Jump to content
6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann

P-40E vs. Hurricane Mk.II

Recommended Posts

So, which is gonna be your favourite oversized, underpowered, robust but underprotected Fighter Bomber?
P-40 has Speed, Hurricane has Guns, one is light but draggy, one is heavy and sleek.

 

Give me your all.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Both are my kryptonite. Both got legendary service for RAF. 
I am going for a role play as a Hurricane pilot first. After that I think it will be 50 50. 
I am not going to be better in any of these, 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well the P40 is a wonderful plane. One of my favorites in game. Sturdy, reliable, armed to the teeth.
But on the other hand, the Hurricane is a [edited] plane for remtards on free dinners, what's not to love about it?

No I'm quite hyped for the Hurricane, and the different loadouts look very varied and nice. Only a bit sad that the Mk4 was missing. 

Edited by SYN_Haashashin
Language
  • Haha 2
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Merlin-sound on the Hurricane is like a sawn-off pipe on a Civic.

Sounds great, but it's just the glorified shopping-cart :P

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obviously I will end up flying both as I feel, but the Hurricane will probably be easier to have success in. The P-40 is faster, sure, but it's still not exactly fast. The Hurricane at least can dodge all the things that can out-climb and out-speed you

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do I have to fight a Bf-109F that decides to take the fight vertical? What altitude am I at? :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As it is shown in my name :

P-40 

I dont get it , where is the dilemma ?

one choice is a brown paper bag which will be a looooovely plane for target practising,

and the other one is the best combination of sexyness and badassness on a plane , except it doesnt have an engine .

 

Just imagine a modern P-40 , with a suitable engine (you can have 2000 hp Griffons in spitfires and db 605 monsters on tiny bf 109s but you cant have a well powered Warhawk ? ), a bit thinner wings, upgrades on control surfaces and some more small aerodynamic improovements ( and maybe some armored attack versions ).. and there you have it , a beast to rule the battlefield, and the heavens above !    

Edited by INVADER_WARHAWK
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm one of those people who never quite got the hang of the P-40 engine management, so I imagine I'll have more success in the Hurri just because I'm less likely to blow the engine up. Also, I'm excited to try hosing down targets with twelve .303s. None of those fancy cannons or .50 cals for me, thank you.

Edited by Lord_Strange
Typo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With the later boost settings (+14 boost at first speed, +16 boost at second speed) the Hurri Mk II has comparable speed to the P-40 at 42" up to 3000 meters

unknown.png

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm going to enjoy shooting both down. I may not see many though because I've only been frequenting late war servers these days. I did see a P40 on Combat Box a couple weeks ago and a P39 last night. It was a little bit funny as the P39 had a Dora and a 262 on it and it seemed like it was standing still. When I last saw a P40 I was in an A8 and my 6 cannons made it fall apart just like any other plane.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The p40 will probably be better as a fighter bomber, at least in my hands but the hurricane will probably be more fun to fight in with 12 wing mg’s or the 4 hispanos and its wonderful turn rate. The hurricane will be fun to take against tanks if the 40mms are available. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I've just gone and pre-ordered the [edited] plane [edited] just for the merits of twin 40mm. I guess I'll just throw a bag over it's face and give 'er a go.

Edited by SYN_Haashashin
Language

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, -=PHX=-SuperEtendard said:

With the later boost settings (+14 boost at first speed, +16 boost at second speed) the Hurri Mk II has comparable speed to the P-40 at 42" up to 3000 meters

unknown.png

 

Thanks for putting that graph together for us. That's actually really interesting and it puts the Hurricane's speed much closer to the P-40 than I had assumed - I always thought the Hurricane was slower at all altitudes.

 

Pretty excited to fly the Hurricane in this sim as I've said a few times. I'm actually really excited that we've got the Hawker trifecta happening in this sim. It might be the first time ever that you'll be able to fly a Hurricane, Typhoon, and Tempest in the same sim.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/25/2020 at 3:25 PM, INVADER_WARHAWK said:

Snip

 

Just imagine a modern P-40 , with a suitable engine (you can have 2000 hp Griffons in spitfires and db 605 monsters on tiny bf 109s but you cant have a well powered Warhawk ? ), a bit thinner wings, upgrades on control surfaces and some more small aerodynamic improovements ( and maybe some armored attack versions ).. and there you have it , a beast to rule the battlefield, and the heavens above !    

You mean the x p40q u and i drooled over in the other thread. Do you have an agenda or somefink? ;)

On 1/26/2020 at 1:08 AM, pfrances said:

Well I've just gone and pre-ordered the [edited] plane [edited] just for the merits of twin 40mm. I guess I'll just throw a bag over it's face and give 'er a go.

"I SAID DONT TALK EITHER "

*weeping*

 'y-y -yo-  your thinking of that merlin harlot again arent you! Youre thinking of spi-"

"SILENCE WOMAN I TOLD YOU YOURE RUINING THE MOOD. TIS ROLEPLAYING NOTHING MORE MLADY! NOW SAY CLIP MY WINGS OR SHUT UP!"

Edited by SYN_Haashashin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, INVADER_WARHAWK said:

As it is shown in my name :

P-40 

I dont get it , where is the dilemma ?

one choice is a brown paper bag which will be a looooovely plane for target practising,

and the other one is the best combination of sexyness and badassness on a plane , except it doesnt have an engine .

 

Just imagine a modern P-40 , with a suitable engine (you can have 2000 hp Griffons in spitfires and db 605 monsters on tiny bf 109s but you cant have a well powered Warhawk ? ), a bit thinner wings, upgrades on control surfaces and some more small aerodynamic improovements ( and maybe some armored attack versions ).. and there you have it , a beast to rule the battlefield, and the heavens above !    

something something Allison engine with it's actual IRL and not pre-war manual limits something something...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, ShamrockOneFive said:

 

Thanks for putting that graph together for us. That's actually really interesting and it puts the Hurricane's speed much closer to the P-40 than I had assumed - I always thought the Hurricane was slower at all altitudes.

 

Pretty excited to fly the Hurricane in this sim as I've said a few times. I'm actually really excited that we've got the Hawker trifecta happening in this sim. It might be the first time ever that you'll be able to fly a Hurricane, Typhoon, and Tempest in the same sim.


Yeah ^^ Though this comparison is a bit of a best case scenario for the Hurri. It has a nice advantage in engine power with it's Merlin XX at almost 1500 HP with the late engine settings from 1942 (red line) against the Allison at the early 42" with just 1100 HP

The P-40F used the V-1650-1 which was the Packard version of the Merlin XX, but it's kinda hard to find performance numbers of this one at high settings, looks like most of them are at the equivalent of +9 boost or lower (48").  There is a 1943 manual listing 61" as WEP for the P-40F, equivalent to +15 boost so close to the what the 1942 Hurri Mk II had but no speed curves for it at low altitudes. Looks like without bomb racks the P-40F could go as fast as around 600 km/h at 6000 meters so already a good bit ahead both P-40E and Hurri Mk II.

Edited by -=PHX=-SuperEtendard
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, -=PHX=-SuperEtendard said:

Looks like without bomb racks the P-40F could go as fast as around 600 km/h at 6000 meters so already a good bit ahead both P-40E and Hurri Mk II.

 

So in other words, about 109F2 performance speedwise 😂😂😂 JK

Edited by III./JG7-MarkWilhelmsson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Hurricane and P 40 was pretty much underdogs serving in war , because there was no better at the job. And they did their job with a incredible brave pilots with good training. 
I simply love both to bits 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, No.322_LuseKofte said:

The Hurricane and P 40 was pretty much underdogs serving in war , because there was no better at the job. And they did their job with a incredible brave pilots with good training. 
I simply love both to bits 

 

They're both great airplanes in their own way.

You'll have to take this into consideration: Both airplanes were used a lot in North Africa, where the DAF - for first time - operated outside the Home Defence radar-screen*. The initial results were pretty abysmal. With increased experience, they got a lot better and eventually built up their own tactics. IIRC the "sixpack" fighter-formation used by 2nd TAF built heavily on DAF experience.

 

I think most of the bad reputation of the P-40 came from not quite having the tactics at hand for countering the 109s on equal terms. With the Kittyhawk, the situation improved a lot. Not necessarily completely due to performance-increases, but by a good deal because of improving tactics. It bridged the gap long enough for tactics to improve and when higher-performing Spitfires finally arrived, the pilots flying those had the tools at hand to fight it out with the Luftwaffe.

 

___

* Not considering the "leaning into France" campaigns on the Channel, where Fighter Command just got their rear ends handed to them - just like the Luftwaffe had been, flying around in the RAFs front yard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm quite fond of both aircraft as i always appreciate more dakka. The hand the cult of the machinegun played in both aircraft is clear. 😁

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, FarflungWanderer said:

To be fair, as far as "cult of the machine-gun" goes 12.7mm certainly isn't a bad choice.

I am a huge fan of the .50cals. I find it amusing that several manuals for the M2 state only that the weapon "should be allowed to cool" after "sustained periods of fire" where other machineguns will state specific burst limits and timing between bursts. It's a solid machinegun which has stuck around in service for over 80 years. I've heard that in the US Army's NTC there is an original production M2 still in service. It is identified to acute observers by having a lot of 0s on its serial number. 

 

Likewise, i find the 12x .303 guns on the hurricane just too good to pass up! 

 

While there can be arguments about the effectiveness of MGs on aircraft, my counter arguement is always "a 20mm does me no good if i cant hit them with it, and i need the extra ammo the MGs provide to hit the target." Maybe when I get good i'll change my preferences, but that seems to be a ways off! 😁

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Kataphrakt said:

I am a huge fan of the .50cals. I find it amusing that several manuals for the M2 state only that the weapon "should be allowed to cool" after "sustained periods of fire" where other machineguns will state specific burst limits and timing between bursts. It's a solid machinegun which has stuck around in service for over 80 years. I've heard that in the US Army's NTC there is an original production M2 still in service. It is identified to acute observers by having a lot of 0s on its serial number. 

 

Likewise, i find the 12x .303 guns on the hurricane just too good to pass up! 

 

While there can be arguments about the effectiveness of MGs on aircraft, my counter arguement is always "a 20mm does me no good if i cant hit them with it, and i need the extra ammo the MGs provide to hit the target." Maybe when I get good i'll change my preferences, but that seems to be a ways off! 😁

No kidding on the original M2? I wonder if I can dig up any pictures or videos of the thing. Hard to imagine it's still working 80 years later!

 

I've felt that cannons are better versus slower targets, like heavy fighters, strike aircraft, or bombers. Against fighters a MG feels much more reliable when trying to get a kill in a dogfight.

 

How effective are the .303s anyways? I've not logged many hours in the Spitfire Mk. V so I don't know its effectiveness in combat that well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, FarflungWanderer said:

How effective are the .303s anyways?

the 4x.303 in the VB are basically good for aiming the cannon with and tickling the enemy. If you're very lucky you might damage the engine, but you won't be taking anything down in a hurry. Doubling the number of them should help a bit, and being hosed down by 12 of the things should be pretty terrifying and could even induce epilepsy via tracers... 

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, FarflungWanderer said:

No kidding on the original M2? I wonder if I can dig up any pictures or videos of the thing. Hard to imagine it's still working 80 years later!

 

 

 

I have Martini-Henry rifles from the 1880s, and SMLEs and Webleys from WW1 that I shoot regularly.  Firearms, by the nature of what they do are robust items, not like your typical automobile that even with excellent care may only go 10 or 15 years without major rebuild issues.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

 

I have Martini-Henry rifles from the 1880s, and SMLEs and Webleys from WW1 that I shoot regularly.  Firearms, by the nature of what they do are robust items, not like your typical automobile that even with excellent care may only go 10 or 15 years without major rebuild issues.

I don't own any firearms, so my knowledge of the care and maintenance of them is limited. I appreciate the clarification!

It does make sense that guns are more sturdy pieces of kit than more complicated machines, though. But still, after decades of continual use you'd expect to replace at least a few parts, right?

 

23 minutes ago, [_FLAPS_]Diggun said:

the 4x.303 in the VB are basically good for aiming the cannon with and tickling the enemy. If you're very lucky you might damage the engine, but you won't be taking anything down in a hurry. Doubling the number of them should help a bit, and being hosed down by 12 of the things should be pretty terrifying and could even induce epilepsy via tracers... 

12x .303 would certainly make for quite a show. Imagine if you loaded incendiaries...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, FarflungWanderer said:

No kidding on the original M2? I wonder if I can dig up any pictures or videos of the thing. Hard to imagine it's still working 80 years later!

 

I've felt that cannons are better versus slower targets, like heavy fighters, strike aircraft, or bombers. Against fighters a MG feels much more reliable when trying to get a kill in a dogfight.

 

How effective are the .303s anyways? I've not logged many hours in the Spitfire Mk. V so I don't know its effectiveness in combat that well.


The LMGs usually require hits to an engine or other critical component to kill an aircraft, but sometimes you will run into weird stuff like LMG hits taking a wing off an airplane. When they are nose mounted, the LMGs are pretty decent since you can often make accurate shots at the engine and set it on fire or get it smoking. The Shkas is probably the best rifle-calibre MG in the sim just due to its insane rate of fire.

On the Spitfire the LMGs being out in the wings really limits what they can do, and since there are only 4 guns they don't really form an effective 'cone of fire'. On a 12 gun hurricane that may change. The eight gun version will be nothing to write home about, IMO. And the 4 gun C variant will suffer from the same problem the Spit VB does - namely, too little cannon ammunition. You only have something like 7 or 8 seconds of trigger time with the early hispanos. IMO the 12 gun LMG will be better against fighters for those of us without fantastic gunnery.

The 12 gun hurricane will be a spray-and-pray configuration, with the objective being to land a hit somewhere that causes a fire. For structural damage I wouldn't expect too much most of the time. I think the P-47 with 8 .50s and the extra ammo mod is probably the allied fighter with the longest firing time and the ability to put the most lead in the air, making it the spray-and-pray fighter par excellance.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, FarflungWanderer said:

It does make sense that guns are more sturdy pieces of kit than more complicated machines, though. But still, after decades of continual use you'd expect to replace at least a few parts, right?

 

There are parts that get worn out depending on the design and how heavily it was used. Just because the M2 has an original production SN doesnt mean it has any of the original internals, just means it has the original receiver. Springs are particularly prone to wearing out but are easy to replace (i have a >50 year old Makarov pistol which works flawlessly after i replaced the recoil spring and extractor spring). It is also possible that this particular M2 did not see much action. It could have been produced late-war and put into storage for decades before someone decided it needed to be issued out. I would bet that being at the US Army's NTC makes it less-likely to wear out seriously as they mostly fire blanks there with the MILES (grown-up laser tag) system. The one I had heard about was issued out at NTC to mount on an M1 Abrams when 1st Cav was there for a session. From what i've heard the Abrams tankers  (at least in 1st Cav) hate dealing with the M2 since they have to pull the barrel off as part of locking up the tanks. Every time the barrel is removed and replaced it has to be properly headspaced otherwise the weapon jams frequently. I've heard that other armored units instead just dismount the entire M2 so they dont have to deal with that. The M2A1 .50 supposedly has something to fix those issues. 

 

There's an article about another old M2 here: https://www.wearethemighty.com/articles/this-50-cal-fought-for-90-years-without-needing-repair

19 minutes ago, RedKestrel said:

I think the P-47 with 8 .50s and the extra ammo mod is probably the allied fighter with the longest firing time and the ability to put the most lead in the air, making it the spray-and-pray fighter par excellance.

The P-47 with the extra 425 rounds of ammo has a total of 692 rounds per-gun. The M2 on that aircraft shoots at 850 rounds/minute so it can shoot for around 48.84 seconds.

 

The P-38 gets 300 rounds with an option for an additional 500 each gun, giving it 800 per gun. It can shoot for about 56.4 seconds (Not sure if i'm reading the tech specs page right, is this a 500 additional for each gun, or each gun loads 500 rounds instead of 300?)

 

On the P-40 if you remove 2 MGs, and pick the additional ammo you end up with the base 235 rounds + 615 for a total of 850 rounds each. The M2 on that is also firing at 850 rounds/min so you can shoot for 60 seconds

 

So while the P-40 beats out the P-47 in duration of fire by 11.16 seconds, the P-47 beats out the P-40 by 2136 rounds of .50 cal (or 216 pounds of lead if i mathed this all right)

Edited by Kataphrakt
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Kataphrakt said:

 

The P-47 with the extra 425 rounds of ammo has a total of 692 rounds per-gun. The M2 on that aircraft shoots at 850 rounds/minute so it can shoot for around 48.84 seconds.

 

The P-38 gets 300 rounds with an option for an additional 500 each gun, giving it 800 per gun. It can shoot for about 56.4 seconds (Not sure if i'm reading the tech specs page right, is this a 500 additional for each gun, or each gun loads 500 rounds instead of 300?)

 

On the P-40 if you remove 2 MGs, and pick the additional ammo you end up with the base 235 rounds + 615 for a total of 850 rounds each. The M2 on that is also firing at 850 rounds/min so you can shoot for 60 seconds

 

So while the P-40 beats out the P-47 in duration of fire by 11.16 seconds, the P-47 beats out the P-40 by 2136 rounds of .50 cal (or 216 pounds of lead if i mathed this all right)

I stand corrected. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/25/2020 at 9:14 PM, Bremspropeller said:

We're still missing the coolest version of the Hurricane.

The hottest one. The hottest. Once you lit that little light down there, that is.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/25/2020 at 8:23 AM, Bremspropeller said:

The Merlin-sound on the Hurricane is like a sawn-off pipe on a Civic.

 

I've lived most of my life in the Lehigh Valley region of Pennsylvania.  Cheap p.o.s. cars with loud pipes are the mating call of the central urban areas.  

So... As much as I want to agree with your assessment, I guess I hear the subtle differences too much.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are a lot of cars with modified exhaust in my area. From cheap ones to very expensive ones. Personally, I enjoy the exhaust rumble and occasional backfires. Music to my ears. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like trying to choose a favourite of your sons or daughters!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only exhaust sound i love hearing is the beautiful purr of WWII aircraft engines. The sound is just subtly distinct from the anemic sound of cessna engines. Bonus points of they're radial engines, those sound the best IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd fly the hurricane all day long considering the Alison is glass, the p40 seems to be unstable and bleeds speed really fast. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You say she's ugly, I say she's responsible for 66% of all RAF air to air kills during ww2. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Diggun said:

You say she's ugly, I say she's responsible for 66% of all RAF air to air kills during ww2. 

The Hurricane is not ugly, people just don't have any taste!
Is that stat for the whole war or for the Battle of Britain?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...