# P-40 vs. Yak-1 vs. Hurricane



## Clay_Allison (Mar 20, 2009)

We have a lot of threads uselessly comparing the P-40 to the Spitfire and Mustang. On the other hand, in my opinion, the proper comparison is with the other "obsolete" fighters that were thrust into the gap in the early war and fought on till the end in lower priority roles.

So, say you need fighters and these three designs are on your desk. Which do you want?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Jerry W. Loper (Mar 20, 2009)

Clay_Allison said:


> We have a lot of threads uselessly comparing the P-40 to the Spitfire and Mustang. On the other hand, in my opinion, the proper comparison is with the other "obsolete" fighters that were thrust into the gap in the early war and fought on till the end in lower priority roles.
> 
> So, say you need fighters and these three designs are on your desk. Which do you want?



I don't know much about the Yak. Between the other two, I'd have to pick the P-40, especially if the fighter I'd pick would have to try to soldier on as an air-to-air fighter.


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 20, 2009)

It's a really close call.

All the 3 were decent planes, but I'd pick the Hurricane IIC over the contemporary P-40B and Yak-1 just because the Hurri had 4 cannons.

The Yak had more development potential though.


----------



## LWulf (Mar 20, 2009)

Yak, because of the engine mounted cannon, small size, ease of production and maintenance, good performance and handling.


----------



## claidemore (Mar 21, 2009)

Yakovlev.
It wasn't obsolete, in fact it was just at the beginning of it's design developement, with the basic design soldiering on into the Korean War along with it's contemporaries, the P51 and F4U. The Yak 3 and Yak 9U were right up there with the top half dozen or so fighters in 1945. 

The British replaced Hurricanes with P40s in Africa as front line fighters, so the Hurri, as much as I admire it, is clearly not the plane to choose. 

The RAF P40s in North Africa were replaced by Spitfires, and since those who flew both Yaks and Spits consider them to be equal in performance capabilities, the P40 clearly can't be chosen over the Yak series.

The Yak fighters performed the 'bread and butter' role admirably, particularly the Yak 1,7,9-9D. The Yak 3 and 9U became true air superiority fighters in the final months of the war, fighting against Bf 109Ks and FW 190 Doras, with the Yak 3 arguably the best pure 'dogfighter' in service at that time.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Mar 21, 2009)

claidemore said:


> Yakovlev.
> It wasn't obsolete, in fact it was just at the beginning of it's design developement, with the basic design soldiering on into the Korean War along with it's contemporaries, the P51 and F4U. The Yak 3 and Yak 9U were right up there with the top half dozen or so fighters in 1945.
> 
> The British replaced Hurricanes with P40s in Africa as front line fighters, so the Hurri, as much as I admire it, is clearly not the plane to choose.
> ...


The Yak-1 was obsolete. The Yak-3 and Yak-9 were clearly not.

Reactions: Disagree Disagree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Vincenzo (Mar 21, 2009)

the yak 1 was not obsolete at its time. i'm agree with claidemore analysis


----------



## claidemore (Mar 21, 2009)

The Yak 1 was most definately not obsolete. It was simply the first model in a series, just like the Spitfire Mk1, Mustang 1, FW190A2 etc. 

Yak 1 production did not stop till 1944, which cannot be said for P40BCDEFK. Yak 3 was basically a lightened Yak1, it replaced the Yak 1 on it's production lines as most components were identical. The Yak 1 would be a good contender for longest production run of a specific model designation in WWII. 

Early Yak 1s were competitive with 109E, and just a little behind 109F. They replaced the Migs and LaGGs in many Soviet units, which would tend to indicate obsolescence for the types they replaced, not the other way around. Of course those replacements were due to better performance, not obsolescence. Improved Yak 1s (Yak 1B) were competitive right up till 1944 against 190s, and Gustavs. Consider the success of the Normandie Niemen regiment for example, which used Yak1bs through 1943, replacing them with Yak9Ds in 1944 and eventually Yak 3s.
The final air victory over Europe (afaik) was scored by Victor Golubev on May 9, 1945 in.....a Yak.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Mar 21, 2009)

claidemore said:


> The Yak 1 was most definately not obsolete. It was simply the first model in a series, just like the Spitfire Mk1, Mustang 1, FW190A2 etc.
> 
> Yak 1 production did not stop till 1944, which cannot be said for P40BCDEFK. Yak 3 was basically a lightened Yak1, it replaced the Yak 1 on it's production lines as most components were identical. The Yak 1 would be a good contender for longest production run of a specific model designation in WWII.
> 
> ...


I don't question that the lines of the airplane were solid, but the Yak-1s they made early in the war were not very refined wooden designs. Manufacturing got better and like every major engine, the Klimov kept adding horses until even the late-war all-wood plane was a plywood powerhouse.


----------



## claidemore (Mar 21, 2009)

A few notes about design and development of the Yak 1:

A.S. Yakovlev designed the Yak 1 AFTER examining both the Spitfire and Bf109. His design is newer than either of those fighters. 

The initial orders for development of this fighter were issued in April 1939. First prototype I-26 was completed December 27, 1939. First flight, (on skis) was done on January 13, 1940. 
The first ‘issue’ Yak 1 was ready on March 22, 1940, with the balance of the first production run ready by June. Pilots who were to fly this first batch of Yak 1s were required to have several flights in the Yak 7UTI trainer, which was developed parallel to the Yak 1.

The P40 on the other hand first flew in 1938, and was based on a 1935 design, the Curtis P36 Hawk. 
Hawker Hurricane design was started in 1934.

Yes the Yak was a simple deisgn, though one could argue that they went through considerable 'refinement' with hundreds of small changes made during it's production life. 

I'm never too quick to denigrate wood in airplane designs. The Mosquito was a 'modern' mid war design, which used wood in it's construction, and was one of the fastest and most effective planes of the war in the roles it was used in. A plywood powerhouse as Clay puts it.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Clay_Allison (Mar 22, 2009)

claidemore said:


> A few notes about design and development of the Yak 1:
> 
> A.S. Yakovlev designed the Yak 1 AFTER examining both the Spitfire and Bf109. His design is newer than either of those fighters.
> 
> ...


If you've read my threads you know I have a passion for the non strategic materials fighters.


----------



## claidemore (Mar 22, 2009)

Clay_Allison said:


> If you've read my threads you know I have a passion for the non strategic materials fighters.



Yup. Me too. 
I've worked with wood all my life and it irks me that so many don't understand that it can be as strong or stronger than aluminum or steel in many applications. 
The sim designers who model planes with wood construction in the wings and have them breaking off at high speeds are particularly irritating! (though I haven't done any simming for a few years now)


----------



## Clay_Allison (Mar 22, 2009)

claidemore said:


> Yup. Me too.
> I've worked with wood all my life and it irks me that so many don't understand that it can be as strong or stronger than aluminum or steel in many applications.
> The sim designers who model planes with wood construction in the wings and have them breaking off at high speeds are particularly irritating! (though I haven't done any simming for a few years now)


Any thoughts on the Miles M.20? I still feel that if the US had gotten hold of the design and gotten Fairchild and Hughes to produce it under license (they were the best with wood) with an Allison engine and 4x.50MG armament, we could have made it the perfect export fighter for the Aussies, Indians, Chinese, and Russians.


----------



## claidemore (Mar 22, 2009)

Interesting to compare Miles' aircraft to Yakovlevs'. Yakovlevs experience was primarily in the design of trainers (and racers) as was Miles. 
The M.20 was a good looking plane and the bubble canopy was a big improvement over most fighters in 1940.
The negatives would be the lack of retractable landing gear, pilot armor, and possibly the thick wing (I don't have specifics on it).


----------



## Clay_Allison (Mar 22, 2009)

claidemore said:


> Interesting to compare Miles' aircraft to Yakovlevs'. Yakovlevs experience was primarily in the design of trainers (and racers) as was Miles.
> The M.20 was a good looking plane and the bubble canopy was a big improvement over most fighters in 1940.
> The negatives would be the lack of retractable landing gear, pilot armor, and possibly the thick wing (I don't have specifics on it).


I think the landing gear could have been added, the estimated range wasn't bad, so, don't know that the wing was too thick. It was just an estimate though.

Was there ever a possibility that the Soviets would have sent the Yak-1 plans to America for development and building under license for lend-lease? Or would they have been too paranoid?


----------



## HoHun (Mar 23, 2009)

Hi Clay,

>So, say you need fighters and these three designs are on your desk. Which do you want?

Here is a performance comparison. Be warned that the Yak-1 data is still rough, I think I'm going to have to redo it. 

I used speed figures from the internet for the Yak-1 (M-105) and found that changing engine data to that of the Yak-1 (M-105PF) gives an OK match to data from the same source. Any authoritative data would be appreciated.

I'd also like to ask everyone here which propeller reduction gear ratio the M-105P and M-105PF were using in the Yak. Apparently, the engines came with two different ratios of 1.5 and 1.7xx (with the last two digits illegible in my copy).

Anyway, here the graphs.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## claidemore (Mar 24, 2009)

Henning: 
Probably from the same online source: Yak 1 with M105P/PA would do between 472 pr 478 @ sea level, and 563/573 @4800 meters. Which agrees with your graph. 
Yak 1b with M105PF would do 523-531 @ sea level and 590-592 @ 4000 meters. I know there is some data that shows a PF engined Yak at [email protected] and 571 @4500m, but most data uses the higher numbers. I believe the discrepancy is due to constant modifications and tightening up of quality at the factory level. ....
Or it could be that the P and PA engined Yaks used the VISh-61 variable pitch propeller, and the PF engines used the VISh-105 constant speed prop. Not sure. 

I found your sustained turn rate comparison very interesting. Anecdotal evidence was that a Yak was much more manueverable than a 109, particularly in the horizontal fight. Plenty of anecdotal evidence from North Africa showing that a P40 was equal or slightly better than a 109 in the turn, not to mention the tests of the Curtis Hawk vs 109E done by the Germans. Even if we consider that the P40 was equal to the 109 in the turn, your graph supports the opinion that the Yak turned better.

Aside from performance, there were other factors that favored the Yak. Very pilot friendly, no vices as far as aerobatics and general flying. Simple and cheap to produce, less costly than either the Hurricane or P40. Better visibility from cockpit from 1942 on and it had the much vaunted centerline mounted armament. Approximately 1300 lbs lighter than a Hurricane and 2000 lbs lighter than a P40. 

Yet another plane that would have benifitted from a Merlin installation. (Merlin 61 was approximately equal in hp to the problem plauged VK107)


----------



## parsifal (Mar 24, 2009)

Someone commened on the P-40 replacing the Hurricane in north Africa. As I understand it, this is not the case. In fact the two types existed side by side. The Hurris were the best FB of the early war period, with sub-types packing 40mm guns. Conversely the RAF warhawks, were longer ranged. The P-40 Tomahawk suffered from a lack of engine power and firepower, later moels introduced from '42 onwards addressed this somewhat, but the P-40 was never a great performer at altitude, from all that I have read.


----------



## HoHun (Mar 24, 2009)

Hi Claidemore,

>Yak 1b with M105PF would do 523-531 @ sea level and 590-592 @ 4000 meters. I know there is some data that shows a PF engined Yak at [email protected] and 571 @4500m, but most data uses the higher numbers. I believe the discrepancy is due to constant modifications and tightening up of quality at the factory level. ....

Quite possible ... to get the 590 km/h @ 3850 m for the Yak-1b I was aiming for, I had to improve the drag status (virtually  quite a bit, and also to increase the ram efficiency. I can't quite make the sea level speed though - maybe the PF had improved exhausts giving more thrust?

>I found your sustained turn rate comparison very interesting. Anecdotal evidence was that a Yak was much more manueverable than a 109, particularly in the horizontal fight. 

As I have no data on the maximum coefficient of lift for the clean airframe without the influence of propeller slipstream for the Yak-1, I just chose the figure that gave me the 19 to 20 s turn time at 1000 m indicated by my source. This works out as 1.27, which looks quite credible. The turn performance of the higher powered variants then follows arithmetically. The Yak-1b is given with 18 - 19 s while I calculate 19.3 s, not too bad for a first try.

>Plenty of anecdotal evidence from North Africa showing that a P40 was equal or slightly better than a 109 in the turn

Hm, I can't see how that would be possible. With a similar wing profile, a similar wing loading but a markedly worse power loading, how could a P-40 realistically hope to outturn a Me 109? I suspect that the perception of the P-40 pilots was that they could lose the Me 109 by turning, while the Me 109 pilots did not really want to turn with the P-40s because enjoying both the speed and the climb rate advantage, they had safer options to engage the P-40s. I don't think the P-40 can have been anything better than a mediocre turner. The much lighter P-36 can't really serve as a useful yardstick here.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## HoHun (Mar 24, 2009)

Hi again,

I have just added the Hurricane turn rate information to the graphs in my previous post ... this just serves as a "heads up" because I believe the edit is not shown by "New Posts".

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## Vincenzo (Mar 24, 2009)

why not +12 lbs for Hurricane II?


----------



## HoHun (Mar 24, 2009)

Hi Vincenzo,

>why not +12 lbs for Hurricane II?

I believe the boost settings were increased incrementally for the Hurricane II, but I don't know the time line and thought the lower boost might be more representative for a 1942 comparison.

The final boost settings were +14 lbs/sqin in low gear and +16 lbs/sqin in high gear, which would of course yield better performance than what is indicated above.

However, I'm not sure it was available before 1942, and if we're talking about 1943 we might need to consider the Yak-9 instead of the Yak-1.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## claidemore (Mar 24, 2009)

Henning,
They did change the exhaust stubs on the 'cleaned up' Yak1s, and I have seen later model Yak exhaust stubs termed as 'jet action exhaust stubs'.

Interesting sidebar, two prototype Yak1s were built with 3 x 20mm ShVAK cannon (one nose, two in the wings) and the two 7.62 ShKas mgs in the nose. Some Yak7UTI trainers also had two wing mounted cannons added for trials. Both were recomended for production, but the need for 'regular' Yak 1s and 7s took precedance.


----------



## Vincenzo (Mar 24, 2009)

HoHun said:


> Hi Vincenzo,
> 
> >why not +12 lbs for Hurricane II?
> 
> ...



thank for reply


----------



## HoHun (Mar 24, 2009)

Hi Vincenzo,

>why not +12 lbs for Hurricane II?

Thanks for the hint - WWII Aircraft Performance has a document showing that +12 lbs/sqin was cleared for the Hurricane II's engine pretty early on, though only for low gear.

I have added this in the graphs below.

(The effect of different boost levels on exhaust thrust is not perfectly simulated yet, but this is only an issue in the low gear, above-full-throttle-height bit of the graph and easily ignored 

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## HoHun (Mar 24, 2009)

Hi Claidemore,

>They did change the exhaust stubs on the 'cleaned up' Yak1s, and I have seen later model Yak exhaust stubs termed as 'jet action exhaust stubs'.

Thanks, I'll have to look into this.

Here is another graph showing the different speeds given by my internet source (actually a scan from a book someone posted and which I once saved) for a variety of Yak fighters (not just Yak-1's) in relation to my calculations.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## HoHun (Mar 24, 2009)

Hi again,

>actually a scan from a book someone posted and which I once saved

Maybe someone recognizes the book?

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## HoHun (Mar 24, 2009)

Hi again,

>actually a scan from a book someone posted and which I once saved

Second part - please apologize the separate posts, I'm working around the " " forum bug here.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## MikeGazdik (Mar 24, 2009)

Before I make my answer, I must confess a certain affection for the Russian equipment from WWII. My favorite WWII rifles to shoot and own are the Mosin Nagants. They are primal compared to the US/ British / German Mauser rifles, but man do I love them. I also really like thier aircraft.

But..... Having an airplane that will make a good campfire when I get shotdown is not my idea of an ideal fighter! 

P-40 for me. I love the Hurricane too, but the Curtiss is my overall favorite. Nothing objective here, just totally biased desire.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## claidemore (Mar 25, 2009)

excellent charts HoHun, thanks for sharing.


----------



## Juha (Mar 25, 2009)

Hello Henning
the book is Yefim Gordon's and Dmitri Khazanov's Soviet Combat Aircraft of the Second World War Volume One: Single-Engined Fighters.

Juha


----------



## HoHun (Mar 25, 2009)

Hi Juha,

>the book is Yefim Gordon's and Dmitri Khazanov's Soviet Combat Aircraft of the Second World War Volume One: Single-Engined Fighters.

Thanks a lot! I've heard of this book before - seems it can be considered a quality source?

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## HoHun (Mar 25, 2009)

Hi Clay,

>So, say you need fighters and these three designs are on your desk. Which do you want?

Since I was about to go off-topic, I just spun off a new thread on Yakovlev fighters here:

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/technical/performance-comparison-yakovlev-fighter-family-17580.htm

Thanks for getting me started on Yaks! 

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## claidemore (Mar 26, 2009)

HoHun said:


> Hi Clay,
> 
> >So, say you need fighters and these three designs are on your desk. Which do you want?
> 
> ...



Where is it? The link provided just takes me to the main Forums page.
EDIT: ahhh, found it. Here:
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/technical/performance-comparison-yakovlev-fighter-family-17580.html


----------



## TenGunTerror (Jun 26, 2009)

The Hurricane is hardly obsolete as it shot down 3/5 of all Luftwaffe aircraft, but my vote would be the Hurricane, average overall performance and a nasty armament.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## claidemore (Jun 26, 2009)

TenGunTerror said:


> The Hurricane is hardly obsolete as it shot down 3/5 of all Luftwaffe aircraft, but my vote would be the Hurricane, average overall performance and a nasty armament.



3/5 of all Luftwaffe aircraft during the BoB (summer of 1940). After that the Hurricane played mostly secondary roles, while the P40 replaced it in Africa and the Yak soldiered on in front line service, and in improved models, right up to the end of the war.

When you think about it, there are four fighter planes which were major factors in the war from *start to finish*. The 109, Spitfire, Zero, and Yak. Everything else either came in mid-war(P51 and FW190 for example), was considered sub-standard and replaced in their primary role(P40/F4F), required a major redesign (LaGG3>La5/MC200>MC202/205), or were soon obsolete (Ki27, I-16).
Basically, the Yak started out as the best Soviet fighter in 1941 (Yak 1), and finished as the _arguably _best (Yak 3, dogfighter) in 1945, and then went on in service into the 1950s. That puts it way ahead of a host of other fighter designs from 1940.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Jun 30, 2009)

claidemore said:


> 3/5 of all Luftwaffe aircraft during the BoB (summer of 1940). After that the Hurricane played mostly secondary roles, while the P40 replaced it in Africa and the Yak soldiered on in front line service, and in improved models, right up to the end of the war.
> 
> When you think about it, there are four fighter planes which were major factors in the war from *start to finish*. The 109, Spitfire, Zero, and Yak. Everything else either came in mid-war(P51 and FW190 for example), was considered sub-standard and replaced in their primary role(P40/F4F), required a major redesign (LaGG3>La5/MC200>MC202/205), or were soon obsolete (Ki27, I-16).
> Basically, the Yak started out as the best Soviet fighter in 1941 (Yak 1), and finished as the _arguably _best (Yak 3, dogfighter) in 1945, and then went on in service into the 1950s. That puts it way ahead of a host of other fighter designs from 1940.


I agree, except that the A6M was so badly outclassed at war's end I wonder if it is fair to say it was a major factor in 1945.


----------



## timshatz (Jul 1, 2009)

Go with the Yak. Both the Hurricane and the P40 were either throwbacks or slapped together designs (P40 being based on the P36). They were at the end of their aeronautical tethers in terms of upgrading and improving. Yak was just starting out. While later marks of P40 and Hurricanes were better aircraft, they did not improve to the extent the Yak did. There wasn't the room.

Of the three, as flying machines, I've heard the Hurricane was relatively easy to fly. Same with the Yak. Heard the P40 was hairy to land due to the narrow landing gear. Not as bad as the 109, but tricky. Ground loops were common. Heard also the P40 had a nasty stall if certain situations but it is not a universal feeling by pilots that flew it.

Anyway, the Yak is my call.


----------



## vanir (Jul 4, 2009)

From what I've read, including hunting down some Russian aviation sites the early Yak was considered a little premature in major service but necessary for immediate mass production due to the European climate. The Yak-1 was reportedly a little tricky to fly, the UTI two-seat trainer had a larger wing section and was more stable. When this was converted to fighter service (by simple removal of the rear controls, often very unpopularly replaced with an unprotected fuel tank), it became actually more popular among pilots than the single seat fighter version. The Yak-1 was a little more nimble however at their respective limits and remained popular with some more experienced pilots.

Yak quality was continually refined during production, particularly in terms of finish (some early examples could be improved by as much as 15km/h average with some refinishing by field maintenance personnel, quality control off the line was often poor for a time), and several modifications developed during 1942 (such as the clearance of higher boost rating for the M-105P motor, probably related to readily available fuel quality which was also very poor in 1941, recalibrated engines were designated M-105PF but were otherwise unaltered). Towards the end of 1942 the field modification of cutting down the rear fuselage had become popular for both Yak variants, replacing the hood with a bubble type canopy.

It was the Yak-7 which was converted to the Yak-9 improved model, both for its better stability and a more ubiquitous airframe, the floorplan of which could mount the cockpit either in the first station or the instructor station of the UTI floorplan. So different versions of the Yak-9 could have the cockpit forward, using an extra fuel tank or bomb bay for the rear area; or alternatively have the cockpit rearward and mount heavy weapons such as a Nudelman cannon to fire through the propeller hub, with the breech and magazine in the forward section. In a basic fighter layout you could play with the centre of gravity a little by choosing where to mount the cockpit. And it was all on the same production lines using the same tooling.

Later the Yak-1 was essentially fitted with wing sections from the Yak-7 to produce the Yak-3, which of course included all other general improvements of the period. But these were equipped only to Guards units. During 1945 both the Yak-3 and Yak-9 were now earmarked for all metal skinning and the latest Klimov 1650hp engine, but production realities and demands meant the Yak-9 received this engine whilst the Yak-3 made do with a further refined M-105, with tolerances adjusted once again to reflect the current fuel quality and machine production quality control standards (VK-105PF2, ca1450hp). Nevertheless at low altitude the Yak-3 gained a reputation as perhaps the most deadly turn fighter of the war, whilst the Yak-9U compared well with any contemporary at all heights. Both continued into production postwar, but the main service fighter remained the Yak-9 in P form, fitted with 3x B20 guns iirc and served in Korea. A captured Yak-9P was comparatively tested at Wright-Patterson and judged to be equivalent to the P-51D in all respects except more manoeuvrable.

All in all my impressions are that the Yak started out as a Hurricane equivalent, and wound up a Spitfire (Yak-9 and 3) or a Mustang (Yak-9U/P).


----------



## claidemore (Jul 5, 2009)

Just a few corrections to vanirs excellently worded post:
The Yak 1, Yak 7 and Yak 9 all had exactly the same size wing, 17.15 sq meters. The Yak 3, had a smaller wing, 14.85 sq meters. There may have been some differences in how the Yak7/9 wing was constructed. 

The Yak 9T had the cockpit moved back a few inches to make room for the 37mm cannon, but it was not put in the 'backseat' positon of the UTI trainer. Afaik, the cockpit in the Yak7 or Yak 9 was not moveable from front to rear position and was only produced in the forward position. The fighter Yak 7 did not have dual controls afaik. 

I have a theory that the story about field modifications 'cutting down the rear fuselage', is a misunderstanding. To do that in the field would require major structural modification, not to mention fabricating a curved perspex canopy. I beieve that the 'cutting down' was actualy cutting out, that the field modification was to cut out the top section of the fuselage directly behind the pilot, giving a better view up and to the rear, but not changing the actual shape of the rest of the fuselage, or installing a 'bubble' canopy. Consider the following two enlarged photos of a 1941 (Winter variant) Yak 1, and a 1942 Yak 1. The red lines show the difference in the rear canopy area. I suspect this modification was made as a result of the better rear view in the Yak 7 which had lots of glass in the back, but the same fuselage profile.


----------



## claidemore (Jul 5, 2009)

A couple more photos to support my theory about Yak 1 cockpits. There is also a photo of Yaks on the assembly line at Saratov which shows the 2nd style of cockpit, indicating that the field modification was adopted at factory level, but that the bubble canopy was a later change. Interestingly, the LaGG 3 and La5 had the oval window cutouts as well.


----------



## vanir (Jul 7, 2009)

Thankyou for the correction Claidemore! I'm always pleased to know more about warbirds and so much contradictory information is frequently published. I'll admit my library is mostly the general chapbook media. Some facts and figures I manage to get primary sources on, but a lot of things I do have to figure out for myself.
The point about wing sections was published in two books, but both edited by Jim Winchester (who has messed up some finer details here and there).

Not so sure about the cockpit thing though, the Yak-9T, K, M, U and P all had very rearward cockpits with quite a bit of extra nose and they were made on a common production line with all Yak-7 standard tooling and machinery. This positively infers at least simply the front or rear position was being used variously on a common production line. The Yak-9T, K and M were produced at the same time and on the same lines as the Yak-9, B, D and DD but definitely had the cockpit moved back significantly enough to stand out to the eye. This would require other tooling, they could not have been made on the same lines but were. The logical conclusion then is tied to the fact these are the same machinery lines as the Yak-7 with two cockpit positions already tooled.


----------



## claidemore (Jul 8, 2009)

Hi Vanir:
I went to a couple of my favorite websites to check on the cockpit thing, and while I was doing that I learned something else. The Yak 9 had a different wing than the Yak 7. It was a new wing with a slightly shorther span, but the same surface area,( and different spars)! Learn something new every day! 

As for the cockpit, my understanding is that the cockpit was moved back 40 cm for the Yak 9T, which would be much less than the 2nd seat position in the Yak 7UTI (it's a loooong ways back). Apparently the Yak 9M had the cockpit moved back to that position to simplify production along with the 9T. 

Alas, I found yet another reference to field unit modification of the cockpit and rear fuselage, this time with an actual unit, 45th IAP, modifying Yak7b's the same way Yak 1's were being done. So my theory on Yak cockpit evolution needs more work. sigh.


----------



## timshatz (Jul 8, 2009)

Claid, any idea how the moving back of the cockpit on the Yak9 affected the CG? Any notes on that out there? Probably make it a tad hairier in a spin.


----------



## Elvis (Jul 8, 2009)

Clay_Allison said:


> We have a lot of threads uselessly comparing the P-40 to the Spitfire and Mustang. On the other hand, in my opinion, the proper comparison is with the other "obsolete" fighters that were thrust into the gap in the early war and fought on till the end in lower priority roles.
> 
> So, say you need fighters and these three designs are on your desk. Which do you want?


*NOTE*: THIS RESPONSE (vvv) NOW INVALID. PLEASE SEE POST #74

I'll take the P-40, thankyou....even a _Griffon-powered_ one.  


Elvis

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## claidemore (Jul 9, 2009)

timshatz said:


> Claid, any idea how the moving back of the cockpit on the Yak9 affected the CG? Any notes on that out there? Probably make it a tad hairier in a spin.



From what I have read, moving the cockpit back actually improved handling, both aerobatics and landing. (Yak7/9s were known to be nose heavy). All subsequent models of Yak 9 (M,U,P) retained the cockpit positon of the Yak 9T.


----------



## timshatz (Jul 9, 2009)

Thanks Claid. Interesting info.


----------



## VG-33 (Jul 21, 2009)

Hello,

It would be a pity to let this thread die without an interesting link from a russian language site:

Ôîðóì ñàéòà www.airforce.ru: Ñòàòüÿ


This are TsAGI (soviet NACA) calculations for Yak-1 equipped with foreign engines in 1943.

What for? Tha *facts* are that soviet asked the highest level* to *stop* _Hurricane_ deliveries in autumn 1942, and _P-40_ deliveries in summer 1943 in favor of the others planes. Nevertheless deliveries of *unwanted* fighters were to be continuated until the end, for economical and industrial reasons.

(* personal letter from Stalin to Churchill)

So if they were* not *interested from Hurricanes and P-40's soviets made an attempt at least to recover their engines for local produced planes, scrapping airframes for spart pieces and metalurgy.

*Concerning the Yak-1*

With different engines: first column M-105PF, Secund column Merlin XX, Third with Allison V-1710

Dry weight: 600, 650, 635

Section: 0.74,...

Power at height (scd stage of the supercharger): 1180, 1200,....

Rated hight (with dynamic pressure): 3700, 6800,...

Power at SL (nominal = Cont Course): 1210, 1135, 900

Combat Power at SL (3 minutes): No CP, 1300, 1135

Max speed at SL at CC: 530, 515, 480
Max speed ar SL at CP: _ , 540, 520

Max speed at height: 597, 665, 615

Max range at 0.9 Vmax: 650, 720, 780 at height

In conclusion it appears that Merlin XX equipped Yak-1 was the fastest at height (665 km/h). Unfortunately such result was obtained at 6000-7000m, and presented no interest for soviet air forces, since 90% of all airfights took place under 4000m height. At low and medium altitudes the M-105PF Yak-1 reminded the best, except near SL, if combat power of Merlin XX was used.

Range with the Merlin engine increases from 70 extra km. 

By the other side with the ViSh 3.1m prop, take off distance increased in 130 extra meters. It was not possible to adapt a 3.45 m prop. for a small airframe as the Yakovlev 1. Using a experimental max. 3.25 m prop, take off distance was increasing in 80 meters only, but the real solution was to adapt a new reduction gear and modified crankshaft for synchronisation system. 

AFAIK, allied LL comissions refused to adapt any engine production to soviet requests, and also refused for important engines deliveries without airframes.


*But*, on the other side why allied comission never asked for comparative trials of the soviet planes?

I'm not shure that Yakovlev's fighter was better than Hurricanes and Wharhawks at all points. At least it could have been a match to the Bf 109F or G in 1942-43 either wih Merlin or Allison engines. J'm sorry for the Hurrie and P-40 supporters, but at that point in 1943 they were not competitors anymore.

Regards

VG-33


----------



## Clay_Allison (Jul 21, 2009)

My conclusion on this is that the Yak-1 was a platform with room to upgrade. The P-40 and even moreso the Hurricane were reaching the limits for what could be done with them. So it's too bad for the Russians that they didn't have us just build the Yak-1 under license with Allisons.

Quality control would have been better in the US anyway.


----------



## claidemore (Jul 22, 2009)

650 kmh for the Yak 1 with a Merlin XX, = 415 mph, which is faster than a Spitfire IX or VIII with a Merlin 60 series engine. Very interesting information VG!

We have a whole bunch of threads with a "what if we put this engine in this plane?" theme. Imagine a Griffon on a Yak!

Correction: Clay pointed out that it's 665 kmh, not 650, to equal 415 mph. Oops!


----------



## Clay_Allison (Jul 22, 2009)

claidemore said:


> 650 kmh for the Yak 1 with a Merlin XX, = 415 mph, which is faster than a Spitfire IX or VIII with a Merlin 60 series engine. Very interesting information VG!
> 
> We have a whole bunch of threads with a "what if we put this engine in this plane?" theme. Imagine a Griffon on a Yak!


I'm pretty sure that says Max Range. I think that's 665kmh speed at height.


----------



## VG-33 (Jul 22, 2009)

Clay_Allison said:


> My conclusion on this is that the Yak-1 was a platform with room to upgrade. The P-40 and even moreso the Hurricane were reaching the limits for what could be done with them. So it's too bad for the Russians that they didn't have us just build the Yak-1 under license with Allisons.
> 
> Quality control would have been better in the US anyway.



Hello Clay, 

As russians said, both P-40 and Hurricane were to big and to heavy for their engines. *Not *in the absolute, *just *to otperform the 109, and it was the Mustang case, before it had to be fitted with the more powerfull Packard engine. With big airframes, you have to make sure to use more powerfull engines than your opponents. American designers either took a risk, either were optimists. Maybe they were less competitive than european ones...

Back to our thread: unfortunately the V-1710 Yak-1 was not better that the Klimov fitted one.

At SL it was slower by 50 km/h (480) and even by 10km/h (520) at combat power than a (good) serial Yak-1 with its Klimov engine: 526-534 km/h at max cruise speed (no WEP, no Combat Power on the Klimov 105 series).
It was only faster by 15-20 km/h at height. 

It's range was increased by 130 km at 0.9V max cruise (555 km/h) speed

Time to 5000 m reminded the same, and take off distance increased by 90m.

I admit that it was significantly better than the P-40 with the same engine (from soviet or british tests). And it was to bad too ,for british and american pilots using their Hurricanes and Warhawks in 1943-1944 against 109 and 190's.

First, Yak-1 used very fiew strategical materials as light alloys, only wood for wings and steel tubes for fuselage. It could be easely assembled by CCF in Canada using oregon/Vancouver spruce and car welded tube technology without any Hurricane or other planes dismissal.

But the Yak could also easily have been adapted to light alloys technology as the Yak-9U/ M-105PF.
In this planes nose oil radiator was removed in the metallic wings (with the wooden ones, plenty as an egg it was impossible) gaining more speed (20 -30km/h) from SL to hight.

It should have been nice to see Merlin-Packard with 100-150 upgraded fuel effect on that modernised airframe. 

I would say there is no miracle on that: The plane drag formula is Pw= 1/2 (rhô) S (wing) Cd. V^3. It's extremly difficult to gain on the Cd, easy on the size.
Compared to other planes of it's generation Yak's *Cd * family was fair, not exceptionnal and not even one of the bests. But since the airframe had reduced size S.Cd *was good*.

_-Big is beautifull_, Grumman, Lockheed, Republic, Vought ...Curtiss said, 
_-small is better_, Polikarpov, Vernisse and Gaultier, Mikoyan and Yakovlev answered...

Regards,

VG-33


----------



## Clay_Allison (Jul 22, 2009)

VG-33 said:


> Hello Clay,
> 
> As russians said, both P-40 and Hurricane were to big and to heavy for their engines. *Not *in the absolute, *just *to otperform the 109, and it was the Mustang case, before it had to be fitted with the more powerfull Packard engine. With big airframes, you have to make sure to use more powerfull engines than your opponents. American designers either took a risk, either were optimists. Maybe they were less competitive than european ones...
> 
> ...


It's my frustration with American planes that we started with these big planes and IMO a good engine for a light fighter that we didn't have. An American Spitfire/109 type plane with an Allison Engine would have been competitive long enough for the better planes to get there. As it was, our air arms were still completely in development in 1942 and it took nearly 2 years to really get a leg up on the rest of the world powers.


----------



## Glider (Jul 22, 2009)

I would go with the Yak 1 with a proviso that if you are after a GA aircraft or dual role then the P40 would shave it.


----------



## Elvis (Jul 22, 2009)

VG-33 said:


> Hello,
> 
> It would be a pity to let this thread die without an interesting link from a russian language site:
> 
> ...


Great research and an interesting read, VG-33!
Thanks for posting that.
However, there's a side that wasn't touched on (although you skimmed pretty close in the beginning), and that begs the question - _Could Nationalism have played some role in Stalin's letter to Churchill?_.
Its no secret that nations tend to be more supportive of an _Indigenously designed and built_ aircraft, rather than having to "borrow" one from another nation, but will, if the need arises and only until they can, themselves, design and build something that will suit their needs.

Not saying this is absolutely the reason for the cancellation of Hurri and WH deliveries, just stating that that is another way to look at it.



Elvis


----------



## VG-33 (Jul 24, 2009)

Elvis said:


> However, there's a side that wasn't touched on (although you skimmed pretty close in the beginning), and that begs the question - _Could Nationalism have played some role in Stalin's letter to Churchill?_.
> Its no secret that nations tend to be more supportive of an _Indigenously designed and built_ aircraft, rather than having to "borrow" one from another nation, but will, if the need arises and only until they can, themselves, design and build something that will suit their needs.
> 
> Not saying this is absolutely the reason for the cancellation of Hurri and WH deliveries, just stating that that is another way to look at it.
> ...



Hello Elvis

Frankly? I think machines (cars, planes, engines..), have no sex, no religion, no political opinion, no taste... only technology and performance. I like my Renault but i think a Ferrari or a Porsche would be better, particulary for a competition or a speed race. 

For the Hurricane case, it was disliked by soviet pilots from the beginning for technical reasons. It was slower (412 km/h at SL) than the Polikarpov I-16 (435 à SL) at low altitude and much less nimble. Stalin and soviet bureaucraty only deleted for more than half a year the soviet air force request. 

My advice, read Golodnikov at http://lend-lease.airforce.ru/english/articles/golodnikov/index.htm

He's very representative for soviet figher pilots opinion.

I think, your supposal is uncongruous, since soviets specialists *never* had sexual problems on praising western techology in *internal reports*, either to copy, either to import or to buy production licence when it was estimated as good enough to do it. It's only my opinion but the list is long: Jupiter, Cyclone, Hispano, BMW engines. Vultee, Catalina, Dakota, B-29 planes...


I said *internal * reports, in the Pravda articles or other official propaganda sources it might be *very *different.

Regards

VG-33


----------



## timshatz (Jul 24, 2009)

Wouldn't the P39 be considered a relatively small, point defense or local fighter of the mold of the Spit, Yak, Hurricane, ect. It wasn't a very large aircraft from what I understand the Russians had success with it in that role.


----------



## VG-33 (Jul 24, 2009)

Since it seems to interest som people i will continue to translate



2) Concerning the La-5 plane


Comparaison datas with engines M 82FN6, Wright 2600, PW 2800 "Double Wasp" are resumed in the following table
:

- Engine: М-82FN, Wright 2600, Pratt-Whithney 2800,

- Dry weight : 850, 900, 1030,

- Engine diameter: 1.25, 1.50, 1.40,

- Power on 2nd stage : 1450, 1450, 1500,

- Estimated rated height (with dynamic pressure effect): 6100, 4800, 7800,


- Continuous power at SL: 1850, 1500, -,

- Max power at 3 min WEP: - , 1700, 2000,

- Max continuous speed at SL: 605, 550, -,

- Max WEP speed: - , 575, 610,

- Max speed at height: 650, 620, 685,

- Range at 0.9 max speed: 590, 610, 610,



The change of the Shvetsov engine for the R-2600 one decreases Lavotchkin speed at all heights : 50 km/h on CC, 30 km/h on WEP at low altitude and moreover from 30 km/h at height. Time to 5 km height and range changes a little , take of distance increases for 50 extra meters.

La-5 datas with the PW-2800 engine are very close to the soviet experimental one flying with the Shvetsov M-71. Max speed at SL: 610 km/h. At height: 685 km/h. Time to 5 km height: 4.7 min is a little worse but range at 0.9 max seed and rated altitude marginaly better. Take of distance: 30 meters more.

It's clear now why soviets made no efforts for trying to change La-5 Shvetsov M82 engine for an american one.

Regards

VG-33


----------



## Elvis (Jul 24, 2009)

VG-33 said:


> Frankly? I think machines (cars, planes, engines..), have no sex, no religion, no political opinion, no taste... only technology and performance.


True, the _machines_ don't care, however my point was about _the people using them_.
Even the Russians seemed to prefer the useage of their own engines, over those from other nations. 
Look at the widespread use of the Shvetsov radials and the Klimov V-12s in their own aircraft.
If they didn't care _where_ the aircraft came from, then why put all the money and time into developing their own aircraft in the first place?
They could've said "The I-16 is good enough. If we need something better, we'll get it from someone else", but they didn't. They continued to develop their own aircraft, such as the Yaks.
Sure, they may have sung the praises of other allies aircraft and were thankful for the usage of such aircraft, and while this may not have been written anywhere, I bet that if they were given a choice, they'd prefer to develop and use their own aircraft, or at least, _their_ version of another nations aircraft.
This just seems to be the approach of allied nations, as the war progressed, regardless of how successful those attempts were.


Elvis


----------



## claidemore (Jul 25, 2009)

Elvis said:


> True, the _machines_ don't care, however my point was about _the people using them_.
> Even the Russians seemed to prefer the useage of their own engines, over those from other nations.
> Look at the widespread use of the Shvetsov radials and the Klimov V-12s in their own aircraft.
> If they didn't care _where_ the aircraft came from, then why put all the money and time into developing their own aircraft in the first place?
> ...



Elvis, you need to read VG-33's post above about the La-5. They didn't replace the Shvetsov 82 radials (developed from the Wright R-1820), because they didn't need to, it was just as good or better. Ditto for the Klimov (developed from the Hispano-Suiza 12Y) at the altitudes where it was being used. 

There are very good reasons to build your own planes rather than import them. 
For one thing it costs less to build them yourself, foreign manufactuers like to make a profit, and lend-lease didn't exist when the Soviets were developing the Yak, Mig and LaGGs. 
Having your own aircraft industry generates jobs, and there is also the potential for outside sales. 
Having your own aicraft industry gives you some control over supply and availability, and much more control over developement and improvement. 
Note that the Soviets didn't want any more Hurricanes or P40s, but they were still accepting a host of other types, including Spitfires and P39s. That tells me that it had nothing to do with national pride, it was a completely utilitarian decision, they simply wanted planes that would be of use. (Which is why Hurricanes and P40s were being replaced by the Western allies at the same time.)


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 25, 2009)

It also made little sense for the Russians to power airframes made in their country with engines manufactured elsewhere. If the supply of engines is cut off what do you do with the airframes?
This is the Russians after all and airframe production of some models is hundreds of aircraft a month. 
Just about all successful Large Russian engines were developments of western engines in anycase. The Russians would certainly test western engines to learn what they could and if they thought they couldn't get similar results from one of their existing engines they would probably have asked for a manufacturing licence for the engine they were interested in. After all, they had negotiated licences for the Wright Cyclone, the Hispano Y series, some Gnome- Rhone designs and the Renault air cooled series before the war. 

Another problem is Russian gasoline. It wasn't the same as British or American gasoline. THe West supplied a lot of aviation fuel to the Russians during WW II of which a large amount was used in the Western supplied aircraft. Increasing the number of engines in Russia needing this fuel by large numbers might have affected the supply problem.


----------



## VG-33 (Jul 25, 2009)

Hello,



Elvis said:


> True, the _machines_ don't care, however my point was about _the people using them_.


Whatever people think or not, when using the same Merlin XX, the Yak-1 was at least 140 km/h (665-520km/h) faster than the Hurricane. This with non strategical materials. Using light alloys for wings Yak-1 would be 160-170 km/h (685-520) faster with internal radiators inclueded inside the wing as the Yak-9U. Due to western high quality production standards and higher octane number fuel it will probably gain some 20-40 km/h more...In fact, Yak figher *was* gaining 20-25 _instrumental_ extra km/h if used with 100 octanes western fuel (blue one) instead of the soviet 4B-78 (red one). But due to the overheat and engine guarantee for short runs only...

As you said neither machines, neither physics care about national proud...




> Even the Russians seemed to prefer the useage of their own engines, over those from other nations.
> Look at the widespread use of the Shvetsov radials and the Klimov V-12s in their own aircraft.


 Sometimes i wonder why i'm posting...



> If they didn't care _where_ the aircraft came from, then why put all the money and time into developing their own aircraft in the first place?



Communist *ideology* and *behaviour* was to try doing better than everyone else. Can you explain how could you do that only by waiting and copying on the others? Anyway, when such policy failed they managed either to copy either to by licence for foreigh planes. And i would say with good taste of fine connoisseurs (very high qualified specialists), for instance:

Vultee V-11: BSh-1 (new production technology, multispar wings) ???????? ??-1
Catalina: GST
DC-3: Lisounov 2
B-29: Toupolev 4

All of them, were of course the very advanced planes for their times...




> I bet that if they were given a choice, they'd prefer to develop and use their own aircraft, or at least, _their_ version of another nations aircraft.


Of course. But _if _soviets were producing their own P-40, the large and heavy Tomaschevitch I-110 ????????? ?-110, and Curtiss Corporation a small and light airframe similar to the Yak-1 or the D-520 (or Czech Avia), they would have switch on that better american airframe production with no major ethic problem. 

It's just pity that allies haven't did that on the opposite way, for soviet and for their own pilots.

I just want to point out that both Hurricane and P-40 were produced until 1944 at approx. 14 000 planes for each one. That was at least one, or two years (and some thousands planes) too far.

Regards

VG


----------



## Elvis (Jul 25, 2009)

I knew my post would be mistunderstood.

All of you that replied make very good points and all are true, but my point was that even though some of the planes and engines were copies of designs by other nations, they were still being built in Russia.
That alone makes those items, _indigenous_ to Russia, and that's what I was trying to state was the preference.

Lastly, VG-33, forgive me if this is incorrect, but I think towards the end of your last post, you were lamenting on why the other allied nations didn't lease some aircraft from Russia?
From what I understand, a lot of what Russia produced during the war was rather crude and standardization of parts wasn't up to par to make them useful.
One story that comes to mind is the Finn's, during the development of their "Humu", an indigenous version of the F2A-1.
Being cut off from American supplies at that time, they found that the Russians M-82 was a copy of the Wright Cyclones that they had been using and sought to use captured versions, scavenged from shot down aircraft, in the Humu.
Further analysis showed that the Shvetsov radial was so much more crudely built than the actual Wright engines they already had, that the parts couldn't be swapped between them.


Elvis


----------



## claidemore (Jul 25, 2009)

Can't swap parts from a British RR Merlin and an American Packard Merlin either.

As far as planes that the Western allies could have used, the Yak 3 certainly comes to mind. License built in the USA or Canada, it would have had the quality western pilots were used to, better performance than the Soviet built Yak 3, and no doubt would have been cheaper to produce than a Spitfire or P51. hmmmm, wouldn't that make an interesting thread?
I'm sure the PPSH would have been well recieved also, in fact they are using them in Iraq and Afghanistan today. 
I'll bet every Sherman (Zippo) tank crewman would have traded up to a T-34 in a heartbeat. 
Yeah, I think there are some Soviet weapons that the western allies could have put to very good use.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 26, 2009)

claidemore said:


> Can't swap parts from a British RR Merlin and an American Packard Merlin either.



Actually it depends on the part in question.
Some parts are obvious like the different propellor shafts. Some are a little less so like the accessories, vacumn pumps, generators and thelike, their mounting points/pads and drives. Other parts like pistons, piston rings, valves, valve springs, rockers etc might be fully interchangeable. 

American Cyclones were built to American standards, Russina Cyclones were built to metric standards. At least that is what I get from Vladimir Kotelnikov's book "Russian Piston Aero Engines". See page 117.

"....an STO decree issued on 28 Novemeber 1933 covered the purchase of about 150 complete engines, 100 engines as parts, and the acquisition of the most complex components for another 100 engines, at a total cost of 0f 4,350,000 roubles. At the end of December 1933 the first Cyclone engine was shipped to the USSR.
At about the same time the Wright company prepared the metric engineering drawings and built a prototype , and in January 1934 put it to bench testing. The 100hr bench test was compleated in the USA by April 1934."

The American engine went through several major modifications beween 1933 and 1940-41 and the Russians went through the M-25 series, the M-62 series and the M-63 series engines. 
It is not surprising that engines manufactured 5-6 years after the divergence point and built to different measurement standards don't have interchangeable parts.


----------



## VG-33 (Jul 26, 2009)

Hello



Elvis said:


> last post, you were lamenting on why the other allied nations didn't lease some aircraft from Russia?
> From what I understand, a lot of what Russia produced during the war was rather crude and standardization of parts wasn't up to par to make them useful.


It was above all far easier to mass produce, even for unqualified and inexperienced workers. But that is not the question. 



> One story that comes to mind is the Finn's, during the development of their "Humu", an indigenous version of the F2A-1.
> Being cut off from American supplies at that time, they found that the Russians M-82 was a copy of the Wright Cyclones that they had been using and sought to use captured versions, scavenged from shot down aircraft, in the Humu.
> Further analysis showed that the Shvetsov radial was so much more crudely built than the actual Wright engines they already had, that the parts couldn't be swapped between them.



First, i don't understand how a two row radial 14 cylinder engine of 1.22 m of diamteter (155.1 mm stroke) can be a copy of a nine cylinder single row 9 cylinder 1.40 m diameter (174,1 mm stroke) one? Maybe i have missed something...

Secund, from 1935 the licence built wright cyclone was converted in metric system, just as Lisunov 2, in order to use local machine tools. Even if they were identical at 100% to their american models, they were compatible at 0%!!!

So i don't really understand anyway what finns tried to do between M-82 (155.5 x155.1) and R-1820 (155.6 x 174.1) engines...


Regards

VG 33


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 26, 2009)

VG-33;

He may have made a missprint.

THe M-62 was another Shvetsov engine. It was a copy of the 9 cylinder Cyclone as I stated above but as I stated and as you have stated it is vey doubtful that the American version (inches) and Russian versions (metric) were IDENTICAL.


----------



## VG-33 (Jul 26, 2009)

Shortround6 said:


> VG-33;
> 
> He may have made a missprint.
> 
> THe M-62 was another Shvetsov engine. It was a copy of the 9 cylinder Cyclone as I stated above but as I stated and as you have stated it is vey doubtful that the American version (inches) and Russian versions (metric) were IDENTICAL.



Ok, ok...Not exactly identical but *very close *or... *superficialy identical*!

It's changes nothing about the* 0% compatible * parts that i have quoted. It was the same problem for units, using C-47 and Li-2 alltogether.

VG


----------



## Elvis (Jul 27, 2009)

Actually I confused M-*6*2 with M-*8*2...just another indication that I'm not as young as I used to be. 


Elvis


----------



## 1968billsfan (May 25, 2017)

Elvis said:


> Great research and an interesting read, VG-33!
> Thanks for posting that.
> However, there's a side that wasn't touched on (although you skimmed pretty close in the beginning), and that begs the question - _Could Nationalism have played some role in Stalin's letter to Churchill?_.
> Its no secret that nations tend to be more supportive of an _Indigenously designed and built_ aircraft, rather than having to "borrow" one from another nation, but will, if the need arises and only until they can, themselves, design and build something that will suit their needs.
> ...


Of course !! Remember the story by Pravda about an auto race between a Ford and a Zil. They announced that while the Zil came in second, the Ford was next to last.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## 1968billsfan (May 25, 2017)

I do not agree with much of the previous discussion. Yak fighters were not comparitively tested by western powers and the sources of plane performances is suspect. Gee, it looks from the data provided that these were the best planes in the war and the Russians should have fought with nothing other than the Yak for air superiority. Consider the poor lowly P-39. An American plane that was considered such a dog in the west against the Germans and Japanese so that it saw little use in Europe and limited use in the SW Pacific. (t soon became the joke in the Pacific Theatre that a P-400 (an early P-39) was a P-40 with a Zero on its tail. They were used in the Med as a light patrol bomber or a ground attack plane, often escorted by P-40's.

Wartime Service of P-39 with USAAF

However, the Russians loved the P-39. Somehow it could handle Bf-109 in the east but not the west. Gee, if the Yak was such a world beater, why would they ever put it in the air?

Soviet P-39 Aces

Here is a list from a Russian source of their fighter aces. Look over the column of planes used. There are a lot more P-39 entries than Yak entries.

Soviet top Aces of WWII rating

Maybe, just maybe the Russian sources telling of it's stupendeous performance profile is a bit overstated?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (May 25, 2017)

1968billsfan said:


> I do not agree with much of the previous discussion. Yak fighters were not comparitively tested by western powers and the sources of plane performances is suspect. Gee, it looks from the data provided that these were the best planes in the war and the Russians should have fought with nothing other than the Yak for air superiority.



Wrong on all accounts, with exception of no Western tests of the Yaks.



> Consider the poor lowly P-39. An American plane that was considered such a dog in the west against the Germans and Japanese so that it saw little use in Europe and limited use in the SW Pacific. (t soon became the joke in the Pacific Theatre that a P-400 (an early P-39) was a P-40 with a Zero on its tail. They were used in the Med as a light patrol bomber or a ground attack plane, often escorted by P-40's.
> 
> Wartime Service of P-39 with USAAF



The P-39 was seldom, if ever used as a light patrol bomber, if such a classification actually exists. MTO saw a small fraction of P-39s anyway. P-39's failings were low performance at altitude (= unsuitable vs. Luftwaffe at ETO) and lack of combat range (= problem in Asia/Pacific); neither of these mattered in the Eastern front, and Soviets (Stalin himself) clamore for more P-39s.



> However, the Russians loved the P-39. Somehow it could handle Bf-109 in the east but not the west. Gee, if the Yak was such a world beater, why would they ever put it in the air?
> 
> Soviet P-39 Aces



Nobody ever called the Yak a world beater, at least not in the discussions on this very forum.



> Here is a list from a Russian source of their fighter aces. Look over the column of planes used. There are a lot more P-39 entries than Yak entries.
> 
> Soviet top Aces of WWII rating
> 
> Maybe, just maybe the Russian sources telling of it's stupendeous performance profile is a bit overstated?



Covered above - Yak-1's performance profile was never claimed as awesome, not even by the Russians, and no-one here will toss the P-39 on the boneyard either.


----------



## buffnut453 (May 25, 2017)

tomo pauk said:


> P-39's failings were low performance at altitude (= unsuitable vs. Luftwaffe at ETO) and lack of combat range (= problem in Asia/Pacific).



The P-39's lack of altitude performance was also a major hindrance in the Pacific theatre. On Guadalcanal, the P-39s and P-400s simply lacked the ceiling to intercept incoming Japanese raids and so that work was left to the USMC F4Fs while the USAAF fighters took on more of a close air support role. 

For the most part, the Russian Front was a low-altitude aerial campaign driven primarily by army tactical imperatives rather than considerations of a strategic air campaign, hence why aircraft like the P-39 did well there.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Elvis (May 25, 2017)

Elvis said:


> I'll take the P-40, thankyou....even a _Griffon-powered_ one.
> 
> 
> Elvis


I'm gonna change my tune on this one.
I just did a quickee informal comparison using Wiki between the Yak-1, the P-40E and the Hurri IIc.
Top speed, climb rate and service ceiling all favour the Yak-1.
The armament is a bit light compared to the other two, but that may actually play in favour of the Yak (think about what eliminating two guns did for p-40 performance).
Sure the density of the volley is less than, say, six 50's or eight .303's, but one of those guns is a large machine gun and the other is a cannon, so it still has plenty of punch.
Based on the performance stats, I'm going to change my choice to the Yak-1.


Elvis


----------



## Peter Gunn (May 25, 2017)

claidemore said:


> *SNIP*
> I'll bet every Sherman (Zippo) tank crewman would have traded up to a T-34 in a heartbeat.
> Yeah, I think there are some Soviet weapons that the western allies could have put to very good use.



Just a suggestion but I think a little more research on the Sherman pretty much negates this.


----------



## Elvis (May 26, 2017)

Pete,

How do you mean?
The Sherman was known as "_The Ronson Lighter_" for a reason. It's gun couldn't penetrate the front of a Panther at point blank range.
The T-34 pioneered the idea of sloping armour and helped run the Germans out of Russia.
Plus, the later 85mm gun was a match for the German's 88.
I'd like to hear what you've found out that makes you think the Sherman was a better tank than the T-34?


Elvis


----------



## Peter Gunn (May 26, 2017)

Hey Elvis,

Look up _"Armored Thunderbolt", The U.S. Army Sherman in World War II, by Steven Zaloga_, he did rather exhaustive research and debunks more than one myth surrounding the inferiority of the Sherman, including the "Ronson or Zippo lighter" fallacy.

Better than the T-34? I wouldn't say that, a match for it? Yes. As for the Panther, the 75 might have trouble but the 76mm is a different story, here's a site that I know the fellow who takes care of it, he's a bit of a fanboy, his grammar is lacking sometimes but he has a lot of good info on the Sherman. *Again, he let's some of his passion for the Sherman cloud his writing but he usually backs it up with good research*, you'll find it here: The Sherman Tank Site | The place for all things Sherman Tank, By Jeeps_Guns_Tanks He'll also communicate freely if you ask him to back up his claims, he's a nice guy but doesn't suffer trollish behavior lightly, who does eh? 

And if you really want ALL the details, and I mean ALL, this one makes my head start to ache but it seems he's covered every rivet change ever made: Sherman minutia homepage

Anyway, it's not my intent to hijack this thread, my apologies for that possibility, but check those out and enjoy, PM me if you want to converse more on the issue, always glad to discuss and exchange ideas/information.

Cheers.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (May 26, 2017)

There are probably several threads over in the WW II section on the T-34 vs the Sherman. I would note that comparing the Sherman and T-34 is like comparing the Bf 109 and the Spitfire. There were a *lot *of different versions of each with different guns, turrets, drive-line parts and so on.


----------



## Elvis (May 27, 2017)

I, for one, would like to issue an apology to the board for aiding in skewing this thread.
Was not my intention. I just got caught up in the conversation.

...so getting back to the subject (kinda)...

There was some discussion about the P-39.
If we add that one to the list, does that change anyone's choice?
If not, why do you think your choice is superior over the others, P-39 included?

...please, discuss....


----------



## Shortround6 (May 27, 2017)

When or what are we comparing?
Summer of 1940 the Hurricane is in combat in large numbers, the P-40 is just entering production and the Yak-1 is a prototype.
Summer of 1941 the Hurricane II has been in production for 9-10 months, the P-40D/E is entering production and the Yak-1 is being issued to the first few service squadrons. 
Summer of 1942 the Hurricane IIc has been in production for quite sometime, the P-40F and K are going into service. The Yak-1 has seen numerous improvements.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Elvis (May 27, 2017)

shortround.....what's the title of this thread?
Go back to the OP if you need a refresher.


Elvis


----------



## pbehn (May 27, 2017)

Elvis said:


> Go back to the OP if you need a refresher.



the OP said this.
*On the other hand, in my opinion, the proper comparison is with the other "obsolete" fighters that were thrust into the gap in the early war and fought on till the end in lower priority roles.*

But the Hurricane was not obsolete in 1938-1940 it was the UKs frontline fighter, while the Spitfire existed and was in production the actual level of production meant that the weight of the conflict fell upon the Hurricane.

The P40 gets a bit of a bad press, in North Africa it may or may not have been superior to the Bf109E and inferior to the 109F depending on the variant. That is not really the issue because North Africa was originally Italy's domain. The Hurricane and P40 forced Germany to intervene and provide Bf109s but never in the numbers required. One of the later variants of the Hurricane had 40mm canon mounted under the wings with much success in ground attack in 1942, that means it wasnt obsolete and not really worried about enemy fighters.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (May 27, 2017)

Elvis said:


> shortround.....what's the title of this thread?
> Go back to the OP if you need a refresher.
> 
> 
> Elvis


I don't think I need a refresher. 
I was pointing out that the answer could depend on WHEN you took the look or when the "plans crossed the desk". 

Saying the Yak was the Best choice in 1940 or 41 because it morphed into the Yak 9 or Yak 3 several years later requires a large amount of hindsight, not foresight at the time. Especially the using the YAK 3 as a reference point which used a whole new wing. Not exactly visible on the "plans on the desk" early in the war. 
For instance on Dec 5th 1941 there were only 83 Yak-1s on strength with the VVS of which 47 were serviceable. Most, if not all of the 1941 Yak-1s used the M-105PA engine, not the 105PF and most, if not all used one 20mm cannon firing through the prop hub with 120 rounds and a pair of 7.62 MGs on top of the engine with 380 rpg. 
Hardly an awe inspiring armament. Please note that the Russian cannon, while fast firing, fired a light (91/96 gram) projectile with a correspondingly light HE filler. It was of poor ballistic shape and would loose velocity fairly quickly. 
Later Yak-1s pretty much traded the pair of 7.62 mgs for a single 12.7mg. Granted it was faster firing than the US .50.

And you better have a good tactical bomber because the YAK pretty much sucked for ground attack. Granted that role was not anticipated in 1940/41.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greyman (May 27, 2017)

Anyone know the ratio of 109Ds to 109Es on 3 Sept 1939?


----------



## pbehn (May 27, 2017)

Greyman said:


> Anyone know the ratio of 109Ds to 109Es on 3 Sept 1939?


Wiki says this

Developed from the V10 and V13 prototypes, the *Bf 109D* was the standard version of the Bf 109 in service with the _Luftwaffe_ just before the start of World War II. Despite this, the type saw only limited service during the war, as all of the 235 Bf 109Ds still in Luftwaffe service at the beginning of the Poland Campaign were rapidly taken out of service and replaced by the Bf 109E, except in some night fighter units where some examples were used into early 1940.


----------



## Elvis (May 29, 2017)

Shortround6 said:


> When or what are we comparing?


...thus my response of "what's the title of this thread?"
Thanks for participating.


Elvis


----------



## tomo pauk (May 29, 2017)

Elvis said:


> ...thus my response of "what's the title of this thread?"
> Thanks for participating.
> 
> 
> Elvis


Any chance to elaborate this to us non-original English-language speakers?


----------



## Elvis (May 29, 2017)

Tomo,

If you start with this post and read through the remainder of the thread that follows it, I think it will all explain itself.


Elvis


----------



## pbehn (May 29, 2017)

Elvis said:


> Tomo,
> 
> If you start with this post and read through the remainder of the thread that follows it, I think it will all explain itself.




But it doesnt because it states P40 and Hurricane as a series of aircraft but specifically the YAK-1, not the YAK series 1-9. They all had their time in the sun at different times and in different places although all were used in Russia. Hard to consider even a Hurricane Mk1 as an obsolete type in Russia when they used the Po-2 throughout the conflict.


----------



## pbehn (May 29, 2017)

tomo pauk said:


> Any chance to elaborate this to us non-original English-language speakers?


As a native English speaker from England I believe the word "esoteric" covers it.


----------



## GregP (May 29, 2017)

It's supposed to be a discussion, not a "must win" argument.

The Russian planes were head and shoulders better than anything WE had during the Russian winter. They were operating when we were grounded. Little did we know they were using crude-but-effective techniques to operate, but they WERE also familiar with how to pick an airfield that would not be a quagmire in the spring thaw. Ability to be operational when we could not was a huge advantage, including over the Germans. Even today, Russian cold weather gear is some of the world's best ... it HAS to be since they live in cold every year about winter time.

The Yaks may or may not have been wonderful in more temperate temperatures, but they did GREAT in the cold. Most Soviet pilots loved the P-39 for a number of reasons, but high on the list was a radio! It allowed communication that was otherwise impossible. Counts for a LOT.

I've ALWAYS considered the T-34 to be a great tank for the Soviet Steppes. The Sherman might and might not have been. But, for it's intended use, the T-34 was tops ... if you could get around its many weaknesses. They DID, in spades, by employing its strengths and using tactics that negated its weaknesses.

As a general comment, the AK-47 (not WWII) was never the best weapon, but it WAS the most reliable and could operate when other equipment was rendered non-operational. I read about one guy who shot over 8,000 rounds through an AK-47 without cleaning it! And it continued to shoot. That doesn't make it a good weapon, but DOES make it "hang in there" better than the best of the rest. A lot of Russian equipment was that way ... not the best, but very serviceable and well-designed for unskilled use.

Never underestimate Russian equipment. It was good or someone died. Gives a LOT of incentive to designers as they were held accountable. Siberia was no fun, and everyone knew it. They also knew Uncle Joe wasn't above killing them for little reason.

Was Russian equipment the best? No. But it was serviceable and the Russians didn't quit when many might have.

Personally, I doubt we'd have won the war without Soviet participation. The Russian Front took up an enormous amount of resources from Germany. I'm glad Hitler was not one to sit around and wait for things to develop, but instead attacked. It gave the western front a much-needed and handy relative respite.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## alejandro_ (Jun 7, 2017)

> Saying the Yak was the Best choice in 1940 or 41 because it morphed into the Yak 9 or Yak 3 several years later requires a large amount of hindsight, not foresight at the time. Especially the using the YAK 3 as a reference point which used a whole new wing. Not exactly visible on the "plans on the desk" early in the war.



Also, the Yak-9 derived from the Yak-7, which had some significant improvements over Yak-1.


----------



## GregP (Jun 8, 2017)

Hey VG 33,

Great forum name.

At least Vernisse (engineer) and Galtier (designer) didn't power the VG 33 with a Russian engine! But it WAS suggested to power the VG 50 with an Allison V-1710. Wonder how it would have worked out?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Milosh (Jun 9, 2017)

One could say the Hurricane morphed into the Typhoon > Tempest > Fury.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jun 9, 2017)

Milosh said:


> One could say the Hurricane morphed into the Typhoon > Tempest > Fury.


Then the Hunter / Harrier.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Jun 9, 2017)

Milosh said:


> One could say the Hurricane morphed into the Typhoon > Tempest > Fury.



Actually, it's full-circle Fury>Hurricane>Typhoon>Tempest>Fury. 

Sorry...couldn't resist!

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## MiTasol (Jun 10, 2017)

timshatz said:


> Heard the P40 was hairy to land due to the narrow landing gear. Not as bad as the 109, but tricky.



If the P-40 is narrow what do you call the Spitfire?


----------



## pbehn (Jun 10, 2017)

MiTasol said:


> If the P-40 is narrow what do you call the Spitfire?


wiki says this

Pilots used to British fighters sometimes found it difficult to adapt to the P-40's rear-folding landing gear, which was more prone to collapse than the lateral-folding landing gear of the Hawker Hurricane or Supermarine Spitfire. In contrast to the "three-point landing" commonly employed with British types, P-40 pilots were obliged to use a "wheels landing": a longer, low angle approach that touched down on the main wheels first.


----------



## MiTasol (Jun 10, 2017)

pbehn said:


> wiki says this Pilots used to British fighters sometimes found it difficult to adapt to the P-40's rear-folding landing gear, which was more prone to collapse than the lateral-folding landing gear of the Hawker Hurricane or Supermarine Spitfire. /QUOTE]




The above I agree with though not the inference that the P-40 required a very flat approach. Many of the strips P-40s operated from in PNG and the Solomons definitely did not have room for a low angle approach.

The collapsing problem was primarily a result of the pilot not waiting until the gear was fully locked down mixed with an indication system that was not precise enough (indicated down as opposed to down and locked).

A hydraulic system that was operated by the pilot pulling a switch on the control column instead of running at all times was another factor since it was easy for the pilot to release the switch before full system pressure recovery (the pilots only indication of locked) if distracted resulting in an unlocked gear. In combat this system ensured that the hydraulic fluid was not "instantly" lost if a hydraulic line was damaged so one has to factor that plus against the collapsed gear minuses.

Early P-40s also had a problem with all the fluid being lost when the gun charging system leaked and that also produced gear up landings until the hydraulic gun chargers were disabled. During the Philippines retreat inoperative guns were a major issue for the P-40 pilots because of the chargers being disabled. See *Doomed at the start *for more detail.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Jun 10, 2017)

Milosh said:


> One could say the Hurricane morphed into the Typhoon > Tempest > Fury.



You could take that line backwards to the Pup/Camel. The Sopwith Aviation Company was bought by HG Hawker Engineering (thence Hawker Aircraft, Hawker Siddely and ultimately BAe) so you could extend it forward the Harrier and then the latest Typhoon (Eurofighter). I'm not sure it helps much, but it does illustrate the importance of comparing like with like, particularly at a time of rapid development.

Sidney Camm survived from the age of those biplanes to see the development of what would become the Harrier. All that in one human lifetime.

Cheers

Steve

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greyman (Jun 10, 2017)

MiTasol said:


> The collapsing problem was primarily a result of the pilot not waiting until the gear was fully locked down mixed with an indication system that was not precise enough (indicated down as opposed to down and locked).



I imagine a big cause of this being that the Tomahawk took about 45 seconds for its gear to operate whereas the Hurricane and Spitfire were much shorter. I can't find the figures right now but I seem to recall them being closer to 15 seconds.

Pilots used to the British fighters might run into trouble when moving on to P-40s.

*EDIT*:
Hurricane - raised in 8, lowered in 4.
Spitfire - raised in 10, lowered in 15.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 10, 2017)

Spitfire had 5ft 8 1/2in of wheel tread/track
Hurricane had 7ft 7in of wheel tread/track
P-40 had 8ft 2 1/2in of wheel tread/track
A P-51 had 11ft 10in of wheel tread/track
AN F4F had 6ft 5in of wheel tread/track

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Jun 10, 2017)

Shortround6 said:


> Spitfire had 5ft 8 1/2in of wheel tread/track
> Hurricane had 7ft 7in of wheel tread/track
> P-40 had 8ft 2 1/2in of wheel tread/track
> A P-51 had 11ft 10in of wheel tread/track
> AN F4F had 6ft 5in of wheel tread/track



And the Bf 109 (F for which I have the data to hand) had a track of 2062mm, +/- 40mm, near enough 6'9", roughly a foot MORE than the Spitfire.
There goes another myth.  The problem for the 109 was the geometry and the 99 degree angle between axle and oleo strut.
Cheers
Steve

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Elvis (Jun 10, 2017)

Shortround6 said:


> Spitfire had 5ft 8 1/2in of wheel tread/track
> Hurricane had 7ft 7in of wheel tread/track
> P-40 had 8ft 2 1/2in of wheel tread/track
> A P-51 had 11ft 10in of wheel tread/track
> AN F4F had 6ft 5in of wheel tread/track


Impressive set of stats Shortround.
As a comparative, a fighter I always thought had a wide landing gear track was the FW-190.
Could you possibly post that measurement as well, please?


Elvis


----------



## stona (Jun 10, 2017)

If I've read the 'Prufung der Nachspur' diagram in the Fw 190 A-2 to A-6 handbook correctly the track should be 2 x 1750mm, That is 3.5m or about 11'6".
I would be grateful of some confirmation, I'm not 100% sure I have understood the diagram correctly.
Cheers
Steve

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 10, 2017)

Well, there may be two different dimensions, distance between attachment points and distance between tire centers





Looks like the distance between tire centers is NOT greater than the diameter of the propeller but I would check a better source than a drawing


----------



## Greyman (Jun 10, 2017)

I've posted this bit from the RAE's 109 report before but I think it's always useful:
_
Landing
This is definitely more difficult than on the Hurricane or Spitfire, mainly owing to the high ground attitude of the aeorplane. The aeroplane must be rotated through a large angle before touch down, and this requires a fair amount of skill on the part of the pilot, and tempts him to do a wheel landing. If a wheel landing is done there is a strong tendency for the left wing to drop just before touch down, and when the ailerons are used quickly to bring the wing up they snatch a little, causing the pilot to over-correct._

Not as snappy as a 'the wheels were narrow' for the History Channel, however ...


----------



## stona (Jun 10, 2017)

It's in the diagram for setting up the toe out of the wheels. If I've read the correct dimension, then the measurement is from the centre of the aircraft to the centre of the wheel at the axle (1750mm), giving an overall track of 3.5m.
The diametre of that propeller disc would be 3.3m? The drawing would have to be accurate as we're debating 100mm on each side 
Cheers
Steve


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 10, 2017)

I sure won't debate that distance based on a drawing (and a non-factory one at that).


----------



## stona (Jun 10, 2017)

I'm still not sure I've read the diagram correctly though. Every other reference I've seen so far simply refers to the Fw190's 'wide track undercarriage' without giving a dimension.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## Elvis (Jun 10, 2017)

Shortround6 said:


> Well, there may be two different dimensions, distance between attachment points and distance between tire centers
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Thank you for looking into that.
Whichever distance corresponds with the prior figures you gave would be fine.


Elvis


----------



## pbehn (Jun 10, 2017)

Greyman said:


> I've posted this bit from the RAE's 109 report before but I think it's always useful:
> _
> Landing
> This is definitely more difficult than on the Hurricane or Spitfire, mainly owing to the high ground attitude of the aeorplane. The aeroplane must be rotated through a large angle before touch down, and this requires a fair amount of skill on the part of the pilot, and tempts him to do a wheel landing. If a wheel landing is done there is a strong tendency for the left wing to drop just before touch down, and when the ailerons are used quickly to bring the wing up they snatch a little, causing the pilot to over-correct._
> ...




I suspect every WW2 German pilot would say "Yes of course, but why would you try a wheels landing".


----------



## Graeme (Jun 10, 2017)

stona said:


> I would be grateful of some confirmation, I'm not 100% sure I have understood the diagram correctly.
> Cheers
> Steve



That's how I understand it as well Steve.
Lock me in for 3.5m or 11' 6" (Fw190A-5 to A-9, F and G).


----------



## CORSNING (Jun 10, 2017)

Well, to get back ON TOPIC. I have read the whole thread. From what I have read it
seems that pbehn has some good questions and answers, Tomo Pauk also has some
great answers and I believe he was first to ask Clay_Allison one of THE most important
questions, WHEN. Shortround 6 then continued on that theme and ask another one
of THE most important questions WHAT. I am going to assume he was asking " WHAT
do you expect the fighter you need to do?".
*January 1938:* The Hurricane Mk.I enters RAF service. The other two do not exist in the field.
*June 1940:* P-40s are delivered. No self sealing fuel tanks & no pilot armor. Hurricane takes
this one even though the P-40s performance is around par at low altitudes with the Spitfire.
*February 1941:* The first sixty-two Yak-1s are delivered from Plant 301 to the 11 IAP. These
aircraft were built with great scrutiny. The many to follow not so much. By this time the
P-40B comes into play and the RAF has received Mk.II Hurricanes since September 1940.
Even with all this information the questions remain. When and what do you need the aircraft
to do?
Jeff

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Graeme (Jun 10, 2017)

Dunno how accurate those drawings with the "scale bar" are...


----------



## CORSNING (Jun 10, 2017)

Back on topic didn't last very long, did it?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Graeme (Jun 10, 2017)

CORSNING said:


> Back on topic didn't last very long, did it?



Nah, just poor timing - ya beat me by seconds. Carry on....


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 10, 2017)

I think all too often the TV shows go a simple explanation as an accurate one would take so long and be so boring to 90% of the views that they would change the channel or go to the Kitchen for a snack in the middle. 

When trying to figure out something like landing and take-off accidents there are a number of things that come into play of which the track of the main wheels may be very minor in good conditions. I am not a pilot so bear with me. 

For the 109 you had the strange geometry of the landing gear wheels, the tilt and toe in. Landing into the wind on a good surface (I will get to good surface in a while) this may not be a problem. With a cross wind or less than flat surface? The 3 point landing attitude helped generate lift for a low landing speed? combined with a center of gravity well aft of the wheels allowed for heavy braking without the airplane imitating a roto-tiller.




this allowed for a short landing run and helped keep the pilot from running into things, like other aircraft, fuel trucks etc. 
However it takes a good pilot to make his approach fairly level and adopt the 3 point attitude at the last minute. 
Adopting the 3 point attitude a bit early gives a miserable view over the nose and may contribute to collisions on the runway/airfield.
Modern 109 pilots seem to go either way,




but that may be what the particular pilot is used to. Please note pilot's head and possible view even with the tail wheel up. 
None of these tail draggers had a good view over the nose (F4F and F6F excepted?), more a question of which ones had a _less _miserable view than others. 

Some of these planes were much more likely to ground loop than others. Some had touchier brakes than others. F4Fs were tippy 




they sat tall and the landing gear had around 50% more travel than most land planes. 
There are probably a number of things I haven't covered but singling out one factor about a plane and blaming a large percentage of it's landing/take off accidents on that one factor is probably wrong. 

For most all of these pre-war planes the anticipated landing/take-off surface was grass. However it was hardly "unimproved" any more than a US Pro football field with natural turf is "unimproved" or European champion soccer pitches or polo pitches are "unimproved". 
They were filled, rolled and/or tamped with layers of gravel for drainage if the soil required it. In some case while the "landing" field was grass (sod) there were paved taxi ways leading from hangers/terminals to the edges of the flying surface. 

Like I said, the real explanation could be very long winded


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 10, 2017)

CORSNING said:


> Well, to get back ON TOPIC. I have read the whole thread. From what I have read it.......
> *January 1938:* The Hurricane Mk.I enters RAF service. The other two do not exist in the field.
> *June 1940:* P-40s are delivered. No self sealing fuel tanks & no pilot armor. Hurricane takes
> this one even though the P-40s performance is around par at low altitudes with the Spitfire.
> ...



And by the late summer of 1941 you have Hurricane IIc with 20mm cannon and bomb racks(?) and production P-40D & E s flying at the factory and the XP-40F with Merlin doing test flights. 

To answer Elvis's question, in the Summer of 1941 you have P39D's leaving the factory (since April), the first version with combat equipment. It needs a bigger runway than the Hurricane or P-40 (seldom a problem for the Americans with their unmatched engineering/construction support, for other nations?) and will be a lousier bomber.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Jun 10, 2017)

The angle is not adjustable via gear legs, but DOES have an adjustment going from the center of the firewall to the front of the gear pivot, so it CAN be set. As far as I know, it is neutral, but I will ask at the museum when I get in there. I have drawings for some of the planes, but not the complete set of Bf 109 drawings.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Denniss (Jun 11, 2017)

Per Fw 190 manual: Spurweite 3.50m

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Jun 11, 2017)

Denniss said:


> Per Fw 190 manual: Spurweite 3.50m



Thank you Dennis and Graeme. I can still read a technical drawing, even in German 

Cheers

Steve


----------



## Elvis (Jun 11, 2017)

Thanks tp all for your diligence in answering my question.


----------



## stona (Jun 11, 2017)

The Fw 190's wide track allowed it to operate in appalling conditions, but notice the Bf 109s in this clip too.


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cnBbj1pQaKg_


Operating in conditions like this must virtually guarantee a high accident rate, and increased demand at the laundry.

Cheers

Steve

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## CORSNING (Jun 11, 2017)

OK then, since no one (especially Clay_Allison) has not given any parameters for
the comparison, I guess its only logical that the date would have to be when all
the aircraft mentioned in the title are actually operational. So waiting for the late
comer Yak-1, the first date possible is* February 1941*. All I can do is throw the
numbers out there. No specific mission has been set so I guess we have to go
with air superiority. Since there are three aircraft involve I will separate speed,
and climb figures

Altitude / Speed
Meters / mph
P-40B / Yak-1 / HH Mk.IIc
S.L.......302 / 298 / 273
1,000..313 / 313 / 275
2,000..324 / 329 / 299
3,000..335 / 344 / 307
4,000..346 / 350 / 305
5,000..351 / 357 / 309
6,000..348 / 352 / 323
7,000..340 / 345 / 319
8,000..329 / 332 / 308
9,000..313 / NG. / 295
10,000..NG. /NG. / 254

Engine Max Power: 1,090 / 1,100 / 1,320
Test Weights (lb.): 6,835 / 6,269 / 7,560
Combat Ceiling (1,000 fpm)(ft.): 24,250 / 27,170 / 26,800
Wing Loading (lb./sq. ft.): 28.97 / 33.96 / 29.36
Power Loading (lb./hp.)/: 6.271 / 5.699 / 5.727
Turn time 1,000 m. (sec. R-L): 18 / 20-21 / 19-20
Armament: 2 x 0.5 + 4 x 0.5 / 1 x 20 mm + 2 x 7.62 / 4 x 20 mm.
Range (internal fuel - ml.): 855 / 434 / 460

Climb rates (fpm)

S.L........2900 / 3280 / 2530
1.000..2955 / 3190 / 2495
2,000..3011 / 3095 / 2460
3,000..3067 / 2930 / 2457
4,000..2780 / 2735 / 2050
5,000..1970 / 2560 / 1975
6,000..1570 / 2065 / 1730
7,000..1175 / 1645 / 1385
8,000....780 / 1130 / 1045
9,000....450 / /............725
10,000../ /.....................390
Time to 5,000 m.(minutes): 5.88 / 5.7 / 6.9
The P-40B probably had the fastest roll rate of all the contestants at a maximum of
136 degrees/sec. at 360 mph. It was 116 degrees/sec. at 300 mph.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## CORSNING (Jun 11, 2017)

All of the Yak fighters were not similar in their performance. The following statements
apply to the Yak-1:
" By early 1942 the Yak-1 had proved to be the best Soviet fighter with regard to overall
performance, but it was still bettered in combat by the Messerschmitt Bf 109F. When the
Bf 109F-2 was replaced by the 'F-4' (by the summer of 1942) with a more powerful, high
altitude engine and improved armour and armament, the discrepancy was even more
noticeable." "Its (Bf 109F-4) superiority over the Yak-1 in climb rate became more impressive,
and Manoeuverability was of the same order."
" A simulated combat between a Yak-1 M-105PF (September 1942) and a Bf 109F (sub-
variant not given) at the NII VVS revealed that the Bf had only marginally superior maneuverability
at 1,000 m., though the German fighter could gain substantial advantage over the Yak-1 within
four or five nose-to-tail turns, At 3,000 m. the capabilities of both fighters were nearly equal,
combat essentially being reduced to head-on attacks. As the Yak-1 was more maneuverable at
altitudes over 5,000m. " "...the 'F-4' with the more powerful DB601E engine...completely out-
performed the Yak-1 M-105PF."
" The dogfights with enemy aircraft over Stalingrad were desperate, and the VVS-KA suffered
great losses, especially in August and September. The reasons for this were the still-inferior flying
characteristics of the Yak-1 against the Bf 109F-4 and the new Bf 109G-2, and the high vulnerability
of the Soviet fighter, which quickly caught fire when explosive rounds hit the fuel tanks or cockpit
area. Compared with the all-metal enemy aircraft, the Yak-1 had little protection for its large wing
fuel tanks. And because of the poor view from the cockpit, and the risk of the windscreen being
sprayed with oil, pilots preferred to have the canopy open during combat sorties."
" The primary reason why the VVS-KA suffered such horrendous losses, however, was the
inadequate training given to replacement pilots."

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 11, 2017)

I would note that the early Yak-1s used the M-105PA engine and not the M-105PF and thus had a bit less performance.
Most 1941 Yak-1s were lucky if they could touch 350mph at any altitude. They would be 8-10mph slower at any altitude given and could also take about 1 extra minute to reach 5000 meters in climb.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## CORSNING (Jun 11, 2017)

As I noted, the performance numbers for the Yak-1 relate to the very first Yak-1s produced
at Plant 301. These were powered by the Kimov M-105P. These aircraft were built
with great detail given to workmanship. This was a time before the Germans invaded
Russia. The 2nd major production run was at Plant 292 in Saratov I believe. These were
powered by the M-105PA engine which was suppose to allow the boosting of the engine
to be raised from 910 mm. Hg. to 1050 mm. Hg. However, overheating required the
engine rpms to be reduced from 2,700 to 2,400 - 2,500 so there was no realization
of performance increase of any kind. In fact the lower standards of manufacture brought
about higher combat weights (6,348 - 6,368 lb.) and slightly lower performance. Top speed
had dropped to 291 mph. at S.L. and 348 mph. at 15,750 ft. Climb rate equally suffered falling
to 3,010 fpm./S.L. and taking 6.3 minutes to 5,000 m.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 11, 2017)

Again we are looking at when and what But I think I would go with the P-40 in the Spring of 1941 for P-40Fs in the spring of 1942. 

Cheating just a bit bit but the P-40D/E had been ordered in the summer of 1940 so drawings/plans would be well in hand by Feb/March of 1941 (first delivery was in May of 1941) and design work on the P-40F may be a bit iffy? First flight of prototype was June 30th 1941, 4-5 months after the Feb date but drawings of the conversion began when? and all those Merlins Packard was going to build after signing the deal in Sept 1940 had to go into something, same engine as the Hurricane II has been using for 6 months in Feb 1941 so not an unknown quantity. Granted they won't show up until the Spring of 1942 but then no matter what hypothetical aircraft/engine you pick it won't see production form a new factory for over a year.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## CORSNING (Jun 11, 2017)

OK then, is there another time period you would like covered? The first combat of the
Kittyhawk IA (P-40E-1) was 1 January 1942 in North Africa. The first combat for the P-40F
was 31 July 1942 in Palestine. The Hurricane climb performance pretty much peaked with
the light weight, 8-gun Mk.I using +12 lb. boost. Speed increased with the 8-gun Mk.II. The
Yak-1's M-105PA 1st stage supercharger rpms were increased allowing 1,150 hp. to be
reached for short periods of time starting in January 1942 with the 5th major operational
version. Speed was brought up a little, but there was a good increase in low altitude climb
allowing about 3,400 fpm./S.L. and 5,000 m./5.9 min. Turn time was also decreased to
19 seconds, though it was a larger turn radius at faster speeds than the Hurricane.
The Yak-1 remained the most fragile of the group throughout its production run.


----------



## CORSNING (Jun 11, 2017)

The Yak-1 performance peaked with the 8th and last operation version being delivered to
the 32nd Guards Fighter Air Regiment (32 GIAP) starting in *December 1942*. This one was
armed with 1 x 20 mm. ShVAK + 1 x 12.7 UBS. It was powered by the M-105PF and speed
was maxed out at 330 mph./S.L. and 368 mph./13,500 ft. Climb rate had reached its best at
3,650 fpm./S.L. and 5,000 m./5.4 minutes. The P-40M was also delivered at this time. *Three
months later* the P-40N-1 would be unleashed with a sea level speed of 332 mph. and 378 mph.
at 10,550 ft. The little known fact here is that it was also the fastest climber of all WW2
operational P-40s with an initial climb of 3,520 fpm. increasing to 3,720 fpm. at 8,000 ft. Using
WEP it could reach 15,000 ft. in 4.41 minutes and 20,000 ft. in 6.58 minutes.
The down side here is that it was not as rugged as the previous Warhawks and it was
armed with only 4 x 0.5 caliber Browning machine guns.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jun 11, 2017)

CORSNING said:


> The Yak-1 remained the most *fragile* of the group throughout its production run.


Is this an autocorrect typo?


----------



## CORSNING (Jun 11, 2017)

pbehn said:


> Is this an autocorrect typo?


Not to my knowledge. Lets just say it is more like the truth when compared to the Hurricane
or P-40.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jun 11, 2017)

CORSNING said:


> Not to my knowledge. Lets just say it is more like the truth when compared to the Hurricane
> or P-40.


Reading the posts it was both agile and fragile, though the early hurricanes were fragile too.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 11, 2017)

There is more than one type of fragile. Fragile in everyday use? landings and servicing (men walking on wings,etc) 
or fragile under gunfire? A lot of early Russian aircraft suffered from weak landing gear or at least landing gear that would slowly collapse over time. Poor seals on retract cylinders. 

I don't believe the P-40N was any less sturdy than any other P-40. The weight saving came from leaving certain things out (most of which could be put back in) or substituting light weight components in certain areas. Like the aluminium radiator and oil cooler or the magnesium wheels. I doubt a copper radiator is going to stand up to gun fire any better than the aluminum one and thses components having nothing to do with the strength of the airframe.


----------



## CORSNING (Jun 11, 2017)

The P-40N was not fragile in any sense of the word. I don't have time to go into any
detail tonight, 4:00 am. isn't that far away for me. The P-40N just cut corners and was
lighter than the P-40E. No internal starter and hydraulic lines needed to be beefed up
if I recall. The P-40N (compared to other P-40s) was quite the performer. It could turn
inside such Japanese aircraft as the Ki.61 and Ki.44. And later Ns put back in some
items that the N-1 left out such as 2 more wing guns. Performance of the latter versions
is usually distorted by the fact that there published figures are at military ratings rather
than the WEP ratings published for the P-40N-1.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## MiTasol (Jun 11, 2017)

CORSNING said:


> OK then, since no one (especially Clay_Allison) has not given any parameters for the comparison, I guess its only logical that the date would have to be when all
> the aircraft mentioned in the title are actually operational. So waiting for the late
> comer Yak-1, the first date possible is* February 1941*. All I can do is throw the
> numbers out there.



Congratulations on a very detailed analysis which I find most interesting. Despite its reputation as a snail compared to other aircraft of the period the P-40 is the superior aircraft in many of the performance details. Quite a surprise.

I cannot comment on the Yak from an ergonomic point of view but I know from personal experience the P-40 ergonomically beats the hell out of the Hurricane because, among other things, the P-40 pilot never needs to take his right hand off the control column during take-off and landing (and for most other flight operations). Throttle, mixture, prop, gear, flap, trim, fuel and primary radio controls are all on the left and in easy reach. On the Hurricane the landing gear and flap controls are on the right so the pilot has to swap hands multiple times during TO and Ldg and to maintain British design consistency (why make it easy when with a little thought you can make it bloody near impossible) the LG emergency uplock release is on the left and hydraulic hand pump needed to pump and lock the gear down is on the right.

I could not find a Yak manual for a theoretical comparison

Mi

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Jun 12, 2017)

MiTasol said:


> the LG emergency uplock release is on the left and hydraulic hand pump needed to pump and lock the gear down is on the right.Mi



Again date is relevant. The hydraulic hand pump for the undercarriage was deleted early on in series production (there was still an emergency manual option,_ "in the event of engine failure or engine driven pump failure" _according to the notes). 
don't have an exact date to hand, but I'd be surprised if many service Hurricanes retained the system by the outbreak of war.

The undercarriage and flap control is on the RIGHT of the cockpit, the engine controls, throttle control, boost cut out, radiator flap control, propeller controls are all on the LEFT of the cockpit, so changing hands is inevitable for take off and landing, but only to select flaps and undercarriage up. It is a standard British layout with which all pilots would have been familiar.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## CORSNING (Jun 12, 2017)

pbehn said:


> Reading the posts it was both agile and fragile, though the early hurricanes were fragile too.


The Hurricane had been beefed up a bit by the time the Yak-1 came into play.


----------



## CORSNING (Jun 12, 2017)

Ok, I am going with the Hawker Hurricane Mk.IIc if we are talking army co-op. Those
4 x 20 mm. were the best armament for that.
If we are talking fighter vs. fighter I would chose the Tomahawk IIA from S.L. to 5,000 m.
That's it, cause nobody has said anything about what we are going up against.!? If we are
fighting Bf 109Fs I quit until I get something better than the three listed.

Been thinking if I had to fight the Bf 109F late in 1941 above 6,000 m. and I didn't have
a Spitfire in sight, I'd take the 5th major operational (last Series) MiG-3. At worst case
was equal to the Bf 109F-4. The MiG-3's 397+ mph speed and service ceiling of 39,500 ft.
was not inferior to the Messerschmitt.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Think Tanker (Jun 12, 2017)

CORSNING said:


> The Hurricane had been beefed up a bit by the time the Yak-1 came into play.


Although so were the P-40 series, even though they were already quite durable before.


----------



## Think Tanker (Jun 12, 2017)

CORSNING said:


> Ok, I am going with the Hawker Hurricane Mk.IIc if we are talking army co-op. Those
> 4 x 20 mm. were the best armament for that.
> If we are talking fighter vs. fighter I would chose the Tomahawk IIA from S.L. to 5,000 m.
> That's it, cause nobody has said anything about what we are going up against.!? If we are
> ...


If you're taking a P-40B-E above 3,500m you are asking for a bad time. However, below such altitudes the '40 proved to be more than a fair match for a Friedrich 109 thanks to the former's superior maneuverability at speed and at low altitudes. In addition the P-40E significantly outgunned the Bf-109F series and maintained a much more durable frame. The disadvantages were obviously the lower service ceiling and inferior rate of climb and flat line acceleration, but these did not make the F series superior to the P-40E by any regard.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## CORSNING (Jun 12, 2017)

To help clear up my earlier statements about the P-40N not being the brute equal to the
earlier P-40s I give you the following statements:

" A new lightweight structure was introduced, two of the six wing-mounted guns were removed,
smaller and lighter undercarriage wheels were installed, head armor was reintroduced, and 
aluminum radiators and oil coolers were installed."-- http:www.p40warhawk.com/Variants/P-40N.htm
"From a maintenance standpoint, the P-40E was a much better built aircraft; the P-40N appeared to
be a lightweight, very cheap copy with poor workmanship, poor fittings, clearances and tolerances.
The P-40N actually required more maintenance man hours even though it did not have many of the
normal components or the P-40E, such as an internal starter, vacuum pumps and other items. After
we received the P-40N, we lost two or three due to material failures before we could correct all the 
deficiencies. We had to replace the main oil line, which was too light to stand up under engine
pressure. and build up the wheel spindles, which were too small and allowed the wheels to wobble,
resulting in excessive tire wear and blown tires. After these problems were corrected, the P-40Ns
were fairly easy to maintain and keep in commission."

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## CORSNING (Jun 12, 2017)

_but these did not make the F series superior to the P-40E by any regard.[/QUOTE]_
In a way it did. The F was a more dynamic fighter especially in the vertical. It could
outclimb the P-40E by a pretty good margin and its higher speed at altitude and higher
ceiling gave it the ability to dictate the terms of battle. The 109 had very good acceleration
in 1941-2, the same cannot be said of the P-40 series at this time except when heading
down hill. The P-40N-1 was much better than the E at acceleration, but that was not
saying a whole lot.


----------



## Think Tanker (Jun 12, 2017)

CORSNING said:


> To help clear up my earlier statements about the P-40N not being the brute equal to the
> earlier P-40s I give you the following statements:
> 
> " A new lightweight structure was introduced, two of the six wing-mounted guns were removed,
> ...


You seem to neglect the fact that these P-40N variants were of the N-1 derivative (of which, I should mention, very few were produced), which lacked many of the quality of life improvements seen in the N-5 onwards. The N-5, for example, included an improved canopy design, reducing the quantity of parts to maintain and produce it (thus making it more economically friendly) while also creating the distinctive "slash" in the back of the canopy to provide much better visibility for the pilot. Some variants like the N-10, N-20, N-35 and N-40 incorporated various internal, instrument, and operation adjustments to significantly improve quality of maintenance and operational efficiency. By the final P-40N-40 variation the "N" series provided much better reliability and usability than any previous P-40 variant.


----------



## Think Tanker (Jun 12, 2017)

CORSNING said:


> In a way it did. The F was a more dynamic fighter especially in the vertical. It could
> outclimb the P-40E by a pretty good margin and its higher speed at altitude and higher
> ceiling gave it the ability to dictate the terms of battle. The 109 had very good acceleration
> in 1941-2, the same cannot be said of the P-40 series at this time except when heading
> ...


Far from it, the Friedrich was a more "dynamic" fighter in the vertical, but only so in that regard. It could outclimb the P-40, which isn't an exceptionally useful attribute for aircraft which met in engagements at altitudes of ~2,000m. The 109 in these regards was noticeably inferior in a horizontal dogfight where the P-40 had both a superior roll rate (by an exceptional margin) and much better turning capacity and potential. In 1941-42 the 109 had good acceleration, but that isn't saying much as even by that time the more powerful P-40K series was starting to roll out, which could close the acceleration and speed gap much easier than the previous P-40E variants. The P-40L, even more so, made the weaknesses of the 109 air-frame all the more apparent, being comparable to accelerate, and having a much lesser advantage in the climbing department, all the while the advantages of superior roll rate and horizontal maneuverability were all the more amplified. Furthermore, the P-40N-1 isn't exactly a fair comparison to make against the Friedrich 109, as the was supplanted by the Bf-109G series, which was quite effective, but proved to suffer from additional weight and parasitical drag on the air-frame. Ironically, under actual combat altitudes for the P-40, they were still found to out turn, out dive, and out perform the 109 series in a number of regards. The rising casualties for the P-40 series (relatively speaking) by 1944 is attributed to the fact that more of these craft were regulated to low-flying light bombing operations, where they were far more vulnerable to attack from enemy craft (although in situations where the former engaged the 109G under fighter conditions for both, the P-40 was still more than capable of holding its own).

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## CORSNING (Jun 12, 2017)

Think Tanker,
I did not include the later N variants of the P-40 because with each newer model weight
was increased and performance decreased more or less. And when you consider the
time period of late spring 1943 these three aircraft are no longer what I would consider
front line superiority fighter aircraft. They all still had a purpose though, stopgap until
something better could be supplied. Remember now we are into Bf 109G-2 territory
along with an Fw-190A-3/-4 here and there.
I'm opting for a later Spitfire IX at this time.


----------



## Think Tanker (Jun 12, 2017)

CORSNING said:


> Think Tanker,
> I did not include the later N variants of the P-40 because with each newer model weight
> was increased and performance decreased more or less. And when you consider the
> time period of late spring 1943 these three aircraft are no longer what I would consider
> ...


Each successive N variant increased weight, yes, but even with these features not one of the P-40Ns had a top speed dip below 600kph, and when considering the latest P-40N variant, the P-40N-40, it was equipped with a new and much more powerful V1710-115 engine compared to the previous V1710-81/99 engines on previous N blocks. Even when factoring in the additional weight the magnitude of other improvements in these craft mitigated the exceptionally small performance loss. The P-40N-20, for example, strengthened the wings to accommodate for AN-M64A1 500 LB bombs on the wing pylons, drastically increasing the use of the '40 as a fighter-bomber while also, conveniently, making the craft much better suited to diving operations which the P-40 already exceeded in. By the late spring of 1943 these craft were still very much in active service and garnering a very respectable list of kills against enemy combat craft, and it wasn't until early 1944 when they started being phased out more en-mass. Granted, the remaining P-40s were replaced by the N-40 block which improved their performance and capability to such a degree that these units continued on with these craft for much longer, some of them until the end of the War. The P-40N series provided a unique blend of the P-51's maneuverability and the P-47's ruggedness and payload, which made the craft a very useful asset even later into the war, where its relatively low service ceiling excluded it from escort operations. In fact, P-40Ns that were flying top-cover for their bomber '40 brethren found themselves still exceptionally potent and capable against the Bf-109G series and Fw-190As, seeing as they had superior maneuverability and roll compared to the 109s, and much superior turn at all speeds compared to the 190 and comparable roll rate. When operations in the Mediterranean theater were restricted to relatively low altitudes, the sub-par service ceiling of the P-40 did not matter nearly as much.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 12, 2017)

I am not sure where the difference in structure comes from as In AHT the weights for wing, fuselage, tail and control surfaces for an N-25 are so close to the preceding models that they can be written off as production variation. A note concerning the weights is that the empty weight of the P-40E in the chart was 35lbs over the contract guarantee and the P-40F was 109lbs over the guarantee. Arguing over 5-10lbs out of an 1100lb wing doesn't get anywhere.
Significant weight differences are in the landing gear ( About 55-60lbs) the cooling system (59lbs) electrical (about 30lbs) although the last is more than canceled by an 80-100lb increase in communications equipment.the fuel system on the -25, but not earlier 3 tank Ns was about 55-60lbs lighter due to new non-metallic self sealing tanks. By the time you get to the -25 the N is roughly 200lbs lighter than an K or M, the Merlin versions were a bit heavier.

There were only about 200 of the Stripper N-1s built, then stuff was added back in (slowly) both at the factory and in the field.

_OFFICIALLY_ there was no difference in the power ratings of the 3 different engines used in the N series.
The last planes built did get the -115 engine with the 12 counter weight crankshaft and other improvements and what units did in the field with them I don't know but Allisons tables and charts so no difference in rated power. A great number of the Ns did get a single lever throttle/prop-control shich simplified combat flying much like the German single lever system/s.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jun 12, 2017)

As a fan of the Hurricane I am well used to the Spitfire stealing its thunder, I now have some "Johnny come lately" American contraption and a Russian lash-up named after a mountain goat trying to do the same. The Hurricane was in service in 1938, when war was declared it was by far the most numerous allied fighter. The LW was at its strongest when the Battle of France began and it was the Hurricane that gave it a bloody nose, in the Battle of France, over Dunkerque and in the Battle of Britain. Despite losses in France and Dunkerque meaning that the front line numbers of Hurricanes and Spitfires at the start were approximately the same it was still the Hurricane that provided the numbers and the kills that won the Battle of Britain because it was easier to produce and repair.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Juha2 (Jun 12, 2017)

IMHO the acceleration and rate of climb were important because at least theoretically and IMHO also in the real world the boom and zoom tactic was more effective than turn and burn. Of course it was always good to try to play with own plane's strong points and try to utilize the weaknesses of the opponent's plane.
Information on Soviets tests (P-40E vs Bf 109G-2 amongst others) can be found here: Bf-109 vs P-40

What was achieved. One must be careful on what one is comparing, real results or claimed results. One example is here, May 19th,1943, at Decimomannu, Sardina Decimomannu,Sardinia - Luftwaffe and Allied Air Forces Discussion Forum

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Jun 13, 2017)

Think Tanker said:


> If you're taking a P-40B-E above 3,500m you are asking for a bad time. However, below such altitudes the '40 proved to be more than a fair match for a Friedrich 109 thanks to the former's superior maneuverability at speed and at low altitudes. In addition the P-40E significantly outgunned the Bf-109F series and maintained a much more durable frame. The disadvantages were obviously the lower service ceiling and inferior rate of climb and flat line acceleration, but these did not make the F series superior to the P-40E by any regard.



The 109F was significantly faster than P-40 of the era, that, along with better climb, ceiling and acceleration made it a better fighter in aggregate than the P-40. It also carried a cannon, meaning the firepower was useful, even if not great.
The 6 x 0.50 armament of the P-40 and subsequent models contributed to the weight & drag increase.



Think Tanker said:


> Each successive N variant increased weight, yes, but even with these features not one of the P-40Ns had a top speed dip below 600kph, and when considering the latest P-40N variant, the P-40N-40, it was equipped with a new and much more powerful V1710-115 engine compared to the previous V1710-81/99 engines on previous N blocks. Even when factoring in the additional weight the magnitude of other improvements in these craft mitigated the exceptionally small performance loss.



Having a fighter than tops at 600 km/h sounds great in 1941, but not so much in 1942 or later when other fighters can beat the 650 or 700 km/h mark. The P-40N belonged to the 2nd tier of Allied fighters in 1943, and in 3rd tier in 1944. 
The -115 engine of 1944 will add 1000 ft to the rated altitude, the altitude power being now comparable with Merlin XII from BoB wintage, though the war emergency power was ~300 HP greater under 6-7000 ft (unfortunately, change of the crankshaft didn't allowed the 3200 rpm operation). In other words, the -115 will not turn the P-40 into a Luftwaffe killer.



> The P-40N-20, for example, strengthened the wings to accommodate for AN-M64A1 500 LB bombs on the wing pylons, drastically increasing the use of the '40 as a fighter-bomber while also, conveniently, making the craft much better suited to diving operations which the P-40 already exceeded in. By the late spring of 1943 these craft were still very much in active service and garnering a very respectable list of kills against enemy combat craft, and it wasn't until early 1944 when they started being phased out more en-mass. Granted, the remaining P-40s were replaced by the N-40 block which improved their performance and capability to such a degree that these units continued on with these craft for much longer, some of them until the end of the War.



Turning a series of fighters into fighter-bombers was a clear signal that there are other, more capable fighters around. Basically, once there was enough of P-38/47/51s, the days of the P-40 as 1-st line fighter were numbered in the USAAF.



> The P-40N series provided a unique blend of the P-51's maneuverability and the P-47's ruggedness and payload, which made the craft a very useful asset even later into the war, where its relatively low service ceiling excluded it from escort operations. In fact, P-40Ns that were flying top-cover for their bomber '40 brethren found themselves still exceptionally potent and capable against the Bf-109G series and Fw-190As, seeing as they had superior maneuverability and roll compared to the 109s, and much superior turn at all speeds compared to the 190 and comparable roll rate. When operations in the Mediterranean theater were restricted to relatively low altitudes, the sub-par service ceiling of the P-40 did not matter nearly as much.



This is fanboyism at it's best.
The USAF didn't needed P-51's maneuverability, but it's range, speed and lack of vices. It took two/three/four P-40s to carry as much bombload as one P-47, and P-47 was much more rugged, faster and rangier. What excluded the P-40 from escort the P-38, 51 and later P-47 were doing was lack of range and performance above 20000 ft. P-40Ns were not exceptionably capable vs. Fw 190 of Bf 109G series, it was the other way around. LW pilots will not enter the turning game vs. anyone, same as with Allied pilots vs. the Japanese. No Allied AF considered using the P-40s once they have had better stuff available.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Jun 13, 2017)

tomo pauk said:


> Turning a series of fighters into fighter-bombers was a clear signal that there are other, more capable fighters around. Basically, once there was enough of P-38/47/51s, the days of the P-40 as 1-st line fighter were numbered in the USAAF.
> 
> 
> .



See also Whirlwind, Hurricane, Typhoon for a British perspective.

Cheers

Steve

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jun 13, 2017)

Using a fighter as a fighter bomber was completely logical when it had ceased to be competitive or when the opposition had been removed from the game. The Hurricane took the Italian air force out of the game in Africa/ Malta improvements to the P40meant that the LW had to use its latest Bf109 versions to get the better of what was a second string enemy fighter.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 13, 2017)

A few corrections if I may:


tomo pauk said:


> Having a fighter than tops at 600 km/h sounds great in 1941, but not so much in 1942 or later when other fighters can beat the 650 or 700 km/h mark. The P-40N belonged to the 2nd tier of Allied fighters in 1943, and in 3rd tier in 1944.
> *The -115 engine of 1944 will add 1000 ft to the rated altitude, the altitude power being now comparable with Merlin XII from BoB wintage, though the war emergency power was ~300 HP greater under 6-7000 ft *(unfortunately, change of the crankshaft didn't allowed the 3200 rpm operation). In other words, the -115 will not turn the P-40 into a Luftwaffe killer.



Allison's figures for the -115 were the same as the -81 and -99. 1125hp at 15,500ft. Which pretty much fails to match the Merlin XII at altitude. Down low and using WEP things get better for the Allison The Merlin being rated at 1280hp at 10,500ft using 12lbs boost (54in?) vrs the Allison's 1480hp at 10,550ft using 57in. however the Allison altitude includes RAM. In climb the 1480hp disappeared at about 8000ft. 
The older engines with the 8.80 supercharger gears were allowed 1550hp at sea level with 60in.

Service use may vary. but the P-40N engines were closer to 200hp more powerful than 300hp. 




> This is fanboyism at it's best.
> The USAF didn't needed P-51's maneuverability, but it's range, speed and lack of vices. It took two/three/four P-40s to carry as much bombload as one P-47, and P-47 was much more rugged, faster and rangier. What excluded the P-40 from escort the P-38, 51 and later P-47 were doing was lack of range and performance above 20000 ft. P-40Ns were not exceptionably capable vs. Fw 190 of Bf 109G series, it was the other way around. LW pilots will not enter the turning game vs. anyone, same as with Allied pilots vs. the Japanese. No Allied AF considered using the P-40s once they have had better stuff available.



The late P-40Ns were equipped to carry three 500lbs from the factory, Some earlier aircraft were fitted to carry SIX 250lbs in North Africa, however I have no idea what was left out or what kind of runway was used to get airborne with such a load. A few squadrons used a pair of 1000lbs in Italy so the P-40s bomb load was pretty close to the P-47 and P-51* HOWEVER *I have no idea what the fuel load was (or if full ammo was carried) so the range/radius is subject to question. 

The USAAF opinion of the P-40 was that it had reached the end of the line in 1943, no new US units were be formed with P-40s and only such combat units as could NOT be rapidly switched to other types would even get replacement aircraft. Late 1943 and 1944 production was almost entirely for Lend Lease. 

It did make a valuable contribution to the war effort. No one is trying to take that away, But against German aircraft of 1943/44 IF flown by pilots of equal skill the P-40 was lacking.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (Jun 13, 2017)

Think Tanker said:


> Far from it, the Friedrich was a more "dynamic" fighter in the vertical, but only so in that regard. It could outclimb the P-40, which isn't an exceptionally useful attribute for aircraft which met in engagements at altitudes of ~2,000m.


I am sorry but the climb advantage is of critical importance at any altitude and maybe more mportant at low level.


> The 109 in these regards was noticeably inferior in a horizontal dogfight where the P-40 had both a superior roll rate (by an exceptional margin) and much better turning capacity and potential.


A better roll rate doesn't mean a better turn rate, what the figures were I do not kow and would appreciate anyt evidence you have that supports that view.


> In 1941-42 the 109 had good acceleration, but that isn't saying much as even by that time the more powerful P-40K series was starting to roll out, which could close the acceleration and speed gap much easier than the previous P-40E variants.


The 109 had a much better aceleration than the P40 which was big, heavy and almost certainly had a higher drag ratio, plus of course (in P40E) a less powerful engine. Even the P40L just about managed to equal the power of the Me109F4


> The rising casualties for the P-40 series (relatively speaking) by 1944 is attributed to the fact that more of these craft were regulated to low-flying light bombing operations,
> In situations where the former engaged the 109G under fighter conditions for both, the P-40 was still more than capable of holding its own).


I am sorry but whenever the P40 went up against the Me109 F or G they sufferred very heavy losses, no exceptions. In Russia the Russians soon moved the P40 and Hurricane to second line duties. In the desert the P40 and Hurricane losses were exceptional until the Spitfires arrived to take on the 109's.
You will be hard pushed to find any allied pilot of any nation who truly considered the P40 to be the equal to the 109.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## CORSNING (Jun 13, 2017)

Oh that's just great. I read what Thinker Tank says just before going to bed and
then start getting all kinds of ideas of how to answer his statements. But of course I
have to go to bed early because I have to be up by 4:00 a.m. Then I go to work
because I need money like everybody else. I'm constantly thinking up more to say all
day long and come home to find that Tomo and Shortround have pretty much read
my mind and then Juha, Stona Pbehn & Glider have covered about everything left
unsaid. Dammit!

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Think Tanker (Jun 13, 2017)

tomo pauk said:


> The 109F was significantly faster than P-40 of the era, that, along with better climb, ceiling and acceleration made it a better fighter in aggregate than the P-40. It also carried a cannon, meaning the firepower was useful, even if not great.
> The 6 x 0.50 armament of the P-40 and subsequent models contributed to the weight & drag increase.
> 
> A singular MG151 20mm and a couple of 7.92mm does not equal x6 .50 Cals, especially on the later P-40 series. Furthermore, this armament remained consistent and never increased the drag on future P-40 models, only the contrary ever happened on the P-40L and P-40N-1 series.
> ...



A lot of you seem to be _severely _misinterpreting me, I am not standing here to argue that the P-40 was the "best plane evar 1!11!" but rather that the inaccurate portrayal of it as a mediocre and inferior aircraft even for its time is utter bollocks.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Jun 13, 2017)

Think Tanker said:


> A lot of you seem to be _severely _misinterpreting me, I am not standing here to argue that the P-40 was the "best plane evar 1!11!" but rather that the inaccurate portrayal of it as a mediocre and inferior aircraft even for its time is utter bollocks.



I don't think anyone suggested that you argued that. You did write, for example

_"In fact, P-40Ns that were flying top-cover for their bomber '40 brethren found themselves still exceptionally potent and capable against the Bf-109G series and Fw-190As, seeing as they had superior maneuverability and roll compared to the 109s, and much superior turn at all speeds compared to the 190 and comparable roll rate. When operations in the Mediterranean theater were restricted to relatively low altitudes, the sub-par service ceiling of the P-40 did not matter nearly as much."_

This seems to several here a rather optimistic assessment of the P-40's capabilities, and you can hardly expect them not to offer arguments and data to the contrary.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## CORSNING (Jun 13, 2017)

*TT, you are the one that said;*
[The disadvantages were obviously the lower service ceiling and inferior rate of climb and flat line acceleration, but these did not make the F series superior to the P-40E by any regard.[/QUOTE]

The truth is those advantages were actually in part exactly what made the F series superior.


----------



## Think Tanker (Jun 13, 2017)

stona said:


> I don't think anyone suggested that you argued that. You did write, for example
> 
> _"In fact, P-40Ns that were flying top-cover for their bomber '40 brethren found themselves still exceptionally potent and capable against the Bf-109G series and Fw-190As, seeing as they had superior maneuverability and roll compared to the 109s, and much superior turn at all speeds compared to the 190 and comparable roll rate. When operations in the Mediterranean theater were restricted to relatively low altitudes, the sub-par service ceiling of the P-40 did not matter nearly as much."_
> 
> ...


The implications which I made above are relative, relative to the notion that the P-40 series was a "hunk of junk" and essentially target practice for its foes. My who point orbits around the point that it was still a lethal and effective contemporary in capable hands, contrary to the public notion that it was the former.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Jun 13, 2017)

The F was a bit better than the E, but not much. Operationally, it was just about equal.

That according to live P-40 pilots who give talks when we fly our P-40N on event day.

I can't speak to the wheel and axle issue as we use P-51 wheels on our P-40N so we have common brakes with the 3 P-51s we fly. Matt Nightingale made some wheel covers and I installed them, so you can't really tell unless the wheel covers are off. It is a rugged airplane that takes less maintenance compared with other warbirds we fly. That from watching what planes get worked on the most for 10 years.


----------



## buffnut453 (Jun 13, 2017)

The problem is nobody on this forum (AFAIK) has declared it a "hunk of junk". Under certain circumstances and within defined time periods and theatres, it was a highly capable aircraft. At other times and tactical conditions, the situation was rather different. Adding superlatives to the P-40s description doesn't change those facts. A well-aimed rifle can, with luck, be lethal to an aircraft...that doesn't mean it's an effective combat tool for counter-air ops.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Think Tanker (Jun 13, 2017)

buffnut453 said:


> The problem is nobody on this forum (AFAIK) has declared it a "hunk of junk". Under certain circumstances and within defined time periods and theatres, it was a highly capable aircraft. At other times and tactical conditions, the situation was rather different. Adding superlatives to the P-40s description doesn't change those facts. A well-aimed rifle can, with luck, be lethal to an aircraft...that doesn't mean it's an effective combat tool for counter-air ops.


The difference is from a rifle round to a P-40 is that the latter was effective in counter-air operations, whether it was inferior to its contemporaries that it fought is more determined at where the fight is taking place, since both the Bf-109 and P-40 occupy much different niches within the multi-purpose combat craft role. By the time 1944 rolled around, the P-40 lacked the range, endurance, or service ceiling to perform in anywhere but in limited theaters where its niche met the demands, in such scenarios, the skill of the pilot dictated the outcome of the fight far more than the craft, as down low the Bf-109 and P-40 were much more comparable air-frames. A pilot who tried to fly a P-40 in a vertical fight would fail about as much as a Bf-109 pilot who decided to try and out-dive his opponent.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 13, 2017)

Think Tanker said:


> A lot of you seem to be _severely _misinterpreting me, I am not standing here to argue that the P-40 was the "best plane evar 1!11!" but rather that the inaccurate portrayal of it as a mediocre and inferior aircraft even for its time is utter bollocks.




It would help if you stop coming up with arguments that are bollocks. 

Like keep a consistent time line. The Bf 109G was introduced in the Spring of 1942, the G-6 with the cowl 13mm mgs started deliveries in March of 1943. Which was actually the same month that the first P-40N-1s are delivered. However in both cases delivered/accepted at the factory is not anywhere near being in combat. Please note that it is several thousand miles further for P-40s to get to North Africa/Med than for German aircraft to make the Journey. 

SO please tell us _which_ P-40s you are comparing to which 109s or FW 190s and when. 

Yes I can find a number of pictures on the internet with the bomb-load you claim. However that seems to be a field modification/adaptation. No mention is made of reduced armament or ammo or any other limitations. Please note that P-47s when carrying under wing loads were often restricted to 267rpg vs the full 425rpg load. a savings of about 380lbs.
We also have NO figures for how far the P-40 could carry such a load so comparisons to the P-47 become more than a little strained. 
We do have figures for the P-51, a P-51 with a pair of 500lb bombs and 180-184 gallons of internal fuel was good for a 175 mile combat radius at 10,000ft with reserves. P-40 has more drag to begin with, less fuel, and the drag of the 3rd bomb means?????

I would also note that statements like "A singular MG151 20mm and a couple of 7.92mm does not equal x6 .50 Cals, *especially on the later P-40 series.* " Make no sense as there was NO difference between the guns between the P-40E and the P-40N. Same rate of fire. 
Perhaps a difference in ammo? Early P-40s had gun reliability problems. 

With the P-40s going up from the E series you have 3 different engines, WEP settings were introduced at different times and you have the stripper models. The P-40N was a whole series of modifications of it's own so blanket statements are likely to meet with a large dose of skepticism.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Jun 13, 2017)

Shortround6 said:


> A few corrections if I may:
> 
> Allison's figures for the -115 were the same as the -81 and -99. 1125hp at 15,500ft. Which pretty much fails to match the Merlin XII at altitude. Down low and using WEP things get better for the Allison The Merlin being rated at 1280hp at 10,500ft using 12lbs boost (54in?) vrs the Allison's 1480hp at 10,550ft using 57in. however the Allison altitude includes RAM. In climb the 1480hp disappeared at about 8000ft.
> The older engines with the 8.80 supercharger gears were allowed 1550hp at sea level with 60in.
> ...



The table in pdf, pertaining the US military engines and available for download at the Engine history site gives 14500 ft rated altitude for the -81, and 15000 ft for the -115. This table gives 15000 ft for the -81; all altitudes mentioned are without ram:







WER obvoiusly of 1480 HP at 7500 ft (no ram). Indeed about 200 HP advantage under 8000 ft.
But then, I have the chart showing the 15500 ft for the same V-1710-81. 



> The late P-40Ns were equipped to carry three 500lbs from the factory, Some earlier aircraft were fitted to carry SIX 250lbs in North Africa, however I have no idea what was left out or what kind of runway was used to get airborne with such a load. A few squadrons used a pair of 1000lbs in Italy so the P-40s bomb load was pretty close to the P-47 and P-51* HOWEVER *I have no idea what the fuel load was (or if full ammo was carried) so the range/radius is subject to question.



That is my point - the P-47 will carry big bombs and alternating the drop tanks, full gun & ammo suite, all in the same time. The P-40 will not match that.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Jun 13, 2017)

Think Tanker said:


> A singular MG151 20mm and a couple of 7.92mm does not equal x6 .50 Cals, especially on the later P-40 series. Furthermore, this armament remained consistent and never increased the drag on future P-40 models, only the contrary ever happened on the P-40L and P-40N-1 series.



The P-40 that just received 6-7 20mm shells is in problems just as it is the Bf 109 that got 30-40 .50 projectiles. As noted by SR6, the firepower of any P-40 with 6 .50s was the same. 



> The top speed is not nearly as important, especially when the majority of German fighters of the time period only met a top-speed of ~650kph. The acceleration of such craft is a much more important attribute, which, when putting the P-40 in a slight dive, it had a definite edge over the '109, '190 and their derivatives. Only later model Fw-190s matched (and in some rare cases exceeded) the diving acceleration of the P-40. The aircraft was not designed to be flown high, hence why I am considering its attributes under its combat circumstances. The P-40 was never going to be the aircraft which would escort bombers or have the reach to strike long-range pacific bases, but where it was used in suitable conditions it proved to be exceptionally capable, still being the most maneuverable of American fighters horizontally (surpassing the Bf-109 and Fw-190, which the P-47 or P-51 had a much harder time doing) and considering that later Bf-109 variants like the Gustav series incorporated a lot of more draggy attributes, the P-40 was more than a match for these craft when brought down and low.



The top speed is very improtant, no-one went for slower fighter in ww2 when faster types were available. For a fighter to dive on it's prey, it must 1st attain a height advantage, and here are good climbers in advantage. The P-40 was a slower climber than Japanese, German, Soviet or British counterparts. 
P-40 was designed as all fighters - to fight at any altitude the enemy might be. Problem was the non-installation of a much more powerful engines as time went on, unlike what was the case for the well known performers (Spitfire, P-51, Bf 109 etc). The later Bf 109s were not exactly excercices in streamlining, but then neither was the P-40. That became a 'niche fighter'; USAAF surely was not expecting that enemy will play to the P-40's strengths. 
BTW - down low also means thousands of hostile light AA barrels might be preying upon you.



> I never argued that it was the end-all-be-all, it didn't have the range of any of the above nor the high-altitude performance to meet an evolving criteria, but in the circumstances where the combat environment met its doctrine, it proved to still be an incredibly effective craft even in 1944.





> (This is fanboyism at it's best.)





> Let us withhold our blatant Ad Hominem attacks until the end, can we? It really fails to add anything to the discussion.



You're keep giving the P-40 attributes like 'incredibly effective' and similar. That is what I've called it, and it is not meant as insult of any kind. In other words - you put out the claims, that are not followed with data to prove the claims. I you feel offended, I apologise.



> Above 3,500m, sure, but that is not where they fought. At altitudes around 2,500m the P-40N series still proved to be a very real threat. I am not foolish enough to argue that the P-40N was blatantly superior to the aforementioned craft at such heights, but rather that the stigma that it was "flying bait" in such engagements is foolish, short-sighted and incorrect.
> 
> Simply put the P-40 has a helluva lot of ways to engage a Bf-109, it turns sharper, rolls much better and dives much quicker. The Bf-109 has its assets too, but that does not make it objectively superior to the '40. As for the Pacific theater, the P-40 was abandoned not because of lacking performance, but rather range and endurance, when you are fighting over islands the latter proves more valuable than maneuverability and versatility. The fact is that when it was used in the Pacific theater by competent pilots it again proved to be very effective.
> 
> A lot of you seem to be _severely _misinterpreting me, I am not standing here to argue that the P-40 was the "best plane evar 1!11!" but rather that the inaccurate portrayal of it as a mediocre and inferior aircraft even for its time is utter bollocks.



Rarely on this forum people call the P-40 as 'flying bait' or similar. But people will probe posts with questions when they feel something does not add up.
With that said - the P-40 at 2500 m will not out-turn the enemy that is at 3000 m. The enemy will make a diving pass, gaining speed in process, and repeat if needed - using the strengths of his machine. 
If you have competent pilots, better seat them in a performer when available.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## CORSNING (Jun 13, 2017)

Think Tanker said:


> Far from it, the Friedrich was a more "dynamic" fighter in the vertical, but only so in that regard.
> *No! the Bf 109F-4 I believe could out accelerate the P-40N-1 even in the horizontal. Actually I will have to look into that.
> *
> It could outclimb the P-40, which isn't an exceptionally useful attribute for aircraft which met in engagements at altitudes of ~2,000m.
> ...


 *Only to the bomb laden five gun versions of the 109Gs.*


----------



## CORSNING (Jun 13, 2017)

Great information TP and S6.


----------



## CORSNING (Jun 13, 2017)

TT, Shortround6 is dead on right. The P-40 in any version was not a lemon but you have
to be specific which model vs. which model of other fighter do you wish to compare it to.
If the P-40 had been a lemon nobody would have used it. There was actually a time when
it was 'state of the art' to some degree. When the French ordered it in 1939/40? it would
have been their biggest asset against the Bf 109D/Es. When the Russians received it for
the first time it became their first brush with a modern fighter that could compete with the
German invaders on an equal level.


----------



## Think Tanker (Jun 13, 2017)

CORSNING said:


> TT, Shortround6 is dead on right. The P-40 in any version was not a lemon but you have
> to be specific which model vs. which model of other fighter do you wish to compare it to.
> If the P-40 had been a lemon nobody would have used it. There was actually a time when
> it was 'state of the art' to some degree. When the French ordered it in 1939/40? it would
> ...


Lets compare it against the contemporary craft which it would face, the P-40E-1 to the Bf-109E-4 series over the deserts of Africa, or the P-40N-40 against the Bf-109G-2, a more interesting and more troublesome fight for the former for certain. Furthermore, when considering the value of these craft we must not forget critical components of reliability, resilience, versatility, range, among other "soft" factors. Some of the aforementioned the P-40 has a definitive advantage in (resilience and versatility being two, although the 109 has its own advantages in range, service ceiling, and versatility for air operations) while other areas not so much. After all, it was the all-encompassing factors of these "obsolete" craft (Hurricane, P-40, Hs 123 etc.) which kept them in service for much longer than would normally be expected.


----------



## Glider (Jun 13, 2017)

Think Tanker said:


> A lot of you seem to be _severely _misinterpreting me, I am not standing here to argue that the P-40 was the "best plane evar 1!11!" but rather that the inaccurate portrayal of it as a mediocre and inferior aircraft even for its time is utter bollocks.


For the record I repeat the last sentence of my last posting
_You will be hard pushed to find any allied pilot of any nation who truly considered the P40 to be the *equal *to the 109._

Note the word *equal*. The undeniable fact is that the P40 was outclassed by the 109F


----------



## pbehn (Jun 13, 2017)

Glider said:


> In Russia the Russians soon moved the P40 and Hurricane to second line duties. In the desert the P40 and Hurricane losses were exceptional until the Spitfires arrived to take on the 109's.


The Russians may have soon moved the Hurricane to second line duties but the first to arrive in 1941 were vitally needed. In war something is better than nothing and you frequently hve to pi$$ with the pot you have not what you want. The Russian front was huge and there were many areas of second line activity. A Mk II Hurricane with 4 x 20mm canon was just as effective as a Typhoon as far as fire power in ground attack

In North Africa the Hurricanes and P 40s forced Hitler to provide 109s to support Italy, yes they needed Spitfires to support/escort them but this was a strange conflict. The LW didnt really trouble its self with attacking the enemy on the ground, the losses suffered by the allies in N Africa never made them halt the attacks on Axis ground forces.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (Jun 13, 2017)

pbehn said:


> The Russians may have soon moved the Hurricane to second line duties but the first to arrive in 1941 were vitally needed. In war something is better than nothing and you frequently hve to pi$$ with the pot you have not what you want. The Russian front was huge and there were many areas of second line activity. A Mk II Hurricane with 4 x 20mm canon was just as effective as a Typhoon as far as fire power in ground attack
> 
> In North Africa the Hurricanes and P 40s forced Hitler to provide 109s to support Italy, yes they needed Spitfires to support/escort them but this was a strange conflict. The LW didnt really trouble its self with attacking the enemy on the ground, the losses suffered by the allies in N Africa never made them halt the attacks on Axis ground forces.


Totally agree, there are many times when something is better than nothing. The Valantines and Matildas we sent to Russia were far from being the best tanks around but they filed a gap at a critical time but no one would clain that the were the equal of a Pz III or a T34.

Its the same arguement for the P40 vs the 109, they filed a gap


----------



## Think Tanker (Jun 13, 2017)

Glider said:


> Totally agree, there are many times when something is better than nothing. The Valantines and Matildas we sent to Russia were far from being the best tanks around but they filed a gap at a critical time but no one would clain that the were the equal of a Pz III or a T34.
> 
> Its the same arguement for the P40 vs the 109, they filed a gap


And even in the Hurricane's case, it proved to fill a very useful gap of being a resilient and effective ground-attacker.


----------



## Glider (Jun 13, 2017)

Think Tanker said:


> And even in the Hurricane's case, it proved to fill a very useful gap of being a resilient and effective ground-attacker.


Again I totally agree, but not as a fighter capable of taking on the 109 with any cofidence


----------



## pbehn (Jun 13, 2017)

Glider said:


> Again I totally agree, but not as a fighter capable of taking on the 109 with any cofidence


Something that is sometimes lost on the forum discussing fighter performance is that fighter versus fighter for its own sake is a completely useless activity and rarely happened in WW2 or at any other time. The Bf109 may have been superior to the Hurricane and P40 as a fighter but the Allies had other planes to do the fighting while even the Hurricane soldiered on. The final variant (Mk V not put into production) of the Hurricane powered by a 1700 BHP Merlin 32 and 50% heavier but approximately the same in top speed as the Mk I which shows how the Hurricane was developed.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 13, 2017)

Think Tanker said:


> or the P-40N-40 against the Bf-109G-2, a more interesting and more troublesome fight for the former for certain.



Gee, Use a late 1943 or early 1944 P-40 against an early 1942 109?

somehow that doesn't convince me.

You made the claim that the P-40 was a much more cost effective fighter bomber than the P-47, it may have been, but without information on bomb load vs radius that claim could well go either way. A fighter bomber than can't reach the intended targets is a 100% waste of money. 

P-40s did a great job of shooting up some German transport air shipments. However it should be noted that they had Spitfires for top cover, not more P-40s.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Jun 13, 2017)

I think the Bf 109F was the pinnacle of the 109 series. I only think that because Erich Hartmann so stated. That said, it should handily out-climb and out-accelerate any P-40 with the exception of the XP-40Qs, of which 3 were built and never saw overseas service, much less combat. I'd think the P-40 retained it's advantage in both roll and turn down at it's best altitudes, but the Bf 109F was rarely down there in the ETO. It was mostly fighting on the Russian Front where they tried to stay high but were forced down by the Il-2s hitting German troops. It was either come down or watch the Il-2s kill troops ...

Down under 15,000 feet, the P-40E and onward were pretty good versus a Bf 109E; I'd still rather have the Bf 109, myself, given a choice. Pilots rarely had a choice; they flew what their side was flying. Once the Bf 109 hit the F and onward, the advantage was rather clearly on the side of the Bf 109, and even the Bf 109E was a far better plane above the mid-teens in altitude, which it usually WAS in the ETO. Perhaps not in the Med. The P-40 was easier to work on than the Bf 109 and I KNOW the Allison held a tune a LOT longer. But there was NOTHING wrong with a good-running DB-600 series engine. It was reliable, powerful, fuel-injected and was never a detriment to any airframe until it needed work. Much the same can be said of the Merlin ... if it wasn't running, it wasn't of much help. But if it WAS running, it was a good, nee' GREAT engine. Same for DB 600 series. They didn't "give up" in mid-fight unless battle-damage was the cause. My bet is the old Luftwaffe pilots swear by the DB as the old British pilots swear by the Merlin.

The P-40 achieved a good combat record despite being pitted against many opponents who were technically better on paper. Much of that was due to the planning and tactics used by the P-40 pilots. Though it wasn't the best fighter used in most of the theaters where it saw action, it was all we had when the war started and soldiered on until it became relegated to minor theater status late in the war. That's what happens when performance development stagnates while the enemy gets better. Ask any late-war A6M Zero pilot about that one! They knew what it meant to have been the best and then have the enemy move past them in performance. Were they still dangerous? Yes. But not overly, unless the pilot was good. Then ANY fighter is dangerous. Put Erich Hartmann in a P-40N sometime in April 1945. and I'd bet on him versus anyone flying anything available (at the time). But on average, the P-40 was near the bottom of the heap if going by performance numbers alone, after 1942. That didn't mean it wasn't useful in a LOT of places and for a lot of missions.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Disagree Disagree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## CORSNING (Jun 13, 2017)

OK, past bed time for me. Yea, yea I know I'm a real lightweight. But tomorrow
I shall avenge something somewhere and compare the P-40N to the mighty Bf 109G-2.
I have already looked over their performance figures and although the outcome is some-
what anticipated, there may be a few surprises involve...?


----------



## wuzak (Jun 13, 2017)

GregP said:


> I think the Bf 109F was the pinnacle of the 109 series. I only think that because Erich Hartmann so stated. That said, it should handily out-climb and out-accelerate any P-40 with the exception of the XP-40Qs, of which 3 were built and never saw overseas service, much less combat.



Again, this is comparing a 1943/1944 aircraft with a 1941 aircraft.

The three Qs built were prototypes modified from earlier versions - two were Ks, one was an N. 

IIRC, each of the Qs was different.

Reactions: Dislike Dislike:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 13, 2017)

How about you compare the 109G2 (engine limit 1.30 ata) to a P-40K and the P-40N to a 109G-6 running 1.42 ata?

Germans also ran 109F and 109G "gunboats" in North Africa, not in large numbers? but photos do exist.

I would also note that the USAAF didn't _approve _WER or WEP ratings until Dec of 1942.
Granted squadrons had been using higher than "book" manifold pressures (at altitudes the supercharger could provide them) for quite some time before, especially the British and AVG, which didn't have to worry about disobeying USAAF orders/regulations.

Just found this:http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php?topic=349117.15

"On the 5th of May 1944, a major bombing action was carried out by 239 Wing in order to breach the hydro-electric dam on the Pescara River. The task-group comprised three dozen aircraft from three separate squadrons: 260 Squadron RAF (flying Mustangs), RAAF 3 Squadron (flying Kittyhawks), and SAAF 5 Squadron (flying Kittyhawks).

It was thought that the German Army intended to open the sluice gates of the Pescara Dam and flood the countryside to impede the advancing Allied troops after the new assault had commenced. Allied Command decided to strike first, prior to starting their advance.

Twelve 3 Squadron Kittyhawks participated, led by the new C.O., Squadron Leader Rex Bayly. The Kittyhawk IVs were armed with one 1,000 lb bomb and 2 x 500 lb. bombs each. It was the first time the Squadron's new Kittyhawks had carried a 2,000 lb bomb load. (Kittyhawk IIIs could only carry loads of 1,000lb.) The result was that the immediate area, containing German supply and troop concentrations, was flooded and one of Italy's main sources of hydro-electric power was temporarily disabled, which helped the Allied advance. The town of Pescara was reported to be under four feet of water. The Squadron's ORB describes the mission as follows"
Copies of the squadron report/s follow. I would note that the distance on the map form the airfield to the likely target area seems to be about 40-50 miles?

Another web site describing the raid: Dam Busting on the Pescara River

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Jun 14, 2017)

I think I CLEARLY stated that the Bf 109F and later variants were clearly better than the P-40, but I didn't state which P-40 except for a prototype that never saw action. Still, I see Wuzak managed to misinterpret that.

Yes, each of the XP-40Qs were different, and all were better than a Bf 109, at least to me. They rolled better, turned better, were faster in combat, had longer range, and climbed quite well. In some areas, perhaps max climb, the late-model Bf 109 was slightly better, but the XP-40Qs outperformed the Bf 109 in general across the board. Whether or not that was significant has already been answered; the XP-40Qs never saw combat, so it makes NO difference at all. With a population of three, they don't count. I included them simply to state they were good planes, if not selected for production. I thought that was obvious to the casual observer.

So, maybe even MORE clearly. The Bf 109F and later variants were better than ANY P-40 that reached combat status, period. The Bf 109F-1 saw action in 1940, so that pretty much means that the Bf 109s encountered when the P-40 got into combat were better than the P-40s.

Does THAT make it clear enough?

They weren't better at everything and at all altitudes, but they were better combat airplanes in general. It didn't mean they couldn't be shot down or that there weren't rookie Luftwaffe pilots (or rookie US pilots, for that matter ... we had BUNCH, at first). It only means that, overall, the Bf 109 of WWII was generally much better than the P-40 when the Bf 109 was flown properly and not ambushed. NO fighter or pilot, ace or not, is very good when ambushed unexpectedly. Hartmann was shot down and Nishizawa was shot up to the point of scrapping his Zero when it landed while attacking a B-17E! Nishizawa certainly didn't expect THAT from a B-17E, but he got it anyway!

Just goes to show the old saying from the days of knights in shining armor: Some days, the dragon wins!

Even for the top pros.


----------



## wuzak (Jun 14, 2017)

GregP said:


> I think I CLEARLY stated that the Bf 109F and later variants were clearly better than the P-40, but I didn't state which P-40 except for a prototype that never saw action. Still, I see Wuzak managed to misinterpret that.



You didn't mention later versions of the 109, only the F. At least in the part I quoted.

The F was a 1941 aircraft. The XP-40Q was a 1944 aircraft with a 1944 engine.

The K seems to have been a bit faster than the Qs with or without MW50, climb rate was a bit more also.

From what I know of the 109 it would seem that all P-40s would out-roll any version of the 109. but I don't know about turn rates, though I see several people have said the P-40 was superior in that regard.


----------



## Juha2 (Jun 14, 2017)

Some turning times can be found here:
Results of the Soviet turn times tests

Incl. Hurricane IIB, IIC, IID, several versions of Yak-1, P-40C, E-1-CU, M-5-CU, Bf 109E-4, F-2, F-4, G-2, G-2 with gun gondolas, G-4.

Juha

Also for Hurri IIA, maybe I should boldface the a/c types so they will be easier to notice.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## CORSNING (Jun 14, 2017)

Interesting turn of events. The focus has fallen from the Yak and Hurricane to the P-40.
Shortround6 has a great point about the what Bf 109G to compare to what P-40. My library
of WW2 fighter aircraft official document copies and research material fills six file drawers
and I have acquired a few books here and there, but there are many gaps in the information.
I do not have elaborate performance material for the P-40K so lets take the top performer.
The P-40N-1 March 1943, Bf 109G-6/R-6 summer 1943? and Bf 109G-2 April 1942.
The reason for using the G-6/R-6 and the 3 gun version of the G-2 is to show the drastic
difference in performance of the Messerschmitts involved. It should be added that starting
with the P-40N-5 when heavily laden with bombs and external fuel tanks there was an even
more drastic difference in performance. The P-40 could barely reach 330 mph. under those
conditions.
Altitude / Speed 
Meters / mph
*P-40N-1 / Bf 109G-6/R-6 / Bf 109G-2*
S.L.......332 / 304 / 324
1,000..346 / 319 / 339
2,000..360 / 334 / 355
3,000..374 / 342 / 363
4,000..376 / 346 / 366
5,000..373 / 356 / 373
6,000..367 / 371 / 389
7,000..363 / 377 / 381
8,000..354 / 371 / 381
9,000..350 / 359 / 379
10,000..332 / 339 / 343
11,000..299 / 299 / NG.
Altitude / Climb
Meters / fpm
*P-40N-1 / Bf 109G-6/R-6 / Bf 109G-2*
S.L........3520 / 3150 / 4250
1,000..3600 / 3075 / 4625
2,000..3680 / 3035 / 3936
3,000..3465 / 2780 / 3739
4,000..2965 / 2580 / 3562
5,000..2480 / 2450 / 3267
6,000..2025 / 2265 / 2853
7,000..1635 / 1920 / 2342
8,000..1265 / 1535 / 1830
9,000....940 / 1100 / 1318
10,000....615 / 610 / 413
11,000....290 / 70 / NG.
Full throttle heights: 378 mph/3,215 m / 379 mph/6,420 m / 395 mph/6300 m.
( Bf 109G-1: 403.3 mph/6,400 m.)
Critical Altitude Climb: 3,720 fpm/2,438 m / 3,011 fpm/2,350 m / 4,861 fpm/1,630 m.
Combat Ceiling (ft.): 28,920 / 30,190 / 33,200
Turn times (360 degrees/sec.): 17.5 estimated / 24 estimated / 22.6-22.8
Combat Weight (lb.): 7,413 / 7,187 / 7,133
Armament: 4 x 0.5 in. / 3 x 20 mm + 2 x 13 mm / 1 x 20 mm + 2 x 7.9 mm.
Max. Engine Power (hp.): 1,480 / 1,380 roughly / 1,455
Wing Loading (lb./sq. ft.): 41.42 / 41.47 / 41.16
Power Loading (lb./hp.): 5.009 / ~5.208 / 4.902

Note: The P-40N-1 and Bf 109G-6 were set up to handle tropical conditions, the Bf 109G-2
was not and its performance would have been somewhat less in the sandy dessert of
Africa.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## CORSNING (Jun 14, 2017)

It just dawned on me that " The Bf 109G was like a box of chocolates. You never knew
what you were going to get." or be facing in the air. So be prepared for the best and hope
for the worst.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 14, 2017)

I was in error before when I said the P-40 had three different engines from the E on. It had four,
Including the long nose models you had five.
C-15/-33 engine. 8.80 supercharger gears and a reduction gear set that had trouble at high power, it was over boosted at times but often at cost in later flights. this is the 1040hp at 14,300ft engine. same for take-off
The F3R/39 engine used in the P-40E. 8.80 supercharger gear but with stronger/improved parts that allowed for 1150hp st 12,000ft, same for take-off. power once you got to 14-15,000ft and up was the same as the earlier engine for all practical purposes. There was a bit of change back and forth with intake manifolds and backfire screens but those are the basic numbers.
Neither engine was officially allowed WEP/WER settings although the squadrons in the field did over boost.
The P-40F used the Merlin XX engine as used by Packard and here things get a bit strange. The US apparently never authorized higher than 9lbs boost (48in). The P-40F was the only American plane this engine was used in. I have no idea what the British allowed for boost but most _early _Packard built Merlins in British service stuck pretty much to those limits with the exception of using higher boost for take-off. Potential for confusion in combat reports?
The P-40K, first _Delivered_ in May of 1942 (1st combat?) used the FR4/-73 engine with 8.80 supercharger gears, stronger parts and perhaps a slightly modified supercharger? at any rate it was allowed 1325hp for take-off and still made 1150hp at 11,800ft (the intake manifold and backfire screen combos may still have been going on). This engine *was* allowed a WER/WEP rating in Dec of 1942 of 60in (15lbs boost) but the supercharger would only provide that at very low altitudes 1550hp was good to about 2500ft? The Higher boost pressures reported in squadron use were only achievable at * VERY *low levels and/or by over revving the engine and/or in combination with ram at high speed. One also has to note that in desert temperatures the air is thinner (less dense) and 66in of MAP is not the same number of pounds of air per minute (power) as 66in of MAP at 60-70 degrees F, Most engine specifications being corrected to 59 degrees F or 15 degrees C. 
Please note that the FR4/-73 also used 70%water/30% Prestone cooling instead of the early 97-100% Prestone for better cooling.
We finally get to the F-20R-F26R-F31R/-81-99-115 engines used in the P-40M and N series (and as replacements for Merlin in the P_40R) with further improvements, the 9.60 supercharger gear and the 1150hp at 15,000-15,500ft rating. due to the stiffer supercharger gear take-off power is cut to 1200hp and WER/WEP is cut to 1480hp although it can hold it higher than the -73 engine. Allison was _very _concerned that service units would try over-boosting it like they did the early engines but due to the higher heat rise in the supercharger due to high gear ratio this could lead to detonation at lower pressures than the earlier engines.

Much like the 109, the P-40 was a box of chocolates. What engine and what boost pressure are you comparing ?

edit, correct boost pressure on the Merlin form 58 in to 48 in as pointed out by Grayman and Corsning.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## CORSNING (Jun 14, 2017)

The P-40F used the Merlin XX engine as used by Packard and here things get a bit strange. The US apparently never authorized higher than 9lbs boost (58in). The P-40F was the only American plane this engine was used in. I have no idea what the British allowed for boost but most _early _Packard built Merlins in British service stuck pretty much to those limits with the exception of using higher boost for take-off. 
*Shortround, I believe +9 lbs boosting is around 48.3"Hg and the British were boosting their Merlin XX engines in the Hurricane Mk.II to +14 lbs. (~58"Hg) around September 1940. With 100 octane fuel they 
later boosted the Merlin XX to +16 lbs. (~62"Hg.) producing 1,490 hp./12,500 ft.*

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## CORSNING (Jun 14, 2017)

Shortround6,
I forgot to ask about the 8.77 gearing in an early Allison engine. I remember reading
about it but do not remember where...?


----------



## Greyman (Jun 14, 2017)

Engine limitations (British, at least) for Merlin V.1650-1 (Aug 1942)

Max take-off: 54.5 inches, 3000 rpm
Max all-out level (5 min): 48.0 inches, 3000 rpm

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 14, 2017)

CORSNING said:


> The P-40F used the Merlin XX engine as used by Packard and here things get a bit strange. The US apparently never authorized higher than 9lbs boost (58in). The P-40F was the only American plane this engine was used in. I have no idea what the British allowed for boost but most _early _Packard built Merlins in British service stuck pretty much to those limits with the exception of using higher boost for take-off.
> *Shortround, I believe +9 lbs boosting is around 48.3"Hg and the British were boosting their Merlin XX engines in the Hurricane Mk.II to +14 lbs. (~58"Hg) around September 1940. With 100 octane fuel they
> later boosted the Merlin XX to +16 lbs. (~62"Hg.) producing 1,490 hp./12,500 ft.*




Thank you, mental math error on the 58in. 
I know the British used higher boost pressures on the British built Merlin XX engines. what I don't know is if they used higher boost pressures on the Packard Built Merlin XX engines. also known as the Merlin 28 & 29 and not the Merlin XX. When you get to Packard built Merlin 224s you have different pistons, stronger supercharger drive parts, stronger supercharger clutches and beefed up engine block side panels (and a few other changes).


----------



## tomo pauk (Jun 14, 2017)

CORSNING said:


> Shortround6,
> I forgot to ask about the 8.77 gearing in an early Allison engine. I remember reading
> about it but do not remember where...?



If I may - 8.77:1 S/C gearing was used on following V-1710s:
-A2 (XV-1710-1 per US Army nomenclature), C1 Build #1 (XV-1710-3), C13 (XV-1710-19), C15 and C15A (V-1710-33)

Per table 9-7, pg. 224 at 'Vee's for victory'.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## CORSNING (Jun 14, 2017)

Nice info Tomo. I thought those gears might be in the early P-40s.


----------



## eagledad (Jun 14, 2017)

Corsning,

Data for the P-40K (versions 1 to 15) from Tactical Planning Characteristics and Performance Chart, dated 20 November, 1943

Altitude/ Speed/ Climb/ Time

Feet/ Mph/ ft/min/ 
5,000 / 320/ 2,100/ 2.4
10,000/ 342/ 2,000/ 4.9
15,000/ 362/ 1,650/ 7.5
20,000/ 330/ 1,100/ 11.2
25,000*/ 265/ 350/ 18.5 

All numbers at Military power, except time to climb, and speed and climb rate at 25,000 which is Max continuous power.

Weight 8,400 pounds
Engine V-1710-73, take off 1,325 Hp, military 1,150 at 11,800 feet, max continuous, 1,000 Hp at 11,000.

Please note the following taken from page 1 of the chart:

“Data contained herein are not to be considered guaranteed performance or optimal performance as established by test flight but are to be considered official “Practical” characteristics and performance to be used for planning purpose for the average pilot”

One further warning from page 1 (verbatim, all caps in oringinal):

WARNING
THESE CHARTS CONTAIN CONSERVATIVE AVERAGES FOR TACTICAL PLANNING AND ARE NOT SUITABLE FOR AERODYNAMIC ANALYSIS.

Perhaps, this gives us an idea how the aircraft performed in day to day conditions, Tactical planning data is not available for the P-40N-1

Eagledad

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 14, 2017)

Sorry about the mistake on the 8.77 gears but it is minor. Impeller in supercharger is turning 26310rpm at crankshaft 3000rpm. The 8.80 gears drove the impeller at 26400rpm. switching to 9.60 gears makes the impeller spin 2880rpm.


----------



## wuzak (Jun 14, 2017)

Shortround6 said:


> Sorry about the mistake on the 8.77 gears but it is minor. Impeller in supercharger is turning 26310rpm at crankshaft 3000rpm. The 8.80 gears drove the impeller at 26400rpm. switching to 9.60 gears makes the impeller spin *2880rpm*.



You mean 28,800rpm.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 14, 2017)

yep, did it again


----------



## eagledad (Jun 15, 2017)

Corsning,

Data for the P-40N-1 from Tactical Planning Characteristics and Performance Chart, dated 20 November, 1943.

Altitude/ Speed/ Climb/ Time

Feet/ Mph/ ft/min/
5,000 / 325/ 2,425/ 2.1
10,000/ 345/ 2,525/ 4.1
15,000/ 362/ 2,400/ 6.7
20,000/ 365/ 1,850/ 9.1
25,000/ 357/ 1,225/ 12.4

All numbers at Military power. There was no war emergency rating listed..

Weight 7,725 pounds
Engine V-1710-81, take off 1,200 Hp, military 1,125 at 14,600 feet, max continuous, 1,000 Hp at 13,800.

My previous statement about no P-40N-1 was in error. Interesting to compare these numbers with the flight test.

Eaagledad

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Jun 15, 2017)

Interesting stuff. 
Are those data sheets gor the P-40 versions available for download?


----------



## CORSNING (Jun 15, 2017)

Hi Tomo,
I don't have any of these P-40 charts in my files *YET*. HOWEVER SIR, I brought
up GOOGLE and punched in* P-40 tactical planning characteristics and performance
chart* then BOOM! they are all there.

Tomo, always good to here from you sir, Jeff.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jun 15, 2017)

CORSNING said:


> Hi Tomo,
> I don't have any of these P-40 charts in my files YET. HOWEVER SIR, I brought
> up GOOGLE and punched in* P-40 tactical planning characteristics and performance
> chart* then BOOM! they are all there.



Seems my Google-fu is weak these days...


----------



## CORSNING (Jun 15, 2017)

Tomo,
Are you able to bring up any of them? Sorry I can't talk anymore tonight, I have to work
the next 5 days from 5:00 am to 1:30 pm.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jun 16, 2017)

None so far.


----------



## eagledad (Jun 16, 2017)

Cornsing and Tomo,

The charts are not from the net but from Maxwell AFB. Attached are the 2 pages on the P-40 from Nov 1943

Eagledad

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
2 | Like Like:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## Juha2 (Jun 16, 2017)

Hello Corsning, thanks again for the very interesting and informative messages. I have a couple questions.

#126 What is your source for these quotes on Yak-1? I always like to know the sources, the info in your quotes is more or less similar to that I have from Yefrim Gordon’s books Soviet Combat Aircraft Vol One SE fighters and Soviet Air Power in World War 2 but more extentive.

#186 The German data gives the max speed for 109G-6/R6 as 502 km/h (312 mph) at SL and 620 km/h at 6 500 m (385 mph at 21 325 ft) and IIRC the British test gave its max speed as 618 km/h at FTH (source one of Eric Brown’s articles in RAF Yearbooks, IIRC the year 1976). And German data for 109G-2 523 km/h at SL and 652 km/h at 6 700 m (405 mph at 21 982 ft), The Finnish test data for G-2 (with the fixed long tail-wheel struts) 522 km/h (324 mph) at 10 m (33 ft) and 636 km/h at 6 300 m (395 mph at 20 669 ft). The Finnish speed figures are with compressibility correction, and without it the speeds were 523 and 652 km/h or the same as the German data.

TIA
Juha


----------



## CORSNING (Jun 16, 2017)

#126 What is your source for these quotes on Yak-1?
*Hello there Juha,
Please excuse my manners. I am a great believer in listing resources these days.
The first quote is from 'Soviet Combat Aircraft of the Second World War" by Gordon and Khazanov page 124.
The second is from the same source and can be found on page 125. The third quote came from
"Bf 109E/F vs. Yak-1/7 Eastern Front 1941-42" by Dmitriy Khazanov & Aleksander Medved page 67 & 68.
God bless, Jeff*


----------



## CORSNING (Jun 16, 2017)

#186 The German data gives the max speed for 109G-6/R6 as 502 km/h (312 mph) at SL and 620 km/h at 6 500 m (385 mph at 21 325 ft) and IIRC the British test gave its max speed as 618 km/h at FTH (source one of Eric Brown’s articles in RAF Yearbooks, IIRC the year 1976). And German data for 109G-2 523 km/h at SL and 652 km/h at 6 700 m (405 mph at 21 982 ft), The Finnish test data for G-2 (with the fixed long tail-wheel struts) 522 km/h (324 mph) at 10 m (33 ft) and 636 km/h at 6 300 m (395 mph at 20 669 ft). The Finnish speed figures are with compressibility correction, and without it the speeds were 523 and 652 km/h or the same as the German data.

*The information for the tropical Bf 109g-6/R-6 came from wwiiaircraftperformance.org. Mr. Mike Williams and 
Mr. Neil Stirling have gone to great lengths to put together The best collection of original official 
documentation on WW2 aircraft I have ever seen.*

*The information for the Bf 109G-2 came from www.kurfurst.org and is from the Finish Test Trials. For 
information on the Bf 109 using original documentation there is no better site on the web, PERIOD!*


----------



## CORSNING (Jun 16, 2017)

I always like to know the sources, the info in your quotes is more or less similar to that I have from Yefrim Gordon’s books Soviet Combat Aircraft Vol One SE fighters and Soviet Air Power in World War 2 but more extentive.
Juha,
*The main sources that I used for the Yak-1 in my posts comes originally from Yafim Gordon and Dmitri
Khazanov's Soviet Combat Aircraft of the Second World War with some help from Erik Pilawskii's 
Soviet Air Force Fighter Colours 1941-1945. However, the site that made the elaborate display
of performance figures possible must be credited to http://www.rkka.es/aviones/diagrams.*

Now with that being said, I have spent the last several years researching WW2 fighter aircraft. I have
come into contact with many knowledgeable individuals that have helped me immensely. Neil Stirling,
Mike Williams, I apologize to all the others that I have not listed here at this time. There was even
a Dago Wop that got me heading in the right direction. Yea, you know who you are.
Many hundreds, no, thousands of hours of research later I put together:
Aircraft Performance - The Great Planes : World War Two Warbirds section on warbirds forum.com.


----------



## CORSNING (Jun 16, 2017)

All post I have made on this site 'void were prohibited by law or this site'.


----------



## Juha2 (Jun 16, 2017)

Hello Corsning
thanks a lot for your answers
I totally agree with your comments on wwiiaircraftperformance.org, www.kurfurst.org and Aviacion sovietica en la Segunda Guerra Mundial All are excellent sources.

Juha

PS. Took a short look on your threads in the WWII Warbirds Forum, great stuff!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## MiTasol (Jun 18, 2017)

stona said:


> Again date is relevant. The hydraulic hand pump for the undercarriage was deleted early on in series production .... don't have an exact date to hand, but I'd be surprised if many service Hurricanes retained the system by the outbreak of war.
> 
> The undercarriage and flap control is on the RIGHT of the cockpit, the engine controls, throttle control, boost cut out, radiator flap control, propeller controls are all on the LEFT of the cockpit, so changing hands is inevitable for take off and landing, but only to select flaps and undercarriage up. It is a standard British layout with which all pilots would have been familiar.
> 
> ...



Canadian Mk II Hurricanes (or at least the one at the Reynolds Museum in Alberta's one) had the hydraulic hand pump and the Canadian production was certainly post 1939.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 18, 2017)

The early aircraft were hand pump only. I believe the later aircraft used an engine driven hydraulic pump but kept the hand pump for back-up/emergency use. At least that is what the manual for the MK II from 1944 says.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (Jun 18, 2017)

Understandably people have gone for the test figures when comparing aircraft but the following are some quotes from the prople who flew them from the book wings over Tunisia

Wg Cdr Douglas Benham
Undoubttedly I preferred to fly the spitfire, As far as I was concerned it had all the advantages and none of the the disadvantages , It was far superior to all other Allied fighters in Tunisia. During a mock combat I was able to easily outfly three three P40's in a Mark Vb, and the Mk IX was much better.

Dennis Usher
The SPitfire was the best allied fighter as it had good climb, speed and manoeuverability. The Kittyhawk was best used as a fighter bomber adn was very valuble in that role

Harrison Thyng (USAAF)
I felw the SPitfire and preferred this as it was the best allied fighter for air to air combat. The USAAF P39, P40 and P38 were no match for the germans fighter on fighter. The SPitfires were used to escort even our own fighters

Jerry Collingworth (USAAF)
I much preferred the SPitfire over any aircraft in the allies had in Tunisia. The P39 was a miserable fighterfor Tunisia. The Kittyhawk was very little better. 

Frank Hill (USAAF)
The operations of the p39 and to a lesser degree the P40 were restricted to air ground operations, most often under the protection of US or UK Spitfires

Ernest Osher (USAAF)
The Kittyhawk was just about outdated when we were using them in Tunisia,

John L Bradley (USAAF)
The P40 was an untried aircraft in Europe and it just didn't have the performance to compete when it did arrive. It was capable of taking damage and making it home and it did have good firepower, However it was obsolete for the job it was asked to perform. I flew a couple of escorts to P39's durng my tour and many of those pilots were afraid of them and figured they didn't have a chance if jumped by enemy aircraft without top cover.
Morale of the American pilots was very high when they came into theatre but after operating underfield conditions and with inferior aircraft it sufferred accordingly.


----------



## Greyman (Jun 19, 2017)

J. F. 'Stocky' Edwards:
The cruising speed of the Kittyhawk II was reasonably fast and equal to the Spit.V and the Mk.III was comparable to the Spit.IX. However, the Kittyhawk didn't jump when the throttle was advanced to full power and it didn't climb worth a damn like the Spitfire. It would turn inside the 109 but not as easily as the Spitfire.

When the squadron's tame Me.109 flew with the Kittyhawk, we found in necessary to throttle back to approximately seventy-two percent power to stay in formation. The Me.109's definitely flew at higher cruising speeds when operating with two or four aircraft. ... In order to fully appreciate the outstanding qualities of a Spitfire, pilots should have first been required to do a tour of ops on Kittyhawks.


----------



## Venturi (Jun 19, 2017)

Nobody is discussing why the reputations of the aircraft came about as they did. 

Tactical considerations are key here in this comparison, and to put the historical results in context. Where you find yourself and what your mission parameters are plays the largest part in your fate when you are flying these planes in combat.

Are you in a Bf109 which is tasked to fly low level in a "carousel" for self-defense, in antiquated formations ... rather than flying at the same height or higher than your enemy, in proper finger-four formation? What do you think your fate will be against P40s flying higher than you with mission orders which allow much more tactical variation? A P40 frei-jagd, as it were. I bet the Bf109s don't have a good day from this scenario.

Rarely, were the results of air combat determined by absolute fastest speed. Rather, average combat speed, climb rate, dive speed and controlability, acceleration, durability, and practical maneuverability were the point. 

Let's break it down...

Combat speed: Bf109 wins
Climb: Bf109 wins
Acceleration: Bf109 wins
Dive speed and controlability: P40 wins
Durability: P40 wins
Practical maneuverability: P40 wins (especially at high speed where the Bf109 stiffens up)

It's situational.

So you see, ceiling doesn't matter much. Strategically yes, tactically no. If you start out lower than your enemy, you're already hosed.
The circumstances dictate terms, and the factors which allow you to recover from bad circumstances are then what matters. Essentially what these factors are (above) revolve around escape and energy recovery. The energy recovery factors all go to the Bf109, which handily outperforms the P40. This is especially damning considering the tactical situation that the P40s often found themselves in, at an energy disadvantage.

Yes, the P40 was a plane which was below what the Allies were capable of producing. That was because it was designed to fulfill pre-war USAAF contract requirements and philosophies. 

That doesn't mean it did not have merits and could give you a very bad day, especially if it started out equal or higher in energy. Alot of Bf109 pilots found this out the hard way.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Jun 19, 2017)

Venturi said:


> That doesn't mean it did not have merits and could give you a very bad day, especially if it started out equal or higher in energy. Alot of Bf109 pilots found this out the hard way.



Are you sure about that? I can't look at the figures now, but I don't think many Bf 109s were lost to P-40s in the MTO. I have no idea about losses in the East.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 19, 2017)

Venturi said:


> Nobody is discussing why the reputations of the aircraft came about as they did.
> 
> Tactical considerations are key here in this comparison, and to put the historical results in context. Where you find yourself and what your mission parameters are plays the largest part in your fate when you are flying these planes in combat.
> 
> ...



As to the bolded part. the dive speed is questionable. I believe the the P40 was rated at 480mph? A Bf109E was rated at 466mph? 
A 109F or G was ????? once they got the wings to stay on? with ultimate speed so close acceleration in the dive was probably more important and controllablity was even more so. 



> Yes, the P40 was a plane which was below what the Allies were capable of producing. That was because it was designed to fulfill pre-war USAAF contract requirements and philosophies.



The P-40 was "designed" much more to get _something/anything _into production (pre-war contracts) than any particular philosophies the USAAC had. Being a re-engined P-36 the production lines already existed and a work force was already trained. The factory would be much expanded and the work force multiplied but production was not started from scratch. Curtiss built 778 P-40s in 1940 and 2248 in 1941, far exceeding all other US fighters put together. 

The P-40 was actually contrary to the USAAC fighter philosophy as evidenced by the P-38, the XP-39 with turbo, the P-43/P47 but it was what the USAAC could actual get (take delivery on) while it waited for the planes that did match it's philosophy. The P-39 without turbo fell into the P-40 catagory. What they could get vrs what they wanted.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Jun 19, 2017)

Venturi said:


> Nobody is discussing why the reputations of the aircraft came about as they did.
> 
> Tactical considerations are key here in this comparison, and to put the historical results in context. Where you find yourself and what your mission parameters are plays the largest part in your fate when you are flying these planes in combat.
> 
> ...



The Bf-109s flying against the better judgement, against doctrine and against the training - that is counting on the enemy being outright dumb. In other words, not the best planing. Whether we like it or not, the Bf 109 was to the P-40 what Merlin Mustang was to the Fw 190 - better, sometimes much better fighter in aggregate.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (Jun 19, 2017)

Venturi said:


> Nobody is discussing why the reputations of the aircraft came about as they did.
> 
> Tactical considerations are key here in this comparison, and to put the historical results in context. Where you find yourself and what your mission parameters are plays the largest part in your fate when you are flying these planes in combat.


*Totally agree*



> Are you in a Bf109 which is tasked to fly low level in a "carousel" for self-defense, in antiquated formations


The idea of the Luftwaffe not flying in finger four formation is almost unthinkable as they learnt this tactic in Spain *and used it from day 1 of the war*. The allies played catch up at great cost.
Next point the Me109's never tasked fighters to 'carousel' at low altitude check the BOB, Battle of France, Fighting over Tunisia, it was almost an athema for them.


> ... rather than flying at the same height or higher than your enemy, in proper finger-four formation?


See above


> What do you think your fate will be against P40s flying higher than you with mission orders which allow much more tactical variation? A P40 frei-jagd, as it were. I bet the Bf109s don't have a good day from this scenario.


Another small point is that the P40 was very poor at altitude where the Me109 was very good at altitude.


> Rarely, were the results of air combat determined by absolute fastest speed. Rather, average combat speed, climb rate, dive speed and controlability, acceleration, durability, and practical maneuverability were the point.
> 
> Let's break it down...
> 
> ...


Dive speed the P40 wins but not controlability whatever that means


> So you see, ceiling doesn't matter much. Strategically yes, tactically no.


I would appreciate any example of any millitry leader, of any nation, at any time (way back to Romans if you like) in land, sea or air who agrees with your belief that having a srategic advantage doesn't relate to having a tactical advantage.


> If you start out lower than your enemy, you're already hosed.


Correct and as you agree the Me109 holds all the altitude advantages


> The circumstances dictate terms, and the factors which allow you to recover from bad circumstances are then what matters. Essentially what these factors are (above) revolve around escape and energy recovery. The energy recovery factors all go to the Bf109, which handily outperforms the P40. This is especially damning considering the tactical situation that the P40s often found themselves in, at an energy disadvantage.
> 
> Yes, the P40 was a plane which was below what the Allies were capable of producing. That was because it was designed to fulfill pre-war USAAF contract requirements and philosophies.


Again I agree


> That doesn't mean it did not have merits and could give you a very bad day, especially if it started out equal or higher in energy. Alot of Bf109 pilots found this out the hard way.


Relatively few 109 pilots found out the hard way. Most pilots of all sides were shot down by people they didn't see and in those situations it didn't really matter what the attacker was flying. That said the 109 had a mch better chance of being the aggressor as they had the advantage of altitude.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## CORSNING (Jun 19, 2017)

Let's break it down...

Combat speed: Bf109 wins
Climb: Bf109 wins
Acceleration: Bf109 wins
Dive speed and controlability: P40 wins
Durability: P40 wins
Practical maneuverability: P40 wins (especially at high speed where the Bf109 stiffens up)

*I agree with a lot that you said except Combat Speed. The Bf 109 control surfaces begin to 
'harden' around 330 mph. The P-40's continue to excel with higher speeds.*

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## CORSNING (Jun 19, 2017)

I have been a little hesitant in buying the next book on 'my list to add to
my library', " P-40 Warhawk vs Bf 109: MTO 1942-44 (Duel) " mostly 
because of all the other research material on my desk at this time. But
if I am forced to do so, so be it.


----------



## CORSNING (Jun 19, 2017)

I do know for a fact at this time that the P-40 pilots in the African desert had a
hard way to go with the Bf 109. They dreaded the fact that the 109 had a healthy
height advantage, and that they had to wait for them to make the first move. After
the first pass the P-40 had a good chance if flown right.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## CORSNING (Jun 19, 2017)

Uh, you know, it just dawned on me, the Bf 109 was not one of the options
in this thread.  But since it has been brought to my utter attention that that
is the foe in which we must face, I answer with: where the hell is my Spitfire?!!!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jun 19, 2017)

CORSNING said:


> I do know for a fact at this time that the P-40 pilots in the African desert had a
> hard way to go with the Bf 109. They dreaded the fact that the 109 had a healthy
> height advantage, and that they had to wait for them to make the first move. After
> the first pass the P-40 had a good chance if flown right.



In some ways the North African conflict was asymmetric. Although the Allies were at times on the offensive and then defensive then offensive again when were Bf109s charged with being fighter bombers or escorts for fighter bombers and how did they do?


----------



## Glider (Jun 19, 2017)

pbehn said:


> In some ways the North African conflict was asymmetric. Although the Allies were at times on the offensive and then defensive then offensive again when were Bf109s charged with being fighter bombers or escorts for fighter bombers and how did they do?



They didn't the Me109 was normally used as a fighter not a GA aircraft and as a escort they did reasionably well as you might expect. Very well against P40s and less well against Spits.


----------



## Venturi (Jun 19, 2017)

I know very well what happened in N Africa and the Med. I was making a point, which you failed to grasp - that is, that if the Bf109 had been flown with inferior tactics, it would have also fared poorly.

I recommend interested parties to buy and read the three part series A History of thee Mediterranean Air War by Shores.
Amazon product
_View: https://www.amazon.com/History-Mediterranean-Air-1940-1945-Vol/dp/190916612X/ref=pd_lpo_sbs_14_t_0?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=Z4M6EWP5NTQ82SJVKJCP_


Contrary to popular opinion, it seems, the P40 had its fair share of kills. Including against Bf109s. You will not find a more complete and thorough history of mission outcomes than in that series above. In it you will find the Luftwaffe had the best of it, but they were certainly not immune to gunfire and the odd circumstance of being bounced... have fun reading. 

By the way, don't forget Sicily and Italy.

Controlability refers to the incredible stiffness the Bf109's controls developed as it approached Vne. The aircraft took 50-60 lbs of lateral force to move the stick at high speeds with less than 2" elbow room in the cockpit. Something which I've rarely seen discussed here and which surely affected any kind of high speed maneuver with the aircraft. Well-balanced controls - yes. Light - no, and increasingly stiff at high speed. The P40 on the other hand, while requiring a lot of rudder at high speeds, was able to be controlled in roll and pitch relatively easily and well.

Not to mention, the Bf109 had an issue in a dive where the aircraft became increasingly nose pitch down as the speed increased. For this reason the manual for the a/c required up trim before starting a dive, at the risk of not being able to pull out.

As for USAAF philosophy, I will give some examples of what I mean:
- designing for long TBO service intervals (Allison TBO was meant to be double that of DB or Merlin, IIRC)
- restricting full power from engines (the v1710-39 Allison was not cleared for 56" manifold pressure until late in the P40E lifespan... yes, check the technical documents)
- long range from its aircraft (range on fully fueled, internal fuel only P40 had a range of nearly 700mi -- Allisons were known to run well at lean settings, something the Merlins could not do and which was not an option on the Db60x series)
- and others including regs for long distance navigation, radios, provisions for mounting long-range internal fuel tanks, provisions for self-sealing tanks, etc...

And the turbo-supercharger was never used successfully on any single engine water cooled fighter the USAAF produced. How can that be a "philosophy" is beyond me. However, a bureaucratic philosophy revolving around red tape and manifold service requirements counts...

BTW, P51 was possibly available in quantity sooner than P40F or other late 1943 models... 

I realize some people don't want to hear this and want to have their favorite without looking at the full picture. Yes, I would also prefer to fight in a faster, smaller, better climbing aircraft with centerline guns. Especially if the fuel ran out so quick it meant I wouldn't have to stay in it too long.


----------



## Glider (Jun 19, 2017)

I have the series of books you mention and its a very, very rare day that the P40 is a clear winner against the 109 F or G. I suggest you pick a month, any month and check the daily comments for the month, comparing the actual losses.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Venturi (Jun 19, 2017)

And where did I say that the P40 was a "clear winner"?

However, you will find the 109s took losses from P40s.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## CORSNING (Jun 19, 2017)

The truth is the truth. I suggest youall listen to Glider.


----------



## pbehn (Jun 19, 2017)

Glider said:


> They didn't the Me109 was normally used as a fighter not a GA aircraft and as a escort they did reasionably well as you might expect. Very well against P40s and less well against Spits.


What did they escort? I havnt read much on N Africa.


----------



## Glider (Jun 19, 2017)

Of course they did. I think the first 109 shot down by the RAF was shot down by the gunner on a Battle which doesn't mean that the Battle was any good against a 109. To be fair the Luftwaffe had a Ju52 that was awarded two kills in the fighting for Norway but you wouldn't pick it for combat.
The point is that the P40 nearly always came out second best in combat against the Me109

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jun 19, 2017)

Venturi said:


> I know very well what happened in N Africa and the Med. I was making a point, which you failed to grasp - that is, that if the Bf109 had been flown with inferior tactics, it would have also fared poorly.


I grasped the point but it is impossible to reply to such a post, discussing a situation that rarely if ever existed.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 19, 2017)

Venturi said:


> As for USAAF philosophy, I will give some examples of what I mean:
> - designing for long TBO service intervals (Allison TBO was meant to be double that of DB or Merlin, IIRC)
> - restricting full power from engines (the v1710-39 Allison was not cleared for 56" manifold pressure until late in the P40E lifespan... yes, check the technical documents)
> - long range from its aircraft (range on fully fueled, internal fuel only P40 had a range of nearly 700mi -- Allisons were known to run well at lean settings, something the Merlins could not do and which was not an option on the Db60x series)
> ...



Do you have some documentation that the Allison was _designed _for double the TBO life of the Merlin or the DB??? 
It may have wound up with double the the life of the Merlin but back in the mid to late 30s when the initial production engines were being worked on this sounds more than a little dubious. For one thing I doubt very highly the USAAC or Allison had any idea of what the TBO of the DB engines were. They would have been very lucky to find out what the Merlin TBO was in the late 30s as the British were still figuring that out themselves. 

We know that the USAAC/USAAF allowed "full" power late in 1942 And actually it _was not _"full power" but WEP or WER. the E standing for _emergency. _Use of which required notes in the aircraft maintenance logs, more frequent spark plug changes and shortening the time between overhauls depending on the number of times and for how long the "extra" boost was used. 
Allison had changed how they manufactured crankshafts several times in the early years. Forget the 12 counterweight crank, that was later. Early cranks were plain steel, soon followed (date unknown?) by shot peened crankshafts which were followed by shot peened and nitrided crankshafts in the Spring of 1942. These crankshafts would stand up to about 33% more stress than the shot peened ones. The shot peened ones would stand up to over 28% more stress than the plain steel ones. Allison also changed the aluminium casting process for the crankcase over the winter/spring of 1942. There were literally thousands of V-1710-39 engines built with the older foundry technique blocks and non-nitrided crankshafts. Allowing them to run at 56" might be skating a bit close to the edge of engine failure. The -73 engines used in the P-40K had the strengthened parts. 
Then you had the changing fuel situation. The -39 engine started on US 100 octane fuel, at some point they rated it on 100/125 fuel which may never have been used overseas. The US came to a common fuel specification with the British for 100/130 fuel but 100/130 went through several different specifications with increasing amounts of lead and other changes in allowable aromatics. Granted the last changes were in 1943 and outside this discussion but the early changes could very well affect allowable boost until experience was gained. Perhaps the USAAF was overly cautious, but needing to replace engines thousands of miles from the factories sooner than expected was a valid logistic concern. The USAAF did screw the pooch with the P-40F and the Merlin engines when they tried to go for only 20% spare engines. This resulted in two different solutions to correct. One was the British giving the Americans around 600 used Merlins to break down for spare parts for overhauling the P-40 Merlin engines, in North Africa. It also resulted in the P-40R models. These were P-40F and Ls that had their Merlins removed and Allison V-1710-73 engines installed. Sources differ widely in numbers actually converted. 

Not sure where the idea that the Merlin could not be cruised at fairly good fuel consumption figures comes from. Not quite as good as the Allison is certainly believable but some pilots manuals give engine settings for long range cruise as low as 30 gals an hour (granted imperial gallons) if not a bit lower. The Merlin may very well have sounded rougher than the Allison but if such settings were either dangerous or damaging to the engine I doubt they would be in the pilots manuals. I will agree that the The Spitfire and Hurricane held less fuel than the P-40 but perhaps not as much as some people think. A Hurricane held 97 imp gallons of fuel. a P-40E held 123 imp gallons without drop tank. 

I would note that the P-40 was supposed to hold even more fuel but the self sealing tanks the US used cut into the fuel capacity more than the system the British used. The US system may have been more effective/offered better protection? 

I also think you are confusing pre-war US "philosophy" with mid war thinking. Self sealing tanks showed up real quick in 1940/41 and cut the fuel capacity of the P-40 from initially planed levels. The P-40 (and P-39) _never _got additional internal tankage. The P-38/ P-47 and P-51 did but not until the P-40 was already on the way out. 

The P-38 was supposed to be the US premier fighter in late 1942. Which is why all the ones in England were re-assigned to North Africa for operation Torch and the the rest of the North African campaign. The P-47 not going into action for the first time until about 5 months after the Torch landings. 

Philosophies change with time and what the USAAC was thinking or planing in the winter of 1938/spring 1939 was way different than what they were thinking/planning in late 1942/early 43.


----------



## Greg Boeser (Jun 19, 2017)

The Desert Air Force was very slow in adopting tactics that would mitigate the shortcomings of its fighters vs the Luftwaffe. Nevertheless, the Germans seem to have taken such glee from shooting down the poorly flown fighters, that they forgot that it's the bombers that win campaigns.


----------



## Venturi (Jun 19, 2017)

The "fragile" V-1710-33 was run at 56" power levels for 80min with the only damage on break down being the crank web journals had a few cracks. I haven't heard of any block or crank failures due to high manifold pressure use, and doubt that outright block or crank failure would be the mode in any case from high boost levels. Hazen's letter still holds sway in my camp. However, we are now far off the beaten path.

BTW the loading plan of the P40E offered an additional overload tank which was optional, giving another two dozen gals of fuel or so. I posted the docs earlier here in another thread...


----------



## stona (Jun 20, 2017)

At least one Luftwaffe pilot thought that the P-40 was superior to the Hurricane.

_"In the air we were superior to the British fighter aircraft [Hurricane] particularly in 1941. The Curtiss Tomahawks and Kittyhawks were much better aircraft, but the Bf 109 F had the better performance at altitude."_
Ludwig Franzisket, 1./JG 27.

On the other hand a Hurricane pilot would back himself, despite this acknowledged inferiority to the Bf 109, as long as he saw an attack developing. The Bf 109 had superior performance at altitude, and of course the pilots knew it and used it.

_"Regarding the aircraft we flew, I guess I felt as most Hurricane pilots felt, that they were more than a match for the Italian aircraft, i.e. the CR.42s, Fiat G.50s, Macchi 200s and Macchi 202s. On the other hand, in many respects they were not equal to the 109s used by the Germans. I cannot think of one occasion when we encountered 109s and were above them. *They were invariably on top of us every time we met. *They seemed to be faster, had a better climb and much better altitude performance. Notwithstanding this, the old 'Hurri' proved a comfort in its ruggedness and extreme manoeuvrability. I certainly had the feeling that with this ruggedness and manoeuvrability no one could get me as long as I could see him coming."_
George Keefer, 274 Squadron.

What all the allied pilots wanted was a Spitfire, and the P-40 certainly didn't do well in that comparison.

_"Before arriving in the desert I flew the first Spitfire Vs to go into service, with 92 Squadron (early in 1941), at the time these being the latest equipment. To have to start flying the Curtiss Tomahawk was something of a change, not for the better as far as performance and fire power were concerned. The aircraft was very robust and was more sophisticated than contemporary British fighters, but as a result, was heavier and consequently not so manoeuvrable or fast climbing. The armament of the Tomahawk was not heavy but a large supply of ammunition was carried and the nose-mounted .50in machine guns were conveniently situated for stoppages to be cleared from within the cockpit. The old fashioned ring and bead sight which was fitted in addition to the reflector sight could sometimes be used to advantage also. The armament of six .50in guns carried in the wings of the Kittyhawk was an improvement, but I sometimes removed two of them and carried a reduced load of ammunition in the interests of weight saving and resulting improved performance. Neither of these aircraft could really cope with the Bf 109 in speed or climb, or in the initial stages of a dive, but in a sustained dive could catch or get away from the German fighter."_
Neville Duke, 112 Squadron.

Duke raises a few practical points that nobody here has raised.

Opinions are just opinions, but these are the men who flew these aircraft and who depended on them to survive.

Cheers

Steve

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Jun 20, 2017)

Venturi said:


> I recommend interested parties to buy and read the three part series A History of thee Mediterranean Air War by Shores.



I already recommended it 

Volume four is due soon.

Cheers

Steve

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 20, 2017)

Venturi said:


> The "fragile" V-1710-33 was run at 56" power levels for 80min with the only damage on break down being the crank web journals had a few cracks. I haven't heard of any block or crank failures due to high manifold pressure use, and doubt that outright block or crank failure would be the mode in any case from high boost levels. Hazen's letter still holds sway in my camp. However, we are now far off the beaten path.
> 
> BTW the loading plan of the P40E offered an additional overload tank which was optional, giving another two dozen gals of fuel or so. I posted the docs earlier here in another thread...



And "official" WEP ratings called for the engine to be run at the WEP setting for 7 1/2 hours or 450 minutes in 5 minute periods with 5 minutes in between at a lower power setting. Having cracks show-up in 80 minutes would be a fail. The -33 did have a tendency to fail after using high boost settings, often on a subsequent flight to the one the high boost was used on. 

The P-40E had 3 internal fuel tanks. The Army (and Navy) often played games with the weight/s. The loading chart for the P-40D & E in the 1941 manual lists 120 gallons of fuel in the "normal' load. However the rear fuselage tank would hold much more than the 37 gallons listed. When required it could be filled with another 25.5 gallons of fuel. there was no 4th tank inside the airplane Center of gravity considerations may play into this. As the P-40 evolved the fuel tanks stayed pretty much the same size and location but the order of use changed as well as the location of the oil tank to help with the CG location. The P-40F with the heavier Merlin engine was supposed to be flown with about 35 gallons in the rear tank as a reserve (and counter weight) as opposed to the P-40E using the forward wing tank as the reserve. Please note that the French (and British?) lost a number of Hawk 75s with the same tank set up trying to fly combat style maneuvers with the rear tank full. Pretty much the same tank set up but the US rated the P-36 at normal gross weight with the rear tank empty. It was a ferry tank.


----------



## swampyankee (Jul 4, 2017)

The P-40 is probably the poster child for under-valued aircraft: it was _much_ better than its post-war press, and, if you compare its overall performance with the contemporary Bf109 variants, it's probably roughly equal, especially at lower altitudes.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## CORSNING (Jul 4, 2017)

[QUOTE="swampyankee, post: 1341421, member: 56136aircraft: if you compare its overall performance with the contemporary Bf109 variants, it's probably roughly equal, especially at lower altitudes.[/QUOTE]

OK, if you think so. You pick the P-40 variant you want compared, and I'll show you its
performance compared to its contemporary Bf 109. Be prepared for the outcome sir.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (Jul 4, 2017)

swampyankee said:


> The P-40 is probably the poster child for under-valued aircraft: it was _much_ better than its post-war press, and, if you compare its overall performance with the contemporary Bf109 variants, it's probably roughly equal, especially at lower altitudes.


I suggest you read the thread from the beginning and then reconsider


----------



## CORSNING (Jul 4, 2017)

A very astute suggestion Glider. Swampyankee I suggest you take his
advisement.


----------



## Greg Boeser (Jul 8, 2017)

I thought we were comparing the Hurricane, Yak 1 and the P-40?
I still like the P-40 best, even recognizing its inherent altitude limitations. I think its record could have been better if the pilots flying them in 1941-42 were better trained and used better tactics. In North Africa, the DAF always ceded the high ground to the Germans, and flew antiquated and tactically impractical formations. In the Pacific, most US pilots were fresh out of flight school when they were thrust into combat with veteran Japanese pilots who were masters of their aircraft.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (Jul 8, 2017)

Greg Boeser said:


> I thought we were comparing the Hurricane, Yak 1 and the P-40?
> I still like the P-40 best, even recognizing its inherent altitude limitations. I think its record could have been better if the pilots flying them in 1941-42 were better trained and used better tactics. In North Africa, the DAF always ceded the high ground to the Germans, and flew antiquated and tactically impractical formations. In the Pacific, most US pilots were fresh out of flight school when they were thrust into combat with veteran Japanese pilots who were masters of their aircraft.


To use one of my fathers comments 'Tosh'


----------



## CORSNING (Jul 8, 2017)

Greg Boeser said:


> I thought we were comparing the Hurricane, Yak 1 and the P-40?
> *We are Greg. But to do that you must consider the performance of the opposition. That is the
> only way you can determine the worth of what you have. If all the battles were at 7,000 m. then
> the P-40 would not even be much of a consideration.*
> ...


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 8, 2017)

The P-40F&L with the Merlin engine was used almost exclusively in North Africa and Italy. It's altitude performance was 3-5,000ft better than the Allison versions but still wasn't good enough. 
The DAF used Spitfires as soon as they could get them to fly top cover for the P-40s and Hurricanes.
The US was thinking of delaying the Torch landings if they didn't have enough P-38s. All available P-38s that didn't go to the Pacific went to North Africa/Med from the fall of 1942 until Aug/Sept of 1943 to provide a fighter with altitude performance. The CBI theater and the Pacifrc were running shoestring operations of P-38s with the bulk going to North Africa. Not trying to bring the P-38 into the discussion except to show what the high command thought of the P-40 at the time. 

AS noted earlier the 3 planes are NOT really contemporaries. The Hurricane hit it's peak as a fighter in the summer and fall of 1940. A time when the early long nose P-40s were still sorting out initial problems. The P-40E doesn't show up until the Fall/winter of 1941 and the P-40F doesn't show up until the spring/summer of 1942. Yak-1 also goes through at least one engine change and the 1941 versions are way down on performance compared to the 1942/43 versions. Nobody had any illusions that the Hurricane could deal with German fighters in late 1941 or early 1942.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greg Boeser (Jul 8, 2017)

Right. If we are going to compare apples to apples we need to look at where all three fighters were operational at the same time in the same combat environment. That would be on the Russian Front in 1942. So, we're looking at the Hurricane IIB Tropicalized, with the Vokes filter, The H81A-3 Tomahawk and the Yak1, early series. The Hurricane is a non-contender. Hampered by the drag of the sand filter its top speed is just too slow. The Tomahawk is not as fast as the Yak, but compensates by being more robust and it's equipped with two way radios, that gives it a potential tactical advantage over the Yak. Armament goes to the Tomahawk as well, with 4 .30 caliber wing guns with 22-26 seconds of ammo and two .50 caliber guns in the nose with over 30 seconds of ammo. Plus its got significant range/endurance advantages over either the Hurricane or Yak. Better instrumentation and gun sight than the Yak, better visibility.
My pick is still the P-40. If we go to 1943, the balance shifts in favor of the late Yak 1 with the cut down rear deck. Improved horsepower to weight ratio means the Yak's maneuverability puts it on near parity with the Bf 109G. The later P-40s just get heavier, with increased armament.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Think Tanker (Jul 9, 2017)

Hey all, I've been away for a bit but I am still invested and interested in this discussion. As I collect evidence to make my case, I was wondering, does anyone have specific numbers and resources on P-40 A-A victories in the MTO vs losses? I remember seeing fromore somewhere around 800 aircraft shot down via P-40s, but I cannot confirm that.


----------



## swampyankee (Jul 9, 2017)

Think Tanker said:


> Hey all, I've been away for a bit but I am still invested and interested in this discussion. As I collect evidence to make my case, I was wondering, does anyone have specific numbers and resources on P-40 A-A victories in the MTO vs losses? I remember seeing fromore somewhere around 800 aircraft shot down via P-40s, but I cannot confirm that.



According to U.S. Army Air Force Resource Center - A Warbirds Resource Group Site, US P-40 (Warhawk variant) achieved 2:1 kill ratio in the Med, but didn't specify how this was calculated. 

As I've said elsewhere: the P-40 was better than its post-war reputation. While it wasn't a world-beater, it was maneuverable, robust, and, reputedly, had sweet handling. With inexperienced pilots, that last seems to be a virtue that is frequently deprecated, as an inexperienced pilot will be able to get more performance out of a aircraft with better handling than he would in one with nominally better performance but more challenging handling.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 9, 2017)

swampyankee said:


> According to U.S. Army Air Force Resource Center - A Warbirds Resource Group Site, US P-40 (Warhawk variant) achieved 2:1 kill ratio in the Med, but didn't specify how this was calculated.
> 
> As I've said elsewhere: the P-40 was better than its post-war reputation. While it wasn't a world-beater, it was maneuverable, robust, and, reputedly, had sweet handling. With inexperienced pilots, that last seems to be a virtue that is frequently deprecated, as an inexperienced pilot will be able to get more performance out of a aircraft with better handling than he would in one with nominally better performance but more challenging handling.



The P-40 was also challenging enough that it was used as an advanced trainer in the later parts of the war. Pilots often doing a short period (15-20 hours?) on P-40s before going on the types of fighters they would fly in combat units. 
While the P-40 wasn't a total dog and did perform good service holding the line in 1942 by 1943 it was fading fast as an _air superiority fighter. _
As to the 3 fighters in this thread compare the Hurricane II to the P-40F as both used about the same engine for all practical purposes. 
The Hurricane II, being lighter, turned better, it climbed better, but being higher drag it was slower. The P-40 held more fuel and with the lower drag had more range/radius on internal fuel. Not a lot but there.


----------



## CORSNING (Jul 9, 2017)

Greg Boeser said:


> If we go to 1943, the balance shifts in favor of the late Yak 1 with the cut down rear deck*. Improved* *horsepower to weight ratio* means the Yak's maneuverability puts it on near parity with the Bf 109G. The later P-40s just get heavier, with increased armament.


Once again, it all depends on what you are going to use it for. Ground support, the P-40 (any version) wins
hands down because of its durability and much greater ability to absorb ground fire. If you are talking air
superiority, I would say maybe.
You must keep in mind that even the Yak-1b (bubble canopy) was not a Yak-9. The Yak-9 was a more
durable and over all maneuverable aircraft. Climb rates for the Yak-1b are calculated from the performance
curve of the earlier models using the initial climb rate of the M-105PF version (3,650 fpm.). They are not
exact but probably pretty close.
*Mid-1943 Yak -1b vs. ( P-40N )*
Altitude / Speed / Climb
Meters / mph / fpm
S.L.......330 / 3650 ( 332 / 3520 )
1,000...346 / 3655 ( 346 / 3600 )
2,000...351 / 3655 ( 360 / 3680 )
3,000...358 / 3490 ( 374 / 3465 )
4,000...370 / 3290 ( 376 / 2965 )
5,000...363 / 2840 ( 373 / 2480 )
6,000...351 / 2385 ( 367 / 2025 )
Service Ceiling (ft.): 33,100 ( 38,200 )
Maximum engine power (hp.): 1,260 ( 1,480 )
Wing Loading (lb./sq. ft.): 34.44 ( 41.42 )
Turn time (360 degrees /sec.): 19 {~19 )
*Power Loading (lb./hp.): 5.046 ( 5.009 )*
Combat Weight (lb.): 6,358 (7,413 )
Internal range (ml.): 434 (750 {P-40N-15}
Armament: 1 x 20 mm./140 rds. + 1 x 12.7 mm. ( 2 x 50 in./265 rpg. + 2 x 50 in/285 rpg. )

For fighter vs. fighter combat the Yak-1b had a slight edge over the P-40N in pure
performance. But keep in mind that you don't want to be on the receiving end with
this aircraft, ever.


----------



## Kevin J (Aug 27, 2018)

Clay_Allison said:


> The Yak-1 was obsolete. The Yak-3 and Yak-9 were clearly not.


The Yak-1 was superior to the Bf 109E, inferior to the Bf 109F, the Yak-1b was able to counter the the Bf 109G, each aircraft having its own superior attributes to the other.


----------



## Kevin J (Aug 28, 2018)

pbehn said:


> Something that is sometimes lost on the forum discussing fighter performance is that fighter versus fighter for its own sake is a completely useless activity and rarely happened in WW2 or at any other time. The Bf109 may have been superior to the Hurricane and P40 as a fighter but the Allies had other planes to do the fighting while even the Hurricane soldiered on. The final variant (Mk V not put into production) of the Hurricane powered by a 1700 BHP Merlin 32 and 50% heavier but approximately the same in top speed as the Mk I which shows how the Hurricane was developed.


That's not strictly true, the Hurricane V did 327 mph at 2000 feet, the Spitfire IX, 326 mph at sea level, the Bf 109G-6, 306 mph at sea level. So its performance is comparable...


----------



## Kevin J (Aug 28, 2018)

GregP said:


> I think the Bf 109F was the pinnacle of the 109 series. I only think that because Erich Hartmann so stated. That said, it should handily out-climb and out-accelerate any P-40 with the exception of the XP-40Qs, of which 3 were built and never saw overseas service, much less combat. I'd think the P-40 retained it's advantage in both roll and turn down at it's best altitudes, but the Bf 109F was rarely down there in the ETO. It was mostly fighting on the Russian Front where they tried to stay high but were forced down by the Il-2s hitting German troops. It was either come down or watch the Il-2s kill troops ...
> 
> Down under 15,000 feet, the P-40E and onward were pretty good versus a Bf 109E; I'd still rather have the Bf 109, myself, given a choice. Pilots rarely had a choice; they flew what their side was flying. Once the Bf 109 hit the F and onward, the advantage was rather clearly on the side of the Bf 109, and even the Bf 109E was a far better plane above the mid-teens in altitude, which it usually WAS in the ETO. Perhaps not in the Med. The P-40 was easier to work on than the Bf 109 and I KNOW the Allison held a tune a LOT longer. But there was NOTHING wrong with a good-running DB-600 series engine. It was reliable, powerful, fuel-injected and was never a detriment to any airframe until it needed work. Much the same can be said of the Merlin ... if it wasn't running, it wasn't of much help. But if it WAS running, it was a good, nee' GREAT engine. Same for DB 600 series. They didn't "give up" in mid-fight unless battle-damage was the cause. My bet is the old Luftwaffe pilots swear by the DB as the old British pilots swear by the Merlin.
> 
> The P-40 achieved a good combat record despite being pitted against many opponents who were technically better on paper. Much of that was due to the planning and tactics used by the P-40 pilots. Though it wasn't the best fighter used in most of the theaters where it saw action, it was all we had when the war started and soldiered on until it became relegated to minor theater status late in the war. That's what happens when performance development stagnates while the enemy gets better. Ask any late-war A6M Zero pilot about that one! They knew what it meant to have been the best and then have the enemy move past them in performance. Were they still dangerous? Yes. But not overly, unless the pilot was good. Then ANY fighter is dangerous. Put Erich Hartmann in a P-40N sometime in April 1945. and I'd bet on him versus anyone flying anything available (at the time). But on average, the P-40 was near the bottom of the heap if going by performance numbers alone, after 1942. That didn't mean it wasn't useful in a LOT of places and for a lot of missions.








This is what the Australians reckoned you could get out of the P-40 for top speed and climb rate.The P-40E is certainly not sluggish low down and remember these planes had tropical / dust filters.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Aug 29, 2018)

Clay_Allison said:


> We have a lot of threads uselessly comparing the P-40 to the Spitfire and Mustang. On the other hand, in my opinion, the proper comparison is with the other "obsolete" fighters that were thrust into the gap in the early war and fought on till the end in lower priority roles.
> 
> So, say you need fighters and these three designs are on your desk. Which do you want?



Having read through this entire thread, I feel the wrong comparisons are being made, we should have :-

Interception / Patrol: Lightning vs Beaufighter
Counter Air: P-40 vs Whirlwind vs P-39 vs Allison Mustang vs Tempest
High altitude interceptor: Spitfire V vs MiG-3
Bomber Interceptor / ground attack: Hurricane vs LaGG-3 vs Yak-7
Interception / Air Superiority: La-5/7 vs Spitfire IX vs Thunderbolt
Escort : Merlin Mustang vs Yak-9


----------



## CORSNING (Aug 29, 2018)

Kevin J said:


> Having read through this entire thread, I feel the wrong comparisons are being made, we should have :-
> 
> Interception / Patrol: Lightning vs Beaufighter
> Counter Air: P-40 vs Whirlwind vs P-39 vs Allison Mustang vs Tempest
> ...



Hi Kevin,
I am going to enjoy studying your last few post before I do any
comprehensive answering. However the above comparisons,
while being provocative and would be fun discussing, they do
not belong on this thread. I believe sir, it is time you should start
some threads for discussion.
, Jeff

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## CORSNING (Aug 29, 2018)

Kevin J said:


> That's not strictly true, the Hurricane V did 327 mph at 2000 feet, the Spitfire IX, 326 mph at sea level, the Bf 109G-6, 306 mph at sea level. So its performance is comparable...


Hi Kevin,
The Hurricane V with its 1,620 hp. at take-off and 1,640 hp. at 3,000 rpm
at 2,000 ft. Merlin 32 using +18 psi boost was capable of 326 mph. at 500 ft.
*The first flight of this model was on 3 April 1943*. The L.F Mk. IX Spitfire
was fully operational on 1 March 1943. Its top speed at 500 ft. was 338 mph.
The Bf 109G2 which became operational in April 1942 as capable of 329 mph
at 500 ft. The very maximum velocity of the Hurricane V was 326 mph at
500 -(2000 ft.). The maximum velocity of the Spitfire was 407 mph. at 22,000 ft.
The maximum velocity of the Bf 109G-2 was 414 mph at 23,000 ft.
Kevin, I just don't see the Hurricane V as being equal in any way.

One other note needs to be made. The Merlin 32 tended to overheat. The two
Hurricane Mk.IVs that were converted to Mk.Vs were converted back to Mk.IVs.

, Jeff


----------



## Kevin J (Aug 29, 2018)

CORSNING said:


> Hi Kevin,
> The Hurricane V with its 1,620 hp. at take-off and 1,640 hp. at 3,000 rpm
> at 2,000 ft. Merlin 32 using +18 psi boost was capable of 326 mph. at 500 ft.
> *The first flight of this model was on 3 April 1943*. The L.F Mk. IX Spitfire
> ...


The point that I am making is that there isn't a lot of speed difference at low altitude. In the field there may not be any. The Sea Hurricane IIc had the same performance as a Hurricane IIa or a Seafire IIc with four cannon, arrestor hook and catapult spools. So clearly the Sea Hurricane IIc had been cleaned up enough to give it an extra 13 mph. Perhaps 6/7 mph from the individual exhaust stubs and another 6/7 mph from something else. Meanwhile the Spitfire was having more and more kit added to it which reduced its top speed. The G-2 of 1943 with a fully rated engine no doubt did 329 mph, but the G-2/Trop of 1942 only did 306 mph at sea level. My assumption here is 327 mph for Hurricane V from about 500 to 2000 feet at which altitude tropical filters didn't have much effect. Maybe if you put a Merlin 66 into a Hurricane you would get the same performance as a Hellcat?


----------



## Venturi (Aug 29, 2018)

Kevin J said:


> View attachment 507551
> 
> This is what the Australians reckoned you could get out of the P-40 for top speed and climb rate.The P-40E is certainly not sluggish low down and remember these planes had tropical / dust filters.
> View attachment 507551
> View attachment 507552



And the charts don't account for the (officially unapproved) additional boost that pilots reportedly used on the P-40E's down low.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## CORSNING (Aug 30, 2018)

Kevin,
I am having a hard time understanding why you believe the
Hurricane was competitive with any of the other first line
aircraft at 0 - 2,000 ft.....? The Hurricane IIc/tropical had a
maximum speed of 274 mph./S.L. and 302 mph./17,720 ft.
Its initial climb rate was 2,625 fpm. and took 7.1 minutes to
reach 16,404 ft.


----------



## Kevin J (Aug 31, 2018)

CORSNING said:


> Kevin,
> I am having a hard time understanding why you believe the
> Hurricane was competitive with any of the other first line
> aircraft at 0 - 2,000 ft.....? The Hurricane IIc/tropical had a
> ...


It depends what boost setting that you're using. A Hurricane II could do 327/328 mph between 7000 and 10500 feet with 16 lbs boost for 3 minutes. An Mc 202 Folgore did 338 mph at 2000 m and 354 at 3000 m. Yes, an Mc 202F is slightly faster. Eriic Brown reckoned that the Hurricane II would defeat it in a dogfight.

Reactions: Disagree Disagree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## CORSNING (Aug 31, 2018)

Kevin J said:


> It depends what boost setting that you're using. A Hurricane II could do 327/328 mph between 7000 and 10500 feet with 16 lbs boost for 3 minutes.
> *
> Not sure at this time, but a IIc tropical or Sea Hurricane absolutely could not.*
> 
> An Mc 202 Folgore did 338 mph at 2000 m and 354 at 3000 m. Yes, an Mc 202F is slightly faster. Eriic Brown reckoned that the Hurricane II would defeat it in a dogfight.



*What Eric Brown said was:
"The Italian fighter possessed a speed advantage, but it was not critical,
especially as the British fighter was more maneuverable and had the 
heavier firepower. A dogfight would slightly favor the Hurricane.
Verdict: This would be a finely balanced affair, the outcome depending
primarily on pilot skill."*

*I completely agree that pilot skill combined with advantages of height 
and seeing the other aircraft first are golden. However, in this case I 
believe the MC.202 had a slight advantage in roll rate and could outclimb
the Hurricane. Also, as altitude increased, so did the advantage of the 
Italian fighter. In this comparison I am going to have to lean towards 
what Erik Pilawskii had to say about the comparison.*

*What Erik Pilawskii had to say:
With its increased power and improved streamlining, the C.202 was a
significant improvement over the radial engine C.200, though by all means
retaining the earlier machine's fine handling and behavior. Virtually no 
aircraft in Europe (except P-36) could turn with a Hawker Hurricane, but
this and its utterly powerful armament of four Hispano cannon would have 
been the only advantages at the disposal of the British fighter. The contest
would see the Macchi attack and break off at will, and largely with the
ponderous Hurricane left to turn in ever smaller defensive circles to save
itself.*

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Sep 1, 2018)

CORSNING said:


> *What Eric Brown said was:
> "The Italian fighter possessed a speed advantage, but it was not critical,
> especially as the British fighter was more maneuverable and had the
> heavier firepower. A dogfight would slightly favor the Hurricane.
> ...


As an escort for bombers, all you need to do is to drive off the enemy fighters and return to protecting the bombers. As a fighter bomber, you need to drop your bombs and flee, if necessary turn fight. Your opponent has to shoot you down. You have to wait until your top cover escort comes to your assistance. So the Hurricane is still a useful fighter to have in North Africa in 1942. Also, both Hurricane and Spitfire had been designed as both day and night fighters, although the Spitfire didn't prove adequate for that task. The Hurricane IIc was still operating successfully as a night intruder in 1942 over France. In 1942 in the Western Desert, you have the Tomahawk fighter, Kittyhawk fighter bomber, but both are day fighters only, the Hurricane has been designed for both day and night use. The Spitfire VB is not as structurally strong as a Tomahawk for offensive fighter duties although it is a better interceptor with better altitude capability. The Spitfire Vc with the strengthened wing doesn't appear until later in 1942. The Hurricane is still a useful plane to operate in the fighter role until the much improved Spitfire Vc comes along. Its underrated.


----------



## CORSNING (Sep 1, 2018)

Kevin,
I never said the Hurricane was not still useful in the second half
of WW2. All I was trying to let you know is that it was not a first
class, front line fighter by 1942. Many early WW2 fighters found
great usefulness in the last half of the war. The P-40N, FM-2,
Hurricane IV and the P-39N/Q are perfect examples of this.
, Jeff

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Elvis (Sep 2, 2018)

Kevin J said:


> As an escort for bombers, all you need to do is to drive off the enemy fighters and return to protecting the bombers. As a fighter bomber, you need to drop your bombs and flee, if necessary turn fight. Your opponent has to shoot you down. You have to wait until your top cover escort comes to your assistance. So the Hurricane is still a useful fighter to have in North Africa in 1942. Also, both Hurricane and Spitfire had been designed as both day and night fighters, although the Spitfire didn't prove adequate for that task. The Hurricane IIc was still operating successfully as a night intruder in 1942 over France. In 1942 in the Western Desert, you have the Tomahawk fighter, Kittyhawk fighter bomber, ]b]but both are day fighters only, the Hurricane has been designed for both day and night use.[/b] The Spitfire VB is not as structurally strong as a Tomahawk for offensive fighter duties although it is a better interceptor with better altitude capability. The Spitfire Vc with the strengthened wing doesn't appear until later in 1942. The Hurricane is still a useful plane to operate in the fighter role until the much improved Spitfire Vc comes along. Its underrated.


Not to skew the thread, but what makes a fighter (or any other airplane) both Day/Night capable, as opposed to Day Only?


Elvis


----------



## Kevin J (Sep 2, 2018)

Elvis said:


> Not to skew the thread, but what makes a fighter (or any other airplane) both Day/Night capable, as opposed to Day Only?
> 
> 
> Elvis


Exhaust guards to prevent the sparks blinding the pilot. Instrumentation, I presume. Having a radio that works, the earliest Yak radios weren't very good. I'm sure there's other things that are useful like wide track undercarriage. You are limited to moonlight nights or having lots of searchlights blazing away, but it could be done. Maybe with the P-40 you're limited by the long approach before touch down.The Hurricane was Britain's most numerous night fighter during the Blitz.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 2, 2018)

Basically in the 1930s and early 40s any fighter that could take-off and land at night was a night fighter. 
Many carried a couple of flares to help illuminate the landing site if there wasn't enough light there already. 
Effectiveness was a totally different story.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
3 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Elvis (Sep 2, 2018)

Great. Thanks guys.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 2, 2018)

Parachute flare tubes behind cockpit and oxygen bottles. A retractable landing light was (or could?) fitted to the early planes, Stopped around the Vc ????

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 2, 2018)

As far as the Hurricane night fighter goes please notice the high tech solution used to shield the pilots eyes from the glare of the exhaust.





The only practical difference between the Hurricane and Spitfire for night fighting duties may have been the landing gear or something about they way they landed. I see no reason that the Spitfire could not have been fitted with a similar hi-tech solution to the exhaust glare problem if they really want to use them. 
and indeed some SPitfires were fitted with them. 









Once again, effectiveness of this "solution" may be subject to question.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Sep 3, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> As far as the Hurricane night fighter goes please notice the high tech solution used to shield the pilots eyes from the glare of the exhaust.
> View attachment 508244
> 
> 
> ...


Sometimes the simplest solutions are the best. IIRC, it was the Spitfire's narrow undercarriage which was the problem. As a night fighter, a single seat fighter can be used on moon lite nights or if you have plenty of search lights.The RAF even tried fitting searchlights to the Douglas Havoc, the Havoc Turbinlite, each of which was meant to be accompanied by two Hurricanes. The Germans used Fw 190's. Again, a plane with a wide undercarriage, unlike the Bf 109. Nice photos of yours. Personally, I believe two sets of eyes are better than one, and as for having upwards firing armament, even better. The Defiant was also designed as a day and night fighter and was the most successful of all our fighters during the Blitz.


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 3, 2018)

Kevin J said:


> The Defiant was also designed as a day and night fighter and was the most successful of all our fighters _during the Blitz._



Well, that depends on what dates are included in the Blitz, not for me to decide that. 
But from Sept 1940 to Feb of 1941 the number of German aircraft shot down by night fighters per month was in the single digits. Some months it was in the low single digits (very low) so statics are almost meaningless. March saw double digits (22), April 48 and the first two weeks of May saw 96. The numbers may be claims and not match Luftwaffe losses?
There are a number of overlapping reasons for the this rapid increase in the effectiveness of the British nightfighter forces. The Defiant was not one of them.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Sep 9, 2018)

Kevin J said:


> Sometimes the simplest solutions are the best. IIRC, it was the Spitfire's narrow undercarriage which was the problem. As a night fighter, a single seat fighter can be used on moon lite nights or if you have plenty of search lights.The RAF even tried fitting searchlights to the Douglas Havoc, the Havoc Turbinlite, each of which was meant to be accompanied by two Hurricanes. The Germans used Fw 190's. Again, a plane with a wide undercarriage, unlike the Bf 109. Nice photos of yours. Personally, I believe two sets of eyes are better than one, and as for having upwards firing armament, even better. The Defiant was also designed as a day and night fighter and was the most successful of all our fighters during the Blitz.


Actually the Germans used Me 109s as well as FW 190s


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Sep 9, 2018)

Sorry double clutched


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Sep 9, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> Not sure where the idea that the Merlin could not be cruised at fairly good fuel consumption figures comes from. Not quite as good as the Allison is certainly believable but some pilots manuals give engine settings for long range cruise as low as 30 gals an hour (granted imperial gallons) if not a bit lower. The Merlin may very well have sounded rougher than the Allison but if such settings were either dangerous or damaging to the engine I doubt they would be in the pilots manuals


The myth that the Merlin was a fuel hog seems to have been started by Dan Whitney in Vee's for Victory in which he compares the fuel consumption of a P-51 vs a P-38. He bias the comparison by using data for the P-51 cruising at much higher speeds ( and hence RPM) than the P-38. The P-51 is running at 2100 rpm vs the P-38s 1600 rpm. In point of fact according to the P-51D Flight Operation Instructions the most economical cruise setting for the P-51 is also 1600 rpm. 
Regardless the fuel hog myth flies in the face of actual performance. Merlin powered Mosquitoes and Spitfires flew recon missions the length and breadth of Germany, Merlin powered P51s flew the longest fighter missions of the war from Iwo Jima to Japan. A Merlin powered P-82B flew from Hawaii to New York without refueling ( over 5,000 miles), the longest nonstop flight ever made by a propeller driven fighter.


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Sep 9, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> Thank you, mental math error on the 58in.
> I know the British used higher boost pressures on the British built Merlin XX engines. what I don't know is if they used higher boost pressures on the Packard Built Merlin XX engines. also known as the Merlin 28 & 29 and not the Merlin XX. When you get to Packard built Merlin 224s you have different pistons, stronger supercharger drive parts, stronger supercharger clutches and beefed up engine block side panels (and a few other changes).


The Lancaster I's used on the Dambuster mission were re-engined with Parkard built Merlin 28s to match their Mark III brethren specifically because of the higher boost pressure allowed by the 2 piece block (14 psi vs 12 psi). From the Merlin in Perspective by Alec Harvey Bailey.


----------



## Greyman (Sep 9, 2018)

I'm not too sure on all of this (especially when dates/timeframes start getting tossed in) but it was my understanding that:

Merlin XX, Merlin 22, Merlin 23, Merlin 28, Merlin 38: +16 lb boost (M ratio), +14 lb boost (S ratio)
Merlin 24, Merlin 25, Merlin 224: +18 lb boost (M ratio), +18 lb boost (S ratio)


----------



## CORSNING (Sep 9, 2018)

The Merlin XX powered Hurricane Mk.II began to be delivered to
the RAF in September 1940.
15 November 1940: +12 for 5 min. is approve for M (low) gear. +9 S (high).
21 November 1942: +14 is approved for low and high supercharger gears.
There is also a note stating that boost in high supercharger will be approximately
+16 psi.
+16 psi boost in Merlin XX, 21, 22 & 23 using 100 octane was allowed, but
I do not have a date (yet) on when.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Elvis (Sep 9, 2018)

Reluctant Poster said:


> The myth that the Merlin was a fuel hog seems to have been started by Dan Whitney in Vee's for Victory in which he compares the fuel consumption of a P-51 vs a P-38. He bias the comparison by using data for the P-51 cruising at much higher speeds ( and hence RPM) than the P-38. The P-51 is running at 2100 rpm vs the P-38s 1600 rpm. In point of fact according to the P-51D Flight Operation Instructions the most economical cruise setting for the P-51 is also 1600 rpm.
> Regardless the fuel hog myth flies in the face of actual performance. Merlin powered Mosquitoes and Spitfires flew recon missions the length and breadth of Germany, Merlin powered P51s flew the longest fighter missions of the war from Iwo Jima to Japan. A Merlin powered P-82B flew from Hawaii to New York without refueling ( over 5,000 miles), the longest nonstop flight ever made by a propeller driven fighter.


Interesting you bring up the P-38.
Lindbergh's interaction with flyers in the S. Pacific showed them how to extend the range of their P-38's by upping the boost and prop pitch to maintain speed, while turning the engines at a much slower speed, thus gaining better fuel efficiency.
Chances are, the figures you quoted were a result of that interaction.


Elvis


----------



## Kevin J (Sep 10, 2018)

Reluctant Poster said:


> Actually the Germans used Me 109s as well as FW 190s


The Fw 190 was the best of the two in that role.


----------



## CORSNING (Oct 3, 2018)

*The following is slightly off topic (sort of). I would have substituted figures for
the Bf 109G-2 and used the G-6 performance, but in 1943 it was no better.
OK then, lets see how the P-39N would have faired with this group when it
was delivered in November 1942 and became operational in June 1943.*



CORSNING said:


> Interesting turn of events. The focus has fallen from the Yak and Hurricane to the P-40.
> Shortround6 has a great point about the what Bf 109G to compare to what P-40. My library
> of WW2 fighter aircraft official document copies and research material fills six file drawers
> and I have acquired a few books here and there, but there are many gaps in the information.
> ...



*The P-39, because of its lower altitude supercharger that limited its ability
at higher altitude, it can not be considered as a first class, first line fighter.
But if we drop the fight down to 5,000 m. and lower, the later versions of
P-39s (P-39N-Q) could hold there own.*


----------



## Schweik (Oct 5, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> The P-40 was also challenging enough that it was used as an advanced trainer in the later parts of the war. Pilots often doing a short period (15-20 hours?) on P-40s before going on the types of fighters they would fly in combat units.
> While the P-40 wasn't a total dog and did perform good service holding the line in 1942 by 1943 it was fading fast as an _air superiority fighter. _
> As to the 3 fighters in this thread compare the Hurricane II to the P-40F as both used about the same engine for all practical purposes.
> The Hurricane II, being lighter, turned better, it climbed better, but being higher drag it was slower. The P-40 held more fuel and with the lower drag had more range/radius on internal fuel. Not a lot but there.



In the Med, by mid 1942 Hurricanes were very rarely if ever being used for air superiority missions like combat air patrol, fighter sweeps, armed recon (not to be confused with Tac-R), or bomber escort. In fact Hurricanes themselves (carrying bombs) were routinely escorted - by P-40's or Spitfires.

In a couple of the other threads on here we crunched the *numbers for the Med in Oct 1942*, based on records from Christopher Shores Mediterranean Air War Vols II and III. October is significant because that is when the 2ndf Battle of El Alemain started. In that month the DAF consisted of the following fighters:

*The Air Forces*

*DAF Fighters*
_(This is theoretical strength not counting aircraft down for maintenance / damaged etc.)_
336 fighters (155 front line fighters - Spit and late model P-40s, 194 older fighters - Hurricanes and older P-40s, plus 32 fighter bomber only Hurricane IID)

128 x RAF* P-40s (about 50 Kittyhawk Mk I, 16 Tomahawks, 32 x Kittyhawk Mk II**, and about ~30 Kittyhawk Mk III)
128 x RAF Hurricanes (Mostly Mk IIc, with a few IIb and ~ 20 Mk I still flying)
32 x Hurricane II D
75 x USAAF P-40 F/L** (plus a few P-40K in the 57th Fighter Group)
48 x Spitfire Mk V (mostly VB with a few VC)
*Axis Fighters *
_(German Data for August 1942 per Shores - this is supposed to be real on-hand air strength)_
Axis 515 fighters (307 front line Bf 109 and MC 202, 150 biplanes and 12 bf 109E Jabos, 46 Bf 110). Most of the heavy lifting though was being done by about 100 Bf 109s.

German Fighters 97 Bf 109F, 12 Bf 109E, 46 Bf 110:

Stab / JG 27 -2 x Bf 109F-4
I./JG 27 - 23 x Bf 109F-4
II./JG 27 - 24 Bf 109F-4
III./JG 27 - 24 Bf 109F-4
JaboStaffel/JG 27 -12 Bf 109E
III./JG 53 - 24 Bf 109E & F
Jagdkommando/JG 27 - 3 Bf 109F (Crete)
III./ZG 26 46 Bf 110C,D, E ad F (Crete)
4.(H)/12 Bf 110E and Bf 109E-7 Jabo (number not listed)
The Germans also had a number of bombers, but only the Stukas and occasionally Ju 88s were being used in the land campaign. Ju 88's were mostly doing maritime patrols, attacking convoys and so on. Older German bombers like He 111 were largely parked or relegated to night bombing / maritime patrol as they were too vulnerable. Ju-52s of course were already starting to fly supply runs and were getting jumped by Beaufighters and others. The Italian bombers were also basically relegated to the Maritime operations (where they had some success).

*Italian air strength in North Africa reached its peak in October 1942* with the following operational groups:
_(could not find Italian Air strength in Shores going back to June so I got it from this website can't be certain if it's accurate)_

7 groups (approx. 210 planes) of Macchi MC202 fighters***;
5 groups (approx. 150 planes) of Fiat CR42 fighter-bombers****;
1 group (approx. 20-30 planes) of Junkers Ju 87 Stuka dive-bombers;
1 group (approx. 20 planes) of Z1007 bombers;
2 groups (approx. 40 planes) of SM79 bombers;
Anyway that is nominal strength I think. Real strength was probably half that.

In October III./JG 53 was transfering back to Sicily while elements of JG 77 were coming in by the end of the month. By 20 Nov 1942 81 fighters from JG 77 were operating against the DAF, mostly Bf 109G -2 and some 109F-4

*Combat*
There was 'significant combat' (resulting in one or more aircraft shot down) on 19 of the 31 days in Oct 1942

*Claims*
_(Counting only 'confirmed' victories and no probables or damaged claims.)_

The Allies claimed 134 'confirmed' victories (105 by RAF pilots / 29 US)
The Axis Claimed 238 victories (107 by the Germans / 131 by the Italians)
All of the German claims were by Bf 109s, all of the Italian claims by Mc 202s
The Allied claims included 35.5 Claims by Spitfires (26%), 57.5 Claims by RAF Kittyhawks (44%), 12 Claims by Hurricanes (8%), and 29 Claims by USAAF P-40 "Warhawks" (21%)

The biggest days for the Germans were on Oct 9 (23 claims), 27th (12 claims) and 20th (11 claims)
The biggest days for the Allies were on Oct 27 (15 claims), 26th (11 claims), Oct 28th (10 claims) and Oct 9 (11 Claims)

*Losses*
_(Only counting losses attributed to air to air combat or unknown causes, and excluding losses to flak, accident, or air to air collision with "friendly")_

Of that force in the Month of October, actual
*Axis losses *in air combat (not counting accidents or losses to flak) amounted to *60 shot down* (46 fighters and 14 bombers) and 17 crash landed

34 Bf 109 + 7 crash landed, 10 MC 202 + 8 crash landed, 2 CR 42 shot down + 2 Crash landed, 11 Ju 87, 1 each Ju 88, Ju 52 and He 111, for a total of 60 shot down and 17 Crash landed.

*Allied losses *were very close at* 61 shot down* (57 fighters and 4 bombers) and 16 crash landed
Allied losses included 11 Spitfires + 1 crash landed, 29 P-40s +12 crash landed, and 17 Hurricanes +2 crash landed, plus 2 Baltimores, 1 B-25C shot down + 1 crash landed, and 1 Bisley shot down.

If you add it up, Spitfires did the best not surprisingly - with 11.5% of the DAF fighter force, they made 26% of the claims and took 17% of the losses.
RAF + US P-40s combined were 49% of the force, made 65% of the claims and took 50% of the losses.
Hurricanes were 31% of the force (not counting the IIDs) made 21% of the claims and took 29% of the losses.
If you counted the US P-40 squadrons alone though they did the best since as 18% of the force, they made 21% of the claims and took 5% of the losses.
*Overclaiming*
_(To be fair about the overclaiming, I combined actual shot down plus crash-landed, as an aircraft damaged badly enough to crash land could reasonably be assumed to be shot down by the pilot who hit it.)_

Allies claimed 134 and got 77 (60+17) for a ratio of 1.74
Axis claimed 238 and got 77 (61+16) for a ratio of 3.09
So I would say based on Shores et al, in October of 1942 anyway the Axis overclaimed a little bit worse, though it went back and forth. If you could separate out the German and Italian claims to victories (which wouldn't be easy because they both fought together on the same claiming days, often at the same time of the day) the Germans were also definitely more accurate.

A few more random observations:

+ German morale probably was low, as their claims dropped in the second half of the month and there were several days where they took casualties but made no claims
+ Italians clearly overclaimed much more than the Germans
+ Both Italian and German fighters claimed to have shot down P-46 or P-39s when they were in fact fighting with late model P-40s (which looked different as they were longer and often had different markings)
+ A lot of Kittyhawks in particular were badly damaged but still landed at base (and managed to land properly so not counted as a crash landing). Probably at least 20 of them. This would account for a good amount of overclaiming.
+ All the CR 42 casualties were on one big raid on Oct 27
+ The P-40 was the main aircraft reported to have shot down German planes by the Germans themselves in Oct 1942
+ Quite a few Axis planes were destroyed on the ground by bombers, especially by US B-25s and Hurricane fighter bombers, probably 2 or 3 times as many as they lost in the air.
+ A lot of Allied bombers, esp. the older Baltimores etc., and a fair number of fighter bombers were shot down by Flak over German airfields.
+ About half of the combat in October was either right over or very near Axis airfields. Then it switched to the front line of the big tank & infantry battle.
+ It is also telling that JG 77 was brought in with newer model Bf 109G-2 and G-4s in early November and Fw 190s were sent in not long after.
+To give an idea of the relative levels of commitment, in spite of having much greater numbers Italian fighters only operated about half the days in the month in any numbers and took casualties on 10 days in October, whereas the Luftwaffe took casualties on 18 days.
+ Though the Axis lost more bombers and a bit fewer fighters, most of the Hurricanes and older model P-40s were lost while operating as fighter bombers.
+ It is worth noting though that even in late 1942 both Hurricanes and older model P-40s could still 'bite' and shoot down Bf 109s once in a while.
+ But most of the victories were by Spitfires and the later model P-40s. The P-40 claims broke down to 57.5 from newer model P-40s (29 by USAAF P-40F/L, 13 by Kittyhawk II, 15.5 by Kittyhawk III) vs 11 by older model planes (9 by Kittyhawk I and 3 by Tomahawk) and only 12 by the Hurricanes even though there were more older model Kittyhawks and Hurricanes than anything else in the DAF force.
+ The Axis were hampered by fuel shortages, I think especially the Italians (but not certain about that). By this point the Italians (who had already been fighting a year or two longer than their German allies) certainly seemed to be less aggressive in terms of flying missions and mostly seemed to fight when their bases were attacked.

Based on that month anyway - I wouldn't say the Hurricanes were very good in air to air combat in that Theater though they could still pose a threat when attacked and were still pretty good at shooting down bombers for sure. I don't think you can find any month in 1942 where the Hurricane pilots shot down more enemy aircraft than the Tomahawk and Kittyhawk pilots did, let alone the Spitfires once they arrived.

S

* this also included RAAF units and SAAF units, the RAAF had some of the better Kittyhawk Mk II (3 RAAF) while SAAF had almost all older Kittyhawk Mk Is and all of the 16 Tomahawks still operating in the Theater

** Merlin XX Engined, increased effective ceiling up to 20,000 ft

*** I am pretty sure at least some of these were still actually MC 200 but I'm not sure how many.

**** The CR 42s were not truly fighter bombers as they carried a pretty small bomb load (440 lbs according to Wikipedia but I suspect that is a bit overstated) and I don't think they could dive-bomb. But they could essentially only be used as either fighter-bombers or for point / airfield defense so they were labeled as such (that section on the Italian fighter force was copied from the linked website). They were only sent out once in October and maybe one or two times in September IIRC.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Oct 5, 2018)

The main advantages the P-40 had over the Hurricane was dive speed and roll. Together this meant the ability to disengage, catch fleeing enemy fighters, and regain energy via zoom climb, as well as a high combat agility. Everybody, the Russians, the British DAF pilots, the Commonwealth DAF pilots, the Germans, and the Italians all said that the P-40 was a much bigger threat than the Hurricane.

The Italians didn't think much of the P-40, but were impressed with the P-38. The Germans rated it the second biggest threat after the Spitfire, and thought little of the P-38 which they compared to their Bf 110.

P-39 of course had a terrible record in the Med.

The fact that Hurricanes were being used almost exclusively as bombers, or occasionally to attack bombers (they were good Stuka killers) in the Med by mid 1942 pretty much tells the story.

Oh and by the way in that Golodnikov interview he mentions (to the surprise of the interviewer) that the P-40 could easily out-turn the Yak 7.

It's worth noting also that in Russia, they initially got Tomahawks which they did will with initially but quickly burned out the engines on (and had other maintenance problems), they they got a large number of P-40Es, which they did pretty well with (and had figured out some of the maintenance issues by then) _then _by fall 1942 they got a few hundred P-40Ks which they did very well with. Many Soviet Aces including several HSU, a few double aces and at least two x4 Aces flew P-40K. P-40Ks definitely had the best down low performance by a long shot and I think was the Russians favorite type.

P-40K had 1500 hp at Sea Level at "official" WEP power setting (not talking about illegal overboosting). They used P-40Ks until they burned out all the engines by the fall of 1943.

By the time the Russians started getting P-40Ns they had basically relegated all lend lease fighters except the P-39 to PVO (air defense) or Maritime coverage of the Baltic area. As far as I can tell they either never got any P-40F or got so few of them that they were not significant. I have never been able to find a pic of a Soviet P-40F or merlin engined P-40 of any kind.

Similarly in the Med, by the time they got the P-40N all the remaining RAF / Commonwealth P-40 units were flying 90% dive bomber missions or the equivalent, while the USAAF units were converting to P-47s or later P-51s. The main air to air Theater for the P-40N was the CBI and then the Pacific.

S

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Oct 5, 2018)

I would also add, I think it's definitely a fair point that the Hurricane was a much older design. The best Hurricanes were going into production when the first (not quite combat ready) P-40's were coming online. The Hurricane peaked in 1940 was diminishing in value earlier than the P-40 did but held on to it's niche almost as late in the war, which considering it's lifespan was a lot longer.

So from the point of view of a design the Hurricane was better in many respects as they got more mileage out of it so to speak and it may have actually shot down more enemy planes (not certain about that as P-40 numbers would have to be compared between US, RAF, Commonwealth and Soviet sources).

On the other than in terms of actual impact in the war the P-40 may win out because it was definitely doing more damage to the enemy including (sorry guys but this is a fact) shooting down a lot of Bf 109s in the critical years of 1941 and 1942, and well into the middle of 1943. Even once Spitfires and P-38s arrived in the Med the P-40s were still playing an important and often leading role because they had almost twice the effective range of the Spitfire and seemed to hold up better against the Bf 109s and MC 202s than the P-38s at lower altitudes, where a lot of the fighting was taking place due to the Tactical nature of the war.

I do think the Hurricane and Tomahawk / Kittyhawk combat record was marred by very poor Tactics by the DAF in the first several months of their use against the Luftwaffe. Both Allied (Duke for example) and many German pilots commented on this. It was not just performance, they would remain often well below their performance ceilings down around 8,000 feet, went far too quickly into defensive circles and were not flying pairs.

Even in later 1942 when the USAAF squadrons came in they seem to have done much better than the equivalent RAF / Commonwealth units (a handful of elite aces not withstanding) which really doesn't make any sense, but can be explained by their embrace of using pairs and generally adopting more aggressive Tactics - like flying sweeps and bomber missions over the German bases.

The Yak was a very sophisticated design which was initially plagued with severe production problems and pilot training issues. Once they started getting those worked out, not easy to do when under the kind of onslaught they faced, the Yak began to emerge as a very serious contender and could definitely hold it's own against Bf 109s. Later model Yak 1B was a lethal aircraft. It was also specifically tailored to the Russian Front operating conditions. Up thread someone, I think GregP pointed out that the Russian planes would fly in the Winter. That is a very good point! Lend Lease planes had major problems with this as did the Luftwaffe.

So the *TL DR* is I think you could make a case for all three fighters, actually. I like the P-40 a lot myself obviously but I can't honestly say it was better, it depends for what mission and what Theater. For the Russian Front probably the Yak -1b, (at least once the kinks were worked out). For the CBI, the Pacific, or the Med in 1942 or 1943 I'd say the P-40, but for the Med in early 1941 (or anywhere in Europe), I'd say the Hurricane.

S

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Oct 5, 2018)

Schweik said:


> I would also add, I think it's definitely a fair point that the Hurricane was a much older design. The best Hurricanes were going into production when the first (not quite combat ready) P-40's were coming online. The Hurricane peaked in 1940 was diminishing in value earlier than the P-40 did but held on to it's niche almost as late in the war, which considering it's lifespan was a lot longer.
> 
> So from the point of view of a design the Hurricane was better in many respects as they got more mileage out of it so to speak and it may have actually shot down more enemy planes (not certain about that as P-40 numbers would have to be compared between US, RAF, Commonwealth and Soviet sources).
> 
> ...


My calculation on Hurricane victories is about 3750 confirmed excluding Far East and Russia, about 2750 confirmed for the P-40 excluding Russia.The P-40F/L had superior altitude performance to the majority of the British Commonwealth P-40 Fighters so higher victory scores don't surprise me. Below 20000 feet the Merlin version had comparable performance to the Bf 109F/G in 1942/43 as opposed to 12000 feet for the Alison version. However, from late 42 with over boost the Allison versions had as much horsepower as a Fw 190A, so they should have been able to give a good account of themselves to.


----------



## Schweik (Oct 5, 2018)

Kevin J said:


> My calculation on Hurricane victories is about 3750 confirmed excluding Far East and Russia, about 2750 confirmed for the P-40 excluding Russia.The P-40F/L had superior altitude performance to the majority of the British Commonwealth P-40 Fighters so higher victory scores don't surprise me. Below 20000 feet the Merlin version had comparable performance to the Bf 109F/G in 1942/43 as opposed to 12000 feet for the Alison version. However, from late 42 with over boost the Allison versions had as much horsepower as a Fw 190A, so they should have been able to give a good account of themselves to.



Very interesting. Can you give me the source of your numbers? Is that a count of claims or 'verified' victories (I assume the former but worth asking).

This website gives the total P-40 "confirmed" victory claims in US service only at 2,225.5 - and I'm not sure that includes AVG victories. If your above is meant to include RAF / Commonwealth claims would mean that there were only 524.5 claims for RAF, RAAF, RNZAF, and SAAF P-40's combined for 1941-1944,.in the Med, Pacific and CBI.

I find that unlikely when US P-40 units alone in the very brief time (late 42 - mid 43) they were involved in the Med claimed 592 victories there and 660.5 in the Pacific (where RAAF and RNZAF P-40 units were also very active)? Seems pretty low! This site has the claims for RAAF and RNZAF squadrons in the Pacific and I think you'll find at least 100 or so in there (I haven't counted yet).

I know there were 46 Commonwealth Aces who claimed 5 or more of their kills while flying P-40s. In the Med alone you have 112 RAF, 250 RAF, 260 RAF, 3 RAAF, 450 RAAF and a bunch of South African squadrons I can't remember the numbers of. Do you have sources for all those units?

Do you have sources for Hurricane claims in the Med?

S


----------



## Kevin J (Oct 5, 2018)

Schweik said:


> Very interesting. Can you give me the source of your numbers? Is that a count of claims or 'verified' victories (I assume the former but worth asking).
> 
> This website gives the total P-40 "confirmed" victory claims in US service only at 2,225.5 - and I'm not sure that includes AVG victories. If your above is meant to include RAF / Commonwealth claims would mean that there were only 524.5 claims for RAF, RAAF, RNZAF, and SAAF P-40's combined for 1941-1944,.in the Med, Pacific and CBI.
> 
> ...


P-40 claims for USAAF are on ones of these forums, so MTO = 592, CBI =741, PTO = 661 and Total = 1994 so I guess the AVG figures are omitted. Curtiss Kittyhawk gives British and Commonwealth Kittyhawk claims in the Med as 420. Curtiss P-40 Warhawk - Wikipedia gives 77 Tomahawk claims for 2 squadrons and 283 Kittyhawk claims for 3 squadrons, so I've marked up the Tomahawk claims by 50% (77 to 115)so same uplift as per Kittyhawk claims (283 to 420).So yes that's a little fudge, I admit. If you go onto this website Pacific Victory Roll - Home and look up RAAF and RNZAF claims then there are 149 and 99 claims respectively if you total up the numbers. So, I guess you'll get to about 3000 P-40 claims overall plus the Soviet ones.
Hurricane claims. Okay, look up Fighter Command on Wikipedia for the Battle of France and Battle of Britain. BoF, 400 Hurricane victories. BAE website claims Hurricanes scored 60% of BoB victories. Now the next question is, what timeline for BoB, British timeline ends in Oct 40, German in May 41. Raids continued until Operation Barbarossa. Hurricane finally withdrawn as interceptor fighter end 41 during which it continued to score victories. I'm taking 60% of a 2700 claims figure I've seen, can't remember where as my figure, so 1620, not 60% of 1800 for the RAF's BoB which would be 1080. So I would be allocating the same number of extra victories for the whole of the UK as were achieved in Malta for just 2 squadrons in the same time period. 1942/43, Hurricane IIc used as night intruder with 60 victories in first quarter use, I've extrapolated this up to 240. Malta victories 500 against mostly Italian, but also Germans when they were mainly using Me 110 fighters, source "Hurricanes over Malta", forgive me if I've added this up wrong. I've extrapolated an estimated 750 victories for them for the Western Desert as they had 3 squadrons there as opposed to the two in Malta and the same sort of opponents. Also there are 128 Sea Hurricane victories. The Sea Hurricane was a standard Hurricane which was converted to a FAA fighter by means of, if you like, a conversion kit. Haven't totalled Far East victories, don't know what Soviet ones were. So you get to 3628 or thereabouts. Nothing for Greece either.I think 3750 would be a reasonable figure easily achievable.


----------



## pbehn (Oct 5, 2018)

In defence of the Hurricane, no one knew when the war would start, or exactly what the capacities of the enemy were. If Hitler had gone on the march in 1938(if Germany could) The only allied aircraft that could deal with the Bf 109 in Sept 1939 was the Hurricane, the UK only had slightly more than 100 spitfires. The time for the Hurricane should have been Sept 1939 to Sept 1940, if enough had been produced to give sell lease to Poland France Czechoslovakia Hungary Norway Netherlands and France then Germany would maybe not have not started the BoB or have ended it in such a state that an invasion of Russia would not be considered.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Oct 5, 2018)

Kevin J said:


> P-40 claims for USAAF are on ones of these forums, so MTO = 592, CBI =741, PTO = 661 and Total = 1994 so I guess the AVG figures are omitted. Curtiss Kittyhawk gives British and Commonwealth Kittyhawk claims in the Med as 420. Curtiss P-40 Warhawk - Wikipedia gives 77 Tomahawk claims for 2 squadrons and 283 Kittyhawk claims for 3 squadrons, so I've marked up the Tomahawk claims by 50% (77 to 115)so same uplift as per Kittyhawk claims (283 to 420).So yes that's a little fudge, I admit. If you go onto this website Pacific .



Ok so that is kind of what I figured - you are doing a mixture of some numbers you found here and there with a bit of estimating. Which is fine and fairly reasonable, but I don't think it's necessary at this time or really a sound basis for making any kind of point. Real wartime data tends to always be a bit surprising, that it the one constant. Logic comes into play later as part of the analysis.

You can get Hurricane and Tomahawk / Kittyhawk claims from the Med from Christopher Shores MAW Volumes I-III - and add up each days claims. A lot of work but it's doable if you have the time, I wish I did. When Volume IV comes out in a few days I'll definitely add up the time for at least one month in 1943 for another close look like I did for Oct 1942.

I agree Pacific Victory Roll is a good source for RAAF and RNZAF claims in that Theater. 149 and 99 sounds about right. 450 for the Med for Kittyhawks sounds a bit low to me for reasons I already stated, but I'll reserve judgement until I see an actual count based on some data I can look at myself.

It may take a while to get the Soviet claims but I have no doubt they are available in Russian somewhere and in spite of all the tensions these days we do have communication between aviation enthusiasts here and there. 

So I'd say, rather than fudging or guessing, wait a while and make the effort to find the real numbers. I have a feeling we will know them soon enough.

S


----------



## Schweik (Oct 5, 2018)

pbehn said:


> In defence of the Hurricane, no one knew when the war would start, or exactly what the capacities of the enemy were. If Hitler had gone on the march in 1938(if Germany could) The only allied aircraft that could deal with the Bf 109 in Sept 1939 was the Hurricane, the UK only had slightly more than 100 spitfires. The time for the Hurricane should have been Sept 1939 to Sept 1940, if enough had been produced to give sell lease to Poland France Czechoslovakia Hungary Norway Netherlands and France then Germany would maybe not have not started the BoB or have ended it in such a state that an invasion of Russia would not be considered.



Yes it's a shame that wasn't done!


----------



## Schweik (Oct 6, 2018)

That isn't to say the Hurricane didn't have it's day in the Middle East.

The war there went through 8 phases

*A motley crew of oddball planes - 1940-* initially, wonderfully strange and exotic 1930's era aircraft that could be scrounged up were fighting it out, Westland Lysanders, Britstol Bulldogs, Gloster Gauntlets, Martin Marylands, Bisleys, CR 32s, CR, 20's, SM 79's, Blenheims and so on. And seaplanes like Sunderlands and CANT Z.506. This is a very interesting period for anyone who likes early war military planes.

*Italian involvement - the biplane era - Winter 1940 to Spring 1941- *Then there was a period of intense fighting as some Gladiator squadrons were sent in and met face to face with large numbers of Cr 42s and some Cr 32s. Some pretty impressive fights took place with 20 and 30 planes on either side, which seemed to be about even - some days the British won and some days the Italians did. SM 79 Torpedo bombers were wreaking havoc on English shipping. There were a few Hurricanes around the Med but not many as the focus was more on Greece and other Theaters. The British sent in a lot more bombers mostly Blenheims, Marylands and Baltimores.
*
English escalation - Summer 1941 * then the English started sending in more Hurricanes, to which the CR 42s were losing badly. There were some fights with the Vichy French Air Forces, including one very amusing incident described by Roald Dahl I think in Syria (he had initially flown Gladiators then Hurricanes). The Italians started feeding in some of their MC 200's and a few Fiat G.50's to try to even the score but they couldn't hold their own with the Hurricanes. The Hurricanes - still mostly Mk I, were dominant at this point.
*
German involvement- Fall 1941 *As the land war started heating up, the Germans sent in reinforcements, initially Ju 87 and some Ju 88 bombers, and a few Staffel of Me 110s. The Italians also sent in more MC 200's and began phasing out the CR 42s from fighter duty. The British countered this with the first Tomahawks (112 'Shark' Squadron and then 250 Sqn), but the Hurricanes - now increasingly upgraded to IIb and IIc marks, were still very much holding their own and the Axis were losing a lot of fights. English Tomahawks also basically finished off Vichy French forces in the East (MS 406 and D.520). The British sent in the first A-20 Boston bombers which were hard for the slower planes to intercept. This was probably the peak for the Hurricane squadrons.
*
German escalation- Winter 1941 - Summer 1942 *Then the Germans sent in JG 27 initially with Bf 109E7 and then Bf 109F2s. These really tipped the balance in the Axis favor particularly once the F2s arrived. The Italians also introduced the first of their excellent MC 202 fighters. The Tomahawks were bearing the brunt of the fighting, while the British brought in their new Kittyhawks but they basically used poor tactics, had a lot of trouble adjusting to them and they got the worst of it. They probably did worse than the Tomahawks initially. The old Blenheim etc. bombers were very vulnerable too. Somebody, supposedly Clive Caldwell, came up with the idea of putting bombs on the fighters. Hurricanes were relegated more and more to fighter bomber missions from this point onward though it was a gradual process. A few (about ten) elite RAF pilots did very well with the Kittyhawks but most struggling to survive. This was the heyday of JG 27

*Torch to Tunisia - Summer to fall 1942 *In late Summer 1942 British air operations began to improve and their stance stiffened. They started bringing in the first Spitfire Mk V's (three squadrons in 244 Wing by Oct 1942) and adopted much better fighter tactics such as flying pairs. Four of their Kittyhawk squadrons 112 RAF, 250 RAF, 260 RAF, and 3 RAAF emerged (unofficially) as their more elite units, with several pilots becoming famous aces at this time.Then the Americans arrived with the Torch landings in November, starting with a short but very spirited (and quite bloody) battle between the F4F and SBD's of the US Navy and the D.520s and MS 406s of the Vichy French Air force in Morocco which from Shores records looks about even, US losing about 50 Navy planes in air to air combat. Once the French surrendered the Americans were brought into Tunisia with P-40Fs flying in from the USS Wasp. First US fighter group was the 33rd Fighter group which shot down a lot of German planes by attacking them over their own airfields (but also took a lot of casualties). Germans countered aggressively and fighting got very intense. The Italians sent in several more squadrons of MC 202s to bolster their forces, though morale was declining by this time.
*
Anglo-American escalation - Spring 1943* As fighting shifted to the German airfields, the Americans sent in P-38Fs of the 14th Fighter Group (which got chewed up pretty bad) and 82nd Fighter Group (which did a bit better) to the mix, and two more US groups equipped with P-40F/L, the 57th, and 79th FG's. The Americans also brought in more B-25s and some large B-24s to the mix - the latter proving to be particularly good at smashing up Axis airfields. The British brought in an elite Polish led, internationally piloted Spitfire squadron (145 Squadron "Polish Fighting Team") flying Spitfires. The new tactics and new planes caused problems for the Luftwaffe. With heavy losses including several of their experten, JG 27 was pulled out of North Africa for a rest. The Germans sent in JG 77 and elements of JG 53 with newer Bf 109G-2, G-4 and G-6 fighters. The Germans also sent in squadron of Fw 190A-4s (III./ 9/ 10/ and 11/ SkG 10 and II./JG-2, 6./JG 2 and 4./JG 2) which on one occasion (Feb 2 1943) bounced and slaughtered some P-40Fs of the 33rd FG, leading them to be pulled out for a brief rest. The Italians started sending in some more of their elite new MC 205 fighters.
*
Crossing the Med and Italy* The Germans were pushed out of North Africa, an entirely air campaign broke Pantelleria and Lampedusa, then engaged in hard fighting in Sardania and Sicily. The Americans brought in two more P-40 Fighter groups for a total of 5: the 33rd, 57th, 79th, 324th and 325th. The 57th and 325th in particular had very good records. By this time Italy was on the verge of collapse and the Axis in general was badly weakened in the area. Fighting died down with the Invasion of Italy and then by the time of Anzio the Germans came back pretty strong with Bf 109G and Fw 190s in particular - the latter doubling as fighter bombers. There were multiple P-38 squadrons, P-40F/L squadrons, and American Spitfire Mk Vs. The British started sending in the first of their excellent Spitfire Mk IXs. The last major air to air combat for P-40s took place at this time with P-40 units scoring pretty well against Fw 190s. A-36 Apaches (Allison engined P-51s) were in pretty heavy use as fighter bombers. After Anzio both P-40s and Hurricanes were basically relegated to Fighter Bomber missions as P-40 units started converting to P-47s, with some British squadrons converting to Mustang III and IV. A few Hurricane and Kittyhawk squadrons soldiered on as fighter bombers...







Here is Roald Dahls personal account of the raid against the Vichy Airfield copied from this article who excerpted it from his autobiography _Going Solo_. It's hard to find a more fantastic wartime story than this:

_They had American Glenn Martins [B-10s] and French Dewoitines and Potez 63s, and we shot some of them down and they killed four of our nine pilots …

Once we went out to ground-strafe some Vichy French planes on an airfield near Rayak and as we swept in surprise low over the field at midday we saw to our astonishment a bunch of girls in brightly-colored cotton dresses standing out by the planes with glasses in their hands having drinks with the French pilots, and I remember seeing bottles of wine standing on the wing of one of the planes as we went swooshing over.

It was Sunday morning and the Frenchmen were evidently entertaining their girlfriends and showing off their aircraft to them, which was a very French thing to do in the middle of a war at a front-line aerodrome. Every one of us held our fire on that first pass over the flying field and it was wonderfully comical to see the girls all dropping their wine glasses and galloping in their high heels for the door of the nearest building.

We went round again, but this time we were no longer a surprise and they were ready for us with their ground defenses, and I am afraid that our chivalry resulted in damage to several of our Hurricanes, including my own. But we destroyed five of their planes on the ground."_

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Oct 6, 2018)

It did well in the early years and wasn't a bad aircraft, but its big advantage was its ease of production. If enough Merlin engines could have been produced and it was available everywhere the LW was operating in an earlier war then it could have made a decisive difference (just a private "what if")


----------



## VonAlex (Oct 6, 2018)

Clay_Allison said:


> We have a lot of threads uselessly comparing the P-40 to the Spitfire and Mustang. On the other hand, in my opinion, the proper comparison is with the other "obsolete" fighters that were thrust into the gap in the early war and fought on till the end in lower priority roles.
> 
> So, say you need fighters and these three designs are on your desk. Which do you want?



i would pick the hurricane,just because of its armament and survivability


----------



## Kevin J (Oct 7, 2018)

VonAlex said:


> i would pick the hurricane,just because of its armament and survivability


If only the Canadians had picked the P-40 for production instead of the Hurricane, but powered it with the Rolls-Royce Merlin III. Okay, it wouldn't have been available until after the BoB, but instead of Tomahawks being only suitable for army co-operation in Europe, we would have had a fighter with a better range better suited to escorting our bombers on daylight attacks. The Canadians probably knew about 'War Plan Red', so they didn't. They built the trusty old Hurricane instead.


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 7, 2018)

You might want to rethink that one. The Merlin III wasn't magic. 
A P-40B with four wing guns and basic armor and basic self sealing tanks (not as good as the P-40C and later) weighed almost as much empty equipped (guns etc.) but without fuel oil ammo and pilot as a Spit I did ready for take-off. 
The early Allison engine was also good for 1040hp at 14,300ft. The Merlin III was good for 1030hp at 16,200ft. 

Fitting Merlin IIIs was not going to turn the early P-40 into an escort fighter or change it's altitude capabilities very much. The P-40s extra 1000-1200lbs of weight is just too much for either engine.

Reactions: Disagree Disagree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Oct 7, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> You might want to rethink that one. The Merlin III wasn't magic.
> A P-40B with four wing guns and basic armor and basic self sealing tanks (not as good as the P-40C and later) weighed almost as much empty equipped (guns etc.) but without fuel oil ammo and pilot as a Spit I did ready for take-off.
> The early Allison engine was also good for 1040hp at 14,300ft. The Merlin III was good for 1030hp at 16,200ft.
> 
> Fitting Merlin IIIs was not going to turn the early P-40 into an escort fighter or change it's altitude capabilities very much. The P-40s extra 1000-1200lbs of weight is just too much for either engine.


The Merlin III of 1940 had 1320 hp with 12 lbs boost, by 1941 16 lbs boost and 1440 hp. Max speed of Tomahawk would have been at same altitude as Spitfire and Hurricane. So its heavier, it can dive faster and has a longer range, so not as good as an interceptor, but much better when used in the 1941 France Air Offensive. More suited.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Oct 7, 2018)

Yeah I tend to agree to a limited extent - certainly Merlin XX powered P-40F and L variants were doing just fine as escorts in 1942 and 1943.

And Tomahawks (P-40B and C) actually performed better in terms of climb and acceleration than the early Kittyhawks, (at least until they started overboosting the engines on the Kittyhawks and that probably didn't start until mid 1942). One problem though which was evident in the Med was what bombers to escort? Blenheims lumbering along at 100 mph left escorting fighters pretty vulnerable. And even with escorts, a bomber needed to be able to defend itself.

Shortround certainly knows more than I do about the differences from the III and the XX , but even with the Allison engine Tomahawks made a difference in Russia and the Middle East, and certainly did better in combat than Hurricanes. It is hard to imagine how raising their altitude ceiling and performance substantially would not have helped.

Without a doubt, (merlin engined) P-40F/L fighters were effective escorts. They shot down hundreds of Bf 109s in the Middle East and in the escort role enabled thousands of sorties by B-25s and A-20s to drop bombs of Axis airfields and survive the trip there and back without heavy casualties. They would have made more Merlin engined Warhawks if the engines had been available. They were more combat useful than P-40M or Ns for that Theater and I think they were better as medium bomber escorts than early P-38s (though that is debatable).

I do also think had large fleets of Hurricanes been available to Poland and France in 1940 WW2 may have never become the conflagration it did. But that is another big can of worms. In 1940 the Hurricane was definitely competitive with the early Bf 109s.

Of course those speculative type questions are tricky and rather too open-ended. They seldom really tell us much.

S

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Oct 7, 2018)

Merlin III was single speed.

Merlin XX was 2 speed.

The P-40B didn't get into production until 1941. 

Probably looking at Merlin XXs or a Merlin 45. At least for the first 6 months the engine supply would had to have been British, as Packard came up to speed.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Oct 7, 2018)

Didn't they also make Merlin XX in Canada or was that Packard too?


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 7, 2018)

Kevin J said:


> The Merlin III of 1940 had 1320 hp with 12 lbs boost, by 1941 16 lbs boost and 1440 hp. Max speed of Tomahawk would have been at same altitude as Spitfire and Hurricane. So its heavier, it can dive faster and has a longer range, so not as good as an interceptor, but much better when used in the 1941 France Air Offensive. More suited.



Before you hit the X button you might want to do a little more research. The 1320hp was at 9000ft, power at 16,500 and above was unchanged. 
the 1440hp was at 5500ft, power at 9000ft and at 16,500ft was unchanged. The 1440hp rating was only approved for Sea Hurricanes, in part the CAM ones that were expected to ditch at the end of the flight so engine life was _not _very important. 

Now please note that while not officially sanctioned, the early Allison was frequently over boosted in squadron service in NA so it was making at least a few hundred more HP than the official figures at low altitude. 

as to the range, a P-40B held about 160 US gallons inside (about 133 Imp gallons) and had no drop tank. A P-40C with better self sealing tanks held 137 US gallons (114 Imp gal) inside. Better range than a Spitfire but not really enough to get very far past the coast.


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 7, 2018)

wuzak said:


> Merlin III was single speed.
> 
> Merlin XX was 2 speed.
> 
> ...



Packard built 45 engines in 1941, 26 of them in Dec. ALL fighter production in 1941 would have had to come from British sources (Packard built 5 engines in October).


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 7, 2018)

I would note that not only was the Merlin XX a two speed engine (which helped low altitude more than high ) , it got the better Hooker modified supercharger (which is what really improved high altitude performance) and it got some beefed up parts to stand up to the higher output better.


----------



## Kevin J (Oct 7, 2018)

wuzak said:


> Merlin III was single speed.
> 
> Merlin XX was 2 speed.
> 
> ...


I don't think there were many Merlin 45's available until the Summer of 41. Its either the Merlin III, the XII or a few Merlin XX's.


----------



## Schweik (Oct 7, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> Before you hit the X button you might want to do a little more research. The 1320hp was at 9000ft, power at 16,500 and above was unchanged.
> the 1440hp was at 5500ft, power at 9000ft and at 16,500ft was unchanged. The 1440hp rating was only approved for Sea Hurricanes, in part the CAM ones that were expected to ditch at the end of the flight so engine life was _not _very important.
> 
> Now please note that while not officially sanctioned, the early Allison was frequently over boosted in squadron service in NA so it was making at least a few hundred more HP than the official figures at low altitude.



Extra power at medium and low altitudes was not a trivial thing. Combat often descended to lower altitude in the course of a fight, and in the Med it was common practice both for Hurricane and (especially) Tomahwak / Kittyhawk pilots to flee to lower altitude where they had better performance, especially when overboosting had become more common (officially sanctioned and otherwise). Standard escape maneuver for a P-40 was a Split-S and dive down to a 'healthier' altitude where they could turn the tables. This was something Neville Duke did several times for example, as well as American aces like Levi Chase and Bill Momyer.

Having 1440 hp at 5500 feet would mean probably a 20 mph speed boost and ~ 3500' fpm (initial) rate of climb, as well as a better turn rate and of course, faster dive speed. All quite useful in combat. Enough to put them on parity with Bf 109 E through F-2 at that altitude.


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 7, 2018)

Schweik said:


> Extra power at medium and low altitudes was not a trivial thing. Combat often descended to lower altitude in the course of a fight, and in the Med it was common practice both for Hurricane and (especially) Tomahwak / Kittyhawk pilots to flee to lower altitude where they had better performance, especially when overboosting had become more common (officially sanctioned and otherwise). Standard escape maneuver for a P-40 was a Split-S and dive down to a 'healthier' altitude where they could turn the tables. This was something Neville Duke did several times for example, as well as American aces like Levi Chase and Bill Momyer.
> 
> Having 1440 hp at 5500 feet would mean probably a 20 mph speed boost and ~ 3500' fpm (initial) rate of climb, as well as a better turn rate and of course, faster dive speed. All quite useful in combat. Enough to put them on parity with Bf 109 E through F-2 at that altitude.




ANd pretty much useless if trying to escort the British bombers of 1941 as proposed in Post #293. The Wellingtons and Hampdens and whatever else the British could scrape up for a daylight escorted bombing offensive are NOT going to be cruising around at 5000-9000ft where their 'escorts' engine work best but they are fat ripe targets for AA guns.
Split-S to a lower altitude for the escorts just leaves the bombers open to attack by the German interceptors.

The higher power limits can be quite useful in some situations, just not this one.

The practical difference between an early Spitfire and a early P-40 was not the difference Between and Allison C-15 and a Merlin III but the fact that the P-40 weighed 1000-1200lb more than the Spitfire. A Bf 109F-1/2 went about 6000lbs in interceptor mode (no bombs or drop tank) and that was part if it's success at altitude, the supercharger wasn't all that great, the engine just wasn't trying haul around anywhere near as much wight.

Edit, there seems to be a problem with numbering of the posts. 

I was replying to this 
"but instead of Tomahawks being only suitable for army co-operation in Europe, we would have had a fighter with a_ better range better suited to escorting our bombers on daylight attacks_"


----------



## Schweik (Oct 7, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> ANd pretty much useless if trying to escort the British bombers of 1941 as proposed in Post #293. The Wellingtons and Hampdens and whatever else the British could scrape up for a daylight escorted bombing offensive are NOT going to be cruising around at 5000-9000ft where their 'escorts' engine work best but they are fat ripe targets for AA guns.
> Split-S to a lower altitude for the escorts just leaves the bombers open to attack by the German interceptors.
> 
> The higher power limits can be quite useful in some situations, just not this one.



I don't agree - if you look at the actual battlefield record, it was fairly normal for P-40s to escort bombers or fighter bombers at regular medium bombers cruising altitudes 10, 15, 20k feet whatever (also keep in mind medium bombers often flew at 'medium' altitude since many medium bomber types didn't always perform that well very high), whether or not the fighters were over their own performance ceiling (which ranged from 12-16k for earlier model Allison engined P-40s, 20k for Merlin) and do their best at that altitude, but dive down below if they got in trouble with intercepting fighters. This was true both in the Med and in the Pacific. 

This reality actually contributed to the official divergence between "close escort" and "free range escort" type policies later in the war, on both sides.

Though in theory this would leave the bombers alone and vulnerable in practice it seemed that the attacking and escorting fighters would often get into mixed up affrays while the bombers went on their way (sometimes fleeing at high speed and a shallow dive). It didn't take the bombers very long to get out of sight nor did it take Bf 109s very long in combat to run low on fuel and not be able to chase them. Zeroes of course (and to a lesser extent, Ki 43s) had much more endurance but they had less of a speed margin to chase fleeing bombers. An A-20 running flat out wasn't much slower than a Zero.

Mission profiles and performance envelopes often do not hinge on sticking to the optimal conditions of a planned mission but also quite often devolve to how could they handle worse case scenarios, which in combat with as formidable an enemy as the Luftwaffe or IJN were all too routine an occurrance. An escort fighter that could survive missions at a high rate was an escort fighter that could continue to be used.

Vulnerability is of course an issue. You did need fast enough bombers. One could in fact imagine a scenario with merlin engined P-40s escorting Allison Engined P-51 dive bombers. 



> The practical difference between an early Spitfire and a early P-40 was not the difference Between and Allison C-15 and a Merlin III but the fact that the P-40 weighed 1000-1200lb more than the Spitfire. A Bf 109F-1/2 went about 6000lbs in interceptor mode (no bombs or drop tank) and that was part if it's success at altitude, the supercharger wasn't all that great, the engine just wasn't trying haul around anywhere near as much wight.



It was a little bit of both, actually. The Merlin XX certainly did improve the higher altitude performance of the P-40F/L, just as the steadily improving high altitude performance of both Merlin and DB engines helped Spitfires and Bf 109s perform higher and higher.

By contrast, the early Zero which was quite light of course actually had relatively poor altitude performance, A6M2 wasn't so great about 18k from what I have read.

S


----------



## Schweik (Oct 7, 2018)

come to think of it, I'm sure a P-51A would have benefited from a Merlin III or XX, if not to the miraculous extent as with the Merlin 60


----------



## tomo pauk (Oct 7, 2018)

Schweik said:


> come to think of it, I'm sure a P-51A would have benefited from a Merlin III or XX, if not to the miraculous extent as with the Merlin 60



From Merlin III - no, the V-1710-81 was in no way a worse engine. Granted, it became available several years after Merlin III was 3rd or 4th best Merlin. 
On the other hand, Merlin XX, 45 or 46 would've improved performance of the P-51A, let alone of the P-51 (here is the Merlin III an improvement).


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 7, 2018)

Schweik said:


> I don't agree - if you look at the actual battlefield record, it was fairly normal for P-40s to escort bombers or fighter bombers at regular medium bombers cruising altitudes 10, 15, 20k feet whatever (also keep in mind medium bombers often flew at 'medium' altitude since many medium bomber types didn't always perform that well very high), whether or not the fighters were over their own performance ceiling (which ranged from 12-16k for earlier model Allison engined P-40s, 20k for Merlin) and do their best at that altitude, but dive down below if they got in trouble with intercepting fighters. This was true both in the Med and in the Pacific.
> 
> This reality actually contributed to the official divergence between "close escort" and "free range escort" type policies later in the war, on both sides..........



This rather disregards an essential difference between Europe and the Med and Pacific. 
Yes the British bombers of 1941 aren't going to fly as high as the turbocharged B-17s and B-24s but there was a much higher density of AA guns in Europe than in North Africa/Med and the Pacific. 
Pretty much the only AA guns you had to worry about were the ones at/near the target (and Japanese light AA was crap) as opposed to Europe where, if you actually planned to go very far past the coast there were a number of defended areas you had to pass by or detour around. 

Think of AA coverage like a dome over each gun/battery. The higher you fly the less time you spend in the "dome" or the further you fly from the center. 

A "good" height (medium?) was out of the _effective_ range of 37-40mm guns (not their max range/ceiling) but low enough to cause problems with traversing the big guns or with the fuse setters. There is sort of a minimum effective distance although not talked about much. 

While the Germans had nowhere near enough AA guns to cover all of France and the low countries they certainly had a higher number of guns per large area of ground than they had in the desert and floating in the Mediterranean sea. 

We are also talking about 1941 and not 1942 and the British have nowhere near the number of "fast bombers" they would have in 1942.


----------



## Kevin J (Oct 7, 2018)

Schweik said:


> Extra power at medium and low altitudes was not a trivial thing. Combat often descended to lower altitude in the course of a fight, and in the Med it was common practice both for Hurricane and (especially) Tomahwak / Kittyhawk pilots to flee to lower altitude where they had better performance, especially when overboosting had become more common (officially sanctioned and otherwise). Standard escape maneuver for a P-40 was a Split-S and dive down to a 'healthier' altitude where they could turn the tables. This was something Neville Duke did several times for example, as well as American aces like Levi Chase and Bill Momyer.
> 
> Having 1440 hp at 5500 feet would mean probably a 20 mph speed boost and ~ 3500' fpm (initial) rate of climb, as well as a better turn rate and of course, faster dive speed. All quite useful in combat. Enough to put them on parity with Bf 109 E through F-2 at that altitude.


All Hurricanes had 16 lbs boost from 1942.


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 7, 2018)

Kevin J said:


> All Hurricanes had 16 lbs boost from 1942.




Hurricane Is with Merlin IIIs or Hurricane IIs with Merlin XX engines (or later)?

For a while Hurricanes IIs were allowed to use 14lbs of boost in low(or medium) supercharger and 16lbs in high gear with their Merlin XX engines.

Hurricane IVs with Merlin 24 or 27 engines were allowed to use 18lbs but they had stronger supercharger drives/clutches than the Merlin XX engines.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Oct 7, 2018)

Schweik said:


> Extra power at medium and low altitudes was not a trivial thing. Combat often descended to lower altitude in the course of a fight, and in the Med it was common practice both for Hurricane and (especially) Tomahwak / Kittyhawk pilots to flee to lower altitude where they had better performance, especially when overboosting had become more common (officially sanctioned and otherwise). Standard escape maneuver for a P-40 was a Split-S and dive down to a 'healthier' altitude where they could turn the tables. This was something Neville Duke did several times for example, as well as American aces like Levi Chase and Bill Momyer.
> 
> Having 1440 hp at 5500 feet would mean probably a 20 mph speed boost and ~ 3500' fpm (initial) rate of climb, as well as a better turn rate and of course, faster dive speed. All quite useful in combat. Enough to put them on parity with Bf 109 E through F-2 at that altitude.


Having 1440 hp at 5500 feet means that you can make your top speed at altitude your top speed at the lower height.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greg Boeser (Oct 7, 2018)

Schweik said:


> They would have made more Merlin engined Warhawks if the engines had been available.


Once the decision was made to put Merlins in P-51s, Merlin engine P-40s were stripped and converted back to Allisons (P-40R).


----------



## wuzak (Oct 7, 2018)

Kevin J said:


> I don't think there were many Merlin 45's available until the Summer of 41. Its either the Merlin III, the XII or a few Merlin XX's.



There would not have been many available to aircraft other than the Spitfire.

The Spitfire V was entering operational service by early 1941.

Hurricane Mk IIs with Merlin XXs were being built since ~June of 1940 and went into squadron service in September 1940.


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 7, 2018)

Greg Boeser said:


> Once the decision was made to put Merlins in P-51s, Merlin engine P-40s were stripped and converted back to Allisons (P-40R).




Actually has nothing to do with each other. The engines in the P-40s used single stage superchargers and the P-51 used two stage superchargers.

The Army goofed when it allocated or requested Merlin engines for the P-40 Production. They only requested about 20% extra engines for spares (30-50% was more normal) and then (later) decided to send the planes to North Africa where the sand considerably shortened the engine life. Faced with useable airframes in a war zone but without useable engines they followed two paths. 1. The British supplied tons of parts to assist in overhauling the engines in theater, breaking down hundreds of their own used engines. 2. The US either re-equipped some planes in the Field with Allison's (doubtful as they need different radiators and oil coolers unless they got them from junked P-40Es or Ks) or they took RR engines from stateside planes and shipped the engines to North Africa as replacements and requiped the the engineless planes in the US with the Allison installation. 
This episode also points out the fallacy that British and American Merlins didn't use interchangeable parts. 
Some parts were not interchange (supercharger drive and some things like carbs or starter motors) but the guts were fully interchangeable.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Oct 7, 2018)

Greg Boeser said:


> Once the decision was made to put Merlins in P-51s, Merlin engine P-40s were stripped and converted back to Allisons (P-40R).



I'm not sure that is precisely how that happened, as so far as I know it was a different Merlin that went into the P-40F and L - the Merlin 28 aka Packard V-1650-1, a license built Rolls Royce Merlin XX. The one in the Mustang was a 60 series, (Merlin 68 and 69 / aka Packard V-1650-3 and V-1650-7) license built RR Merlin 63 and 63A much more sophisticated - two stage blower.

List of Rolls-Royce Merlin variants - Wikipedia

I'm sure Shortround can tell us more.

Merlin XX was the first two speed Merlin, while Merlin 60 series were the first two _stage_ Merlin, a far more impressive, sophisticated and _useful _innovation. Rather amazingly, it was developed for some kind of high altitude Wellington bomber. 

Wiki says Merlin XX was being built from 1940 by the way. +14 boost or +16 with 100 Octane fuel

P-40R did have Allisons instead of Merlins but I suspect that was due to their not having enough Merlins either due to the original engines being burned out / needing replacement or because they just didn't have any available to put in them. It's not entirely clear.

I think Packard was being switched over to full scale production of the Merlin 63 (Packard Merlin 68 / V-1650-3)

Other fun fact about the V-1650-1 was that it was made a bit more robust than the original (tougher bearings) and therefore probably capable of higher boost.

S

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Oct 7, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> Actually has nothing to do with each other. The engines in the P-40s used single stage superchargers and the P-51 used two stage superchargers.
> 
> The Army goofed when it allocated or requested Merlin engines for the P-40 Production. They only requested about 20% extra engines for spares (30-50% was more normal) and then (later) decided to send the planes to North Africa where the sand considerably shortened the engine life. Faced with useable airframes in a war zone but without useable engines they followed two paths. 1. The British supplied tons of parts to assist in overhauling the engines in theater, breaking down hundreds of their own used engines. 2. The US either re-equipped some planes in the Field with Allison's (doubtful as they need different radiators and oil coolers unless they got them from junked P-40Es or Ks) or they took RR engines from stateside planes and shipped the engines to North Africa as replacements and requiped the the engineless planes in the US with the Allison installation.
> This episode also points out the fallacy that British and American Merlins didn't use interchangeable parts.
> Some parts were not interchange (supercharger drive and some things like carbs or starter motors) but the guts were fully interchangeable.



Beat me to it.

I know that they ran short enough on P-40 F and L models that the 64th squadron of the 57th FG had to be equipped with P-40K's for a while.






The two DAF squadrons with Merlin P-40s (Kittyhawk II and IIA), the 260 RAF and the 3 RAAF, both ran out of them in Italy before they wanted to and had to switch over to far less capable P-40Ms. One of them (260 RAF) switched back to Kittyhawk II's for a while (probably due to some kind of scramble for parts such as you described above) and still had a few left before switching to Mustang III's in April 1944.

P-40Ms were fine for fighter bomber duties but when they were going up against the Luftwaffe they really preferred the Mk II.

Apparently P-40Ks were pretty sought after in the RAF as well, Bobby Gibbes (10 Kill Australian Ace) mentions "stealing" one from the RAF for a while, during which time he pulled away from his squadron and shot down a Bf 109 out of a group of three passing overhead.

S


----------



## wuzak (Oct 7, 2018)

Schweik said:


> I'm not sure that is precisely how that happened, as so far as I know it was a different Merlin that went into the P-40F and L - the Merlin 28 aka Packard V-1650-1, a license built Rolls Royce Merlin XX. The one in the Mustang was a 60 series, (Merlin 68 and 69 / aka Packard V-1650-3 and V-1650-7) license built RR Merlin 63 and 63A much more sophisticated - two stage blower.



The V-1650-3 was equivalent to the Merlin 63. The V-1650-7 was equivalent to the Merlin 66 - lower critical altitude and stronger internals.




Schweik said:


> Merlin XX was the first two speed Merlin



No, that honour belongs to the Merlin X, as used in the Halifax I, Wellington II and Whitley V and VII.




Schweik said:


> while Merlin 60 series were the first two _stage_ Merlin, a far more impressive, sophisticated and _useful _innovation. Rather amazingly, it was developed for some kind of high altitude Wellington bomber.



Yes, originally designed for high altitude bombers.

Then the head of Rolls-Royce suggested they fit one to the Spitfire. The Merlin 61 was the first fighter 2 stage version.


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 7, 2018)

Schweik said:


> Other fun fact about the V-1650-1 was that it was made a bit more robust than the original (tougher bearings) and therefore probably capable of higher boost.



This may be fact or it just might be a good story. I don't know. The British took a while to approve higher than 9lbs boost for the Merlin XX although they did eventually get to to the 14lb and 16lb limits mentioned earlier. They were keeping the Merlin XX at 9lbs even though they were using 12lbs in the Melrn III. 
The Americans stayed at 9lbs boost for quite some time although using 12lbs boost for take-off. It took until late 1942 and into early 1943 for the US to rate it's engines for WEP so many early manuals make no mention of it. I don't when or if the US "officially" raised the boost limits on the Merlin V-1650-1. 
There are also sometimes differences between what the factory says is OK and what the Government says is OK, P & W for instance rarely lists WEP power levels in company charts or tables even though we know both the navy and army used them.


----------



## Schweik (Oct 7, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> This may be fact or it just might be a good story. I don't know.



well they were definitely different, whether that means better or not I can't say for certain but it_ sounds_ better - namely silver vs. copper based bearings and with some kind of special patented anti-corrosion coating made of indium.



> The British took a while to approve higher than 9lbs boost for the Merlin XX although they did eventually get to to the 14lb and 16lb limits mentioned earlier. They were keeping the Merlin XX at 9lbs even though they were using 12lbs in the Melrn III.
> The Americans stayed at 9lbs boost for quite some time although using 12lbs boost for take-off. It took until late 1942 and into early 1943 for the US to rate it's engines for WEP so many early manuals make no mention of it. I don't when or if the US "officially" raised the boost limits on the Merlin V-1650-1.



The official boost rating for P-40 F and L was 60" Hg in October of 1942. I'd be very surprised if the Spitfires or Hurricanes were staying below that. It seems likely that they boosted beyond that especially since we have pilot anecdotes of them outrunning Bf 109s at low altitude on more than one occasion.



> There are also sometimes differences between what the factory says is OK and what the Government says is OK, P & W for instance rarely lists WEP power levels in company charts or tables even though we know both the navy and army used them.



yes we have the famous Allison memo on that.


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 7, 2018)

Schweik said:


> The official boost rating for P-40 F and L was 60" Hg in October of 1942. I'd be very surprised if the Spitfires or Hurricanes were staying below that. It seems likely that they boosted beyond that especially since we have pilot anecdotes of them outrunning Bf 109s at low altitude on more than one occasion.



Thank you. 60in is roughly 15lbs of boost so that splits the difference on the Merlin XX 14/16lbs in low/hi gear. As noted before the Merlin 24 used in the Hurricane IV was allowed 18lbs (66in) but used stronger connecting rods and a stronger supercharger drive/clutch. There was more to high boost that just tightening up the boost limit screw 

The power to drive the supercharger goes up substantially and the supercharger drive train must be able to take it (like the early Allison with 9.60 gears breaking the gears)

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Oct 7, 2018)

Schweik said:


> well they were definitely different, whether that means better or not I can't say for certain but it_ sounds_ better - namely silver vs. copper based bearings and with some kind of special patented anti-corrosion coating made of indium.



Rolls-Royce produced bearings of Allison design under licence. That is steel backed bearings.

Not sure if there was any difference between the materials.

The V-1650-1 was also the first Merlin to go into production with the two piece cylinder blocks. Some take that as meaning that Packard designed the 2 piece block, but that is not the case.

Rolls-Royce were rather busy fighting a war, so they delayed changing to the two piece design until the 60-series Merlin went into production.

Packard developed their own system of connecting the cylinder block to the head (water passages), but changed to the Rolls-Royce design later.

I believe the V-1650-1 used the Farman type supercharger drive (ie same as Rolls-Royce), but the V-1650-3 onwards used an epicyclic drive developed by Wright.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Oct 7, 2018)

Makes sense. Do you think 15 lbs of boost is enough for a P-40 to outrun a Bf 109 G-2? maybe with low fuel I suppose? There are a couple of detailed anecdotes from spring of 1943 of pilots fleeing from the battle area and being chased by multiple messerschmits all the way back to a forward base at treetop level. One of the guys was positively gleeful about it.

It's possible he had a P-40K though I'm not sure, I'd have to double check the squadron.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Oct 7, 2018)

+15psi boost ~ 61inHg MAP
+18psi boost ~ 67inHg MAp


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 7, 2018)

Thank you. 

The thing about a lot of these North Africa Anecdotes is that the power at altitude really varied and due to the usual weather/temperature trying to figure the power gets real iffy. The Merlin XX or V-1650-1 was good for about 1240hp in low gear at 9lbs boost up to about 11500ft, this does not include RAM which can raise that altitude by several thousand ft. However the 14lb limit was 1460hp at 6500ft also without RAM so it was available for level flight several thousand feet higher. If you go lower you can get more, the Merlin 24 being rated at 1640hp at 2250ft at 18lbs boost and no RAM again straight and level flight can raise that altitude by several thousand feet. But you can see that a difference of about 4000ft can cost around 200hp so vague descriptions of altitude don't help figureing the power used. 
Then you run into the temperature problem. If the air is at 38 degrees C (100.4 F) the air is about 91% of the density that it is at 15 degrees C (59 F) and so the engine will only make 91% of the power (or to put it somewhat different) by showing 66in on the gauge you are making the same power at the high temperature as about 60 in at the low temperature. This may help explain why some of these over boosted engines weren't wrecking themselves. You also have less drag on the airframe due to the thinner air. Of course the airspeed indicator also doesn't read quite correctly either. 
However this takes no account of the higher temperatures that would push the engine closer to detonation limits. 
Trying to use the same over boosting in Europe in winter gives you a lower intake mixture temperature but gives you even more air (lbs per cubic ft) for more power/strain on parts.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Oct 7, 2018)

Presumably these various factors would affect both sides equally? So it really boiled down to their having to figure out how far they could push the engines in general and specifically in their particular area (and perhaps, during a particular season, as I believe it does get cooler in Winter in Tunisia, and conversely I think it does get hot in Russia in the Summer). Maybe we'll never know how fast they were going but what really mattered was_ relative _speed.

Since neither the militaries nor the manufacturers were really doing this kind of testing, it was up to the pilots and their mechanics to figure it out, and ultimately rewire the throttles and so on.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Oct 8, 2018)

Greg Boeser said:


> Once the decision was made to put Merlins in P-51s, Merlin engine P-40s were stripped and converted back to Allisons (P-40R).


There were lots of Packard Merlins available which could have been put into the Warhawk, instead they went to Britain and were put into the Avro Lancaster bomber.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Oct 8, 2018)

Kevin J said:


> There were lots of Packard Merlins available which could have been put into the Warhawk, instead they went to Britain and were put into the Avro Lancaster bomber.



The contract for Packard was to supply Merlin engines to the British.

In allowing the contract, the US government stipulated that 1/3 of production was to be reserved for US use. That's why there were P-40Fs and Ls - no other suitable airframe at the time.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 8, 2018)

Schweik said:


> Presumably these various factors would affect both sides equally? So it really boiled down to their having to figure out how far they could push the engines in general and specifically in their particular area (and perhaps, during a particular season, as I believe it does get cooler in Winter in Tunisia, and conversely I think it does get hot in Russia in the Summer). Maybe we'll never know how fast they were going but what really mattered was_ relative _speed.
> 
> Since neither the militaries nor the manufacturers were really doing this kind of testing,_ it was up to the pilots and their mechanics to figure it out_, and ultimately rewire the throttles and so on.



And here lies a big problem. And the reason for famous Allison letter. and by the way, the factories were doing this sort of testing. It is called R&D. Factories ran engines at higher than normal boost and/or higher than normal rpm on test stands so they could find out what broke quicker than running at normal levels and beef up the parts so they could A, offer an engine with longer life and B, offer a new model engine with more power to their customers. Factories were sometimes constrained because their goal of higher power was limited by meeting the same service life as the lower powered engine. A more powerful engine that broke in service and/or required more frequent overhaul wasn't likely to find many customers. 

The majority of the mechanics were just out of high school, Some of the pilots weren't much better and while the Americans especially had more experience with engines than other nations changing the spark plugs or adjusting the carburetor on a V-8 Ford doesn't give them the experience/knowledge to figure out allowable boost settings on highly supercharged engines. 
The Factories had test cells with a lot more instrumentation that the gauges in the instrument panel of the airplane. They had records of what worked and what didn't. They had examples of failed engines to tear down and examine. If a squadron "tweaked" engine failed in flight what does that tell the squadron mechanics? 
Don't do that again if the pilot makes it home? 
In the absence of any official recommendations/approvals for increasing boost the squadrons are left on their own with only "hanger talk" to guide them "Jim Bob over in 97 squadron says we can increase the boost to 55in (or pick a number) and it won't wreck the engine". Allison had a pretty good idea what you could get away with and what you couldn't with the engines using the 8.80 supercharger gears. When they introduced the engines with the 9.60 gears they KNEW you could NOT get away with the same boost levels. The 9.60 gears used nearly 20% more power than the 8.80 gears (power required goes up the square of the impeller speed) and even in good supercharger operating in it's efficiency zone about 30% of the power going into the supercharger goes directly to heating the intake mixture (the other 70% compresses the air and that has a seperate heat rise) they KNEW the intake mixture was going to be hotter and _closer to detonation_ than the older engine _using the same manifold pressure. _with the new gears and the faster turning impeller it would be easier to get the pressure/temperature combination that would cause detonation.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 8, 2018)

wuzak said:


> The contract for Packard was to supply Merlin engines to the British.
> 
> In allowing the contract, the US government stipulated that 1/3 of production was to be reserved for US use. That's why there were P-40Fs and Ls - no other suitable airframe at the time.


The 1/3 of production was just for the initial contract of 9000 engines. And it is doubtful the US took the full the 3000 engines. Packard would wind up building over 26,000 single stage Merlins of 11 (?) different models.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Oct 8, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> The 1/3 of production was just for the initial contract of 9000 engines.



Sorry that I didn't make that clear.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 8, 2018)

wuzak said:


> Sorry that I didn't make that clear.


No worries.
I figured you knew.


----------



## Schweik (Oct 8, 2018)

> And here lies a big problem. And the reason for famous Allison letter. and by the way, the factories were doing this sort of testing. It is called R&D. Factories ran engines at higher than normal boost and/or higher than normal rpm on test stands so they could find out what broke quicker than running at normal levels and beef up the parts so they could A, offer an engine with longer life and B, offer a new model engine with more power to their customers. Factories were sometimes constrained because their goal of higher power was limited by meeting the same service life as the lower powered engine. A more powerful engine that broke in service and/or required more frequent overhaul wasn't likely to find many customers



I should have equivocated on that a bit - yes obviously the aircraft engine companies did their R&D but not always at - or even remotely _near _a pace that was in sync with the needs of the pilots using these aircraft. Allison in particular was (I wold say) literally criminally negligent in this regard, in fact later in the war they were caught selling defective engine in some kind of bribery scandal. EDIT: Correction - sorry that was Curtiss.

Allisons failure to deal with the higher altitude performance of their engines was a major problem that was never addressed in the war except by marginal half-measures, as you have pointed out the integral supercharger in the engine was part of the problem. But it boiled down to a company that had been purchased by another and wasn't responsive to the needs of it's customers.

Out in the field, in the remote dusty deserts of Libya or on some forlorn island in the Solomons, the high school level mechanics who barely knew how to hot rod a Model A, had to figure out how to not only maintain and repair badly abused and battle damaged engines with inadequate supplies and usually not even so much as a hangar to keep the elements off of them while they worked, but also how to get better performance from the engines as they were not delivering enough horsepower.

With the lives of the pilots and the success of the mission on the line they ultimately did. I guess between them, a few hundred US and Australian mechanics and pilots had enough ingenuity to figure this all out in a few months.

Nor did engine failure necessarily mean a mysterious and instant doom for a pilot. Engine failure was a routine problem with high performance "race cars on steroids" type context of a WW2 battlefield, and was a known quantity. Engines failed on their own or because of weather or maintenance problems, due to over-use / abuse and due to battle damage. Pilots often had to crash-land their aircraft as a result and they did live to tell the tale. Often the planes themselves were recovered and examined and the reason for the problem was eventually figured out, even when it was as complex and counter-intuitive as the sort of issues they had with Spit Vs at Darwin (like coolant lines that had become corroded during shipping and gun heaters that had been inadvertently disconnected or never installed to begin with)

A fighter squadron in a remote and incredibly dangerous place like Tunisia in 1942 became a very special and very harsh type of meritocracy, one from within which fortunately these barely educated youngsters did rise to the occasion and found among their number sufficient knowledge and ingenuity to figure out a lot of these problems. That is a major part of the story of air combat in WW2.

S

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Oct 8, 2018)

EDIT: For some reason I had trouble with embedding all the attached images. Check out this site for images of numerous captured aircraft, including an He 111 captured and restored by 260 Sqn RAF after El Alamein and a Bf 109, Fw 190 and Ju 88 all captured and restored by the 79th FG (P-40F/L)

WTF? > Vintage Wings of Canada

I would also add that as testeament to the expertise achieved by the mechanics and pilot-mechanics in some of these forward operating squadrons, they were able to get multiple Axis aircraft running in spite of the missing parts, special lubricants and so forth that they had to figure out. Several ofthese became 'pet' aircraft for the squadron, used to evaluate enemy aircraft performance like the Bf 109 and Fw, and as squadron hacks or transport planes for a while. Sadly many of these carefully restored treasures had to be abandoned when they left the Theater, while a few were confiscated by the military and sent somewhere for more official testing.

Many of these foreign aircraft would have been at least somewhat challenging to restore to flying conditions even back home in the US, Australia or England, but these mechanics in the field had become so good they practically made a hobby out of it on top of their normal maintenance duties. Of course they did have the advantage of being on the front line and able to acquire lots of enemy materiel via the wartime black market and other formal and informal channel. Box of German carb filters and a couple of tyres in exchange for a bottle of scotch?


S


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 8, 2018)

Schweik said:


> I should have equivocated on that a bit - yes obviously the aircraft engine companies did their R&D but not always at - or even remotely _near _a pace that was in sync with the needs of the pilots using these aircraft. Allison in particular was (I wold say) literally criminally negligent in this regard, in fact later in the war they were caught selling defective engine in some kind of bribery scandal.



A bit melodramatic. I would certainly like to hear more about Allisons sale of defective engines. The Play "All My Sons" by Arthur Miller uses the plot device of defective cylinder heads for P-40s but it was actually inspired by Curtiss Wright delivering defective R-2600s.

Allison was in a strange situation, a lot of people nowadays bitch and moan about how Allison should have done this or that or some other thing to improve the Allison engine (meaning make it more com[ative with the Merlin). They ignore that Allison was a very small engine company for most of the 1930s. They ended 1938 with 530 employees and orders for 43 engines on the books, they had completed 13 engines that year (one was a V-3420 and should count twice?) which roughly doubled any previous years production. The situation in the Spring of 1939 was critical, the company was virtually bankrupt. The USAAC owed Allison over 900,000 dollars for work already done, General Motors which owned Allison, had given the company over 500,000 dollars to keep it afloat and was ready to pull the plug. The Allison bearing division was pulling it's own weight but could not keep the engine division going. And yet today people post about how Allison should have done this or that to make higher performing engines in 1940 or 41? which would have meant research starting in 1938 or 39.
The Big contract in April of 1939 to provide engines for the P-40 saved the company from closing. But since Allison actually had no production facilities (a shop that can make 1-2 engines a month cannot build 100 engines a month) They had to build a new building, equipe it with machine tools, find subcontractor and hire and train a work force. Now at this time the Allison engine division had 25 employees in the "engineering department" and that included two guys who ran the blueprint machine. Some of these engineers were tasked with figuring out how to build the engine in quantity, production engineering, not developing the engine itself. 
At the end of 1939 Allison had 786 employees and had delivered about 48 engines. At the end of 1940 they had 4,303 employees and had delivered over 1140 engines. Modern day critics make no allowance for the effort needed to accomplish this and how it may have impacted R&D. They also ignore the lack of actual supercharger knowledge in the US (and in fact the world) at this time. RR sort of stumbled into hiring Stanley Hooker and in fact didn't really know what they wanted him to do when they hired him. Allison was not so lucky. Wright and P & W had only started designing and building their own superchargers in the one to two years before 1939 so there is no pool of supercharger designers to hire from. 
While Allisons cash flow problems were "solved" it wasn't an easy thing. Of those 1140 engines delivered in 1940 only 342 went to the USAAC, the rest were French and British Orders. Remember that 900,000 dollars the Army owed Allison? Allison had to forgive the Army that debt in order to get permission to export the engine to Britain and France. Now where was the money to come from to pay for this expanded R&D early program that modern writers seem to want. 

The Army was only paying for certain programs or proposals. And in fact during the late 30s and perhaps 1940 Allison at times had to ask the Army what they really wanted as the Army was coming up with all kinds of ideas (like fuel injection) while that staff of 25 was already working on 5-6 other army projects. If the Army isn't paying for projects already being worked on where is desire to hire more staff (who expect to be paid) to work on extra projects? 

You are also not giving quite enough credit to manufactures field representatives, some of whom were on those Islands and desert air bases instructing those mechanics in field, and gathering information to send back to the factory for quicker changes. Even the Flying Tigers had at least one field representative. 
One representative solved a engine control linkage problem in India on P-38s by squeezing in behind the pilot while several flights were made with cowling panels removed for observation. A new linkage set up was devised and manufactured locally and fitted to several squadrons in that theater and other kits were readied to send to squadrons in the Pacific. I don't know how many were fitted as Lockheed had either figured it out or used his initial reports to come up with a factory retrofit linkage kit. 

By 1943 Allison had well over 20,000 employees and several General motors plants were acting as subcontractors for parts like crankshafts and connecting rods. All told there were around 1250 companies supplying parts/materials to Allison. 
Allison (and other companies) also wound up with training schools to teach army personnel (instructors) how to train other army personnel to be aircraft engine mechanics. Allison ran their first 22 day course starting in April of 1942. A little late for troops leaving for the south Pacific. 

I know it goes against American mythology to believe that men in the field didn't know more than the men you designed and built the aircraft and engines to begin with but let's be realistic.

Reactions: Like Like:
5 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Oct 8, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> A bit melodramatic. I would certainly like to hear more about Allisons sale of defective engines.



It's hardly a big secret, and google is your friend.

Curtiss-Wright - Wikipedia

They were installing defective engines and then bribing Army inspectors to slip them through to the combat units. I would call this criminal negligence. It was a plague for the US, every country had it's own particular kind of cultural problems in meeting the challenges of aircraft production in WW2, but for the US it was corporate corruption.

from the wiki:

_"From 1941 to 1943, the Curtiss Aeronautical plant in Lockland, Ohio produced aircraft engines under wartime contract destined for installation in U.S. Army Air Forces aircraft.[8][9] Wright officials at Lockland insisted on high engine production levels, resulting in a significant percentage of engines that did not meet Army Air Forces (AAF) inspection standards. These defective engines were nevertheless approved by inspectors for shipment and installation in U.S. military aircraft. After investigation, it was later revealed that Wright company officials at Lockland had conspired with civilian technical advisers and Army inspection officers to approve substandard or defective aircraft engines for military use.[8][9] Army Air Forces technical adviser Charles W. Bond was dismissed by the Army in 1943 for "gross irregularities in inspection procedure."[10] Bond would later testify that he had been "wined and dined" by Wright company officials; one of those occasions was the night before Bond fired four AAF engine inspectors another AAF inspector had described as "troublemakers."[10] In 1944, three Army officers, Lt. Col. Frank Constantine Greulich of Detroit, former chief inspection officer for the material command, Major Walter A. Ryan of Detroit, former central states inspection officer, and Major William Bruckmann, a former Cincinnati brewer and resident Army inspections officer at the Wright plant in Lockland were charged with neglect of duty, conspiracy, and giving false testimony in a general court martial.[11][12][13] All three men were later convicted of neglect of duty.[13] The story of defective engines had reached investigators working for Sen. Harry Truman's congressional investigative board, the Truman Commission, after several Wright aircraft assembly workers informed on the company; they would later testify under oath before Congress.[8][9][14] Arthur Miller's play All My Sons is based on this incident.[15]"_



> Allison was in a strange situation, a lot of people nowadays bitch and moan about how Allison should have done this or that or some other thing to



I'd like to point out, I'm not "bitching and moaning", I was referring to historical _facts_. I appreciate that it's useful to approach history from a variety of perspectives and have no problem, in fact appreciate your well informed perspective from the manufacturers point of view. But please don't get carried away. I'm not a bitch and don't appreciate being referred to as one implicitly or otherwise.



> improve the Allison engine (meaning make it more com[ative with the Merlin). They ignore that Allison was a very small engine company for most of the 1930s. They ended 1938 with 530 employees and orders for 43 engines on the books, they had completed 13 engines that year (one was



I don't think there were many aircraft or engine manufacturers that _didn't_ have to suddenly ramp up production from the tiny level of aircraft needed for civilian use in the 30's to the massive numbers demanded by the military forces in the 1940's. No doubt it was an immense challenge, but so was fighting for survival against a determined and well trained enemy in high performing fighters, in a not quite perfected aircraft that you only had 20 hours of flight time in. So was surviving El Alamein or the invasion of Guam or the Bataan Death March. World War II was an unprescedented screaming emergency that snuffed out the lives of 40-60+ million people depending on how you did the math. Everyone had a hard time.

And yet the war lasted four years for the US, and Curtiss and Allison certainly saw it coming. They had time to make certain decisions (as other aircraft and engine manufactuers did) and they didn't. In fact they cut corners, instigated corruption and got caught doing it. Cutiss also failed to make almost any useful major designs after the P-40 (one transport plane and one float plane, the rest basically all failed), which is why Curtiss aircraft folded shortly after WW2.

The P-40 was a good fighter, and the Allison was a good engine, there were many good people and obviously some excellent engineers involved in their production, but there were also clearly issues with the management of both Curtiss and Allison or it's parent company or both which prevented it from becoming a great engine - and that cost many lives. The rest is just excuses.



> I know it goes against American mythology to believe that men in the field didn't know more than the men you designed and built the aircraft and engines to begin with but let's be realistic.



I'm not sure what mythological context you are coming from, but don't be confused, I never said that mechanics in the field knew more about engine design than Allison or Rolls Royce did, I'm saying they successfully rose to the challenge of getting the problems solved before the manufacturer did, certainly in the case of Allison. That again is an historical fact.

S

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Oct 8, 2018)

Schweik said:


> I should have equivocated on that a bit - yes obviously the aircraft engine companies did their R&D but not always at - or even remotely _near _a pace that was in sync with the needs of the pilots using these aircraft.* Allison in particular was (I wold say) literally criminally negligent in this regard, in fact later in the war they were caught selling defective engine in some kind of bribery scandal.*





Schweik said:


> It's hardly a big secret, and google is your friend.
> 
> Curtiss-Wright - Wikipedia
> 
> ...



Do you actually know that Allison was one company, owned by GM, while Lockland factory was owned by Curtiss Wright? One making V-1710s, other making R-2600s?



> The P-40 was a good fighter, and the Allison was a good engine, there were many good people and obviously some excellent engineers involved in their production, but there were also clearly issues with the management of both Curtiss and Allison or it's parent company or both which prevented it from becoming a great engine - and that cost many lives. The rest is just excuses.



Or it is the USAAC, that squandered time an money on hi-per engines, that were pushed down the throat of Continental and Lycoming, while opting not to materially support the V-1710 project? How guilty is the USAAC for wanting turbochargers by all cost, not wanting to hear about 2-stage engines until shooting started? Not supporting the XP-40H project - yes, the P-40 with turbo? Specifying too heavy armament suite on just one V12 engine?



> I'm not sure what mythological context you are coming from, but don't be confused, I never said that mechanics in the field knew more about engine design than Allison or Rolls Royce did, I'm saying they successfully rose to the challenge of getting the problems solved before the manufacturer did, certainly in the case of Allison. That again is an historical fact.



Pray tell, how did the field mechanics solved the problem of V-1710 being not that good at altitude?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 8, 2018)

Schweik said:


> *Allison in particular was* (I wold say) *literally criminally negligent in this regard,* in fact later in the war they were caught selling defective engine in some kind of bribery scandal.



from your post #334, I Inquired about further details and suggested that perhaps it was the Arthur Miller play (fiction) that was the source. 

Then I am told that google is my friend after I told you it was Curtiss Wright. 

Your pretty handy at handing out the red Xs even when your version doesn't stand up well. 

I don't know if you are American or English or some other nationatialy but there is a big difference between calling somebody "a bitch" and saying somebody
is "bitching'" (complaining) 

as in Bitch. 
_verb_
INFORMAL

1.
express displeasure; grumble.
"they *bitch about* everything"
synonyms: complain, whine, grumble, grouse; More
If you want to take what I wrote as an insult go ahead, it wasn't intended that way. 



Schweik said:


> I don't think there were many aircraft or engine manufacturers that _didn't_ have to suddenly ramp up production from the tiny level of aircraft needed for civilian use in the 30's to the massive numbers demanded by the military forces in the 1940's.



Pratt & Whitney made about 13,500 engines from the start of the company until 1938. Small compared to what would be needed (Plant expanded four times in size from 1938 to 1940 let alone after) and Wright had built 8000 Cyclones (not counting Whirlwinds with 1300 Cyclones delivered in 1937 and 1000 in the first 7 months of of 1938.) so both did expand tremendously from where they were in 1938 but then they were several orders of magnitude ahead of where Allison was at the time. 

I am not sure why you are dragging Curtiss Wright into the discussion as to what Allison did or didn't do to develop their engine better. Any evidence that Allison was guilty of what Wright was? 



Schweik said:


> but there were also clearly issues with the management of both Curtiss and Allison or it's parent company or both which prevented it from becoming a great engine - and that cost many lives. The rest is just excuses.



Ok what were the issues with Allison or it's parent company (General Motors) that prevented the the V-1710 from becoming a great engine?
As far as I know Wright had nothing to do with it.


----------



## Schweik (Oct 8, 2018)

tomo pauk said:


> Do you actually know that Allison was one company, owned by GM, while Lockland factory was owned by Curtiss Wright? One making V-1710s, other making R-2600s?



And what type of engine is the V-1710? Are you suggesting Allison wasn't part of that? I should have guessed this was the angle certain people would take, but I don't think Allison can wash their hands of their own engines being built in another companies factory - as far as I know nearly every major aircraft or aircraft engine company had manufacturing done in other companies factories, right?

EDIT : Correction, the scandal was at Curtiss and with a different engine, mea culpa



> Or it is the USAAC, that squandered time an money on hi-per engines, that were pushed down the throat of Continental and Lycoming, while opting not to materially support the V-1710 project? How guilty is the USAAC for wanting turbochargers by all cost, not wanting to hear about 2-stage engines until shooting started? Not supporting the XP-40H project - yes, the P-40 with turbo? Specifying too heavy armament suite on just one V12 engine?



I would certainly not hide the USAAC from blame by any means, I'm well aware of the antics of the "bomber mafia" etc., but I still say many companies, not just Curtiss and Allison but also Lockheed by the way, were complicit in numerous scandals that plagued the US war machine.



> Pray tell, how did the field mechanics solved the problem of V-1710 being not that good at altitude?



They solved the survivability problem for P-40s by increasing (low altitude) horsepower from 1150 to ~1550 and that is pretty good for what has been implied were uneducated teenagers who barely knew how to count. Saved a lot of lives and basically made the aircraft viable again which was needed due to the failure of so many other designs like the P-39, P-35*, P-43*, P-46, P-60, and the (at that time still struggling) P-38.

The institutions, corporate and government, did enough of their part to get the country in position to survive, but it's also hyperbole to ignore the innovations in the field. It was from the field that the idea of putting bombs on several of the available fighters originated, when the bombers on hand were inadequate to do the job (and putting fighter escorts at risk because they were so slow). It was in the field that successful efforts were taken to lighten fighters (which were later copied by Curtiss), where the new boost settings got established which were later accepted by Allison, and so on. It was in the field that skip bombing was invented. Or the defensive gun added to the Il-2. The adoption of the finger-four and flying in pairs. And so on.

S

* before somebody nit-picks this I am well aware that these designs paved the way for the excellent P-47 but it took quite a while to get there and meanwhile the war was still on.


----------



## Schweik (Oct 8, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> "bitching'" (complaining)



You are trying to nit pick, Curtiss was making Allison engines under the direction of Allison, or are you suggesting it was some new Curtiss engine? Did Curtiss set up the factory on their own? Did they create the tools and jigs?



> I am not sure why you are dragging Curtiss Wright into the discussion as to what Allison did or didn't do to develop their engine better. Any evidence that Allison was guilty of what Wright was?



Again, it's pretty simple - we both know those were Allison engines being made in that factory. 

S


----------



## Schweik (Oct 8, 2018)

Edit: nevermind!


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 8, 2018)

Schweik said:


> You are trying to nit pick, Curtiss was making Allison engines under the direction of Allison, or are you suggesting it was some new Curtiss engine? Did Curtiss set up the factory on their own? Did they create the tools and jigs?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The Wright factory in Ohio was Making R-2600 air cooled radial engines. Not Allison V-1710s

Wright was 100% responsible for the The Plant in Ohio as Wright was reluctant to licence it engines to other companies. 

Wright and Allison had nothing to do with each other. 

I have no knowledge of Wright ever building an Allison piston engine during during WW II.


----------



## Schweik (Oct 8, 2018)

You are right, I owe you an apology. I had read about this several times and always assumed it was Allison engines. I stand corrected.

Found this link explaining details of the investigation of the scandal for anyone interested.


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 8, 2018)

Schweik said:


> And what type of engine is the V-1710? Are you suggesting Allison wasn't part of that? I should have guessed this was the angle certain people would take, but I don't think Allison can wash their hands of their own engines being built in another companies factory - as far as I know nearly every major aircraft or aircraft engine company had manufacturing done in other companies factories, right?


Allison had all it's subcontracting done in in General motors plants but Allison was the ONLY assembly plant for the V=1710 engine.
Unless you can show proof otherwise.







> They solved the survivability problem for P-40s by increasing (low altitude) horsepower from 1150 to ~1550 and that is pretty good for what has been _implied were retarded teenagers who barely knew how to count_. Saved a lot of lives and basically made the aircraft viable again which was needed due to the failure of so many other designs like the P-39, P-35*, P-43*, P-46, P-60, and the (at that time still struggling) P-38.* before somebody nit-picks this I am well aware that these designs paved the way for the excellent P-47 but it took quite a while to get there and the war was still on.


Italic: I never implied that, that is you interpretation. Stop putting words in peoples mouths. 
You do know that the P-35 predated even the P-36 was out of production and never going to be reinstated by the time the first P-40s came off the line.? 





> The institutions, corporate and government, did enough of their part to get the country in position to survive, but it's also hyperbole to ignore the innovations in the field. _It was from the field that the idea of putting bombs on several of the available fighters_ originated, when the bombers on hand were inadequate to do the job (and putting fighter escorts at risk because they were so slow). _It was in the field that successful efforts were taken to lighten fighters (which were later copied by Curtiss_), where the new boost settings got established which were later accepted by Allison, and so on. It was in the field that skip bombing was invented. Or the defensive gun added to the Il-2. The adoption of the finger-four and flying in pairs. And so on.



Bombs under a fighter, what a novel idea, why didn't somebody think of that before?????






P-26 Peashooter bomb rack. 




Bombs under fighters goes back to WW I. One reason the P-40 was so easy to hang bombs under was that Curtiss had offered export Hawk 75s with not only the under fuselage bomb rack (up to 500lbs) but a light bomb rack in each wing. 

see. http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/P-36/Curtiss_Hawk_75-A_Detail_Specifications.pdf
The P-35 was rated at a 350lb bomb load. 
why the bomb load went away on the early P-40s is an unexplained mystery but sorry, men in the field did NOT invent the concept.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Oct 8, 2018)

Ok, are you seriously denying that they didn't implement new and more bomb racks on multiple different aircraft in the field? I never said it hadn't ever been done before.

Pre-war bomb loads - especially for fighters- were usually insufficient for real combat needs.

In order to be effective, _more_ effective than the available light or medium bombers on hand, they had to get them to carry quite heavy bomb loads which they did largely as a matter of improvisation, on more than one aircraft and in more than one Theater. They also added other weapons like rockets a bit later on.


----------



## Schweik (Oct 8, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> Allison had all it's subcontracting done in in General motors plants but Allison was the ONLY assembly plant for the V=1710 engine.
> Unless you can show proof otherwise.



I already conceded this point.


----------



## CORSNING (Oct 8, 2018)

Great pictures SR6. Thank you for sharing.


----------



## Schweik (Oct 8, 2018)

The thing with the bomb racks is actually very similar to the issue with overboosting. There was some capacity there for some planes (oddly not the original P-40) but it was inadequate to actual needs. Somebody in the field had to figure out how to put heavier and larger bombs on the planes, how to put in more and stronger bomb shackles and so on, and then somebody had to test the plane, see if it could take off and then later work out the safe margins for (shallow) dive bombing etc.


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Nov 11, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> RR sort of stumbled into hiring Stanley Hooker and in fact didn't really know what they wanted him to do when they hired him.



Rolls Royce didn't luck into Stanley Hooker, they were more interested in basic research than any other engine company at the time and hired him specifically to look at things without preconceived notions. They also hired AA Griffith at about the same time to do research on axial flow gas turbines. Rolls Royce was a very technically advanced company that did a lot of basic research leading to things such a ram intakes, ejector exhaust and extended surface radiators. They also experimented with turbo charging, diesels, sleeve valves, air cooling, steam cooling and two strokes.
In any event Hooker takes way too much credit for the success of the Merlin. Yes he designed an excellent supercharger (building on the work of Ellor) but without the well designed induction system the effect would have been lost. Hooker was responsible for an accessory for Merlin not the engine itself, which was the responsibly of Cyril Lovesey. Lovesey was a much more modest man than Hooker so he never got the credit he deserved. The difference between Hooker and Lovesey's personalities is perfectly illustrated by the following clip. Start watching at the 4.00 minute mark. Poor Lovesey can't get a word in edge wise.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 11, 2018)

I think both points of view may be correct.

RR certainly seemed interested in hiring academics to further research. On the other hand when first hired Hooker wasn't assigned any duties and was told to look around and see what interested him (according to his autobiography). Had some other aspect of the Merlin (or other engines being worked on ) struck his fancy first would RR supercharger development moved along as it did? 

Hooker certainly had little to do with the main part of the Merlin engine and anything that had to do with the Merlin being able to stand up to the power the superchargers could provide.

On the other hand many companies could build a good, sturdy engine that performed well at low altitude (some couldn't-Armstrong Siddeley Tiger) but that is not what set the Merlin apart. From the Merlin XX on it was the Merlin's ability to operate at high altitudes that was it's main claim to fame. 

The supercharger may have been an "accessory" in the mid to late 1930s but by mid-way through the war the supercharger design had come to dominate (or at least strongly influence) 
aircraft design. Once you get to two stage superchargers (turbo or mechanical) and their antendent intercooler system/s the weight and volume of the supercharger installation becomes more than a mere accessory.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Dan Fahey (Mar 12, 2019)

Schweik said:


> It's hardly a big secret, and google is your friend.
> 
> Curtiss-Wright - Wikipedia
> 
> ...


Adding to this conversation ! Tossing this out here. 

Initially the British had the better Fighters and Engines.
Ironically I think the Allison was a better engine than the Watch Maker Merlin.
Just the British developed what they had into a great performer.

British had to survive creating urgency and different decisions.
The US was a 2 years late bit player in WW2 compared to all the other Combatants.
Think we horribly lost about 500000 soldiers in WW2.
Britain about three times that, Russians and Chinese each ten times that.

US did contribute a lot but never seemed to be as urgent.
Such as neglecting our own jet engine and rocket technology.
The Atom Bomb did take precedence.

The US continent was not attacked had did not have to defend a large land battle.
IMHO the Navy seemed to have a different attitude than the Army.

Never understood the number of failed Curtis designs.
Yet the P40 Q model would have been a vast improvement and could be fielded by 1943

I am of the mind that it was the British that gave NAA the plans for the P51 to build.
NAA made their design changes for manufacturing.
Yet our Military had nothing close to this plane.
Because of NIH it had a moderate start.
Once US desperation set in it got integrated as a world class fighter.

Then there is the US Sherman tank not upgrading to a better Cannon...!
Despite the British installing theirs and able to give the US them.

I guess hindsight is 20/20
Hope I did not steal this post.

Dan


----------



## CORSNING (Mar 12, 2019)

Dan Fahey said:


> Adding to this conversation ! Tossing this out here.
> Yet the P40 Q model would have been a vast improvement and could be fielded by 1943
> *Wow! GregP is going to love you.*
> 
> ...


*Jeff*

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Elvis (Mar 12, 2019)

Dan Fahey said:


> Initially the British had the better Fighters and Engines.
> Ironically I think the Allison was a better engine than the Watch Maker Merlin.
> Just the British developed what they had into a great performer.
> 
> Dan


I've said it before, 200-300 lb. weight difference between the Allison and the Merlin means the British one was a heavier built engine.
You can put more stress (i.e., power) on either engine but the Merlin will stand up to it better.
Hydroplane crews in the 50's-70's found the same thing.

Elvis


----------



## wuzak (Mar 12, 2019)

Elvis said:


> I've said it before, 200-300 lb. weight difference between the Allison and the Merlin means the British one was a heavier built engine.
> You can put more stress (i.e., power) on either engine but the Merlin will stand up to it better.
> Hydroplane crews in the 50's-70's found the same thing.
> 
> Elvis



That extra 300lbs includes a 2nd stage supercharger, an intercooler and 2 speed supercharger drive.

Equivalent single stage Merlins were 25-50lbs heavier than the V-1710.

And the 2 speed, single stage, Merlin XX series was only about 100lbs heavier.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 12, 2019)

Dan Fahey said:


> Ironically I think the Allison was a better engine than the _Watch Maker Merlin_.



Isn't it time we relegated this myth to the rubbish bin? 
No less than Stanley Hooker relates a story about when the guys from Ford of England showed up to look things over when they were setting up a shadow factory. 
After a number of days (or a few weeks) one the head Ford guys comes to the office that S. Hooker was sharing and complains to the other guy in the office that Ford can't make the engines using the drawings and tolerances that RR is using. S. Hooker pipes up and says something like they can't hold the tolerances that RR uses. The Ford guy answers and says no, the tolerances are too loose. You can't mass produce low price cars (or thousands of aircraft engines) unless the parts are completely interchangeable. 
A more accurate account is in Stanley Hookers autobiography. 
Now the Merlin may have been a pain in the butt to work on because RR never used 2 screws to hold a cover on when they could use 6-8 screws but the Merlin wasn't built to a finer tolerances than any other high powered aircraft engine of the time.


----------



## Elvis (Mar 12, 2019)

wuzak said:


> That extra 300lbs includes a 2nd stage supercharger, an intercooler and 2 speed supercharger drive.
> 
> Equivalent single stage Merlins were 25-50lbs heavier than the V-1710.
> 
> And the 2 speed, single stage, Merlin XX series was only about 100lbs heavier.


...ok, I stand corrected...

From the 456th Fighter Squadron website...

*"The production Allison turned out to be the sturdy and reliable powerplant that its designers had striven for. The only thing that stood between the Allison and real greatness was its inability to deliver its power at sufficiently high altitudes. This was not the fault of its builders. It resulted from an early Army decision to rely on turbo supercharging to obtain adequate power at combat heights. Even this decision was not a technical error. A turbo supercharged Allison was as good a high-altitude engine as most. The trouble was that the wartime shortage of alloying materials, especially tungsten, made it impossible to make turbo superchargers for any but a small proportion of Allisons. 
Bomber engines got the priority.
The few turbo-supercharged Allisons that were made were allocated to P-38s, making the high-altitude performance of that plane its best feature. 
All 14,000 P-40s got gear-driven superchargers and, as a result, were never first-class fighter planes. Donaldson R. Berlin, the P-40 designer, has said that P-40s experimentally equipped with turbo-superchargers outperformed Spitfires and Messerschmitts and that if it had been given the engine it was designed for, the P-40 would have been the greatest fighter of its era. 
This may be to some extent the bias of a proud parent, but there is no doubt that the deletion of the turbo supercharger ruined the P-39. 
Had Allison's engineers been able to put the effort into gear-driven superchargers that Pratt and Whitney and Rolls-Royce did, it might have been a different story. As it was, there can be little doubt that the V-1710 had more potential than was actually exploited."*

Would be interesting to see a turbocharged P-40 go up against a Bf-109.



Elvis

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Mar 13, 2019)

That is, in my opinion a myth.

The P-40 was never meant to have a turbocharger, though one was proposed, based on the E, but never built.

Some history:
The first Model 75 Hawk prototype was converted to use a turbocharged V-1710 and was designated the XP-37.

This featured the original style turbocharger, which had the compressor reversed so that it drew air in over the centre bearing. The turbocharger proved unreliable.

The installation of the radiator and intercooler behind the engine meant that the cockpit had to be moved aft, so that it was just forward of the fin.

The USAAC was impressed enough to order service test versions as the YP-37.

This featured a revised turbo, which was the first of the B-series turbos used through WW2. The turbo remained unreliable.

The YP-37 differed by having a longer rear fuselage, which solved some of the issues with stability that the XP-37 had.

Due to the reliability issues with the turbocharger, Berlin and Curtiss requested an altitude rated V-1710 to fit into the P-36 airframe. The 10th production P-36 was converted to the V-1710 and was designated XP-40.

The XP-40 flew about a year after the XP-37 and a year before the YP-37.

A later development was the XP-53, which was based on the P-40 fuselage, but with the Continental IV-1430 engine and laminar flow wings. Because of the delay in getting flight approved IV-1430s, the decision was made to fit the V-1650-1, which was starting licence production at Packard, instead. The aircraft was redesignated XP-60.

Several other P-60 variants were devised:
XP-60 with V-1650-1 Merlin, started as XP-53
XP-60A with V-1710 and GE turbo
YP-60A with V-1710 and GE turbo, completed as YP-60E
XP-60B with V-1710 and Wright turbo, completed as XP-60E
XP-60C with R-2800 and contra-rotating propellers (was originally supposed to get the Chrysler IV-2220)
XP-60D with V-1650-3 2 stage Merlin - converted from XP-60
XP-60E with R2800 and single rotation propeller
YP-60E with R2800 and single rotation propeller

The XP-60, XP-60A, XP-60C, XP-60D, XP-60E and YP-60E all flew. 

The XP-60's first flight was in September 1941.

The XP-60A had an engine fire during taxiing tests in late 1942, so modifications were made prior to the first flight.

The XP-60A was the closest to a turbocharged P-40, though it used a different fuselage to the XP-60/XP-60D, which was based on the P-40.

And by the time it flew, Berlin was gone from Curtiss.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 13, 2019)

Unfortunately the whole Curtiss P-36 through P-60 story is a convoluted mess. 
No P-40 ever flew with a turbo. 
A P-36/Hawk 75 _may_ have. there seems to be some confusion as to whether it flew with a two stage mechanical or a turbo or with both at different times. The Company demonstrator was rebuilt a number of times. 
You have the XP-37 and YP-37s as already mentioned. 
You have the XP-60A which was fitted with a turbo but caught fire during ground running and the turbo was removed when the plane was repaired and most (or all) of the flights were done without the turbo. 

There are no published photos of a P-40 with a turbo, there are no published drawings of a P-40 with a turbo. There are references to a turbo being shipped to the Curtiss factory but no evidence of metal actual being cut for a P-40. I have no Idea if that turbo wound up in the XP-60A


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 13, 2019)

Elvis said:


> ...ok, I stand corrected...
> 
> From the 456th Fighter Squadron website...
> 
> ...




Last 3-4 sentences are myths abound.
USA was not short of war materials, tungsten included. About 20000 (20 thousand) of V-1710s + spares that were installed on P-38s were turbocharged. 20000 turbocharged engines is probably more engines than what Japan produced in 1940+1941+1942, including engines for trainers and transports.
USA also installed more than 15600 tubochargers on P-47s, of the type that was bigger, heavier and more expensive than turbos used on bombers or on P-38s.


_



All 14,000 P-40s got gear-driven superchargers and, as a result, were never first-class fighter planes. Donaldson R. Berlin, the P-40 designer, has said that P-40s experimentally equipped with turbo-superchargers outperformed Spitfires and Messerschmitts and that if it had been given the engine it was designed for, the P-40 would have been the greatest fighter of its era. 
This may be to some extent the bias of a proud parent, but there is no doubt that the deletion of the turbo supercharger ruined the P-39. 
Had Allison's engineers been able to put the effort into gear-driven superchargers that Pratt and Whitney and Rolls-Royce did, it might have been a different story. As it was, there can be little doubt that the V-1710 had more potential than was actually exploited."

Click to expand...

_
1st sentence is moot - plenty of fighters were good/great even if their S/C was gear-driven. 2nd sentence has zero proof, ergo it's a myth. 3rd sentence - installation of turbo almost runied P-39 program, and, with it, Bell aircraft company.
Allison was a small company when compared with RR and P&W, so yes, their resources were too small to make, all in the same time, a V-1710 in several flavors (turbo or not, pusher or pull, with or without remote gearbox etc.).
Latest quoted sentence is probably true - with a good S/C and some nip & tuck, V-1710 was in the league of Merlin or DB 601/605.

BTW - nobody seems to blame USAAC/AAF for requiring from the P-39 and P-40 to carry about same weight of guns & ammo as it was the case with P-38 with much more altitude power.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 13, 2019)

tomo pauk said:


> BTW - nobody seems to blame USAAC/AAF for requiring from the P-39 and P-40 to carry about same weight of guns & ammo as it was the case with P-38 with much more altitude power.



Amen, hallelujah, got that right, etc, etc etc..................................................


----------

