P-40 vs. Hurricane

the lancaster kicks ass · 11-13-2005, 04:22 AM

welcome R998, can i just ask what makes you say that the hurricane didn't have a speed or manouverability advantage over the Zero? above 275mph the zero had the manouverability of a 4 engined bomber! anything could turn inside her and the hurricance could maintain this speed it a dogfight if the pilot knew what he was doing, also the zero would fall apart with 4x20mm trained on them (some MK.IICs served out there i believe), why would the hurricane have to fight a turning fight with a zero?

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 11-13-2005, 07:47 AM

Nice post there. Welcome

R988 · 11-13-2005, 02:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the lancaster kicks ass

welcome R998, can i just ask what makes you say that the hurricane didn't have a speed or manouverability advantage over the Zero? above 275mph the zero had the manouverability of a 4 engined bomber! anything could turn inside her and the hurricance could maintain this speed it a dogfight if the pilot knew what he was doing, also the zero would fall apart with 4x20mm trained on them (some MK.IICs served out there i believe), why would the hurricane have to fight a turning fight with a zero?

The hurricane and zero had similar top speeds, though I agree the hurricane was better at speed than the zero, it was only marginally faster. The hurricane probably wouldn't be able to dive at high speed due to its non metal construction and I have heard it was also not exactly an easily handler at high speeds (I am willing to be corrected on this) so either way it would be difficult to outrun a zero, and turning fights almost always end up at low speeds, unless of course the flyer is an excellent pilot but that is not very common.

Also in the ETO the hurricane was very much a turning fighter, and all the RAF pilots would have been used to that sort of engagement and when they came to the PTO they suffered heavy losses against the the Zeros. The pilots were not overly experienced and not well informed on how to tackle a zero and they were decimated. Even the Spitfire had a lot of trouble with it for a while. For pure combat record the Hurricane vs Zero is very much in favour of the Zero.

Interestingly the RAAF used both the P-40E and Spitfire Vb and tested them against each other and concluded they were both as good as each other. In fact aside from it's lack of high altitude performance the P-40 should really be compared in the company of the Spitfire and 109, and if they hadn't diverted all the turbos to bombers then it probably would have been quite good at altitude, same with the P-39.

Perhaps a more likely comparison for a Hurricane would be the F4F Wildcat, both are more evenly matched with the Hurricane appearing to have the advantage on paper but the Wildcat has the better combat record. I believe Eric Brown looked favourably on the Wildcat, or Martlett if you want, in comparisons with both. But that's probably for another thread.

Perhaps my final word on the Hurricane is that it was better as an interceptor/bomber destroyer/mutirole aircraft than a pure fighter.

the lancaster kicks ass · 11-13-2005, 02:34 PM

we've had the F4F Vs. hurricane discussion, i don't really think a clear winner was decided but i think the hurricane may had edged it..........

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 11-13-2005, 03:14 PM

I doubt the all wood construction would keep it from diving any more than than anyother aircraft. The Mossie was made of wood it did not have any real disadvantages, infact it was superior to a lot of aircraft.

FLYBOYJ · 11-13-2005, 10:33 PM

R988 - good stuff but Eric Brown?!?

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 11-14-2005, 05:51 AM

Yes Brown is not the greatest source.

schwarzpanzer · 08-03-2006, 05:56 PM

Very interesting discussion.

The wood on the Mossie was specially made/selected and very well built DerAdler.

The Zero's was apparently very crap.

I don't have any info on the Kufurst's wood quality, what a pity.

k9kiwi · 08-03-2006, 08:17 PM

The Mosiquito was a dismal failure in the Pacific / Indian regions for one little fault.

Due to high humidity the glues had the wee habit of de-laminating.

Rather embarassing in a low level attack one would think.

Didn't read the whole thread yet, but has anyone pointed out that the british in Africa were the first one to use the "Tiger Mouth" on their p-40's. The Flying Tigers asked permission and recieved it from the Squadron concerned to use it on their planes.

FLYBOYJ · 08-03-2006, 08:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by k9kiwi

The Mosiquito was a dismal failure in the Pacific / Indian regions for one little fault.

Due to high humidity the glues had the wee habit of de-laminating.

Rather embarassing in a low level attack one would think.

Didn't read the whole thread yet, but has anyone pointed out that the british in Africa were the first one to use the "Tiger Mouth" on their p-40's. The Flying Tigers asked permission and recieved it from the Squadron concerned to use it on their planes.

"One of the AVG saw an article on the British 112 squadron, RAF, serving in Africa. That RAF unit had added a sharkmouth to the nose of their US supplied P-40s, and the AVG decided to do the same. They also had a Disney designed "Flying Tiger" painted on each plane."

I don't think there was a need to ask permission, I think both units were rather busy at the time to worry about such formalities....

schwarzpanzer · 08-03-2006, 08:40 PM

The Moosies glue problem was later solved though.

The Brits actually nicked the idea from the Me110 Zerstorer units, so they were hardly in a position to give permission!

k9kiwi · 08-03-2006, 11:16 PM

From **** Rossi's recollections as a Flying tiger

Quote:

The Sunday edition of the "Times of India" carried a color photo in its magazine section of an RAF plane in North Africa with the shark mouth painted on it. It was an instantaneous hit with our whole group and within days all our planes were adorned with it. It fit the P-40 perfectly.

I sit corrected.

Hows the Moosie? has he glued his hornies back on yet?

Jabberwocky · 08-04-2006, 07:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by k9kiwi

The Mosiquito was a dismal failure in the Pacific / Indian regions for one little fault.

Due to high humidity the glues had the wee habit of de-laminating.

Rather embarassing in a low level attack one would think.

Didn't read the whole thread yet, but has anyone pointed out that the british in Africa were the first one to use the "Tiger Mouth" on their p-40's. The Flying Tigers asked permission and recieved it from the Squadron concerned to use it on their planes.

The adhesive deteoriation of the Mossies in the Pacific is actually just a combination of caution during the wethering trials by the RAF, a rash of structural failures completely unrelated to the glue, stubborness at DeHaviland and a health dash of urban legend.

6 Mosquitos went to Burma in April 1943, right at the beginning of the wet season. Three of them underwent 3 months of weathering trials.

Despite fears of the casein glue would deterioriate, the glue actually proved quite all right in the weather, apart from some problems with the fuselage skin warping, which was traced back to maintence, not the glue so much.

The worst problems actually occured not because of any glue problems but because a defect had arisen in the construction of the wing, causing one of the main load bearing joints (Rib 12 about 6 feet from the wingtip) not to mate properly with the plywood skin. Between Jan and July 1944 the RAF in Europe lost about 16-20 Mosquitos to wing collapse, mostly later built FB VIs and NF XIIIs but also some other types. The cause was eventually traced to construction methods at the Hatfield and Leavesden factories.

The Mossie was actually highly sucessful in the CBI theatre and the Pacific as a fighter bomber and fighter-recon aircraft. After beginning operations in July, the first loss in theatre was a Mk II in early November after one failed to return from a PR soThis was one loss after about 120 sorties, a reasonably acceptable ratio.

The Mossie was so sucessful in the Far East that by January 1944 the Air Ministry decided to equip 22 bomber and strike squadrons with Mosquito FB VIs, replacing Beaufighters and Vengances. Hardly something they would do if they type couldn't operate in the Pacific. By July there were 4 FB squadrons and 2 recon squadrons with Mosquitos and more transitioning.

I have some amazing photos that were taken in Burma by Mosquitos flying at roof top level. There is even one of Japanese soliders caught having morning breakfast on the verandah of their quarters. Mosquitos would regularly fly 8-10 hour recce sorties with standard 50 gallon wing tanks and 2 90 gallon Hurricane drop tanks on the undersides. Late in the war (July 1945) the PR 34 made an apperance in theatre, capable of taking around 1400 gallons of fuel bestowing a phenomenal 3400 mile range.

Wildcat · 08-04-2006, 09:19 AM

Any chance you could post those pic Jabber? I wouldn't mind seeing them.

JF3D · 08-04-2006, 09:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FLYBOYJ

Agree, good points for the Hurricane - my sources showing both aircraft with the ability to carry a 500 pound bomb load as well.

Found out as well the Tomahawk IIB carried 380 rpg for it's four wing mounted .50s. The P-40E carried 281 rpg for it's 6 .50s.....

Not to be picky and I haven't gotten all the way to the end of the thread BUT B/C models of the P-40 had 4 .30 cals in the wings with two .50's mounted to fire through the propeller arc. The sync mech. significantly lowered the rate of fire of the nose guns. I don't have the round count for them. I would have liked to have seen a couple of squadrons of Tomahawks go screaming through a raid of He 111's during the BOB though.