P-40 vs. Hurricane

[Gnomey]

Good info guys!

[MacArther]

I like the Hurricane for its role in the Battle of Britian, and as an anti-tank weapon, but I still think that the P40 was the better dog fighter. Dunno, maybe its a hometown bias . Plus, the Hurricane was fully developed, while the P40 was only developed as far as Curtis could make money.

[Jabberwocky]

The Hurricane wasn't fully developed, there were just better aircraft that were produced in favour of it.

The Hurricane Mk V would of been the ultimate production version. Fitted with a 1,700 hp Merlin 32, a four bladed propellor and the new universal wing of the Mk IV as well as other detail improvements, it would of been the most potent low-altitude Hurricane. Even with modifications though, it was recognised as obselete, and Hawker began concentrating on Typhoon development.

I'd say that the P-40 family was developed as much as the Hurricane, if not more. It went throught a long evolution of engine, cooling and armament fittings. It was produced in lightweight and longrange variants, converted for ground attack etc, etc. It went through sevice versions A to N, which certainly tells of a long developement.

Curtiss really botched P-40 production. The investigation of Curtiss-Wright, headed by Harry Truman, concluded that the P-40 was being produced to maintain a profit margin, not to benefit the war effort. It recommended that Curtiss be forced to stop making P-40s and start a P-51 (Allison engine) production line. However, C-W had already failed at attempting to manufacture the P-47, so the recommendations were essentially ignored.

[MacArther]

Yes, but search the internet for the XP-40Q. Curtiss's main hiearchy may not have saw fit to improve the fighter much, but obviously some of the engineers had other ideas.

PS Post a compairson pic of the final hurricane (prototype) and the final P40 (prototype)

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by Jabberwocky

Repairability; Hurricane

The Hurricane was an exceptionally easy airframe to maintain and repair. Its fabric construction on the wings and tailplane were remarkably easy to patch and repair.

Fabric could be easy to repair but it's not resilient and will rot. If the Hurricane took a hit in the welded steel tube that makes up the fuselage, the damage has to be cut and a new section welded into place, not as easy as it sounds. Although mild steel is pretty easy to weld, it is prone to stress cracking if not properly relieved after the weld is completed.

[Jabberwocky]

Originally Posted by MacArther

Yes, but search the internet for the XP-40Q. Curtiss's main hiearchy may not have saw fit to improve the fighter much, but obviously some of the engineers had other ideas.

PS Post a compairson pic of the final hurricane (prototype) and the final P40 (prototype)

I know all about the P-40Q. I also think that it was a waste of time developing it, as the P-38, P-47, P-51 and P-63 were superior to it in almost all respects, and were already in serial production. Also, it wasn't just a couple of engineers doing it by themselves. The P-40Q was developed over several years and multiple prototypes, not something that goes on without complete company approval.

With the P-40Q, I think Curtiss was desperately trying to squeeze more performance out of a design in 1944 that they should of abandoned in 1940/41. If they had redesigned the P-40 from the ground up, with a longer fuselage, larger vertical surfaces, improved cooling and airscoop and added a turbocharger, then it would of been competitive. Something like they did with the XP-60A, but a little more radical than just redesigning the wing to take 8 .50's and adding a GE turbocharger. Look at how the P-35 evolved into the P-47 and the performance enhancements there, something like that type of change was needed.



As for the Hurricane and repairability. I still maintain that the Hurri would of been less maintence intensive and repairable for light battle damage, but more vulnerable to heavy battle damage. The CRO in the UK would rebuild/repair damaged Hurricane airframes in very short amounts of time. Hurricane repair times were much short than those for Spitfires, which due to its stressed skin construction, required more work for similar amounts of damage.

[FLYBOYJ]

Light battle damage, I agree, any big damage to the welded tube, it's CRO time!

I think by the time the P-40Q came to be the AAF had enough with Curtiss...

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by the lancaster kicks ass

that was low man......

I know, wasn't it!

Originally Posted by 102first_hussars

The Hurri never had 12 .303's they had eight,

You are saying?

Hurricane armament:

Hurricane IIA Series 1: 8 × 0.303 inch (7,7 mm) guns

Hurricane IIA Series 2: Hurricane Mk IIA fitted with 4 × 20 mm Hispano cannons

Hurricane IIB: 12 × 0.303 inch (7,7 mm) guns

Hurricane IIC: 4 × 20 mm cannons

Hurricane IID: 2 × 40 mm Rolls Royce BF cannons, 2 × 0.303 inch (7,7 mm). The 40mm Rolls Royce BF cannons were later replaced by 2 × 40 mm Vickers 'S' cannons.

Hurricane IV: 2 × 0.303 inch (7,7 mm) Browning guns with provisions for 2 × 40 mm cannons, or 2 × 500 lb (227 kg) bombs, or Smaal Bomb Carriers, or 8 × 60 lb (27 kg) air-to-surface rockets, or 2 smoke-laying installations.

[cheddar cheese]

And I thought that Hurricane IIB's 12x .303's were well known about...obviously not

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

No I think that most people know about the 12x .303's.

[the lancaster kicks ass]

yeah they just had the 8 in the normal positions on the wings (in sets of 4) and then each wing had an extra two mounted further out..........

[R988]

Didn't the Hurricane have metal wings from the BoB onwards? I know the early ones had fabric wings and probably still a fabric body. Most of the damage would probably have been on the wings though.

Also saying Australia used the Hurricane is a stretch, they had one, which was a refugee from the fall of Singapore, and it was mainly used as a hack.

Essentially the Hurricane was a 'turn and burn' aircraft while the P40 was more of a 'boom and zoom' fighter. Not many aircraft could outdive the P40 until the P47 came along, though the FW190 was probably an equal on the axis side.

The germans rated the P40 as a more danerous opponent compared to the Hurricane, I'd say the same with the Japanese. The Hurricane would have to fight a turning fight with a Zero and would pretty much be deat meat in that battle since it didn't have the speed advantage over the Zero.

The P-40 could and did employ the Boom and Zoom tactic against the Zero, which didn't have the speed to keep up, nor the armour to survive. This tactic was developed by the AVG but was employed across the USAAF after suffering losses with engaging the Zero in a turning fight.

Also there were some P40 versions, which had a merlin engine so maintainence would be similar to hurricane in the engine dept. at least. I don't think the Allison 1710 was particularly troublesome though, the P40 didn't have the Turbo version like some others, though it would have been vastly better in performance if it did, especially at high altitude.

The British apparently wanted to replace their Hurricanes with P40s in North Africa. The P40s kill/loss ratio was superior to the Hurricane (then again the Brewster Buffalo has one of the most impressive K/L ratios of the war!) and if it was my butt on the line I'd go with the P40 being more survivable than a Hurricane, only just though, as the Hurricane also has a reputation as a very sturdy aircraft.

So in the end I'd go for the P40 having a slight edge on the Hurricane as far as facts and combat record go, as for personal opinion I have a soft spot for both aircraft, both of whom bore the brunt of the early war years for the allies and both of whom are largely unrecognised for their substantial contributions to holding back the axis invasions.

Here's a few links on both aircraft that make interesting reading if you haven't come across them before
http://www.chuckhawks.com/p-40_vs_zero.htm
http://www.chuckhawks.com/p40.htm
http://www.chuckhawks.com/hawker_hurricane.htm

also some more interesting articles on other aircraft on this site
http://www.chuckhawks.com/index3.nav...ry_history.htm

[FLYBOYJ]

Nice Post, nice pics and welcome R988!

[Gnomey]

Originally Posted by FLYBOYJ

Nice Post, nice pics and welcome R988!

Agreed. Welcome R998.

[evangilder]

Good post. Welcome aboard.