Kittyhawks or Hurricane...which aircraft was preferred in the DAF?

Fair point, but could it have been, that the Merlins were required for P51s and Canadian built Lancasters and Mosquitoes.
Maybe but they didn't stop producing P-40's until November 1944 so the type must have had some priority, as only the Mustang and Thunderbolt were made in greater number by the US
 
Maybe but they didn't stop producing P-40's until November 1944 so the type must have had some priority, as only the Mustang and Thunderbolt were made in greater number by the US
First flight 1938 vs 1940 (P-51) and 1942 (P-47) bird in the hand and all that
 
Maybe but they didn't stop producing P-40's until November 1944 so the type must have had some priority, as only the Mustang and Thunderbolt were made in greater number by the US
They used them in the far East and Pacific campaigns. Air opposition in those theatres wasn't quite as intense ( which was why the Hurricane soldiered on in Burma) and there were better aircraft to take on Japanese aces - BUT the P40 could lug bombs and strafe enemy vehicles and positions and make a good job of it. Bear in mind that swapping P40 production to something else takes time and then there's a gap in overall aircraft production. Ok, she's not the best by 1942, but she's in quantity production, cheap, reliable, tough and can take the war to the enemy as a fighter bomber. She was never going to be a Thunderbolt or a Mustang, but she held the fort til they came on line. Not a bad aircraft at all, and quite pretty too. Curtis could be proud of that one.
 
A good homage to the Desert Air Force
Don’t discount it as a comic, think of it as way to tell a story to a generation that didn’t grow up with ww2 vets in greater numbers

 
Fair point, but could it have been, that the Merlins were required for P51s and Canadian built Lancasters and Mosquitoes.
no shortage of Merlins, it was simply the Allison got better and was an extremely durable engine.
 
They used them in the far East and Pacific campaigns. Air opposition in those theatres wasn't quite as intense ( which was why the Hurricane soldiered on in Burma) and there were better aircraft to take on Japanese aces - BUT the P40 could lug bombs and strafe enemy vehicles and positions and make a good job of it. Bear in mind that swapping P40 production to something else takes time and then there's a gap in overall aircraft production. Ok, she's not the best by 1942, but she's in quantity production, cheap, reliable, tough and can take the war to the enemy as a fighter bomber. She was never going to be a Thunderbolt or a Mustang, but she held the fort til they came on line. Not a bad aircraft at all, and quite pretty too. Curtis could be proud of that one.
The Russians really liked the P-40.
 
And the Hurricane, for that matter. Less enamoured of the Spitfire.
indeed, like the Hurricanes durability, although less impressed by its inflammbility.
they converted them into open cockpit light bombers wuth a tail gunner a la the Hawker Hart from which the Hurricane was part derived.

0613D7A1-6AF0-40F1-B118-6CE5E1614F49.jpeg


true, no fans of the Spitfire, quickly filed under ‘traitorous capitalist fighter‘ and scrapped..
A fragile thing. I read that in the NWETO when most spent their time doing close support from forward fields, most were written off for non battle damage. Their squadron service lives were very short.
 
Hurricane was not the first development of a biplane into a monoplane either

Add a mid set wing, and behold, a Grumman Wildcat


View attachment 486349
Not often that a development goes 'the other way', from the monoplane Hawker Hurricane to the biplane Hillson FH.40; though not a 'true' biplane as the top wing served as a large fuel tank and was meant to be jettisoned!

2C71b5D.jpg


'The strange aircraft was tested at RAF Sealand during May 1943, and at the Aeroplane and Armament Experimental Establishment at RAF Boscombe Down from September 1943. The upper wing was not released in flight before the program was terminated due to poor performance.'

 
Not often that a development goes 'the other way', from the monoplane Hawker Hurricane to the biplane Hillson FH.40; though not a 'true' biplane as the top wing served as a large fuel tank and was meant to be jettisoned!

2C71b5D.jpg


'The strange aircraft was tested at RAF Sealand during May 1943, and at the Aeroplane and Armament Experimental Establishment at RAF Boscombe Down from September 1943. The upper wing was not released in flight before the program was terminated due to poor performance.'

SULPHUR! :twisted:
 
indeed, like the Hurricanes durability, although less impressed by its inflammbility.
they converted them into open cockpit light bombers wuth a tail gunner a la the Hawker Hart from which the Hurricane was part derived.

View attachment 487003

true, no fans of the Spitfire, quickly filed under ‘traitorous capitalist fighter‘ and scrapped..
A fragile thing. I read that in the NWETO when most spent their time doing close support from forward fields, most were written off for non battle damage. Their squadron service lives were very short.
That would make an interesting model conversion!
 
Well lets see they went back to the Allison in later models
They stuck the Merlin in but without the type of supercharger that gave the Merlin in Spits and P51s the ooomph. Performance was marginally better but you have Packard going flat out making Merlin's and Allison making stuff for P-38s etc. Might as well carry on with the Allison . The Allison was a good engine, no doubt about it, sweeter than the Merlin - good enough for low to medium altitude and the limitations of the airframe. It wasn't broke, so didn't need fixing.
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
They stuck the Merlin in but without the type of supercharger that gave the Merlin in Spits and P51s the ooomph. Performance was marginally better but you have Packard going flat out making Merlin's and Allison making stuff for P-38s etc. Might as well carry on with the Allison . The Allison was a good engine, no doubt about it, sweeter than the Merlin - good enough for low to medium altitude and the limitations of the airframe. It wasn't broke, so didn't need fixing.
Preferred at low level on the Mustang, no?
 
When the Russians tried out the Hurricane in the Leningrad theatre, they complained that it wasnt as good as Russian fighters for it's durability in cold weather. Engineers fitted drainage taps into the cooling system and they drained the oil and coolant in very cold weather,for overnight storage indoors, as is still done today in Canada, Alaska and other points North. Russian pilots liked the radios, armour, quality of perspex, general ease of operation and ruggedness but complained that it was too slow against the 109 and the armament was weak, so they retrofitted them with a mix of cannon and machine guns and employed them as strafers instead.
As for operational lives,the average age of a Russian made fighter in WW 2 was about 40 sorties, as they would assess each aircraft when it came to it's major service at about 50 operational hours. If it was airworthy and battleworthy, it was kept in service but if it had suffered depot level damage,it was either written off in situ and stripped for spares or it was shipped back to the factory. If it was fit to fly, but not fit for battle, it was kept on as a "hack" for utility work. Russian squadrons were treated like army units in that they served on the frontline until they were reduced to a minimum amount of aircraft,ie, down to one serviceable Flight out of four and then stood down. In a crisis, they kept going by merging with other squadrons as required to keep numbers up.
 
Preferred at low level on the Mustang, no?
Mustang much more refined aerodynamically. Not sure the P40 was preferred. It might be chosen because the better performance of the P51 even in its Allison version was needed elsewhere in combat .
 

Latest Threads

Top