edited:
Kevin J
Banned
I think you'll find that the Russians weren't that impressed with the Spitfire Vb TROP that they employed in the Kuban in 1943 and relegated all Spitfire L IXe's to the PVO. They didn't 'rate' it compared to their own fighters. I didn't make that comparison specifically to the Hurricane. Also, I specifically mentioned the Hurricane in the context of RAF Fighter Command, not the MTO or the CBI.
Whatever it might be the case, it looks to me as you are trying to find and post tidbits where Spitfire didn't shine, in order to prove the agenda of how just great Hurricane was.
Kevin J
Banned
Never, the biggest flaw the Hurricane had was that Sydney Camm designed the Typhoon/Tempest series of fighters which were better. The Spitfire, well 'saucepans for Spitfires' was a catchy phrase so I guess that's why it got all the glory. Maybe the Air Ministry could have done a 'whores for Hurricanes' campaign and everything would have been different.
I don't think that I'd be bothering debating with you here, at least not in this thread.
I don't think there is any doubt that the Spitfire was better than the P-40 or the Hurricane - or the Yak -1. But it's also true that it's record was not equally excellent in all Theaters, including the Russian Front, Stalins statement notwithstanding. I think perhaps we can agree that the Soviets actually preferred the P-39 over all other Lend Lease fighters. And we know that they were almost unique in liking it (Stalin was arguably the savior of Bell aircraft!)
On the one hand everyone has their favorite aircraft (or nations) in WW2, and some few clearly have axes to grind. I'm a fan of certain types I think got bad reputations unfairly. But only to a point - I'm only really interested in what really happened. Sometimes taking a mildly revisionist angle like that can be a way to expose new data that does seem to keep emerging even now almost 80 years after the War.
More generally we seem to struggle with the issue of whether all aircraft shared equally good or bad qualities in every Theater, or over the entire course of the war. There was a period and a place, basically the Channel in much of 1942, in the Kuban, or over Australia, where Spitfires were on the losing end of many or most of the fights they got in. There were different reasons in each different Theater. Most anywhere else they fought they did very well or dominated the opposition.
Do we disagree fundamentally with the notion that different aircraft in WW2 performed better or worse in different Theaters and during different campaigns?
S
On the one hand everyone has their favorite aircraft (or nations) in WW2, and some few clearly have axes to grind. I'm a fan of certain types I think got bad reputations unfairly. But only to a point - I'm only really interested in what really happened. Sometimes taking a mildly revisionist angle like that can be a way to expose new data that does seem to keep emerging even now almost 80 years after the War.
More generally we seem to struggle with the issue of whether all aircraft shared equally good or bad qualities in every Theater, or over the entire course of the war. There was a period and a place, basically the Channel in much of 1942, in the Kuban, or over Australia, where Spitfires were on the losing end of many or most of the fights they got in. There were different reasons in each different Theater. Most anywhere else they fought they did very well or dominated the opposition.
Do we disagree fundamentally with the notion that different aircraft in WW2 performed better or worse in different Theaters and during different campaigns?
S
The problem with the Spitfire and Hurricane debate is that both aircraft had their strengths and weaknesses and the fact was that when it counted, i.e. during the Battle of Britain, both were available in numbers, with the strengths and weaknesses they had. The Hurricane comes out as a greater ace maker because it was simply available in larger numbers, not because of some mystical snake oil that made it better at killing German aircraft than the Spitfire. When the Air Ministry ordered Hurricanes, the order was pretty quick off the mark and was the largest order of any single type placed at one time by the British. 600 were ordered. It went into production earlier than the Spitfire, therefore was available in larger numbers when it mattered.
As for the Spitfire's alleged difficulty in manufacture - that's entirely relative. The Spitfire was an all metal stressed skin aeroplane; Supermarine had never built an aeroplane like that on the production line in the numbers required before. The Hurricane however had one foot in the past, steel tube covered in fixed panels, with wooden stringers aft of the cockpit and covered in fabric, with in the early Mk.Is a wooden wing. Easier to build by established building methods. Today the story is quite different. Any restorer will tell you that Hurricanes are far harder to restore because of the skill and tooling required to manufacture them is just not readily available in the aviation industry, whereas the Spitfire, being just like other aeroplanes still built today is 'easier' to build than the Hurri - and the Typhoon and Tempest for that matter.
The Hurricane was always going to be left behind because it had one foot in the past, that's because it is the product of early 1930s norms. The Spitfire, Bf 109 et al were trailblazers because of their method of construction. By 1941 the Hurricane was becoming obsolescent as a fighter interceptor (not obsolete, but not able to catch the newer Bf 109 variants such as the Friedrich) and required a serious power injection to enable it to perform. The Spitfire got that in the form of the 60 series Merlin in 1942 and the Griffon in 1943/44 to match what the Germans were doing. It wasn't worth investing in the Hurricane's development, even though one was fitted with a high altitude Merlin, because of the Typhoon and Tempest, which offered superior performance.
That the Russians liked it and it became a good can opener in N Africa is reflective of its assets as much as the lack of British airframes to throw into other theatres - but again, this is tempered by the fact that there were lots of Hurricanes around, partly because the Typhoon wasn't meeting expectations (and breaking its tail off) as a suitable replacement and Spitfires were being used as the RAF's premier frontline interceptor. Demand for Spitfires was high and final production numbers reflect this (over 22,750). More Spitfires were built than any other British aeroplane. It was the only British fighter that was in production before and after the war.
Propaganda does play a part in the Spitfire's career among the lesser informed public, but that is only natural. The Spitfire 'looks' the part and while that might not have any rational bearing on how we (as informed enthusiasts) might view the situation, it goes a long way in the public's eye to immortalise something. In a competition held by the BBC in early 2004, a quest was launched to find the best and most recognised British Icon. The Concorde won, followed in no particular order by the Spitfire, E Type Jaguar and London Tube map. All of these things have aesthetic, but also represent much more. The Concorde won, I suspect because it was retired in 2003, so there were emotional scenes at airports round the country months earlier as it made its farewell flights, so that would have helped its cause.
Nevertheless, that isn't to decry the appearance of the Hurri - it had rugged functionality, but the point was clear; put it simply, in the eyes of the public, the Hurricane was a workhorse and the Spitfire a thoroughbred.
The Hurricane was definitely a great fighter, no doubt, but it was never going to last as long as the Spitfire because of that aircraft's latent potential, as well as the fact that Hawker always intended on replacing it with the Tornado, or Typhoon or Tempest. The ability to put the two different engines and a combination of armament gave the Spitfire new lease of life and guaranteed its longevity as a frontline fighter.
As for the Spitfire's alleged difficulty in manufacture - that's entirely relative. The Spitfire was an all metal stressed skin aeroplane; Supermarine had never built an aeroplane like that on the production line in the numbers required before. The Hurricane however had one foot in the past, steel tube covered in fixed panels, with wooden stringers aft of the cockpit and covered in fabric, with in the early Mk.Is a wooden wing. Easier to build by established building methods. Today the story is quite different. Any restorer will tell you that Hurricanes are far harder to restore because of the skill and tooling required to manufacture them is just not readily available in the aviation industry, whereas the Spitfire, being just like other aeroplanes still built today is 'easier' to build than the Hurri - and the Typhoon and Tempest for that matter.
The Hurricane was always going to be left behind because it had one foot in the past, that's because it is the product of early 1930s norms. The Spitfire, Bf 109 et al were trailblazers because of their method of construction. By 1941 the Hurricane was becoming obsolescent as a fighter interceptor (not obsolete, but not able to catch the newer Bf 109 variants such as the Friedrich) and required a serious power injection to enable it to perform. The Spitfire got that in the form of the 60 series Merlin in 1942 and the Griffon in 1943/44 to match what the Germans were doing. It wasn't worth investing in the Hurricane's development, even though one was fitted with a high altitude Merlin, because of the Typhoon and Tempest, which offered superior performance.
That the Russians liked it and it became a good can opener in N Africa is reflective of its assets as much as the lack of British airframes to throw into other theatres - but again, this is tempered by the fact that there were lots of Hurricanes around, partly because the Typhoon wasn't meeting expectations (and breaking its tail off) as a suitable replacement and Spitfires were being used as the RAF's premier frontline interceptor. Demand for Spitfires was high and final production numbers reflect this (over 22,750). More Spitfires were built than any other British aeroplane. It was the only British fighter that was in production before and after the war.
Propaganda does play a part in the Spitfire's career among the lesser informed public, but that is only natural. The Spitfire 'looks' the part and while that might not have any rational bearing on how we (as informed enthusiasts) might view the situation, it goes a long way in the public's eye to immortalise something. In a competition held by the BBC in early 2004, a quest was launched to find the best and most recognised British Icon. The Concorde won, followed in no particular order by the Spitfire, E Type Jaguar and London Tube map. All of these things have aesthetic, but also represent much more. The Concorde won, I suspect because it was retired in 2003, so there were emotional scenes at airports round the country months earlier as it made its farewell flights, so that would have helped its cause.
Nevertheless, that isn't to decry the appearance of the Hurri - it had rugged functionality, but the point was clear; put it simply, in the eyes of the public, the Hurricane was a workhorse and the Spitfire a thoroughbred.
The Hurricane was definitely a great fighter, no doubt, but it was never going to last as long as the Spitfire because of that aircraft's latent potential, as well as the fact that Hawker always intended on replacing it with the Tornado, or Typhoon or Tempest. The ability to put the two different engines and a combination of armament gave the Spitfire new lease of life and guaranteed its longevity as a frontline fighter.
KiwiBiggles
Senior Airman
Well said, Nuumannn, and I agree completely. Unfortunately, the continual low-level snarking at the Spitfire will continue on this site. It's just an agenda some members have.
I hope that "low level sniping" comment was not directed at me, I think the Spitfire was an excellent fighter, probably the best overall on the Allied side. I just do also recognize it wasn't ideal in every situation or at all times. Discovering a more nuanced and realistic historical reality behind wartime legends isn't the same thing as destroying a good reputation of a great plane out of vindictive pettiness or something. Cartoons are for kids. You should be able to appreciate something even if it does have a few flaws.
As for the Hurricane, I think it was formidable in 1940 but it was a 1930's design that peaked early in the war, and as far as I know the Russians actually did not appreciate it very much. I'd like to see evidence that they did as it would change my understanding of the history.
I think the issue for the Hurricane boiled down to speed, that airframe was just limited in how fast it could fly in level flight and how fast it could dive. As the typical combat speed steadily increased, the Hurricane hit a wall and was left behind. Before that point though it was a deadly fighter.
I think it's another major problem people have is that they seem to expect a given aircraft design to never run it's course. If a plane wasn't good enough to hold it's own in 1945 then it's junk. If that were true nearly all WW2 fighters were junk because Jets were taking over the fight.
As for the Hurricane, I think it was formidable in 1940 but it was a 1930's design that peaked early in the war, and as far as I know the Russians actually did not appreciate it very much. I'd like to see evidence that they did as it would change my understanding of the history.
I think the issue for the Hurricane boiled down to speed, that airframe was just limited in how fast it could fly in level flight and how fast it could dive. As the typical combat speed steadily increased, the Hurricane hit a wall and was left behind. Before that point though it was a deadly fighter.
I think it's another major problem people have is that they seem to expect a given aircraft design to never run it's course. If a plane wasn't good enough to hold it's own in 1945 then it's junk. If that were true nearly all WW2 fighters were junk because Jets were taking over the fight.
Thanks much appreciated! From the numbers I assume this includes Italy but not North Africa?
KiwiBiggles
Senior Airman
Not at all aimed at you. I find your comments useful and interesting, and I have changed my opinion of the P-40 based pretty much only on your comments.
I meant stuff like:
Maybe we shouldn't assume that was meant maliciously. Spitfire was a glorious fighter, so was the Hurricane in it's day. The Spitfire also got much better press. And lets face it, it's a damn good looking plane.
Hurricanes are pretty impressive too. i finally saw one in real life last year, I was really struck by how tough it looked.
Hurricanes are pretty impressive too. i finally saw one in real life last year, I was really struck by how tough it looked.
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
