Which is the better fighter, P-40F or Typhoon? (1 Viewer)

[wuzak]

I guess that would be the reason why not, not enough of the two stage Merlins to go around. That's to bad. Didn't the Typhoon have a different engine though? Oh well, regardless I guess there were higher priorities for the limited number of Merlins to be had.

Yes, the Typhoon and Tempest had the Sabre.

The point I was making is that any resources directed to improving the Hurricane or updating it to fit the 2 stage Merlin would detract from Typhoon and Tempest development.

It is a similar story for the Griffon. It was redesigned in 1939 specifically to be suitable to fit in the Spitfire. Supermarine produced a Griffon/Spitfire Proposal and Hawker did the Hurricane?Griffon proposal.

The Griffon was in even shorter supply, as they only made around 8,000 in total.

 

[wuzak]

Actually, the Hurri IVs got the Merlin XX, boosted to the same limits as the Hurri II. All the Merlin 27s were used for Mosquitos. The IV was a dedicated ground-attack version, so it also got lots of heavy armour plate, and ended up slower than the IIc.

The Merlins for Mosquitoes were different to regular Merlins because they had reversed coolant flow, which was required to work with the leading edge radiators.

Though otherwise identical, the reverse coolant flow Melrins had different mark numbers to the equivalent standard version.

 

[Shortround6]

The Me 210 and 410, though comparatively fast, did not work out as daytime fighters but excelled as night-intruders bomber killers so long as they had protection. If they didn't have fighter cover they got hacked down.

The reason they didn't work out as daytime fighters was that they were light bombers. Trying to use twin engine light bombers as fighters against single engine fighters was never going to end well for the twin engine plane no matter how many guns you stuffed in the old bomb bay.

throw in that cockamamee rear gun set up

Yes it had two 13mm guns firing to the rear but only in rarest of circumstances were you ever going to get both guns to fire at the same target at the same time.
About the only thing you can say for it is that the gunner didn't have to fight the windstream to aim the guns as it was power operated.

I am sorry but in many cases you examples of "obsolete" aircraft don't actually work the way you seem to think.

Like

The Ju 88 was somewhat disappointing as a daytime bomber in the BoB but worked out well in Maritime raids in the North and Baltic Sea, in the Bay of Biscay and in the Med, as a tactical / dive bomber in Russia and the Med (up to ~ mid 1943) and for a while as a night fighter, and in other roles. Including as a heavy maritime fighter I'm just learning!

The main JU-88 used in the BoB was the Ju 88A-1 with some help from the A-5. The Germans never made things simple, right after the BoB the main production was switched to the Ju 88A-4 with 5 ft more sing span, engines with several hundred more HP each and a much higher gross weight (could actually carry fuel and bombs at the same time) the confusing part is that the A-5 was an A-4 airframe with the engines (or only slightly better ones) than the engines used in the A-1 which did NOT make for sparkling performance.
The JU-88s of 1944 either had Jumo 213 engines or BMW 801 radials instead of the older Jumo 211 engines. These were the G series night fighters and the S series fast bombers.
In some cases they used one of the bomb bays full of nitrous oxide tanks to boost performance at altitude.

You may have read an awful lot about the operational history of many of these aircraft ( I would say more than I do) but you seem to lacking in detail knowledge about the actual performance or armament of some of these planes. This makes reaching valid conclusions about the general course of development a bit difficult.

 

[Mad Dog]

Supermarine produced a Griffon/Spitfire Proposal and Hawker did the Hurricane?

The Griffon and Hurricane is a sore point with the Fish Heads!
The Royal Navy asked Rolls-Royce to develop the Griffon for naval use before the War started. The problem the Navy had was they needed more power for take off rather than at altitude, and Merlin development was already going the high-altitude route. They also aske Hawker to make a Griffon-engined and navalised Hurricane, with folding wings, in 1939. Hawker declined because they wanted to concentrate on the Typhoon/Tornado, and the Air Ministry stepped in because they didn't want Hurricane or Merlin production being hampered. So the RN got stuck with the two-seat Fairey Fulmar with the low-rated Merlin VIII. When they got the Sea Hurricane in 1941, it was a slightly modified Hurricane I with the conversion by General Aircraft Ltd, not Hawker, and without folding wings. They finally got something with the Griffin and folding wings in the Fairey Firefly in 1943, but seeing as that was a development of the Fulmar it wasn't really an improvement! I'm told it did take off very well, though.

 

[Mad Dog]

The Merlins for Mosquitoes were different to regular Merlins because they had reversed coolant flow, which was required to work with the leading edge radiators.

Though otherwise identical, the reverse coolant flow Melrins had different mark numbers to the equivalent standard version.

True, the modified Merlin 27s were renumbered as Merlin 25s, IIRC.

 

[Schweik]

Going back a couple of posts I've always felt it was to bad they didn't upgrade the Hurricane. From what I've read it was really stable and new pilots could master it fairly quickly. Those are valuable characteristics in wartime or anytime for that matter.
If they just kept cramming more power into it seems like they would end up with something that performed kida like the F6f, maybe no one outstanding performance area but pretty good at everything and those always desirable docile handling characteristics.
Maybe it wasn't practical as it would take away from newer types but doesn't seem like adding more horsepower as it became available would take to much redesign effort.

I think the best way to improve it, albeit pure speculation since they didn't do it, but IMO reducing wingspan and if possible thinning the wings.

Otherwise you can end up with something like the Firefly - 1,700 hp (Griffon) and 316 mph

 

[michael rauls]

I think the best way to improve it, albeit pure speculation since they didn't do it, but IMO reducing wingspan and if possible thinning the wings.

Otherwise you can end up with something like the Firefly - 1,700 hp (Griffon) and 316 mph

It's interesting to think about. With additional power and maybe a thinner wing I'm gonna take a guess and say it could have been good for 370, 380 maybe.
How would a fighter with a 380 mph top speed and the moaenuverability of the Hurricane and the handling characteristics of the Hurricane fair? Sounds pretty good but I suppose the guys making those descisions knew alot more than I do and they felt there were better ways to focus there efforts.

 

[Schweik]

The reason they didn't work out as daytime fighters was that they were light bombers. Trying to use twin engine light bombers as fighters against single engine fighters was never going to end well for the twin engine plane no matter how many guns you stuffed in the old bomb bay.

They were both heavy fighters and bombers - like a lot of fighters were effectively by that time of the war (albeit granted not that many with internal bomb bays - but you did have the mosquito). With the extra speed though they were supposed to take back the Zerstorer role from the Bf 110, but that never really happened. Being able to use them to attack B-17s and B-24s, with an escort, gave these designs a new life that made them useful again.

View attachment 543514
Great photo by the way.

Yes it had two 13mm guns firing to the rear but only in rarest of circumstances were you ever going to get both guns to fire at the same target at the same time.
About the only thing you can say for it is that the gunner didn't have to fight the windstream to aim the guns as it was power operated.

Apparently the remote control worked though and even one 13mm gun, so long as it doesn't jam, is pretty daunting for a pursuing fighter.

I am sorry but in many cases you examples of "obsolete" aircraft don't actually work the way you seem to think.

Bf 110, Ju 88, Do 217 were definitely obsolete for daytime combat by 1944, and they were vulnerable to Mosquitoes at night. To me that is obsolete or pretty close to it. My whole point was that obsolete is a matter of degrees not really an absolute. At least until you get to the "target tug" role.

The main JU-88 used in the BoB was the Ju 88A-1 with some help from the A-5. The Germans never made things simple, right after the BoB the main production was switched to the Ju
(snip)
You may have read an awful lot about the operational history of many of these aircraft ( I would say more than I do) but you seem to lacking in detail knowledge about the actual performance or armament of some of these planes. This makes reaching valid conclusions about the general course of development a bit difficult.

I readily admit I don't know about all planes in the war, like most people around this fourm I basically know more about the planes that interest me. That said, lets not make a mountain out of a mole hill. I knew there were fighter armed Ju 88 variants, I just thought those were used as night fighters and in the bomber destroyer role. I was never frankly interested enough in the Ju 88 to put together the aggressive maritime raids with the heavy fighter variants.

We all have our little areas of expertise, you know the engines very well as I have conceded before. I know a few types inside and out, I daresay I introduced a few things about the P-40 both operationally and developmentally that were not widely known around here. I may do so with a few other types like some of the Russian fighters, if I have the time. I do tend to focus more on the operational history and work my way back to developmental details from there, because that way you can avoid all the dead-ends and clutter that didn't actually go anywhere.

But ultimately you need to cover both sides of the equation, otherwise you'll have a distorted understanding of the subject.

My actual historical field is another era entirely, and there is an interesting analogue in legal history. They used to think that in this era if you did X you would receive punishment Y, plain and simple, because that is what the law books said. For decades this was what was said about the period, punishments included a lot of Y meaning very harsh things. Then somebody started looking at the actual court records of actual cases. Aggregating dozens of them. And a different picture emerges. Turns out the real world punishment was not what the law required but was instead typically a much milder "A, B" or "C".

I think you can draw a similar comparison to WW2 Aircraft. If I looked at the Curtiss Helldiver on paper I might assume it was a great bomber. Almost 300 mph speed with a 1,900 hp engine, two 20mm cannons plus 2 defensive machine guns, 2,000 bomb load for dive bombing or a torpedo, 1,100 mile range. It looks pretty good. Only by reading operational history and pilot reports do you find out what a dud it really was, at least in the early days (and I'm not sure they ever really fixed it).

So I do think you have to look at planes from a few different angles.

 

[Schweik]

It's interesting to think about. With additional power and maybe a thinner wing I'm gonna take a guess and say it could have been good for 370, 380 maybe.
How would a fighter with a 380 mph top speed and the moaenuverability of the Hurricane and the handling characteristics of the Hurricane fair? Sounds pretty good but I suppose the guys making those descisions knew alot more than I do and they felt there were better ways to focus there efforts.

I think if they could have chopped the wing down to 36' - you still probably would have had an exceptionally maneuverable and stable airplane, and almost certainly much faster. The Hurricane as it existed could out turn any German or Italian monoplane (and hang with the biplanes) but was too draggy and slow for front line combat by 1942, and was clearly struggling in 1941. But in 1940 it still looked dangerous as hell in terms of outcomes. The difference is being ~20 mph slower than the enemy planes vs. ~30 - ~50 mph slower.

If you had a Hurricane that was as fast as a Bf 109F then the latter is in serious trouble I think. And the same Hurricane would be dominating the Zero in the Pacific as well.

I bet less drag might even mean more range though I know there is a tradeoff there. Bigger wings provide more lift...

 

[pbehn]

I bet less drag might even mean more range though I know there is a tradeoff there. Bigger wings provide more lift...

The Hurricane was used increasingly for ground attack as a fighter bomber or with heavy cannon, for that you need the lift.

 

[Schweik]

The Hurricane was used increasingly for ground attack as a fighter bomber or with heavy cannon, for that you need the lift.

A 36 ft wing for the weight of the Hurricane still gives you plenty of lift I would say. Should have no trouble carrying bombs or the 20mm cannon, though if you also had a thinner wing then you'd have to deal with cannon bulges maybe. However I don't think you'd have to have wings as thin as a Spitfire to get substantially better performance out of a Hurricane. They took the A6M2 from a 39 ft wing to a 36 ft wing on the A6M5, with only a moderate increase in engine power*, and it jumped up 20 mph in speed.

If the Hurricane Mk II could really make 330 mph, that would mean arguably a jump in speed to 355 mph. Maybe a few more streamlining efforts and some adjustment to exhaust etc. you might get to 360 mph and now it starts to maybe look plausible to put in a more powerful merlin. 360 mph would put it close to parity with a P-40F and yet it would be more heavily armed with 4 cannon and still quite a bit lighter, so probably better climb and performance ceiling. You also undoubtedly get better roll and a faster dive speed and dive acceleration with the shorter wing.

In fact in some ways that is probably a better fighter than a Typhoon lol.

*When they put the same engine on the A6M2 airframe it only increased the speed by 6.8 mph

 

[Kevin J]

But the Hurricanes over Malta, both MkIs and MkIIs, shot down plenty of Ju88s. Their problem was not catching the Ju88s, it was getting past the large number of Bf109F escorts to be able to get a shot at the Ju88s. Sea Hurricanes on the Operation Pedestal run shot down Ju88s, and they were effectively Hurricane Is with Merlin IIIs and the 4-cannon IIc wing! Speed was not the issue.
The landing at Salerno relied on Seafires, and the Germans were well-aware of their capabilities, only sending their Ju88s in at night. Not sure where you got the idea a Seafire couldn't catch a Ju88.

If speed wasn't an issue then the Seafire LIIc would never have been built or the Sea Hurricane Ib/c allowed 16lbs boost in its Merlin III.

 

[wuzak]

I think if they could have chopped the wing down to 36' - you still probably would have had an exceptionally maneuverable and stable airplane, and almost certainly much faster. The Hurricane as it existed could out turn any German or Italian monoplane (and hang with the biplanes) but was too draggy and slow for front line combat by 1942, and was clearly struggling in 1941. But in 1940 it still looked dangerous as hell in terms of outcomes. The difference is being ~20 mph slower than the enemy planes vs. ~30 - ~50 mph slower.

If you had a Hurricane that was as fast as a Bf 109F then the latter is in serious trouble I think. And the same Hurricane would be dominating the Zero in the Pacific as well.

I bet less drag might even mean more range though I know there is a tradeoff there. Bigger wings provide more lift...

Cutting the wing down to 36ft would cut off half the ailerons. How would that work for manoeuvrability?

 

[Schweik]

Actually, I was thinking of moving the ailerons I know that would require a bit of a wing design but again, they did it on the Zero

A6M2 (source drawingdatabase.com)


A6M5 (same [URL='https://www.the-blueprints.com/blueprints/ww2planes/ww2-mitsubishi/1612/view/mitsubishi_a6m2_zero/']source)

And before anybody starts to say the A6M5 came late, the speed increase and the shorter wing both actually date back to the A6M3, which entered production in April 1942 Presumably the wing change didn't take that long.

So I figure the British had to be at least nearly as smart as the Japanese right? They should therefore have been able to do it.[/URL]

 

[XBe02Drvr]

How would a fighter with a 380 mph top speed and the moaenuverability of the Hurricane and the handling characteristics of the Hurricane fair?

No way, Jose. You can have the speed OR you can have the maneuverability, pick one. If you chop and thin the wings, you're going to sacrifice maneuverability on the altar of speed. That fat, high lift wing and large ailerons, coupled with a light weight are what give you your maneuverability. That fat airfoil is essentially a low speed biplane-era feature, and could be replaced with a thinner higher speed section, but at the cost of greater structural weight and longer runway requirements. Your turn and burn fighter would likely turn into a boom and zoom machine.
Cheers,
Wes

 

[pbehn]

A 36 ft wing for the weight of the Hurricane still gives you plenty of lift I would say. Should have no trouble carrying bombs or the 20mm cannon, though if you also had a thinner wing then you'd have to deal with cannon bulges maybe. However I don't think you'd have to have wings as thin as a Spitfire to get substantially better performance out of a Hurricane. They took the A6M2 from a 39 ft wing to a 36 ft wing on the A6M5, with only a moderate increase in engine power*, and it jumped up 20 mph in speed.

If the Hurricane Mk II could really make 330 mph, that would mean arguably a jump in speed to 355 mph. Maybe a few more streamlining efforts and some adjustment to exhaust etc. you might get to 360 mph and now it starts to maybe look plausible to put in a more powerful merlin. 360 mph would put it close to parity with a P-40F and yet it would be more heavily armed with 4 cannon and still quite a bit lighter, so probably better climb and performance ceiling. You also undoubtedly get better roll and a faster dive speed and dive acceleration with the shorter wing.

In fact in some ways that is probably a better fighter than a Typhoon lol.

*When they put the same engine on the A6M2 airframe it only increased the speed by 6.8 mph

If its a better fighter than the Typhoon it is on par with a Tempest. Are you seriously suggesting that a few mods to the Hurricane, unnoticed until today, would have the Hurricane on par with a Tempest? I think some anti Typhoon propaganda may have led you astray, the Typhoon was the only plane that could chase down FW190 tip and run raiders, Spitfires couldn't that is why the Typhoon was rushed to service, so I don't think any type of souped up or cut down Hurricane would either. You cant add up reductions in drag to produce super performance. The Spitfire was about 30MPH slower than the Mustang with the same engine, this was due to better wing design, better cooling design and better fit/finish. To uprate a Spitfire to be the same as a Mustang needs a completely new plane called a Mustang and probably different production methods and equipment, it is the same only more so with a Hurricane. In any case the RAF had Mustangs first with Allison and then with Rolls Royce engines.

 

[PAT303]

Going back a couple of posts I've always felt it was to bad they didn't upgrade the Hurricane. From what I've read it was really stable and new pilots could master it fairly quickly. Those are valuable characteristics in wartime or anytime for that matter.
If they just kept cramming more power into it seems like they would end up with something that performed kida like the F6f, maybe no one outstanding performance area but pretty good at everything and those always desirable docile handling characteristics.
Maybe it wasn't practical as it would take away from newer types but doesn't seem like adding more horsepower as it became available would take to much redesign effort.

If Hawker wanted to make a better Hurricane they should have just made MkVIII Spitfires instead, all straight from the factory with 96G main 32G combined leading edge and 65G rear tanks, that's the plane the Allies needed in '42.

 

[pbehn]

If Hawker wanted to make a better Hurricane they should have just made MkVIII Spitfires instead, all straight from the factory with 96G main 32G combined leading edge and 65G rear tanks, that's the plane the Allies needed in '42.

How many Hurricanes and Typhoons will you do without? Would you have enough Merlin 61s in 1942 to actually get any more Spitfires?

 

[michael rauls]

No way, Jose. You can have the speed OR you can have the maneuverability, pick one. If you chop and thin the wings, you're going to sacrifice maneuverability on the altar of speed. That fat, high lift wing and large ailerons, coupled with a light weight are what give you your maneuverability. That fat airfoil is essentially a low speed biplane-era feature, and could be replaced with a thinner higher speed section, but at the cost of greater structural weight and longer runway requirements. Your turn and burn fighter would likely turn into a boom and zoom machine.
Cheers,
Wes

Yes I know there is a trade off. Smaller wing=lest lift. That's why I didn't mention reducing wing area. Just a bit thinner to reduce drag a bit. I think a thinner wing would reduce lift also the shape being equal but not as much as reduced wing area?
So nothing drastic. Just a somewhat thinner wing and more power. Seems like it isn't unreasonable to think you could get another 30, 35 mph and still retain most of it's good flight characteristics. I'm kinda thinking F6f. Alot of wing area but I don't think it had a particularly thick wing did it?
And it had verry good handling. So I've read anyway.
I've just always liked planes that had a reputation for not being tricky to fly. Kinda odd for someone who's not a pilot I know but for whatever reason I always have. I was just thinking if you've got a design that really flys well like the Hurricane then it might be worth pursuing such modification/ improvements.

,

 

[pbehn]

Yes I know there is a trade off. Smaller wing=lest lift. That's why I didn't mention reducing wing area. Just a bit thinner to reduce drag a bit. I think a thinner wing would reduce lift also the shape being equal but not as much as reduced wing area?
So nothing drastic. Just a somewhat thinner wing and more power. Seems like it isn't unreasonable to think you could get another 30, 35 mph and still retain most of it's good flight characteristics. I'm kinda thinking F6f. Alot of wing area but I don't think it had a particularly thick wing did it?
And it had verry good handling. So I've read anyway.
I've just always liked planes that had a reputation for not being tricky to fly. Kinda odd for someone who's not a pilot I know but for whatever reason I always have. I was just thinking if you've got a design that really flys well like the Hurricane then it might be worth pursuing such modification/ improvements.

,

It just isn't as simple as that, the Spitfires wing was thinner than the Mustangs but had higher drag at most speeds. The Hurricanes inward closing undercarriage was contained in a box type structure which went quite a distance along the wing this contained the fuel tanks, as SR said the Ailerons go close to the end of the wing.