Structural weight of early U.S. fighters compared to Spitfire Mk1 and Bf-109,

Shortround6 said:

The Agility is subject to question. In some ways it was more more agile, in other ways it was not.
See "Flying to the Limit" by Peter Caygill.
On page 130 there is chart comparing the time to bank 45 degree and the stick force needed at 200, 250, 300, 350 and 400ASI. for the Hawk and the Hurricane.
The Hurricane wins hands down, less than 1/2 the time needed at each of the listed speeds and the stick forces usually within a few percent.

Click to expand...

"The Curtiss fighter was by no means an unknown quantity to the RAF, for as early as November 1939 a Hawk 75A-1 had been flown (in France) by Sqn Leader J F X McKenna on behalf of the A and AEE. His report had said that the Hawk was "exceptionally easy and pleasant to fly, the aileron control being particularly powerful" and that it was "more maneuverable at high speed than the Hurricane or Spitfire". This report naturally aroused considerable interest in official circles in Britain, and as a result arrangements were made for a Hawk 75 to be borrowed from l'Armee de l'Air for further evaluation in Britain. The 88th Hawk 75A-2 was used, in consequence, at the RAE from 29 December 1939 to 13 January 1940 for a 12-hr flight program covering handling in general, and specifically by comparison with the Spitfire, Hurricane and Gloster F.5/34; mock combats were staged between the Hawk and a production Spitfire I (K9944), fitted with the early two-pitch propeller .

"The Hawk 75A-2 was flown with aft tank empty at a loaded weight of 6,025 lb (2 733 kg) and the three RAF pilots participating in the evaluation were unanimous in their praise for the US fighter's exceptional handling characteristics and beautifully harmonised controls. In a diving attack at 400mph (644 km/h) the Hawk was far superior to the Spitfire, thanks to its lighter ailerons, and in a dogfight at 250 mph (402 km/h) the Hawk was again the superior machine because of its elevator control was not over-sensitive and all-around view was better; but the Spitfire could break off combat at will because of its very much higher maximum speed. In a dive at 400 mph (644km/h), the Spitfire pilot, exerting all his strength, could apply no more than one-fifth aileron because of high stick forces whereas the Curtiss pilot could apply three-quarter aileron.

"When the Spitfire dived on the Hawk, both aircraft traveling at 350-400 mph (560-645 km/h), the Curtiss fighter's pilot could avoid his opponent by applying its ailerons quickly, banking and turning rapidly. The Spitfire could not follow the Hawk round in this manoeuvre and consequently overshot the target. In the reverse situation, however, the Hawk could easily follow the Spitfire until the latter's superior speed allowed it to pull away. The superior maneuverability of the Hawk was ascribed mainly to the over-sensitiveness of the Spitfire's elevator, which resulted in some difficulty in accurately controlling the 'g' in a tight turn; over-correction held the risk of an inadvertent stall being induced.

"Because of the difference in propellers, the Hawk displayed appreciably better take-off and climb characteristics. The swing on take-off was smaller and more easily corrected than on the British fighter and during the climb the Hawk's controls were more effective; but the Curtiss fighter proved to be rather slow in picking up speed in a dive, making the Spitfire the more suitable machine of the two for intercepting high-speed bombers.

""Notwithstanding the excellence of this report on the Hawk 75A-2's handling, the RAF found little use for the Mohawks that began to arrive in Britain a few months later. Upon arrival, they were modified to have British throttle movement, six Browning 0,303-in (7,7-mm) machine guns, British gun sight, instrumentation and radio and standard RAF day fighter finish. Apart form one or two assigned to the A & AEE Boscombe Down for the preparation of handling notes, they were then dispatched to various MUs for storage..."

US Army Air Force Fighters, Part 1, WW2 Aircraft Fact Files Arco Publishing

Shortround6 said:

The P-36 got a single speed supercharger and using US 100 octane fuel was rated at 1200hp for take-off at 2700rpm.
P & W says normal power was 1050hp at 6500ft at 2550rpm. No military power (pre war)
Army manual says 1050hp at 10,000ft using 2700rpm.
Tests are all over the place, however most of the speed results are using RAM, the power figures for climb are thousands of feet lower.

The US Army NEVER put a two speed or two stage supercharger in a P-36. Most Hawk 75s had two speed Cyclones and single speed Twin Wasps. There were one or two experimentals in 1939 but they were Curtiss demonstrators/experimentals and not Army paid for aircraft. Even the late Hawk 75A-6 for Norway had single speed P & W engines.

Click to expand...

Ok so it was the export Hawk 75s that got the 2 speed cyclones. Be interesting to see a power chart on one of those.

Shortround6 said:

Some Hawks got rear seat armor.

The Agility is subject to question. In some ways it was more more agile, in other ways it was not.
See "Flying to the Limit" by Peter Caygill.
On page 130 there is chart comparing the time to bank 45 degree and the stick force needed at 200, 250, 300, 350 and 400ASI. for the Hawk and the Hurricane.
The Hurricane wins hands down, less than 1/2 the time needed at each of the listed speeds and the stick forces usually within a few percent.
The Hurricane had a lot better aileron response than the Spitfire of the time (fabric ailerons, etc)

Click to expand...

I've seen a lot of this kind of claim about hurricanes from certain testing analysis, but then the pilots seemed to all say that it was sluggish in roll.

Roll rate, like so many other things, is tricky to evaluate. Not only does it vary by speed, but from what I gather, also on the amount of stick pressure being used. Some tests are done at relatively gentle pressures (5-10 lbs of force etc.) vs. more (30 or 50 or 60 or 80 lbs). Roll also varies by altitude.

On the famous NACA 868 roll rate chart, the P-40F out rolls everything except a FW 190, P-63, and a clipped wing Spitfire from 240 -300 mph, after which the P-51B takes over.

That roll rate chart is based on a 50 lbs of force test at 10,000 feet. This is Fig 47 in the original report, there is another similar chart (figure 46) which shows a similar hierarchy.

I don't see why the P-36 would have a worse roll rate than a P-40F, especially considering a lot less weight in the wings.

Sadly the Hurricane and a lot of other important interesting aircraft aren't on that chart. However, the full report, which I was able to find here, I was told does mention the Hurricane somewhere, although just now scanning through it I couldn't find any reference.

That report, I must say, is sobering and humbling in reflecting the complexity of this kind of analysis and understanding how roll and 'lateral control' are measured. Fascinating but the math is way beyond me. The goal is I think the evaluate different ways to improve roll rate via wing shape, boosted or firmer ailerons, spoilers or airbrakes etc.

And unless I'm reading it wrong, this chart:



Seems to show the Tomahawk having a better roll rate than all other aircraft tested from 175-325 mph, after which I think the Mustang I takes over?

The Tomahawk peaks at between 70 -105 degrees per second

This test chart says "full control column displacement / OR 30 lbs control column load"

I'm guessing it's an Australian test because it mentions the Boomerang.

Again, sadly, no Hurricane on this chart either. The Spitfire doesn't look so great except at pretty low speed.

But the Tomahawk seems to have an extraordinarily good roll rate, and as you are so fond of pointing out, it's basically identical to the P-36 / Hawk 75 from the firewall back. Knowing this before I made my last post, I assumed this means it rolls better than the Hurricane at most speeds, and especially at higher speeds, so I assume the P-36 would too.

I'd like to see the Hurricane and a few models of the Bf 109, MC 202 etc. on a similar chart.

Shortround6 said:

For some reason Caygill says dive limit for the Mohawk was 415mph IAS.
I haven't seen anything about the dive acceleration, but remember, you have a plane that is much lighter than a P-40 and with more drag than a P-40, expecting similar results to the P-40 for dive acceleration might not prove true.

Click to expand...

That is a fair point.

Shortround6 said:

The difference is partially obscured by the heights, However the Mohawk is slower using more power. maybe not by much.
A Hurricane I was within a few mph of Mohawk at 10,000ft, however the Hurricane I using a Rotol prop was making under 1000hp at 10,000ft.

Click to expand...

Well, in 1940 didn't the Hurricane have a fixed pitch prop vs constant speed on the P-36?

Shortround6 said:

Engine made 880hp at sea level and slowly increased until over 16,000ft where it made 1030hp without RAM,
What it made using 12lbs boost is different but the throttled engine (6lbs) it had under 1000hp at 10,000ft.

Power vs drag = speed.
We can look at the thickness of the wings or the radiators or whatever to try to figure out why. But a thick wing plane that uses less power to go as fast has less drag total.
but it has to be the speed at the same altitudes. trying to compare different altitudes throws everything off.

Click to expand...

Doesn't the P-36 seem to be faster than the Hurricane at 10,000 ft?

Shortround6 said:

The P-36 had 22% more drag than an early P-40 (long nose) so there is certainly room for the Hurricane to squeeze in-between.
What I have not be able to find out is if the exhaust thrust was counted or not. The Exhaust thrust on the P-36 was minimal.

The radial engine P-40 shown earlier ( heavier P-40 wing and P-40 landing gear) was calculated in one book to have only 8 percent more drag than a P-40. Again, no mention of exhaust thrust.

Click to expand...

marathag said:

"The Curtiss fighter was by no means an unknown quantity to the RAF, for as early as November 1939 a Hawk 75A-1 had been flown (in France) by Sqn Leader J F X McKenna on behalf of the A and AEE. His report had said that the Hawk was "exceptionally easy and pleasant to fly, the aileron control being particularly powerful" and that it was "more maneuverable at high speed than the Hurricane or Spitfire". This report naturally aroused considerable interest in official circles in Britain, and as a result arrangements were made for a Hawk 75 to be borrowed from l'Armee de l'Air for further evaluation in Britain. The 88th Hawk 75A-2 was used, in consequence, at the RAE from 29 December 1939 to 13 January 1940 for a 12-hr flight program covering handling in general, and specifically by comparison with the Spitfire, Hurricane and Gloster F.5/34; mock combats were staged between the Hawk and a production Spitfire I (K9944), fitted with the early two-pitch propeller .

"The Hawk 75A-2 was flown with aft tank empty at a loaded weight of 6,025 lb (2 733 kg) and the three RAF pilots participating in the evaluation were unanimous in their praise for the US fighter's exceptional handling characteristics and beautifully harmonised controls. In a diving attack at 400mph (644 km/h) the Hawk was far superior to the Spitfire, thanks to its lighter ailerons, and in a dogfight at 250 mph (402 km/h) the Hawk was again the superior machine because of its elevator control was not over-sensitive and all-around view was better; but the Spitfire could break off combat at will because of its very much higher maximum speed. In a dive at 400 mph (644km/h), the Spitfire pilot, exerting all his strength, could apply no more than one-fifth aileron because of high stick forces whereas the Curtiss pilot could apply three-quarter aileron.

"When the Spitfire dived on the Hawk, both aircraft traveling at 350-400 mph (560-645 km/h), the Curtiss fighter's pilot could avoid his opponent by applying its ailerons quickly, banking and turning rapidly. The Spitfire could not follow the Hawk round in this manoeuvre and consequently overshot the target. In the reverse situation, however, the Hawk could easily follow the Spitfire until the latter's superior speed allowed it to pull away. The superior maneuverability of the Hawk was ascribed mainly to the over-sensitiveness of the Spitfire's elevator, which resulted in some difficulty in accurately controlling the 'g' in a tight turn; over-correction held the risk of an inadvertent stall being induced.

"Because of the difference in propellers, the Hawk displayed appreciably better take-off and climb characteristics. The swing on take-off was smaller and more easily corrected than on the British fighter and during the climb the Hawk's controls were more effective; but the Curtiss fighter proved to be rather slow in picking up speed in a dive, making the Spitfire the more suitable machine of the two for intercepting high-speed bombers.

""Notwithstanding the excellence of this report on the Hawk 75A-2's handling, the RAF found little use for the Mohawks that began to arrive in Britain a few months later. Upon arrival, they were modified to have British throttle movement, six Browning 0,303-in (7,7-mm) machine guns, British gun sight, instrumentation and radio and standard RAF day fighter finish. Apart form one or two assigned to the A & AEE Boscombe Down for the preparation of handling notes, they were then dispatched to various MUs for storage..."

US Army Air Force Fighters, Part 1, WW2 Aircraft Fact Files Arco Publishing

Click to expand...

Oh yeah I forgot about that one.

So I think we can safely say the Hawk was more agile than a Hurricane since it was running rings around a Spitfire.

Roll was also affected by engine torque, which could be tricky to balance out with rudder alone. Some aircraft could even this out with trim tabs, some didn't have those.

Performance Tables of British Service Aircraft, Air Publication 1746, dated August 1939 but data includes 1940/41 aircraft The ranges of fighters are shown as ranges at maximum economic cruising power on the fuel available, after deducting fuel used in 15 minutes at maximum power at sea level. This allowance is for warming up and climbing to operational height. The above makes no allowance for - (i) The effect of wind, (ii), The effect of formation flying, (iii) The use of full throttle over enemy territory. The effect of these factors must be allowed for when fights are being planned.

Note fuel weights may be for different octane. ratings First Hurricane I column DH airscrew, second Hurricane I column Rotol airscrew,

Edit to add omitted Hurricane propeller information. First Variable Pitch Propeller Hawker uilt Hurricane L1980, production aircraft 434, in June 1939.

First Hawker production Rotol Hurricane is number 901, or P3265, AMDP Hawkers, Rotol Airscrew. The P serials from Brooklands began being Taken on Charge in the final week of February 1940, but Langley took until the first week of April 1940 to finish off its final allocated N serial aircraft (N2592 to N2631, N2645 to N2654) and start on the P serials. It means Gloster and Brooklands began delivering Rotol fitted Hurricanes at the end of February 1940, not sure what Langley did in March.

First 2 Hurricane contracts from Hawker, 527112/36 for 600 L serials and 751458/38 for 300 N serials, then comes contract 962371/38 split between Hawker and Gloster, so third Hawker and first Gloster. P2682, the 101st built by Gloster, was the first from them with a Rotol propeller.

Wild_Bill_Kelso said:

Well, in 1940 didn't the Hurricane have a fixed pitch prop vs constant speed on the P-36?

Click to expand...

Depends when in 1940. Before May, many front-line Hurricanes in France still had a fixed pitch propeller. Hurricanes with variable pitch propellers were already coming off production lines as of February/March 1940. By July, very few fixed pitch props were still in service with front-line squadrons.

Wild_Bill_Kelso said:

Doesn't the P-36 seem to be faster than the Hurricane at 10,000 ft?

Click to expand...

May be correct but that's just a single data point. No point being superior at 10,000ft if performance is worse at other altitudes, or if it's inferior in other performance metrics (e.g. climb to height etc).

Wild_Bill_Kelso said:

So I think we can safely say the Hawk was more agile than a Hurricane since it was running rings around a Spitfire.

Click to expand...

Why? General consensus is that the Spitfire was faster than the Hurricane but the latter had better turning performance.

Also, "running rings around a Spitfire" is a massive overstatement of performance. The report explicitly states "the Spitfire could break off combat at will." As a pilot, I'd want to be flying an aircraft that gave me options to break off the engagement if things weren't going my way. The alternative is to stay in a bad tactical situation and probably get shot down.

This all comes down to using the strengths of your aircraft against the enemy's weaknesses. The one thing fighter development in WW2 consistently shows is that higher speed (i.e. great kinetic energy) was always preferred over slower speed agility.

The P-36 is a vastly under-rated aircraft but it had some significant performance shortfalls that led to it being sent out to lower-priority theatres in RAF service. Let's not cherry-pick data to overstate its combat capabilities when it never saw widespread front-line use after France in 1940 (and, even then, "widespread" is perhaps an overstatement). If the P-36 was so good, why was it not more widely used?

buffnut453 said:

The P-36 is a vastly under-rated aircraft but it had some significant performance shortfalls that led to it being sent out to lower-priority theatres in RAF service. Let's not cherry-pick data to overstate its combat capabilities when it never saw widespread front-line use after France in 1940 (and, even then, "widespread" is perhaps an overstatement). If the P-36 was so good, why was it not more widely used?

Click to expand...

Well, Finland was one datapoint. But unlike the rest of 'Class of 1935' of the Hurricane, F4F and ME-109, development and production stopped, with focus on the P-40 instead.

a 1300hp P&W with a better supercharger, could have had some use later on,like the F4F did

buffnut453 said:

Also, "running rings around a Spitfire" is a massive overstatement of performance. The report explicitly states "the Spitfire could break off combat at will." As a pilot, I'd want to be flying an aircraft that gave me options to break off the engagement if things weren't going my way.

Click to expand...

leaving combat means running away. Not always an option

Why didn't the Spitfires at Darwin just break off combat? They had the same speed advantage over the A6M as they did over the Hawk.

marathag said:

Well, Finland was one datapoint. But unlike the rest of 'Class of 1935' of the Hurricane, F4F and ME-109, development and production stopped, with focus on the P-40 instead.

a 1300hp P&W with a better supercharger, could have had some use later on,like the F4F did

Click to expand...

Finland is a datapoint but it still doesn't count as "widespread." A similar number of Buffalos performed better than the P-36s in Finland...for whatever that's worth.

Regardless, the powers-that-be at the time decided to stop developing the P-36. Having "some use later on" is not the same as maintaining a competitive edge against peer adversaries.

BTW, what was the 1300hp P&W? I'm only aware of the 1830-76 which delivered 1200hp.

marathag said:

leaving combat means running away. Not always an option

Why didn't the Spitfires at Darwin just break off combat? They had the same speed advantage over the A6M as they did over the Hawk.

Click to expand...

Disengaging from a poor tactical situation does not necessarily mean "running away." It means using your aircraft's strengths to gain a tactical advantage. Given the fraught nature of air combat, this wasn't always possible. However, the fact remains that the Spitfire could break off combat whereas the P-36 couldn't.

Bringing up a point example for one engagement doesn't prove anything one way or another. You brought in the test reporting which was informative. Wild Bill then chimed in with the P-36 "running rings around a Spitfire" comment. I was simply pushing back on that statement. Let's not parse out every word I wrote just to try and continue pushing an agenda. Bottom line is that, by 1940, the P-36 was not deemed good enough to justify further development. Could it have been? Yes, of course. However, it wasn't. Anything else is couldda-wouldda-shouldda. I repeat my assertion that the P-36 was and is a vastly underrated aeroplane. It just wasn't a good fit for the tactical environment faced by the RAF from mid-1940 onwards. If it was a good fit, it would have been more widely used.

Gentlemen

Roll performance of Hurricane

Eagledad

Geoffrey Sinclair said:

Performance Tables of British Service Aircraft, Air Publication 1746, dated August 1939 but data includes 1940/41 aircraft The ranges of fighters are shown as ranges at maximum economic cruising power on the fuel available, after deducting fuel used in 15 minutes at maximum power at sea level. This allowance is for warming up and climbing to operational height. The above makes no allowance for - (i) The effect of wind, (ii), The effect of formation flying, (iii) The use of full throttle over enemy territory. The effect of these factors must be allowed for when fights are being planned.

Note fuel weights may be for different octane. ratings First Hurricane I column DH airscrew, second Hurricane I column Rotol airscrew,

Name	Name	Buffalo	Mohawk	Tomahawk	Gauntlet	Gladiator	Hurricane I	Hurricane I	Hurricane IIA	Hurricane IIC
Engine	Make	Cyclone G105A	Cyclone G205A	Allison C.15	Mercury VIS	Mercury IX	Merlin III	Merlin III	Merlin XX	Merlin XX
Power	Horse Power	800​	1,000​	1,050​	645​	840​	1,030​	1,030​	1,175​	1,175​
Power	At Height (feet)	17,100​	13,500​	14,000​	15,500​	14,000​	16,250​	16,250​	20,500​	20,500​
Size	Span (feet, inches)	35'	37' 4"	27' 4"	32.8'	32.25'	40'	40'	40'	40'
Size	Length (feet, inches)	26'	29'	31' 8"	26.1'	27.4'	31' 5"	31' 5"	31' 5"	31' 5"
Size	Height (feet, inches)	12'	9' 6"	10' 8"	10.8'	10.3'	10' 6"	10' 6"	10' 6"	10' 6"
Size	Wing Area (square feet)	178 (nett)	236 Gross	236 Gross	304​	323​	258​	231​	231​	258​
Armament	Forward Fuselage (a)	2x0.50"	2x0.303"	2x0.5"	2x0.303"	2x0.303"
Armament	Forward Wings (b)	2x0.50"	4x0.303"	4x0.303"	Nil	2x0.303"	8x0.303"	8x0.303"	8x0.303"	4x20mm
Armament	Rounds Per Gun	250(a), 500(b)	1,200(a), 425(b)	375(a), 490(b)	600​	600(a), 400(b)	300​	300​	300​	n/a
Weight	Tare (pounds)	4495​	4,850​	5,615​	2,933​	3,695​	5,210​	5,085​	5,455​	5,658​
Max Fuel	Capacity (Gallons)	133​	132​	132​	79​	83​	97​	97​	97​	97​
Normal	Weight (pounds)	6,272​	6,317​	7,224​	4,028​	4,757​	6,629​	6,532​	7,014​	7,544​
Normal	Cruising Speed (m.p.h)	255​	248​	278​	187​	217​	275​	272​	281​	278​
Normal	Cruise Speed Height	15,000​	15,000​	15,000​	15,000​	15,000​	15,000​	15,000​	15,000​	15,000​
Normal	15 Minutes allowance Range (miles)	520​	345​	485​	414​	234​	340​	335​	314​	311​
Normal	15 Minutes allowance Endurance Hours	1.78​	1.4​	1.75​	2.3​	1.17​	1.25​	1.22​	1.12​	1.12​
Normal	Fuel (for range, pounds)	66.5 gallons	55 gallons	85 gallons	511​	338​	435​	435​	489​	489​
Normal	Fuel (for allowance, pounds)	25.5 gallons	29 gallons	25 gallons	97​	135​	145​	145​	209​	209​
Normal	Fuel (Total, pounds)	92 gallons	84 gallons	110 gallons	608​	473​	580​	580​	698​	698​
Normal	Fuel (Total, Gallons)	92​	84​	110​	79​	69​	77.5​	77.5​	97​	97​
Normal	Miles per 100 pounds fuel	n/a	n/a	n/a	83​	75​	78.2​	77​	64​	63.6​
Extended	Overload Weight (pounds) (Max Fuel)	6,588​	6,662​	7,602​	n/a	4,912​	6,768​	6,661​
Extended	Maximum Fuel
Extended	Speed (m.p.h)	255​	248​	278​	n/a	217​	275​	272​
Extended	Height (feet)	15,000​	15,000​	15,000​	n/a	15,000​	15,000​	15,000​
Extended	Range (15 mins allow.) (miles)	840​	615​	615​	n/a	366​	455​	445​
Extended	Endurance (15 mins allow.) Hrs	3.28​	2.2​	2.2​	n/a	1.66​	1.65​	1.64​
Extended	Fuel (for range, pounds)	107.5 gallons	107 gallons	107 gallons	n/a	488​	580​	580​
Extended	Fuel (for allowance, pounds)	25.5 gallons	25 gallons	25 gallons	n/a	135​	145​	145​
Extended	Fuel (Total, pounds)	133 gallons	132 gallons	132 gallons	n/a	623​	725​	725​
Extended	Fuel (Total, Gallons)	133​	132​	132​	n/a	83​	97​	97​
Extended	Miles per 100 pounds of fuel	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	75​	77​	78.2​
Extended	Maximum Fuel (Economical)
Extended	Speed (m.p.h)	180​	185​	185​	118​	142​	180​	170 - 180	168 - 176	165 - 170
Extended	Height (feet)	15,000​	15,000​	15,000​	15,000​	15,000​	15,000​	15,000​	15,000​	15,000​
Extended	Range (15 mins allow.) (miles)	900​	800​	800​	626​	523​	600​	600​	524​	500​
Extended	Endurance (15 mins allow.) Hrs	4.9​	4.3​	4.3​	5.3​	3.68​	3.35​	3.4​	3.12​	3​
Extended	Fuel (for range, pounds)	101 gallons	107 gallons	107 gallons	511​	488​	580​	580​	489​	489​
Extended	Fuel (for allowance, pounds)	32 gallons	25 gallons	25 gallons	97​	135​	145​	145​	209​	209​
Extended	Fuel (Total, pounds)	133 gallons	132 gallons	132 gallons	608​	623​	725​	725​	698​	698​
Extended	Fuel (Total, Gallons)	133​	132​	132​	79​	83​	97​	97​	97​	97​
Extended	Miles per 100 pounds of fuel	n/a	n/a	n/a	122.6​	107​	103.5​	103.5​	107​	102.5​

Edit to add omitted Hurricane propeller information. First Variable Pitch Propeller Hawker uilt Hurricane L1980, production aircraft 434, in June 1939.

First Hawker production Rotol Hurricane is number 901, or P3265, AMDP Hawkers, Rotol Airscrew. The P serials from Brooklands began being Taken on Charge in the final week of February 1940, but Langley took until the first week of April 1940 to finish off its final allocated N serial aircraft (N2592 to N2631, N2645 to N2654) and start on the P serials. It means Gloster and Brooklands began delivering Rotol fitted Hurricanes at the end of February 1940, not sure what Langley did in March.

First 2 Hurricane contracts from Hawker, 527112/36 for 600 L serials and 751458/38 for 300 N serials, then comes contract 962371/38 split between Hawker and Gloster, so third Hawker and first Gloster. P2682, the 101st built by Gloster, was the first from them with a Rotol propeller.

Click to expand...

Good chart, except that both Mohawk and Tomahawk could carry 160 gallons internal, which is precisely what we were talking about. At some risk to flight stability.

Also was there two wings for the Hurricane? 231 or 258 sq ft? I never heard of that. Can somebody explain that?

marathag said:

a 1300hp P&W with a better supercharger, could have had some use later on,like the F4F did

Click to expand...

It arrived too late.
Both the R-1820 and the R-1830 of 1940-41 were maxed out due to cooling issues.
The 1300-1350hp Cyclone used in the FM-2s (and others) required at the very least new cylinders and new cylinder heads with a lot more cooling surfaces. As built they also got new crankshaft and new crankcases.
There was a late war (late 1944?) R-1830 engine but it used trickle down technology from the R-2800, like aluminum fin cooling muffs on the cylinders and new cylinder heads(?)
That got them up to 1350hp for take-off. But 1944 was way too late.
Basically neither engine could be built using the existing tooling at the factories. You could not tweak them or just change the supercharger.

Aileron response/banking was just one aspect of agility For what it is worth here are the number form "Flying to the Limit"
TTB= Time to bank 45 degrees (sec)
MF= Max Force (lb)

...........................................Buffalo.......................Mohawk............................Hurricane...........................Spitfire
EAS.......ASI...........TTB..........MF.....................TTB..............MF..................TTB..........MF......................TTB.........MF
214.......200...........1.7..........10.5....................2.2..................8....................1.3............10.......................1.8............10
267.......250...........1.7..........14........................2.3...............14....................1.4.............15......................1.8............18
320.......300...........1.7..........17........................2.7...............20....................1.5.............21......................2.1............35
372.......350...........1.8...........20.......................4.0...............27....................1.6.............38*....................2.6............55
413........390..........1.6...........24.......................5.2...............33....................1.9.............34......................3.5............80

The asterisk is what I think is a typo/type setter mistake. Since I am copying out of a book and not an original document who knows?
There may be others.
The British were very concerned about the poor aileron response of the early Spitfires and were studying what ever fighters they could to see how everybody else did it.
The British were fitting metal Ailerons by 1941 (?) in Spitfires so dates of tests or condition of aircraft needs to be watched closely.

In the book the Buffalo and Spitfire results are listed together and the Mohawk and Hurricane results were listed separately.

Now these figures are measuring things a bit differently as time to bank 45 degrees is a measure of both initial acceleration and time to bank and 45 degrees is not really that large of an angle. Also note that most of planes don't even reach the 30lb of stick force used in some other charts until the higher speeds are reached.

For those who have not looked at report provided by eagledad, please note that the Mohawk and P-40 used different amounts of stick travel and different amounts of total aileron deflection (different ratio of stick movement (and force) to aileron movement. )

eagledad said:

Gentlemen

Roll performance of Hurricane

Eagledad

Click to expand...

So it looks like the P-36 rolled better than the Hurri or Spit up to about 200 mph, after which it's roll declined sharply, while the -40 was better at all speeds about 150 mph or so.

But the Hurri and Spit rolled about twice as quickly for small stick movements with 5 lbs force.

Wild_Bill_Kelso said:

So it looks like the P-36 rolled better than the Hurri or Spit up to about 200 mph, after which it's roll declined sharply, while the -40 was better at all speeds about 150 mph or so.

But the Hurri and Spit rolled about twice as quickly for small stick movements with 5 lbs force.

View attachment 724386

Click to expand...

Once again, as in the other tests, the P-40 looks like the fast roller, especially at high speeds.

Wild_Bill_Kelso said:

So it looks like the P-36 rolled better than the Hurri or Spit up to about 200 mph, after which it's roll declined sharply, while the -40 was better at all speeds about 150 mph or so.

But the Hurri and Spit rolled about twice as quickly for small stick movements with 5 lbs force.

View attachment 724386

Click to expand...

?? The P-36 drops off the map at 175 and below the rest of the pack at 200TAS. Wonder why.

marathag said:

Well, Finland was one datapoint. But unlike the rest of 'Class of 1935' of the Hurricane, F4F and ME-109, development and production stopped, with focus on the P-40 instead.

a 1300hp P&W with a better supercharger, could have had some use later on,like the F4F did

Click to expand...

For my money, the P-40 was the best P-36.

I think they both have a lot in common, in the sense that they were both not quite good enough for their initial context, with severe limitations inherent to design.

But in practice, both turned out to be better than a lot of the other options, in spite of the big flaws, in part because they turned out to have merits which weren't so obvious. And both ended up being used a lot longer than most could have predicted in say, 1940 or 1941.

Wild_Bill_Kelso said:

I think they both have a lot in common, in the sense that they were both not quite good enough for their initial context, with severe limitations inherent to design.

Click to expand...

They have had a lot in common in a substantial, material way.
What would be the 'severe limitations inherent to design' and 'big flaws' for the P-36 & P-40?

tomo pauk said:

They have had a lot in common in a substantial, material way.
What would be the 'severe limitations inherent to design' and 'big flaws' for the P-36 & P-40?

Click to expand...

Lack of altitude performance for both, insufficient speed and lack of protection for the P-36 / H75. Lack of climb / insufficient power for weight for the P-40

The single biggest issue was performance at altitude above 12-16,000 ft (depending on variants). With the Merlin P-40s extending that up to about 20,000, which was better but still insufficient for NW Europe, especially for heavy bomber escort. Turned out to be useful in most of the other theaters though where the emphasis was more on tactical air war.