# P40 vs Hurricane, Spitfire, ME109



## pinsog (Mar 28, 2010)

What were the performance figures of these 4 fighters at the time of the Battle of Britain?


----------



## Colin1 (Mar 28, 2010)

All of these have been done before in various threads. There was a P-40 vs Bf109 thread raging when I joined the forum. Hurricane vs P-40 was quite recent. Spitfire vs Bf109 is a way further back and may even be in old threads by now.

Hurricane can compete in the turn but not in either the vertical or max speed. The P-40 would have been a competitor up to around 16,000ft but in my opinion would only have traded blows with the Luftwaffe (ie losses both ways) rather than won air superiority outright. 

The two best fighters in the world at the outbreak of WWII were generally acknowledged as being the Spitfire Ia and the Bf109E, their combination of altitude performance, max speed and armament put daylight between them and anything else in the world.

Both the Hurricane and the P-40 were generally regarded as tougher than the Spitfire or the Bf109. The P-40 could hit you back harder than either the Hurricane or the Spitfire. The Bf109 carried heavier armament than the Spitfire, Hurricane or P-40 but differing muzzle velocities and trajectories of the non-uniform armaments carried their own problems.


----------



## Vincenzo (Mar 28, 2010)

P-40 at time of BoB ... i don't think was actually ready for combat, it can fight but had not protection and ss, and the original weaponry...


----------



## bobbysocks (Mar 28, 2010)

WWII Aircraft Performance


----------



## Ghostdancer (Mar 28, 2010)

I know that the RAF was using the P-40, the RAF version being known as the Kittyhawk if I'm correct on this. Was it actually used in the Battle Of Britain? I believe they were in North Africa and have wondered what success it had vs. the German 109's. Didn't USAAF units also fly the P-40 in the African campaign?


----------



## Markus (Mar 28, 2010)

Vincenzo said:


> P-40 at time of BoB ... i don't think was actually ready for combat, it can fight but had not protection and ss, and the original weaponry...



Armour plate and rubber mats can be installed in no time. But speaking of time, the P-40 did not enter production before May 1940. 11 planes were made that month, 25, 56 and 104 in the next three. It wasn´t until mid-September that the first planes even reached the UK and by that time the BoB was over.


----------



## pbfoot (Mar 28, 2010)

I know the RCAF had P40's based in the UK post BOB but were there any RAF,RAAF,RNZAF or other units flying the P40 in the UK


----------



## billswagger (Mar 30, 2010)

I don't think the P-40 made any significant contribution to the battle of Britain. But being that the P-36 was used heavily in the Battle of France, i wonder if the 36 was also used in Britain. 

The P-40 was a formidable fighter in 1941, said to have more speed than a Spitfire and better turn and dive than a 109E. Its only set back was climb. 
Being an American built plane it had a higher load limit than either plane, although making it heavier, it could be thrown around much more aggressively. The British still thought it was worse than a Spitfire in performance, but better than a Hurricane.


----------



## Glider (Mar 30, 2010)

The P40 wasn't used in the BOB as it wasn't ready. I could be wrong but I understand that at the time of the BOB the P40 had 2 x HMG no armour or self sealing tanks.
As for the P36 it wasn't used during the BOB but a number were in reserve in case of a German invasion


----------



## Vincenzo (Mar 30, 2010)

billswagger said:


> I don't think the P-40 made any significant contribution to the battle of Britain. But being that the P-36 was used heavily in the Battle of France, i wonder if the 36 was also used in Britain.
> 
> The P-40 was a formidable fighter in 1941, said to have more speed than a Spitfire and better turn and dive than a 109E. Its only set back was climb.
> Being an American built plane it had a higher load limit than either plane, although making it heavier, it could be thrown around much more aggressively. The British still thought it was worse than a Spitfire in performance, but better than a Hurricane.



P-40 was not fastest of Spitfire V and was not always better turning of Emil (was better in low quote, with altitude the loss of power go down also turn capabilities) , and in '41 there was the Friederich


----------



## timshatz (Mar 30, 2010)

Gotta believe if the US shared a border with Europe (if the Atlantic Ocean wasn't there), the US would've brought the P40 along faster to have a competitive fighter ready about the same time as the Hurricane, Spitfire and Me109. Isolationsim was the rule of the day in the US and that affected the mentality of weapons development. 

Nothing like having Panzers running around next door to light a fire under your weapons designers.


----------



## Vincenzo (Mar 30, 2010)

timshatz said:


> Gotta believe if the US shared a border with Europe (if the Atlantic Ocean wasn't there), the US would've brought the P40 along faster to have a competitive fighter ready about the same time as the Hurricane, Spitfire and Me109. Isolationsim was the rule of the day in the US and that affected the mentality of weapons development.
> 
> Nothing like having Panzers running around next door to light a fire under your weapons designers.



Maybe... but the France shared border with Germany but not developed best fighter of British, (or also earlier) that haven't border with it


----------



## Colin1 (Mar 30, 2010)

Vincenzo said:


> Maybe... but France shared border with Germany but not developed best fighter of British, (or also earlier) that haven't border with it


France was having her own problems
Nationalisation was in the process of amalgamating the French aircraft industry, which was largely unhappy with the whole affair. There were serious engine production bottlenecks making it difficult to complete aircraft, propeller production was so bad they just bought in from the US to make up the shortfall and when aircraft were eventually finished, they sat idle awaiting armaments.

It wasn't always clear what armaments each aircraft was supposed to have. 

The new system couldn't consistently:-

- synchronise production
- implement a reliable in-service support program (and when parts WERE available, transport around the country was spasmodic)
- get finished aircraft to the Air Force for operational use

France was pushed to produce a war-participant, let alone a war-winner


----------



## renrich (Mar 30, 2010)

Yes, and in France there was the two hour break for lunch. The first production P40s were not accepted until May, 1940. No doubt that all US AC in that time frame could have been ready earlier if the urgency caused by actually been engaged in a war had been there.


----------



## timshatz (Mar 30, 2010)

I think the US showed the ability to put together a good airplane and get it flying fast if the need arose. And example would be the P51 or F6F. Both of them had gestation periods of less than a year from test flight to production. While it was not full production, it was a start.

US production versus French production were two different operations. The French put together some very good weapons, but they took a lot of time doing it.


----------



## Markus (Mar 30, 2010)

renrich said:


> The first production P40s were not accepted until May, 1940. No doubt that all US AC in that time frame could have been ready earlier if the urgency caused by actually been engaged in a war had been there.



The "(development)contract to production" time dropped dramatically once the war began. The "quickest" of the pre-war a/c was the P-40 with 33 months, exactly the same amount of time as the "slowest" wartime developed plane needed(P-61).


----------



## Vincenzo (Mar 30, 2010)

All countries has their problems, the nationalization start because the company not fit the government built request, so we can't take out us politics and put in french politics.

The 520 production started after 13 months of 1st flew, for most part of this the France was not in war (11 months), i think it's not bad (Spitfire need around 2 years, Hurricane a few less) (Mustang need less 6 months, but if it's true that US was not in war they were for a country in the war).


----------



## Colin1 (Mar 30, 2010)

Vincenzo said:


> All countries has their problems, the nationalization start because the company not fit the government built request, so we can't take out us politics and put in french politics


Rubbish
In France the challenge of planning, financing and implementing a re-armament program took place in a political environment where it remained extremely difficult to establish an enduring partnership among workers, employers, and public officials. When the Popular Front governments of 1936 and 1937 made important concessions to workers, business leaders and investors withheld their support

It's true that no major power found it an easy task to build a modern air force in the 1930s, it required real effort to both keep abreast of a rapidly evolving technology and make a timely commitment to mass production; the Brits also stumbled, just not as badly as the French.


----------



## billswagger (Apr 1, 2010)

Kurfrst - Vergleichsfliegen Bf 109 E, Bf 110 C, Spitfire, Hurricane und Curtiss.

Climb times to 4 km:

Bf 109 E 4.4 min, 

Spitfire 5 min, 

Curtiss 5.2 min.

Hurricane 5.6 min, 

In this case the Curtiss was 12 seconds behind the Spitfire in a climb to 4000m, and 36 seconds behind the 109E. 

This could be a P-36 or P-40, the information doesn't say, but the date of the analysis is Aug 9th 1940


----------



## Vincenzo (Apr 2, 2010)

billswagger said:


> This could be a P-36 or P-40, the information doesn't say, but the date of the analysis is Aug 9th 1940




sure a P-36 or more on target a french Hawk 75


----------



## Hop (Apr 2, 2010)

> Climb times to 4 km:
> 
> Bf 109 E 4.4 min,
> 
> ...



At what engine ratings?

RAF trial of Spitfire I with constant speed prop: Spitfire Mk I N.3171 Trials Report

4.6 mins to 13,000 ft at 2,600 rpm, 6.4 lbs boost. By the summer of1940 Spitfires were using 3,000 rpm, 12 lbs boost...


----------



## billswagger (Apr 2, 2010)

Its more than likely the Spitfire in question is not rated at 12lbs, however, i can't make the assumption that it is not rated at 6lbs. 

In fact, being that these aircraft are tested under the same parameters it is probably a better indication for performance when it comes to making a brief comparison, than introducing outside data that might actually be using different parameters. 

For example, some time to climb tests include engine start, and/or take off run, while others measure from the point of lift off. Not to mention temp and weather conditions. 

Two different test can give different results even for the same aircraft. 

Another example of this, the German test mentions the two speed metal prop on the Spitfire, which the test you refer to gave a time to climb of 5.5 minutes to reach only 10,000ft. 

In any case, i think the propellor type made a bigger difference for climb on the Spitfire, than engine boost. The Rotol controlable pitch prop also made for an improved rate of climb, but at the cost of some top speed. 

Bill


----------



## Vincenzo (Apr 2, 2010)

for the german test as you see a +12 lbs with a two speed metal prop?


----------



## Kurfürst (Apr 2, 2010)

Hop said:


> By the summer of1940 Spitfires were using 3,000 rpm, 12 lbs boost...



Not particularly relevant in this case, as it was an emergency boost, normally not used for climbs to intercept - u see as it overstrained the engine. Indeed one of the biggest problems Fighter Command faced was climbing to the altitude of the attacking aircraft, especially in the case of fighter-bomber raids.


----------



## vanir (Apr 3, 2010)

also Kurfürst the Emil by BoB time had a lot of Aa engines didn't they, and these had an additional emergency boost rating not usually listed in the maximum performance capabilities usable for 1-2min or so?


----------



## Kurfürst (Apr 4, 2010)

According Olivier, the Aa engines with slightly increased ratings were fitted to Jabo models (/B) and all E-7s which didn'thave the 601N.

The 1-min rating (601A: 1.40 ata / 1100 PS, 601Aa: 1.45 ata / 1175 PS) appears to be available from the start. There was clockwork that disengaged this increased emergency power after 1 minute.


----------



## renrich (Apr 6, 2010)

Development time for new AC could be substantially impacted by components of the AC which were new and untested. Am rereading "Whistling Death" by Boone Guyton, primary test pilot for the Corsair. The P&W R2800 was a new engine, still under development and there were many problems with it. The Hamilton Standard prop was new and had teething problems. At first, the prop lacked a hydraulic accumulator which was still being developed and in the XF4U, under negative G in a dive, the prop changed pitch, overran and twisted off the engine crankshaft, resulting in a dead stick landing. Many times the engine failed, resulting in a glide back to base and once a horrible crash, putting the pilot in the hospital for a lengthy stay. These problems were largely eliminated at the time the Hellcat was being developed and to a lesser extent, the P47.

Another problem for the Corsair and other fighters like the P38 and P47 was that they were edging into largely unexplored flight regimes where they began to experience compressibility which was not well understood. Diving tests often resulted in uncontrollability and terror filled moments in the cockpits and sometimes structural failures and fatal crashes and losses of the prototype. Recently saw a U tube video of a Super Cuda that could do 200 mph. On one run a piece of the windshield trim simply blew off at around 180 mph. The Corsair had to do a bunch of dives at various altitudes just to see if the cockpit framing would hold together at more than 400 mph. The structural integrity of the Corsair was such that the airframe needed little modification although control surfaces sometimes blew away. These early high performance fighters paved the way for later designs and made development times shorter in some cases.


----------



## Xdominick97 (Mar 30, 2012)

In my opinion which many people do not realize was that the p 40 was great. It was used in the fighter group flying tigers and were known as tigers to pilots of the jap zeros because the p40s would dive on them from high altitudes and breakup there formation. The p 40s would shoot down so many that the restvofvthe zeros or jap torpedo bomber would fly back to there mainland. Although the other planes were great i would go with theb p 40 out of any plane in a dogfight


----------



## davebender (Mar 30, 2012)

It didn't work that way in the Philippines or Dutch East Indies during 1942. The P-40E didn't accelerate or climb well, which makes it difficult to attain a superior altitude. More often then not the faster climbing A6M would have the altitude advantage.


----------



## wuzak (Mar 30, 2012)

I don't think the AVG ever met Zeroes in thei P-40s.

Anyone confirm?


----------



## Jenisch (Mar 30, 2012)

davebender said:


> It didn't work that way in the Philippines or Dutch East Indies during 1942. The P-40E didn't accelerate or climb well, which makes it difficult to attain a superior altitude. More often then not the faster climbing A6M would have the altitude advantage.


 
Yeah, I'm skeptical about the criticism for Japanese planes. The Zero not only climbed better, but also had a much longer range, and was much more agile in low speed to evade attacks and had excellent visibility, not to mention the excellent men behind the stick. The Zero certainly was a modern plane that could hold it's own or even do better than the P-40. The Ki-43 was a little worse.


----------



## eagledad (Mar 31, 2012)

Hello Wuzak!

Your comment about the AVG and Zeros is supported by the following found at Dan Ford's website:

http://www.warbirdforum.com/neumann.htm

Hello!

The Army Air Corp carried out tests between a Hurricane, Spitfire and P-40 (amoung other aircraft). A copy of that report can be found at Mike William’s website at:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/P-40/PHQ-M-19-1307-A.pdf

Just some information to consider when discussing the topics.

May God fly your wing always!

Eagledad


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 31, 2012)

wuzak said:


> I don't think the AVG ever met Zeroes in thei P-40s.
> 
> Anyone confirm?



Correct. Former AVG members did engage Zeros but not when they were attached to the AVG. There were no IJN units in the area during AVG operations


----------



## davebender (Mar 31, 2012)

IJA and IJN produced their own aircraft types. Just like the USN and USA. Strange they couldn't cooperate (and still don't).


----------



## bluezanzibar (Apr 1, 2012)

Nikolay Gerasimovitch Golodnikov is an Ace with seven victories over German aircraft and flew the Hurricane and P40 in battle as well as the I-16 and Aircobra. Briefly, his opinions on the Hurricane and P40 were;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

P40
"....the P-40 significantly outclassed the Hurricane, and it was far and away above the I-16.

Personally speaking, the P-40 could contend on an equal footing with all the types of Messerschmitts, almost to the end of 1943. If you take into consideration all the tactical and technical characteristics of the P-40, then the Tomahawk was equal to the Bf-109F and the Kittyhawk was slightly better.

Its speed and vertical and horizontal maneuver were good. It was fully competitive with enemy aircraft.

As for acceleration, the P-40 was a bit heavy, but when one had adjusted to the engine, it was normal.

When the later types Bf-109G and FW-190 appeared, the P-40 Kittyhawk became somewhat dated, but not by much. An experienced pilot could fight an equal fight with it."


For the rest of his story see Conversations with N.Golodnikov , which is part of this great site Lend-Lease on airforce.ru containing numerous interviews with Russian Pilots.


----------



## Jenisch (Apr 1, 2012)

The interview is the most detailed with a WWII pilot that I ever read. 

He mentions the wing MGs from the P-40 B/C/D were removed to reduce weight, and firepower was still sufficient. Didn't the Anglo-Americans conducted a similar procedure?


----------



## zoomar (Apr 2, 2012)

I may be entirely wrong, but I've always believed that one of the problems of the P-40 was that it was just an incremental evolution of the P-36 offered by Curtiss to give the US something at least similar to the Bf-109 and Spitfire. Don't get me wrong: I think the P-40 is an underrated fighter, but it shares some similarity with the Hurricane in that it merged some modern traits with hold overs from an earlier generation of fighters - as opposed to the Spit and 109 that were the wave of the future with a lot more development potential


----------



## Jenisch (Apr 2, 2012)

zoomar said:


> I may be entirely wrong, but I've always believed that one of the problems of the P-40 was that it was just an incremental evolution of the P-36 offered by Curtiss to give the US something at least similar to the Bf-109 and Spitfire.


 
Exactly. The P-40 was in theory an obsolete aircraft even before it was ordered into production. However being descendent of the P-36 it was ready for mass production. It was better to have a P-40 than a P-36 while waiting for promissing designs like the P-38 and P-47.


----------



## spicmart (Apr 2, 2012)

How would it be if the P-40 had been given an adequate engine with enough power for this fighter's size such as the Griffon? Guess it would be competitive and right up there with the best late war planes.
I never understood why the P-40 airframe was considered obsolete and should have less development potential than other fighters, the same goes for the P-39 and P-63.


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 2, 2012)

Basically from the firewall back it was a 1934 design. The Hawk 75 first flew in May of 1935. Not all designs are able to age (be upgraded) the same. 

The plane was originally designed for 2-4 machineguns, a light bomb load (several hundred pounds at a guess). It started with a small 14 cylinder two radial, the Wright R-1670 which went nowhere and was replaced by a P&W R-1535. Then the large diameter ( cylinder R-1820 was stuck on it. Then the 14 Cylinder R-1830 and the Allison and finally the Merlin XX. How much development do you want????? 6 different engines in it's career and let's not forget the turbo P-37 version. 

The Original engines were good for 700-775 hp and weighed under 1200lbs (air-cooled). The Allison and Merlin could hit 1400-1500WEP and weighed (Merlin) closer to 1600lbs plus radiators and coolant. 

There comes a time to cut you losses and move on to something new.


----------

