# F4F Wildcat versus P-40E Tomahawk



## Pong (May 18, 2008)

Who could have been better, the P-40E or the F4F? We all know that they can't match the Zero's performance before the production of the F6F, but which could have been the better dogfighter, the 'Ironworks' Wildcat, or the Tomahawk?


----------



## kool kitty89 (May 19, 2008)

The Zero (assuming A6M-2) only held the edge in climb and low speed maneuverability and acceleration, level speed was about equal with the F4F-3 and at a disadvantage to the P-40. And of course both of the US fighters were much tougher and had armor and self-sealing tanks.

The Zero also had an advantage in range, but no so much with the P-40 (with max fuel and drop tank) not to mention the unprotected fuel tanks on the Zero.

The P-40 had a max range advantage and an overall performance advantage below ~16,000 ft. But the Wildcat (which was equipped with a 2-stage supercharger) had considderably better altitude performance. 

The armament is debatable. Bothe the P-40E and 4-gun F4F had very symila ammo loads, but the P-40E had more guns at the expence of firing time. (the F4F-4's gun arrangement is a disadvantage with a considerable increase in total ammo and firing time, plus the guns are more spread out)

And I assume the discussion is with the F4F-3, otherwise things change a bit.

And by the way only the P-40C and earlier models were Tomahawks, the P-40E was a Kittyhawk. Curtiss P-40 Warhawk, Tomahawk, Kittyhawk


----------



## Flightcommander (May 24, 2008)

i would have to vote based general Chenault's works with the p-40 in china.
1. with a total of 27 planes working they had the japanese thinking that they had over 100 planes attacking.


----------



## Blue Yonder (Jun 8, 2008)

In all seriousness, they both had their moments in World War Two along with their effectiveness. The P-40 was faster then the F4F and they both had the same armament. Six fifty's, which made them excellent gun platforms. The P-40 was also used and held up against the A6M Zero during the AVG's exploits under General Chennault. But the F4F was rugged and could take a lot of hits under fire. All in all I have been a P-40 fan for a long time, possibly my entire life, and in a match I would say the Tomahawk would outperform the Wildcat. It has the ability to out turn the Wildcat and can fly faster (by about fifty to sixty mph).8)


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 8, 2008)

Blue Yonder said:


> The P-40 was also used and held up against the A6M Zero during the AVG's exploits under General Chennault.


FALSE - they never fought against Zeros....

"The Flying tigers, the true story"


----------



## Thorlifter (Jun 9, 2008)

Blue Yonder said:


> and in a match I would say the Tomahawk would outperform the Wildcat. It has the ability to out turn the Wildcat and can fly faster (by about fifty to sixty mph).8)



Also, be careful on your wording. The Tomahawk was only used by the British and Russians and only referred to the B and C models. After that, it was called the Kittyhawk........but I need verification on this. Please correct me if I'm mistaken.

The question was the Warhawk P-40E.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jun 9, 2008)

P-40E= Kittyhawk Mk.IA
Curtiss P-40 Warhawk, Tomahawk, Kittyhawk

The 6x .50 armmed Wildcat wasn't that great, it carried less total ammo than the 4-gun versions, and the outer 2 guns (added on) were spaced much rarther out from the others and would be less accurate. (and added a decent amount of weight)

Against most Japanese a/c 4x .50's was pretty good as well, even to european contemporaries it was decent (the P-51A/B/C had only 4x guns and with less ammo)

It was the British that had requested the added guns. 


4x .50 with 430 rpg (1720 rounds total) ~30-36 sec of firing time.

6x .50 with 240 rpg (1440 rounds total) ~17-20 sec firing time.


A good marksman can get more out of the 6x guns and an enemy plane has a better chance of going down in a short firing window. But for an average pilot, or even most pilots in most circumstances the 4x guns with the extra ammo will tend to be able to do more damage before you're out of ammo.


the P-40 on the other hand could carry its 6x .50's in compact blocks of 3 with about as much total ammo as the 4-gunned F4F.

6x .50 M2 281 rpg (1686 rounds total) 20-24 sec firing time




The fairest comparison would be with the F4F-3, as it had the 4x guns and lacked the folding wings which added weight and deteriated performance. Since we're comparing it to a land based fighter. Even more fair, a USMC F4F-3 with carrier equipment eliminated.


And on the performance figures, the P-40 was not more than 50 mph faster than the F4F (even the F4F-4) t any altitude. Up to ~15,000 ft the P-40 was ~30-40 mph faster at max power (WEP of 1,570 hp up to ~5,000 ft then dropping off rapidly to ~1,100 hp at 15,000 ft in level flight -with ram air-)
Above 15,000 ft the P-40's performance fell, while the Wildcat's speed continue to increase up to ~21,000 ft due to the 2-stage supercharger. Turning ability would be better for the F4F-3 than the P-40 above 15,000 ft as well. (as probably would acceleration and climb, certainly by 20,000 ft)


At low alt the P-40 has an edge in sustained turn, but probably not in instantaneous turn. (due to the F4F's lower wing load and high-lift airfoil)

The P-40 has a significant advantage in foll rate, and was probably better in a dive.


----------



## renrich (Jun 9, 2008)

I don't believe the P40E ever met A6Ms or IJN pilots so it's record against Japanese AC is not easy to compare against F4F3s.


----------



## renrich (Jun 9, 2008)

This is an interesting comparison which I had never considered before. It is a little difficult to compare but if one is trying to get an idea of comparative performance of early WW2 AC it would seem that the P40E and the F4F3 would be the likely candidates. They were both the first high production AC of the two models. There were running changes in the F4F3 that changed the performance substantially such as adding armor and self sealing tanks and the performance figures one sees sometimes don't specify whether it is the early or later model which gained about 700 pounds and lost some range with the addition of armor and sef sealing tanks. In addition, because of a shortage of engines, some Wildcats, designated F4F3As had only a single stage supercharger which hampered performance above 15000 feet. I don't believe either AC ever had WEP. So all Vmaxs and climb numbers are at military power. My source says the P40E at 8400 lbs could make 360 mph at 15000 feet but from there up it fell off rapidly. The P40E was the worst climber in the US inventory, taking more than 21 minutes to climb to 25000 feet. It's range with 149 gal internal fuel was 650 miles. That is not a practical range but a yardstick range. The F4F3 could touch 335 mph at 22000 feet, could climb to 20000 feet in 7.5 minutes and had a yardstick range of 1280 miles with internal fuel of 147 gallons. The F4F would weigh anywhere from 700 to 1000 pounds less than the P40E. The F4F3 carried 420 rds per gun for four guns. The F4F would probably win a turning contest with a P40E because of lower wing loading although the P40 would have a better rate of roll. Because of much better climb rate, better high altitude performance, somewhat more range and better survivability(radial engine) and better design for full deflection shots, it would seem the F4F3 would be a clear choice over the P40E.


----------



## starling (Jun 9, 2008)

this one is as tight as a badgers a#se,ill go for the p40,he looks better to me.yours,lee.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jun 9, 2008)

The P-40D/E did have WEP at low altitude, which gradualy decreased to 1,150 hp mil power at crit alt. (15,000 ft)

The 8.8 blower Allison engines (-39 of D/E, and -73 of K) were rated maximum of 60" Hg for WEP with which 1,570 hp could be produced at 3,000 rpm at crit alt.


Perils P40 Archive Data

http://www.raafwarbirds.org.au/targetvraaf/p40_archive/pdfs/Allison 1710-39 abuse.pdf


The Tomahawk's V-1710-33 engine is another matter though. While it's supercharger was capable of boost similar to the -39/73 (slightly less iirc) it had lower structural limitations. So 1,150 hp max was rated (1,040 mil power at 14,800 ft) This was due to a weaker gearing system which was changed to a stronger spur gear in the -39 (it also changed the thrust line and engine length, hence the change on the P-40D's nose).
The AVG aparently ran there engines at considerably higher powers than the -33 was normaly rated for (between 1,200-1,300 hp) which eventually led to gearbox failures, but also gave significantly better performance than contemporary P-40B's.


----------



## Wildcat (Jun 10, 2008)

renrich said:


> I don't believe the P40E ever met A6Ms or IJN pilots so it's record against Japanese AC is not easy to compare against F4F3s.



RAAF P40E's certainly did in the defence of Port Moresby in March-May 1942..


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jun 10, 2008)

And don't forget the hand full P-40B's to get airborne durring Hearl Harbor.
(George Welch soring the highest, and nearly becoming an ace in a day) 
The Amazing George Welch: Part One

There were probably plenty of encounters, particularly with commonwealth P-40's.

But the AVG did not.


I wonder if the Tomahawk (P-40B/C) ever faught against Zeros, other than at Pearl Harbor. (they were stationed in the Philippines, but I don't know it any ever fought Zeros -or fought at all.)


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 10, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> I wonder if the Tomahawk (P-40B/C) ever faught against Zeros, other than at Pearl Harbor. (they were stationed in the Philippines, but I don't know it any ever fought Zeros -or fought at all.)


Read "Bloody Shambles."


----------



## Messy1 (Jun 10, 2008)

Are these aircraft close enough in performance (except at high altitudes) to where it really would come down to pilots skill and luck? 
In the hands of the right pilot, both these planes were a match for the Zero, so it would seem to me that pilot skill would be the deciding factor.


----------



## renrich (Jun 10, 2008)

My mistake, I was thinking about the CBI and forgot about PH, Australia, Java and New Guinea. I doubt if the kill total by Welch at PH was accurate, however. The F4F3 had a pretty good record versus the A6M, giving better than it got.


----------



## claidemore (Jun 11, 2008)

A note about names for the P40. 

I believe the US referred to all early P40s as simply P40 (or Curtiss 81), and from the P40F variant on, it was officially called Warhawk. 

The export planes that went to Britain and the Soviet Union were called Tomahawks and Kittyhawks. B/C were Tomahawks, D/E/K and the rest were Kittyhawks I/II,III,IV etc (P40-K was a Warhawk in US service, Kittyhawk III in British service). 

Best way to avoid confusion is to use the actual model designation, P40-E/F/K etc.


----------



## JoeB (Jun 13, 2008)

claidemore said:


> I believe the US referred to all early P40s as simply P40 (or Curtiss 81), and from the P40F variant on, it was officially called Warhawk.


I agree Tomahawk was virtually not used at all by the US, the early P-40's had no US name. But, even Warhawk was relatively seldom used in the USAAF, the plane was the P-40. Likewise operating units generally called their planes F4F's (or later, FM's) not Wildcats. Primary designation by official name was (and is) a Brit thing. It was only adopted by the US in WWII era (1930's US military a/c seldom had names) and used in publicity/manufacturer oriented things, plus sometimes by USAAF in Europe, again perhaps Brit influence was a partial explanation. AFAIK it was rare in operating units of USAAF in PTO or the USN, or in the US Army (eg. M4 tanks were generally called that in the US Army, not Shermans).

F4F or P-40? Well counting all F4F's, mainly -4's, the F4F was the more effective plane in the early part of the Pacific War when Japanese fighter opposition was toughest. As usual, the causes might be debated, among 'plane', 'pilot' and overall situations, but nonetheless the case. And I don't think it's very meaningful to try correct for non-plane factors and say which *would* have more effective 'all else equal'. If we want factually state the P-40 was faster, etc that's fine, but we don't have an agreed system to convert a given speed advantage into a particular % combat effectiveness advantage... well it's going over old ground, but I still haven't heard a good counterargument to that point.

On strictly plane characteristics though, the F4F's superior altitude performance was actually useful in situations we might compare. For example F4F's defending Guadalcanal v P-40's defending Darwin and Port Moresby (latter RAAF, but at least some of those a/c were actually P-40E's diverted from USAAF in theater, not LL std Kittyhawks). The F4F's were more lethal against both Japanese Navy fighters and bombers and the (Allison) P-40's clunky altitude performance was probably one factor.

Anyway overall the F4F had a distinctly better record (around 1:1 exchange) v the Zero (itself, not counting Japanese Army fighters P-40's faced but F4F's didn't face until 1943) than the P-40 did (1:2 in best episodes, sometimes substantially worse), in the toughest phase of the war.

Joe


----------



## HoHun (Jun 14, 2008)

Hi Pong,

>which could have been the better dogfighter, the 'Ironworks' Wildcat, or the Tomahawk?

Hm, I'd say that depeands on what you mean by "better dogfighter" 

Generally, air combat in WW2 was not decided by dogfighting. Just like Boelcke pointed out in WW1, it was decided by attacking a victim over which one held the maximum number of advantages one could achieve.

And even if dogfighting ensued, it was rarely a one-versus-one affair - WW2 doctrine consisted of elementary formations of two, three or four aircraft that were intended to fight as a coherent unit under all circumstances, and the highest priority for a pilot who got separated from his unit was to find a friendly fighter and attach himself to it.

I spent some time preparing a performance comparison of the F4F-4, the P-40E and the A6M2. Here it is - the figures speak for themselves ...

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jun 14, 2008)

What about performance of the P-40E at WEP?


----------



## ponsford (Jun 14, 2008)

> Originally Posted by HoHun:
> I spent some time preparing a performance comparison of the F4F-4, the P-40E and the A6M2. Here it is - the figures speak for themselves ...



Indeed, the figures speak clearly. Nice work.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jun 14, 2008)

The P-40E obviously had a significant speed advantage at all normal combat altitudes (neither is going to be fighting much above 20,000 ft)

Climb it farly close for both, and turn rate is a bit better for the F4F.

Performance would be a bit better on the lighter F4F-3. (particularly in climb and turn)

But low alt performance of the P-40 would be significantly better with WEP.
(rated for 60" max, with 1,570 hp acheivable at ~5,000 ft with ram)
Above ~5,000 ft (at 3000 rpm) max boost will start to drop gradually up to ~14,000 ft (with ram) where it is down to Mil power. (without ram air, ie in climb, crit alts are ~3,000 ft, and 11,800 ft)


----------



## HoHun (Jun 14, 2008)

Hi Koolkitty,

>What about performance of the P-40E at WEP?

I'm not sure just when higher boost than 44" Hg were cleared ... I've seen data for 57" Hg, but that might be a late-war setting from all I know.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jun 15, 2008)

57" Hg was for the high blower ratio engines (9.6:1) of the P-40M/N (and P-51A, P-39N/Q) which resulted in detonation at lower boost levels than the 8.8 blower of the other allison powered P-40's.

The 9.6 resulted in a limitation of 57" Hg with 100 octane fuel, which was faily close to the detonation point. Limiting the engines to 1,480 hp, but allowing this to be acheived at 10,400 ft, due to the higher blower ratio. (giving the P-51A a top speed of 415 mph, P-39Q-10 397 mph, and the P-40N 378 mph)
The 8.8 blower was rated for 60" Hg with the same fuel, giving 1,570 hp with detenoation still a good way off, but limited due to structural concerns. Higher boost levels were used in service sometimes, but risked structural failure, as the engine's gearing wasn't rated for more than 1,600 hp. With 66" Hg resulting in 1,770 Hp at 2,000 ft.

(similar to the AVG's Tomahawks overboosting -and overreving- to well over 1,200 hp on the -33 engines, while the engine itsself was generally strong enough and there was no porblems with detonation, the gearing on these early engines was rated for only 1,100 hp, and thus would tend to strip eventually)



See: Perils P40 Archive Data

http://www.raafwarbirds.org.au/targetvraaf/p40_archive/pdfs/Allison 1710-39 abuse.pdf


The two things the Allison people were concerned about with such overboosting was firstly, the risk of structural failure, and likely at some time after WEP was used, in normal operation which would make a very bad situation, particularly if over enemy territory.
The second, more pronounced concern, was that resetting boost to higher levels on the 8.8 blower engines would result in a bad precedent being set which would result in many failures of the new 9.6 blower (-81, -83, -85, -99) engines as it would result in detonation (that being the primary limit to 57" Hg -1,480 hp at 3,000 rpm and 10,400 ft) and failure quickly folling that.


It should also be noted, that early on the P-40D/E's V-1710-39/F3R engine was rated for 56" WEP (before being cleared for 60" allong with the similar -73/F4R of the P-40K). At that rating 1,470 hp could be acheived at ~7,000 ft with ram air. (~5,000 ft w/out)


http://www.raafwarbirds.org.au/targetvraaf/p40_archive/pdfs/1710-39.pdf

http://www.raafwarbirds.org.au/targetvraaf/p40_archive/pdfs/1710-33.pdf


----------



## HoHun (Jun 15, 2008)

Hi Koolkitty,

Thanks for the information! Here are the graphs again, including performance at 56" Hg boost pressure for the P-40E.

(I noticed that the RAAF's revised table from July 1942 apparently did not include 56" Hg, but the USAAF table from December 1942 did - though why it reads "critical altitude - sea level" for that setting is unclear to me.)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## ponsford (Jun 15, 2008)

According to NACA 868, the P-40 enjoyed a significant roll rate advantage over the F4F-3, ranging roughly from 10 to 28 degrees/second depending on speed.


----------



## HoHun (Jun 15, 2008)

Hi Ponsford,

>According to NACA 868, the P-40 enjoyed a significant roll rate advantage over the F4F-3, ranging roughly from 10 to 28 degrees/second depending on speed.

Thanks for the information!  It seems to be hard to find anything at all that the F4F-4 can do better than the P-40E, except maybe flying from a boat 

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jun 16, 2008)

And take more engine damage.


----------



## HoHun (Jun 16, 2008)

Hi Koolkitty,

>And take more engine damage.

Often claimed, never proven  

But I've tackled questions like the B-17 vs. B-24 survivability issue or the Me 109 vs. Fw 190 landing accident question with WW2 data, so I feel there might be meaningful data on the engine survivability issue too if we look hard enough. I've suggested one possible source in the current engine survivability thread - maybe some RAF expert can help us out over there? 

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/engines/engine-survivability-13581.html

>And take more engine damage.

Back on topic ... I'd say that if we accept the radial's greater durability, it still is the question if this can be turned into a decisive advantage. If the performance of the F4F-4 and the P-40E was close, durability could tilt the scales, but with the measure of superiority enjoyed by the P-40, I don't think it would have too much impact on the final result.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## drgondog (Jun 16, 2008)

From my perspective engine 'durability' has two components - abusing it in WEP, and small caliber fire near the deck while flying CAS or strafing.

In the latter case there is more to the equation than engine durability - one has to also account for coolant system vulnerability for in-line engines.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jun 16, 2008)

That's what I was refferring to, including the cooling system of the inline.

Though taking out the oil cooler on any of these engines will kill it fast. (though, in the P-40, if the oil cooler gets hit, chances are the radiator has as well due to the location, not that it woud matter too much as the engine is going out either way)


----------



## HoHun (Jun 16, 2008)

Hi Koolkitty,

>That's what I was refferring to, including the cooling system of the inline.

Roger that, but as I said - often claimed, never proven. If it's a worthwhile advantage, it shouldn't be so hard to find numbers to verify it ...

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## cobra18 (Jun 18, 2008)

To all from a newbie, after reading all posts and my own references regarding this question, it seems that although the P40 seems to have an advantage on paper, in real combat it actually came down to the pilot his knowledge of both the advantages weakness of his arcraft


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Jun 18, 2008)

Good point, and welcome to the forum!


----------



## Th!rdeye (Jun 18, 2008)

Hmm. To add my $.02 about this. 

The F4F was the underdog of the two, thats obvious. I personally like the P-40 better for its superior ammo arrangement (more of it and tighter gun config) and its a sexy aircraft, P-40B/C esspecially. Both made a HUGE impact on the pacific theatre, the P-40 even took on BF109s and Italian planes in the MTO. The F4F had a slightly bigger impact with its use with Carriers. Like others said it comes down to the pilot, you can put a newbie pilot in a Me262 and Erich Hartmann in a P-11 and Bubi will prolly win 98% of the time. The Wildcat fought against the Many zeros and oscars and still came out on top most of the time. 

Sum it up. The P-40 is a better aircraft, and better looking. But the F4f had a bigger impact on the war.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jun 18, 2008)

Actually (as I demonstrated earlier) the 4x gunned F4F (and FM) had more ammo than the 6x gunned P-40, but not by a whole lot. (but the F4F was certainly better in almost every case with the 4x arangement than the 6 as I discussed earlier)

I don't know about the 4x .50 armed P-40D (which may have had a larger capacity). Though the later 4x gunned models (lightend versions, mostly the early P-40N, and modified Sovied a/c) had the smaller capacity of 282 rpg.


----------



## Bigxiko (Jun 22, 2008)

I believe the the F4F-3 Wildcat was a better plane
and i little bit faster


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 22, 2008)

Bigxiko said:


> I believe the the F4F-3 Wildcat was a better plane
> and i little bit faster


You sure about that????


----------



## drgondog (Jun 23, 2008)

Th!rdeye said:


> Hmm. To add my $.02 about this.
> 
> Sum it up. The P-40 is a better aircraft, and better looking. But the F4f had a bigger impact on the war.



I would tend to disagree - the P-40 flew for all the Allied Air Forces through 1944 and did a pretty good job. My perspective is that the F4F was huge in 1942 in context of Midway, Guadalcanal and Santa Cruz so it was crucial to Naval and USMC in 1942.. it also performed well early on in ETO/MTO naval ops at the same thime the P-40 was in the same area..

but the P-40 was fighting in China, Russia, North Africa/MTO, PTO (until P-38s started replacing for USAAF-but still in RAAF and RNZAF) and still in front line service in early to mid 1944 when all the F4F's were long out of active USN combat ops.

The P-40 might have been the only USAAF with the only air to air ratio less than 1:1 against both the LW and IJN Zeros. I haven't been able to prove it was less than 1:1 against the Zero but I believe JoeB has a good perspective on it. 

It clearly was not as good as the Fw 190 or Me 109 either and when they were fighting each other in 1942-1943, the LW had a huge edge in experience.


----------



## renrich (Jun 23, 2008)

The P40 and F4F in many ways may be for the US the two most underappreciated major players as far as fighters are concerned in WW2. They both took losses on the first day of the war for the US(the F4F by 'friendly" fire) and they were both still operational on the last day, I think.


----------



## MacArther (Jun 26, 2008)

> mid 1944 when all the F4F's were long out of active USN combat ops.


Nope, the FM-2s and FM-1s were still carrying on the F4F's legacy all the way until VJ day...


----------



## drgondog (Jul 1, 2008)

MacArther said:


> Nope, the FM-2s and FM-1s were still carrying on the F4F's legacy all the way until VJ day...



I stand corrected - I forgot about the escort carriers..having said that, do you have any significant examples of F4F air battles from early 1944 forward?

Could we say that the F4F/FM1 and 2 'left the mainstream as an air superiority fighter in 1944?' when it was replaced by F6F?

Ditto the P-40 when replaced by P-47 (primarily) for all US units and continued through the end of the war with various Allied AF?


----------



## MacArther (Jul 1, 2008)

> having said that, do you have any significant examples of F4F air battles from early 1944 forward?
> 
> Could we say that the F4F/FM1 and 2 'left the mainstream as an air superiority fighter in 1944?' when it was replaced by F6F?



No air battles from me, because I lack the information on battles in the pacific for the most part. I am good with technical stuff, not so much the battles.

Yeah, not mainstream, but don't tell that to the guys using it on the Escort and some light carriers.  Also, if I remember correctly, the FM series had a better cruising and top speed, so it was better equipped to fight the later Japanese planes. I think there's a "Dogfight" episode dealing with Kamikazes where one FM2 breaks up a much larger formation of Vals, but I'm not positive.


----------



## renrich (Jul 1, 2008)

Bill, it seems like I remember the FM2s engaging kamikazes off of jeep carriers late in the war and they were also in use for anti sub work off of CVEs. In fact, I was surprised when I saw the number of air to air kills the FM2 had. The F4F type had 1408 kills in the Pacific which was surprising with the P38 having 1700 and the P47 having 697.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jul 11, 2008)

HoHun, could you post a comparson with the F4F-3's performance chart as well? (like you did in the Spit/Seafire Vs. Zero thread)


----------



## HoHun (Jul 12, 2008)

Hi Koolkitty,

>HoHun, could you post a comparson with the F4F-3's performance chart as well? (like you did in the Spit/Seafire Vs. Zero thread)

Sure! But wouldn't it be fair to use a P-40C for direct comparison to the F4F-3? I'd first have to run those numbers then ... no biggie, I just don't have them immediately ready.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jul 13, 2008)

Well in terms of introduction to service fully combat combat ready (with armor and self sealing tanks, thus excluding the P-40/Tomahawk Mk.I) the P-40B would be closest to the F4F-3.

But getting into the P-40C and F4F-4, both having the same engines as their predicessors, but being heavier due to added equipment/capabilities an thus had poorer performance. (an the F4F-4 also having a different armament configuration) The P-40E (not to mention D/Kittyhawk Mk.I) is something else due to the change in engine, allowing WEP and better low alt performance, and the change in armament as well. (though due to the added weight performance above ~5,000 ft was worse than the earlier a/c, and fuel capacity range was reduced: changed back with P-40F and K iirc)

I think the P-40B and F4F-3 comparison would be interesting (particularly as I don't think I've seen your charts for calculated performance of the early P-40 or Tomahawk). Though the original question and title were about the F4F-3 and P-40E. (incorectly labeled Tomahawk, as already discussed...)


----------



## HoHun (Jul 13, 2008)

Hi Koolkitty,

>I think the P-40B and F4F-3 comparison would be interesting (particularly as I don't think I've seen your charts for calculated performance of the early P-40 or Tomahawk). 

Oops - as I discovered, I hadn't actually analyzed the early P-40 variants at all!

Here is a set of graphs for the P-40B at 37.2" Hg/3000 rpm (1040 HP at 14500 ft according to the Specific Engine Flight Chart on Peril's site).

I've chosen a top speed of 352 mph given at Curtiss P-40B as well as with the weight of 7632 lbs given there.

It turns out that the original P-40 nose was a bit better aerodynamically than the enlarged nose of the P-40E and later models - probably no surprise to anyone 

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jul 13, 2008)

Umm... I think you transposed part of the weight figure from Curtiss P-40B 

You wrote 7632 lbs and it says:


> weight was increased to 5590 pounds empty, *7326* pounds gross, and 7600 pounds maximum loaded


----------



## HoHun (Jul 14, 2008)

Hi Koolkitty,

>Umm... I think you transposed part of the weight figure from Curtiss P-40B 

You're right - the calculations were done for the correct weight figure, though. I should not have reported the figure from memory here - too easy to make a mistake that way :-/

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## joy17782 (Jul 14, 2008)

like i said before THE PLANE IS A PLANE AND THESE TWO WERE ABOUT EVEN AND IT WILL BE UP TOO THE DRIVER TOO DECIDE WHO IS BETTER but me i like the p-40 and john wayne in the flying tigers !!!!!!!!. the first combat plane i seen in a movie with my dad on sunday back in the 70s , so its the p-40 for me


----------



## HoHun (Jul 15, 2008)

Hi Joy,

>like i said before THE PLANE IS A PLANE AND THESE TWO WERE ABOUT EVEN AND IT WILL BE UP TOO THE DRIVER TOO DECIDE WHO IS BETTER 

Hm, in many aspects the performance comparison between the F4F-3 and the P-40B closely resembles the comparison between the Hurricane I and the Spitfire I. 

Now I know that the Hurricane has its fans too, but the Luftwaffe pilots said: "We were always happy when we met Hurricanes", so there is no doubt what they considered the better fighter.

Well ... the conclusion for the F4F vs. P-40 case should be obvious.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## Jerry W. Loper (Jul 15, 2008)

HoHun said:


> Hi Joy,
> 
> >like i said before THE PLANE IS A PLANE AND THESE TWO WERE ABOUT EVEN AND IT WILL BE UP TOO THE DRIVER TOO DECIDE WHO IS BETTER
> 
> ...



I'm pretty sure it was Adolf Galland who said he was happy to meet Hurricanes. But of course, Galland was an ace with 104 victories, so what was easy for him, probably wasn't so easy for the average German fighter pilot.


----------



## HoHun (Jul 15, 2008)

Hi Jerry,

>I'm pretty sure it was Adolf Galland who said he was happy to meet Hurricanes. But of course, Galland was an ace with 104 victories, so what was easy for him, probably wasn't so easy for the average German fighter pilot.

If you mean to advocate the rather absurd notion that the Hurricane was not considered to be greatly inferior to both the Spitfire and the Me 109 by the Luftwaffe pilots, I'd like to ask you to collect some evidence and start your own thread for it.

I'm not prepared to have the threads hijacked by people partisaning outsider opinions each time I mention a bit of what is rather well-established history.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## Jerry W. Loper (Jul 15, 2008)

Nobody who knows anything about World War II aircraft would claim that the Hurricane was equal in performance to the Spitfire and Me-109, and I'm aware of "Spitfire snobbery," the German airmen's tendency to claim they'd been shot down by Spitfires when in fact they'd been shot down by Hurricanes. As the war progressed, later models of the Spitfire and Me-109 far surpassed the Hurricane, but in the summer of 1940, the Hurricane's performance was sufficient that the RAF was able to hold out despite the fact that the Luftwaffe's Me-109s outnumbered the RAF's Spitfires and Hurricanes combined (with the Hurricanes constituting about 2/3rds of the RAF's single seat fighter force).


----------



## HoHun (Jul 15, 2008)

Hi Jerry,

You're on my ignore list now.

Kind regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jul 16, 2008)

HoHun said:


> Hi Joy,
> 
> >like i said before THE PLANE IS A PLANE AND THESE TWO WERE ABOUT EVEN AND IT WILL BE UP TOO THE DRIVER TOO DECIDE WHO IS BETTER
> 
> Hm, in many aspects the performance comparison between the F4F-3 and the P-40B closely resembles the comparison between the Hurricane I and the Spitfire I.



Except in climb rate comparisons. (the Spit and 109 being somewhat superior to the Hurricane)


----------



## drgondog (Jul 16, 2008)

Jerry - now that you have ruffled the 'feelers' of one of the members - to the point of being 'ignored' - should I send Hemlock?

It simply is a fate worse than solitary confinement on bread and water.

I feel your sorrow. On the positive side he did close out with 'kind regards'

Bill

PS - I believe the Hurricane had more air to air awards over the LW than the Mustang (and the Spit? Not sure about this) so I suppose most of the victims were laughing too hard to give it their best effort?


----------



## Jerry W. Loper (Jul 16, 2008)

drgondog said:


> Jerry - now that you have ruffled the 'feelers' of one of the members - to the point of being 'ignored' - should I send Hemlock?
> 
> It simply is a fate worse than solitary confinement on bread and water.
> 
> ...



I'll start off with answering the original post's question of which is better, the P-40 Tomahawk or the F4F-3 Wildcat. IMO, it's the P-40 even though we're comparing an early model P-40 with a late model F4F. IMO the P-40B and F4F-3 were roughly equivalent in firepower (two .50-cal. and four .30-cal. in the P-40B, and four .50-cal. in the F4F-3), maneuverability, and durability, but what gave the P-40B the edge was its speed, 352 m.p.h. vs. 331 m.p.h. (Later P-40s became faster than the Tomahawk, with some later models reaching 370 m.p.h., while the next model of Wildcat, the F4F-4, was actually slower at 318 m.p.h.) I think Carl Molesworth wrote in his Osprey Duel book about the P-40 and the Ki-43 Oscar that the Zero and Oscar were among very few fighters more maneuverable than the P-40.

As for the getting ignored and the Spitfire/Me-109/Hurricane business, getting ignored is no big deal, and in 1940 the main performance difference between the Spitfire and Me-109 and the Hurricane was that the two former planes were about 30 m.p.h. faster, had better climb, and the German plane had better firepower and could get away from both British planes in a dive because of the Me-109's fuel injection. Although German pilots underrated the Hurricane, British pilots who flew it praised it, and famous aviation writers and fighter pilots like Francis K. Mason, Tony Holmes, and Peter Townsend have written that while the Spitfire and Me-109 had the better performance specs, in 1940 the Hurricane acquitted itself well in air combat against all German types. (Mason wrote in his book _Battle Over Britain_ that the performance differences of all three of these planes "cancelled out in combat.")


----------



## drgondog (Jul 16, 2008)

Jerry W. Loper said:


> I'll start off with answering the original post's question of which is better, the P-40 Tomahawk or the F4F-3 Wildcat. IMO, it's the P-40 even though we're comparing an early model P-40 with a late model F4F. IMO the P-40B and F4F-3 were roughly equivalent in firepower (two .50-cal. and four .30-cal. in the P-40B, and four .50-cal. in the F4F-3), maneuverability, and durability, but what gave the P-40B the edge was its speed, 352 m.p.h. vs. 331 m.p.h. (Later P-40s became faster than the Tomahawk, with some later models reaching 370 m.p.h., while the next model of Wildcat, the F4F-4, was actually slower at 318 m.p.h.) I think Carl Molesworth wrote in his Osprey Duel book about the P-40 and the Ki-43 Oscar that the Zero and Oscar were among very few fighters more maneuverable than the P-40.
> 
> *I agree that for both horizontal and climb from same altitude.*
> 
> As for the getting ignored and the Spitfire/Me-109/Hurricane business, getting ignored is no big deal, and in 1940 the main performance difference between the Spitfire and Me-109 and the Hurricane was that the two former planes were about 30 m.p.h. faster, had better climb, and the German plane had better firepower and could get away from both British planes in a dive because of the Me-109's fuel injection. Although German pilots underrated the Hurricane, British pilots who flew it praised it, and famous aviation writers and fighter pilots like Francis K. Mason, Tony Holmes, and Peter Townsend have written that while the Spitfire and Me-109 had the better performance specs, in 1940 the Hurricane acquitted itself well in air combat against all German types. (Mason wrote in his book _Battle Over Britain_ that the performance differences of all three of these planes "cancelled out in combat.")



I further agree those comparisons. In a very high degree of engagements the victor will be the one with the better pilot and/or significant initial tactical advantage.


----------



## renrich (Jul 16, 2008)

I don't believe that a comparison between the F4F3 and the P40B is an open and shut case at all. In Dean, the FM2 which would be roughly equivalent to the F4F3 is the best turning fighter the US had.(the P40 was not rated) The Wildcat would be much superior in rate of climb. The throw weight of the Wildcat guns would be superior if the P40 had two 50s and four 30s and IMO the Wildcat would be much more survivable in a fight. The P40 would be faster and would have a better roll rate. I have read a Wildcat could stay with a 109 in a dive so don't know about that.


----------



## HoHun (Jul 16, 2008)

Hi Renrich,

>I don't believe that a comparison between the F4F3 and the P40B is an open and shut case at all. In Dean, the FM2 which would be roughly equivalent to the F4F3 is the best turning fighter the US had.

The history of WW2 air fighter development shows that turn rate was the one performance parameter that consistently deteriorated while all other performance parameters were improved.

Obviously, turn rate was of secondary (or tertiary) importance.

The most important performance parameter was speed, and the P-40B holds an large advantage over the F4F-3 in that regard, while the P-40E holds an even larger advantage over the F4F-4.

>The Wildcat would be much superior in rate of climb. 

Actually, if you look at the graphs, the F4F-3 has only a slight advantage over the P-40B, and depending on the boost used by the P-40E, the F4F-4 is about equal or much inferior at least at low to medium altitude. 

Even for the F4F-3, the slight climb rate advantage over the P-40B is not going to help much - with perhaps 1.5 m/s climb advantage, you can calculate for yourself how long it takes to gain a useful altitude advantage in a fight.

>I have read a Wildcat could stay with a 109 in a dive so don't know about that.

Hm ... the FM-2 manual gives a terminal velocity of 685 km/h indicated airspeed, while the Pilot's Notes for the Tomahawk published by Dan Ford gives 740 km/h indicated for the P-40.

By the way, these Pilot's Notes give the maximum boost pressure permitted for 5 min as 38.9" Hg above 2600 ft and 41" Hg at sea level. My figures for the P-40B are based on 37.2" Hg - obviously, the P-40B would gain some performance if it used the higher boosts.

Of course, it's always possible to find some superior characteristics in an otherwise inferior fighter, but one should not lose sight of the overall picture when one has found these. The question always is, "What are these worth?"

Eric Brown in "Wings of the Navy" points out that the US Navy had learnt from the European combat experience "that speed, climb rate, adequate firepower and armour protection, pilot visibility, and manoeuvrability were primary requirements in *that* order." (Original emphasis.)

With regard to the original question of the F4F-4 vs. the P-40E, the winner is:

1) P-40E
2) P-40E (if it uses 56" Hg)
3) Tie
4) Tie
5) Tie
6) F4F-4

You could argue some of the lower priority points, but I could include diving capability in "manoeuvrability" and argue the least-priority point, too. You could also look at altitudes above 5 km where the P-40E loses the climb advantage, which of course has a tactical impact - this is exactly why I provide these graphs.

However you cut it though, in the end the P-40E has a significant advantage in the highest priority aspect which gives it a considerable headstart over the F4F-4, and the advantages the F4F-4 has are nowhere near as significant in magnitude.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## renrich (Jul 17, 2008)

Not to split hairs but the original question in the poll was F4F3 versus Tomahawk. All Tomahawks would only include H81A-1, H81B, H81A-2, H81B, H81A-3 which is only through P-40C. I don't put a lot of faith in Eric Brown's testimony as he intimates that the Hellcat was superior to the Corsair in ACM which is at odds with every other authority I know of.


----------



## drgondog (Jul 17, 2008)

renrich said:


> Not to split hairs but the original question in the poll was F4F3 versus Tomahawk. All Tomahawks would only include H81A-1, H81B, H81A-2, H81B, H81A-3 which is only through P-40C. I don't put a lot of faith in Eric Brown's testimony as he intimates that the Hellcat was superior to the Corsair in ACM which is at odds with every other authority I know of.



I agree your points


----------



## HoHun (Jul 17, 2008)

Hi Renrich,

>Not to split hairs but the original question in the poll was F4F3 versus Tomahawk. 

It's always crucial to be precise in the designation as every sub-variants tends to have its own set of characteristics ... it's doubly crucial when Pong sets us up for a misunderstanding by asking for the P-40E both in the thread title and his initial post, but not in the poll option itself ... 

>I don't put a lot of faith in Eric Brown's testimony as he intimates that the Hellcat was superior to the Corsair in ACM which is at odds with every other authority I know of.

His quote provides the key to assessing fighters: Not all characteristics are of equal importance, and for fighter-vs.-fighter combat the order of importance is universal.

With regard to performance parameters, speed-climb-turn certainly is the order I consider realistic, too - with the importance curve dropping rather steeply.

If you'd come up with another order of importance, that would lead to a different assessment of the considered fighters ... not that every possible order would be equally valid, but we'd have a sensible starting point for a discussion then 

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## Juha (Jul 17, 2008)

HoHun
Quote:"With regard to performance parameters, speed-climb-turn certainly is the order I consider realistic, too - with the importance curve dropping rather steeply."

I'm not so sure that the importance curve dropping rather steeply. Faster fighter might well be in trouble with better climber with better turning ability. 
In combat the idea is IMHO firstly to try to achieve surprise and secondly to try to force the combat so that one could utilise one's plane strong points against other's plane weak points. Better climber has a possibility to achieve the height advance before the beginning of actual combat. And many times the mission exclude the possibility to disengage when you wish.


----------



## renrich (Jul 17, 2008)

Henning, I don't argue that some models of the P40 had better performance on paper than some models of the Wildcat. I do believe that performance on paper is not necessarily proof of operational superiority. I also believe, because I have heard experienced military pilots say it, that in WW2 a 15 or 20 mph Vmax difference is not tactically significant. Then you get into what altitude what Vmax is measured. It all makes for interesting discussions but not always to correct conclusions. To make things even more interesting, both the P40 and Wildcat had quite a few different versions since they served throughout the war. In the pacific theatre the F4F had 1408 kills, the P40 had 661. That looks clearly like a big edge for the F4F. The P40 had 741 kills in the CBI which evens things out. It could be that the F4F faced a better grade of fighter and pilot in the pacific than the P40 faced in the CBI. My gut tells me that if the model of Wildcat and P40 were contemporaneous the winner between the two would be based on pilot skill and maybe Lady Luck.


----------



## drgondog (Jul 17, 2008)

renrich said:


> Henning, I don't argue that some models of the P40 had better performance on paper than some models of the Wildcat. I do believe that performance on paper is not necessarily proof of operational superiority. I also believe, because I have heard experienced military pilots say it, that in WW2 a 15 or 20 mph Vmax difference is not tactically significant. Then you get into what altitude what Vmax is measured. It all makes for interesting discussions but not always to correct conclusions. To make things even more interesting, both the P40 and Wildcat had quite a few different versions since they served throughout the war. In the pacific theatre the F4F had 1408 kills, the P40 had 661. That looks clearly like a big edge for the F4F. The P40 had 741 kills in the CBI which evens things out. It could be that the F4F faced a better grade of fighter and pilot in the pacific than the P40 faced in the CBI. My gut tells me that if the model of Wildcat and P40 were contemporaneous the winner between the two would be based on pilot skill and maybe Lady Luck.



Rich - the guys (like 49th FG) flying out of Darwin, then Dobudura and Port Moresby were fighting guys like Saburo Sakai, and other top Japanese aces out of Lae and Salamaua. No evidence that they were lesser talents or odds.

Having said that, New Guinea was also the prime Center of gravity for the USAAF whereas Wildcat was everywhere else until late 1943 as first line USN fighter from Carriers and also land based until replaced by F4U.. and the AF PTO Fighter strength was was also diluted with the Iron Dog, then replaced by the P-38 while facing the Japanese in the Pacific. 

I would also suspect the P-40 faced a lot more fighters but don't have much proof for that statement right now.

I don't have a particular preference between the P-40 E and the F4F-4 or 6 but tend to lean to the P-40 based on speed and damn good agility. In my opinion the Zero was a better all around fighter than both of them, but 'less better' than the P-40E


----------



## HoHun (Jul 19, 2008)

Hi Juha,

>In combat the idea is IMHO firstly to try to achieve surprise and secondly to try to force the combat so that one could utilise one's plane strong points against other's plane weak points. 

The problem is that if you're facing faster aircraft, you will have a hard time forcing them to fight so that you can utilize your strengths. And in the end, air combat comes down to a war of attrition ...

>Better climber has a possibility to achieve the height advance before the beginning of actual combat. 

This doesn't mean that it will always have the height advantage though - it just means that it has a chance to outclimb the opponent if he is spotted in time. Much of the initial height separation is determined by the initial mission setup. (Though of course some missions - like the interceptor's - are actually based on the type's climb rate.)

>And many times the mission exclude the possibility to disengage when you wish.

Modern air combat terminology actually discriminates "disengaging" and "extending", and extending means just to create enough separation that the fight can be re-entered immediately.

Additionally, mission planning had to take into account the strengths of the fighter aircraft, too. That is one reason Galland demanded "a squadron of Spitfires" from Göring - the Me 109's strengths were not suited for close escort, where they'd get attacked by the more manoeuvrable Spitfires. The Me 109 could only achieve its mission goal - protection of the bombers - if it was given some freedom to play its strengths by seeking out the RAF formations before they attacked. (And that would not have been much different if Galland had gotten his "squadron of Spitfires" - they would just have reduced his losses a bit if dived upon.)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## renrich (Jul 19, 2008)

If memory serves, the P40 and Wildcat flew escort missions together during the Guadalcananl campaign in late 42 and early 43, before the Corsair arrived to relieve the Wildcat. What I meant when talking about lesser pilots and AC was that the Japanese Army pilots and AC might have met that definition in the CBI. The P40 certainly went against the cream of the crop at PH, the Philipines, and the campaigns around Java, Australia, New Guinea and in the Solomons. However, the P40 did not have a lot of success during this period of the war. The various models of the Wildcat held it's own, including the F4F4. The F4F4 was the doggiest Wildcat. I repeat that some of the Navy pilots said it flew like a loaded torpedo plane. Not exactly high praise. The F4F3 and FM2 had more sprightly performance.


----------



## Soren (Jul 19, 2008)

The Spitfire Bf-109 were equally maneuverable, so that wasn't the reason behind the losses (Which were still fewer than RAF fighters). The reason behind the losses was that the Spitfires were allowed to dive down upon the entire bomber stream without any escorts facing them up there. The Bf-109 should've been sued as high escort instead of flying alongside the bombers, a big mistake.


----------



## B-17engineer (Jul 19, 2008)

I am going to go with the P-40e. Very good plane it was fast for its time. Good armament and was rugged


----------



## HoHun (Jul 19, 2008)

Hi Renrich,

>I also believe, because I have heard experienced military pilots say it, that in WW2 a 15 or 20 mph Vmax difference is not tactically significant. 

Oh well - that's probably a psychology thing. If you have read "The Right Stuff", you'll be aware that the mindset of the successful pilot requries the awareness of having everything under control. "It's the man, not the machine" could really be the fighter pilots' motto.

However, in reality every technological difference is significant. Even Chuck Yeager, who is famous his "It's the man, not the machine", had his F-86F engine tuned by the crew chief to exceed the redline temperature in order to yield a little bit more trust and make him more competitive (against his USAF buddies - this was in cold-war Germany).

>Then you get into what altitude what Vmax is measured. 

Hm, that's actually clearly indicated in the graphs.

>My gut tells me that if the model of Wildcat and P40 were contemporaneous the winner between the two would be based on pilot skill and maybe Lady Luck.

If you're thinking of a a traditional staged co-altitude duel, passing each other once before commencing to turn, that might be right - the faster aircraft usually doesn't look good in this kind of comparison. As Galland reported, the Heinkel He 51 easily won such a duel against the Me 109 prototype. However, there should be little doubt that the Me 109 was a far superior fighter anyway ...

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## renrich (Jul 19, 2008)

Once again the P40E was not a Tomahawk. I believe that the fighter pilot that said that was referring to the fact that ACM is seldom fought at Vmax. Henning, If you have not had the pleasure yet of reading Lundstrom, I surely hope you get to someday. Would that a writer would do the same for the AAF in the Pacific during the same period. I know you are weary of hearing this but one big advantage the Wildcat would have was the visibility to allow full deflection shooting. If I remember correctly, in the escort missions jointly flown by P40s and Wildcats in the Cactus force, the Wildcat was assigned the high cover because it had superior high altitude performance with it's two speed, two stage supercharger. An interesting aside which shows the importance of gunnery practise and deflection shooting. I was watching on the military or history channel a feature on Dick Bong. He was flying the P38 which had good visibility over the nose. On his first tour he said he could only execute firing runs from either the six o clock or head on positions. When sent back to the states (I think for war bonds duty) he had a lot of instruction in deflection shooting and he came back in theater a much better and more effective gunner.


----------



## HoHun (Jul 19, 2008)

Hi Renrich,

>Once again the P40E was not a Tomahawk. 

Well, the comments in my previous post were quite independend of the actual subvariant.

However, I feel obliged to point out that Pong, who started the thread, referred to:

- "P-40E Tomahawk" in the thread title
- "P-40E" in his original post
- "P-40 Tomahawk" in the poll option.

That's enough for me to consider the P-40E "on topic" here.

>I believe that the fighter pilot that said that was referring to the fact that ACM is seldom fought at Vmax. 

Well, that might be a misconception. Here is a revealing comment by the British aerodynamicist Sir Morien Morgan: 

"Looking back, I think that the greatest problem at the end of the 1930s was that it was extremely difficult to visualise what combat would be like in the new monoplane fighters; the only air fighting experts we had were from the First World War and that had been twenty years ealier. I think we all paid too much attention to the behaviour of an aerplane flying on a calm sunny day and harmonising the controls so that they could do nice aerobatic displays; we seemed to miss the importance of handling at speeds around the maximum permissable, in fast dives. Before the war, I remember, people thought that it was rather an academic exercise to scream downhill at one's maximum permissable speed.

The war soon brought us face to face with reality: once our fighter pilots started to mix it with the enemy they found that their main adversary, the Messerschmitt 109 which was less manoeuverable than the Spitfire, simply refused to dogfight in the manner expected; any German pilot who tried it did not live very long. Frequently the fight would develop into a diving race, either trying to 'bounce' the other fellow from out of the sun, or else trying to get away after being 'bounced'. And with the early Spitfires as one neared 400 mph the ailerons became heavier and heavier, until at 430 mph the pilot needed all the strength of both hands to get about on tenth aileron movement. In an air combat this was a crippling defect: if one was diving on an enemy the idea was to fire at him on the way down, and the poor aileron control made this very difficult."

(From Alfred Price, "Spitfire - a Complete Fighting History", p. 93 f)

To sum it up, the lesson learned by the RAF in WW2 was that "ACM" routinely took place even beyond the top speeds of the aircraft involved. 

A top speed advantage is just what you need when it comes to "refusing to dogfight in the manner expected".

>I know you are weary of hearing this but one big advantage the Wildcat would have was the visibility to allow full deflection shooting. 

Well, what kind of visibility did the F4F actually offer? From a diagram in Frederick A. Johnsen's "Republic P-47 Thunderbolt" (Warbird Tech Series Volume 23), the P-40N had a visibility angle of 50 mil below the gunsight line.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## renrich (Jul 19, 2008)

I believe that I will not ignore the statement of a career USN pilot, squadron commander, aeronautical engineer, test pilot and combat pilot. There are imnumerable examples in WW2 where AC with a Vmax disadvantage were more effective in combat than those with higher Vmaxs, the most obvious of those being the Zero versus P40s and Spitfires. I don't have much data regarding ACM between Spitfires and Zeros but in reading the posts on this forum, I gather the Spitfire did not enjoy any marked statistical advantage over the Zero. I know these are different times and I cannot discuss this with any veracity but the FA18 is supposed to be a premier ACM fighter. It is substantially slower than it's predecessor and slower than most of the "enemy" fighters it would be likely to encounter. Apparently a Vmax advantage is no longer much of an "advantage." To me, going back to the P40E V FM2 question, a 40 mph Vmax advantage could be tactically significant but a 1000 FPM climb advantage for the Wildcat could be also, as well as an AC less susceptible to battle damage and one having a significant advantage in turning. It all goes back to my original statement which is that the advantage the P40 might have is not necessarily clear. Here is a quote from Eric Brown on his opinion of a fight between two fighters with somewhat similar performance characteristics as our two. The Fw190A4 had a speed advantage over the F6F3 but was at a disadvatage in climb. "This was a contest so finely balanced that the skill of the pilot would probably be the deciding factor." In a contest between a F6F3 V BF109G6, the German had both a speed and climb advantage. "The Hellcat had a distinct advantage over the BF but would not be able to overcome it without a lot of pilot sweat." Finally, BF109F V Wildcat, "The BF was 60 mph faster than the Wildcat and although the Wildcat was superior as a dogfighter, the initiative lay with the BF because of superior performance. At low altitudes the BF had the advantage but not by much." The significance of this is that I don't believe the record indicates the P40 was anywhere near as good as the BF in ACM. LOL, I know, Eric Brown may not have much credibility with me or you!


----------



## HoHun (Jul 19, 2008)

Hi Renrich,

>I believe that I will not ignore the statement of a career USN pilot, squadron commander, aeronautical engineer, test pilot and combat pilot. 

But you're happily ignoring the statement of a career FAA pilot, test pilot and combat pilot along with the statement of a knighted aerodynamicist, president of the Royal Aeronautical Society, director of the RAE Farnborough? 

>There are imnumerable examples in WW2 where AC with a Vmax disadvantage were more effective in combat than those with higher Vmaxs

Don't fall into the trap of thinking that the success in a certain campaign means that this success is owed to the quality of the aircraft. It can as easily have been the men as the machines - and with better machines, they might have gotten even better results.

That's why Robert Shaw, author of "Fighter Combat - Tactics and Maneuvering", relied on engineering analysis of fighter performance data. (In case you do not know the book: It has been called the fighter pilots' bible - by fighter pilots.)

>I know these are different times 

Indeed, and just how many fractions of a Mach a modern jet fighter can achieve above or below Mach 2 is not relevant to our discussion.

However, the idea of looking at a general trend in fighter design is in fact a good one - and you will notice that the universal trend in WW2 was towards larger, heavier, less manoeuvrable, but faster fighters. Obviously, the air forces that procured the fighters had decided the speed was the most important criterion of them all.

>To me, going back to the P40E V FM2 question, a 40 mph Vmax advantage could be tactically significant but a 1000 FPM climb advantage for the Wildcat could be also

Hm, here a couple of graphs showing P-40E vs. FM-2 performance. I used 7431 lbs as the FM-2 take-off weight, and the engine power graph for MIL (no water injection) from the FM-2 manual. I also assumed the FM-2 to have slightly better aerodynamics than the F4F due to the relocation of the oil cooler. If you have different data, I could plug that into the calculation, too.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## renrich (Jul 19, 2008)

I have Shaw's book and have read it. I don't understand why a difference of Mach 2.4 and 1.8 is not significant. My source says that the P40 E had a rate of climb at sea level of 2000 fpm and the FM2's was more than 3000 fpm. I don't understand why that is not significant. As a matter of act, at mil power my source shows the Vmax of the P40E at 20000 feet to be 330 MPH where as the FM2 at 20000 feet has a Vmax of 320 mph. I don't regard that as tactically significant. I don't do calculations. I gave that up a long time ago. As a matter of fact, I seem to remember in Shaw's book that he showed situations where angles tactics could be used to defeat energy tactics.


----------



## HoHun (Jul 19, 2008)

Hi Renrich,

>I don't understand why a difference of Mach 2.4 and 1.8 is not significant.

What I said is that it is "not relevant to our discussion". Both the technology and the order of magnitude of the characteristic values in jet combat have changed so much that it is difficult to transfer the concepts to WW2 air combat.

>My source says that the P40 E had a rate of climb at sea level of 2000 fpm and the FM2's was more than 3000 fpm. 

Quite possible - but you have to take the specific operating conditions into account. As Koolkitty pointed out earlier in this thread, the P-40E was rated for 56" Hg:

http://www.raafwarbirds.org.au/targetvraaf/p40_archive/pdfs/1710-39.pdf

If you look at the graphs I provided for the 44" Hg MIL power setting, you'll see that it results in a climb rate close to the 2000 fpm you quote. However, this was not the highest possible power setting for the P-40E.

Regarding the FM-2, my calculations show a 2900 fpm climb rate already. However, the graphs I posted are for the R-1820-56 without water injection, and water injection would give the FM-2 an increased climb rate below 3000 ft - probably even greater than the 3000 rpm you quoted. I don't have any data for the R-1820-56W with water injection, though.

>As a matter of act, at mil power my source shows the Vmax of the P40E at 20000 feet to be 330 MPH where as the FM2 at 20000 feet has a Vmax of 320 mph. 

Well, quite possible - data tends to vary between different sources. The combination of high altitude and high speed doesn't seem to fit the FM-2's engine characteristics really well, though. What's your source for the FM-2 data?

>As a matter of fact, I seem to remember in Shaw's book that he showed situations where angles tactics could be used to defeat energy tactics.

Speed is just a tool, it doesn't automatically win a dogfight for you.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## renrich (Jul 20, 2008)

Actually, in looking at the chronology of the two Ac, a comparison of the F4F3 and P40E makes more sense. The performance of the F4F3 is pretty similar to the FM2. The performance charts I have are based on military power for both.


----------



## HoHun (Jul 20, 2008)

Hi Renrich,

>Actually, in looking at the chronology of the two Ac, a comparison of the F4F3 and P40E makes more sense. 

OK, here it is. Do you think the A6M2 is the most representative Zero variant to compare these two against?

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## renrich (Jul 20, 2008)

I think the A6M2 is contemporaneous with the two. I do not believe the A6M2 ever had WEP. Are your graphs based on your calculations or are they taken from some other source?


----------



## HoHun (Jul 20, 2008)

Hi Renrich,

>I think the A6M2 is contemporaneous with the two. I do not believe the A6M2 ever had WEP. Are your graphs based on your calculations or are they taken from some other source?

My graphs always rely on other sources, often a collection of sources that have been compared and assessed by running the calculations for each of them and noting the inconsistencies and contradictions, and deciding on the most realistic parameters to use for the 'final' calculation.

In the case of the A6M2, you're right that it is usually portrayed as not having any WEP capability. However, the Navy's own tactical intelligence sheets list the engine of the A6M2 with MIL and WEP boost levels:

TAIC 1944 p. 851	
Sakae model 12	
Take-off: 925 hp/2550 rpm/39.8" SL
WEP: 925 hp/2550 rpm/39.8" SL
WEP: 1010 hp/2550 rpm/39.8" 11000*
MIL: 820 hp/2500 rpm/35.8" SL
MIL: 935 hp/2500 rpm/35.8" 13800 ft

Additionally, Richard Dunn has also mentioned "overboost" in his article on A6M performance: Zero Model 21 Performance: Unraveling Conflicting Data (Not that I agree with his conclusion, but the article is interesting nevertheless.)

However, the TAIC engine data seems a bit suspect to me at least for the Sakae 21 and 31A data, and I'm not sure it's entirely realistic especially for the latter engine. If you're aware of any other sources, please let me know 

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## renrich (Jul 20, 2008)

I have a source which published the test results in abbreviated form for the Attu A6M2 versus US fighters and a later model 52 Zero but there are no exact technical data. The comparison for the Wildcat V Zero is pretty complete but the flyoff for the P40F is not because almost all of the AAF fighters broke down during the tests and could not achieve max performance. I have a fairly lengthy technical article on the Zero and I can find no mention of WEP on A6M2.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jul 21, 2008)

It may just refer to it as "take-off" power instead of WEP. (as the rating is the same)


----------



## HoHun (Jul 21, 2008)

Hi Renrich,

>I have a source which published the test results in abbreviated form for the Attu A6M2 versus US fighters and a later model 52 Zero but there are no exact technical data. 

Sounds interesting! Is it available online somewhere?

>The comparison for the Wildcat V Zero is pretty complete but the flyoff for the P40F is not because almost all of the AAF fighters broke down during the tests and could not achieve max performance. 

I think this must be Informal Intelligence Summary No. 85, which is available at Richard Dunn's site, I believe. Unfortunately, it has no information on the engine settings used for the A6M2, except that power is estimated at 900 HP @ 16000 ft, which as the speed graph shows is the high-speed figure (rated altitude increased by ram effect). If the TAIC engine data is correct, this is consistent with a lower boost level than what TAIC lists for MIL, meaning we should expect the A6M2 at the WEP settings to be faster than the No. 85 figures. 

Richard Dunn notes in his abovementioned article that Intelligence Brief #3 (which I have not seen) gave the boost pressures as follows 35" Hg and 38" Hg: "U.S. notations 35 and 38 in. Hg actually reflect Japanese ratings of +150mm/35.4 in. Hg and +250mm/37.8 in. Hg)". On checking his conversion, that does not seem to be correct as +250 mm Hg amounts to 39.8" Hg according to my calculation, which is the figure also given in the TAIC report.

Jim Rearden's "Koga's Zero" shows a photograph of the boost gauge of the A6M2 recovered on the Aleutians, and it has a marked arch from 0 to +25, which would be consistent with Dunn's "250 mm Hg" figure (presumably from intelligence brief #3) and the 1944 TAIC data sheet.

So the question remains whether the data given in Intelligence Summary No. 85 was for +150 mm Hg or for +250 mm Hg. With the later TAIC data being consistent with No. 85, the high full throttle height of 16000 ft mentioned in No. 85 suggests that the speed figures were really achieved at just +150 mm Hg. Whatever one would call the +250 mm Hg setting, an A6M2 using it would be faster than the No. 85 figures 

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## renrich (Jul 21, 2008)

The test summaries for the Attu and model 52 Zeros are in "The Great Book of WW2 Airplanes" in the section about the Zero. I have not seen them online. I was surprised at how well the FM2 compared with the Model 52. The earlier test with the A6M2 was against an F4F4 and was not nearly as even. The test with the P40F was not completed because the engine in the P40F could not get full power.The A6M2 had a Sakae 12 engine. The model 52 had a Sakae 21 with takeoff power of 1130 HP.


----------



## HoHun (Jul 21, 2008)

Hi Renrich,

>The test summaries for the Attu and model 52 Zeros are in "The Great Book of WW2 Airplanes" in the section about the Zero. I have not seen them online. 

I guess the A6M5 material is from the reports uploaded here: http://home.att.net/~historyworld/TAICzero.pdf

>The model 52 had a Sakae 21 with takeoff power of 1130 HP.

According to the linked file above, both the examples tested by the US Navy and the USAAF had a Sakae 31A with 1120 HP take-off power. Not much of a difference, I'll admit - the Sakae 31A only differed noticably in its high supercharger gear.

The Navy A6M5, which was the heavier example, had the higher top speed - 335 mph @ 18000 ft. The Air Force noted poor aerodynamic condition, smoke and rough running for their example. Their 326 mph were achieved at 19400 ft though, and they give the engine conditions as 42" Hg, 2750 rpm. 

All considered, this looks more like the Sakae 21 ata than the Sakae 31A data since the latter ran at 2800 rpm in WEP, 2700 rpm in MIL, and had a full throttle height of 20400 ft (static) in WEP, 21700 ft in MIL. You book might be right regarding the engine 

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## renrich (Jul 22, 2008)

The book says the Sakae 21 is rated at 1130 hp takeoff, 1100 HP at 2850 M, and 980 HP at 6000 M. The model 52a has Vmax at 6000M of 302 knots, 343mph. Time to climb to 6000 M is 7 min 1 sec.


----------



## HoHun (Jul 22, 2008)

Hi Renrich,

>The book says the Sakae 21 is rated at 1130 hp takeoff, 1100 HP at 2850 M, and 980 HP at 6000 M. The model 52a has Vmax at 6000M of 302 knots, 343mph. Time to climb to 6000 M is 7 min 1 sec.

The quoted ratings seem to be close to the ratings the TAIC quotes for MIL power (see below). However, either the full throttle height at full speed would be higher than 6000 m, or the engine data is for power with dynamic pressure (in high-speed flight), meaning it would be decidedly different from the TAIC data.

Here is an interesting article on the A6M3 Model 32:

http://skyraider.allaboutwarfare.com/files/japan/Hamp_Design_Analysis.pdf

One interesting thing is the manifold pressure gauge which shows a marked arch ending at +250 mm boost. This is the same as on the A6M2, and less than the TAIC engine data ascribes to the A6M3. The TAIC data for the Sakae 21 is:

Sakae model 21, TAIC 1944 p. 852	
Take-off	1115 hp/2750 rpm/41.7" SL
WEP	1115 hp/2750 rpm/41.7" SL
WEP	1180 hp/2750 rpm/41.7" 7500*
WEP	1040 hp/2750 rpm/41.7" 18000*
MIL	995 hp/2700 rpm/37.8" SL
MIL	1085 hp/2700 rpm/37.8" 9350 ft
MIL	965 hp/2700 rpm/37.8" 19700 ft

41.7" Hg converts to +300 mm Hg, so if we assume that the marked arch indicates the boost range up to the war emergency rating, the A6M3 at least would have to be considered to have a lower maximum power than this TAIC data.

The article I linked above shows that there is a supercharger control on the throttle quadrant, and while the scan is not very good, I think I can make it out in the cockpit shot too, which would verify that the picture is not from an A6M2 cockpit (which would be misleading).

Interestingly, the article also identifies one button in the cockpit as "emergency power booster", which might answer one of our open questions.

>The model 52a has Vmax at 6000M of 302 knots, 343mph. Time to climb to 6000 M is 7 min 1 sec.

Is the weight for the specific aircraft given? I get about 6 min for 6 km if I use MIL power from the TAIC data with the weight of the heavier of the two tested A6M5 examples, 6096 lbs.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## renrich (Jul 23, 2008)

The weight given for the model 52a is full load-6035 lbs. It actually shows a layout of the cockpit.


----------



## HoHun (Jul 23, 2008)

Hi Renrich,

>The weight given for the model 52a is full load-6035 lbs. 

Thanks, that seems to fit the Navy test aircraft.

>It actually shows a layout of the cockpit.

Is the boot pressure indicator visible? It would be interesting to see if it has the coloured sector from 0 to +250 mm Hg, or if it actually goes to +300 mm Hg. (If the layout is schematic only, I'm afraid we're out of luck.)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## Micdrow (Jul 23, 2008)

Statistics on Japanese zero's from the book zero by Robert C Mikesh published by Warbird History


----------



## ponsford (Jul 23, 2008)

Interesting Micdrow. For Mikesh’s sources see:

Source 1: _Informational Intelligence Summary No 85._
Source 2: _Performance Flight Test on a Japanese Hamp, AAF No. EB-201._


----------



## Micdrow (Jul 24, 2008)

ponsford said:


> Interesting Micdrow. For Mikesh’s sources see:
> 
> Source 1: _Informational Intelligence Summary No 85._
> Source 2: _Performance Flight Test on a Japanese Hamp, AAF No. EB-201._




Very interesting ponsford, I noticed that the documents that he listed as sources dont match the actual documents for max speeds but they do match rate of climb.

Very interesting and many thanks.


----------



## HoHun (Jul 24, 2008)

Hi Ponsford,

>Source 2: _Performance Flight Test on a Japanese Hamp, AAF No. EB-201._

Highly interesting! 

The settings used for this test were +150 mm Hg, 2400 rpm ... TAIC data credits the engine with +200 mm Hg, 2700 rpm for mil and +300 rpm, 2750 rpm for WEP.

Comparing sea level powers:

WEP 1115 hp/2750 rpm/41.7" SL
MIL 995 hp/2700 rpm/37.8" SL

If we assume that power is linear to rpm and boost pressure, this means that the A6M3 in the test got only about 837 HP at sea level under the test conditions.

If the engine actually made these +300 mm Hg, 2750 rpm at WEP, that would yield a sea level top speed of roughly 308 mph or 496 km/h (assuming that top speed increases to the third power of power) instead of the 280 mph achieved in the test. That seems to be quite a bit faster than most Zero data I have seen ...

In fact, if I simply use the A6M2 drag and wing data in combination with the weight data for the heavier A6M3 in combination with the TAIC engine data for WEP, that gives me a top speed of 486 km/h @ sea level, which is faster than most A6M data I've seen, too - but still a conservative guess as the A6M3 has a smaller wing and thus less drag in high-speed flight.

Accordingly, the test performance of the A6M3 and my calculations seem to have at least a semi-decent fit - I guess that for assessing A6M performance, it comes down to the question: "Which ratings did the Sakae engines really use"?

I think we have a good idea of the boost pressures used (big thanks to Micdrow for the excerpt from Mikesh's instruments book - very useful! , but the maximum rpm are still open ... maybe there are some markings on the rev counters, too?

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## HoHun (Jul 24, 2008)

Hi again,

>I think we have a good idea of the boost pressures used (big thanks to Micdrow for the excerpt from Mikesh's instruments book - very useful! , but the maximum rpm are still open ... maybe there are some markings on the rev counters, too?

Reading the rest of the reports on Mike's site WWII Aircraft Performance I notice that the A6M2 Material Command memorandum assigns the following values to the A6M2:

Speed at sea level: 277 mph @ 2600 rpm, +120 mm Hg

This is less than the +150 mm Hg ascribed to the engine by the TAIC report for the MIL setting - but it turns 100 rpm faster than the TAIC MIL setting, too. I'm beginning to get confused! 

On the other hand, the above speed at sea level is not compressiblity-corrected.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## Micdrow (Jul 24, 2008)

Your welcome Henning, though like you I am confused on a few things also. 5years ago I researched this aircraft for 2 years and I never did find complete answers and ended up giving up though in the last few years more info has surfaced.


----------



## gordonm1 (Jan 12, 2020)

I get the impression the P40 was a great help to USA's allies especially Britain in the DAF 1941/1942 against the best German pilots even if Britain's tactics brought more losses. USA had better planes they were building up later when they went all in in Europe but not enough to share so the P40 became a workhorse in the smaller theatres. Not many 200 plane battles against 200 enemy. The Navy plane got in some large battles with many planes and got more credit. I'm just starting to read about PTO and should probably read "Bloody Shambles" as suggested. P40 was there for the whole war but eventually got reduced air to air missions so reduced air to air kills. The MTO history has recently been said to be more successful than I thought for the USAAF and the P40. I enjoy all the reading here I get.


----------

