Next American Fighter

[Wmaker]

Wmaker: Underpowered in the final configuration, yes. You may make the claim that the engine itself was fine (and you'd be able to make that argument) but stick said engine into an airframe and all of a sudden the drag that comes with it, the large frontal surface, etc, means the aircraft doesn't have enough power for its given shape to perform as well as contemporary in-line airframes.

Heh, ok. I should have remembered that underpowered means the same as "more air resistance" to you. I think we've been here before. What comes to the performance, it is an incorrect generalisation to say that Hawk performed worse than the "comtempory in-line airframes". For example when comparing to the P-40B, the Hawk climbs at a faster rate than P-40B until it reaches its FTH. Also due to the basic same wing the significantly lighter Hawk will turn in a smaller radius. Pretty much the only performance edge the P-40B has is its clear speed advantage. So if we think AH, given equal pilots and 1 vs 1 situation at low altitude, the P-40B's pretty much only option against the Hawk is to stay fast and very very causious. In "many vs many" situation the advantage that speeds gives will be more significant obviously.

Keep up with me here. You're nitpicking about horsepower and weight. The final configuration was slow. It was obsolete right out of the door. It was recognized that it would have no impact against the US Defense or War effort if they were sold around the world. That's not debatable. It earned export status VERY quickly. No slight against Curtiss for wanting to recoup money on it, but nobody saw it as a major threat to anything else in the US arsenal. Higher, faster, quicker. That was the mantra. The radial Hawk fell short.

I'm not nitpicking anything, just stating the facts. It's you who's making gross generalisations. And yes, your arguments are very debatable. Hawk was the first monoplane fighter of the USAAC. It can't be said that it was obsolete out of the door. P-36 entered service in May '38. If you look at fighters in service at the time, it was no more "obsolete out of the door" than a Hurricane for example. Technological development drove past both the Hawk and the Hurricane but neither of them were considered obsolete in 1938. Regarding the exports, it's good to notice to which countries it was exported to. They didn't sell them to Germany but to country that was likely going to need to defend itself against Germany. It was rather unlikely that France would have tried to jump across the pond and try to invade US you know...

[Guppy35]

Seems its being compared unfairly to a/c that came along later. It was delivered to the USAAC in 1938. I would like to know what fighter was in service at the time that was so much better. Hurricane I (not the IA), Bf 109D, Ki-27, A5M, MB-152, Cr 42, C. 200, I-16?

You guys want to compare it to later designs well go ahead but thats apples and oranges isn't it? The USA was in the war 4 years after...1942, no surprise it was being replaced by that time. Hardly a fair criticism? The fact it was sold overseas is also has nothing to do with its effectiveness as a fighter. The USA had plans to sell (and did) the P-40 and F4F series to European customers as well prior to its entry into the war.

It was what it was. A 1930's era fighter. <shrug>.

And still in use into 44-45.  Not many 109Ds still in the shooting war...er.. .wait.. They finished up in Spain

[Guppy35]

This picture amazes me.  December 1943 and the Mohawk is about to set off on a mission.  Note the bomb racks under the wings, late SEAC camo and markings etc.   At the same time in the ETO and MTO, Spit VII, VIII IX and XIIs are front line fighters along with Tiffies.  USAAF has the first Merlin Mustangs along with Jugs and 38s.  And this guy is headed out in a Mohawk to fight.

[Shifty]

This picture amazes me.  December 1943 and the Mohawk is about to set off on a mission.  Note the bomb racks under the wings, late SEAC camo and markings etc.   At the same time in the ETO and MTO, Spit VII, VIII IX and XIIs are front line fighters along with Tiffies.  USAAF has the first Merlin Mustangs along with Jugs and 38s.  And this guy is headed out in a Mohawk to fight.

(Image removed from quote.)

\

He's grinning like a man with brass balls too. 

[Krusty]

Not surprising at all Guppy... All manner of obsolete craft were pressed into combat on all sides long after they were replaced by better ones. The SEA seemed worse off than most, suffering with late-model Brewsters for many years as well as Boomerangs (so obsolete they were used only for ground strafing and marking things for corsairs to come in and blow up).

Given the size of the bombs he's probably strafing Japanese troops or dropping smoke bombs to mark for "better" planes.


As for WMaker's troll, ignore him. He's openly expressed he has a bug up his butt about me and that he plans to follow me around and poke at anything I post.

Radial hawks were obsolete. It's a fact. Their service doesn't come into it. They were nothing compared to British or German designs. They were nothing compared to the Japanese designs (although we severely under estimated these). However you want to play with words, spin facts, twist things around, the plane was obsolete as soon as it was made. It was a disappointment. The US had no interest in it, and if we didn't have such a need all over the world (mind you most countries cannot produce their own aircraft during this time with the required performance/capabilities) it would never have been produced.

He alone should especially know that some countries rely on outside sources of air frames no matter what the performance. More the power to the folks that use them. Doesn't change the facts.


Do I want it in-game? Yes. I simply take exception to WMaker's comments (and some others') that this would be a super plane. I'm not arguing how fun it would be to fly it. I'm not saying I wouldn't enjoy killing stuff in it. (in a GAME...) I'm saying WMaker's attempts to nit-pick the hell out of my comments stem from another reason and have nothing to do with the subject at hand nor the content of my post. He would have taken a contrary stance had I said the sky is blue. He would start debating and nitpicking "what blue?" "Are we talking the blue light spectrum?" "What time of day?" etc...


P.S. Guppy part of what amazes you is that the plane is obsolete, yes? And still in use so much later? There's no debate on the obsolete part, right?

[Guppy35]

It amazes me that depending on which theater of the war you were in, that what would be a second line or retired bird could be a front line one instead.  It's a bit like the guys that trained in 38Js and then went to the MTO and were assigned F and G models since they were kept in action so much longer there.  A Spit VIII, XII or IX driver might get sent to the CBI and a Spit Vc Trop or Hurri IIc would be top of the line, which would be a heckuva step down.

It was a real surprise to find out that the 350th FG guys had P39s in the MTO until August 44 when they finally got Jugs.

That's what I mean.  Some pilots had to make due with birds that were hardly first class.

I often think of that when the ENY whines start.  Be thankful it's just a cartoon.  For real you might not have had any choice and gone up against far better machines in a lesser bird.

No worries about WMaker.  Don't see him trolling.  He seems to know his stuff, and the Finns considered the Hawk a very effective bird, right behind the 109G and Buffalo in terms of kills too.

[SectorNine50]

So... I'm safe in assuming the P-40 was obsolete out-of-the-gate as well then, correct?

[mipoikel]

Some photos of finnish hawks. Sorry,  I couldnt find ay bigger versions..

[Wmaker]

As for WMaker's troll, ignore him. He's openly expressed he has a bug up his butt about me and that he plans to follow me around and poke at anything I post.

Correcting statements that are factually incorrect is not trolling.

Radial hawks were obsolete. It's a fact.

They eventually became obsolete just like all fighters do but they certainly weren't obsolete "right out of the door".

- It's May 1938, P-36 enters service with the USAAC. In the US, Navy is still flying F3F biplane fighters as US Navy's first monoplane fighter the Brewster hasn't yet entered service. P-36 is the most modern fighter in the USAAC's arsenal.

- In Japan both air services are still flying fixed gear monoplanes (A5M, Ki-27) neither A6M nor Ki-43 has yet entered service.

- In Soviet Union I-15Bis and I-16 Type 17 enter service on the same year. None of the later inline engined fighters are yet in service.

- In Italy more than a year after P-36 has entered service, in November 1st 1939 Italian airforce has 146 Cr.42s and only 48 G.50s and 32 Macchi C.200s in service.

- In France first MS.406s enter service in the summer of 1938. First French Hawks are delivered in December 1938. Nor Bloch 152 or Dewoitine D.520 are in service in 1938.

- In Britain Hurricane Mk.I and Gladiator Mk.II are in service. Spitfire isn't in service in May 1938 but enters service in August of the same year.

- In Germany the first DB-engined 109s are built in the end of 1938 and in May only Jumo engined Cs and Ds are in service. Jumo 210D produces only 680hp at take off.


So in this context, saying that Hawk was "obsolete out of the door" is complete nonsense. It was actually fairly modern fighter at the point of its introduction.

I simply take exception to WMaker's comments (and some others') that this would be a super plane. .

Never have said anything that would suggest this.

[BnZs]

It will climb like E, turn better than Warhawk because of light weight, and roll just as well. I say if HTC adds this I forgive them for B-29.

Oh, and adding it *would* be fleshing out the French planeset.

[Wmaker]

It will climb like E, turn better than Warhawk because of light weight, and roll just as well. I say if HTC adds this I forgive them for B-29.

It all depends to what Hawk data Warhawk's performance is compared to.

From French/Curtiss "testing" the initial climb rate with 1065hp setting is given at ~3940ft/min! This is obviously physically impossible. Maybe with 1200hp, with small amount of fuel and no guns it could have been achieved. In AH the initial climb rate of the E with WEP is ~3100ft/min. In Finnish testing P&W engined Hawk with lower octane fuel (1065hp) had 2755ft/min initial climb rate at best. Unfortunately these report don't mention the weight this figure was achieved with. So slightly worse climbrate than P-40E is expected when modelled with lower octane fuel.

Hawk got big praises for its handling characteristics from basically everyone who flew it. Its control harmony was simply excellent and it was very maneuverable.

The question is did the Hawk units recieve 100-octane fuel during the Battle of France. That would have given possibility to use 1200hp WEP setting which would basically make it very comparable to Brewster in practically all respects except its biggest achilles heel, the poor armament. Although I haven't seen any primary source material that would confirm it either way I have heard that the higher octane fuel wasn't available. With 1065hp, it just lacks the raw performance to fight the late war fighters on their terms. It would be even slower than Brewster.

[Wmaker]

Some stuff regarding Hawk's performance from couple year old thread:

About the performance of the Hawk75A,

In French testing with Twin Wasp SC-G they achieved top speeds of 490km/h at 4000m and 415km/h on the deck. In Finland the best level speed on the deck achieved in testing was 429km/h (CUw-551). With CUw-557 the top speed at 1500m was 425km/h. With CU-572 (still Twin Wasp powered) the deck speed was even less at around 415km/h and top speed was found from 3000m being slightly under 440km/h.

These values were flown with 87-octane fuel.

In Finland there was lot of discussion about how far from the manufacture specifications the performance was. Even though the Curtiss' own numbers were flown with S3C3-G -engine and with 100-octane fuel, 520km/h at 4650m still sounds very optimistic.

In England A & AEE tested A-4 subtype and it achieved 486km/h at 4300m. The peak climb with 2870kg weight was 13.2m/s.

English pilots did mock combats with the Hawk against the Spitfire (presumably Mk.I) changing pilots back and fourth between fights. When Spitfire attacked a diving Hawk (speed of aboth around 500-650km/h) the Hawk pilot could evade very effectively by rolling. At sppeds above 600km/h Hawk pilot could still fully deflect the ailerons. In Spitfire the same pilots could only make 1/4 - 1/5 of the deflection. When Spitfire attacked the Hawk the Hawk could turn inside the Spitfire and stay there until Spitfire chose to use its speed to disengage. In turning combat at 400km/h speeds Hawk was clearly better. The visibility from the Hawks cockpit was also considered better.

Source: Jukka Raunio's LENTÄJÄN NÄKÖKULMA II (Pilots Viewpoint II)

And a cool pic of the Hawk:

[Debrody]

Brewster II

[Karnak]

Do I want it in-game? Yes. I simply take exception to WMaker's comments (and some others') that this would be a super plane.

What is it with you and making baseless claims that people think whatever non-late war aircraft they are advocating be added is a superplane?  You made the same wild accusation in the A6M3 thread despite the only claims in the thread being that it would be slightly faster than the A6M2 and have more ammo.

Just because somebody wants something that became obsolete at some point in the war does not mean they think it will be wiping the floors with P-51s, Spitfire XVIs, Me262s and La-7s.  You read way to much into some people's enthusiasm for these older aircraft.

[Delirium]

No worries about WMaker.  Don't see him trolling. 

Agreed... he is a bit biased in regards to the Brew, but he knows his stuff generally.