PDA

View Full Version : Hurricane 1 - 12lb boost



SeaDog2007
10-19-2007, 08:50 PM
I recently became aware that, as of March 1940, the Hurricane 1 and Spitfire 1 were cleared to use 12lb boost. This gave the Hurricane a 30mph (50Km/h) increase in speed at all altitudes up to about 10,000ft. This rather dramatically changes the Hurricane 1 peformance against the 109e and 110c at low altitude so hopefully this change can be worked into IL-2. Here's some more info:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/hurricane-I.html

and:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/hurricane-l1717-cal.jpg
thanks.

VW-IceFire
10-19-2007, 10:11 PM
Not going to happen for IL-2...4.09 is just the extra maps and maybe the new default skins they were promising and a few bits and pieces and thats it. Its also worth noting that the Hurricane Mark I we have is really meant to be a Finnish Air Force Hurricane so it doesn't have all of the bells and whistles of the RAF models.

But...Storm of War: Battle of Britain...I sure hope we'll have several variations of everything so we can properly set up scenarios for historical missions.

SeaDog2007
10-20-2007, 11:44 AM
That's too bad, as it effects the Hurricane II as well, since it was cleared for 12lb boost in the fall of 1940, and 14lb boost in late 1941. I haven't checked the Spitfire I, performance in IL-2 4.08, but it would also see the same kinds of speed increases.

JG53Frankyboy
10-22-2007, 03:30 AM
you have a Spitfire Mk.I in your il2 game ??? (sorry couldnst resist http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif )

about the HurricaneIIs in game, they are also mainly ment to be versions that were flown by the soviets......... this game was ment to be a easternfront simulation first.

for "exact" RAF versions you most propably have to wait for the SoW series.
and for that, i realy hope the Spitfire and Hurricane Merlin III engines in the SoW:BoB game will get the 12lb/sq.in. boost (available because of 100octan fuel).
than the 109Es will have a realy bad time at lower heights http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

JG53Frankyboy
10-22-2007, 03:36 AM
Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
................
But...Storm of War: Battle of Britain...I sure hope we'll have several variations of everything ................

i personally dont count on this "il2 style" anymore for the SoW series.
i think they will reduce the avaialble variants to one, the most common version in the specific battle.

for the SoW:BoB Spitfires and Hurricanes that are Mk.Ia with Merlin III, 100octan fuel (12lb boost)- i guess http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

for the Bf109E it's the E-4 (MG-FF/M) with DB601Aa.

DKoor
10-22-2007, 03:55 AM
You wont see me complaining.

That is..........they will likely to come out with much more quality sim, and we will have less sane whining on the forum as an outcome.
Because there'll probably be little to whine about justifiable.

JG53Frankyboy
10-22-2007, 04:40 AM
it was laos not ment as a whine be me.

i'm thinking reducing the variants to the most common in a specific battle time (as i hope the SoWseries will continue to have battle focused scenarios in possible AdOns) in high quality is a good way.

SeaDog2007
10-23-2007, 12:35 AM
The Hurricane, both Mks, was an important participant in the Pacific war as well. But the addition of 12lb boost was a very major factor in the RAF victory during the BoB, but AFAIK, the Hurricanes supplied to the Red Airforce were also supplied with 100 octane fuel, which again, gave the Hurricane a big "boost" in performance below 15000ft, where aircombat was more common, on the eastern front:
http://www.fuelcat.co.uk/history.html

I see that the Hurricane IIb does have overboost, and it goes up to 14lb, which would give the Merlin XX over 1400hp, but the speed remains stuck at about 420kph at 1000metres, when it should be close to 500kph.

Grey_Mouser67
11-16-2007, 09:14 PM
The current Hurricane's in this game have some sort of bug where the boost does not work. The Mk I actually has better performance than the Mk II and the MkII had more HP IRL

VW-IceFire
11-16-2007, 10:10 PM
Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
................
But...Storm of War: Battle of Britain...I sure hope we'll have several variations of everything ................

i personally dont count on this "il2 style" anymore for the SoW series.
i think they will reduce the avaialble variants to one, the most common version in the specific battle.

for the SoW:BoB Spitfires and Hurricanes that are Mk.Ia with Merlin III, 100octan fuel (12lb boost)- i guess http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

for the Bf109E it's the E-4 (MG-FF/M) with DB601Aa. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
See that makes no sense to me. Actually I think they should take it a step further and implement the various settings along with selecting things like armament. In most cases the option would be locked or set by server/campaign script but that would properly integrate it interface wise and then if new settings were to be plugged in...away we go.

Its always better to give options than take them away. Particularly something thats open ended and subject to competitive battles. The air war in Europe in particular was a continual battle of engineering and there was allot of oneupmanship. We had the problem in IL-2 where there were lots of gaps (although many have been filled in thankfully)...so I guess either Oleg's team has to be absolutely careful so that types are matched by setting/year/historical involvement and try to ensure that one side doesn't have an a-historical advantage.

EDIT: I should also say I'm only in favour of having the variations if there is solid data.

csThor
11-16-2007, 11:55 PM
Originally posted by SeaDog2007:
The Hurricane, both Mks, was an important participant in the Pacific war as well. But the addition of 12lb boost was a very major factor in the RAF victory during the BoB, but AFAIK, the Hurricanes supplied to the Red Airforce were also supplied with 100 octane fuel, which again, gave the Hurricane a big "boost" in performance below 15000ft, where aircombat was more common, on the eastern front:
http://www.fuelcat.co.uk/history.html

According to "Black Cross / Red Star" the Hurricanes delivered to the VVS flew exclusively on soviet-made aviation fuel which was in the region of 75 octane. That wore down the engines, lowered the performance considerably and was one reason why the Hurricane was disliked by the majority of the soviet pilots who flew them.

Xiolablu3
11-28-2007, 11:29 AM
I dont htink they were disliked were they?

They were definitely a step up from the i153's and i16's and on a par with yak1's

I have read Soviet ffighter pilot accounts posted by FPSOLKER, and they are always kind with regards to their comments about the Hurricane.

Obviously its no La5 or Yak3, but as a 1941 fighter, it was adequate for their needs. They werent exactly flush with modern fighters.

csThor
11-28-2007, 09:37 PM
They weren't. Even today some Kiwi pilots who flew both the I-16 and the Hurricane favor the I-16. The "warm reception" of the Hurri by the VVS pilots is a myth born by wartime propaganda (after all the presentee couldn't openly say that the present s*x big time http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif). BC/RS 2 and 3 make that very clear.

VW-IceFire
11-29-2007, 06:46 PM
I understand they did like the radios even in the Hurricanes (but especially the P-39s). Something we don't tend to evaluate as part of a fighter planes effectiveness. So it wasn't all bad either. Good radios...gotta pick up the tunes http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Xiolablu3
11-29-2007, 11:48 PM
How can the Hurricane do so well in the Battle Of Britain, and be around the same performance as anything the VVS had at that time in mid-1941, yet still dislike them?

The RAF used them to great success in all theatres it fought in.

Are you sure that you are not taking the Soviet pilots comments out of context, as in they are comparing them to later wartime aircraft?

I mean what did the VVS have in 1941 that had significant better performance and ruggedness than the Hurri? I read the Yak-1's top speed as 335mph in 1941, well the Hurri IIB which were transported in Autumn 1941 had a top speed of 340mph.


The interviews I have read where Soviet pilots say they liked the Hurricane, are not wartime propaganda reports, they are modern day interviews. If I have time I will find them.

Can we get some sources of Soviet pilots not liking Hurricanes rather than opinons?

csThor
11-30-2007, 12:52 AM
Xia I think you're mistaking the Hurricane's reputation for an accurate assessment of its performance. Let's not forget that the first PQ Convoy reached Murmansk in autum 1941 (October IIRC) - by that time the standard fighter aircraft of the Luftwaffe was the Bf 109 F - not even remotely comparable to the Bf 109 Es it faced in the BoB. Secondly the tactical environment was totally incomparable - and the BoB is somewhat unique in that respect - but if you incorporate the North African desert you get a rather sobering picture of the Hurri's chances against modern fighters such as the Bf 109 F. Add to this that the russian avgas was of far lower quality (which lowers performance and engine life) it puts another stone to the load.

And lastly - as much as I hate saying this - I take interviews of any veteran with more than a grain of salt. More than sixty years have passed. Many things get lost under the years - everyone knows this. I'll try to look up the exact words from BC/RS tonight if you like.

Xiolablu3
11-30-2007, 02:22 PM
Oh yes, I totally agree with you that the Hurricane was no real match for the Bf109F 1 on 1.

However when compared to the other Russian fighters of 1941, I cannot see that the Hurricane was significantly worse than any of them. Yes it had some bad 'points', but so did many of the other RUssian fighters like the i16,i153,Yak1 and Lagg3.

I realise that the Russian pilots would not 'love' the old Hurricane, but I cant think they would particularly dislike it much more than the other fighters they had in service in 1941.

Maybe the Russian Hurricanes had significantly worse performance than the brand new RAF Hurricane fighters.

I think most of them had Volkes filters and were re-conditioned old battered Mk1 Battle of Britain models updated to IIb marks. Therefore they had significantly reduced performance compared to the brand new RAF Hurricaness with no filters and operating with proper fuel and in their 'home' conditions.

You have to admire the Brits for sending them over in 1941, owever, when some of their own Squadrons in Malta were in dire need of fighters of their own.

Here is a good interview with a summary of the Hurricanes the Russians used vs the superior German fighters. According to this pilots it had some good points and some bad points:-

--------------------------------------

Interview with N. G. Golodnikov

N.G. [The Hurricane] had a very thick profile and poor acceleration characteristics. At maximum speed it was somewhat faster than an I-16. But until it had attained this speed, many things could happen. It was not slow in responding to the control stick, but everything happened smoothly, in its own time. In the I-16, if you moved the stick, the airplane inverted right now. With this beast, it would roll over very slowly.

It had good lifting strength and could therefore equal the I-16 in rate of climb.

It was very good in horizontal maneuverability. If four Hurricanes established a circle, it was impossible to break out of it. No Germans could break into the circle either.

It was very poor in vertical maneuver, the thick profile. Primarily we tried to conduct battle in the horizontal and avoid the vertical plane.

The Hurricane had a short take-off run, again because of the thick wing.

In its technical and tactical characteristics the Hurricane was somewhat behind the Messerschmitt Bf-109E, primarily in the vertical. It was not inferior in the least in the horizontal. When the Bf-109F arrived, the Hurricane was well outclassed but continued to contest the skies.

The Hurricane burned rapidly and completely, like a match. The percale covering.


A. S. Did the I-16 burn more readily? It also was percale-covered.

N. G. Worse. [But in RUssian Conditions..].. the I-16's engine was more reliable. And the little I-16, one had to hit it.

--------------------------------

http://lend-lease.airforce.ru/english/articles/golodnikov/part1.htm


It sounds like although he didnt particularly think the world of the Hurricane, he recognised its good points. Rather he is comparing the Hurricane with later fighters that he flew like the P40,Yak9 etc. and obviously the old Hurri is not going to compete well with these later designs.

csThor
11-30-2007, 11:30 PM
BC/RS Volume 1, pages 175 & 176


Contrary to the picture given in several British accounts, the Soviet pilots were far from impressed with the Hurricane fighters. Many of them simply loathed this aircraft, feeling that it gave them no chance whatsoever against the Bf 109s.

Th presence of a reliable radio set was favorably mentioned, of course, but above statement has to be seen in conjunction with the forces available to both sides in the Far North at Murmansk in 1941 - which means the VVS had mostly I-16, I-153 and an Eskadrilya of MiG-3 while the Luftwaffe didn't have any Bf 109 Fs at all - only E and T.
Of course certain pilots managed to make a lot of what they had at hand, but those pilots were rare in any air force of the world. Perhaps all of us a bit guilty of looking too much at the successful veterans of all nations, the aces, and forget about the poor bugger who went down in his crate before his first victory. *shrugs*

Xiolablu3
12-02-2007, 03:49 AM
Thats strange, I have never heard that from a Russian pilot before.

The Hurricane shot down 100's of Bf109's in the Battle Of Britian, so it definitely 'had a chance'. Maybe the RAF pilots were just better trained.

In fact you could almost say its the plane that was responsible for stopping the 109's for the first time. (Along with the Spit)

I have not heard any picture painted by British sources, only Russian pilots like the interview I posted, where they say it 'did the job' in 1941. ANd you have to admit, they didnt have anything else with much higher performance at that time.

It seems rather unfair to blame the plane, when the British were shooting down 100's of 109's with it, and the Russians didnt have anything much better in 1941 either.

tools4foolsA
12-02-2007, 09:56 AM
Hurris over England had some advantages which those in Russia didn't have:

- Being able to attack from advantage point being led into battle by britains radar...

- 109's operating at the limit of their range...

That helps a lot...
+++++

Xiolablu3
12-02-2007, 03:53 PM
That doesnt make any sense...

Why would 109's being at the limit of their range lead to them being shot down by Hurricanes?

Sure, it would lead to the unescorted BOMBERS being hit more by Hurricanes, but the range factor doesnt make a difference 'Hurricane vs 109' when the Bf109 is faster anyway and can disengage at will in a dive.

As soon as he sees the fuel light coming on he can retreat back home. The Hurricane would not be able to catch him.

How does the 109's being at the limit of their range mean that they are more likely to be shot down by Hurricanes?

Also the radar thing doesnt mean anything really as far as height goes. The Hurricanes were there to try and shoot down the bombers, the patrolling German fighters were usually even higher, especially in the first half of hte battle.

The Germans had radar in 1944, in fact better radar, but they were also usually struggling up to attack the US heavies, not the other way around.

Heinz Knocke states in one paragraph how they get a wonderful opportunity one day when they actually manage to be above the US fighter escort too.

The British fighters had around 10-15 minutes to get airbourne and intercept the bombers once they turned across the channel, after the German bombers had formed up over France, and their target was suspected/known. Therefore it was just as likely that they would arrive below the Germans fighters.

Remember Park wanted to hit the bombers BEFORE they hit their targets, not after. Therefore the British fighters were often straining up to the German planes. I'm not saying that the Hurricanes were never above the Bf109's, but probably more often that not they were below and were bounced as they attacked the bombers.

How long does it take to cross 20-30 miles of water in an Aeroplane? Around 2 minutes?

Vike
12-02-2007, 11:07 PM
Xiola http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Like CsThor,I also remember from my readings that russian pilots hated the Hurricane while in air fight for its unability to perform anything when facing modern german planes.
Forcing russian pilots to use the lend-lease Hurris to ground attacks exclusively.

BTW,russian pilots also complained about the enormous drag caused by the hurri thick wings that slowed them in dive while attacking ground targets!
German flak could shoot at them with some ease with dramatic effects on them due to the wooden-made fuselage... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

I find this thread about one of the weakest and the most outclassed fighter of the era really weird.
I would think that if some Stukas shot down some Spitfires during BOB and later in WW-II,then give us a 1.98ATA Stuka! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

@+ http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

ImpStarDuece
12-03-2007, 12:09 AM
German flak could shoot at them with some ease with dramatic effects on them due to the wooden-made fuselage... Eek

Where did you read about a wooden Hurricane?

Close this book and never open it again!

Seriously, the Hurricane had a welded steel tube airframe. The only wood on the aircraft was various iterations of the propeller, which varied between plain wood, plastic coated wood and metal, and the ailerons and rudder on some early production versions.

In RAF service, particularly over the Western Desert and in the MTO, the Hurricane developed a reputation as capable of absorbing large amounts of flak damage and returning home. Contemporary reports give it a similar reputation to the P-40.

The Hurricane may of indeed been outclassed by the Bf-109 at the beginning of the war, but that was one of the few aircraft in frontline service at the time which could be considered decisively superior to it. In my opinion, the Spitfire is perhaps the only other clearly superior frontline fighter at the beginning of the war.

In the Hurricane, British pilots certainly felt that they had better machines than their French counterparts during the Battle of France, and also considered the Hurricane superior to the P-40s purchased from the US in 1940.

As the war progressed, fighter technology moved faster than development of the Hurricane.

However, the installation of the two stage Merlin XX engine in mid to late 1940 gave the Hurricane a modicum of equality with the 109E, something which later vanished with the introduction of the 109F in the beginning of 1941.

With the benefit of hindsight, we know that the Air Ministry probably should of shifted Hurricane production to a dedicated low-medium alt fighter bomber version in early-mid 1941, allowing Hawker to focus on increasing Typhoon production and permitting the Spitfire to receive the Merlin XX engine, reducing the superiority of the FW-190 in 1941. (Cutting out Defiant Mk II production, also powered by a Merlin XX, would of been a wise choice as well).

The Hurricane actually had the option for a thinner wing in its initial design. However, faulty wind tunnel data supplied to Sir Sydney Camm meant that he went ahead with the thick wing (which he didn't object too). The same data was also responsible for the thick wing on the Typhoon.

An interesting 'what if' is if the wind tunnel data hadn't been faulty and Camm designed a thinner winged versions of the Hurricane and Typhoon from the get go (Hurricanes were actually used as test-beds for laminar flow wing research after 1942).

The radiator set-up of the Hurricane was actually less draggy than that of a Spitfire, indicating that there may of been a significant speed benefit to the thinner wing. The obvious problems with the thinner wings are strength and space for fuel and the guns though (which the Tempest overcame with wing bulges for the guns and an elongated fuselage).

Vike
12-03-2007, 12:17 AM
Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:

Where did you read about a wooden Hurricane?

Close this book and never open it again!

Seriously, the Hurricane had a welded steel tube airframe. The only wood on the aircraft was various iterations of the propeller, which varied between plain wood, plastic coated wood and metal, and the ailerons and rudder on some early production versions.

Ehem:

"Hawker Hurricane

The Hawker Hurricane is a fighter design from the 1930s which was used extensively by the Royal Air Force during the Battle of Britain.
By some measures the design was outdated when introduced. Following traditional Hawker construction techniques closely, it used <span class="ev_code_yellow">a large measure of wood and fabric for the wings and fuselage,</span> with the engine and cockpit area being aluminum-covered steel tubing. In contrast, the contemporary Supermarine Spitfire used monocoque construction and was thus both lighter and stronger"

Just here. (http://www.battle-fleet.com/pw/his/hurricane.htm)

lol http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


BTW,concerning the BOB:

"Le Bf 109E, pendant la bataille d'Angleterre, fut responsable de la plus grande partie des pertes de la RAF, soit 403 Spitfires, 631 Huricanes et 115 Blenheims. Mais 610 Bf 109 sont perdus, et beaucoup de pilotes tués ou fait prisonniers, alors que la plupart des pilotes britanniques peuvent reprendre le combat. L'as Werner Mölders passe à cette occasion le cap des cinquante victoires, il sera rapidement rejoint et dépassé par de nombreux autres pilotes allemands." (from here (http://www.techno-science.net/?onglet=glossaire&definition=7863))

I translate from French to English:

"During the BOB,the Me109-E was responsible of the major part of the RAF losses:
403 Spitfires shot down.
631 Hurricanes shot down. (!)
115 Blenheims shot down.

For 610 Me109-E lost with many german pilots killed,while most of the shot down RAF pilots were able to take air again later.The German Ace Werner Mölders reached at this time more than 50 air victories and many other german pilots will do even better later."

Considering "who" was defending above its own country and who was attacking reaching their machines limits,i find the Hurricane statistics absolutely awful. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

@+

stathem
12-03-2007, 02:53 AM
Originally posted by Vike:
"During the BOB,the Me109-E was responsible of the major part of the RAF losses:
403 Spitfires shot down.
631 Hurricanes shot down. (!)
115 Blenheims shot down.

For 610 Me109-E lost with many german pilots killed,while most of the shot down RAF pilots were able to take air again later.The German Ace Werner Mölders reached at this time more than 50 air victories and many other german pilots will do even better later."

Considering "who" was defending above its own country and who was attacking reaching their machines limits,i find the Hurricane statistics absolutely awful. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

@+

Nonsense.

1) there were twice as many Hurricanes in RAF service during the BoB as Spitfires.

2) The defender naturally has to concentrate on stopping the bombers, not contesting with Enemy fighters if they can help it; more opportunity for escorting fighters to score.

3) Those are (on the high side) ballpark total losses of RAF fighters, taking no account of losses to 110s and bombers defensive fire.

tools4foolsA
12-03-2007, 05:05 AM
How does the 109's being at the limit of their range mean that they are more likely to be shot down by Hurricanes?

Did I ever claim that?
Don't think so.

But you got the points right anyway:
- being at the edge of range might force you to break off combat/not initiate combat while being in a favourable position. This will help the Hurricane in a sense in fighter vs fighter combat; Hurricanes might get out of bad position because of this...

And yes, I think it is particularly bad when fuel warning goes on during air to air combat. Sure 109 can dive faster, but there is only so and so much airspace underneath... if you run out of it that's bad news.
And it sure is not an advantages when you are in the middle of aaircombat and all you cann do suddenly is trying to run - while the other dudes have plenty of fuel. In a Hurricane I would go in a shallower dive and follow. At one point the 109 will have to level out and then I'm behind him but still above... I sure prefer to be in the Hurricane in that situation...higer and behind with fuel...over lower and low on fuel and in front in the 109...

If you can't see this helping the Hurricane, well then alas..

Bombers were operating from fields far behind the narrowest part of the channel. Dunno how far UK radar reached, but sure they detected them a little earlier than 20-30 miles before crossing coast line, no? I think I read about 120miles, sometimes even more. That could result in 30 minutes warning, even more; now that should be enough time to get above. The Hurricane wasn't a lame duck...

And yes, biggest mistake sure is tying the fighters to close escort, taking a essential advantage from them.
Only for half the BoB, but then it sure might have helped the Hurricane for HALF of the entire battle...

The Russians had none of those advantages...no radar as far as I know, and they were hanging low over the front with their Hurries...
Quite unfavourable compared to the UK Hurries during BoB in my opinion...
****

Xiolablu3
12-03-2007, 05:08 AM
Originally posted by Vike:
Xiola http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Like CsThor,I also remember from my readings that russian pilots hated the Hurricane while in air fight for its unability to perform anything when facing modern german planes.
Forcing russian pilots to use the lend-lease Hurris to ground attacks exclusively.

BTW,russian pilots also complained about the enormous drag caused by the hurri thick wings that slowed them in dive while attacking ground targets!
German flak could shoot at them with some ease with dramatic effects on them due to the wooden-made fuselage... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

I find this thread about one of the weakest and the most outclassed fighter of the era really weird.
I would think that if some Stukas shot down some Spitfires during BOB and later in WW-II,then give us a 1.98ATA Stuka! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

@+ http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

I am not talking about one hurricane shooting down one 109 at 'some time'. I am talking about 100's of 109E's,110's and bombers falling to Hurricanes in the BAttle of Britian.

There were around 2/3 Hurricanes in the BOB which incured severe losses on the German planes for the first time in History.

So this 'totally outclassed' fighter ran rings around the Bf110, killed 100's of bombers in a few months, and could compete with the Bf109E enough to shoot a lot down.

I am not saying its a better plane than the Bf109, it wasnt, just that it seems the RAF were talented enough to use it with great effect vs 'the mighty Luftwaffe'. Even vs the 109E.

Rather than 'I remember the Russians hated the Hurricane' kind of stuff, can we get some real quotes or interviews like I posted?

tools4foolsA
12-03-2007, 06:20 AM
just that it seems the RAF were talented enough to use it with great effect

There's a lot of truth in that...

Hurricanes were used effectively in BoB. It's not as simple as in 'the better weapon wins'. It matters a lot how the waepon is deployed and the entire package around the weapon - the weapons system if you want.

Which was done well for the Hurricane in Bob, hence its success (and I think quite a few other planes could have achieved the same in this situation - be it all Spits, brit MS 406's or brit 109's http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif or whatver...).

In Russia the package was not as favourable for the Hurricane and on top of it it was 109F's it was up against. Makes for an different picture.
It certainly was outclassed as a fighter then I think.

And yes, the interview you provided that there wasn't much love for the Hurricane by that pilot. But then it seems that he in general saw their own planes of that period outclassed...
*****

Radoye1
12-03-2007, 06:01 PM
"Hawker Hurricane

The Hawker Hurricane is a fighter design from the 1930s which was used extensively by the Royal Air Force during the Battle of Britain.
By some measures the design was outdated when introduced. Following traditional Hawker construction techniques closely, it used <span class="ev_code_yellow">a large measure of wood and fabric for the wings and fuselage,</span> with the engine and cockpit area being aluminum-covered steel tubing. In contrast, the contemporary Supermarine Spitfire used monocoque construction and was thus both lighter and stronger"

Just here. (http://www.battle-fleet.com/pw/his/hurricane.htm)

lol http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


They could be talking about the earliest batch of Hurricane I's whose wings were canvass covered. These are the same ones who had wooden two-blade props.

Late batch Mark I's and IA's got metal wings, three-blade props and some armor for the pilot - and these are the ones that flew against Luftwaffe during BoB.

mynameisroland
12-04-2007, 05:45 AM
Someone should have told the dozens of RAF aces who flew Hurricanes against the Luftwaffe all this Vike.

Malan and Bader did pretty well in their inferior oldcrapola wooden (lol) Huribuses against the deadly uber duper Bf 109 E !

Does that mean that the RAF simply had better pilots than the Jagdwaffe?

JG53Frankyboy
12-04-2007, 07:01 AM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
Someone should have told the dozens of RAF aces who flew Hurricanes against the Luftwaffe all this Vike.

Malan and Bader did pretty well in their inferior oldcrapola wooden (lol) Huribuses against the deadly uber duper Bf 109 E !

Does that mean that the RAF simply had better pilots than the Jagdwaffe?

Hey, the Sailor was a Spitfire Pilot, at least in the summer of 1940 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
anyway, as i belive the Bf109E was superiour in general flightperformance over the Hurricane Mk.I , it was not by that margin that the Hawker fighter had no chance in a fight.

and with Merlin III at 12lb./sq.in. it should hold more than its own below 10.000feet against a DB601Aa driven Emil !

IF Maddox will programm the 100octan Merlin IIIs in its Game (what he should in my opinion !) , the 109s and 110s will have sure no "fun" at lower alts http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

mynameisroland
12-04-2007, 07:25 AM
my bad Franky, I thought he was a Hurricane ace.

I dont think the Hurricane was better than the Bf 109 but I do feel that certain BF 109 fans exagerate the Bf 109s advantage in a BoB era match up.

The Hurricane was competitive and regularly shot the Bf 109 down - this was when the Luftwaffe was staffed by experienced, highly motivated and well trained airmen. Yet the inferior Hurricane still proved a very worthy opponent.

goon1777
12-05-2007, 04:07 AM
It would be impossible to compare the Hurricanes performance on the Russian front with the battle of Britain. They were completely different situations.
On the Eastern front it was a matter of numbers. Getting as many I15's, I16's and whatever planes their allies could supply into the air as a defensive wave by whatever means possible at short notice.
In the battle of Britain it was a case of an air force that had retrenched and had time to developed their aircraft and plan and practise their tactics and recruit pilots from throughout the Commonwealth for an inevitable invasion attempt.
Another factor to consider was that that the main concentration of the German forces was on the eastern front and this included their top fighter aces(as tallied at the end of the war) so this would mean that the pilots the Brits were up against were not as experienced as the pilots the Soviet were fighting. There is a story I heard somewhere about violins and violinists that is relevant in this.
Summary: the Hurricane was a good prewar/earlywar fighter but due to the rapid developments in technology and techniques that the nature of war creates they were out dated by the spitfire which has since been superseded by modern day jets, just as the I16 was superseded by the YAK3 and the modern day MIG jet fighters.

Brain32
12-05-2007, 04:27 AM
I wish you guys only one thing, that Huricane is as competitive in BoB as late 109's are in late war on WF in il2 series http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif
Now say "Clay Pigeon" 10 times really fast. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif
Ofcourse I know it will not happen http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Buzzsaw-
12-05-2007, 11:57 AM
Salute

Lots of misinformation in this thread.

First of all, the Hurricane was build with steel tubing in the fuselage, over which was mounted thin ribs of wood, and over that, fabric. The steel tubes, (like a bicycle frame, or the frame on a Ducati motorcycle, gave great strength. You can see the frame in the photos below:

http://www.maltaaviationmuseum.com/images/hurricane/11b.jpg

http://www.maltaaviationmuseum.com/images/hurricane/17b.jpg

Unlike a stressed skin construction of most WWII aircraft, whereby the strength of the construction is inherently borne in the aluminum sheeting which covers the frame, the Hurricanes fuselage frame would be unaffected by the covering being blown away by gunfire.

The wings were a different matter. The wings in the original model were also steel tube construction with wood, but almost immediately were replaced with aluminum wings, with the standard stressed skin aluminum sheet construction. You can see this below:

http://www.maltaaviationmuseum.com/images/hurricane/34b.jpg

http://www.maltaaviationmuseum.com/images/hurricane/30b.jpg

Regarding the aviation fuel in the Soviet Union:

The initial Soviet Avgas was rated at 87 octane, and this was the fuel which the Hurricanes were provided with. This meant that the Hurricane IIA, IIB and IIC which were the vast majority of the aircraft provided to the Soviets, were forced to have their boost ratings reduced from +9 or +12 to +6, so their performance was considerably less than British operated Hurricanes. The same applies to the Hurricane I's supplied to the Finns, which were operating on standard German Avgas, which was also 87 octane. If you look at the boost gauge in the Hurri I in the game, you will see it registers +6.

Coincidentally, the Hurricane I's which the RAF operated in France during the 1940 campaign, also were rated at +6 boost, for the reason that they were based on French fields, and the RAF elected for supply simplicity, to use French Avgas, which was also rated at 87 octane.

The British had been working on developing an uprated aviation fuel during the late '30's, (they were far ahead of the Germans this way) and by the time of the Battle of Britain, they had switched to supplying the RAF with 100 octane fuel. So at that point, their fighters based in Britain were all rated to either +9 or +12 boost.

Later in the war, the Allies shipped the Soviets large quantities of their 100 octane fuel, but by that time, the Hurricanes were out of front line service, and did not get the benefit of running higher boost. Also, the Soviets developed their own higher rated fuel at the end of the war, rated at 96 octane, and this was also supplied to their front line fighters.

Many of the Soviet pilots had mixed feelings about the Hurricanes. They very much liked the radios, which were clear and good quality. When you consider that the I-16 didn't even have a place to mount a radio, you can see the advantages. Imagine being in a battle with your wingmen, without teamspeak, so you can't even warn them of an enemy aircraft on their tail or of an impending bounce.

The Soviet pilots also liked the armament, once the British weapons were replaced with Soviet. (as in the game's Soviet model Hurricane) The two 20mm and two 12.7's, gave considerably more firepower than a Yak, Lagg, or I-16. (remember that most I-16's only had light MG's, the Type 24 model we have in the game was very rare)

On the other hand, the low boost Hurricanes had very unimpressive performance. They climbed poorly, and had a low top speed. They did turn well in the horizontal.

For many Soviet pilots, there was no choice. The Soviets were very short of aircraft in 1942, after the massacre of their airforce on the ground and in the air in 1941, so they desperately needed aircraft, of any type. The Hurricane actually was the most numerous fighter in the VVS at one point in mid 1942, most notably in the south.

The same situation applied to the Spitfires supplied to the Soviets. The initial Spit V's supplied to the Soviets were forced to reduce their boost in order to use the 87 octane Soviet fuel, so did not have the performance of RAF Spit V's. The later model Spit IX's supplied in 1944 were operated on lendlease 100 octane fuel, but still did not have the performance of RAF Spit IX's, which by that time were were using 150 octane fuel and +25 boost.

The Allison engines which equipped the P-40 and P-39 were designed to use American 87 octane fuel, ran quite happily on Soviet 87 octane fuel, and did not have their boost levels reduced. This is one of the reasons the Soviets preferred the P-40's and P-39's to the Hurricanes and Spitfires.

Cheers Buzzsaw

Buzzsaw-
12-05-2007, 01:42 PM
Salute

About high scoring Battle of Britain Hurricane pilots:

Adolf "Sailor" Malan flew a Spitfire with No. 74 Squadron. He was a high scorer during the BoB, but not one of the top scorers. He is credited with 8.5 victories during the period of the battle, and another 5 prior to the battle, during the evacuation of Dunkirk, for a total of 13.5 by October 1940.

There was not a significant difference between the scores of Hurricane pilots and Spitfire pilots. Hurricanes were able to compete with the 109's. They were slower, and their climb was inferior, but their turn and controllability at higher speeds was better.

The top scoring RAF pilot in Battle of Britain was Czech ace Josef Frantisek. Frantisek served with No. 303. (Polish) Squadron flying Hurricanes. Frantisek scored 17 1/2 kills. He was killed in a flying accident on 8 October 1940. For a bio of Frantisek, see here: http://www.elknet.pl/acestory/frantis/frantis.htm

Top scoring British born RAF pilot on the list was Eric "Sawn-off Lockie" Lock, with 16 kills in the period of the battle. (July '40 - Oct '40) He flew a Spitfire with No. 41 Squadron. He was killed by ground fire, while flying in a 'Rhubarb' in August '41. He got his nickname for being so short.

JH "Ginger" Lacey had the highest total kills in the RAF by October '40. He previously had 5 kills in France, and racked up another 13 during the BoB to total 18. He flew a Hurricane with No. 501 Squadron.

William "Willy" McKnight was the top scoring Canadian pilot, with 8 kills during the Battle of France, and another 8.5 during the BoB for a total of 16.5. He flew a Hurricane with No. 242 Squadron.

Kurfurst__
12-11-2007, 04:46 PM
This was posted by an Australian member at butch2k`s board :


The first bulk shipment of 100 octane fuel had arrived in Britain in June 1939 from the Esso refinery in Aruba. This and subsequent tanker shipments from Aruba, Curacao and the USA were stockpiled while the RAF continued to operate on 87 octane petrol. Having secured what were considered reasonably sufficient quantities of 100 octane, Fighter Command began converting its engines to this standard in March 1940, allowing boost (manifold) pressures to be raised without the risk of detonation in the cylinders. This initial increase in maximum boost from 6 lb to 9 lb delivered a useful power growth of around 130hp at the rated altitude.

By the time of the invasion of the Low Countries by Germany in May 1940 the RAF had converted approximately 25 % of it's total fighter force to 100 octane fuel use. The subsequent escalation in air activity and demands placed upon Fighter Command over the next two months put great strain on both the 100 octane fuel stockpiles and aircraft modified to use the fuel. Against the backdrop of total war the RAF found that it's reserves of 100 octane fuel was well below the level considered necessary for widespread use, for any sustained length of time.

Two actions were immediately undertaken by the British War Cabinet in May to resolve the looming crisis. Firstly 87 octane fuel was deemed the primary fuel source to be used until further supplies could be discovered and delivered in sufficient quantities to allow the Merlin conversions to again take place. Those existing fighters already so converted (approximately 125) would continue to use what supplies of 100 octane were available, but all other fighters that had not been modified to continue with the use of 87 octane (of which there was more than adequate supply). The second action was for the British Government to contract the Shell Oil Refining Company to assist the British-controlled Iraqi Petroleum Company at Kirkuk to produce 100 octane fuel. This arrangement proved quite successful as production was quickly converted to 100 octane fuel.

The first Middle East shipment of 100 octane fuel arrived in Portsmouth on 12th August, with a further two deliveries in September and four in October. Although too late to allow widespread conversion for the use of the fuel the deliveries did ensure that from this point on Britain would not be lacking in 100 octane fuel levels. With the newfound supply RAF Fighter Command again embarked upon a Merlin II and III conversion to 100 octane use from late September, finally achieving 100% conversion of it's fighter force by the end of November in 1940.

I came across it when I was in fact researching another subject (Dutch East Indies Fuel levels prior to the Japanese Invasion) at the Australian War Memorial Archives.

It's from a document, copied to the Australian Military Commission in England in February 1941, by Roll Royce to Lord Beaverbrook outlining past, current and proposed changes to the Merlin; and factors that affect it's performance.

It was quite an interesting paper actually, even though i found it to be a very dry subject.It was a collection of lose-leaf typed pages, included as an addendum in a report titled Fuel Supplies to The British Empire And It's Commonwealth; Outlook, Ramifications and Projections For The Prosecution Of The War. The reason why it is included amongst AWM papers is because the Australian Government at that time was protesting vigoriously about the continued supply of lower grade 87 octane fuel when it too wanted 100 octane for the RAAF.

I believe that McFarland, Pugh, Hart, Perret, Lumsden and even Churchill have all quoted parts from the report.

Xiolablu3
12-14-2007, 12:55 PM
Yeah 100 octane was used in the BOB, particularly in the front line squadrons like 10,11 and 12 group, where it was obviously needed most.

I have heard it first hand from a 11 group pilot who said how greatful we should be to the USA as the Battle of Britian was primarily fought using US 100 octane fuel, which few people new..

Jeffrey Quill :
'It was only shortly before the Battle of Britain that we changed over to 100
octane. It had the effect of increasing the combat rating of the Merlin from
3000 rpm at 6 1/2 lb boost (Merlin III) or 9 lb boost (Merlin XII) to 3,000
rpm at 12 lb boost. This, of course, had a significant effect upon the rate of
climb, particularly as the constant speed propellers (also introduced just
before the battle) ensured that 3,000 rpm was obtainable from the ground
upwards whereas previously it was restricted by the two-pitch propellers. It
also had an effect upon the maximum speed but this was not so significant as
the effect upon rate of climb.'

'The changeover to the 100 octane fuel appeared to be sudden because the
Spitfires' Rolls Royce Merlin engines were not converted for the use of 100
octane fuel until March 1940, and the limited stockpile of fuel was
carefully rationed until more adequate supplies could be stockpiled for
future requirements. By 31 July 1940, there
were 384 Spitfires serving in 19 squadrons using the 100 octane fuel to
boost performance by an additional about 25-34 mph. The limited size of the
stockpile required strict rationing until supplies of this high performance
fuel could be greatly increased to meet all requirements in the period
following the Battle of Britain in 1940.'

'The RAF had begun purchasing 74,000 tons of 100-octane fuel per year
from 3 suppliers in 1937. This rate of importation was doubled after
Munich. The RAF wanted to build up a reserve of 400,000 tons before
converting aircraft en masse to use it operationally.'

Emergency use of +12 lbs./sq.in boost was officially adopted 20 March 1940 with the release of
the Air Ministry's Air Publication A.P.1590B/J.2-W. 13 It was also in March
1940 that the Spitfire squadrons switched over to 100 octane fuel, without which
+12 lb boost would not have been possible; therefore no Me-109 E ever met a
Spitfire that did not have 100 octane fuel in its tanks. Combat reports
show that +12 lb boost was used by the Spitfire squadrons during their first
combats with the Me 109 E in May 1940 while covering the Dunkirk evacuation.



http://www.chem13news.uwaterloo.ca/issues/341/341_oct_2006_pages_4.pdf

100 Octane was used in the most important areas only during 1940. The protection of Southern England being seen as the most important area, and as such almost all SPitfire and Hurricane fighters used in the defense of Britian used fuel from the 100 Octane stockpile.

The changeover seemes almost instant, because the RAF had been planning for such a changeover, if either

1: Stocks were high enough, or

2: An emergency occured.

The subsequent invasion and protection of Britian was obviously seen as a big enough Emergency to switch the Front line fighters in the front line over to 100 Octane. (But not the whole RAF, other branches such as Bomber COmmand, Fighter Bombers, Coastal COmmand, other RAF squadrons overseas, stayed on 87 octane) As Kurfurst says, around 25% (just the Fighter Squadrons protecting Britain and the Reconaisance Planes) used 100 Octane.

Kurfurst__
12-18-2007, 04:10 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
The subsequent invasion and protection of Britian was obviously seen as a big enough Emergency to switch the Front line fighters in the front line over to 100 Octane.

Interesting, do you have a source for that? I`ve been looking for such evidence for long time.


Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
As Kurfurst says, around 25% (just the Fighter Squadrons protecting Britain and the Reconaisance Planes) used 100 Octane.

Actually, the source I`ve quoted mentions that

...By the time of the invasion of the Low Countries by Germany in May 1940 the RAF had converted approximately 25 % of it's total fighter force to 100 octane fuel use. ... The first Middle East shipment of 100 octane fuel arrived in Portsmouth on 12th August, with a further two deliveries in September and four in October. Although too late to allow widespread conversion for the use of the fuel the deliveries did ensure that from this point on Britain would not be lacking in 100 octane fuel levels. With the newfound supply RAF Fighter Command again embarked upon a Merlin II and III conversion to 100 octane use from late September, finally achieving 100% conversion of it's fighter force by the end of November in 1940.

It appears to address Fighter Command specifically, not the entire RAF.

JG14_Josf
12-18-2007, 04:54 PM
The British had been working on developing an uprated aviation fuel during the late '30's, (they were far ahead of the Germans this way) and by the time of the Battle of Britain, they had switched to supplying the RAF with 100 octane fuel. So at that point, their fighters based in Britain were all rated to either +9 or +12 boost.

Anyone,

What does 'far ahead' mean?

Ron (http://www.madabout-kitcars.com/kitcar/kb.php?aid=124)


It might seem odd that fuels with higher octane ratings burn less easily, yet are popularly thought of as more powerful. Using a fuel with a higher octane lets an engine be run at a higher compression ratio without having problems with knock. Compression is directly related to power, so engines that require higher octane usually deliver more power. Some high-performance engines are designed to operate with a compression ratio associated with high octane numbers, and thus demand high-octane gasoline. It should be noted that the power output of an engine also depends on the energy content of its fuel, which bears no simple relationship to the octane rating. Some people believe that adding a higher octane fuel to their engine will increase its performance or lessen its fuel consumption; this is false - engines perform best when using fuel with the octane rating they were designed for.


One interesting historical issue involving octane rating took place during WWII. Germany received nearly all her oil from Romania, and set up huge distilling plants in Germany to produce gasoline from coal. In the US the oil was not "as good" and the oil industry instead had to invest heavily in various expensive boosting systems. This turned out to be a huge blessing in disguise. US industry was soon delivering fuels of ever-increasing octane ratings by adding more of the boosting agents, with cost no longer a factor during wartime. By war's end American aviation fuel was commonly 130 to 150 octane, which could easily be put to use in existing engines to deliver much more power by increasing the compression delivered by the superchargers. The Germans, relying entirely on "good" gasoline, had no such industry, and instead had to rely on ever-larger engines to deliver more power.

However, someone pointed out that: German aviation engines were of the direct fuel injection type and could use emergency methanol-water and nitrous-oxide injection, which gave 50% more engine power for 5 minutes of dogfight. This could be done only five times and then the aero engine went to the scrapyard (or after 40 hours run-time, whichever came first). Most German aero engines used 87 octane fuel (called B4), some high-powered engines used 100 octane (C2/C3)fuel.
Another pointed out in reply that: This historical "issue" is based on a very common misapprehension about wartime fuel octane numbers. There are two octane numbers for each fuel, one for lean mix and one for rich mix, rich being always greater. So, for example, a common British aviation fuel of the later part of the war was 100/125. The misapprehension that German fuels have a lower octane number (and thus a poorer quality) arises because the Germans quoted the lean mix octane number for their fuels while the Allies quoted the rich mix number for their fuels. Standard German high-grade aviation fuel used in the later part of the war (given the designation C3) had lean/rich octane numbers of 100/130. The Germans would list this as a 100 octane fuel while the Allies would list it as 130 octane.
After the war the US Navy sent a Technical Mission to Germany to interview German petrochemists and examine German fuel quality, their report entitled "Technical Report 145-45 Manufacture of Aviation Gasoline in Germany" chemically analysed the different fuels and concluded "Toward the end of the war the quality of fuel being used by the German fighter planes was quite similar to that being used by the Allies".

Tests (http://www.fischer-tropsch.org/primary_documents/gvt_reports/USNAVY/tech_rpt_145_45/rpt_145_45_sec2.htm#Engine%20Testing)


There were two (2) grades of aviation gasoline produced in volume in Germany one the B-4 or blue grade and the other the C-3 or green grade. Both grades were loaded with the equivalent of 4.35 cubic centimeters tetraethyl lead per gallon. The B-4 grade was simply a fraction of the gasoline product from coal and coal tar hydrogenation. It contained normally 10 to 15 percent volume aromatics, 45 percent volume naphthenes, and the remainder paraffins. The octane number was 89 by a measurement corresponding to the C.F.R. motor method. The C-3 grade was a mixture of 10 to 15 percent volume of synthetic isoparaffins (alkylates and isooctanes) and 85 percent of an aromatized base stock produced by hydroforming types of operation on coal and coal tar hydrogenation gasolines. The C-3 grade was permitted to contain not more than 45 percent volume aromatics. This aromatic limitation sometimes required that the base stock component include some diluents other than the aromatic fraction, which could then be balanced if necessary by the inclusion of slightly more isoparaffin. (The C-3 grade corresponded roughly to the U. S. grade 130 gasoline, although the octane number of C-3 was specified to be only 95 and its lean mixture performance was somewhat poorer.)

The components of the two grades were therefore simple and few in number. The isoparaffins were produced by standard, well known methods and there was nothing abnormal found in their compositions. The base stocks were fractionated to and points of 300 to 320 degrees Fahrenheit. No normal isopentane separation was carried out and the pentane and butane contents were adjusted simply for vapor pressure control. Small amounts of specially synthesized aromatic compounds were included from time to time but no regular large scale use of such materials was practiced. No aromatic olefines or other special additives were used.



Note:


(The C-3 grade corresponded roughly to the U. S. grade 130 gasoline, although the octane number of C-3 was specified to be only 95 and its lean mixture performance was somewhat poorer.)


Some people believe that adding a higher octane fuel to their engine will increase its performance or lessen its fuel consumption; this is false - engines perform best when using fuel with the octane rating they were designed for.

How about this:


The composition of C-3 with a high aromatic content, resulted in that gasoline having a good rich mixture (less than 1.0) performance. It's performance of allowable power output at lean mixture was not entirely satisfactory, however. If more isoparaffin had been included, the lean mixture performance would have been improved. This was recognized as the outstanding shortcoming in the German aviation fuel quality position. Had raw materials and equipment been available, more isoparaffins would have been included in the C-3 blend. As isoparaffin content increased the aromatic content could simultaneously have been decreased (by use of base stocks with octane numbers equal to those of the aromatic base stocks) and a gasoline with increased heat content would have resulted. However, because of the relatively greater was of manufacturing aromatics, they were used in large quantity to help gain a satisfactory lean mixture performance, with the result that rich mixture performance was no limiting.

What does 'rich mixture performance was no limiting' mean?

That may or may not help define 'far ahead'.

Also:

Igor Kaberov (http://www.amazon.com/Swastika-Gunsight-Memoirs-Russian-Fighter/dp/0750922400)


The fascist fighter Me 109 (F) was faster than the Hurricane by almost 100 kilometers per hour; and whoever had the speed could command height. Altitude guaranteed everything; both freedom to choose the target and the camouflage afforded by attacking out of the sun; also suddenness and speed of attack. But neither these advantages nor numerical superiority could save the enemy's aviators from loss. Soviet pilots and Soviet cannons could certainly strike down an opponent.

That is easy to understand no?

SeaDog2007
01-03-2008, 07:11 PM
Combat reports of French based Hurricanes using 12lb boost in May 1940:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/hurricane-I.html