wuzak
Captain
So, a more expensive (I presume) Merlin 60 series engine to get the equivalent performance to a single stage Spitfire?
I think I'd rather use the 60 series in Lancasters....
WW2 with no Spitfire - Hurricane being primary interceptor
- Thread starter RCAFson
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
So, a more expensive (I presume) Merlin 60 series engine to get the equivalent performance to a single stage Spitfire?
I think I'd rather use the 60 series in Lancasters....
- Thread starter
- #382
Greyman and I have both stated that the Hurricane PEC was calculated incorrectly on the early tests (posted on WWII aircraft performance) hence the Mason figures matching the speeds with the correct PEC.
wuzak
Captain
And you get that from where?
Fortunately for U.K. in particular and for the Liberty of the whole World in general, Top Brass of RAF in the late '30 seem to have had, by a technical point of view, clearer and more advanced ideas than some that are writing more than seventy years later, with the benefit of hindsight......
Fortunately......
Fortunately......
- Thread starter
- #385
The fact that the RAE recalcuted the correct speeds for the Hurricane I and II:
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/hurricane-I-raechart.jpg
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/hurricane-II-raechart-level.jpg
- Thread starter
- #386
The Hurricane I could do ~325mph TAS or 271 IAS at 10000 ft with ~1300hp (MerlinIII 12lb boost at FTH):
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/hurricane-l1717-cal.jpg
so if we give the same aircraft 1400hp (merlin 60 series 15lb) at 25000ft we should still get 255- 260 TAS or about 383 - 390 mph TAS.
Last edited:
OldSkeptic
Senior Airman
- 509
- May 17, 2010
Oh my. Get over it those Hurricane revisionists, the Hurricane was obsolete in 1940. There was no way without a total redesign (to the point of there being nothing left of the original) getting that plane above 350mph, let alone 4000mph. No matter how much power you put in it.
It was a converted biplane. A Hawker Fury with a single wing.
Both the Me-109 and Spit were a generation ahead of it, in every sense. Aerodynamically, construction, performance, pilot protection, expandability, you name the dimension they were ahead.
The Spit, with the exact same engine was 20-30mph faster, ditto the 109 with similar power.
By the time of the 109F, the gap was so large that Hurricanes which faced them in Malta and North Africa died, en masse. It was like a Defiant vs a 109E by that stage (giving away 50mph by then).
And there is nothing, I mean nothing that can change that. The design was just so old.
Big mistake of the British to waste a lot of Merlin XXs on it.
Its successes in the BoB owes a lot to Park's tactics and leadership. You look at the 10 group 'big wing' nonsense and you see that they lost a lot of planes, with very few successes.
Mostly Hurricanes, with a few Spits, the big wings simply crippled the Spits to the Hurricane's lower speed. Which meant 109s simply barreled through taking out their targets almost at will.
Park being much, much (much) smarter, put Spits vs 109s leaving the Hurricanes to hit the bombers, with much smaller groups.
There is a reason why Dowding never let Spits leave the country and why the Govt invested so much in shadow factories to manufacture it... it was a lot better.
How many Hurricane pilots got burned (often to death) by that non fire walled, non sealing front tanks. And the wing tanks. They go on fire and all that is between them and the pilot is some canvas.
And cannon shells passing straight through the fuselage, though all those lovely tubes. And exploding when they hit the pilot's seat (from the rear you might survive, from the front ...).
Ok it was better than a Zero, but it was the worst protected front line fighter in the ETO.
It was a converted biplane. A Hawker Fury with a single wing.
Both the Me-109 and Spit were a generation ahead of it, in every sense. Aerodynamically, construction, performance, pilot protection, expandability, you name the dimension they were ahead.
The Spit, with the exact same engine was 20-30mph faster, ditto the 109 with similar power.
By the time of the 109F, the gap was so large that Hurricanes which faced them in Malta and North Africa died, en masse. It was like a Defiant vs a 109E by that stage (giving away 50mph by then).
And there is nothing, I mean nothing that can change that. The design was just so old.
Big mistake of the British to waste a lot of Merlin XXs on it.
Its successes in the BoB owes a lot to Park's tactics and leadership. You look at the 10 group 'big wing' nonsense and you see that they lost a lot of planes, with very few successes.
Mostly Hurricanes, with a few Spits, the big wings simply crippled the Spits to the Hurricane's lower speed. Which meant 109s simply barreled through taking out their targets almost at will.
Park being much, much (much) smarter, put Spits vs 109s leaving the Hurricanes to hit the bombers, with much smaller groups.
There is a reason why Dowding never let Spits leave the country and why the Govt invested so much in shadow factories to manufacture it... it was a lot better.
How many Hurricane pilots got burned (often to death) by that non fire walled, non sealing front tanks. And the wing tanks. They go on fire and all that is between them and the pilot is some canvas.
And cannon shells passing straight through the fuselage, though all those lovely tubes. And exploding when they hit the pilot's seat (from the rear you might survive, from the front ...).
Ok it was better than a Zero, but it was the worst protected front line fighter in the ETO.
wuzak
Captain
The first one identifies a revised PEC. The second one doesn't - it has no context.
I assume that the calculation system was incorrect, and that the Spitfire's speed was duly upgraded in a similar fashion?
Or are you gong to tell us they only got it wrong for the Hurricane?
In any case, Spitfire was faster in 1938 with Merlin II and 87 octane fuel than the Hurricane was in 1942 with the Merlin XX, 100 octane fuel and +12psi boost.
vinnye
Senior Airman
In my opinion, we needed both the Hurricane and the Spitfire.
The Hurricane was available in numbers - which we needed and allowed pilots to gain valuable air combat experience.
The Spitfire was a different generation of design and proved to be one of the most versatile and capable designs ever built.
Old Skeptic, I agree with your comments about Keith Park and Hugh Dowding - both intelligent and gifted men in the right place at the right time - thank god.
I hate to think what might have happened if Leigh Mallory and his cronies had been in charge!
The Hurricane was available in numbers - which we needed and allowed pilots to gain valuable air combat experience.
The Spitfire was a different generation of design and proved to be one of the most versatile and capable designs ever built.
Old Skeptic, I agree with your comments about Keith Park and Hugh Dowding - both intelligent and gifted men in the right place at the right time - thank god.
I hate to think what might have happened if Leigh Mallory and his cronies had been in charge!
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #390
PEC is needed to overcome systemic instrumentation errors, usually caused by pressure variations around and inside the aircraft during flight. Since no revised figures have been published for the Spitfire, it may not have been a problem with it, and there's no guarantee that if there was an error that it would result in higher calculated speeds. Certainly this test seems to show somewhat lower speeds than earlier tests of the Spitfire:
Spitfire Mk V AA.878 Report (359 at 19900)
and it mentions a revised methodology as of 27 Aug 1942.
and an earlier test shows somewhat higher speeds at the same weight:
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/aa873.html (374 at 19000)
This aircraft is also somewhat heavier than earlier tests and it states that it is ballasted to full service weight.
No one is claiming that the Hurricane is faster than the Spitfire, just that the variation is not as great as early tests seem to show.
Last edited:
For N. Africa, one need to account for the performance losses, incured by installation of the tropical air filter. 11-13 km/h was lost (7-8 mph) for the Mk.2 (even more for Mk.1 - 48-68 km/h ???), according to the 'Monografie lotnize' book about Hurricane.
The V-1710s were able to do their job without the additional filter, maybe due to the more favorable intake position? We might also recollect that Merlin P-40s were without sand filters when introduced in N.A, sand playing havoc with engines, so the British helped the USAF with 600 engines worth of spares?
The V-1710s were able to do their job without the additional filter, maybe due to the more favorable intake position? We might also recollect that Merlin P-40s were without sand filters when introduced in N.A, sand playing havoc with engines, so the British helped the USAF with 600 engines worth of spares?
- Thread starter
- #393
109 (and 110?) also lost performance due to trop modifications, albeit not the same extent as the RAF fighters.
The RAF also designed an air filter cowling for the P-40:
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/P-40/ET573-Modified-Cowling.pdf
and here's a comparison of performance with the regular and filter cowling:
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/P-40/ET573-level.jpg
I suspect that the Commonwealth AFs simply accepted a reduced engine life on the P-40/Kittyhawk prior to air filters being fitted.
Last edited:
yulzari
Staff Sergeant
I believe the Tomahawks/Kittyhawks were delivered straight to West Africa and flown by ferry pilots across Africa to Egypt so it saved an unnecessary extra sea voyage.
Curiously, as folk are saying the Hurricane was obsolete in 1940 (4 years before the end of production), the RAF in Cyprus kept the Hurricane until the very end of 1946 then converted straight to Vampires.
wuzak
Captain
The differences in weight between those two tests was 48lb.
One had triple ejector exhausts with fishtails (AA.878 ), the other had them without (AA.873).
That said, the Spitfire Vc is still 30mph faster than a Hurricane IIc, going on the worst of those figures.
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/hurricane-IIc-raechart-level.jpg
- Thread starter
- #396
Sorry I meant between AA.878 and the Va and VB tests:
Spitfire Mk VA X.4922 Report
Spitfire Mk VB W.3134 Report
I thought it rather strange that AA.873 could match the earlier, Va and Vb speeds even though it had a much heavier and draggier armament.
Mason's figures show the IIC as 336mph while Brown states 342 mph at 22000ft for the Sea Hurricane IIC, so the variation between these and AA.878 is 23 and 17 mph respectively.
DonL
Banned
But what is in the timeline between 1940 till end of 1942 (arriving Merlin 60 for production/reality introduction of the Spit IX)?
You are building your whole what if on the reality and the help from the USA!
What will happened if things change?
I have given you some examples in my post 357:
1. What will happen if Goering didn't give the stupid close cover order for the LW fighters during BoB
2. What will happen if the RLM would choose the FW 187 instead of the Bf 110?
3. What will happen if the Bf 109 E7 (could carry 300 Liter drop tank) will introduce earlier in time of the BoB?
4. What will happenn if Germany didn't attack UDSSR, but concentrate only at GB?
Example 1,2 and 3 are all technical possible from the timeline. I don't claim that only the Hurricane in use at the RAF and the FW 187 and the Bf 109 E7 will change in summary the outcome of BoB, but I claim that the losses to the RaF without the Spit and only with Hurricane in use and with the 3 possible changes would be back-breaking from pilot losses and a/c losses, with much less losses for the LW then in reality.
There would be not much at 1941 that could defend against a introduced Bf 109F-4 with the Fw 187 and the Fw 190 is showing at the horizon at summer 1941. Your losses would be at least 100% higher then in reality (to my opinion I tend to 150%-200%) and where will you get trained pilots to fill the losses?
Realy I can't see any real advantage of your what if, except perhaps to get some more a/c's for a shorterm timeline but with the costs of realy big disadvantages for near 2 years at all frontlines (defending GB, Mediterranean area and NA).
Also I can't see that a Hurricane with the Merlin 60 will be realy at the same level as the FW 190A3, Bf 109F-4 or Bf 109G2.
- Thread starter
- #398
It's just about impossible to consider an ATL if things change too much, but your points 1-3 would make things equally tough for the RAF in the OTL. Remember that in the ATL I postulate, that Hurricane production is increased with 3 additional Hurricanes for every 2 Spitfires produced in the OTL. This gives RAF FC 700 additional fighters by August 1940 and greater production of Hurricanes with the Merlin XII. Luftwaffe losses are very likely going to much higher than in the OTL probably leading to Goring's close escort order even sooner.
I don't think that overall RAF FC losses will be much different during the BofB, but Luftwaffe losses will be much higher because far more fighters will be intercepting each raid and the kill rate per firing pass should remain constant. The RAF only has to scale back it's intruder missions into France in 1941 to dramatically lower their pilot losses and at the same time Malta and N.Africa will have hundreds more HH fighters than in the OTL, probably leading to an Italian collapse in North Africa before the Germans can intervene.
I think the HHII can remain competitive with the 109E but beyond that the HH would probably require a new wing and/or the Griffon engine to stay competitive, however, other aircraft are still being built and even if the Spitfire was not ordered in 1936, it is possible that Supermarine would continue to develop the concept with an improved model (Spitfire III) coming into limited production in 1941. I fully acknowledge that the Hurricane design would run out of growth potential in 1942 without a new wing and/or volume production of Griffon.
Not buying it: the Hurricane IV with 1,620 hp could make 330 mph. Figuring that the Merlin 61 with 4 bladed prop would result in similar weight gains to the extra armour etc fitted to the Mk IV over the Mk II, claiming an extra 60 mph for 1,400hp? Don't think so.
Also to fit a two-stage Merlin into the Hurricane would require much larger radiators plus an intercooler radiator. The radiators and oil cooler were suspended under the Hurricane's centre-section covered by the fairing; to fit a larger radiator plus oil cooler and intercooler radiator would require a much larger, heavier installation with great potential to create drag and disrupt airflow without a major redesign. The Tornado prototype encountered airflow problems around its Hurricane like installation, forcing the move to a nose mounted system: the P-51B/C, with radiators etc in the fuselage, needed a deeper fuselage/radiator fairing, and the Spitfire split the system into two underwing fairings.
The coolant header tank on the Hurricane was mounted ahead of the petrol tanks in the forward fuselage. To fit a two stage Merlin with intercooler on top of the supercharger casing would mean a redesign of the cooling system to fit the header tank somewhere else. All in all modifying the Hurricane enough to fit a two stage Merlin AND gain 50-60 mph over the Mk II, thus developing an aircraft with Spitfire V like performance? I think the Air Ministry would have looked elsewhere.
Not buying this either: as has been explained and ignored, once again, when the Air Ministry did consider stopping Spitfire production after the first order of 310, the alternatives slated to replace the Spitfire were either the Whirlwind or the Beaufighter - the Hurricane was not considered because the AM wanted more "next generation" fighters NOT more Hurricanes.
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
