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

[Shortround6]

Not to pick on Fairey so much but those are just some examples that came to mind. Would it be a better use of that 1640 hp Merlin 32 in the Barracuda, which dragged it up to an underwhelming 228 mph, to put it into a faster low altitude Hurricane "Mk IX" capable of shooting rockets and dropping bombs?

Yep, the 1640hp at 2000ft Merlin 32 would have provided oh so much more speed and climb than the 1635hp at 2250ft that the Merlin 24s and 27s used the Hurricane MK IVs did.

A few Hurricanes did get Merlin 32s

Apparently the increase in performance was NOT what is being claimed here. There were three such aircraft built.

 

[Schweik]

Yep, the 1640hp at 2000ft Merlin 32 would have provided oh so much more speed and climb than the 1635hp at 2250ft that the Merlin 24s and 27s used the Hurricane MK IVs did.

A few Hurricanes did get Merlin 32s

Apparently the increase in performance was NOT what is being claimed here. There were three such aircraft built.

My theory was 1) clip the wings and then 2) put the more powerful engines on. I pointed out the Barracuda as an example of putting a nice powerful engine on an oversized draggy airframe - 216 mph or something like that.

 

[Shortround6]

My theory was 1) clip the wings and then 2) put the more powerful engines on. I pointed out the Barracuda as an example of putting a nice powerful engine on an oversized draggy airframe - 216 mph or something like that.

well you can stop Production the Barracuda and use the engines for Hurricanes, just as soon as you figure out how to get a Hurricane to carry a torpedo or a 1600lb AP bomb and Deliver it in a steep dive.

Speed 228 mph (198 kn, 367 km/h) at 1,750 ft (533 m)
Yes the Hurricane was faster but around 2000ft depending on model (the MK IIC trop using 12lbs of boost was good for 245mph) the difference was not as much as you might think.
A MK IIa with eight machine guns and using 16lbs of boost was good for about 300mph, not the 340mph it went at higher altitude.

 

[Shortround6]

Yes when they first clipped the wings on the A6M3 they lost the folding tips and also for reasons I forget, some of the fuel capacity.

They had to make the fuselage tank smaller to fit in the longer engine with the 2 speed supercharger.

Yes to all of this, but so what?

Well, you seem to be claiming a good part of the credit for increased capability to the clipped wing

I again draw the comparison to the A6M2 vs. A6M3 or A6M5. These were still extremely manueverable airplanes. Cutting the wings down 3' just made them more capable overall.

More powerful engine with better altitude performance, more powerful (or at least more firing time) armament, higher dive speed (which had to do with a strengthened wing not the clip job). bu the credit goes to the wing clip? I think a few nations could have used these magic wing clippers.

According to what I read (and this is mentioned on the Wiki) the engine power increase only improved speed by 6.8 miles per hour, hence the wing clip.

True but it rather ignores what else was going on. The Sakae 12 engine in the A6M2 was rated at 940hp for take-off and 950hp at 13,780ft (critical height for it's single speed engine) while the Sakae 21 was rated at 1130hp for take-off, 1100hp at 9,350ft and 980hp at 19,685ft,

Max speed of 331.5mph for the A6M2 was at 14,930ft (using ram) while the A6M3 did 338mph ( I am not going to argue over 1-2mph considering the translations and conversions) but the A6M3 did it at 19.685ft. (?) This is much like the P-40E vs P-40F debate were the top speed doesn't seem to change much but the altitude at which certain speeds could be reached changed by thousands of feet.

In any case the A6M3 despite being about 300lbs heavier is credited with a bit better climb and over 3000ft higher ceiling even with the smaller wing.

 

[slaterat]

The question is would you have a Griffon Hurricane or a Griffon Spitfire?

To me the question is when you can have them. A Griffon powered hurricane in 1941-42 would be very useful.

The Merlin 45 was not a wonder engine. The reason that the Spitfire got the Merlin 45 was because there was not enough Merlin XXs to supply both the Hurricane and Spitfire, and the Hurricane needed it more.

Only partly true. The Air Ministry was very concerned about any interruption in supply of Hurricanes or Spitfires. (one only has to look at the debacle, caused by the Air Ministry , of changing the Hurricane from fabric covered to metal covered wings). The fact is that the Hurricane needed very little modification to accept the Merlin XX, which is why Hurricane II's were operational in September of 1940. On the other hand , the Spitfire production would be interrupted in converting production to the MK III because of the changes required to fit the merlin XX. When the Merlin 45 arrived very shortly later it could fit the MK I and II Spitfires without affecting production numbers making this a no brainer for the Air Ministry, Hurricane II's and Spit V's with hardly any lull in production.

With the Merlin 45 the Spitfire had a maximum speed of ~370mph (Spitfire V), while the Merlin XX boosted the speed up to ~400mph (Spitfire III, 399mph with earlier Merlin X).

Do you have a source for that? Thats pretty close to a 60 series merlin Spit 9 . 385 seems to be the number most often quoted for a Spit III, although I have never seen a primary source for its performance.

 

[Schweik]

They had to make the fuselage tank smaller to fit in the longer engine with the 2 speed supercharger.

True but it rather ignores what else was going on. The Sakae 12 engine in the A6M2 was rated at 940hp for take-off and 950hp at 13,780ft (critical height for it's single speed engine) while the Sakae 21 was rated at 1130hp for take-off, 1100hp at 9,350ft and 980hp at 19,685ft,

Max speed of 331.5mph for the A6M2 was at 14,930ft (using ram) while the A6M3 did 338mph ( I am not going to argue over 1-2mph considering the translations and conversions) but the A6M3 did it at 19.685ft. (?) This is much like the P-40E vs P-40F debate were the top speed doesn't seem to change much but the altitude at which certain speeds could be reached changed by thousands of feet.

In any case the A6M3 despite being about 300lbs heavier is credited with a bit better climb and over 3000ft higher ceiling even with the smaller wing.

Yes, I'm sure the two speed supercharger and better engine helped - obviously, but what made the difference in speed was clipping the wings. 6.8 mph improvement in speed from the engine, more than 20 mph improvement with the clipped wings. Nothing "magic" about it it's an historical fact.

Merlin XX as we know quite well had the two speed supercharger - whether you want a medium altitude plane or a low altitude determines whether you use the medium or low altitude Merlin, but the point is reducing the drag is what mattered most for the speed.

As for the Barracuda, what I remember about it's service record was pretty dismal. Barely over 200 mph is ok for a torpedo bomber in 1941 but it isn't in 1943.

 

[fubar57]

Zero Facts and Figures​

 

[Shortround6]

Yes, I'm sure the two speed supercharger and better engine helped - obviously, but what made the difference in speed was clipping the wings. 6.8 mph improvement in speed from the engine, more than 20 mph improvement with the clipped wings. Nothing "magic" about it it's an historical fact.

What historical fact?????
I gave you speeds form one source for the A6M2 and the A6M3, perhaps you have a different source. However do NOT use the speeds from the A6M5 because even though they used the same basic engine.

The A6M5 used a different exhaust setup that added a fair amount of thrust

Late model Zeros also had water injection but it didn't seem to help a lot.

Merlin XX as we know quite well had the two speed supercharger - whether you want a medium altitude plane or a low altitude determines whether you use the medium or low altitude Merlin, but the point is reducing the drag is what mattered most for the speed.

rather ignores the "historical fact" that the P-40F was 20-30mph faster than E over 20,000ft (the higher you went the greater the difference) of course the thinner air helped reduce the drag, assuming your engine still made power.

As for the Barracuda, what I remember about it's service record was pretty dismal. Barely over 200 mph is ok for a torpedo bomber in 1941 but it isn't in 1943.

So what, if may have been dismal but claiming that the engines should have gone to Hurricanes simply because they were faster rather ignores that the Hurricane could not do the Barracudas job. Barracudas were used to attack the Tirpitz.

Under wing loads for the Barracuda. 4× 450 lb (205 kg) depth charges or 6× 250 lb (110 kg) bombs.

The Barracuda might have done better in service if it had the Merlin 27 engines from the Hurricane IVs. Might have been able to fly over the Indonesian mountains in better fashion.

An example of be careful what you wish for. Who would have thought a torpedo bomber needed to fly over mountain ranges, just stick low altitude engines in them.

 

[Schweik]

I believe that is the version before they clipped the wing. It's kind of convoluted, there were many subvariants of the A6M3

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/japan/Zeke-32-TAIC-102C.pdf

 

[Shortround6]

There were a number of variants of the A6M3 but none of them used the multiple outlet Exhaust thrust set up.
US war time reports often got some of the details wrong.

 

[Schweik]

What historical fact?????
I gave you speeds form one source for the A6M2 and the A6M3, perhaps you have a different source. However do NOT use the speeds from the A6M5 because even though they used the same basic engine.

I posted one.

The A6M5 used a different exhaust setup that added a fair amount of thrust

Yes but I don't think it accounts for the entire boost in speed...

Late model Zeros also had water injection but it didn't seem to help a lot.

may have helped with altitude performance.

rather ignores the "historical fact" that the P-40F was 20-30mph faster than E over 20,000ft (the higher you went the greater the difference) of course the thinner air helped reduce the drag, assuming your engine still made power.

The P-40F was only 4-10 mph faster than the E (per it's official rating) maybe more like 15 mph faster in real life, but that didn't amount to very much which irritated the crap out of the USAAF higher ups. Another reason they didn't like Curtiss or the P-40. On that plane though you couldn't really clip the wings because it was already heavy.

So what, if may have been dismal but claiming that the engines should have gone to Hurricanes simply because they were faster rather ignores that the Hurricane could not do the Barracudas job. Barracudas were used to attack the Tirpitz.

Under wing loads for the Barracuda. 4× 450 lb (205 kg) depth charges or 6× 250 lb (110 kg) bombs.

The Barracuda might have done better in service if it had the Merlin 27 engines from the Hurricane IVs. Might have been able to fly over the Indonesian mountains in better fashion.

An example of be careful what you wish for. Who would have thought a torpedo bomber needed to fly over mountain ranges, just stick low altitude engines in them.

I would have only bothered putting those engines into the Hurricanes if they had already clipped the wings, that is what we were talking about. I also concur with improving the exhaust stacks / thrust situation and any drag related improvements that were possible.

 

[fubar57]

The Model 32 also sucked at turning(Wiki unfortunately)

 

[Schweik]

The Model 32 also sucked at turning(Wiki unfortunately)

I think it still turned better than just about all the Allied planes which is the point... (maybe not a Hurricane though lol)

 

[fubar57]

It turned worse than the Model 21 it replaced

 

[Schweik]

It turned worse than the Model 21 it replaced

Well if you mean the A6M2, it turned so well that it ran rings around the Allied planes, but it also suffered from drag effects limited speed so they were able to boom and zoom it.

These things being closely related. Big wing = tighter turn / slower. Small wing (think Bf 109 with a 32' span) not so great at turning, but very fast for a given amount of horsepower. Most fighters in the mid war had around a 36 or 37' wingspan which was kind of the sweet spot. Later when they had planes with 2,000 hp engines they could get away with bigger wings again.

You could also look at it vis a vis turning circle. Based on that old Russian test we have all seen - if your "typical" ww2 fighter circa 1942 has a turning circle of 20 seconds, you want one of about 18 seconds if you want to be able to out-turn them. If the A6M2 had a turning circle of say, 14 seconds, that is great but it's a little overkill. Cutting down the wing size increases the turning circle somewhat but also increases speed, roll rate, dive speed, and so on.

It's a bit like replacing a biplane with a monoplane.

 

[wuzak]

To me the question is when you can have them. A Griffon powered hurricane in 1941-42 would be very useful.

You would be unlikely to get Griffon Hurricanes in 1942, and you certainly would not in 1941.

Remember that the Griffon design was started in 1938, redesigned in 1939 in order to be able to fit in the Spitfire, development was suspended during part of 1940 (ie during the BoB). There weren't enough to put into production aircraft in 1942, the first production aircraft using the Griffon rolling out in early 1943.

And it certainly wouldn't be just a straight fitment. The Griffon was longer and heavier with more power and torque. The Spitfire fuselage required changes to the longerons (made in steel instead of aluminium) in order to cope. What changes would be required to fit it to the Hurricane?

Only partly true. The Air Ministry was very concerned about any interruption in supply of Hurricanes or Spitfires. (one only has to look at the debacle, caused by the Air Ministry , of changing the Hurricane from fabric covered to metal covered wings). The fact is that the Hurricane needed very little modification to accept the Merlin XX, which is why Hurricane II's were operational in September of 1940. On the other hand , the Spitfire production would be interrupted in converting production to the MK III because of the changes required to fit the merlin XX. When the Merlin 45 arrived very shortly later it could fit the MK I and II Spitfires without affecting production numbers making this a no brainer for the Air Ministry, Hurricane II's and Spit V's with hardly any lull in production.

The Merlin 45 and Merlin XX had the same supercharger and were the same physical size. Where one could fit, so should the other.

The first prototype Mk.III had a number of differences to the Mk.I and Mk.II, including a wing clip, retracting tail wheel and revised radiator.

The prototype first flew with a Merlin X, which used the pre-Hooker supercharger and was used in the Wellington II, Whitley IV and V (and VII?), early Halifaxes,.

Do you have a source for that? Thats pretty close to a 60 series merlin Spit 9 . 385 seems to be the number most often quoted for a Spit III, although I have never seen a primary source for its performance.

Morgan and Shacklady.

As I said, the prototype Mk.III had some aerodynamic improvements, so a Merlin XX powered Mk.II would probably be a little slower.

 

[fubar57]

Bigger wing = slower turn...

A6M2 Model 21 - wingspan 39 ft 4 in
A6M3 Model 32 - wingspan 36 ft 9 in

 

[Schweik]

Bigger wing = slower turn...

A6M2 Model 21 - wingspan 39 ft 4 in
A6M3 Model 32 - wingspan 36 ft 9 in

I would expect the Model 21 to have a tighter and therefore faster turning circle than the Model 32. But the Model 32 was still a much better fighter in an engagement (not in some other ways because it had less range).

For example I believe in that Soviet test the Hurricane had a shorter turn time than a Spitfire, but the Spitfire was still a better fighter overall. See what I'm getting at?

 

[Kevin J]

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.

correction. It was called the Spiteful and very few were built.

 

[Stig1207]

More than 50% of the kills claimed by the RAF during WW2 were by Hurricanes alone, an astounding number and one that validates the soundness of the original design.

Astounding is an understatement; actually so incredible that it may perhaps be a myth?