"The Hurricane could turn very sharply but it couldn't roll and it couldn't dive. That is why it couldn't compete after 1941. " The Hurricane could only compete over its own island in 1940 with the help of RADAR. With the same engine the Spitfire was faster at all altitudes, and the Spitfire was fairly evenly matched against the Bf 109. You may like to concentrate on roll rate and instantaneous turn rate, speed and rate of climb and firepower were always decisive.
Which is the better fighter, P-40F or Typhoon? (1 Viewer)
- Status
Navalwarrior
Staff Sergeant
- 764
- Jun 17, 2018
Yes, but few Mustang MkI, IA and II flew few escort missions, and operated at lower altitudes where the Allison performed well.
Shortround6
Lieutenant General
I believe the quote is that they got 1500hours between main bearing failures while Merlin went 400 hours (or 480 hours?) between main bearing failures.
A main bearing failure is a specific type of failure and in no way relates to to suggested overhaul life of the rest of the engine.
If you are waiting for a main bearing to fail when you have burned, warped valves, broken or sagging valve springs, piston rings that don't seal the bore any more and worn pistons slapping in the scratched oval bores plus a host of other worn parts you aren't going to be flying very much.
When figuring out times between specific failures like this it is common practice to total up the number of hours. Say 60 engines each with 200 hours average gives you 12,000 hours and if had 6 main bearing failures in the group (even if one of them was with an engine with on 10 hours) you get a result of 1500 hours between main bearing failures.
It may tell you about things to watch for or what kind of spare parts may need to stocked but a 'mean time between failure" has nothing to do with overhaul life.
Shortround6
Lieutenant General
I just googled it
Mustang
and the quote in this book just bearing failure and not main bearing, it also says the Merlin was good for 500-600 hours. At the time in Question, recommendations being made for boost limit in US allison powered Mustangs I doubt very highly if the Merlin figure has anything to do with the Merlins in the Mustang (they hadn't been built yet)
Mustang
and the quote in this book just bearing failure and not main bearing, it also says the Merlin was good for 500-600 hours. At the time in Question, recommendations being made for boost limit in US allison powered Mustangs I doubt very highly if the Merlin figure has anything to do with the Merlins in the Mustang (they hadn't been built yet)
As far as I understand it Merlin Spitfires were getting tired after 250 hrs hard service and that wasn't just the engine. Of all the thousands of Spitfires that were produced the RAF rarely had more than 1,000 in front line service. Of the circa 3000 Typhoons that were built I wonder how many pilots used many more than one, wore it out or wrecked it for various reasons and got another. Operating close to the ground and taking anti aircraft fire quickly renders a plane unserviceable.
Shortround6
Lieutenant General
RR gave suggested overhaul life times at the beginning of the war and at the end of the war For use in bombers it was higher than in fighters and at the end of the war it was higher in transports than in bombers.
The suggested life for fighters went from 240 hours in 1939 to 300 hours in 1944 to 360 hours in 1945.
This despite the later engines making much more power.
This was not a guarantee. It was a limit at which R R thought that an engine should be pulled from service , even if exhibiting no problems in running, as a preventative measure to prevent problems in flight (engine failure/crash).
from 1942 on only about 35% of the engines that passed through the repair organizations (overhaul shops) had reached their max time.
In addition to normal engine problems (excessive oil consumption, poor power, metal bits in the oil) engines with combat damage, crash damage and prop strikes went though the repair organizations so that figure of 35% is obviously skewed compared to normal wear.
The suggested life for fighters went from 240 hours in 1939 to 300 hours in 1944 to 360 hours in 1945.
This despite the later engines making much more power.
This was not a guarantee. It was a limit at which R R thought that an engine should be pulled from service , even if exhibiting no problems in running, as a preventative measure to prevent problems in flight (engine failure/crash).
from 1942 on only about 35% of the engines that passed through the repair organizations (overhaul shops) had reached their max time.
In addition to normal engine problems (excessive oil consumption, poor power, metal bits in the oil) engines with combat damage, crash damage and prop strikes went though the repair organizations so that figure of 35% is obviously skewed compared to normal wear.
Good info, but as I said planes had a built in obsolescence. Once MkII Spitfires were introduced what was the urgency to overhaul MkIs, then came Mk Vs and all the others. Same could be said for P-51s how many B/C variants were overhauled and how many were just replaced by D variants. They were progressively worn out in training squadrons and OTUs.
- Thread starter
- #208
I don't mean the Pacific Theater, I'm talking about in the Med. To be clear.
See this is pretty typical of a lot of the posts in this thread and some others. Sometimes, if you have made up what you believe before you start reading, it affects your reading comprehension. I know very well what was in the post I linked because I researched it myself and I transcribed it to that post.
Of the 8 pilots I quoted in that thread, only 2 (TWO) only fought in the Pacific - Shilling and DeHaven. Of the other 6, Clive Caldwell, Nicky Barr, General Davis, Charlie Hall and Billy Drake fought in the Med. Caldwell also fought later in the Pacific as well but almost all of his 28 some odd victories were with the P-40 in the Middle East. Drake also fought in various other Theaters around Europe in Spitfires and Hurricanes and scored 13 of his 22 kills with the Kittyhawk.
Golodnikov, the Russian, said that the P-40 was just as good as the Bf 109 through THE END OF 1943. That is to say, until 1944. He also said and I quote: "the Tomahawk was equal to the Bf 109F and the Kittyhawk was slightly better. "
Personally I'm not of the opinion that the P-40 was vastly better than a Bf 109F or G or a Typhoon for that matter. I think it was probably a little better in some ways and a little worse in others, but clearly quite competitive in a dogfight. The Typhoon had some real important value as a V-1 killer and Fw 190 chaser. But that is somewhat offset by all the development problems and the chronic issues like the fumes in the cockpit. Poor maneuverability not such a good thing either.
They used them and we do know the history of it. Spit V's were used in the Crimea where they got slaughtered and were pulled out of the line, Spit IXs were used exclusively for PVO (rear area air-defense) units. An important job, one which P-40s were eventually relegated to as well and to which the Spitfire was far better suited, but not front line duty.
What this has to do with a Mustang I have no idea. But I stand by what I said - the Mustang wouldn't have been good for the Russian Front.
S
- Thread starter
- #209
No, actually they were not always decisive. Almost every Allied aircraft in 1941 and 1942 was faster than the A6M and the Ki-43 and many could out climb them yet they got slaughtered by them.
There is no one factor, or even two or three, that always makes a fighter superior.... unless it's so far beyond the ballpark of the competition as to be of another generation (i.e. monoplanes vs. biplanes or jets vs prop fighters.)
It's an over simplistic way of looking at the war.
Now you have changed the theatre AGAIN, this is becoming ridiculous, in air combat speed, rate of climb and firepower were decisive, after that sustained rate of turn and roll rate had some importance. There is one factor, it is so obvious I don't know how you can say any other it was speed, in level flight, in climb or dive, speed ruled and no one cared if an Me 262 was deficient in a turn or roll, no allied aircraft could make it turn or roll without mobbing it. Judging a plane on its kills makes no sense, in any such comparison a Sopwith Camel will prove better than an F-22 or F-35.
- Thread starter
- #211
Compared to a Sopwith Camel it is a no brainer. Just look at the kills and rate of turn, game over!
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
The first US kills against the A6M was by the P-36 at Pearl Harbor - by inexperienced pilots, wearing pajamas...
Pray tell, why is that so? Too fast?
Kevin J
Banned
If we built fabric covered biplanes with a wood structure, would the F35's radar detect them. IIRC, the Mosquito had a low radar signature because it was made of wood.
Probably a case where the Tempest took over from the Typhoon. I've read the Tempest was still being utilised in 1955.
Apart from the engine wings and rear fuselage the Typhoon was a great plane.
Already during the Cold War the radars were capable to detect cannon and even mortar shells, so methinks that 21st century radar will not have problems detecting the Clerget radial engine.
Glider
Major
Or it could be the long range, which would be useless over the vast Russian plains.
Navalwarrior
Staff Sergeant
- 764
- Jun 17, 2018
Resp:
Proximity to aircraft production facilities, or lack of, determined the number of overhauls vs simple replacement. Many of the Tuskegee airmen got recycled P-51Cs as other units got D/Ks. Guadacanal was so starved for replacements, the mechanics had to strip non-operational aircraft to keep one or two plane flying. Pilots often nursed their damaged planes back to the airfield rather than bailing out, as the loss of parts was disastrous.
- Status
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
