# Which is the better fighter, P-40F or Typhoon?



## Schweik (Dec 12, 2018)

VS






P-40 evaluation should also include P-40L which was nearly identical to the P-40F, it just had some of the field stripping done in the factory. The RAF designated P-40F/L as Kittyhawk II and IIa respectively.

So which of the two famous aircraft was most useful to the war effort?


Which fighter shot down more enemy aircraft? -US P-40 units which amounted to 5 Fighter Groups or 15 squadrons, claimed 592 air- to -air victories over enemy aircraft, mostly fighters in North Africa and the Mediterranean Theater from summer 1942 until fall 1944. A few of these were P-40K but almost all were P-40F or L. The P-40 F/L was also used by two RAF squadrons (260 RAF and 450 RAAF) and by at least one unit in the Solomon Islands in the Pacific. I don't know how many victories the latter claimed.


How many of each type were lost on operations?
Which did pilots prefer?
Which did the enemy fear more?
Which of the two destroyed the most enemy ground targets?
Which of the two had the most impact on any battles or operations? Where were the Typhoons used, did they send any to the Pacific or CBI?
Which of the two had better performance ?  I think clearly the Typhoon with a top speed of 408 mph vs 370 for the P-40F
Which was the most maneuverable? Which gave their pilots the best chance in combat vs. enemy aircraft they faced?
Which which was most reliable? I think that answer is obvious (the P-40F). Typhoons were still having major teething problems until the end of 1942.


----------



## Augsburg Eagle (Dec 12, 2018)

Is it meaningfull to compare a ground attacker (Typhoon) and a fighter (P-40)? They have different operational profiles.

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


----------



## Schweik (Dec 12, 2018)

Augsburg Eagle said:


> Is it meaningfull to compare a ground attacker (Typhoon) and a fighter (P-40)? They have different operational profiles.



Weren't they both fighters that did a lot of ground attack? 

I think it's admissible to include any merits that either aircraft had, in air to air or ground attack or things like neutralizing V-1s which I think Typhoons did right? Or was that just Tempests?

I know Typhoons were used for a while to counter (or try to counter) Fw 190s.


----------



## wuzak (Dec 12, 2018)

Typhoons were fighters that were later used as fighter-bombers.

Originally the Typhoon (and Tornado) were supposed to supersede the Hurricane *and* Spitfire.

In terms of performance, the Typhoon is superior to the P-40F in most respects.

It climbed better at lower to medium altitudes.
Was faster at all heights.
It had better firepower.
It had better load carrying capability.

On the downside, its ceiling was slightly lower and high altitude climb was less. The engine was unreliable at the start, but that was improved over time. 
It had some structural problems, but a fix was found and implemented for them.

You mentioned the Fw 190 Jabos. The Typhoon could track them down - the P-40F, probably not.
The Typhoon could catch and destroy V-1s. P-40F probably not.
The Typhoon was also used to escort Mosquito FBs on occasion. I doubt the P-40F could have kept up.

Your first question is moot. Many more P-40s were built (though not P-40Fs), they served in more theatres over a longer period and had more opportunity for aerial combat.

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


----------



## Schweik (Dec 12, 2018)

wuzak said:


> Typhoons were fighters that were later used as fighter-bombers.
> 
> Originally the Typhoon (and Tornado) were supposed to supersede the Hurricane *and* Spitfire.
> 
> ...



I would agree with this. Did the Typhoon have any problems in a dive or with terminal dive speed? How maneuverable was it?



> On the downside, its ceiling was slightly lower and high altitude climb was less. The engine was unreliable at the start, but that was improved over time.
> It had some structural problems, but a fix was found and implemented for them.



By Dec 1942 right?



> You mentioned the Fw 190 Jabos. The Typhoon could track them down - the P-40F, probably not.



Apparently they did, or at least, they claimed quite a few shot down mostly over Italy, and notably during the Battle of Anzio in 1944. I think it would be interesting to compare numbers, we can also check for viability of claims as Christopher Shores MAW Volume IV is out which covers these battles.



> The Typhoon could catch and destroy V-1s. P-40F probably not.



I would assume this is correct - so far as I know no P-40 pilot ever tried but they were probably not fast enough.



> The Typhoon was also used to escort Mosquito FBs on occasion. I doubt the P-40F could have kept up.



Agree with that too! There were some mosquitoes operating in the Med at the same times but I don't believe they needed an escort and a P-40 would be too slow anyway and also lack the range I think.



> Your first question is moot. Many more P-40s were built (though not P-40Fs), they served in more theatres over a longer period and had more opportunity for aerial combat.



This is why this analysis is specifically between the P40 F and L (Merlin engined P-40s) vs. the Typhoon since these were the main variants used by the USAAF against the same (i.e. German - in the Med) opponents as the Typhoon. Again, not sure if Typhoons were used in the Pacific or CBI. They built 3,300 Typhoons and 2,000 of the Merlin Engined P-40s (1300 P-40F and 700 P-40L), both Typhoon and P-40F were active from 1941, the Typhoon through 1945, P-40F phased out by October 1944 but it's close... so I think it's a reasonable comparison.

S


----------



## pbehn (Dec 12, 2018)

The Typhoon never really replaced the Spitfire because of the improvements in the Merlin and problems getting it into service. By 1944 the Typhoon itself was replaced as the front line fighter from Hawkers by the Tempest, By 1944 the Typhoon was aa ground attack A/C carrying 370Kg of additional armour. As a fighter I would say it was better than the P-40 at all but high altitude but as an operational aircraft it was a bit of a nightmare.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Dec 12, 2018)

So any idea how many air-to-air victory claims were made by Typhoon pilots?

Were Typhoons ever deployed against the Japanese?

When was all the armor added?

S


----------



## Greyman (Dec 12, 2018)

From a performance perspective I think the Typhoon was better in every way except for roll-rate and turning ability.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Dec 12, 2018)

Greyman said:


> From a performance perspective I think the Typhoon was better in every way except for roll-rate and turning ability.



Those would seem to be rather important factors...


----------



## MIflyer (Dec 12, 2018)

Both the Typhoon and the P-40 were built as air superiority fighters and both pretty much could not hack it and were relegated to mostly ground attack. Both had only single stage superchargers and in Europe that was unacceptable, especially after 1941, not only due to high altitude performance but also due simply the need to pack enough horsepower under the hood.

The Typhoon was a better air superiority fighter than the P-40 for the time period it was in service but that did not mean it was nearly as good as the Spit IX, P-38, P-47, or P-51. It is difficult to compare the two because they are different generations. The P-40 is a contemporary of the Hurricane. The P-40F and P-40L were out of production before the Typhoon became operational in large numbers. P-40F's and L's were re-engined with V-1710's when the original Merlins wore out and there were no replacements available.

The Typhoon was not a very popular aircraft with its pilots. The poor reliability of the engine was a big factor but not the only one. I recently read a book by a Spitfire pilot who was posted to ferry airplanes within Great Britain because of some problems he had while flying the Spitfire. He liked ferrying Typhoons and the other pilots were all too happy to let him have all of them. When delivering a Typhoon to one unit he made a typical tight fighter style pattern and once on the ground was lectured that he should never do that with a Typhoon - bring it in on a long and slow final approach. On the other hand he said that when he flew Typhoons operationally they used the tight fighter pattern.

Aside from the engine problems the Typhoon had a tendency for the tail to break off in a dive; reinforcement helped but the problem never seemed to go away entirely. The Typhoon vibrated badly; they found that for some reason the 4 blade prop helped that, which is the reason for the change. The Typhoon was terrible at ditching, diving under right away; pilots usually did not get out. When they were flying over the Channel to attack targets before D-Day the pilots were every mindful that if the engine started acting up or took combat damage they might well be better off to take their chances evading the Germans in France than risking a Channel crossing. 

The author of the book described having an engine problem on a mission over France and trying to get home. The engine quit over the Channel and since he was expecting it he very carefully came down and dragged the tail first to slow down. But the problem was not that big airscoop but the wing shape and it dove under once the wing hit; he narrowly escaped and spent the night out there, was rescued in the morning.

Of course, the Typhoon plus anti-armor rocket was a great combination, although losses were severe, since the aircraft had to fly a nice straight approach to fire the rockets. However the RAF really had no other choice. The Spitfire was terrible fighter bomber and the Hurricane too low in performance. The Typhoon replaced the Whirlwind in a couple of RAF units and those pilots seemed to prefer the earlier aircraft, where they could cross the Channel with one turning and one burning if required with more confidence.

I think that all in all the RAF would have been much better off with the P-47 if it had been available in sufficient numbers - which it might have been if Curtiss had focused more on the P-47G and less on the P-40. In the CBI the RAF replaced the Hurricane with the P-47, not the Typhoon. Of course the P-40 pilots also would have been better off if they had been equipped with P-47's, too.

The Tempest seemed to have fixed all the Typhoon's faults, except maybe the engine, and if that quit at least you could ditch it and survive.

Today the P-40 is a popular warbird. I don't think anyone is flying any Typhoons.

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


----------



## pbehn (Dec 12, 2018)

Schweik said:


> So any idea how many air-to-air victory claims were made by Typhoon pilots?
> 
> Were Typhoons ever deployed against the Japanese?
> 
> ...


I don't know how many claims (such things aren't my bag) by catching Jabo raiders and turning those into a very dangerous activity for the LW it made a significant effect. Armour was fitted below and around the pilot and cooling system prior to D-Day as I understand it. Apart from N Europe I believe some were sent to the middle east but the Sabre engine was a complicated beast to operate on the other side of the world, the Typhoon was basically out of service as soon as the war ended.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Dec 12, 2018)

MIflyer said:


> Both the Typhoon and the P-40 were built as air superiority fighters and both pretty much could not hack it and were relegated to mostly ground attack. Both had only single stage superchargers and in Europe that was unacceptable, especially after 1941, not only due to high altitude performance but also due simply the need to pack enough horsepower under the hood.
> 
> The Typhoon was a better air superiority fighter than the P-40 for the time period it was in service but that did not mean it was nearly as good as the Spit IX, P-38, P-47, or P-51. It is difficult to compare the two because they are different generations. The P-40 is a contemporary of the Hurricane. The P-40F and P-40L were out of production before the Typhoon became operational in large numbers. P-40F's and L's were re-engined with V-1710's when the original Merlins wore out and there were no replacements available.



No offense but just about everything you said about the P-40 is wrong, they were quite successful as fighters in Theaters outside of NW Europe as measured for example by enemy aircraft shot down, or battles won. They just weren't good at high altitude. The last significant combat mission flown by Merlin engined P-40Ls that I know of was in September 1944.

One of the things that I'd really like to know is if the Typhoon really was a better air superiority fighter than a P-40F or L, I'd like to see evidence other than raw performance figures, like how many enemy aircraft were destroyed by Typhoon pilots. as for example high top speed with poor roll and turn characteristics isn't necessarily a recipe for success. The P-40 was not, incidentally, a contemporary of the Hurricane in terms of design, the Hurricane is an older design and peaked a bit earlier too, though all three aircraft, Hurricane, Typhoon and P-40 served during overlapping periods.



> The Typhoon was not a very popular aircraft with its pilots. The poor reliability of the engine was a big factor but not the only one. I recently read a book by a Spitfire pilot who was posted to ferry airplanes within Great Britain because of some problems he had while flying the Spitfire. He liked ferrying Typhoons and the other pilots were all too happy to let him have all of them. When delivering a Typhoon to one unit he made a typical tight fighter style pattern and once on the ground was lectured that he should never do that with a Typhoon - bring it in on a long and slow final approach. On the other hand he said that when he flew Typhoons operationally they used the tight fighter pattern.
> 
> Aside from the engine problems the Typhoon had a tendency for the tail to break off in a dive; reinforcement helped but the problem never seemed to go away entirely. The Typhoon vibrated badly; they found that for some reason the 4 blade prop helped that, which is the reason for the change. The Typhoon was terrible at ditching, diving under right away; pilots usually did not get out. When they were flying over the Channel to attack targets before D-Day the pilots were every mindful that if the engine started acting up or took combat damage they might well be better off to take their chances evading the Germans in France than risking a Channel crossing.
> 
> ...



Whirlwind seems to have been a really neat plane. Typhoon sounds more and more like a pilots nightmare the more I read about it.



> I think that all in all the RAF would have been much better off with the P-47 if it had been available in sufficient numbers - which it might have been if Curtiss had focused more on the P-47G and less on the P-40. In the CBI the RAF replaced the Hurricane with the P-47, not the Typhoon. Of course the P-40 pilots also would have been better off if they had been equipped with P-47's, too.



Quite a few of them were in the Med, though the loss rate did not decline and they scored significantly fewer combat victories after they converted to P-47s. In the CBI the P-40 had a very good record, with 973 victories, P-40 pilots claimed more enemy aircraft in the CBI than any other American type (345 for all types of Mustangs, 157 for P-38s and 16 for P-47s) and I'd be very surprised and interested to learn that any RAF or Commonwealth type did better. I'd love to see any Commonwealth numbers from the Theater.



> The Tempest seemed to have fixed all the Typhoon's faults, except maybe the engine, and if that quit at least you could ditch it and survive.
> 
> Today the P-40 is a popular warbird. I don't think anyone is flying any Typhoons.



A few Tempests and Sea Furies still around though I think. Thanks for the post even though we disagree on a few things.

S


----------



## wuzak (Dec 12, 2018)

MIflyer said:


> The Tempest seemed to have fixed all the Typhoon's faults, except maybe the engine, and if that quit at least you could ditch it and survive.



How did hey do that?

The main problem for ditching was the prominent chin radiator, which was common to the Typhoon and the Tempest V. The Tempest II had the Centaurus radial, but it was also later and saw less WW2 service.


----------



## wuzak (Dec 12, 2018)

Schweik said:


> One of the things that I'd really like to know is if the Typhoon really was a better air superiority fighter than a P-40F or L, I'd like to see evidence other than raw performance figures, like how many enemy aircraft were destroyed by Typhoon pilots. as for example high top speed with poor roll and turn characteristics isn't necessarily a recipe for success. The P-40 was not, incidentally, a contemporary of the Hurricane in terms of design, the Hurricane is an older design and peaked a bit earlier too, though all three aircraft, Hurricane, Typhoon and P-40 served during overlapping periods.



You seem fixated on aerial victories. 

When that is, largely, a measure of opportunity.

What were the victories per sortie?
How many enemy encounters per sortie?

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Dec 12, 2018)

wuzak said:


> You seem fixated on aerial victories.
> 
> When that is, largely, a measure of opportunity.
> 
> ...



Good questions! Losses per sortie (and by what cause) are also great to know.

It probably starts with the raw victory and / or loss numbers, but I'd be glad to know any of the above for the Typhoon. I already have some idea for the P-40F.

I'd be glad to see any commonwealth numbers on victory claims, losses, sortie rates etc.


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 12, 2018)

Somebody here once posted the number (or tons) of bombs dropped by Typhoons and Spitfires in the British 2nd tactical air force , the number of rockets fired, trains, trucks tanks etc and enemy aircraft claimed for a two month period after D-day.

However what was not listed (if memory serves and it may not) was the actual number of aircraft of each type or number of squadrons. 
Numbers were both not a big surprise (Typhoons fired a lot more rockets and dropped by far a greater tonnage of bombs) and yet one number was, unless you thought about it for a while.
Typhoons in this group of squadrons for these two months claimed 2 German aircraft. Spitfires claimed either 60 something or 80 something if I remember right, ( and I may not ) 

Now I believe, but could well be wrong, that in addition to dropping bombs on German targets the Spitfires of the 2nd TAF were often tasked with flying top cover (escort) for the Typhoons
which means that even trying to compare planes flying in the same air force (tactical air force not national air force) in the same area of operations in the same time period could wind up with a vast discrepancy in scores simply due to the actual mission tasks/profiles being flown that lead to a rather different rate of engagement

That or you have to believe the Typhoon was a really terrible fighter even at low level . 

Perhaps the Spitfires were that good in keeping the Luftwaffe aircraft away from the Bombphoons.

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


----------



## Schweik (Dec 12, 2018)

Well, presumably they flew more than just ground attack missions with them from 1941-1945 so maybe we'll get some variety in there. 

RAF used P-40s in the Med as their main air superiority fighter from 1941 until August of 1942, and then as both fighters and fighter bombers until about April 1943, after which RAF Kittyhawks were used almost exclusively as 'kittybombers' very much the same way as you describe above (with Spitfire cover, and including the rockets, even) in right up to 1945. 

USAAF used five fighter groups of P-40F and Ls as both fighters and fighter bombers, with some units more one than the other (325th FG flying mostly bomber escort and fighter sweeps, 324th flying mostly fighter-bomber sorties), until Summer 1943, after which two of the best groups (325th and 57th FG) switched to P-47s, while 3 more groups soldiered on with P-40s well into 1944, flying both types of missions. The last group to get into a significant dogfight over Italy was in Sept 1944, after which all the remaining P-40 units had switched to P-47s or P-51s (or first one then the other like the 325th did).

In the Pacific P-40s were mostly used for air cover and escort but also in fighter sweeps and fighter-bomber missions by both US and Commonwealth (Australian and New Zealand) units into late 1943, by which time the US units switched over to P-38s or P-51s and the ANZAC units switched over to Spitfires and Corsairs. But by then most of the air to air combat was done for land based fighters in those areas.

In the CBI P-40s were still being used successfully from early 1942 right up to 1945. IJA didn't upgrade their aircraft very quickly (they were still making Ki-43s right up to the end of the war) and their training wasn't as good as the IJN which may account for that.

The Soviets used P-40s for VVS (offensive frontal aviation) units until mid 1943 and then started switching them over to mostly PVO (Air Defense) and maritime patrol duties over the Baltic.


What were they doing with Typhoons all that time before D-Day?


----------



## DarrenW (Dec 12, 2018)

Any chance we could make this a poll?


----------



## Milosh (Dec 12, 2018)

Schweik said:


> So any idea how many air-to-air victory claims were made by Typhoon pilots?
> 
> Were Typhoons ever deployed against the Japanese?
> 
> ...



The Typhoon made 250 claims, including 3 Me262s.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Dec 12, 2018)

Schweik said:


> What were they doing with Typhoons all that time before D-Day?



Hunting down Jabos, for one.

Escorting the odd low level Mosquito raid (like the Amiens Prison raid).

And they were doing rocket and bomb sorties over occupied Europe from October 1943.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Dec 13, 2018)

Milosh said:


> The Typhoon made 250 claims, including 3 Me262s.



Excellent, thank you - what is the source for this? I'd love to see stats for Commonwealth fighters in general...


----------



## Schweik (Dec 13, 2018)

Oh and ... any idea how many were actually operational? Were most of the 3,000 Typhoons made pressed into combat units or were some held back for testing and training and so on?

Did they knock down any V-1s with them or was that just Tempests?


----------



## Greyman (Dec 13, 2018)

Only one Typhoon Squadron (No. 137) was involved in anti-V1 defence, claiming 30 destroyed.

The Typhoon's main effort vs. the V1 was attacking the launch sites.


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 13, 2018)

When the Fw190A was first introduced, it was the Typhoon that was able to meet it and best it in a turning fight - this was one of the saving graces of the fledgling Tempest when it was first introduced.

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


----------



## wuzak (Dec 13, 2018)

GrauGeist said:


> When the Fw190A was first introduced, it was the Typhoon that was able to meet it and best it in a turning fight - this was one of the saving graces of the fledgling Tempest *Typhoon* when it was first introduced.



Is this what you meant?

Of course the Spitfire could turn with the 190, it just had trouble keeping up.

This was solved, to a degree, with the LF V, and then the XII in early 1943.

The IX could keep up, or better, with a 190 at most altitudes, but not so much at the low altitudes used in the fighter-bomber raids.


----------



## Elmas (Dec 13, 2018)

I think that all the story of Tornado-Typhoon-Tempest is a part of the chess game played between RAF and Luftwaffe.
In 1936 RLM started to develop He-177. Knowing that it could be dangerous, as He-177 could reach England from German bases, RAF in 1937 asked in a hurry for something to deal with, that is an interceptor armed with twelve 0.303 or four cannons (at least), a specification that lead to Tornado.
Fortunately for U.K. and for the World, it was clear that He 177 was a failure from the start, as it was clear that Nazi Germany had not the industrial capabilities to build and to equip huge fleets of four engined bombers ( Intelligence Services are sometimes useful), so a single engine interceptor armed with four cannons had a low priority from the end of the BoB. Mostly because the engines needed for that planes were experimenting theeting problems, RAF concluded that a role of bomber destroyer could be assigned to Beaufighters.
But in 1943 spooks started to spead rumors of V-1, and the need for an interceptor with a flash acceleration arose… and so on.

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


----------



## pbehn (Dec 13, 2018)

The Jabos were such a pain that standing patrols were mounted, this makes sortie rates a nonsense.


----------



## Milosh (Dec 13, 2018)

Schweik said:


> Excellent, thank you - what is the source for this? I'd love to see stats for Commonwealth fighters in general...



The Typhoon and Tempest Story by Thomas/Shores. It lists claims and losses for both.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Milosh (Dec 13, 2018)

pbehn said:


> The Jabos were such a pain that standing patrols were mounted, this makes sortie rates a nonsense.



The standing patrols were required because the Jabos, 190s and 109s, came in so low radar couldn't pick them up.


----------



## pbehn (Dec 13, 2018)

Milosh said:


> The standing patrols were required because the Jabos, 190s and 109s, came in so low radar couldn't pick them up.


With 1940s RADAR a modern Eurofighter couldnt prevent a JABO unless already in the air or at least on the end of the runway with pilot sat in and engines running, at 300Mph it takes 4 minutes to cross the channel at Dover.


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 13, 2018)

pbehn said:


> With 1940s RADAR a modern Eurofighter couldnt prevent a JABO unless already in the air or at least on the end of the runway with pilot sat in and engines running, at 300Mph it takes 4 minutes to cross the channel at Dover.


 and 15-20 minutes in many other areas. However unless said runway is close to intended flight path of the JABO it it going to take a number of minutes to reach it.

Wiki says the Channel is about 350 miles long and about 150 miles wide at the widest, so you need a fair number of planes parked with engines running spread out along the length even if they aren't in the air.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## MIflyer (Dec 13, 2018)

Okay you insisted on the P-40 in the ETO , where it did little. It was considered inferior to Axis fighters from Day One, if superior to the Hurricane at low altitude. It was replaced by later fighters as soon as they became available.


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 13, 2018)

wuzak said:


> Is this what you meant?
> 
> Of course the Spitfire could turn with the 190, it just had trouble keeping up.
> 
> ...


lmao...actually, I had wrote "Tiffy" but it somehow ended up as "Tempest"! 

The miracles of the modern age and autocorrect ensures that there's never a dull moment.

The Typhoon was introduced at a time when the Fw190 had just tipped the balance in favor of the Luftwaffe, putting the RAF at the advantage once again in lower altitude combat.

Considering that the Tiffy's development had been plagued by several issues, it was this ability to counter the Fw190 that was it's saving grace.
By 1943, the newer marks of the Spitfire were more than enough for Luftwaffe, leaving the Typhoon to evolve into a master of ground attack.

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


----------



## Schweik (Dec 13, 2018)

DarrenW said:


> Any chance we could make this a poll?



I didn't think of it until after I stared the thread, then I looked and couldn't see how to do it. Do you know how?


----------



## Schweik (Dec 13, 2018)

GrauGeist said:


> Considering that the Tiffy's development had been plagued by several issues, it was this ability to counter the Fw190 that was it's saving grace.
> By 1943, the newer marks of the Spitfire were more than enough for Luftwaffe, leaving the Typhoon to evolve into a master of ground attack.



Seems reasonable. But just to throw a monkey wrench into the mix, a substantial number of the 592 US P-40 claims in the Med were also for Fw 190s, the latter being used extensively as Jabos for example in the Anzio landings and against the besieged beachhead all in early 1944. 79th FG claimed a few dozen Fw 190s at that time at least, although from reviewing Shores MAW volume IV some of those look like they were actually misidentified Bf 109s.

Were most of the 250 Tiffy claims - aside from V-1s and Me 262s, against FWs?

Overall, just looking at numbers, I know this won't be a popular statement but I think the P-40F looks a little better so far.

2000 P-40 F and L produced, with 592 US claims plus about another 50 by two RAF (260 RAF and 3 RAAF) squadrons operating them as Kittyhawk IIs. I don't know how many were claimed by the 1 squadron flying them in the Pacific but probably no more than a couple of dozen more. But lets say roughly 650 claims mostly between August 1942 and August 1943, with a trickle of a few more right up to September 1944. Operationally US P-40F units played a major role in defeating the Axis air forces in Tunisia, in capturing Pantelleria (it was actually an unsanctioned drop of "surrender to the 325th FG" note dropped on the island that seemed to induce the final surrender) the invasion of Sicily and Italy, and the survival of the Anzio beach-head. Not even talking about important victories by other P-40 types like at Milne Bay the Kokoda trail.

3000 Tiffys produced, 250 claims between 1941 and 1945, of which 30 were V-1s (or were those over?) and 3 for Me 262s. Lots of Fw 190s in the number which they helped deter from dominating the English Channel and terrorizing Southern England with Jabo raids.


Typhoon definitely has the edge in raw performance but isn't as maneuverable and suffers serious structural problems. Almost the opposite of the P-40 in that sense as P-40s were liked by pilots because they had a high survival rate. P-40s high dive speed is what enabled it to catch and destroy fast flying aircraft like Fw 190s, Bf 109G-6 and MC 205s. Typhoon is also more heavily armed with four big cannon, carries a heavier bomb and rocket load and I suspect can manage a higher combat speed while carrying air to ground ordinance. So once the tail was fixed etc. it was probably a better ground attack aircraft than a P-40, though P-40s were considered pretty good at that too.

At the very least though overall, I would say the record of the P-40 compares reasonably well.

Reactions: Disagree Disagree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 13, 2018)

Before we compare claims, let's first consider production totals.

Curtiss produced over 13,700 P-40s (of all marks)

Hawker produced a little over 3,300 Typhoons (including sub-variants)

Also the operational scope (and greater numbers) of the P-40 will at first show a far superior number of air victories in favor of the P-40, especially since the P-40 operated in every theater of the war where the Typhoon in it's smaller numbers was limited to north-western Europe.


----------



## Schweik (Dec 13, 2018)

GrauGeist said:


> Before we compare claims, let's first consider production totals.
> 
> Curtiss produced over 13,700 P-40s (of all marks)
> 
> ...



Again, I already pointed this out but I'll do so again - *Per the thread title I was specifically only comparing Typhoons with the Merlin engined P-40s (P-40 F/ L / Kittyhawk II) of which only 2000 were produced. *The ~650 victories I mentioned just above are _for that subtype only_. Total victory claims for all versions of the P-40 were well over 3,000.

P-40F and L operated almost exclusively in the Med. There was one squadron in the Solomons and the Russians may have gotten a few. But basically one Theater just like with the Typhoon.

So in this specific case, I think it is a fairly close comparison.

Reactions: Disagree Disagree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 13, 2018)

GrauGeist said:


> Also the operational scope (and greater numbers) of the P-40 will at first show a far superior number of air victories in favor of the P-40, especially since the P-40 operated in every theater of the war where the Typhoon in it's smaller numbers was limited to north-western Europe.



ANd for a good part of 1942-43 the Germans didn't have very many aircraft stationed within reach of the Typhoons in western europe. 

Without factoring opportunity (British planes could fly for months without engaging a German plane in NW Europe during this time period) victory counts to determine which is better is a pretty poor metric. 

Being able to dive on low altitude JABOs also tends to mask the performance difference. Once the JABO has dropped it's bomb anywhere but on the intended target the "intercepting" fighter has scored a mission kill even if the a victory claim.


----------



## Schweik (Dec 13, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> ANd for a good part of 1942-43 the Germans didn't have very many aircraft stationed within reach of the Typhoons in western europe.
> 
> Without factoring opportunity (British planes could fly for months without engaging a German plane in NW Europe during this time period) victory counts to determine which is better is a pretty poor metric.
> 
> Being able to dive on low altitude JABOs also tends to mask the performance difference. Once the JABO has dropped it's bomb anywhere but on the intended target the "intercepting" fighter has scored a mission kill even if the a victory claim.



The issue of attacking Jabos was, I think, similar for both planes. It's certainly easier to attack a low-flying fighter bomber than a high flying fighter so long as your aircraft performs reasonably well down low, which both the Typhoon and P-40F did.

There were also, incidentally, long dry spells for P-40 pilots as well where there was limited Axis opposition in the air, notably most of 1944 after Anzio was over and for several periods in the second half of 1943.


----------



## pbehn (Dec 13, 2018)

The difference between Jabo raids on southern England and Anzio is the size of the Anzio beachhead and the fact that the raids on England were nuisance raids, they didn't have to take place. Canterbury as a target is less than 20 miles from the sea from north east and south.


----------



## Schweik (Dec 13, 2018)

True but Jabo targets were to be found all over the region around Southern Italy, all the ships and boats in the sea, at the various Allied airfields all the way out to Sicily, Corsica etc.

I believe the Axis had airfields just as close to Anzio (or earlier, to the landing beaches in Sicily etc.) as they did to England.

The P-40Fs probably flew a wider variety of missions (maybe more bomber escorts) but both types flew fighter sweeps, armed recon, intruder, fighter bomber / CAS, defensive combat air patrol, and interception missions. Didn't the Typhoon fly escort missions to Netherlands etc.?

Typhoon also had the jet and V-1 intercept missions which the P-40 definitely didn't do.

But ultimately I don't think there was that much difference in their range missions especially over the 3-4 years of service of both aircraft, it seems like it would shake out.


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 13, 2018)

Typhoons never got shoot up japanese twin bombers or other rather vulnerable targets in the CBI or South Pacific.
Typhoons also never got shoot up Macchi 200s, SM 79s Italian transports or JU 52s or Me 323s.
Germans for much of 1942 and 1943 didn't have to come and "play" with fighter sweeps over NW Europe unless they thought they had an actual advantage.

I really don't think the British got value for money from the TYphoon, mainly because of the Sabre engine. It's destructiveness as rocket firing airplane is vastly overblown. the 132 tank kills sometimes claimed was more like 6. The British (and the Allies) could probably have conducted the war with the Typhoon never having been built and would not have affected the outcome in any significant way. (assuming they built 3000 of a different plane)
But simplistic comparisons like number of planes shot down vs number of planes built really don't tell us much.

The P-40 Did affect the conduct of the war by being available in numbers when and where needed in 1941-42-43. However it's continued combat survivability had as much to do with it's opponents stumbling and dropping the ball/s than any great properties of the P-40 it self.

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


----------



## Navalwarrior (Dec 13, 2018)

wuzak said:


> Typhoons were fighters that were later used as fighter-bombers.
> 
> Originally the Typhoon (and Tornado) were supposed to supersede the Hurricane *and* Spitfire.
> 
> ...


Resp:
We are also pitting one version of the P-40 (Merlin engined) against all variants of the Typhoon? To me it is clear to that the Typhoon was the better in the role of ground attack; performing splendly post D-Day of 6 June. If the Typhoon was used in the MED, I am not aware of it. Typhoon pilots had to use oxygen from the time of take off to touchdown, as fumes polluted their cockpits.


----------



## Schweik (Dec 13, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> Typhoons never got shoot up japanese twin bombers or other rather vulnerable targets in the CBI or South Pacific.
> Typhoons also never got shoot up Macchi 200s, SM 79s Italian transports or JU 52s or Me 323s.



Sorry all this is at best misleading at worst and attempt to deflect.

As I already pointed out, very few P-40F or L were deployed to the Pacific. One squadron, to be precise, compared to 17 (fifteen US and two RAF) squadrons in the Med. Most of the claims by the latter were for Bf 109s, Machi 202s and Fw 190s. Examination of records shows that some of their Macchi 202 claims were actually Macchi 205s. They did also claim maybe 50 JU 52s etc. in a couple of famous incidents but you can easily knock those off of the totals and the P-40F is still way ahead of the Typhoon. 



> The P-40 Did affect the conduct of the war by being available in numbers when and where needed in 1941-42-43. However it's continued combat survivability had as much to do with it's opponents stumbling and dropping the ball/s than any great properties of the P-40 it self.



Their opponents for this subtype in particular (as in many other Theaters) were some of the most elite formations using the best fighters in any Air Force in the world at that time. So I think this is a very misleading statement.

S

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Dan Fahey (Dec 13, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> Typhoons never got shoot up japanese twin bombers or other rather vulnerable targets in the CBI or South Pacific.
> Typhoons also never got shoot up Macchi 200s, SM 79s Italian transports or JU 52s or Me 323s.
> Germans for much of 1942 and 1943 didn't have to come and "play" with fighter sweeps over NW Europe unless they thought they had an actual advantage.
> 
> ...



Interesting topic....The P40 was used in every Theater of War extensively and a short while in England because the P40 had a much better range than any British Fighter at the time. Typhoon/Tempest were coulda, shouda, woulda planes that took a while to sort out. Its biggest benefit was carrying a heavy ordinance load and able to fight its way back. The last version with a Sleeve Valve Radial proved to be the best solution.

The P40 was well sorted out with the P36 and that means a lot considering WW2 lasted about 10 years and development of reliable aircraft were at a premium. There were a lot of missed opportunities that prevented some planes from being more successful. Most could-would be sorted out over time. However the pressures of war just did not have a lot of time. Especially when new technology, how to manage and integrate in a short amount of time confused some of the sorting out.

IMO the P40 was the best most versatile fighter we had. Used for just about every military situation from air superiority, escort, ground attack, Recon and reasonable fighter to get skills up to speed. A key reason the P40 was effective it had decent range which it allowed it to get to the fight and stay there. This is what hurt the P39, Hurricane and Spitfire with smaller internal fuel tanks. Logistics also had a huge benefit such as standardizing on the 50 cal, fuels, and radios, parts.

One of the interesting statistics and need to get find the documentation.
All the combatants seem to lose more planes due to training and non-combat accidents than lost in Combat.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Dec 13, 2018)

Schweik said:


> No offense but just about everything you said about the P-40 is wrong, they were quite successful as fighters in Theaters outside of NW Europe as measured for example by enemy aircraft shot down, or battles won. They just weren't good at high altitude. The last significant combat mission flown by Merlin engined P-40Ls that I know of was in September 1944.
> 
> One of the things that I'd really like to know is if the Typhoon really was a better air superiority fighter than a P-40F or L, I'd like to see evidence other than raw performance figures, like how many enemy aircraft were destroyed by Typhoon pilots. as for example high top speed with poor roll and turn characteristics isn't necessarily a recipe for success. The P-40 was not, incidentally, a contemporary of the Hurricane in terms of design, the Hurricane is an older design and peaked a bit earlier too, though all three aircraft, Hurricane, Typhoon and P-40 served during overlapping periods.
> 
> ...


Perhaps a better comparison would be between RAF Kittyhawks (3000) and RAF Typhoons (3300), 420 as opposed to 240 victories. The RAAF scored an additional 149 and the RNZAF 99. RAF Tomahawks scored another 77 victories in 2 of the 3 squadrons operating them in the Middle East. I would be surprised if a late 1942 Kittyhawk operating on over boost for 15/20 minutes at 1750/1780 hp was much slower than a Typhoon at low altitude. At the end of the war in the Pacific, RAAF Kittyhawks were scoring more victories than RAAF Spitfire VIII's. Pacific Victory Roll - Sep 43 - Jul 45

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Dec 13, 2018)

Kevin J said:


> Perhaps a better comparison would be between RAF Kittyhawks (3000) and RAF Typhoons (3300), 420 as opposed to 240 victories. The RAAF scored an additional 149 and the RNZAF 99. RAF Tomahawks scored another 77 victories in 2 of the 3 squadrons operating them in the Middle East. I would be surprised if a late 1942 Kittyhawk operating on over boost for 15/20 minutes at 1750/1780 hp was much slower than a Typhoon at low altitude. At the end of the war in the Pacific, RAAF Kittyhawks were scoring more victories than RAAF Spitfire VIII's. Pacific Victory Roll - Sep 43 - Jul 45



Thanks very interesting. Do you have sources for the RAF Kittyhawk and Tomahawk victories in the Middle East / Med? I have seen the Kittyhawk numbers but no Tomahawk numbers and wasn't sure if the 420 number was for all P-40 variants (seemed a bit low considering the USAAF units claimed 592 and were not in action as long and with fewer planes). Incidentally I believe there were more than three RAF squadrons using the Tomahawk if you include SAAF etc.

Interesting about the Australian context but not surprising, the ANZAC pilots generally seemed to like the P-40.


----------



## Kevin J (Dec 13, 2018)

Schweik said:


> Thanks very interesting. Do you have sources for the RAF Kittyhawk and Tomahawk victories in the Middle East / Med? I have seen the Kittyhawk numbers but no Tomahawk numbers and wasn't sure if the 420 number was for all P-40 variants (seemed a bit low considering the USAAF units claimed 592 and were not in action as long and with fewer planes). Incidentally I believe there were more than three RAF squadrons using the Tomahawk if you include SAAF etc.
> 
> Interesting about the Australian context but not surprising, the ANZAC pilots generally seemed to like the P-40.


Wikipedia for the Tomahawk victories in the Middle East, IIRC only about 300 were delivered there. For Kittyhawk victories Curtiss Kittyhawk.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 13, 2018)

Schweik said:


> Sorry all this is at best misleading at worst and attempt to deflect.
> 
> As I already pointed out, very few P-40F or L were deployed to the Pacific. One squadron, to be precise, compared to 17 (fifteen US and two RAF) squadrons in the Med. Most of the claims by the latter were for Bf 109s, Machi 202s and Fw 190s. Examination of records shows that some of their Macchi 202 claims were actually Macchi 205s. They did also claim maybe 50 JU 52s etc. in a couple of famous incidents but you can easily knock those off of the totals and the P-40F is still way ahead of the Typhoon.



How many Macchi 202s or 205 (262 built P-40s shot down how many?) were operating over NW Europe? 
Which theater got the newest 109s and 190s first? 

Sorry, this is still a flawed comparison.


----------



## Schweik (Dec 13, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> How many Macchi 202s or 205 (262 built P-40s shot down how many?) were operating over NW Europe?
> Which theater got the newest 109s and 190s first?
> 
> Sorry, this is still a flawed comparison.



Well, at this point I guess it has to be right ? The numbers don't look good for the Tiffy.

As far as I know the Med got the newest Bf 109s as soon as they were available. Fw 190s took a bit longer, they weren't there until Nov 1942. But the most intense fighting was from about Oct 42 (El Alamein) through Jan 44 (Anzio).

From everything I have read MC 202 was considered equivalent to Bf 109F and MC 205 to 109G. You are saying they are heavily inferior?

I think most of the US claims were against BF 109s anyway though certainly a substantial number of them were Macchis. Maybe 1/3 if I had to guess. The Italians didn't operate on as many days of the month apparently due to supply issues.

Please note the Italians were also of course out of the fight by 3 Sept. 1943.


----------



## pbehn (Dec 13, 2018)

By mid 1944 neither were a front line fighter, post D Day the Typhoon played its part in ground attack, especially at Falaise. The role of Tank killer is overstated but 4 x 20mm cannon was devastating against almost everything except tanks.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Milosh (Dec 13, 2018)

Tiffie claims

Bf109: 54 destroyed, 8 probable
Fw190: 94, 16
Do217: 23, 2
Ju88: 20, 1

Total: 246.5, 27

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


----------



## Schweik (Dec 13, 2018)

94 Fw 190 claims is a lot, I'd say that carries a bit of extra weight.

I don't have the total victory claims breakdown for all P-40Fs, but for *one of the 5 US fighter groups *it is available here

As you can see, for the P-40 it shows 133 aircraft which further breaks down to:

Bf 109 - 95
M.C. 202* -26
Me 323 - 7
Fi. 156 -3
Ju 52 -2

By the time this particular unit encountered Fw 190s they had already converted to P-47s.

These are all basically from January to July 1943, during which period they lost 17 fighters in combat. As you can see they mostly claimed fighters shot down. Only 5 transport planes out of 133 and no bombers. This fighter group was attached to a bomb wing and their main mission was to provide escort to three B-26 squadrons.

*(some of these were actually M.C. 205s and some were Re 2002s)


----------



## DarrenW (Dec 13, 2018)

Schweik said:


> I didn't think of it until after I stared the thread, then I looked and couldn't see how to do it. Do you know how?



I was hoping there was an edit button or something after the fact, but maybe not. If a moderator stops in he can most likely make it a reality for us....at least I think so.


----------



## Schweik (Dec 13, 2018)

DarrenW said:


> I was hoping there was an edit button or something after the fact, but maybe not. If a moderator stops in he can most likely make it a reality for us....at least I think so.



That would be cool - I'm 100% ok with making this thread a poll I just couldn't figure out how to after the fact.


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 13, 2018)

Kevin J said:


> I would be surprised if a late *1942 Kittyhawk operating on over boost for 15/20 minutes at 1750/1780 hp was much slower than a Typhoon at low altitude.* At the end of the war in the Pacific, RAAF Kittyhawks were scoring more victories than RAAF Spitfire VIII's. Pacific Victory Roll - Sep 43 - Jul 45




Ah yes, the famous 1750hp P-40s. 
chart for a P-40N using 57 in of boost shows a sea level speed of 315mph, increasing to about 335 at 5000 ft and maxing out at 352mph at 9200ft a t which point the boost starts to drop. this is for the later 9.60 geared engine. The earlier 8.80 geared engines (the only ones that could pull that 70in-72in number and survive.) show a somewhat different progression

Yes they could make 1750HP (depending on air temp and pressure at sea level on a given day) while in high speed forward flight. 
But a chart for the very similar -35 engine in the P-39 shows the engine making 1600hp at 2500ft and about 1480 hp at 5000ft without RAM. at 9000ft it was making 1260hp. 
The 1750hp or anything close is only available at sea level in level flight (not climbing) and at full speed.

If you have just taken off and folded the landing gear you do NOT have 1750hp unless you overspeed the engine.
If you are doing even a 1.4 G turn you do NOT have 1750hp unless you overspeed the engine.
If you are doing any but most gentile of climbs you do NOT have 1750hp unless you overspeed the engine.

To get 70in MAP from 30in ambient air the supercharger has to compress the air 2.33 times.
At 3,000ft the air (standard 59 degree F day) is 26.81in so multiplying by 2.33 gives you 62.55in of manifold pressure.
at 4,300ft and air pressure of 24.22in multiplying the air pressure by 2.33 gives us 56.51 of manifold pressure and indeed the -39 engine in the P-40E was rated for 56in at 4300ft when approved for WEP. and gave 1490hp. above the altitude the supercharger simply cannot deliver much more air unless you really overspeed the engine, a few hundred RPM won't even do the trick. 

There is 3-5000ft low altitude and there is _Prop kicking up sea water/ have to climb to clear a sand dune_ low altitude. 

The actual utility (number of times) P-40 pilots could actually use manifold pressures in excess of the WEP ratings seems a bit lower than some people think.


----------



## Schweik (Dec 13, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> Ah yes, the famous 1750hp P-40s.
> 
> There is 3-5000ft low altitude and there is _Prop kicking up sea water/ have to climb to clear a sand dune_ low altitude.
> 
> The actual utility (number of times) P-40 pilots could actually use manifold pressures in excess of the WEP ratings seems a bit lower than some people think.



Well considering that the original WEP setting on that engine was supposed to be 45" Hg and the test you refer to was at 56", the Allison memo mentions their agreeing to 60", mentions units in the field routinely using 66" and 72", and the Mustang I report mentions 70" as a routine practice for sustained periods of time by RAF pilots (and also specifically recommends increasing the official boost limit to 56"), I would suggest that you are somewhat overstating your case. Obviously they routinely overboosted, and clearly overboosting in the field prompted the Air Force, the aircraft company and the engine company to adjust their standards higher. The only real question is how much and when did they start.

Could a P-40 outrun a Typhoon at Sea Level through overboosting? I have no idea I wouldn't bet on it. But 72" Hg is quite a bit more power than 56", producing about 200 more hp from what I understand, and no doubt it was useful even if it dipped slightly to a 'mere' extra 100 or 150 hp during a turn or a climb. According to the same couple of P-40N tests you are referring to they were still getting substantial boost right up to 10,000 feet so it's hardly something you can only do while mowing grass. That 1750 / 1780 number represents the top limit clearly, but the larger point - that they were not limited to the 45" Hg / 1150 hp that the manual states seems to somehow get lost in these discussions. Most overboosting was probably up to around the 1400-1600 hp level at anywhere between Sea Level and 9,000 or 10,000 ft depending on the exact variant and engine in question.


As for utility, I'll spell it out -

1) Trying to disengage (often after a Split S and a dive) from enemy fighters while being chased back to base, as described in repeated examples by US and RAF pilots
2) Extending after a dive so as to counter attack also described by the same pilots
3) Chasing enemy fighters in a long flight as they flee back to_ their_ base.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Dec 13, 2018)

Schweik said:


> 2000 P-40 F and L produced, with 592 US claims plus about another 50 by two RAF (260 RAF and 3 RAAF) squadrons operating them as Kittyhawk IIs. I don't know how many were claimed by the 1 squadron flying them in the Pacific but probably no more than a couple of dozen more. But lets say roughly 650 claims mostly between August 1942 and August 1943, with a trickle of a few more right up to September 1944. Operationally US P-40F units played a major role in defeating the Axis air forces in Tunisia, in capturing Pantelleria (it was actually an unsanctioned drop of "surrender to the 325th FG" note dropped on the island that seemed to induce the final surrender) the invasion of Sicily and Italy, and the survival of the Anzio beach-head. Not even talking about important victories by other P-40 types like at Milne Bay the Kokoda trail.
> 
> 3000 Tiffys produced, 250 claims between 1941 and 1945, of which 30 were V-1s (or were those over?) and 3 for Me 262s. Lots of Fw 190s in the number which they helped deter from dominating the English Channel and terrorizing Southern England with Jabo raids.



2000 P-40F and L were produced in a relatively short time, using the US allocation of the initial licence production of the Merlin (the original order was for 6000 for the UK and 3000 for the US). production was probably done in a year (between 1941 and 1942).

3000+ Typhoons were built between 1941 and 1945. The majority probably after the switch to full time ground effect aircraft.

Even then, many Typhoons never made it to front line units. 

I'm sure that 30 V-1s aren't counted in the 250 victory claims.

Me 262s were likely from a chance encounter, rather than deliberately hunting them.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 13, 2018)

Schweik said:


> From everything I have read MC 202 was considered equivalent to Bf 109F and MC 205 to 109G. You are saying they are heavily inferior?
> .


The MC 202 used licence built version of the engine the Germans were getting rid of about the time of the BoB. Most MC 202s carried a pair or 12.7mm Breda-Safat machine guns that fired (if they were lucky) 700rpm each, this was a much less powerful round than the US .50 cal and was pretty much a licensed or parallel version of the British .5in round. 

Only a small percentage carried a single 7.7mm machine gun in each wing.

The plane may have been streamlined and handled very well but it was trying to use an engine and armement equivalent (or less than) to a P-40B in 1942/43. 

now which 109F are comparing it to. The F-2 or the F-4 with the engine restrictions lifted? which engine cannon, the 15mm or the 20mm?
The MC 205 was good airplane but again, with only 262 built and 177 of those were before the Italian surrender, It simply didn't exist in enough numbers to really affect things one way or the other.


----------



## Schweik (Dec 13, 2018)

wuzak said:


> 2000 P-40F and L were produced in a relatively short time, using the US allocation of the initial licence production of the Merlin (the original order was for 6000 for the UK and 3000 for the US). production was probably done in a year (between 1941 and 1942).
> 
> 3000+ Typhoons were built between 1941 and 1945. The majority probably after the switch to full time ground effect aircraft.
> 
> ...




All fair points. I figured given the problems they were having a lot of them would have been grounded for a while. 

However it's worth pointing out that the majority of those claims for the P-40F/L were made in a period of about 8 months, basically winter 1942 to Summer 1943.


----------



## Glider (Dec 13, 2018)

At the end of the day if I had to choose one over the other it would clearly be the Typhoon. Its speed, dive, firepower, protection and payload were all considerably superior to the P40. Neither were great at altitude and I think the range was similar to the other.

It's simply no contest

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DarrenW (Dec 13, 2018)

Schweik said:


> That would be cool - I'm 100% ok with making this thread a poll I just couldn't figure out how to after the fact.



It's an excellent discussion, would be nice to see how people would vote after seeing all the "facts" presented.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 13, 2018)

Schweik said:


> Well considering that the *original WEP setting on that engine was supposed to be 45" Hg* and the test you refer to was at 56", the Allison memo mentions their agreeing to 60", mentions units in the field routinely using 66" and 72", and the Mustang I report mentions 70" as a routine practice for sustained periods of time by RAF pilots (and also specifically recommends increasing the official boost limit to 56"), I would suggest that you are somewhat overstating your case. Obviously they routinely overboosted, and clearly overboosting in the field prompted the Air Force, the aircraft company and the engine company to adjust their standards higher. The only real question is how much and when did they start.


Flat out wrong. The engine was rated at 44.6in in military rating. Military was *NOT* WEP. WEP came later. Military power settings may have had time limits but as long the time limits were adhered to (or even vaugle respected) there were no notions in the log books and no extra maintenance procedures needed. EVERY use of WEP power required a notation on the aircraft log book and decisions by crew chiefs and squadron technical officers as to more frequent spark plug changes and oil inspections. 

Again the 70 in or 72 in requires the max forward speed the plane can do and surprise! the Mustang is much faster and can generate a bit more pressure in the intake duct than the P-40 due to the higher speed. Trying to duplicate Mustang max pressures in a P-40 might require higher rpm of the engine. 



> Could a P-40 outrun a Typhoon at Sea Level through overboosting? I have no idea I wouldn't bet on it. But 72" Hg is quite a bit more power than 56", producing about 200 more hp from what I understand, and no doubt it was useful even if it dipped slightly to a 'mere' extra 100 or 150 hp during a turn or a climb. *According to the same couple of P-40N tests you are referring to they were still getting substantial boost right up to 10,000 feet so it's hardly something you can only do while mowing grass. That 1750 / 1780 number represents the top limit clearly, but the larger point - that they were not limited to the 45" Hg / 1150 hp that the manual states seems to somehow get lost in these discussions.* Most overboosting was probably up to around the 1400-1600 hp level at anywhere between Sea Level and 9,000 or 10,000 ft depending on the exact variant and engine in question.



smart bet the Typhoon, even running at 7lbs boost was 25mph faster than a P-40 using 56in at sea level, 

how ever the bolded part is the main part of the argument, I quoted a test of P-40N using an engine with the 9.60 supercharger gears. this changed the level at which 56in or 50 in or even 52 in could be maintained by 4-5000ft. The D-Es and Ks with the 8.80 supercharger gears are more in the grass cutting territory. you don't get it both ways. The engine in the N could make 1410 hp at 9,500ft at 57in. it could also make 1125hp at 15,500ft at 44.5in vs the 1150hp at 11,700-12,000ft that the older engines made. What the engine in the N could NOT do was run at 70in or close to at sea level without a much increased chance of blowing the engine up. Since the impeller was spinning about 2400rpm faster it was churning the air more and heating it to higher temperatures than the 8.80 gears at the same boost level. Please remember that the power required and the heating goes up with the square of the impeller speed. that change from 8.80 to 9.60 required about 19% more power to the supercharger and of that power about 30% went directly to heating the intake charge, not performing useful work, like compressing the air, which heated the air too. 

The fact they were not limited to 45" is not getting lost, it is getting buried by the claims that P-40s could use 60-70 inches at all kinds of altitudes that were impossible with the P-40D-E-K. 

Look at the K, with it's stronger engine and slightly modified supercharger it was allowed 60 in (1580hp) at 2500ft. Even if the pilot exceeded that "allowance" the supercharger simply wouldn't supply much more than 60in at that altitude. 62-63in maybe? or maybe due to other changes it was wide open at 2500ft and power was going to fall as it climbed It certainly wasn't going to give you even 1400hp at 9,000ft.


----------



## Schweik (Dec 13, 2018)

The original 45" setting was mandated for 5 minutes, to me that is WEP. That is why the P-40E is typically listed as having 1,150 hp instead of the ~1,480 hp that it would have at 56". The P-40N test that both of us keep quoting is also one of the only official tests done at WEP that we have access to at any rate. So again the top speed, initial climb rate etc. for the early P-40s were always listed based on that 1,150 hp setting.

The V-1710-73 used by the P-40K was just a V-1710-39 with a strengthened crankshaft and crank case - culmination of a series of strengthening measures which started midway through the -39 production run, obviously to accommodate the overboosting going on in the field as mentioned by the Allison memo etc.

1580 hp at 2500' was very helpful, clearly, for P-40K pilots for the reasons I already outlined in my previous post. Clearly very helpful given the number of aces who flew that particular variant. Of particular value in Russia where almost all the combat took place below 5,000 ft, as well as in a lot of the fighting in the Pacific, Med and CBI where attack planes and dive bombers and so on were the focus of the fighters.

However _this_ thread is about P-40F and L so it's really Merlin XX / Packard V-1650 that matters.


----------



## pbehn (Dec 13, 2018)

The Typhoon was restricted to 400MPH with rocket rails or bombs attached.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Dec 13, 2018)

Navalwarrior said:


> Resp:
> We are also pitting one version of the P-40 (Merlin engined) against all variants of the Typhoon? To me it is clear to that the Typhoon was the better in the role of ground attack; performing splendly post D-Day of 6 June. If the Typhoon was used in the MED, I am not aware of it. Typhoon pilots had to use oxygen from the time of take off to touchdown, as fumes polluted their cockpits.



Ans:
"All variants" (production) of the Typhoon were the IA, with 12 x 0.303" mgs, and the IB with 4 x 20mm. And maybe an FR.IB tactical reconnaissance variant.

There were only a few IAs.

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


----------



## DarrenW (Dec 13, 2018)

pbehn said:


> The Typhoon was restricted to 400MPH with rocket rails or bombs attached.



In a dive, level flight, or both? And is that indicated or true airspeed? I'm just trying to get an idea of it's real-world limitations.


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 13, 2018)

Schweik said:


> The original 45" setting was mandated for 5 minutes, to me that is WEP.



doesn't matter if that is what you think, that is not the way it was. Many engines had military rating, some never got a WEP rating.
Now please note that not nations rated their engines the same and not all nations test their engines the same.

for instance in 1939 the US required an engine to pass a 150 hour test while the British wanted 153 hours and the French wanted 113.5 hours.

However the US wanted 10 hours at take-off power (which was sometimes the same as military but not always) while the British were satisfied with 9 hours and the French with 3 hours.
The US wanted 50 hours at the "rated" power (max continuous which for an Allison was 1000hp) the British wanted 42 hours and the French wanted 10 hours. there were sometimes requirements for running the engine at an overspeed setting (but not necessarily making more power) to make sure the engine didn't destroy itself in a dive with the propeller overspeeding the engine and the rest of the hours were spent at 70-90% of the "rated" power.

The take-off power (or military) was done several ways and was often up to manufacturer, at least in the US. Usually it was done in 5 minute increments with a cooling off period between each 5 minute segment (might be 3 minutes of some engines) . The cooling off was done at cruise (70-90% of rated) power. Sometimes the manufacturer could request longer periods of time at the high power settings. It was bit of a gamble. If the engine broke during this government test it was up to the manufacturer to fix it and the test would be delayed during repairs.

Obviously air cooled engines might want to take advantage of any cooling breaks they could get.

US WEP ratings as they came about in 1942 called for a test engine to complete 7 1/2 hours at the desired WEP rating done in 5 minute intervals with appropriate cooling off periods (running at cruise). Obviously this built in a fairly good safety margin but it assured that the worst engine out of a production batch of hundreds would probably stand up to the WEP rating in service (only one engine had to pass the test).

I don't know if the US changed the testing procedure at a later date. I have seen engine charts that give 15 minute time limit to military power and 5 minutes to WEP.

Now please note that the Military rating didn't exist in the US until after the start of WW II in Europe. One many early war engines the Military power was the same RPM and manifold pressure used for take-off (but not always).

Some of the early export aircraft were fitted with commercial engines and these engines were often called by their max continuous rating. AS in an 850hp Wright Cyclone (which was good for 1000hp for take off)

The British and Americans didn't rate their engines quite the same and it's gets more complicated the more countries you try to bring into the mix.

US engines were rated at max continuous (rated power) for either 0ne hour or until the fuel ran out (joking, but some engines had no time limit on max continuous) the US had no climb rating, it was either military/take-off or max continuous. the British had a 30 minute rating for climb and then a max cruise or max rich cruise.

and once again you have to consider the fuel. The -33 Allison (and the -39) were originally designed and tested using US 100 octane fuel which had no rich rating it was 100/100 in theory but in practice it could vary from 100/97 to 100/105 or so. Not kidding, a few batches were later tested and found to be under 100 when running rich. fuel testing was done only at lean mixture at this time. The performance number scale and ways to measure rich mixture response only came into being in either late 1940 or early 1941?
The British knew they could use more boost with their fuel than with using US fuel but they didn't really know how much more since they couldn't measure the fuel differences from batch to batch or specify the actual response they wanted from the manufacturers. BoB fuel varied from around 100/115 to around 100/120.

Long winded way of saying until you had 100/125 or 100/130 fuel you had about zero chance of rating an engine using high boost for WEP. You could run an Allison -33 or -39 at full military power on US 100/100 octane fuel.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## eagledad (Dec 13, 2018)

Gentlemen,

Please find attached an Australian report on the P-40N. Toward the end of the report, there is data for the P-40N-10 at 57" mp
As an aside. from the 325th FG website, it appears that the group also flew P-40K's along with the F/L.
Eagledad

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Dec 13, 2018)

Thanks a million, that is a magnificent document. I recommend uploading it to ww2aircraftperformance.org. Really helpful, it has a lot of detail there!


----------



## Schweik (Dec 13, 2018)

eagledad said:


> As an aside. from the 325th FG website, it appears that the group also flew P-40K's along with the F/L.
> Eagledad



They did also use a few P-40Ks for a while, the 57th FG also used some in one squadron for a few weeks. The issue was replacement Merlin engines for the P-40F/L, apparently the American army hadn't thought to send any. Eventually the RAF scrounged up enough Merlin XX (basically identical to the Packard -1650 in the P-40F) and they straitened that out. 

This was also part of the reason why they (325 and 57th FG) switched over to P-47s


----------



## pbehn (Dec 13, 2018)

DarrenW said:


> In a dive, level flight, or both? And is that indicated or true airspeed? I'm just trying to get an idea of it's real-world limitations.


Its on the Wiki page, pilots have referred to it being stable attacking targets at 400MPH so I would assume level flight IAS.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 13, 2018)

Schweik said:


> They did also use a few P-40Ks for a while, the 57th FG also used some in one squadron for a few weeks. The issue was replacement Merlin engines for the P-40F/L, *apparently the American army hadn't thought to send any.* Eventually the RAF scrounged up enough Merlin XX (basically identical to the Packard -1650 in the P-40F) and they straitened that out.
> 
> This was also part of the reason why they (325 and 57th FG) switched over to P-47s



The Americans had only procured about 20% more spare engines than airframes which was an abnormally small amount. What they did with the spare engines I have no idea (held them in storage or shipped them late?) Due to the lower air intake on the Merlinit is thought (no proof?) that the Merlins didn't last as long in dusty/sandy conditions compared to the Allisons which further hurt the spares situation. Most sources claim (but could be wrong) that the British broke down up to 600 Merlin's to provide spare parts for overhaul rather than supplied replacement engines (US Merlin 1650-1s used a different propshaft spline for one thing than the British XX engines did. I believe it also used a different carburetor. )

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DarrenW (Dec 13, 2018)

pbehn said:


> Its on the Wiki page, pilots have referred to it being stable attacking targets at 400MPH so I would assume level flight IAS.


Thanks for the info.


----------



## Greyman (Dec 13, 2018)

The Typhoon was initially limited to:
- 525 mph IAS when diving​- 400 mph IAS when diving with bombs​
This was later lifted to:
- 480 mph IAS when carrying RP or rails only​- 450 mph IAS when carrying bombs​- 400 mph IAS when carrying other stores​
I don't know the date of change, but I'd say the absence of a figure for RP in the first set of limits is a clue.

**EDIT* for what it's worth, the 1943 AAF P-40 manual (E, F, L, K, M and N) says the aircraft is 'red-lined' at 480 mph IAS, and says not to dive faster than 350 mph IAS with a bomb.

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


----------



## Stig1207 (Dec 14, 2018)

Schweik said:


> These are all basically from January to July 1943, during which period they lost 17 fighters in combat



There are also 12 lost to unknown causes here

Another source posted by Eagledad in another thread gave 481 USAAF P-40 claims in the MTO.

Reactions: Optimistic Optimistic:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Dec 14, 2018)

Greyman said:


> The Typhoon was initially limited to:
> - 525 mph IAS when diving​- 400 mph IAS when diving with bombs​
> This was later lifted to:
> - 480 mph IAS when carrying RP or rails only​- 450 mph IAS when carrying bombs​- 400 mph IAS when carrying other stores​
> ...



The P-40 dive speed limit was basically whatever transonic speed was at the given altitude. They could out dive any aircraft in the war.

This P-40 (E I would guess) made 661 mph in a dive

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Airframes (Dec 14, 2018)

A couple of clarifications regarding the 'faults' with the Typhoon.

1. *Ditching. *Although the large radiator housing played a part, the actual dangerous to lethal ditching 'qualities' were the fault of the wing. Ditching trials with the Tempest (same engine and radiator housing), showed that the aircraft was no worse than any other, and better than many when ditched.
2. *Engine Reliability. *Once the valve and other engine problems had been sorted on the later series engines, reliability (and fire problems) were more or less eradicated, although the Sabre was still a complex engine to maintain, especially in the field. The carbon monoxide into the cockpit problem, although reduced, was not fully resolved, and pilots were advised to remain on oxygen during all flight aspects.
3. *Empennage weakness. *After the loss of a number of Typhoons due to the tail unit breaking away, particularly in a high speed dive, and with at least one pilot surviving to describe what had happened, initial modification involved the reinforcing, internally, of the transport joint at the tail, by the addition of flange plates over the frame joints, and the fitting of external 'fish plates' over the joint circumference. This was found to (almost) cure the problem, but vibration, sometimes severe, was still experienced under certain flight conditions. Further trials and investigation suggested control surface buffeting, and the fitting (including retro-fitting to earlier airframes) of the larger Tempest tail planes and elevators cured the problem.

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


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 14, 2018)

Airframes said:


> A couple of clarifications regarding the 'faults' with the Typhoon.
> 
> 1. *Ditching. *Although the large radiator housing played a part, the actual dangerous to lethal ditching 'qualities' were the fault of the wing. Ditching trials with the Tempest (same engine and radiator housing), showed that the aircraft was no worse than any other, and better than many when ditched.
> 2. *Engine Reliability. *Once the valve and other engine problems had been sorted on the later series engines, reliability (and fire problems) were more or less eradicated, although the Sabre was still a complex engine to maintain, especially in the field. The carbon monoxide into the cockpit problem, although reduced, was not fully resolved, and pilots were advised to remain on oxygen during all flight aspects.
> 3. *Empennage weakness. *After the loss of a number of Typhoons due to the tail unit breaking away, particularly in a high speed dive, and with at least one pilot surviving to describe what had happened, initial modification involved the reinforcing, internally, of the transport joint at the tail, by the addition of flange plates over the frame joints, and the fitting of external 'fish plates' over the joint circumference. This was found to (almost) cure the problem, but vibration, sometimes severe, was still experienced under certain flight conditions. Further trials and investigation suggested control surface buffeting, and the fitting (including retro-fitting to earlier airframes) of the larger Tempest tail planes and elevators cured the problem.



There may have been a component of vibration from the airscrew traveling through the airframe and affecting the joint/tail. Many of the later Typhoons also got a 4 blade airscrew. although there were a few problems with this.


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 14, 2018)

Schweik said:


> The P-40 dive speed limit was basically whatever transonic speed was at the given altitude. They could out dive any aircraft in the war.
> 
> This P-40 (E I would guess) made 661 mph in a dive




You are, of course, joking.

I have seen some old books published during the war that claim the P-40 could do over 400mph in level flight (and not the Q).

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Dec 14, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> You are, of course, joking.
> 
> I have seen some old books published during the war that claim the P-40 could do over 400mph in level flight (and not the Q).



And I've seen plenty claiming that the P-40 was "unmaneuverable and slow but rugged" so what?

Nope, not joking. I have no reason to assume that video is made up. They routinely dove to over 500 mph TAS including in training - the English noted this early on with the Tomahawk. I doubt many combat pilots pushed the limits as far as the two tests mentioned in the video (as it would be extremely risky) but they could if they had to. The risk would be to pass the sound barrier in a dive, same as with a P-51 or P-47 etc.

Just because you don't understand it doesn't negate it.


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 14, 2018)

Schweik said:


> And I've seen plenty claiming that the P-40 was "unmaneuverable and slow but rugged" so what?
> 
> Nope, not joking. I have no reason to assume that video is made up. They routinely dove to over 500 mph TAS including in training - the English noted this early on with the Tomahawk. I doubt many combat pilots pushed the limits as far as the two tests mentioned in the video (as it would be extremely risky) but they could if they had to. The risk would be to pass the sound barrier in a dive, same as with a P-51 or P-47 etc.
> 
> Just because you don't understand it doesn't negate it.


 AIr speed indicators were notoriously unreliable at higher than normal speeds. Many planes 'recorded' some astonishingly high dive speeds in WW II 

Just for laughs figure it out. 661 mph at 5,000ft (got to leave room to pull out ) is Mach .884 at 10,000ft it is mach .899 

From wike so......
on the Spitfire. ......

Beginning in late 1943, high-speed diving trials were undertaken at Farnborough to investigate the handling characteristics of aircraft travelling at speeds near the sound barrier (i.e., the onset of compressibility effects). Because it had the highest limiting Mach number of any aircraft at that time, a Spitfire XI was chosen to take part in these trials. Due to the high altitudes necessary for these dives, a fully feathering Rotol propeller was fitted to prevent overspeeding. During these trials, _EN409_, flown by Squadron Leader J. R. Tobin, reached 606 mph (975 km/h) (Mach 0.891) in a 45° dive. 


In April 1944, the same aircraft suffered engine failure in another dive while being flown by Squadron Leader Anthony F. Martindale, Royal Air Force Volunteer Reserve, when the propeller and reduction gear broke off. The dive put the aircraft to Mach 0.92, the fastest ever recorded in a piston-engined aircraft, but when the propeller came off, the Spitfire, now tail-heavy, zoom-climbed back to altitude. Martindale blacked out under the 11 g loading, but when he resumed consciousness, he found the aircraft at about 40,000 feet with its (originally straight) wings now slightly swept back.[125] Martindale successfully glided the Spitfire 20 mi (32 km) back to the airfield and landed safely.[126] Martindale was awarded the Air Force Cross for his exploits.[127]

RAE Bedford (RAE) modified a Spitfire for high-speed testing of the stabilator (then known as the "flying tail") of the Miles M.52 supersonic research aircraft. RAE test pilot Eric Brown stated that he tested this successfully during October and November 1944, attaining Mach 0.86 in a dive.


Then look at all the troubles the P-38 and even the P-47 had with mach tuck. 

or from Bill Marshall:
The fastest I Have ever heard of a 51 dive was an RAF test in which a MK IV was at .82-.85 M (instrumentation a little fuzzy) and the aircraft had so many wringled panels and fastners fail that the a/c was written off. That was Far above the Placard speed. 

But hey, the P-40 was such an under appreciated wonder plane that it could out dive most early jets.

How do we know? because war time propaganda newsreels tell us so

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


----------



## Schweik (Dec 14, 2018)

Stig1207 said:


> There are also 12 lost to unknown causes here



Yes but on the other hand, in Shores MAW you can see that probably a third to half of the combat losses were due to flak (more to flak in 1944 as we previously discussed), and probably half of the "other" losses were on days when the Germans did not make any air to air claims. Engine trouble was mentioned frequently.



> Another source posted by Eagledad in another thread gave 481 USAAF P-40 claims in the MTO.



 The 592 number is the correct number. We may not know how many they actually shot down,* but we do know how many they _claimed_. My sources for 592 victory claims for USAAF P-40 units in the Med is from American Victory Roll page 111 and P-40 Warhawk Aces of the MTO (Osprey), page 87, which helpfully breaks down the victories by squadron. You can read it yourself here

S

*MAW gets us a little closer and can explain it for certain days but for some other days it's really impossible to tell who got what kill.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Dec 14, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> How do we know? because war time propaganda newsreels tell us so



You have a history in our discussions in this forum of doubting any historical evidence which doesn't fit your own models of how things work. You do seem quite knowledgable on things like engines and superchargers, but am I supposed to trust your expertise on everything to do with the Air War over all other evidence ?

If you think this is so ludicrous, post some data that contradicts it.

All pilots who flew the P-40 noted it's high dive speed and in fact, diving out of combat (usually a vertical dive sometimes following Split S) became the standard escape maneuver both against Japanese and German fighters. I have never seen any mention of compressibility issues with the P-40 of the type encountered by the P-38. Have you? The only limit or issue described by pilots was either the need to use heavy rudder pressure to counteract the torque at high speeds, and / or the need to adjust trim settings quickly during dive and subsequent pull out.

I spoke to a pilot at an air show two months ago who told me he was making 400 mph in shallow dives during fly bys at the airshow, at 25" Hg and 2500 rpm no less (basically cruise settings) and he told me the fastest he'd flown that P-40N was 500 mph in a dive. And that is a 75 year old Warbird.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Dec 14, 2018)

Here is a record of the test, done at Wright field The pilots name was Bob or Robert Fausel, the aircraft was a P-40D.

He was apparently a test pilot on contract to Curtiss. This is a photo of him second from the left







Test & Research Pilots, Flight Test Engineers: Robert W. Fausel 1914-1998

Newspaper article 

Madera Tribune 12 July 1941 — California Digital Newspaper Collection


----------



## BiffF15 (Dec 14, 2018)

Schweik said:


> You have a history in our discussions in this forum of doubting any historical evidence which doesn't fit your own models of how things work. You do seem quite knowledgable on things like engines and superchargers, but am I supposed to trust your expertise on everything to do with the Air War over all other evidence ?
> 
> If you think this is so ludicrous, post some data that contradicts it.
> 
> ...



Schweik,

To concur with SR6 I have also read many times about the airspeed indicators inaccuracies. I have also read where the Spit had the highest MachCrit of the WW2 fighters. It is very likely that Curtiss did not account for airspeed installation errors or inaccuracies for that newsreel clip. 

The airspeed indicator probably indicated what they advertised, but that doesn’t mean it was accurate.

Cheers,
Biff

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Dec 14, 2018)

BiffF15 said:


> Schweik,
> 
> To concur with SR6 I have also read many times about the airspeed indicators inaccuracies. I have also read where the Spit had the highest MachCrit of the WW2 fighters. It is very likely that Curtiss did not account for airspeed installation errors or inaccuracies for that newsreel clip.
> 
> ...



I agree 100% that 1930's - 1940's airspeed indicators were routinely way off, (I would assume modern ones are potentially better but you tell me) but presumably Curtiss engineers supervising the test were aware of it. Now it is also quite possible that 660 mph was one measure (IAS) and the TAS was known to be different, but they published the former instead for propaganda purposes, though I thought that IAS was usually lower than TAS depending on altitude and very generally speaking (though again, you tell me)

The only way to be sure would be to find the document of the test but googling failed for me, all I could determine was that the guy was a real test pilot and that they did do some kind of test at Wright field with a P-40D, which followed another previous test with a slightly lower speed result.

My point though was that the P-40 really didn't have any limits to dive speed apparently accept the dangers of approaching mach. I've yet to see any evidence to contradict that.

If anyone knows the real mach crit for any version of the P-40 please post it. The manual indicates a dive speed limit of 480 mph but that is obviously over-conservative as with so many other things in the manual.

S


----------



## rochie (Dec 14, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> AIr speed indicators were notoriously unreliable at higher than normal speeds. Many planes 'recorded' some astonishingly high dive speeds in WW II
> 
> Just for laughs figure it out. 661 mph at 5,000ft (got to leave room to pull out ) is Mach .884 at 10,000ft it is mach .899
> 
> ...


also it should be noted that Martindale made a normal wheels down landing after all that drama, not bad for the fragile spitfire !

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


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 14, 2018)

If the P-40 was truly travelling at 661mph, it was already in a transonic envelope, which starts at Mach .72 (600mph).
Even the Me262 was limited to Mach .86 (659mph) because of transonic compression on control surfaces.

On 13 November 1942, two test pilots were said to have passed the speed of sound in dives from just under 50,000 feet in P-47Cs, reaching 725mph in their dives. However, in 1944, a P-47D made a power dive from 40,000 feet and the P-47 refused to go beyond Mach .86 even before hitting denser air at 20,000 (+/-) feet.

I have absolutely no doubt that the P-40's IAS was showing 600+ mph in a dive, but as the speeds increase, so does the pressure at the pitot head, giving a false reading.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Dan Fahey (Dec 14, 2018)

DELETED Duplicate


----------



## Dan Fahey (Dec 14, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> Typhoons never got shoot up japanese twin bombers or other rather vulnerable targets in the CBI or South Pacific.
> Typhoons also never got shoot up Macchi 200s, SM 79s Italian transports or JU 52s or Me 323s.
> Germans for much of 1942 and 1943 didn't have to come and "play" with fighter sweeps over NW Europe unless they thought they had an actual advantage.
> 
> ...



Interesting topic....The P40 was used in every Theater of War extensively and for a short while in England because the P40 had a much better range than any British Fighter. Typhoon/Tempest were coulda, shouda, woulda planes that took a while to sort out. The last version with a Sleeve Valve Radial proved to be the best solution.

The P40 was well sorted out with the P36 and that means a lot considering WW2 lasted about 10 years and development of reliable aircraft were at a premium. There were a lot of missed opportunities that prevented some planes from being more successful. Most could-would be sorted out over time. However the pressures of war just did not have a lot of time.

IMO the P40 was the best most versatile fighter we had. Used for just about every military situation from air superiority, ground attack, Recon and reasonable fighter to get skills up to speed. Logistics had a huge benefit as the US standardized on the 50 cal, fuels, and radios, parts.


Schweik said:


> I agree 100% that 1930's - 1940's airspeed indicators were routinely way off, (I would assume modern ones are potentially better but you tell me) but presumably Curtiss engineers supervising the test were aware of it. Now it is also quite possible that 660 mph was one measure (IAS) and the TAS was known to be different, but they published the former instead for propaganda purposes, though I thought that IAS was usually lower than TAS depending on altitude and very generally speaking (though again, you tell me)
> 
> The only way to be sure would be to find the document of the test but googling failed for me, all I could determine was that the guy was a real test pilot and that they did do some kind of test at Wright field with a P-40D, which followed another previous test with a slightly lower speed result.
> 
> ...



P40 required retrimming when it got into serious dive…. think it was neutral at about 250mph..

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 14, 2018)

Schweik said:


> You have a history in our discussions in this forum of doubting any historical evidence which doesn't fit your own models of how things work. You do seem quite knowledgable on things like engines and superchargers, but am I supposed to trust your expertise on everything to do with the Air War over all other evidence ?
> 
> If you think this is so ludicrous, post some data that contradicts it.
> 
> ...



We are on other sides of the spectrum, you doubt anything that contradicts your own view of how things worked, even if your view contradicts physics.
Or you stretch and impose your view on an interview or quote that doesn't say exactly what you think it says.

I posted some data from the Spitfire that suggests that high mach number dives were rare and dangerous at speeds below the Curtiss claim. You choose to ignore it.
The Mach problems were barely known when this flight took place. And in many cases early pilots who ran into a problem were able to get out of it when the plane got into lower, thicker air and the plane slowed down. The P-40D was lucky it could high enough to get into trouble (slight exaggeration).
Now for your consideration the XF4U was undergoing trials at about this time and the navy was requiring that the plane do a vertical dive to a speed where the drag and power/gravity balanced out (a terminal velocity dive ). I can't remember if the Navy gave up or if the Corsair finally passed the test (it was the last Navy plane that they tried the test on) .
I would also note for newsreel/nespaper accuracy that the Hawker Hurricane I is credited with making a 400mph flight in 1938 (?). if you really want I may be able to find the date and pilots name, what nobody can find out is strength of the tailwind on that day.

Now since drag goes up with the square of the speed the drag at 661mph is 75% higher than the drag at 500mph. Just because a plane dived at 500mph in no way means it could hit 661mph.
Many planes will hit that drag limit, 1930s biplanes we just about all do it. the question is wither the plane in question will suffer structural failure or loss of control before it hits that drag limit. 
I would also note that in the transonic speed range the simple drag formula no long applies, 




Not all aircraft have quite the same curve but it is due to the rapid rise in drag (or pressure waves in the pitot tube) that many early dive speeds were off by so much. 
Please note the chart is for the change in the coefficient of drag, not the change in the drag. 
If your coefficient of drag is making a rapid change with increased speed at the same time that the drag is going up "normally" due to speed the combination is like hitting a wall. 

Claiming the P-40 was exempt from this or could somehow make just about mach .9 in a dive is not facing facts.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Dec 14, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> We are on other sides of the spectrum, you doubt anything that contradicts your own view of how things worked, even if your view contradicts physics.
> Or you stretch and impose your view on an interview or quote that doesn't say exactly what you think it says.



It's funny - you might be describing your own posts here. The question generally is, what matters more, your theory or the data? You seem approach these things through your understanding of engineering and physics, which I suspect either has something to do with your work background or a major hobby you are into. I am into history, (in another field, WW2 aviation is just a hobby for me) and have published a few history articles in peer reviewed academic journals. In that realm, so to speak, the data _rules_, and the theories follow the data. If you try to push a theory that isn't supported in the data you will get annihilated. Many non historians bend or filter data to match their theories. Data that doesn't match is rejected as noise.

Which is why contrary to your accusation, I generally don't trust theories.

I have learned in 20 years of doing serious research, the theories fall short again and again and again. Imagine two points on a chalk board. You'll get one faction saying it represents a line going up, another faction insisting it can only be a line going down. Then a third data point appears - another dot. Now everyone has a new theory that the data indicates a triangle. Then there is a fourth point and now people bitterly argue if it's a square, or two triangles, and a conspiracy faction insists it's pentagram. Or whatever.

I think it's far better to trust the data, accept that you'll _never _know the whole picture, and be wary of becoming too enamored of your theories. The more invested you are in your theory the more you will resist new data points that contradict it, and the further away your understanding will drift from what the data actually says. Be _extra_ wary of assuming that you understand the systems and the material physical realities of another time period under conditions you didn't actually live through. Theories should always be provisional and subject to rapid change. Even if your model is right, it's always far more likely that you are missing some element of data that would account for what you see in the data.

When it comes to the history of this aircraft, the amount of data that has to be *filtered out* to support the old theory has begun to outweigh the data which actually supports it. That is all I have been pointing out.

And the response in this specific comparison between two aircraft (the result of a challenge from another thread) is a series of diversions to explain why P-40F pilots made so many more victory claims than the Typhoon, (and seemed to like their aircraft better), each easily debunked.


They made a lot more P-40s (but not of this version - only 2000 P-40F/L vs 3000 Typhoons)
The P-40 faced weak opposition consisting of Bombers and obsolete Japanese planes (not true - and most of the victories by P-40Fs were against fighters, and mostly Bf 109s)
But Macchi 202s were second rate! (Not true either, or certainly an outlier position)
The Typhoon didn't fight for as long so had fewer opportunities (P-40 F/L were in combat from roughly August 1942 to Sept 1944, but 90% of their victory claims were before Sept 43.)
The P-40 fought in multiple Theaters (but not this version - 17 out of 18 squadrons using the plane were in the Med)
The Typhoon shot down Fw 190s and the P-40 couldn't (P-40's clearly did)

Right now you are arguing about whether a P-40 could hit mach 0.9 or mach 0.88 or what, when the real issue is pretty clear - from Allied and Axis pilot testimony it had one of the fastest dive speeds of the war. Beyond that we don't know the details until somebody posts them. It was clearly fast enough in a dive to catch Fw 190s and that's pretty fast. And there is no evidence so far that I've seen showing that the Typhoon had a faster dive speed, in fact given the problems with the tail, control surface flutter and structural failures, I suspect it didn't but I won't insist on it because I don't actually know.


----------



## Schweik (Dec 14, 2018)

I should add, Shortround, that your understanding of the physics and engineering is useful, and has been helpful to me and I'm certain many others in these discussions. Your posts have given me valuable insights for example about how superchargers work. I just think you have to be careful with the assumption that provisional physics models, even good ones, trump other sources. You have to remain open to data. Even if you think it may be 'noise' (and some of it obviously is like your 400 mph Hurricane I) you need to keep track of it because there can come a point where the 'noise' starts to outweigh what we thought was the 'good' data and then it's time to re-evaluate your model.


----------



## Stig1207 (Dec 14, 2018)

Schweik said:


> Yes but on the other hand, in Shores MAW you can see that probably a third to half of the combat losses were due to flak (more to flak in 1944 as we previously discussed), and probably half of the "other" losses were on days when the Germans did not make any air to air claims. Engine trouble was mentioned frequently.
> 
> *Did you read the small print above the tables?*
> 
> ...



The 481 number is from Ray Wagner's American Combat Planes . Interestingly, if you add up the figures for sorties, victories and losses for fighters in the ETO/ MTO as presented in the USAAF Statistical Digest, they match Wagners' very well.
We can agree on not knowing how many they actually shot down; I, however, don't see why 592 mentioned in some books should be more likely than the 481 mentioned in another.


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 14, 2018)

Schweik said:


> I should add, Shortround, that your understanding of the physics and engineering is useful, and has been helpful to me and I'm certain many others in these discussions. Your posts have given me valuable insights for example about how superchargers work. I just think you have to be careful with the assumption that provisional physics models, even good ones, trump other sources. You have to remain open to data. Even if you think it may be 'noise' (and some of it obviously is like your 400 mph Hurricane I) you need to keep track of it because there can come a point where the 'noise' starts to outweigh what we thought was the 'good' data and then it's time to re-evaluate your model.


The 400 mph hurricane was simply to show that newspaper headlines or movie newsreels are rather unreliable data sources. When such "data points" conflict with later research or information which should we trust?
Not just the P-40 but many other earlier aircraft posted very high dive speeds, but such dive speeds could not be repeated in later tests with more specialized instruments which leaves us where? 
Trying to fit newsreel propaganda into our data set?

Or just ignoring it. 

Now I have never said that the P-40 was not a good diver. But being a good diving propeller plane is very far from going faster (in a dive) than many early jets isn't it? 

The 661mph dive of the P-40 is just noise. 

The airspeed limit on the P-40D/E was 485mph indicated on page 22 of the April 1941 manual (revised Sept 5th 1941). In the 1943 manual is says 480mph indicated (page 61) and says that 5-8,000ft are needed to pull out of a high speed dive. Also on page 61 is a warning that vertical dives starting above 20,000ft are not recommended because of the danger of compressibility. 
It doesn't say what the dangers are or what to do about them and it doesn't say that such dives are prohibited, "not recommended" is pretty weak language. 

I am not going to worry about a 5mph difference in the manuals. Pick what you want. Trying to read a gauge to 5 mph out 480mph in a high speed dive (ground coming up at 700 feet per second) with the plane trying to roll to the right is a finer distinction that I would ever try to make.


----------



## Schweik (Dec 14, 2018)

Stig1207 said:


> The 481 number is from Ray Wagner's American Combat Planes . Interestingly, if you add up the figures for sorties, victories and losses for fighters in the ETO/ MTO as presented in the USAAF Statistical Digest, they match Wagners' very well.
> We can agree on not knowing how many they actually shot down; I, however, don't see why 592 mentioned in some books should be more likely than the 481 mentioned in another.



Well, it seems more likely that Ray Wagner left some out than that Dr Wolf (American Victory Roll) or mr Moleseworth (Osprey) - and various other sources made them up, in a nutshell. Why would they? I think it's wishful thinking on your part.


----------



## Schweik (Dec 14, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> The 661mph dive of the P-40 is just noise.
> 
> The airspeed limit on the P-40D/E was 485mph indicated on page 22 of the April 1941 manual (revised Sept 5th 1941). In the 1943 manual is says 480mph indicated (page 61) and says that 5-8,000ft are needed to pull out of a high speed dive. Also on page 61 is a warning that vertical dives starting above 20,000ft are not recommended because of the danger of compressibility.
> It doesn't say what the dangers are or what to do about them and it doesn't say that such dives are prohibited, "not recommended" is pretty weak language.
> ...



Maybe 661 is noise but I don't believe the limit was the one from the manual, either one, because pilot after pilot reported diving at over 500 mph... including one I spoke to personally.


----------



## Kevin J (Dec 14, 2018)

Schweik said:


> Maybe 661 is noise but I don't believe the limit was the one from the manual, either one, because pilot after pilot reported diving at over 500 mph... including one I spoke to personally.


I recall reading somewhere that the 480/485 mph speed limit was that recommended by Curtiss and that the P-40 could be flown up to another 30 mph faster in a dive. I assume this resulted in damage. I guess this is like the recommended max boost settings to the V-1710-39/63, which could be exceeded but might cause damage. I guess if you want to survive you exceed the limits set on dive and engine power.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 14, 2018)

Schweik said:


> Maybe 661 is noise but I don't believe the limit was the one from the manual, either one, because pilot after pilot reported diving at over 500 mph... including one I spoke to personally.


 I would say that the 485 limit in the manual probably leaves a margin of error. How great that margin is on any given day may vary with the temperature/air pressure that day, the exact rigging/alignment of the aircraft and perhaps the pilots flying technique. 
I certainly don't believe that hitting 486mph is going to result in the instant destruction of the aircraft or unrecoverable loss of control. 

In an unrelated but somewhat parallel illustration I used to do quite a bit of target shooting and hand loading. I believe the loading manuals when they tell you to only a maximum weight of powder in a certain application. They too are giving themselves a safety margin BUT I was once at a match were the fellow I was squaded with (he shot while I scored and then we went to the pits to operate the target) was using a rifle chambered for a round similar to mine so we discussed loads. I was about 2 grains under max for a particular powder and he was about 2 grains over (on a high 40s powder charge) so the percentage wasn't great. In the morning (upstate New York in the summer) he had no troubles. In after noon with sun right overhead and hotter temperatures he got off 3 rounds out of 22. each cartridge was harder to extract< I was helping so he would have to get up out the prone position but on the 3rd round bare hands wouldn't do it. A plastic box hitting the bolt handle wouldn't do and he resorted to a rock wrapped in cloth to beat the bolt handle open on a custom built target rifle.
What would have happened if he had been shooting in Arizona or New Mexico I have no idea. The temperature change was enough to push the chamber pressure from "it works" (but _may not_ be safe) to it doesn't work and *IS* decidedly unsafe. A manufacturer's recommendation/limit has to provide enough of a safety margin to cover most foreseeable circumstances. 

The dive speed recommendations/limits in the P-40 manuals are a blanket limit, they don't specify gross weight (or CG location) or altitude or temperature pressure. 
But then most or all of the other pilots manuals I have seen use a blanket statement too. They may have a different limit for under ordinance or stores, Some planes have the same limit for bombs/drop tanks and some have different ones but I don't think I have ever seen one that breaks it down by the size/weight of the bombs, doesn't mean there isn't such a manual. 

I would note that the 1943 manual suggests pilots in training limit their dive speed to 350mph indicated and says that the short tail planes need more pressure on the controls than the long tail planes.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Dec 14, 2018)

Dive speed, unless under full control is academic. The Spitfire achieved the highest recorded speed, but under very controlled conditions to prevent it being another "lawn dart" statistic, and then it lost a prop. Under normal combat circumstances the Spitfire would be out performed in dive by the P-47 with the Spitfire catching it just before they hit the ground, if the dive continued.


----------



## Greyman (Dec 14, 2018)

I decided to get a bit deeper into the Typhoon's aileron characteristics and I'm starting to think the RAE and NACA graph (link) I've been using---and looking no further--may not be giving the full picture for one reason or another re: the Typhoon.

In reverse chronological order:


*A&AEE, Typhoon Ib Brief Handling Trials, 6 Feb 1944*
_Results of tests_
_The aircraft was dived to 480 mph A.S.I. when trimmed for all-out level flight. ... Acceleration tended to build up to some extent but no violent tendencies were present and control column forces were light._​
_*Army Air Forces Materiel Command, Memorandum Report on Typhoon I, 6 Dec 1943* (link)
Handling & Control at Various Speeds_
_All control forces are reasonable up to about 450 I.A.S. where the ailerons become heavy. ..._​_Maneuverability and Aerobatics_
_In general, handling during maneuvers and in aerobatics is very good. Radius of turn is short, and the airplane rolls well although the aileron forces are heavy. ..._​_Conclusions_
_The Typhoon has proved to be a very useful fighter-bomber. Good high speed and maneuverability at low altitudes coupled with sufficient fire power and exceptional load carrying ability make it a formidable weapon._​
_*A&AEE, Typhoon Ib Handling Trials, 10 Mar 1943*
Controls_
_Although the controls become heavier with increase of speed, particularly the rudder, they are moderately light and effective throughout the speed range._​
*AFDU, FW.190 Trials vs. 4-cannon Typhoon, 9 Aug 1942*
_Dive_
_The controls of the Typhoon, although good in a dive, are not so light and responsive as those of the FW.190._​
_*Air Fighting Development Unit, Tactical Trials – Typhoon I Aircraft, 30 Oct 1941*
Flying Characteristics_
_The controls are well-balanced and comparatively light, and at speeds above 400 m.p.h., I.A.S., there is little tendency to “heavy-up” ..._​_Conclusions_
_The aircraft is comparatively light on controls, especially at high speeds._​
_*A&AEE, Typhoon P.5212 Fuel Consumption, handling and Diving Trials, 18 Dec 1940*
Behavior in the dive_
_The controls generally are very effective up to the maximum A.S.I. and remain moderately light._​_Conclusions_
_In the dive the handling qualities are excellent ..._​
_*A&AEE, Typhoon P.5212 Interim Report on Performance and Handling Trials, 29 Oct 1940*
Diving_
_All controls were used at 475 I.A.S. The ailerons are moderately light and sufficiently effective up to this speed ..._​_Conclusions and Recommendations_
_The controls are light and well harmonized throughout the very wide speed range and show signs of careful and painstaking development._​

Perhaps when low stick forces are used the Typhoon feels fine, but when higher forces are used it loses effectiveness. The NACA noted this when testing the Spitfire and Hurricane. At 5lb stick force the British fighters were far better than the P-36 and P-40, but when lateral forces reached 30-lb the US fighters were clearly superior.

For what it's worth, British tests on the P-40:


*A&AEE, Kittyhawk I Handling Trials, 3 Dec 1942*
_Controls_
_The ailerons are light and quick in response at all speeds up to maximum level speed. ... The control becomes heavier with increase of speed, but is not excessively so at maximum level speed. At speeds over 400 m.p.h. A.S.I. the control heaviness increases rapidly, the ailerons becoming almost immovable at 460 m.p.h. A.S.I., the limiting diving speed._​
_*A&AEE, Kittyhawk II Brief Handling Trials, 3 Mar 1943*
Dives_
_The aircraft was trimmed for all-out level flight and dived to 450 m.p.h. A.S.I. at both loadings. In both cases it tended to yaw to the right and above about 400 m.p.h. A.S.I. the force required on the rudder pedal to hold the aircraft straight became excessive and some retrimming necessary._​_The push force on the control column during the dive was moderately heavy for the normal loading. ... The aircraft was steady in the dives._​_Recovery was normal on releasing the push force, no excessive accelerations resulting._​

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


----------



## pbehn (Dec 14, 2018)

I don't know if the use changes the judgement, in 1940 were cannons (or any weapons) fitted, by 1943 it is appraised as a fighter bomber I believe.


----------



## wuzak (Dec 14, 2018)

pbehn said:


> Dive speed, unless under full control is academic. The Spitfire achieved the highest recorded speed, but under very controlled conditions to prevent it being another "lawn dart" statistic, and then it lost a prop. Under normal combat circumstances the Spitfire would be out performed in dive by the P-47 with the Spitfire catching it just before they hit the ground, if the dive continued.



I always thought that acceleration in the dive was more important than maximum dive speed. At least in combat situations.

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


----------



## wuzak (Dec 14, 2018)

Schweik said:


> And the response in this specific comparison between two aircraft (the result of a challenge from another thread) is a series of diversions to explain why P-40F pilots made so many more victory claims than the Typhoon, (and seemed to like their aircraft better), each easily debunked.
> 
> 
> They made a lot more P-40s (but not of this version - only 2000 P-40F/L vs 3000 Typhoons)
> ...




3,000 Typhoons were built between 1941 and 1945. 2,000 P-40Fs and Ls were built in around a year, possibly less, about 1942. The P-40Fs and Ls were available in greater numbers earlier. Some Typhoon squadrons only started using them in late 1943, and a couple I've looked up only operated them for a short while before converting to Lancasters!
There may be some confusion as to which P-40 is being spoken about.
I don't know enough about Macchi 202s. The comments I have read in here seem to indicate they were lightly armed, which would certainly make it more difficult for them to shoot down P-40s.
The Typhoon started its career, possibly too early, chasing down hit and run raiders. That was in 1942 (maybe late 1941). Home defence remained priority until 1943. By late 1943 the Typhoon was largely relegated to fighter-bomber duties. Certainly countering the raiders was important, but these weren't massed attacks - usually a handful of aircraft, often just the one. The Med was a more active theatre than England was in 1942/43. And the German fighter efforts were concentrated in the Russian front, mostly, and the Med at that time, but starting to build up in the west in the latter half of 1943 as the 8th AF threat increased.
The Typhoon only fought in the ETO.
No-one said that the P-40 couldn't shoot down Fw 190s, but they couldn't have chased them down the way Typhoons did against low level raiders. P-40Fs could not have chased down V-1s either, but Typhoons could.

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


----------



## pbehn (Dec 14, 2018)

wuzak said:


> I always thought that acceleration in the dive was more important than maximum dive speed. At least in combat situations.


That's what I said, maximum dive speed is (or was) an academic execise, look at the starting altitude, the angle of dive and the pull out. The Spitfire was never considered to be a good performer in dive situations.


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 14, 2018)

wuzak said:


> I don't know enough about Macchi 202s. The comments I have read in here seem to indicate they were lightly armed, which would certainly make it more difficult for them to shoot down P-40s.


The MC.202 was a fast, agile fighter, but it was indeed lightly armed.
It's armament consisted of two 12.7mm MGs in the cowling and two 7.7mm MGs in the wings (one per side).


----------



## Schweik (Dec 15, 2018)

wuzak said:


> 3,000 Typhoons were built between 1941 and 1945. 2,000 P-40Fs and Ls were built in around a year, possibly less, about 1942. The P-40Fs and Ls were available in greater numbers earlier. Some Typhoon squadrons only started using them in late 1943, and a couple I've looked up only operated them for a short while before converting to Lancasters!



Of the 5 US fighter groups flying the P-40F /L, the Group whose stats I posted upthread, the 325 "Checkertails", scored all of their 133 claimed victories with the P-40 between May 1943 and October 1943. That is five months. The similarly successful 57th FG scored all 144 of their claims between August 1942 and January 1944. None of these groups flew P-40s for more than two years.



> There may be some confusion as to which P-40 is being spoken about.



Maybe by some people? But I pointed it out in the Thread title and about 4 times since, as everybody keeps using the excuse of vastly more P-40s built. *This thread is a comparison of the Merlin powered P-40F and L vs. the Typhoon. Not all P-40s.*



> I don't know enough about Macchi 202s. The comments I have read in here seem to indicate they were lightly armed, which would certainly make it more difficult for them to shoot down P-40s.



Well, I know this is yet another silly debate about WW2 fighters, but some of the best had a relatively small number of guns. Without really getting into the larger issue, the German contemporary of the MC 202 which fought along side it was the Bf 109 F-2, which had 1 x 15mm cannon in the spinner and 2 x 7.92 machine guns on the nose, firing through the prop, and the Bf 109 F-4 which had a single 20mm cannon in the spinner and the two light machine guns on the nose. I think their armament was pretty close to equivalent.


> The Typhoon started its career, possibly too early, ... By late 1943 the Typhoon was largely relegated to fighter-bomber duties.... The Med was a more active theatre than England was in 1942/43. And the German fighter efforts were concentrated in the Russian front, mostly, and the Med at that time,



Well I think the truth is the Germans were mostly focused on the Russian Front in general, the kind of neglected the Med too. But regardless, the P-40 was also supposedly relegated to fighter bomber duties in the same period. The Typhoon, albeit troubled in it's early years, was deployed from 1941 to 1945, whereas the P-40F was deployed from 1942 - 1944 and I believe in smaller numbers. Parts of that period had a lot of air to air combat, but long stretches did not. As you noted, activity picked up quite a bit in 1943 and 1944 in the English Channel. So I think it equals out.



> The Typhoon only fought in the ETO.


Yes. And my point was - the P-40F / L only fought in the MTO (barring one squadron)



> No-one said that the P-40 couldn't shoot down Fw 190s, but they couldn't have chased them down the way Typhoons did against low level raiders. P-40Fs could not have chased down V-1s either, but Typhoons could.


Well, they did chase them down as low level raiders over Sicily, Anzio etc. But I grant you P-40s could not have caught V-1s or Me 262s.


----------



## michael rauls (Dec 15, 2018)

This is an interesting comparison of two planes I have never seen compaired before which makes sense as they were used mostly in different theaters and were on the same side. 
I would say that the Typhoon certainly looks better on paper. However, when one takes into account stability issues with the Typhoon( not even sure what these were just read vague references to " stability issues" sometimes in articles but that sounds ominous) and the fumes in the cockpit thing apparently never being sorted out I'm not so sure.
This may be a case of qualities that dont show up in performance stats that are good or maybe not so good.
I have read the p 40 was quite fast down low compaired to most other ww2aircraft.
For example I have read that below 5000 feet it was slightly faster than a p51d and about the same up to 10,000. Is this true?
Although if the Typhoon was doing 400 mph + at low altitude that is truly scorching
along. Dont think the p40, or much else for that matter, was close to that at low altitude.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 15, 2018)

[QUOTE="michael rauls, post: 1448050, member: 69991
I have read the p 40 was quite fast down low compaired to most other ww2aircraft.
For example I have read that below 5000 feet it was slightly faster than a p51d and about the same up to 10,000. Is this true?[/QUOTE]

only in a P-40s Fanboy's head.

A P-51D could do 365mph at sea level using Military power. (61in MAP)
The Australians got a P-40N up to 315mph at sea level using WEP (57in of MAP)
The best anybody has claimed for P-40N was 378mph at 10500ft using 57in of Map. please note that the throttle is fully open, there is no more boost to be had at this altitude.
A P-51D could 360mph at 10,000ft on cruising power (2700rpm and 46in) and 400mph at 3000rpm and 61in. The P-51 was allowed 67in at WEP.




> Although if the Typhoon was doing 400 mph + at low altitude that is truly scorching
> along. Dont think the p40, or much else for that matter, was close to that at low altitude.



Typhoons were good for anywhere between 340 mph and the low 360s depending on allowable boost (it was changed at least once) and drag reduction measures taken.

340mph at sea level was pretty darn good in late 1941 and early 1942.

360mph in 1944???

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Dec 15, 2018)

As Shortround noted (dude you need to fix your quote tags) P-51 was very fast down low. The Allison Engned P-51A / Mustang I was getting close to 400 mph at pretty low altitude. A maxed out overboosting P-40K might be close at sea level, but probably still a bit slower. Generally the P-51 would be faster at all altitudes due to their excellent streamlining, quasi laminar flow wings and the jet effect of their exhaust.

The reason a lot of pilots in the CBI for example preferred the P-40 was A) because the cooling systems being up front in the nose, they were considered less vulnerable to groundfire (which tended to hit further back on the body of the aircraft), and B) the P-40 was a lot more maneuverable than the P-51 down low, so it helped deal with Japanese fighters (even though the normal strategy was to 'boom and zoom', sometimes it helped a lot to do a quick turn or two). That is why P-40 units had more victory claims and better survival ratios in that Theater than P-51 units.

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


----------



## Kevin J (Dec 15, 2018)

michael rauls said:


> This is an interesting comparison of two planes I have never seen compaired before which makes sense as they were used mostly in different theaters and were on the same side.
> I would say that the Typhoon certainly looks better on paper. However, when one takes into account stability issues with the Typhoon( not even sure what these were just read vague references to " stability issues" sometimes in articles but that sounds ominous) and the fumes in the cockpit thing apparently never being sorted out I'm not so sure.
> This may be a case of qualities that dont show up in performance stats that are good or maybe not so good.
> I have read the p 40 was quite fast down low compaired to most other ww2aircraft.
> ...


I think you'll find it was the Mustang I/Ia with over boost that was faster than a P-51B/C/D/K below 5000 feet and about the same up to 10,000 which is why the RAF were still using them for fighter recce right up to the end of the war. If you want to carry 8 60 lb rockets then its a Typhoon for me, just think of the speed loss that would occur on a P-40 which is at least 30 mph slower at all heights. If I wanted a low/medium altitude interceptor then I would choose a P-40K in 1942 using over boost, one powered by a single stage low rated Merlin engine in 1943, and one powered by a two stage Merlin that could operate on 150 grade fuel from 1944. http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/Aircraft_Engines_of_the_World_Rolls-Royce_Merlin.pdf

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## MIflyer (Dec 15, 2018)

Best book I have found about the Typhoon and Tempest in combat is "Tempest Pilot" by Sdrn Leader CJ Sheddan DFC RNZAF.

Among other things, he describes his experience in landing a Typhoon in the channel. It's poor ditching characteristics were a result of the wing shape, rather than the big airscoop. The Tempest, with the same engine and airscoop, ditched just fine. 

Another very good book with pilot experiences relative to the Whirlwind, Typhoon, and Tempest is "Flying Under Fire" about Canadian pilots in WWII.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 15, 2018)

Schweik said:


> The reason a lot of pilots in the CBI for example preferred the P-40 was A) because the cooling systems being up front in the nose, they were considered less vulnerable to groundfire (which tended to hit further back on the body of the aircraft), and B) the P-40 was a lot more maneuverable than the P-51 down low, so it helped deal with Japanese fighters (even though the normal strategy was to 'boom and zoom', sometimes it helped a lot to do a quick turn or two). That is why P-40 units had more victory claims and better survival ratios in that Theater than P-51 units.


The reason the P-40 had more victories in the CBI, is because it was there first (late 1941 onward) and in greater numbers.
The P-51 didn't reach the CBI until 1944 and they were the C/D/K and CA-17 variants.

Chennault also expressed concern over the P-40's vulnerability because it was water-cooled...


----------



## Elmas (Dec 15, 2018)

Too many people seems to rely too much on numbers.
As a structural engineer I have nothing to say about numbers but ...
When it was necessary to bring the Macchi MC.200 prototype from Varese to Guidonia for flight experiments, the distance was far greater than the autonomy of the aircraft and therefore an intermediate refuel was arranged.
At the intermediate refueling airport, no trace of the precious MC.200 prototype, so frantic rescue expeditions were immediately organized.
A short time later the MC200 showed up directly at Guidonia Airport, where it landed regularly.
The Pilot, Cap. Adriano Mantelli, had found a powerful jet stream.
Needless to say, Capt. Mantelli received a severe reprimand for this...

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 15, 2018)

There were some P-51As used in the CBI theater but the quantities were low. Probably no more than 1-3 squadrons at any one time. On dec 31st 1943 it was listed that 60 P-51As total were serving in the CBI and North African Theaters. 
Likewise there were two P-38 squadrons (one in India and ome in Burma?) and we can argue all week about survival rates and such but it just may be that the P-38 and Allison P-51s were being used in such small numbers as to make drawing valid conclusions from statistics rather difficult. 
I mean if you only have 12 planes operational for a mission and you lose 2 you have lost 16.6%.
If you have 36 planes on a mission and lose 4 you have 11% losses. 
Nobody can say if you had more of the rarer planes if they would have lost more on the same mission.


----------



## Schweik (Dec 15, 2018)

Generally, in WW2, you have two kinds of successful fighter designs: Low wing-loading fighters good at turning but relatively slow ("Turn and Burn" fighters), and high wingloading fighters not so good at turning, but relatively fast ("Boom and Zoom" fighters) . Over time, for the faster planes, it also helped to have a good rate of climb and / or dive, (a high mach number helped a lot) and a very good roll rate seemed to be very important.

But both methods worked. The game for the low wing loading fighters was to wait for the right situation and pounce, the longer the fight lasted the better. The game for the high wing loading fighters was to hit and run. Both methods had their Tactical and Operational advantages,

So for example in terms of aircraft active in combat in the Spanish Civil War and Manchuria, you had:

*1936-1939

Low wing loading / Slow*
Ki-27
Cr -32
I-15
He 51
Hawker Fury

*High wing loading / Fast*
I-16 
Me 109D
He - 100
Fiat G.50

Later in the Battle of France, Battle of Britain, conquest of Poland, continued fighting in China and the Pacific, the Winter War, early fighting in the Middle East and the Battle of Greece, you have newer faster monoplane fighters really coming into their own.

*1940-1941

Low wing loading / Slow ("TnB")*
Hurricane
P-36 / Hawk - 75
D.520
Ki-43
A6M
LaGG-3
I-153
Cr 42
Gladiator
Pzl P-11

*High wing loading / Fast ("BnZ")*
Bf 109E and later F
Bf 110
Ki-45
MC 200
I-16

The Spitfire really stands out here because it was fast at ~ 360 mph, but also had a very low wing loading. So it's kind of both. And that is why it was so good.

By 1942 - the key turning point year of the war, things are moving very fast indeed. Biplanes are now almost exclusively relegated to Close Air Support or point defense (and suffering heavy losses). In the beginning of the year the Allies are losing badly and barely hanging on. By the end of the year they have rallied and are winning key victories on all fronts.
*
1942

Low wing loading / Slow (TnB)*
A6M
Ki 43
Hurricane II
P-40
F4F
La - 5
Yak -1
LaGG -3
I-16
MC. 200

*High wing loading / Fast (Bnz)*
Bf 109 F4 and G
MC 202
Ki-61
Fw 190
MiG- 3
Typhoon
P-38F
P-51A (Allison Engined)

The Spitfire is once again in the middle, being fast while having low wing loading, but the Spitfire Mk V is slipping back toward the 'Turn and Burn' role, being a bit slower than the newer Bf 109s and outclassed in terms of performance by the appearance of the Fw 190. The newer Spit IX and VIII are fast enough to comfortably straddle both roles.

Through the war, speed and performance were a moving bar that fighter designs had to keep up with, there was a certain minimum below which a fighter just wasn't viable because it couldn't catch bombers, couldn't catch enemy fighters and couldn't refuse combat or disengage at will. So for example in 1940 the MC 200 and the Bf 110 were fairly successful in the "boom and zoom" role, but by 1941 they were already reaching their design limits due mainly to speed. Boom and Zoom fighters in particular have to be faster than the low wing loading fighters they are competing with because they will lose in a turn fight. However wing loading also tends to creep up over time, so fighters that had decent turning capability but were originally designed for the "Boom and Zoom" role sometimes found a second life (or death) in the "Turn and Burn" niche. So for example the I-16 and MC 200, both hit and run fighters against biplanes earlier in their career, have become "Turn and Burn" fighters by 1942 against their faster and more modern opponents (Bf 109 and P-40 respectively). Other like the MiG-3, Ki-45 and Bf-110 either got phased out or made into fighter bombers or night fighters.

The best fighters- the ones with the longest most successful careers, brought something _extra_ to the table. The Spitfire is the standout in the early years of the war becuase of it's almost unique combination of very high speed and very low wing loading. The Bf 109 also stands out because though it's clearly a higher wing loading, BnZ fighter, it is still pretty agile, and also has very good altitude performance. The A6M combines very low wing loading with an excellent climb rate and especially the ability to climb at a steep angle, enabling it to for example do a loop and come down behind a pursuing aircraft. The early P-38, for all it's faults brought good high altitude performance and was fast enough in the Pacific that it could disengage from just about any Japanese fighter in a high speed climb.

The advantage the P-40 had was that it was pretty good at a lot of things. Though it was basically a "Turn and Burn" fighter in Russia and the Med, being slower but more maneuverable than the Bf 109 and Fw 190, but speed was just at the bottom end of the "Fast" family, maybe more in the middle down low, and it was substantially faster than most of the fighters in the Pacific and CBI and could therefore act more like a "Boom and Zoom" fighter there. In both Theaters the combination of excellent roll rate, good high speed handling and very fast dive speed meant that P-40 pilots were able to disengage from combat when they needed to (albeit, with some risk to their engines) and that is why it remained in front line fighter service long after many of it's near contemporaries like the Hurricane had been taken out of the front line.

The major flaw of course was the altitude limitation. It wasn't the only fighter to have that issue - A6Ms did to some extent as well, almost all the Soviet fighters did, the P-51A of course, and so on. But that kept it out of the big-bomber war in 1943-1945 and that is what most people concentrate on in WW2 aviation history. Other fighters also had significant flaws of course - the Spitfire and Bf 109 series always had short range, as did most of the Soviet fighters. The early to mid-war Spitfires had the flooding carburator. The 109 series had notoriously tight controls at higher speeds. The early to midwar Japanaese fighters had no armor or effective self sealing fuel tanks. The P-38 had a host of issues notably compressability limiting diving capability which was a major problem in the BnZ role. But flaws could be offset by good training and tactics. When training and pilot quality were very high, as was generally the case for the Axis early in the war, they could offset the flaws of their planes. When training and pilot quality declined, they no longer could as well, accelerating their death spiral.

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


----------



## Schweik (Dec 15, 2018)

GrauGeist said:


> The reason the P-40 had more victories in the CBI, is because it was there first (late 1941 onward) and in greater numbers.
> The P-51 didn't reach the CBI until 1944 and they were the C/D/K and CA-17 variants.



Lets try to keep in mind - the Merlin type P-51 B / D etc. arrived quite late in most Theaters, but it still racked up a high victory ratio anyway. For example (merlin engined) Mustang units didn't get to the Med until later in 1944, but claimed 1053 in the Med, compared to 592 for (American) P-40s and 263 for P-47s. Arriving late generally meant that the Axis pilots weren't as experienced. And there was till air to air combat going on regularly in the CBI and Pacific to the end of the war.



> Chennault also expressed concern over the P-40's vulnerability because it was water-cooled...



That is true - a radial engined fighter is generally much less vulnerable to ground fire or to a 'golden BB' taking them out. This was heavily emphasized by Japanese pilots according to their own records and memoirs. However available Allied fighters didn't seem to perform that well against Japanese fighters down low where most (though definitely not all) of the combat was in that Theater. The best candidate would have probably been the Hellcat but they didn't send any to that Theater.

The P-40 also apparently had some armor added to the radiator at some point though the precise details remain mysterious.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Dec 15, 2018)

Schweik said:


> Bf 109 F-4 which had a single 20mm cannon in the spinner and the two light machine guns on the nose. I think their armament was pretty close to equivalent.


the MG 151/20 was a fearsome weapon, and certainly superior to 2 synchronized Breda-SAFAT machine guns 



Schweik said:


> But that kept it out of the big-bomber war in 1943-1945 and that is what most people concentrate on in WW2 aviation history


...and that is what most people *Americans *concentrate on...


----------



## MIflyer (Dec 15, 2018)

I recall reading that a P-51 pilot who was shot down in Korea saying that he preferred the P-40 to the P-15 for ground attack. His reasoning was that with ground attack missions the aircraft tend to get hit in the aft section and that is where the P-51's radiator was. The P-40 was liquid cooled but the radiator was up front and was less like to get damaged.

Note that in the CBI the Hawk 75 Mohawk with the R-1820 engine was considered to be adequate until it was replaced by the Hurricane in 1943, which was considered to be adequate well into 1944 and was not fully replaced by the P-47 until almost the end of the war.

One Hurricane pilot said that after the Japanese took the big losses in the Pacific battles that there was a huge drop off in enemy air activity in the CBI.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fastmongrel (Dec 15, 2018)

I remember a section from an RAF Typhoon pilots memoir. Before his squadron was sent to France in July 44 he bought a small pot of Woolworths white enamel paint to paint his victory marks. he flew pretty much non stop till Feb 45 before being withdrawn to be an instructor. In Aug 45 he threw the pot of paint in the bin unopened he never got the chance to fire his guns against another plane.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Dec 15, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> There were some P-51As used in the CBI theater but the quantities were low. Probably no more than 1-3 squadrons at any one time. On dec 31st 1943 it was listed that 60 P-51As total were serving in the CBI and North African Theaters.
> Likewise there were two P-38 squadrons (one in India and ome in Burma?) and we can argue all week about survival rates and such but it just may be that the P-38 and Allison P-51s were being used in such small numbers as to make drawing valid conclusions from statistics rather difficult.
> I mean if you only have 12 planes operational for a mission and you lose 2 you have lost 16.6%.
> If you have 36 planes on a mission and lose 4 you have 11% losses.
> Nobody can say if you had more of the rarer planes if they would have lost more on the same mission.



You seem to one again imply that I'm somehow playing with the numbers here, but I'm not. I think in fact you don't understand the period or the actual combat record that well.

When I talk about losses I'm talking about on a "per sortie" basis. You can look at (Allison) Mustang and P-40 squadron missions in Burma or China, as they often went out at the same time, and see how many claims and losses were made from each squadron. P-40 units suffered about half the losses in the same exact missions and made substantially more claims. Of course there are other intangibles besides aircraft design that come into play, P-40 units were often in Theater longer and had more institutional knowledge of enemy tactics and capabilities. They had also figured out the flight envelope of their own aircraft and learned to maximize advantages and minimize the effects of flaws. *But the real deciding factor with the P-51A (etc.) was apparently due to Ailerons being too small.* This was subsequently corrected in the P-51B and later models.

Raw numbers of aircraft committed to a given Theater can be a bit misleading, what actually made the difference in the day to day was how many went out on sorties. So for example you might have a total of 2000 of one aircraft built and only 500 of another, but the same number of squadrons actually deployed to the battle area during the same period. Many if not most aircraft did not get sent to new squadrons but were used as replacements.

You seem to repeatedly diminish the role of the A-36 for example in the Med but they did play an important role there, they were sent on a lot of missions and apparently destroyed a lot of ground targets including in the critical moments like at Anzio. Their advantages were two-fold - speed in getting to and (especially) escaping the target area, and accuracy due to being dive bombers. The A-24 for example (Army version of the Dauntless) could hit targets accurately but would be dead meat trying to fly out of that combat zone in 1943 and 1944. The fighter bombers like P-40s and Hurricanes could drop bombs but were not very accurate, neither were the medium or heavy bombers. Perhaps this is worth getting into as the A-36 was a competitor of sorts with the Typhoon for the fighter-bomber role.

To help convey an idea of the scale of A-36 activity in the Med, here are some examples of activity over a period of ~two months involving that aircraft. Keep in mind these are days where there were usually just a handful of claims or losses on either side except where indicated:

Dec 27, 1943 ---------- A-36 unknown enemy fighter claimed
Dec 30, 1943 ---------- two A-36s on a bombing mission claimed 2 Bf 109 and a "Bf 209" damaged
Jan 14, 1944 ----------- two A-36s lost on bombing run, (one to a strange accident ** and one to unknown reasons)
Jan 16, 1944 ----------- A-36 shot down by Flak
Jan 19, 1944 ----------- A-36 claimed one Fw 190
Jan 22, 1944 ----------- 3 x A-36 on recon flights shot down by flak
Jan 28, 1944 ----------- A-36 'probably shot down by flak' (this was a a busy day )
Jan 29, 1944 ----------- A-36 claimed a Fi 156 destroyed
Jan 31, 1944 ----------- A-36 hit by flak pilot PoW but escaped / evaded
Feb 2, 1944 ------------ 2 x A-36 shot down, one by two Bf 109s pilot PoW the other by ground fire
Feb 3, 1944 ------------ 2 x A-36 shot down one by flak one 'disappeared while dive bombing'
Feb 6, 1944 ------------ A-36 claimed Fi 156 destroyed, 5 x A-36 shot down
Feb 15, 1944 ---------- 5 x A-36 shot down
Feb 16, 1944 ---------- A-36 shot down
Feb 18, 1944 ---------- A-36 hit by flak, crash landed
Feb 21, 1944 ---------- 2 x A-36 made claims for a Bf 109 each, two others together claimed another Bf 109 probable (this was a busy day)

That is enough transcribing for now but suffice to say this continued, for example two A-36 were lost March 10, five were lost on March 13 etc.

I think this gives you an idea of the fairly high level of involvement the A-36 had at this time period, without getting into details of ground targets destroyed etc. this was at the time of Anzio (started Jan 22) and A-36 pilots hit a lot of important targets a critcial time in the fight when the Allies were at risk of being pushed back into the sea. So I would argue they were actually important and did play a significant role, if only for a while. A series of mysterious accidents while pulling out of dives ares what actually ended their role as a dive bombers.

Interesting to note that at this point the Americans were still making fairly heavy use of the A-20B

**A-36 42-84067 of the 527th fighter bomber squadron / 86th Fighter Bomber group, "exploded at 3,000 ft after pulling out of a dive-bombing attack on gun positions over San Angelo in Theodice at 1535; Capt. Robert M. Dungan KIA*



* Source Mediterranean Air War Volume IV P. 495


----------



## Schweik (Dec 15, 2018)

Clayton Magnet said:


> the MG 151/20 was a fearsome weapon, and certainly superior to 2 synchronized Breda-SAFAT machine guns



I'm not sure that I buy a single 20mm cannon, no matter how fearsome, is superior to two 12.7mm machine guns - but if it is I would assume it's pretty close. All the Allied pilots in the Med rated the MC 202 as equivalent to the Bf 109F. The MC 205 which started getting put into MC 202 units in 1942 added two MG 151/20 in the wings so that helped keep up parity.



> ...and that is what most people *Americans *concentrate on...



You would think. But I am often lectured by people on here who do seem to be Australians, Brits, FInns etc. about the need for high altitude performance vis a vis heavy bomber combat in 1944-45 whenever I discuss the merits such aircraft as the P-40, Yak-1, La-5 A6M, Ki-43, MC 202, etc.


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Dec 15, 2018)

Schweik said:


> I'm not sure that I buy a single 20mm cannon, no matter how fearsome, is superior to two 12.7mm machine guns


The US Navy concluded a single 20mm Hispano was equivalent to 3 M2 Brownings. The Breda-SAFAT was less effective than the M2, but the MG 151 was approximately equivalent to the Hispano. The Mauser had lower muzzle velocity, but more effective ammunition.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DarrenW (Dec 15, 2018)

Clayton Magnet said:


> The US Navy concluded a single 20mm Hispano was equivalent to 3 M2 Brownings.



Do you have any other details, like in what ways were they equivalent? I would think that three .50s would spray more lead in a much larger pattern and give the pilot a far better chance of hitting his intended target.


----------



## pbehn (Dec 15, 2018)

DarrenW said:


> Do you have any other details, like in what ways were they equivalent? I would think that three .50s would spray more lead in a much larger pattern and give the pilot a far better chance of hitting his intended target.


Its been discussed on the forum a few times. Not so much in terms of 1 cannon = 3 MGs but in terms of general armament, try a search.


----------



## DarrenW (Dec 15, 2018)

pbehn said:


> Its been discussed on the forum a few times. Not so much in terms of 1 cannon = 3 MGs but in terms of general armament, try a search.



Of course cannon armament would be preferred overall (bigger shells=bigger holes). I'm more interested in the findings of the specific US Navy report, rather than the various opinions and theories discussed here and elsewhere. I'm sure that there are a lot of reasons why the US stuck with arming most of their
fighters with heavy machine guns, rather than exclusively with cannon or a mixed battery.


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 15, 2018)

DarrenW said:


> Of course cannon armament would be preferred overall (bigger shells=bigger holes). I'm more interested in the findings of the specific US Navy report, rather than the various opinions and theories discussed here and elsewhere. I'm sure that there are a lot of reasons why the US stuck with arming most of their
> fighters with heavy machine guns, rather than exclusively with cannon or a mixed battery.


There's been several discussions here in the forums that covered that subject in detail, complete with opinions, theories and hard data provided by the USN and USAAF on their comparisons and test data and ultimately, why they chose to remain with the .50 MG as a primary weapon.


----------



## pbehn (Dec 15, 2018)

DarrenW said:


> Of course cannon armament would be preferred overall (bigger shells=bigger holes). I'm more interested in the findings of the specific US Navy report, rather than the various opinions and theories discussed here and elsewhere. I'm sure that there are a lot of reasons why the US stuck with arming most of their
> fighters with heavy machine guns, rather than exclusively with cannon or a mixed battery.


The discussions frequently quote reports whether from the US navy I don't know, mostly it was a question of logistics and potential targets. The UK from early days wanted cannon armed fighters and pretty much had them, the fly in the ointment is the Spitfire which usually just had one in each wing due to problems heating the outer gun. Whirlwind, Hurricane , Mustang, Beaufighter Mosquito Typhoon and Tempest all had 4 cannon. The discussion is not just one of the hitting power of a bullet shell, it is also one of rate of fire, the 0.5in MG increased in reliability and rate of fire considerably. When the RAF were experimenting with cannon in Spitfires in 1940 the 0.5 MG was not really an option.


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 15, 2018)

Schweik said:


> I'm not sure that I buy a single 20mm cannon, no matter how fearsome, is superior to two 12.7mm machine guns - but if it is I would assume it's pretty close .



You would be in the minority.
Granted there are different 12.7-13mm machine guns and there are different 20mm cannon. 
US Navy figured one 20 Hispano gun was worth three .50 cal Brownings in 1944. 

For the Italians and Germans we have 




photo from BOOKS BY ANTHONY G WILLIAMS

American .50 on the left, Italian and Japanese 12.7mm 3rd from left, Japanese navy 13mm 4th from left, Russian 12.7mm 6th. German MG 151/15 round 8th, German 13mm round is 9th. 

A plane mounting a pair of guns using the 12.7x81SR is at something of disadvantage against planes with more or heavier guns (and they needed be 20mm cannon. Both the Italians and Japanese did use HE ammunition but the amount of HE was about 8% of the HE in a 20mm Hispano shell. 




photo from BOOKS BY ANTHONY G WILLIAMS

Not quite the full range from 7.7mm (used by the British, Italians and Japanese) to the 20mm round used in the Japanese type 99-II. The Type 99-I used the 20x72RB next to the German 15x96. The 20mm Hispano round was slightly bigger than the 20x101RB. 

Russians used the 20x99R round 2nd from right. , note short stumpy projectile. See Russian 12.7mm 6th from left. Some Russian pilots who thought the 12.7mm was almost equal to the 20mm might not have been that far off.

The MG 151/20 cannon (firing the 20x82 round) has a somewhat overblown reputation due to the infamous mine shell. 

In any case we can see this is a rather complicated subject. You have very different power cartridges, you have different basic rates of fire for the guns and you have some guns synchronized (slowing down the rate of fire) and some free firing and you have belts with mixed types of ammunition. sometimes 40% AP 40% HE 20% tracer or other mixtures. 

Italians put tracer compound in the back of the HE projectile which cut into the HE payload. They also had plain AP incendiary (small blob of incendiary in front of the AP core) and AP incendiary tracer which used a shorter/lighter penetrating core to make room for the tracer. There was also a "ball" round which used a lead an aluminum filling. 

The 12.7mm Breda-Safat machine gun fired about 700rpm unsynchronized but could fall to 400rpm when synchronized according to one Author (Anthony WIlliams who's website was the source of the above photos.) 

so you have about 800rpm from a pair of guns (lets be generous and 900 because it makes the math easy) firing 33-35.4 gram projectiles for 531 grams per second (using the heaviest bullets).

A P-40 Tomahawk with the cowl mounted .50s firing at the same rate is throwing about 645 grams and the 4 wing .30 guns add another 800 or so grams. 
A P-40E with just 4 .50 cal guns in the wings is throwing 2150 grams per second (at 750rpm per gun, adjust as you see fit) and a 6 gun airplane is 50% greater than that.

The 109F-2 with the MG 151/15 is firing the full 700rpm (11.66 per second?) and projectiles are 57 grams for HE and 72 grams for AP, I will assume a 50/50 mix for simplicity. 
753 grams per second with the pair of cowl mounted 7.9mm machine guns (1000rpm each synchronized) adding another 360 grams.

The 109F-4 with the MG 151/20 is still firing at 700rpm (or more?) but the projectiles weigh 90-115grams, so the average is 1189 grams per second plus the cowl guns. 

Italian planes with a single 7.7mm in each wing pick up around 300-340 grams per second depending on actual rate of fire and type of ammo. The Breda-Safat 7.7 doesn't fire as fast as the small Browning or the German MG 17.

This rather simplistic comparison takes into account neither kinetic energy or the power of any explosive in the projectiles or any incendiary material .

it also ignores the likelihood of getting hits. 
But the Italian planes are using low powered/low velocity ammunition with poor (compared to the american .50 cal) energy an longer times of flight making deflection shooting a bit more difficult. 




> All the Allied pilots in the Med rated the MC 202 as equivalent to the Bf 109F. The MC 205 which started getting put into MC 202 units in 1942 added two MG 151/20 in the wings so that helped keep up parity.



it may have been an easy rating system, the MB 202 was certainly better than any of the radial engine Italian fighters., but hundreds did not have the wing 7.7mm guns.
Some sources say that out of the 262 MC 205 up to the first 100 built kept the 7.7mm wing guns and then changed to the 20mm. However there may have been a batch (or 2?) of the MC202s that MG151s under the wing

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


----------



## pbehn (Dec 15, 2018)

Wot he said ^^^^^^^^^^


----------



## Schweik (Dec 15, 2018)

To try to summarize it - 

*Heavy machine guns* like the M2 have the advantage of a little bit higher velocity (890 m/s vs 700-800) and therefore longer range, flatter trajectory and better armor penetration*. Shells are also a bit lighter and smaller I think so you can pack more rounds in the plane (and in train cars, cargo ships etc.)
*Light cannon* like the MG 151/20, the ShVAK and the Hispano have the advantage of shooting exploding shells which are better at destroying aircraft structures, tearing off wings and so on.

Both did have their advantages but the general consensus is that cannons were better. Some weapons were also particularly well suited to certain airplanes.

The US military authorities stuck with the M2 because they had plenty of them and they performed pretty well, they liked the new API ammunition, and they had trouble developing a reliable 20mm aircraft cannon (reliable enough to shoot from inside wings without stoppages) until the end of the war.


However dipping back into the lots of guns vs. fewer guns debate, some of the best fighters had relatively _few_ guns.

The F4F-3 Wildcat only had four .50 cal machine guns and was preferred by piots over the F4F-4 which had six.
The P-51B and C had, I believe, usually just 4 x .50 cals as well and was one of the most successful fighters on the Allied side.
The P-40L** had only four .50 cals which seemed to be plenty to shoot down any Axis fighter they encountered. It was the most successful P-40 in the Med.
The P-38 had four .50 cals and 1 x 20mm which was considered devastating firepower.
The Bf 109F2 which had an excellent record only had 1 x 15mm cannon and 2 x 7.92 machine guns
The Bf 109F4 had 1 x 20mm cannon and 2 x 7.92 machine guns. Most German pilots who flew it said it was the best German dogfighter of the war.
The Yak 1/7/9 often had just 1 x 20mm cannon and 1 x 12.7mm or 7.62 mm machine guns. Sometimes two machine guns.
The La 5FN had 2 x 20mm cannon
The Ki-43 had 1 x 12.7mm machine gun and 1 x 7.7mm machine gun. Highest scoring Japanese fighter of the war.

More guns is an advantage, but only if you can bring them to bear. HItting the target is what matters. There wasn't a single fighter in the war that could wishtand sustained 20mm cannon fire OR 12.7mm heavy machine gun fire. The extra guns were mainly needed to counter heavier or better armored bombers (B-29, B-17, B-24, B-25, B-26, Il2 Sturmovik, Hs 123) or for strafing. The FW 190 was excellent, as was the P-47, and the Tempest but that was only one variation out of many to solve the problem of fighter design.

*barring special AP ammo etc.
** and during times of heavy air to air combat, most of the P-40Fs


----------



## pbehn (Dec 15, 2018)

One area where cannon were shown to be better than MGs was in taking down V1s they were very hard to shoot down without cannon.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Dec 15, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> You would be in the minority.
> Granted there are different 12.7-13mm machine guns and there are different 20mm cannon.
> US Navy figured one 20 Hispano gun was worth three .50 cal Brownings in 1944.
> 
> ...



All very interesting, but the real question is how many rounds of either gun did it take to disable an enemy fighter. Maybe 1 or 2 well aimed cannon shells could do it, on average more like 6 or more hits. This 79th Fighter Group pilot for example found 7 x 20mm cannon shell holes in his P-40F after combat with a Bf 109. At 0:38 you can see him remove the plug from a 20mm shell from his wing, he kept that as a souvenir and wore it around his neck for the rest of the war.



The hole you see in the beginning of the clip hit right behind the armor plate - a better penetrating round may have punched through.

But with 12.7mm guns, it also only took one or two rounds to disable a fighter. One HMG round in the engine will easily end the flight of a Spitfire, a P-40 or a Bf 109. Obviously one round through the pilot and he's toast. I'm guessing some of you have seen the damage that a .50 caliber machine gun does to any target? I was in the military and I've seen it- it's pretty impressive.

A couple of heavy guns (and like 'em or not, Italian Breda 12.7mm are _heavy_ guns) _particularly in the nose _were a winning combination for many WW2 fighters.

Maybe the MC 202 was slightly less well armed than a Bf 109F4 (probably not than an F-2 right?) but it was also supposedly a bit more agile so it probably equaled out.


----------



## Schweik (Dec 15, 2018)

pbehn said:


> One area where cannon were shown to be better than MGs was in taking down V1s they were very hard to shoot down without cannon.



I think generally also for destroying tough bombers, cannons are better. With the US M2 guns, when going after bombers they targeted the engine or the cockpit, or sometimes the rear gunner. The other reason I forgot to mention why the US stuck with the M2 is that they weren't up against that many really beastly bombers. Biggest bomber threat to US forces were really mostly Stukas and Japanese dive & torpedo bombers and later kamikazes, but all pretty easy to blow up if you could hit them. Later Fw 190s were a bit harder to damage but early Mustangs and four gun P-40s were able to take them out.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Milosh (Dec 15, 2018)

Watched a video of the post war 3" automatic AA gun. The reason the USN wanted the heavier calibre was because the 40mm didn't disable the kamikazes enough.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Dec 15, 2018)

Actually no it doesn't, it really doesn't at all. Fighter versus fighter conflicts are completely academic. For the RAF it was the ability to take down a bomber that was important and even in the quite short lived Battle of Britain this became harder and harder with rifle calibre munitions. It is immaterial what any German pilot considered the best armament for dog fighting was, the LW was tasked with taking down USA and RAF bombers. Some Spitfires had 4 cannon and 4 0.303MGs which is great firepower, but don't ask about roll rate, rate of climb etc.


----------



## Schweik (Dec 15, 2018)

pbehn said:


> Actually no it doesn't, it really doesn't at all. Fighter versus fighter conflicts are completely academic. For the RAF it was the ability to take down a bomber that was important and even in the quite short lived Battle of Britain this became harder and harder with rifle calibre munitions. It is immaterial what any German pilot considered the best armament for dog fighting was, the LW was tasked with taking down USA and RAF bombers. Some Spitfires had 4 cannon and 4 0.303MGs which is great firepower, but don't ask about roll rate, rate of climb etc.



But after the BoB, the British weren't facing a lot of heavy daylight bomber formations. The main threat was from night bombers, marauding Jabos and later, V-1s and V-2s. The only large aircraft they were regularly facing were twin engine fighters or bombers made into bomber zerstrorers, or night fighters.

The main job of Anglo-American fighters was to destroy German fighters and protect their own bombers and fighter bombers so the latter could destroy Strategic and Tactical targets respectively. The main job of the Russian air force was to destroy German fighters and Stukas, and protect the Sturmovik and Pe 2 formations so they could destroy German tanks.

Rifle caliber bullets _were_ inadequate, at least on their own, and the British were a little late to that conclusion, though once they switched to cannon they had excellent ones.

But HMG's would do in a pinch as US fighter didn't have trouble shooting down German, Italian or Japanese bombers that I know of. The most popular of the very many Spitfire weapon loadouts from what I gather ended being 2 x Hispano 20mm and 2 x Browning M2 12.7mm


----------



## pbehn (Dec 15, 2018)

Schweik said:


> But after the BoB, the British weren't facing a lot of heavy daylight bomber formations. The main threat was from night bombers, marauding Jabos and later, V-1s and V-2s. The only large aircraft they were regularly facing were twin engine fighters or bombers made into bomber zerstrorers, or night fighters.
> 
> The main job of Anglo-American fighters was to destroy German fighters and protect their own bombers and fighter bombers so the latter could destroy Strategic and Tactical targets respectively. The main job of the Russian air force was to destroy German fighters and Stukas, and protect the Sturmovik and Pe 2 formations so they could destroy German tanks.
> 
> ...


You, happily have the knowledge of hindsight, the Germans never signed any undertaking to stop bombing raids. The British were facing bombing raids in Malta and elsewhere after 1940 and the Germans used bombers in anti shipping attacks. The British were not late in the conclusion that rifle calibre was inadequate that is why they wanted cannon armed fighters, the issue is what you replace the 0.303 with on a single engine fighter in 1939/40. The RAF were tasked with protecting the UK mainland which by 1944 had huge USA resources on it too, they had to be prepared for any eventuality, because no one actually knew what their strength was, with 100% certainty. The effect of a few unopposed raids on East Anglia could have been devastating.


----------



## Greyman (Dec 15, 2018)

In actual practice the 20-mm Hispano had much better penetration and damaging properties than the .5-inch Browning.

While on the range, attacking armour plate directly, the .5-inch AP penetration was superior to 20-mm Ball and similar to 20-mm SAP/I ammunition.

However, when actually attacking aircraft -- the .5-inch round loses much of its effectiveness due to deflections, yawing, breaking up when it strikes duralumium/aircraft structure. When actually tested on Fw 190 and Do 217 targets, the simple 20-mm ball ammunition was far more effective than .5-inch AP in penetrating aircraft structure, armour, and damaging components when struck.

To say nothing of 20-mm SAP/I rounds, AP rounds, and evil little rounds that tend to do this inside aircraft:





_(German 20mm HE/I)_

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 15, 2018)

Schweik said:


> To try to summarize it -
> 
> *Heavy machine guns* like the M2 have the advantage of a little bit higher velocity (890 m/s vs 700-800) and therefore longer range, flatter trajectory and better armor penetration*. Shells are also a bit lighter and smaller I think so you can pack more rounds in the plane (and in train cars, cargo ships etc.)
> *Light cannon* like the MG 151/20, the ShVAK and the Hispano have the advantage of shooting exploding shells which are better at destroying aircraft structures, tearing off wings and so on.
> ...



Even more simplistic than my comparison and it may be in error. Look again at the pictures. The Italian 12.7mm machine gun use 35.4 Gram AP projectiles vs the American 46 gram projectiles so armor penetration is already at about 77% even if the velocities were the same, which they are not. The Italian round had MV of 760 mps vs the American 870mps and since penetration is proportional to the square of the speed the Italian round is in big trouble. Throw in the fact that the Italian, Japanese and German 13mm projectiles had a rather poor shape compared to the American (or Russian) projectiles and so impact velocities are even poorer than the Muzzle velocity suggests. 
Muzzle energy per round is 9,800 to 10,600 Joules for the Italian/Japanese round vs 16,600-17,400 joules for the American round depending on ammo. Russian ammo can peak at 19,200 joules for their 52 gram AP projectile. 

German 13mm is just under the Italian/Japanese round. 

yes the light cannon are better at blowing stuff up but the Hispano also had a MV of about 850-880 meters per second out of the long barreled guns and had a similar time of flight to any reasonable air to air distance. A 20mm Hispano ball round (HE shell with no filling and sold nose replacing fuse) could penetrate most aircraft armor and structure and was quite good abraking things. Muzzle energy was 46,900 to 50,300 joules. But the Hispano was sort of in a class of it's own.
The MG 151/20 had muzzle energies of just about 29,000 joules and rather depended on it's special mine shell to blow things up, which with it's 18-20 grams of HE it did rather well.
However the thin walled shell didn't penetrate very well and didn't carry any tracer which called for mixed belts of ammo with more conventional projectiles for AP and tracer. These were heavier and slower but match pretty well to 300 meters or so. 

The ShVak cannon had high velocity but it's light (96-99 gram) projectiles were poorly shaped and lost velocity quicker than the 20mm Hispano or indeed their own 12.7mm machine gun. The HE capacity was 4-7 to 6.1 grams of HE depending on exact shell (AP wouldn't have any) 

Part of the problem with the american .50 and the Russian 12.7 was the weight of the ammo. While the projectiles were much lighter than the 20mm cannon the weight of the cartridge case and powder charge was disproportionately heavy. An American .50 cal round could weigh about 112 grams while 20mm Hispano round weighed 257 grams, the 20mm Shvak round weighed about 183 grams compared to the 125 grams of the 12.7x108 machine gun round (note that the russian round is about 12-13 grams heavier than the American but only 6 or less of that is the projectile.) 
The Italian and Japanese Machine gun ammo was much lighter, about 82 grams, as befits it's lower power. again note the difference in weights of the complete round vs the difference is projectile weight. The case and powder of the American round was 20 grams heavier, mostly the brass case. 
But then the Italian and Japanese heavy machine gun round don't have an advantage in range or trajectory over the light cannon. 

I would note that in most cases any advantage in range or trajectory is mostly in the minds of post war commentators/writers. The difference of 6-9 inches in trajectory when you are shooting at a fuselage 4-5 feet high is minor at best. Only a small fraction of 1% of the pilots in WW II had any business shooting at planes more than 400 meters away so the whole range/trajectory argument is bogus. Doesn't mean that tons of ink and paper and the internet equivalent hasn't been wasted on it though. 

What was important was time of flight as that dictated the amount of lead needed for deflection shooting. A short time of flight could mean only aiming several plane lengths ahead of the target instead of 5 or 6 plane lengths. 

It is this time of flight thing that makes something of joke of the planes that used the mixed batteries of guns and claims of long range shooting by fuselage mounted guns. 
The time of flight for a German 7.9mm round to 600 meters was 1.159 seconds, while the time of flight for the 15mm HE round was 0.816 seconds for .343 second difference. a 300mph airplane is going to cover 150ft in that amount of time making total nonsense of trajectory problems, you are either hitting with one type of gun or the other, not both and much more likely hitting with neither. since the target plane is moving over 350 ft from when the bullet left the muzzle of the 15mm gun and it arrived in the target "area" 

Granted that is an extreme example and worst case at sea level but illustrates the problem. 





Schweik said:


> More guns is an advantage, but only if you can bring them to bear. HItting the target is what matters. There wasn't a single fighter in the war that could wishtand sustained 20mm cannon fire OR 12.7mm heavy machine gun fire. The extra guns were mainly needed to counter heavier or better armored bombers (B-29, B-17, B-24, B-25, B-26, Il2 Sturmovik, Hs 123) or for strafing. The FW 190 was excellent, as was the P-47, and the Tempest but that was only one variation out of many to solve the problem of fighter design.


The extra guns (and the extra bullets per second) increased the hit chances for less than expert pilots. Some pilots started shooting behind the target plane and swung through the target plane ending up shooting in front of it. They may have only been "on target" for a fraction of second. The guns were not synchronized with each other to fire in salvos. At 90 degrees (worst case) a 300mph airplane is traveling 44 ft for every round fired by a 600rpm gun and 22 ft for 1200rpm gun. You might have to be very close to get a high percertage of hits.

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


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 15, 2018)

Schweik said:


> But after the BoB, the British weren't facing a lot of heavy daylight bomber formations. The main threat was from night bombers, marauding Jabos and later, V-1s and *V-2s*. The only large aircraft they were regularly facing were twin engine fighters or bombers made into bomber zerstrorers, or night fighters.


Just for the record, no V-2 rocket was able to be intercepted during the war. 
The V-2 would be supersonic on it's dive and the only advanced warning that was given, were the sonic booms just before impact.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 15, 2018)

DarrenW said:


> Of course cannon armament would be preferred overall (bigger shells=bigger holes). I'm more interested in the findings of the specific US Navy report, rather than the various opinions and theories discussed here and elsewhere. I'm sure that there are a lot of reasons why the US stuck with arming most of their
> fighters with heavy machine guns, rather than exclusively with cannon or a mixed battery.


from about the time of the report (fall of 1944) the US Navy stopped fitting .50 cal machine guns on any fighter planes (with a few minor exceptions) _ordered _after that report. 
Please note I said ordered and not built, Many contracts had months to run and those contracts were completed with the .50 cal guns including the first F8F Bearcats but the later ones got 20mm guns, the post war F4U-5s got 20mm guns and all the Navy's early jets _except_ the FH-1 Phantom got 20mm guns.

The Air force, far from being fat dumb and happy with the .50 cal in WW II had developed a 1200rpm version and had developed (but had much trouble with) a light weight , high velocity, high capacity incendiary round for the .50 cal and this combination was the intended armament for the post war fighters/early jets. It did turn out to be not good enough but Korea was not fought with WW II guns and WW II ammo in the air. 

Mixed batteries introduces different ballistics and times of flight. They were used but were not ideal, By Korea the F-86 had a radar range finder built into the upper lip of the intake that tied into the gunsight for much more accurate range information than the mk I eyeball and thus a better computed lead solution from the gyro gunsight.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Milosh (Dec 15, 2018)

Even before WW2 started the Brits were looking at heavier guns for their a/c. They went with 20mm as the 0.50" didn't do enough damage to the e/a.


----------



## pbehn (Dec 15, 2018)

Milosh said:


> Even before WW2 started the Brits were looking at heavier guns for their a/c. They went with 20mm as the 0.50" didn't do enough damage to the e/a.


There is also the boring mundane techy stuff like how do you put them in a single engine fighter, until variable pitch props were adopted it was an idea not worth much thought, and when you start thinking about it it gets to be a problem fitting one that keeps firing. The RAF had been calling for cannon armed fighters from the Westland Whirlwind wiki page The first British specification for a high-performance machine-gun monoplane was F.5/34 but the aircraft produced were overtaken by the development of the new Hawker and Supermarine fighters.[5] The RAF Air Staff thought that an experimental aircraft armed with the 20 mm cannon was needed urgently and Air Ministry specification F.37/35 was issued in 1935. The specification called for a single-seat day and night fighter armed with four cannon. The top speed had to be at least 40 mph (64 km/h) greater than that of contemporary bombers – at least 330 mph (530 km/h) at 15,000 ft (4,600 m).[6][7]

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Milosh (Dec 15, 2018)

UGH?


----------



## DarrenW (Dec 15, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> Even more simplistic than my comparison and it may be in error. Look again at the pictures. The Italian 12.7mm machine gun use 35.4 Gram AP projectiles vs the American 46 gram projectiles so armor penetration is already at about 77% even if the velocities were the same, which they are not. The Italian round had MV of 760 mps vs the American 870mps and since penetration is proportional to the square of the speed the Italian round is in big trouble. Throw in the fact that the Italian, Japanese and German 13mm projectiles had a rather poor shape compared to the American (or Russian) projectiles and so impact velocities are even poorer than the Muzzle velocity suggests.
> Muzzle energy per round is 9,800 to 10,600 Joules for the Italian/Japanese round vs 16,600-17,400 joules for the American round depending on ammo. Russian ammo can peak at 19,200 joules for their 52 gram AP projectile.
> 
> German 13mm is just under the Italian/Japanese round.
> ...



Hmmm I noticed that the muzzle energy of the Hispano was about three times that of the Browning. This could be one reason for the belief that it was worth three M2s....


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 15, 2018)

Milosh said:


> Even before WW2 started the Brits were looking at heavier guns for their a/c. They went with 20mm as the 0.50" didn't do enough damage to the e/a.


 I am repeating what I have written in other places, the British were certainly looking for heavier than.303 caliber guns, it just took a bit longer than expected. 

The Partnership papers for the British Manufacturing and Research Company (British makers of the Hispano cannon) were signed *Jan 11th, 1938*. However it was company only on paper. Land had to be acquired, building built, machinery purchased and installed. Workers hired and trained and perhaps most important, get the gun sorted out. it was hardly a finished product at this time and all drawings were in the metric system. However the Duke of Gloucester fired the first gun built attehoffical opening in Jan 1939. 

Now please note that at this time the American.50 cal gun was still an under 600rpm gun firing ammo at 2500fps instead of the 2880fps velocity it would have in 1941 and later. 
THrow in the fact that the ammo selection was limited (no approved incendiary ammunition) and the reasons for NOT adopting the US .50 cal are many.


----------



## pbehn (Dec 15, 2018)

Milosh said:


> UGH?


The cannons weighed a lot more, as did the munitions. Until the introduction of variable pitch props the Spitfire and Hurricane with a wooden twin blade had an effective circa 600BHP on take off. As they were, the Spitfire had had its MGs doubled from the original design. Discussion of cannon on RAF S/E fighters wasn't realistic until 1940, when it actually was done.


----------



## DarrenW (Dec 15, 2018)

Sorry guys, I didn't mean to turn this thread into minutiae concerning the various weaponry of WWII fighters. Although enlightening for sure, I hope that it gets back on topic as soon as possible.

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


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 15, 2018)

DarrenW said:


> Hmmm I noticed that the muzzle energy of the Hispano was about three times that of the Browning. This could be one reason for the belief that it was worth three M2s....


Well, that and the fact that the projectiles were about 3 times heavier and while the Americans and British didn't always use the same projectiles (which interesting enough were also used in the 20mm Oerlikon gun even though the cartridge cases were different) an HE 20mm shell carried just over 10 grams of explosive. The British used a semi AP incendiary which was the HE shell filled with incedary material and a plain steel nose cap fitted instead of a fuse. It carried 10 times the incendiary material that the M8 .50 cal AP incendiary projectile did. 
Solid shot hits much harder and when it comes to chemicals (HE and incendiary) it is no contest. down side is the 20mm Hispano weighs roughly double what a .50 cal weighs. 
Don't be fooled, the quoted weights for Hispano often do not include the belt feed mechanism, which was detachable and most models could then be feed with the drum (although you never get the access panels closed. )


----------



## pbehn (Dec 15, 2018)

DarrenW said:


> Sorry guys, I didn't mean to turn this thread into minutiae concerning the various weaponry of WWII fighters. Although enlightening for sure, I hope that it gets back on topic as soon as possible.


I think it is a case of flag waving meeting facts.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Optimistic Optimistic:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Dec 15, 2018)

pbehn said:


> I think it is a case of flag waving meeting facts.



Uh, no. No bruh, that is not what it is. Here is what happened, I went out and had a couple of beers, and a couple of y'all wen't nuts writing encyclopedias.

Listen, I'm perfectly happy to read a long dissertation about the ballistic properties of different aircraft ordinance, it's exactly the kind of thing I come to this board for. And I know one or two of you guys are real anxious to see me get "schooled" because you are annoyed that I'm taking an outlier position on a subject you feel you already own. 

But please, lets be real - I never argued that Italian 12.7mm was better than an MG 151, let alone that it was better than a Hispano, nor that it was better than a US .50 or a Soviet 12.7mm. I'm happy to read all those details (even though I don't even buy all the arguments being made in that three part dissertation). However, I don't have a dog in that particular hunt so I'll refrain from opining there. You are arguing with yourself.

Try to remember, this ALL started when I poked a hole in the excuse that was given as to why P-40Fs had more victory claims in a few months to two years than Typhoons had in 4 years. Namely that excuse was that supposedly they were shooting down obsolete Japanese bombers and other fillage. When I pointed out that they were not stationed in the Pacific, but were in fact shooting down Bf 109s and MC 202s, it was suggested, falsely, that the latter were inferior fighters (per the above incorrect assertion i.e. 'fillage'). When I pointed out that almost all of the Allied pilots in the region, and most aviation writers etc. classified the Bf 109F and MC. 202 as 'equivalent' - I was told "No way! the MC 202 has inferior guns!"

Then I pointed out that while both aircraft were somewhat lightly armed compared to say, a Fw-190, the Bf 109F - considered the best Axis fighter at that time, wasn't particularly heavily armed either. The F2 (1,230 built) had a single _15mm _cannon and two rifle caliber machine guns. The F4 (1,841 built) had a single 20mm cannon (granted a very good one) and two rifle caliber machine guns. Maybe that's slightly better than an MC. 202, but we are not talking P-47 vs. Mc 200 armament here. It's an incremental difference a best, and not one that really means a lot in fighter vs. fighter combat - two nose mounted 12.7mm machine guns can take out any WW2 fighter in less than 10 seconds _if they can hit the target_.

And we all know that.

So lighten up Francis. I know it's a little bit provocative to take an outlier position on something - and I certainly acknowledge that comparing the P-40F to the Typhoon is a bit cheeky. I have tried to provide useful facts the make the thread both enlightening and entertaining. Honestly I had no idea how they would match up. Having read the thread so far though and seen all the evidence on both sides of the argument, it is starting to look to me like the P-40F was better. More dangerous to the enemy and a better friend to it's own pilots. But I'm ready to learn more. If you want to school me, find something relevant to the actual debate and show me something inspiring about Typhoon air combat. I'll be grateful!

S


----------



## Schweik (Dec 15, 2018)

GrauGeist said:


> Just for the record, no V-2 rocket was able to be intercepted during the war.
> The V-2 would be supersonic on it's dive and the only advanced warning that was given, were the sonic booms just before impact.



Just to be clear, I don't know if you are suggesting I was claiming that they had shot any V-2s down, but just I gave that impression, I was not. Quite to the contrary, no WW2 fighter was that fast. No fighter today is fast enough to shoot down a ballistic missile with guns, not that it would even be safe to try. They still have trouble doing that with Patriot missile systems etc.


----------



## Schweik (Dec 16, 2018)

pbehn said:


> You, happily have the knowledge of hindsight, the Germans never signed any undertaking to stop bombing raids.



Right. That is just the way the war panned out. And it's why a lot of Allied fighters remained fairly lightly armed. If the Germans had by some bizarre History Channel dark miracle managed to suddenly field hundreds of functional, bug free He 177s and Ju 390s and Me 264s from their secret base in Antarctica, no doubt you would have seen some very heavily armed Allied fighters. Probably some Mosquitoes with 57mm guns on them and that sort of thing.

But they didn't, so none of that was developed. Most of the fighting was to shoot down German bombers so as to defend Allied bombers. So that is why you had four .5 gun P-51Bs doing so well.



> The British were facing bombing raids in Malta and elsewhere after 1940 and the Germans used bombers in anti shipping attacks.



Not just the Germans, but the Italians too! And they Italians probably sunk more ships... they had very good torpedoes.

But what kind of aircraft were they both using? Swift, heavily armored superweapons? Ju 388s? Arado jet bombers? No. They were using the same Ju 87s and Ju 88s and He 111s that were getting waxed by Hurricane Mk 1s and Spitfire Mk 1s in the Battle of Britain. Not that they weren't effective and dangerous warplanes, they certainly were, but they didn't requrie 4 cannons to shoot them down. And Me 110s and SM. 79s and CANT 1007s too... none of which were difficult to shoot down with a pair of Hispanos or four .50s, or even with 8 .303s. In fact P-40F and L caught flights of bombers and Jabos and wiped them out a couple of times. As did Spitfires and P-38s and even Martlets and Hurricanes. Gloster Gladiators were shooting them down.

Heavy cannon armament (or eight .50 cal armament) was always nice to have, but it wasn't _necessary_ if you weren't trying to shoot down B-17s or B-24s or B-29s or say, Il2 Sturmoviks.

And that, sir, is the point I was actually making.

S


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 16, 2018)

To be honest, comparing the Tiffy to the P-40 is a little unbalanced.

When the war started for Britain, they had the Hurricane to hold the line which would be more comparable to the P-40's position with the U.S.

Through a set of circumstances, the Typhoon became one of the premier Allied ground attack aircraft - which wasn't intended at the onset, but it performed in that role far better than as a dedicated fighter.


----------



## Schweik (Dec 16, 2018)

GrauGeist said:


> To be honest, comparing the Tiffy to the P-40 is a little unbalanced.



Just because it seems a bit odd to you doesn't make it somehow blasphemy

To be clear yet again, I was comparing the P-40F (and L) to the Tiffy, and I think it's quite clear they are comparable. Both came out around the same time, both were in combat during the same time period. 3,000 Typhoons were developed compared to 2000 P-40F/L. Both started out as fighters but gradually became important ground attack aircraft. Where is the imbalance?



> When the war started for Britain, they had the Hurricane to hold the line which would be more comparable to the P-40's position with the U.S.



But Britains war started a year and a half earlier, and the Hurricane was a much older design (unlike the Typhoon). The Hurricane is really more contemporaneous with the P-36.

Hurricanes did fight with P-40s in 1941 and 1942, but it was the P-40s escorting the bomb-laden Hurricanes because the latter were no longer considered capable of facing Axis fighters alone. By the time the P-40F/L was heavily engaged in 1943 and 1944, Hurricanes were all but phased out of combat in the Theater. They weren't even considered able to survive that battlefield when escorted by other fighters.



> Through a set of circumstances, the Typhoon became one of the premier Allied ground attack aircraft - which wasn't intended at the onset, but it performed in that role far better than as a dedicated fighter.



Nothing all that strange about it, a lot of fighters ended up in the ground attack role, P-47s did quite a bit, RAF Kittyhawks were still bombing targets in Italy and the Balkans in 1945.


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 16, 2018)

Did I say blasphemy? No, I did not.

I said that comparing the P-40 (pick any mark) to the Typhoon is a lopsided adventure.

The Typhoon operated in competition to the Hurricane and Spitfire and in an area where it wasn't able to get into a target rich environment like the MTO or PTO/CBI and show it's worth. 

This would be like trying to compare the Whirlwind against the P-38 (pick a variant) and then trying to explain why the P-38 had a much different outcome versus the Whirlwind - which by the way, was produced in much lower numbers (like the Tiffy) and became stellar at ground attack (like the Tiffy).

I'm just being realistic here...


----------



## Glider (Dec 16, 2018)

I can only repeat what is blindingly obvious. The P40 was slower, had less firepower, less payload, was no better at altitude, had less protection and couldn't dive as fast.
There is no contest.

Why didn't they shoot down swarms of enemy aircraft? Because there were precious few German aircraft in the air over Europe and those that were had to contend with the fighter cover which in itself was overwhelming. The P40 operated in an area where axis forces were more active in daylight.

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


----------



## Kevin J (Dec 16, 2018)

Glider said:


> I can only repeat what is blindingly obvious. The P40 was slower, had less firepower, less payload, was no better at altitude, had less protection and couldn't dive as fast.
> There is no contest.
> 
> Why didn't they shoot down swarms of enemy aircraft? Because there were precious few German aircraft in the air over Europe and those that were had to contend with the fighter cover which in itself was overwhelming. The P40 operated in an area where axis forces were more active in daylight.



You forgot something. Us limeys let you yanks do the fighting and winning the war once you'd decided that you wanted a piece of the action.


----------



## MIflyer (Dec 16, 2018)

When they developed the Tempest they also had to develop a new smaller version of the 20MM gun to enable it to fit in the thinner wing.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Dec 16, 2018)

Sorry Schweik, your outlier position is to ignore what is posted, ignore historical facts and carry on waving the flag for a plane that was out of production and used as an advanced trainer by the time the Typhoon made its name for what it was good at. Some of your sweeping statements need lengthy replies, yet a lengthy reply has you complaining of posters wanting to "school you". For example you may be able to shoot down a single B 17 with rifle calibre weapons but the LW wasn't presented with single B 17s they were in massed formations and from late 1943 had escorts, this means you had to shoot down a bomber in the few seconds it was in the gun sight as you made a high speed pass. This was exactly the same problem faced by the RAF, bombers like the Ju88 were increasingly well armoured and had more escorts throughout the BoB, the Ju 87 was batted out of the conflict early on, as was the Bf110 in effect.


----------



## Glider (Dec 16, 2018)

Kevin J said:


> You forgot something. Us limeys let you yanks do the fighting and winning the war once you'd decided that you wanted a piece of the action.


I am a Limey, living in Leicestershire.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (Dec 16, 2018)

MIflyer said:


> When they developed the Tempest they also had to develop a new smaller version of the 20MM gun to enable it to fit in the thinner wing.


They didn't have to develop the MkV 20mms for the Tempest and the first had the Mk II 20mm. The Mk V was a better, lighter weapon and was also used by the Seafire.
The weapons were interchangeable.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Dec 16, 2018)

Schweik said:


> To be clear yet again, I was comparing the P-40F (and L) to the Tiffy, and I think it's quite clear they are comparable. Both came out around the same time, both were in combat during the same time period. 3,000 Typhoons were developed compared to 2000 P-40F/L. Both started out as fighters but gradually became important ground attack aircraft. Where is the imbalance?



You keep repeating the 3,000 Typhoons vs 2,000 P-40Fs and Ls.

You keep ignoring that P-40Fs and Ls were produced over a short time frame and most would have made it to operational units. while Typhoons were produced over a longer time frame, and were still being made very late in the war. 

It is doubtful that all of the Typhoons ever made into operational units. Or even the majority of them.


----------



## Schweik (Dec 16, 2018)

Glider said:


> I can only repeat what is blindingly obvious. The P40 was slower, had less firepower, less payload, was no better at altitude, had less protection and couldn't dive as fast.
> There is no contest.



The P-40 could out turn the Typhoon and had a much better roll rate. These things make a big difference in a dogfight.

The P-40 could also dive faster with better control and with no risk of the tail breaking off..



> Why didn't they shoot down swarms of enemy aircraft? Because there were precious few German aircraft in the air over Europe



_Really? _That is not what I read. The history of the Spitfire is heavily focused on the dark period where they started getting pwnd by Fw 190s or is that propaganda?



> and those that were had to contend with the fighter cover which in itself was overwhelming. The P40 operated in an area where axis forces were more active in daylight.



The Med was a secondary Theater for the Germans too- the real action was in Russia. There were a few big battles of course but they had those in Europe as well, Dieppe, Normandy, and a fairly steady level of activity over the channel.

I bet if you counted up victories of UK based Spitfire units in the Channel they would have been pretty high. And I bet if the Typhoon had been a better fighter they would have sent some to the Med like they did the Spit IX and VIII etc.

S

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Dec 16, 2018)

wuzak said:


> You keep repeating the 3,000 Typhoons vs 2,000 P-40Fs and Ls.
> 
> You keep ignoring that P-40Fs and Ls were produced over a short time frame and most would have made it to operational units. while Typhoons were produced over a longer time frame, and were still being made very late in the war.
> 
> It is doubtful that all of the Typhoons ever made into operational units. Or even the majority of them.



Sure but more than 1000?


----------



## DarrenW (Dec 16, 2018)

GrauGeist said:


> ...the Typhoon became one of the premier Allied ground attack aircraft...



I use to believe this too but now I just don't know. This thread has changed my view on a few things concerning both the aircraft in question, which I previously thought I had nailed down.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Dec 16, 2018)

pbehn said:


> Sorry Schweik, your outlier position is to ignore what is posted, ignore historical facts and carry on waving the flag for a plane that was out of production and used as an advanced trainer by the time the Typhoon made its name for what it was good at.



That is incorrect. Ignoring facts? Me thinks thou dost protest too much. P-40s were in combat units both as fighter bombers _and_ still scoring air to air victories right up to 1945.



> Some of your sweeping statements need lengthy replies, yet a lengthy reply has you complaining of posters wanting to "school you".



If it was pertinent to anything I had actually said, I would agree. I'm 100% open to and welcoming of actual pertinent data. Even not so pertinent data is interesting as I already said. But it is also a common thing in internet fora to argue against something somebody didn't actually say, like that an Italian HMG is better than an American HMG or that an HMG is better than a cannon. If I post something for brevity, for example comparing the general characteristics of HMGs vs cannon, it can be seen as an opportunity to delve, deep, DEEP into all the exceptions and make a big lecture out of it. For certain readers like yourself, who are aching for a slap down of some kind, they can see this as vindication. I think in high school debating class they call it a Straw Dog. You make up something that your opponent in a debate didn't actually say and then wail away at it, right?



> For example you may be able to shoot down a single B 17 with rifle calibre weapons but the LW wasn't presented with single B 17s they were in massed formations and from late 1943 had escorts, this means you had to shoot down a bomber in the few seconds it was in the gun sight as you made a high speed pass.



And this is a classic example. Either your reading comprehension is lapsing or you are trying on purpose to try to win an empty victory. I never said that the Germans didn't need heavy cannon armament later in the war. Of course they did. They were up against swarms of B-17s and B-24s and even medium bombers with heavy armament. Not to mention escorts. So of course they needed to shoot down bombers as fast as possible. On the Russian Front they found that as Il-2s got harder to knock down (especially when they got defensive guns finally) he extra cannon also became necessary. But needless to say, at a cost. The Bf 109G-6 was clearly not as good in fighter vs. fighter combat as the might more lightly armed 109F2 or F4.

What I said was that the Allies didn't need heavy cannon armament later in the war because their job was mostly to shoot down Axis fighters, and to a lesser extent Axis medium or light bombers.



> This was exactly the same problem faced by the RAF, bombers like the Ju88 were increasingly well armoured and had more escorts throughout the BoB, the Ju 87 was batted out of the conflict early on, as was the Bf110 in effect.



Ju 88 may have become more well protected that rifle caliber bullets were insufficient, rifle caliber bullets were a little dicey for attacking bombers period. But by 1943 in the Med 4 HMG armed P-40s and 2 cannon / 2 lmg armed Spitfires wiped them out on numerous occasions, and they were also routinely getting annihilated by Flak. 

For example on *Jan 22, 1944* (during Anzio) the Germans sent a bunch of bombers from "Fliegerkorps X" out to attack the Allied landing fleet. Claims were made by P-40Ls of the 79th fighter group (for fighters), Spitfire Mk Vs of the US 52nd FG, and two RAF Spit IXs. The Germans lost 7 x Ju 88s, 1 x Do 217, 1 x He 111H--11 and a Fw 190G-3. No ships were hit.

Later than night two US piloted Beaufighters of the 414 Night Fighter squadron claimed a Do 217 and a Ju 88, these were apparently 2 x He 177A-3s which were reported lost at that time.

On November 24 1943 the Germans sent a large raid of Ju 88s against Allied airfields on Sardania and lost 13 to flak for no damage. On 10 November they sent a raid of Ju 88s against shipping near Naples and lost 8 to flak, with no ships hit. On November 11 1943 they lost 5 x He 111s, and 3 x Ju-88 to flak for no results. And so on.


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 16, 2018)

DarrenW said:


> I use to believe this too but now I just don't know. This thread has changed my view on a few things concerning both the aircraft in question, which I previously thought I had nailed down.


Ground Attack is usually thought of as the destruction of men and equipment and of course, this carries great value, but one other aspect of Ground Attack that's often overlooked, is the disruption of ground forces' movement either during an air attack or altering their movement because of the prospect of an air attack.

The Typhoon proved to be of great value during the D-Day landings and supporting the breakout in the days following by not only striking German targets, but by disrupting German troop movement with it's presence.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Dec 16, 2018)

GrauGeist said:


> Ground Attack is usually thought of as the destruction of men and equipment and of course, this carries great value, but one other aspect of Ground Attack that's often overlooked, is the disruption of ground forces' movement either during an air attack or altering their movement because of the prospect of an air attack.
> 
> The Typhoon proved to be of great value during the D-Day landings and supporting the breakout in the days following by not only striking German targets, but by disrupting German troop movement with it's presence.



I would definitely agree with this. I also think the Typhoons ability to intercept V-1s is no joke, each one of those could have meant dozens or hundreds of civilian lives saved.

But the P-40 also played a major role in some significant ground battles like D-Day. maybe not quite as important but probably pretty close. However some of these are tangental to the thread because they were mostly other variants of P-40s

The Australian P-40E was credited by the local ground commander as being the decisive factor in the Australian victory at Milne Bay, and was also important for Kokoda trail. Aussie and US P-40s played a key role in the defense of Darwin.
P-40s were considered critical to keeping the Burma Road open and thus supplies to China keeping them in the war.
RAF Kittyhawks and US P-40Fs were considered critical both in air cover and fighter bomber / strafing attacks at El ALamein, Kasserine Pass,, Tobruk, Medenine, the Gareth Line and Gambut.
RAF Kittyhawks and US P-40Fs were considered critical in the capture of the fortified Island of Pantelleria (in fact it was a note dropped by the US 325th Fighter Group that apparently induced the surrender itself, the only such event attributed purely to air power in the war)
RAF Kittyhawks and US P-40Fs played a major role in the invasion and capture of Sicily, Corsica and Sardinia and were critical to the defense of the beachhead at Anzio.


----------



## Glider (Dec 16, 2018)

Schweik said:


> The P-40 could out turn the Typhoon and had a much better roll rate. These things make a big difference in a dogfight.


Does it help to turn tighter, of course. Does it make a big difference, no it doesn't. The Zero could easily turn inside a Hellcat but the Hellcat was a better fighter. The Hurricane could turn inside the 109 and 190 but they were the better fighters. The 109 could turn inside the P51 but the P51 was the better fighter. I could go on, the list of examples is huge.



> The P-40 could also dive faster with better control and with no risk of the tail breaking off..


Only if you believe your fantasy that the P40 was the fastest diving plane of the war despite the only evidence being a propaganda film. By the way, was that the same advertising company that promised the RAF the 400mph P39 in 1940?



> Why didn't they shoot down swarms of enemy aircraft? Because there were precious few German aircraft in the air over Europe
> 
> _Really? _That is not what I read. The history of the Spitfire is heavily focused on the dark period where they started getting pwnd by Fw 190s or is that propaganda?


I strongly suggest you spend more time on research. The Spitfire V wasn't as good a fighter as the Fw190 no one would disagree with that. _PS this is another example of the tighter turning aircraft not being as good as the faster fighter. _
But its interesting that the Whirlwind initially, later supported by the Typhoon were able to undertake GA missions over occupied territories with considerable success. However there were relatively few German aircraft in Europe at the time. The main period of activity for the Typhoon in numbers was of course the Invasion in June 1944 and the build up, until the end of the war. A period where the Luftwaffe were totally overwhelmed.


> The Med was a secondary Theater for the Germans too- the real action was in Russia. There were a few big battles of course but they had those in Europe as well, Dieppe, Normandy, and a fairly steady level of activity over the channel.


Partly true. It wasn't the main feature of the German priorities, but it was important enough for Germany to divert resources directly from the Russian Front to the Med at critical times.


> I bet if you counted up victories of UK based Spitfire units in the Channel they would have been pretty high. And I bet if the Typhoon had been a better fighter they would have sent some to the Med like they did the Spit IX and VIII etc.



Just to remind you, the thread is about comparing the Typhoon to the P40. However the P40 wasn't nearly as good as the Typhoon for all the reasons stated. The Spitfire IX on was a much better fighter than the Typhoon which is why the Spitfire was top cover to the Typhoon.

In Christopher Shores original book, Fighters over Tunisia there are a number of interviews with pilots at the time who were asked to rate the fighters. All of them put the Spit IX first, Most put the Spit V or P38 second with the 190 and 109
All put the P40 next and the P39 last


----------



## Schweik (Dec 16, 2018)

Kevin J said:


> You forgot something. Us limeys let you yanks do the fighting and winning the war once you'd decided that you wanted a piece of the action.



I don't know where this and all the flag waving comments come from. This isn't a "pick on the Limeys" festival and I'm not waving any flag. I like aircraft from all over the world in WW2, including British, US, Soviet, Japanese, Italian and German designs. And others! If you have read my posts on this forum I don't think you have ever heard me criticize the Spitfire or the Mosquito, or the Beaufighter, or the Tempest for that matter. Or the whirlwind. All favorites of mine. In fact I've been praising the Spitfire, the Machi 202, the Bf 109F and the Yak1 in this very thread and others in the last few days (and getting grief for it.)

This thread started when someone in another thread, I think Graugeist, off-handedly noted that the Typhoon was vastly better than a P-40. I said "I'm not so sure about that but I don't really care". He replied "Well I CARE" etc. so I started this thread to explore the subject. When I opened the thread I really didn't know all the details except that the Typhoon had some teething troubles and both aircraft were around at the same time. The reason I focused on the (mostly US flown) P-40Fs is that they (the aircraft not necessarily the units) were the most competitive against the Luftwaffe. I have been trying to point out that P-40s were not necessarily the helpless sheep to Luftwaffe wolves that many, many people have insisted all over this forum and throughout the interwebs (and in many books). This is easiest to disprove with this specific model the Merlin engined P-40. Need I point out by the way, that the Merlin is a British engine?

By the way speaking of the P-40F, aside from the 15 US and 2 RAF squadrons flying them in the Med, there were also about 3 Free French squadrons of Groupe de Chasse II/5 La Fayette (GC II/5). I don't know how many victory claims they made but those should be included in the 592 by US units and ~ 40 by RAF units.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Dec 16, 2018)

Glider said:


> Does it help to turn tighter, of course. Does it make a big difference, no it doesn't. The Zero could easily turn inside a Hellcat but the Hellcat was a better fighter. The Hurricane could turn inside the 109 and 190 but they were the better fighters. The 109 could turn inside the P51 but the P51 was the better fighter. I could go on, the list of examples is huge.



Yes but you forgot the other key factor - turn and *roll*. The Hurricane could turn very sharply but it couldn't roll and it couldn't dive. That is why it couldn't compete after 1941. The Spitfire and the P-51 ... and the Fw 190 all had excellent roll rates. As did the P-40. Turning is an option, rolling lets you choose different options as soon as you need to.



> Only if you believe your fantasy that the P40 was the fastest diving plane of the war



I never said that, I just think the P-40 pilots didn't have to worry about their tail falling off in a dive mate. And I didn't base that opinion on propaganda I based on on dozens of pilot interviews. Pilot after pilot (both Axis and Allied) noted that the dive speed of the P-40 was an advantage in combat.



> But its interesting that the Whirlwind initially, later supported by the Typhoon were able to undertake GA missions over occupied territories with considerable success. However there were relatively few German aircraft in Europe at the time.



Whirlwinds were great fighters, their only limit really was range.



> Just to remind you, the thread is about comparing the Typhoon to the P40. However the P40 wasn't nearly as good as the Typhoon for all the reasons stated. The Spitfire IX on was a much better fighter than the Typhoon which is why the Spitfire was top cover to the Typhoon.



P-40F specifically. And I suspect it actually was. Can't claim to know, but the Typhoon was available in combat units for four years. That is a long time and it's more than twice as long as the P-40F was in the field in any numbers. Maybe the amount of sorties was equivalent, but I doubt it was higher. And if the Typhoon was a better plane they probably would have sent it to the Med along with the Spitfire.



> In Christopher Shores original book, Fighters over Tunisia there are a number of interviews with pilots at the time who were asked to rate the fighters. All of them put the Spit IX first, Most put the Spit V or P38 second with the 190 and 109
> All put the P40 next and the P39 last



He has a lot like that, I don't think Shores is a fan! And there were certainly pilots who didn't like the P-40 or who thought it was inferior to the 109, but I can post just as many (and have done, though they seem to be ignored) praising the P-40. See here for examples of eight experienced pilots, seven of whom were aces (British, Australian, American and Russian) who flew the P-40 as well as numerous other aircraft who thought it was an excellent fighter it and specifically noted it could shoot down Zeros, Bf 109s and Fws.

It's worth noting by the way that each of those Aces got arguments and push back when they pointed out that the P-40 was a good fighter if flown correctly.


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 16, 2018)

Schweik said:


> Uh, no. No bruh, that is not what it is. Here is what happened, I went out and had a couple of beers, and a couple of y'all wen't nuts writing encyclopedias.
> 
> Listen, I'm perfectly happy to read a long dissertation about the ballistic properties of different aircraft ordinance, it's exactly the kind of thing I come to this board for. And I know one or two of you guys are real anxious to see me get "schooled" because you are annoyed that I'm taking an outlier position on a subject you feel you already own.
> 
> But please, lets be real - I never argued that Italian 12.7mm was better than an MG 151, let alone that it was better than a Hispano, nor that it was better than a US .50 or a Soviet 12.7mm. I'm happy to read all those details (even though I don't even buy all the arguments being made in that three part dissertation). However, I don't have a dog in that particular hunt so I'll refrain from opining there. You are arguing with yourself.



Gee, you don't like facts, why is this not surprise. You said "I'm not sure that I buy a single 20mm cannon, no matter how fearsome, is superior to two 12.7mm machine guns - but if it is I would assume it's pretty close"

Now, as I tried to point out, in some cases you could be right (if you leave out the fearsome part). in other cases you are dead wrong, it depended on the particular 12.7mm machine gun and the the 20mm gun you are comparing. It also depends on how the guns were mounted. Synchronized heavy machine guns usually took a big hit to rate of fire/effectiveness.





> Try to remember, this ALL started when I poked a hole in the excuse that was given as to why P-40Fs had more victory claims in a few months to two years than Typhoons had in 4 years. Namely that excuse was that supposedly they were shooting down obsolete Japanese bombers and other fillage. When I pointed out that they were not stationed in the Pacific, but were in fact shooting down Bf 109s and MC 202s, it was suggested, falsely, that the latter were inferior fighters (per the above incorrect assertion i.e. 'fillage'). When I pointed out that almost all of the Allied pilots in the region, and most aviation writers etc. classified the Bf 109F and MC. 202 as 'equivalent' - I was told "No way! the MC 202 has inferior guns!"



Ok I will freely admit I was in error about the Use of the P-40F in the Pacific. Now as to the MC202 being an inferior fighter. It performed well, very well considering it was using the same engine as a 1939/1940 109E (but then the 109F prototype performed much better than the E using the same engine) in part due carrying about 2/3rds the weight of guns and ammo as the 109E) however we still have the firepower problem. You can dress it up and put lipstick on it but the MC202 had real problem with firepower. see below. 



> Then I pointed out that while both aircraft were somewhat lightly armed compared to say, a Fw-190, the Bf 109F - considered the best Axis fighter at that time, wasn't particularly heavily armed either. The F2 (1,230 built) had a single _15mm _cannon and two rifle caliber machine guns. The F4 (1,841 built) had a single 20mm cannon (granted a very good one) and two rifle caliber machine guns. Maybe that's slightly better than an MC. 202, but we are not talking P-47 vs. Mc 200 armament here. It's an incremental difference a best, and not one that really means a lot in fighter vs. fighter combat - two nose mounted 12.7mm machine guns can take out any WW2 fighter in less than 10 seconds _if they can hit the target_.



The 109F-4 is rated by some people as having over 4 times the firepower of a two 12.7mm gun Italian fighter. see. WORLD WAR 2 FIGHTER GUN EFFECTIVENESS
and find the line for Fiat G.50 Freccia. Mr Williams is counting the effect of the explosive content in his calculations, not just weight of metal/projectiles. 
adding in the wing guns on the MC202 which don't show up until the 9th production batch the difference is about 3 times. Perhaps you think that 3-4 times the fire power is just an increment or "slightly better", I don't. 

Thanks for the video, it was interesting but you may have shot down your own argument with it, 

I believe, as a guess, that the pilot recovered a piece from this type of 20mm shell




from Luftwaffe Cannons & Machineguns.
I am guessing that it is the rear part of the shell where the tracer element was. The HE charge for this shell was 6 grams of HE (not including the tracer)

I am making no guesses as to what sort of shells caused the other damage. however at times the German ammo belts contained 40% of this type of shell. 



same source
which contained (usually) 20 grams of HE 

There were also several APHE rounds with solid noses Up to 5 grams of HE and a base fuse. 

Now lets get back to the MC202 and It's 12.7mm ammo 



source may be from Christian Koll
round on the right is the HE with 0.8 grams of HE. That is right, 0.8 grams or 13% of the explosive that went off in the wing of the P-40. How many such hits would take to bring down the P-40?
Please note that the Italian AP round is going to have about 60% of the penetrating power of the US .50 cal so depending on the AP rounds in the belt to get through the seat armor after going through other parts/items in the rear fuselage might not be good bet. 

AS for " _two nose mounted 12.7mm machine guns can take out any WW2 fighter in less than 10 seconds_ _*if they can hit the target*_." Please show me a combat report that says a pilot 
held a firing position for 10 seconds and was hitting the target for all ten seconds (or even 8), not just fired his guns for 10 seconds with the target somewhere in the gun sight. 

DId MC202s bring down US/Allied fighters? certainly, would more have been lost if the Italian fighters had more effective armament? 
yes

"And we all know that."

So lighten up yourself. I have several outlier positions myself (like not swallowing the one gun in the fuselage is worth two in the wings kool-aid).

basic problem with this comparison is that NW Europe (at least the part the Typhoon could reach) was NOT a target rich environment for much of the Typhoons career.
You can't shoot down what isn't there. anymore than fighter squadrons in the Aleutian Islands were going to rack up big scores. 

It took from Sept of 1941 to Sept of 1942 to build the first 500 Typhoons (two batches of 250 planes each) and it took until May of 1943 to build another 700( 3rd batch), That is built, not issued or in squadron service. 
I believe (could be wrong) that there were 4 squadrons of MK IX Spitfires operational in Aug of 1942, By March of 1943 the LF MK IX was entering production and the MK IX with the improved Merlin 66 followed a few months after. The Griffon powered MK XII entered service (in small numbers) in April of 1943. 
the 4th major batch of Typhoons (600 planes) took until Dec of 1943 to complete. 
1800 planes in two years and 3-4 months and by the end of 1943 any air superiority work to be done was being done Spitfires, P-47s, P-51s and so on. 
Number of Typhoons being used for air superiority is not going to great at any one time during this period (early part of the period is when the engines were only lasting 20 hours) open to correction?
and idea of shipping these things to North Africa given the engine problems they were having in England was a logistical nightmare that wasn't going to happen.


----------



## slaterat (Dec 16, 2018)

The Typhoon is far superior to the P-40. The P-40 is much closer to the Hurricane than the Typhoon. The Typhoon compares well to the FW 190 and the F4U. Lets compare performance, all numbers from "Flying to the Limit", which summarizes and uses RAF test data.

Climb rate, Typhoon 2,700 ft/min at 2000' and 8.7 mins to 20,000 ', P-40f 2020 ft/min at 2000', 10.9 minutes to 20,000'

Speed, Typhoon 375 TAS at 10k and 394 at 20 k, P40 F, 328 at 10k and 352 at 20k.

For most of the flight range the Typhoon maintains a 40 to 50 mph advantage.

Diving tests on a Kittyhawk I went to the dive limit of 460 IAS, at which time the ailerons were,"virtually immovable"

The limiting speed for the Typhoon in a dive was 525 IAS , at 460 IAS the Typhoon could still bank from 45 degrees one side to 45 the other, applying 1/4 aileron , in 5.75 seconds

The Typhoon also has better firepower of the 4x20 mm cannons.

So to summarize, the Typhoon is faster in level flight by 40 to 50 mph, it climbs and dives faster and is more controllable when doing so, it also has far superior fire power, apart from that the P-40 might have a turn advantage.

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


----------



## slaterat (Dec 16, 2018)

Three Typhoons were sent to North Africa for testing in June of 43. Francis K Mason, "The Hawker Hurricane" p 152


----------



## pbehn (Dec 16, 2018)

Northern France, Belgium and Netherlands in 1943/44 was a target rich environment but the targets weren't aircraft.


----------



## Schweik (Dec 16, 2018)

pbehn said:


> Northern France, Belgium and Netherlands in 1943/44 was a target rich environment but the targets weren't aircraft.



I think any aircraft that intruded over Northern France or say, Norway or the Low Countries in 1943 / 44 fairly swiftly found enemy fighters to entertain them. Isn't this the main reason that most of the complex "Rhubarb" had such high casualty rates?


----------



## Schweik (Dec 16, 2018)

slaterat said:


> The Typhoon is far superior to the P-40. The P-40 is much closer to the Hurricane than the Typhoon. The Typhoon compares well to the FW 190 and the F4U. Lets compare performance, all numbers from "Flying to the Limit", which summarizes and uses RAF test data.
> 
> Climb rate, Typhoon 2,700 ft/min at 2000' and 8.7 mins to 20,000 ', P-40f 2020 ft/min at 2000', 10.9 minutes to 20,000'



Actual initial climb rate for the P-40L* was 3,300 ft/min (source - page 234)



> Speed, Typhoon 375 TAS at 10k and 394 at 20 k, P40 F, 328 at 10k and 352 at 20k.



P-40F top speed was actually 370 TAS at 20k according to English testing, source



> For most of the flight range the Typhoon maintains a 40 to 50 mph advantage.



20-30 mph, and lets note that the wing loading was considerably higher (40.9 lb / sq ft for Typhoon Mk 1b vs. 33.9 for P-40L) and Typhoon roll rate was considerably lower, which is probably more of a problem. It's worth pointing out that Bf 109s, MC 205s and Fw 190s had similar speed advantages over the P-40F/L and yet hundreds went down to their guns.



> Diving tests on a Kittyhawk I went to the dive limit of 460 IAS, at which time the ailerons were,"virtually immovable"
> 
> The limiting speed for the Typhoon in a dive was 525 IAS , at 460 IAS the Typhoon could still bank from 45 degrees one side to 45 the other, applying 1/4 aileron , in 5.75 seconds



That is impressive about the banking at speed, P-40s could dive as fast but they had to use trim tabs over 500 mph. Handling up to 480 mph was considered excellent. It is also worth pointing out that while the test you mentioned was on a Kittyhawk I (P-40D), the P-40F/L had the lengthened tail** which improved high speed control.



> The Typhoon also has better firepower of the 4x20 mm cannons.



No argument there. How much ammunition?



> So to summarize, the Typhoon is faster in level flight by 40 to 50 mph, it climbs and dives faster and is more controllable when doing so, it also has far superior fire power, apart from that the P-40 might have a turn advantage.



Faster, but not quite so much faster as you claim, doesn't climb faster at least at low altitude, P-40F/L definitely and quite obviously does have a considerable turn _and roll _advantage. P-40 also doesn't poison the cockpit with fumes or lose the tail in one of those dives. And the P-40F/L shot down twice as many enemy aircraft while still performing the same CAS / fighter bomber role.

*This also applies to the 'stripped' P-40Fs
** some of the early P-40F did not have the long tail, later run ones all did as did all of the P-40L


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 16, 2018)

Sure, German AA had nothing to do with the losses on low level missions. 
Total waste of effort on the part of the Germans.


----------



## Schweik (Dec 16, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> Sure, German AA had nothing to do with the losses on low level missions.
> Total waste of effort on the part of the Germans.



So no fighters huh? Just flak?


----------



## Kevin J (Dec 16, 2018)

Schweik said:


> I don't know where this and all the flag waving comments come from. This isn't a "pick on the Limeys" festival and I'm not waving any flag. I like aircraft from all over the world in WW2, including British, US, Soviet, Japanese, Italian and German designs. And others! If you have read my posts on this forum I don't think you have ever heard me criticize the Spitfire or the Mosquito, or the Beaufighter, or the Tempest for that matter. Or the whirlwind. All favorites of mine. In fact I've been praising the Spitfire, the Machi 202, the Bf 109F and the Yak1 in this very thread and others in the last few days (and getting grief for it.)
> 
> This thread started when someone in another thread, I think Graugeist, off-handedly noted that the Typhoon was vastly better than a P-40. I said "I'm not so sure about that but I don't really care". He replied "Well I CARE" etc. so I started this thread to explore the subject. When I opened the thread I really didn't know all the details except that the Typhoon had some teething troubles and both aircraft were around at the same time. The reason I focused on the (mostly US flown) P-40Fs is that they (the aircraft not necessarily the units) were the most competitive against the Luftwaffe. I have been trying to point out that P-40s were not necessarily the helpless sheep to Luftwaffe wolves that many, many people have insisted all over this forum and throughout the interwebs (and in many books). This is easiest to disprove with this specific model the Merlin engined P-40. Need I point out by the way, that the Merlin is a British engine?
> 
> By the way speaking of the P-40F, aside from the 15 US and 2 RAF squadrons flying them in the Med, there were also about 3 Free French squadrons of Groupe de Chasse II/5 La Fayette (GC II/5). I don't know how many victory claims they made but those should be included in the 592 by US units and ~ 40 by RAF units.



My view is that you're making the wrong comparisons. The P-40 Warhawk in all its variants is operated in the same time frame as the Typhoons. The P-40Q, never built, would have been better than the Typhoon, even the P-40L could have been given Merlin 225's to make it a better low altitude fighter, maybe superior even to the Typhoon. Although the P-40F/L are slower they aren't slower significantly or to an extent that they would be disadvantaged in a dogfight. The only problem the P-40's have is their low altitude speed which would have hindered them in intercepting Fw 190A jabo's which the Typhoon could do effectively. Personally, I think the Warhawk is the better plane if only better engines which were available had been installed in them.


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 16, 2018)

Schweik said:


> So no fighters huh? Just flak?



No, it was combination, but ignoring the losses from flak so you can claim there were plenty of German fighters in the area/s at the time being considered is hardly fair or accurate.


----------



## Schweik (Dec 16, 2018)

Here is my take on the ballistics argument.

And I suspect it does hinge in part on the "guns in the wings" vs "guns in the nose" issue.

In a nutshell, there is more to the guns than pure firepower, and there were different schools of thought on how to use guns which tended to utilize the traits of the guns at hand and also depended on the type of fight going on and the type of target.

British aircraft with wing guns from what I understand focused on shooting at the convergence distance set between the two guns - usually around 250 meters though that changed through the war. Cannons required a lot less time on target than the old .303s did - and could hit from further away. Later in the war there were different opinions on which secondary guns to use after the two Hispano 20mm. Some liked the .303s, some liked another pair of Hispano cannon, and some liked the American 0.50 cal - the latter seemed to gradually win out due to range. As someone mentioned upthread with different kinds of guns convergences were naturally harder to coordinate and often inevitably met at different ranges. Often with aircraft that had both cannon and rifle caliber machine guns (A6M, Spit, Bf 109G), the latter would be used first since they had more ammunition, and once they started registering hits the cannon would be engaged. Early cannon armed fighters like the Spit VB, A6M2, and Bf109E had as few as 60 cannon shells per gun so pilots had to be very economical when shooting their big guns.

American planes with wing mounted guns (all of them except the P-38, P-39 and early P-40B/C) also focused on convergence and used different strategies. Each pilot could set the guns differently. Some pilots set all their guns to converge at close range, and advocated getting within 200 or 150 meters of their target and shooting massive fusilades into them. Others set all their guns to converge at long (350-400 meter) or medium (250 meter) distance. And some went for a kind of funnel effect with one pair converging at 350, one at 250, and one at 150.

*Spray and pray*
The latter coincided with a 'spray and pray' strategy alluded to in one of Shortrounds earlier posts on this subject. You saw an enemy fighter coming into range, you pulled lead past it, started shooting, and kept shooting until the enemy fighter passed through your bullet stream, with usually at least a few striking the target. With cannons and heavy machine guns, even a handful of hits can be telling. This strategy could be attempted repeatedly with any guns that had a large amount of ammunition.

*Boom and Zoom*
Another strategy was to have very heavy armament, come up against the target often in a dive and preferably by surprise, and make one shooting pass but blasting all guns for a sustained volley, starting from distance and continuing until the target was passed, usually just a single pass. Bf 110, Fw 190, P-47 and others relied on this strategy.

*Short range*
A major difference in strategy was whether or not to use deflection shots. Deflection shooting was _usually_ more common with wing mounted guns. Fighters, especially early fighters like the Soviet planes, often had very few cannon shells in particular. So the Soviet strategy was to get as close as possible, often up to 150 meters or less, sometimes down to 50 meters, and then shoot. Shooting from shorter range made the guns hit harder (more penetration) made it easier to hit and made it easier to hit specific parts of the plane, like the engine, wing root or cockpit.

Hans Joachim Marseilles famously made vertical attacks into RAF defensive / Lufberry circles (from above or from below) to better bypass pilot armor and got a lot of his victories by killing the pilot with one or two cannon shells. This appears however to have been an outlier strategy as several German pilots noted that nobody else could emulate his technique. Once he died that kind of went away at least in the Med.

Other Luftwaffe _experten_ flying Bf 109F (with their nose mounted guns) said they got as close as they could and shot from point blank range. This made the guns more effective and allowed them to use fewer shells (3 or 4 well concentrated cannon shells could tear off a wing easily, even of a strongly made fighter). Many fighter pilots in fact emphasized shooting at closer range so as not to waste ammunition. This was actually drilled into RAF pilots in 1942.

*Long range*
However when shooting at bombers especially if coming up from behind, it was a good idea to shoot the defensive gunners from long distance. This was a common strategy with DAF Kittyhawks as pointed out by Billy Drake, Bobby Gibbes and others. Skill at deflection shooting was fairly rare, Australian Ace Clive Caldwell came up with a way to train the skill by shooting at aircraft shadows on the ground, which through his aggressive advocacy became a general DAF training method. He was very good at long range deflection shooting, including once shooting down Luftwaffe experten Hans Arnold Stahlschmidt from 800 meters behind and below.

This is a matter of unusual skill but also taking advantage of the long range and sustained hard-hitting impact of 0.5 inch guns.

A much more common strategy for long range shooting was during a long chase. At high dive speeds aircraft got more difficult to control, and moved less. Some fighters like the P-40 or the Fw 190 could still roll a lot which helped immensely in defense and avoiding being shot. But many couldn't roll so much at high speed like the Bf 109. So when a fighter was trying to disengage, and involved in a long chase, you had a lot longer to line up a shot, and therefore they did get some kills from very long distances 600-800 meters this way, especially with HMGs. This was also necessary when using a slower aircraft as you may not have the luxury of getting close.

*Deflection and the gyro sight*
Deflection shooting remained a fairly rare skill. The introduction of the gyro gunsight - I forget the exact percentages but the difference was striking. Until that happened IIRC sometime in 1944, pilots good at deflection shooting tended to stand out and were often high scoring aces, since there were many more opportunities for deflection shots than close range shots.

Ultimately, the strategy boiled down to shooting often with a low percentage of hits - say you make 10 shots in a combat each with a 2-3% chance of hitting, versus making few shots with a higher percentage chance - say 2 or 3 shots with an 8% chance of hitting. Planes made with heavier guns in the nose, like the Bf 109 and MC202, the Yak 1 and the La 5, tended to emphasize the latter.


----------



## pbehn (Dec 16, 2018)

Schweik said:


> So no fighters huh? Just flak?


If they were there in force they chose not to show up on D-Day.


----------



## Schweik (Dec 16, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> No, it was combination, but ignoring the losses from flak so you can claim there were plenty of German fighters in the area/s at the time being considered is hardly fair or accurate.



I pointed out there were _plenty _of German fighters shooting down incoming bombers as I happen to remember several specific raids, one of which involved a family member of mine, in which many Allied aircraft were shot down by fighters.

I never said German Flak wasn't very dangerous - it certainly was! However it is disingenuous to imply that there weren't plenty of fighters ready to intercept any intruder over German controlled airspace since we both know there were. Typhoon units wouldn't have had any trouble finding enemy fighters.

But we are going round and round here, what we really need is an operational history of the Typhoon units so we can get some idea of a comparative number of sorties.



By the way this is Stahlschmidts description of getting shot down by Caldwell - he thought the 0.50s were cannons.

_"saw the Curtiss planes approximately 300 meters below us and falling away below. These aircraft were no threat to us whatsoever! Now I just wanted to level out of my turning bank, since my colleagues were already at a substantially higher altitude. Keppler (his wingman), overshot me. Once again, I saw the Curtiss planes 300 meters directly below me and counted eleven aircraft.

Not suspecting anything untoward, I continued my level climb. All of a sudden there was a loud noise in my cockpit — I'd taken cannon [sic] fire. The crate immediately flipped uncontrollably onto its back. Fuel gushed into the cockpit; it began smoking and then I completely lost control of the Bf 109, spiraling down on my back through the Curtisses. Over the intercom I heard the angry voice of Homuth: "Which of you idiots just let himself get shot down?"

Trailing a long column from my radiator I fell earthward. The water temperature climbed to 140 degrees. At an altitude of 1,000 meters I again regained control of the crate. With a bit of flair and fortune I managed to fly the 100 km to our own lines, during which I would only switch the engine [on] for short periods, in order to gain altitude for the long glide home.[17]__[18]"_


----------



## Schweik (Dec 16, 2018)

pbehn said:


> If they were there in force they chose not to show up on D-Day.



As an example of what I'm referring to (since you chaps don't seem to neet me halfway with anything I say), consider "Operation Oyster" in Dec 1942. A large force of 93 RAF bombers (including 47 Venturas, 36 Bostons, and 10 Mosquitos) attempted a low level raid on the Phillips works in Endoven Holland.

Despite numerous diversionary raids to distract the fighters, the mission was intercepted by no less than 3 German fighter groups JG-1, JG-26 and JG-2. One of the bomber pilots, observing enemy fighters taking off noted "They looked so normal, just like Spitfires taking off in England, that it was hard to realize they were coming up to kill you. "

The raid suffered 15 aircraft lost and 56 heavily damaged. I'm sure some from flak but many from the fighters, for example the wing commander of the raid and 4 other bombers were shot down by fighters during the withdrawal alone.

Now I think Typhoons (or P-40s) could have been useful here at some point, assuming they had sufficient range.


Another point is that RAF Allison engined Mustang I and II fighters were getting chased by enemy fighters on almost intruder / recon flight they made. That is why they were using 70" WEP so much.


----------



## michael rauls (Dec 16, 2018)

My 2 cents, not so sure there is a clear winner here. The Typhoon certainly has better performance stats but the later modles Hawk have some advantages that don't show up in performance stats.
Someone said that having a tighter turn is not that big a deal. Granted but I would submit that having a faster roll rate AND tighter turn becomes much more of an advantage. How much so will of course be disputed by each individual in accordance with there pre-existing position I'm sure.
Also, in my opinion at least,( I know this will be a point of contention by some and thats certainly o.k.) , these aircraft are not contemporaries. The p40l/ f is an evolution of a 1935 design, the original Hawk, the same as say an fw190d is an evolution of an earlier form but is still an Fw190 dispite an engine change. I think the Typhoon first flew 4 or 5 years later than the first Hawk, a lifetime of aircraft development considering the accelerated pace of development at the time. That the p40f/l can even be considered in the same ballpark speaks well of it.
In the end as a combat aircraft in general I would give the edge to the Typhoon. It brings more firepower to the ground attack role and enough speed th chase down V-1s which is very important but in a vacuum, in the low to mid level fighter roll I would say it's pretty close.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Milosh (Dec 16, 2018)

Schweik said:


> As an example of what I'm referring to (since you chaps don't seem to neet me halfway with anything I say), consider "Operation Oyster" in Dec 1942. A large force of 93 RAF bombers (including 47 Venturas, 36 Bostons, and 10 Mosquitos) attempted a low level raid on the Phillips works in Endoven Holland.
> 
> Despite numerous diversionary raids to distract the fighters, the mission was intercepted by no less than 3 German fighter groups JG-1, JG-26 and JG-2. One of the bomber pilots, observing enemy fighters taking off noted "They looked so normal, just like Spitfires taking off in England, that it was hard to realize they were coming up to kill you. "
> 
> ...



*Casualties[edit]*






The Dutch in Eindhoven celebrate their liberation, 18 September 1944

Aircrew losses were 62 men; fifteen aircraft were lost, including one in the sea and another crashed in England, a loss rate of 16 per cent; fifty-three bombers were damaged, 57 per cent of the force, seven seriously. Nine Venturas, four Bostons and a Mosquito were lost and 37 Venturas, 13 Bostons and three Mosquitoes were damaged. The Venturas had a 20 per cent loss rate and three crash-landings in England, an unsustainable loss rate.[74][75][21]* Few of the losses and damages were caused by German fighters*, the bombers proving difficult targets at low level; one Mosquito was intercepted by a Fw 190 as it approached Eindhoven and abandoned its bombing run after evading the FW for fifteen minutes, the FW gave up the chase near Flushing. A minimum of 31 aircraft had bird strikes, some hit trees and several Venturas probably hit houses when bombing through smoke; light flak damaged some aircraft and possibly shot down others.[76] The Group had to stand down for ten days while their aircraft were repaired and losses replaced.[77] A B-17 and one B-24 were lost in the two diversionary raids, along with one of the escorting Spitfires; a Fw 190 had also been shot down.[78]

When were these RAF Allison Mustangs being chased by Luftwaffe fighters?


----------



## pbehn (Dec 16, 2018)

Schweik said:


> As an example of what I'm referring to (since you chaps don't seem to neet me halfway with anything I say), consider "Operation Oyster" in Dec 1942. A large force of 93 RAF bombers (including 47 Venturas, 36 Bostons, and 10 Mosquitos) attempted a low level raid on the Phillips works in Endoven Holland.
> 
> Despite numerous diversionary raids to distract the fighters, the mission was intercepted by no less than 3 German fighter groups JG-1, JG-26 and JG-2. One of the bomber pilots, observing enemy fighters taking off noted "They looked so normal, just like Spitfires taking off in England, that it was hard to realize they were coming up to kill you. "
> 
> ...


As an example of what I am referring to I specifically said 1943/44 and to prove that wrong you quote something from 1942 which doesn't mention Typhoons. Eindhoven is in Netherlands just down the road from Duisburg on the edge of the Ruhr industrial area BTW.


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 16, 2018)

The Luftwaffe did have air superiority over continental Europe by late '42 and with that air superiority, the need at the time for heavy concentrations of AA batteries wasn't considered a priority.

This would soon change with the Allied heavy bombing effort along with long-range escorts, so the environment in late 1942 was nothing like early 1944.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## MIflyer (Dec 16, 2018)

Funny thing, The P-40 got into the war well before the Typhoon did and while the Typhoon must have been phased out very quickly after the end of the war, the P-40 continued to serve, the Dutch using them against insurgents in the East Indies until 1947.

Just ran across something I did not know in the book "P-40 Hawks at War." The Japanese captured so many intact in Java, many even still in their shipping crates, that they formed a fighter unit equipped with P-40's to defend Rangoon in 1943. I suppose that some of those used by the Dutch after the war were recaptured in Java.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 16, 2018)

Schweik said:


> I pointed out there were _plenty _of German fighters shooting down incoming bombers as I happen to remember several specific raids, one of which involved a family member of mine, in which many Allied aircraft were shot down by fighters.




and here we have a problem with "german controlled airspace" and the operational radius of a Typhoon. Typhoons were not penetrating very far into German controlled airspace, they couldn't. Data card for the Typhoon http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/typhoon/typhoon-ads.jpg

says that it needed 32 gallons to start, warm up, take off and climb to 15,000ft. on a low level raid we can eliminate most of the climb but you do need some fuel to form up your unit and rendezvous with another units involved which often were coming from other air bases. The card says the plane can do 450 miles range(225 miles radius) at max weak mixture (330mph at 15,000ft) but flying at low level will increase fuel consumption and or decrease speed. . card also says that 5 minutes at max power is worth 60 miles at max weak mixture. so that 225 mile radius starts shrinking rapidly. 

there were only a small number of German fighter units near the coast with more the further you went in. And the Germans were pretty cagy about intercepting anything that flew over the occupied land near the coast. They were doing their version of what Dowding did, They learned pretty quick not to send a 1-2 squadrons of fighters to intercept 4 Blenheims being escorted by 40-60 Spitfires. 
On the Philips radio tube factory raid the British sent 93 bombers and lost 15 with 57 damaged, From Wiki " Few of the losses and damages were caused by German fighters, the bombers proving difficult targets at low level; one Mosquito was intercepted by a Fw 190 as it approached Eindhoven and abandoned its bombing run after evading the FW for fifteen minutes, the FW gave up the chase near Flushing. A minimum of 31 aircraft had bird strikes, some hit trees and several Venturas probably hit houses when bombing through smoke; light flak damaged some aircraft and possibly shot down others" 



> I never said German Flak wasn't very dangerous - it certainly was! However it is disingenuous to imply that there weren't plenty of fighters ready to intercept any intruder over German controlled airspace since we both know there were. Typhoon units wouldn't have had any trouble finding enemy fighters.



The Typhoon units weren't looking for enemy fighters for much of the period in question. If they were doing low level raids across the channel they were often done in less than squadron strength. flights of 4 aircraft or some times pairs would be tasked with certain targets or areas in order to confuse enemy defenses and many times the targets were whatever trains or barges could be found. The covering fighters would be a number of miles (several minutes) behind or at a predetermined location to try to bounce any German fighters as the low level raiders tried to escape back the channel and England. 
Large groups of British fighters fighters flying in formation over the coast made a pretty spectacle for the Germans to watch but they had no need to risk German planes and German pilots to defend Dutch, Belgian and French civilians. 







> By the way this is Stahlschmidts description of getting shot down by Caldwell - he thought the 0.50s were cannons.


couple of problems with this anecdote. 
Had Stahlschmidt been in a plane that had been hit by cannon fire in order to make a comparison? 
As mentioned earlier, the American (or as used by the British/commonwealth) .50 cal used much heavier bullets than the Italian 12.7mm and hit harder, although I doubt Stahlschmidt had been on the receiving end of the italian guns (possible friendly fire incident?)


----------



## pbehn (Dec 16, 2018)

From Wiki From early 1943 the wings were plumbed and adapted to carry cylindrical 45 imp gal (200 l; 54 US gal) drop tanks,[nb 15] increasing the Typhoon's range from 690 miles (1,110 km) to up to 1,090 miles (1,750 km). This enabled Typhoons to range deep into France, the Netherlands and Belgium. Some units, such as 609 Squadron and 198 Squadron, were able to achieve notable success in air combat and ground attack operations using these long-range Typhoons.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 16, 2018)

pbehn said:


> From Wiki From early 1943 the wings were plumbed and adapted to carry cylindrical 45 imp gal (200 l; 54 US gal) drop tanks,[nb 15] increasing the Typhoon's range from 690 miles (1,110 km) to up to 1,090 miles (1,750 km). This enabled Typhoons to range deep into France, the Netherlands and Belgium. Some units, such as 609 Squadron and 198 Squadron, were able to achieve notable success in air combat and ground attack operations using these long-range Typhoons.




To further this from the provided link to Wiki
"From March 1943 198 Squadron joined 609 Squadron at Manston where it provided fighter-escorts to the twin-engined Westland Whirlwind fighter bomber on sorties into continental Europe. *Over the next nine months 198 Squadron and 609 Squadron were the only Typhoon units to operate full-time on escort duties for RAF and USAAF bombers and long-range fighter sweeps (code-named "Ramrods") over France, Belgium and the Netherlands*; during these operations the squadron used long-range Typhoons each equipped with a cigar-shaped 45 gallon fuel tank mounted below each wing. In these roles the unit was very successful, becoming one of the top scoring Typhoon units." 

Two squadrons operating for 9 months with how many squadrons "part time? 

The disparity in numbers of Typhoons flying in the early years vs the number of P-40F&Ls might be pretty high. 

more information Here. John Robert Baldwin - Wikipedia

who is credited with "15 and 1 shared aerial victories destroyed, 4 damaged, and 5 damaged on the ground as well as many ground vehicles"

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Dec 16, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> I believe (could be wrong) that there were 4 squadrons of MK IX Spitfires operational in Aug of 1942, By March of 1943 the LF MK IX was entering production and the MK IX with the improved Merlin 66 followed a few months after. The Griffon powered MK XII entered service (in small numbers) in April of 1943.
> the 4th major batch of Typhoons (600 planes) took until Dec of 1943 to complete.



The LF.IX used the Merlin 66. The HF.IX used the Merlin 70 (though not many built).


----------



## Navalwarrior (Dec 16, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> The Americans had only procured about 20% more spare engines than airframes which was an abnormally small amount. What they did with the spare engines I have no idea (held them in storage or shipped them late?) Due to the lower air intake on the Merlinit is thought (no proof?) that the Merlins didn't last as long in dusty/sandy conditions compared to the Allisons which further hurt the spares situation. Most sources claim (but could be wrong) that the British broke down up to 600 Merlin's to provide spare parts for overhaul rather than supplied replacement engines (US Merlin 1650-1s used a different propshaft spline for one thing than the British XX engines did. I believe it also used a different carburetor. )


Resp:
There are several sources that state that the RAF got @1500 hrs on the Allison engined Mustang, while only 400 hrs on the Merlin Mustangs, before the engine required a major overhaul. So the above statement seems to fit.


----------



## pbehn (Dec 16, 2018)

Navalwarrior said:


> Resp:
> There are several sources that state that the RAF got @1500 hrs on the Allison engined Mustang, while only 400 hrs on the Merlin Mustangs, before the engine required a major overhaul. So the above statement seems to fit.


1500 hrs equates to 9 months of 6 hr escort missions doing one every day.


----------



## Glider (Dec 16, 2018)

Schweik said:


> Yes but you forgot the other key factor - turn and *roll*. The Hurricane could turn very sharply but it couldn't roll and it couldn't dive. That is why it couldn't compete after 1941. The Spitfire and the P-51 ... and the Fw 190 all had excellent roll rates. As did the P-40. Turning is an option, rolling lets you choose different options as soon as you need to.


I am very aware of the difference between the turn and the roll. Having considerable experience flying gliders I would defy anyone to match me in a turn but the roll rate of a large glider is more akin to that of a 747. However the Hurricane didn't lose its ability to compete with later fighters because of what you say. It was simply outclassed in speed, climb acceleration and so on. Personally I prefer to use the term agility.


> I never said that, I just think the P-40 pilots didn't have to worry about their tail falling off in a dive mate. And I didn't base that opinion on propaganda I based on on dozens of pilot interviews. Pilot after pilot (both Axis and Allied) noted that the dive speed of the P-40 was an advantage in combat.


_Pilot after pilot (both Axis and Allied) noted that the dive speed of the P-40 was an advantage in combat._
Correct* if and only if* your aircraft can dive faster than the opposition. We are comparing that dive of the P40 against the Typhoon and there is only one winner there, the Typhoon.


> He has a lot like that, I don't think Shores is a fan! And there were certainly pilots who didn't like the P-40 or who thought it was inferior to the 109, but I can post just as many (and have done, though they seem to be ignored) praising the P-40. See here for examples of eight experienced pilots, seven of whom were aces (British, Australian, American and Russian) who flew the P-40 as well as numerous other aircraft who thought it was an excellent fighter it and specifically noted it could shoot down Zeros, Bf 109s and Fws.


A number of the people you quote fought the Japanese, whose planes were known for their poor dive speed. The Russian said in his quote up to 1943 the P40 could hold their own against the Germans. No one you quote say that the P40 was better than the 109 or 190 or that the P40 was excellent. The best that can be said for the pilots you quote was that if flown correctly the P40 was good but the initiative was with the Luftwaffe.
An aside but I think valid, is that the Russians were continually asking the allies for two types of aircraft the P39 and the Spitfire. They never asked for more P40's, they got them but didn't ask for them, in a similar manner they never asked for Valentine tanks, but got them by the thousand. Which incidentally knocks a hole in another of your postings where you mention that the P51 and Spitfire wouldn't be suitable for Russia, as they certainly asked for more Spitfires.


----------



## pbehn (Dec 16, 2018)

"The Hurricane could turn very sharply but it couldn't roll and it couldn't dive. That is why it couldn't compete after 1941. " The Hurricane could only compete over its own island in 1940 with the help of RADAR. With the same engine the Spitfire was faster at all altitudes, and the Spitfire was fairly evenly matched against the Bf 109. You may like to concentrate on roll rate and instantaneous turn rate, speed and rate of climb and firepower were always decisive.


----------



## Navalwarrior (Dec 16, 2018)

pbehn said:


> 1500 hrs equates to 9 months of 6 hr escort missions doing one every day.


Yes, but few Mustang MkI, IA and II flew few escort missions, and operated at lower altitudes where the Allison performed well.


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 16, 2018)

Navalwarrior said:


> Resp:
> There are several sources that state that the RAF got @1500 hrs on the Allison engined Mustang, while only 400 hrs on the Merlin Mustangs, before the engine required a major overhaul. So the above statement seems to fit.



I believe the quote is that they got 1500hours between main bearing failures while Merlin went 400 hours (or 480 hours?) between main bearing failures.

A main bearing failure is a specific type of failure and in no way relates to to suggested overhaul life of the rest of the engine. 
If you are waiting for a main bearing to fail when you have burned, warped valves, broken or sagging valve springs, piston rings that don't seal the bore any more and worn pistons slapping in the scratched oval bores plus a host of other worn parts you aren't going to be flying very much. 

When figuring out times between specific failures like this it is common practice to total up the number of hours. Say 60 engines each with 200 hours _average_ gives you 12,000 hours and if had 6 main bearing failures in the group (even if one of them was with an engine with on 10 hours) you get a result of 1500 hours between main bearing failures. 
It may tell you about things to watch for or what kind of spare parts may need to stocked but a 'mean time between failure" has nothing to do with overhaul life.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 16, 2018)

I just googled it 
Mustang

and the quote in this book just bearing failure and not main bearing, it also says the Merlin was good for 500-600 hours. At the time in Question, recommendations being made for boost limit in US allison powered Mustangs I doubt very highly if the Merlin figure has anything to do with the Merlins in the Mustang (they hadn't been built yet)


----------



## pbehn (Dec 16, 2018)

As far as I understand it Merlin Spitfires were getting tired after 250 hrs hard service and that wasn't just the engine. Of all the thousands of Spitfires that were produced the RAF rarely had more than 1,000 in front line service. Of the circa 3000 Typhoons that were built I wonder how many pilots used many more than one, wore it out or wrecked it for various reasons and got another. Operating close to the ground and taking anti aircraft fire quickly renders a plane unserviceable.


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 16, 2018)

RR gave suggested overhaul life times at the beginning of the war and at the end of the war For use in bombers it was higher than in fighters and at the end of the war it was higher in transports than in bombers. 
The suggested life for fighters went from 240 hours in 1939 to 300 hours in 1944 to 360 hours in 1945.
This despite the later engines making much more power. 

This was *not* a guarantee. It was a limit at which R R thought that an engine should be pulled from service , even if exhibiting no problems in running, as a preventative measure to prevent problems in flight (engine failure/crash). 
from 1942 on only about 35% of the engines that passed through the repair organizations (overhaul shops) had reached their max time. 
In addition to normal engine problems (excessive oil consumption, poor power, metal bits in the oil) engines with combat damage, crash damage and prop strikes went though the repair organizations so that figure of 35% is obviously skewed compared to normal wear.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Dec 16, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> RR gave suggested overhaul life times at the beginning of the war and at the end of the war For use in bombers it was higher than in fighters and at the end of the war it was higher in transports than in bombers.
> The suggested life for fighters went from 240 hours in 1939 to 300 hours in 1944 to 360 hours in 1945.
> This despite the later engines making much more power.
> 
> ...


Good info, but as I said planes had a built in obsolescence. Once MkII Spitfires were introduced what was the urgency to overhaul MkIs, then came Mk Vs and all the others. Same could be said for P-51s how many B/C variants were overhauled and how many were just replaced by D variants. They were progressively worn out in training squadrons and OTUs.


----------



## Schweik (Dec 16, 2018)

Glider said:


> Correct* if and only if* your aircraft can dive faster than the opposition. We are comparing that dive of the P40 against the Typhoon and there is only one winner there, the Typhoon.



I don't mean the Pacific Theater, I'm talking about in the Med. To be clear.



> A number of the people you quote fought the Japanese, whose planes were known for their poor dive speed. The Russian said in his quote up to 1943 the P40 could hold their own against the Germans. No one you quote say that the P40 was better than the 109 or 190 or that the P40 was excellent. The best that can be said for the pilots you quote was that if flown correctly the P40 was good but the initiative was with the Luftwaffe.



See this is pretty typical of a lot of the posts in this thread and some others. Sometimes, if you have made up what you believe before you start reading, it affects your reading comprehension. I know very well what was in the post I linked because I researched it myself and I transcribed it to that post.

Of the 8 pilots I quoted in that thread, only 2 (*TWO*) only fought in the Pacific - Shilling and DeHaven. Of the other 6, Clive Caldwell, Nicky Barr, General Davis, Charlie Hall and Billy Drake fought in the Med. Caldwell also fought later in the Pacific as well but almost all of his 28 some odd victories were with the P-40 in the Middle East. Drake also fought in various other Theaters around Europe in Spitfires and Hurricanes and scored 13 of his 22 kills with the Kittyhawk.

Golodnikov, the Russian, said that the P-40 was just as good as the Bf 109 through *THE END OF 1943*. That is to say, until 1944. He also said and I quote: "_the Tomahawk was equal to the Bf 109F *and the Kittyhawk was slightly better. *_"

Personally I'm not of the opinion that the P-40 was vastly better than a Bf 109F or G or a Typhoon for that matter. I think it was probably a little better in some ways and a little worse in others, but clearly quite competitive in a dogfight. The Typhoon had some real important value as a V-1 killer and Fw 190 chaser. But that is somewhat offset by all the development problems and the chronic issues like the fumes in the cockpit. Poor maneuverability not such a good thing either.



> An aside but I think valid, is that the Russians were continually asking the allies for two types of aircraft the P39 and the Spitfire. They never asked for more P40's, they got them but didn't ask for them, in a similar manner they never asked for Valentine tanks, but got them by the thousand. Which incidentally knocks a hole in another of your postings where you mention that the P51 and Spitfire wouldn't be suitable for Russia, as they certainly asked for more Spitfires.



They used them and we do know the history of it. Spit V's were used in the Crimea where they got slaughtered and were pulled out of the line, Spit IXs were used exclusively for PVO (rear area air-defense) units. An important job, one which P-40s were eventually relegated to as well and to which the Spitfire was far better suited, but not front line duty.

What this has to do with a Mustang I have no idea. But I stand by what I said - the Mustang wouldn't have been good for the Russian Front.

S


----------



## Schweik (Dec 16, 2018)

pbehn said:


> "The Hurricane could turn very sharply but it couldn't roll and it couldn't dive. That is why it couldn't compete after 1941. " The Hurricane could only compete over its own island in 1940 with the help of RADAR. With the same engine the Spitfire was faster at all altitudes, and the Spitfire was fairly evenly matched against the Bf 109. You may like to concentrate on roll rate and instantaneous turn rate, speed and rate of climb and firepower were always decisive.



No, actually they were not _always_ decisive. Almost every Allied aircraft in 1941 and 1942 was faster than the A6M and the Ki-43 and many could out climb them yet they got slaughtered by them.

There is no one factor, or even two or three, that always makes a fighter superior.... unless it's so far beyond the ballpark of the competition as to be of another generation (i.e. monoplanes vs. biplanes or jets vs prop fighters.)

It's an over simplistic way of looking at the war.


----------



## pbehn (Dec 16, 2018)

Schweik said:


> No, actually they were not _always_ decisive. Almost every Allied aircraft in 1941 and 1942 was faster than the A6M and the Ki-43 and many could out climb them yet they got slaughtered by them.
> 
> There is no one factor, or even two or three, that always makes a fighter superior.... unless it's so far beyond the ballpark of the competition as to be of another generation (i.e. monoplanes vs. biplanes or jets vs prop fighters.)
> 
> It's an over simplistic way of looking at the war.


Now you have changed the theatre AGAIN, this is becoming ridiculous, in air combat speed, rate of climb and firepower were decisive, after that sustained rate of turn and roll rate had some importance. There is one factor, it is so obvious I don't know how you can say any other it was speed, in level flight, in climb or dive, speed ruled and no one cared if an Me 262 was deficient in a turn or roll, no allied aircraft could make it turn or roll without mobbing it. Judging a plane on its kills makes no sense, in any such comparison a Sopwith Camel will prove better than an F-22 or F-35.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Dec 16, 2018)

F35 is crap lol


----------



## pbehn (Dec 16, 2018)

Schweik said:


> F35 is crap lol


Compared to a Sopwith Camel it is a no brainer. Just look at the kills and rate of turn, game over!

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 17, 2018)

Schweik said:


> No, actually they were not _always_ decisive. Almost every Allied aircraft in 1941 and 1942 was faster than the A6M and the Ki-43 and many could out climb them yet they got slaughtered by them.
> 
> There is no one factor, or even two or three, that always makes a fighter superior.... unless it's so far beyond the ballpark of the competition as to be of another generation (i.e. monoplanes vs. biplanes or jets vs prop fighters.)
> 
> It's an over simplistic way of looking at the war.


The first US kills against the A6M was by the P-36 at Pearl Harbor - by inexperienced pilots, wearing pajamas...

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


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 17, 2018)

Schweik said:


> ...
> But I stand by what I said - the Mustang wouldn't have been good for the Russian Front.
> ..



Pray tell, why is that so? Too fast?


----------



## Kevin J (Dec 17, 2018)

pbehn said:


> Compared to a Sopwith Camel it is a no brainer. Just look at the kills and rate of turn, game over!


If we built fabric covered biplanes with a wood structure, would the F35's radar detect them. IIRC, the Mosquito had a low radar signature because it was made of wood.


----------



## Graeme (Dec 17, 2018)

MIflyer said:


> Funny thing, The P-40 got into the war well before the Typhoon did and while the Typhoon must have been phased out very quickly after the end of the war, the P-40 continued to serve, the Dutch using them against insurgents in the East Indies until 1947.



Probably a case where the Tempest took over from the Typhoon. I've read the Tempest was still being utilised in 1955.


----------



## pbehn (Dec 17, 2018)

Graeme said:


> Probably a case where the Tempest took over from the Typhoon. I've read the Tempest was still being utilised in 1955.


Apart from the engine wings and rear fuselage the Typhoon was a great plane.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 17, 2018)

Kevin J said:


> If we built fabric covered biplanes with a wood structure, would the F35's radar detect them. IIRC, the Mosquito had a low radar signature because it was made of wood.



Already during the Cold War the radars were capable to detect cannon and even mortar shells, so methinks that 21st century radar will not have problems detecting the Clerget radial engine.


----------



## Glider (Dec 17, 2018)

tomo pauk said:


> Pray tell, why is that so? Too fast?


Or it could be the long range, which would be useless over the vast Russian plains.

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


----------



## Navalwarrior (Dec 17, 2018)

pbehn said:


> Good info, but as I said planes had a built in obsolescence. Once MkII Spitfires were introduced what was the urgency to overhaul MkIs, then came Mk Vs and all the others. Same could be said for P-51s how many B/C variants were overhauled and how many were just replaced by D variants. They were progressively worn out in training squadrons and OTUs.


Resp:
Proximity to aircraft production facilities, or lack of, determined the number of overhauls vs simple replacement. Many of the Tuskegee airmen got recycled P-51Cs as other units got D/Ks. Guadacanal was so starved for replacements, the mechanics had to strip non-operational aircraft to keep one or two plane flying. Pilots often nursed their damaged planes back to the airfield rather than bailing out, as the loss of parts was disastrous.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## MycroftHolmes (Dec 17, 2018)

Glider said:


> An aside but I think valid, is that the Russians were continually asking the allies for two types of aircraft the P39 and the Spitfire. They never asked for more P40's, they got them but didn't ask for them, in a similar manner they never asked for Valentine tanks, but got them by the thousand.



Are you sure about this? I understood that the Valentine was kept in production specifically _because_ the Russians liked them so much and were constantly asking for more.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Dec 17, 2018)

pbehn said:


> Now you have changed the theatre AGAIN, this is becoming ridiculous, in air combat speed, rate of climb and firepower were decisive, after that sustained rate of turn and roll rate had some importance. There is one factor, it is so obvious I don't know how you can say any other it was speed, in level flight, in climb or dive, speed ruled and no one cared if an Me 262 was deficient in a turn or roll, no allied aircraft could make it turn or roll without mobbing it. Judging a plane on its kills makes no sense, in any such comparison a Sopwith Camel will prove better than an F-22 or F-35.



No, I didn't "change theatre AGAIN" you are not on the level here at all - and I agree DEFINITELY ridiculous! You said for "all fighters" rate of climb, combat speed and firepower were decisive, I pointed out one example among many where they were not. You didn't say decisive in one of these two Theaters. Give me a break.

And in that theater, let me ask you does anyone think that a P-51B is an all-around better fighter than a Spit IX? It's a lot faster! How about a P-47? Faster _and _heavier firepower. But better?

As for the *Eindhoven* raid, first of all no it's not "inadmissable" because of the date - just because you said something about 1943 doesn't mean that the whole discussion is confined to that year or later - both the Typhoon and the P-40F were active in Dec 1942 it's well within the operationally active period for both fighters. The only reason I posted it is because I happened to remember that story due to having read some articles about the Ventura a short while back.

Second of all, the only significance of that particular raid to this discussion is that there were fighters and they did shoot down some of the raiders. To quote directly from the article:

"German fighters had in fact gathered off the coast along the Bostons' route. Wing Commander Peter Dutton, the CO of 107 Squadron, was shot down 6 kilometers out from Katwijk aan Zee.[63] Two more from 107 were lost from fighter attacks over the water.[64] Another from 226 Squadron was lost off Scheveningen.[64] "

So there were fighters and therefore, enemy planes for Typhoons to go shoot down. Get it? It is of zero relevance how many were lost to flak or bird strikes vs. fighters. There were fighters there and they did damage.

If you are really insisting that Luftwaffe fighters didn't rise to the occasion during other raids I'll find more examples.

Finally, Mustangs weren't on the raid and it wasn't a Rhubarb, that was a separate example relating to another primary source document we had referred to several times in the thread already. _capisce_ ?

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Dec 17, 2018)

More examples:

Allied bombing of Rotterdam - Wikipedia

13 raids Aug 42 - May 44, this being typical

*28 March 1943 *24 Ventura bombers, escorted by fighters, bombed Rotterdam docks. At least six ships were hit and a fire was started in a dockside warehouse. No bombers were lost.[9]


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 17, 2018)

Going back to this



Schweik said:


> The cost of two stage engines in terms of materials may seem negligable from a Western perspective but Soviet aircraft design emphasized the use of as few as possible metals and any strategic materials including aluminum (which is why so much of so many of their fighters were made of birch plywood). Two stage engine means two impellers, possibly a whole second supercharger, plus an intercooler. That also undoubtedly increases maintenance costs. These things mattered to the Soviets - they would have done it anyway if they thought they needed a lot of high altitude fighters, but they clearly did not. There was routinely a cloud ceiling at 5,000 feet or less, and all the fighting that mattered centered around the tanks and Tactical ground targets.



The Russians tried to put turbo chargers on just about every major aircraft engine they built (trainer engines excepted) with sometimes a new try on every different model (turbo M-100, tubo M-103, turbo M-105) for example Or turbo M-61, turbo M-62, turbo M-63. Yes, lack of materials doomed most of these experiments but the Russians were certainly interested in high altitude engines.
They had several problems, one was fuel, there is only so far you can go with 95-96 octane fuel. If you compress air 4-5 times even using two stages it gets very hot and very prone to detonate in the cylinders. If you want 44in of MAP at 25,000ft you have to compress the ambient air 4 times, well beyond the capabilities of any single stage compressor for most of WW II. So proper cooling is a must. Both of the intake charge (intercooler) and the engine. If you increase the temperature of the intake charge 100 degrees you also increase the peak cylinder temperature 100 degrees and the exhaust temperature 100 degrees. SInce the air at 25,000 is just under 1/2 as dense as the air at 4,000ft or 66% as dense as the air at 13,000ft you need bigger radiators and oil coolers to support the same power level. You can't slap a turbo on a low altitude airplane and expect it magically turn into a high altitude airplane with no other changes.
The Russians might have been able to reverse engineer the two stage mechanical supercharger on a Merlin, now what do you do with it? It solves the lack of high temperature alloys needed for the turbo but brings problems of it's own. The M-105 engine was on shaky ground as far as durability goes and the whole M-100 series was one upgrade after another to strengthen the basic Hispano engine (which failed it's initial trial test for the Russians in 1934) to get to the power levels it did get to. adding a supercharger that was going to take several hundred crankshaft horsepower to drive (Merlin 61 made 88% of the power at 23,500 ft high blower than it did at 11250ft in low blower at the same manifold pressure, A good part of the difference was the power needed to drive the superchargers in high gear. the aux supercharger in the P-63 could take several hundred hp to drive. If the basic engine will not survive that kind of power being made in the cylinders then there is little point in trying to put a two stage supercharger on it.

The Russians were very pragmatic and did concentrate on their most immediate problems, but they were still doing an awful lot of research as the war went on (and lets not forget that the M-106 and M-107 engines were both started before the Germans invaded).

The Germans also dropped the ball as far as having a large scale bombing program of areas even 3-400 miles behind the lines, for get the whole idea of bombing anything even near the Urals, that would have taken planes equivalent to the B-29.
This simplified things for the Russians, they designed and built prototype high altitude aircraft but didn't put them into production because the threat never became too great.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (Dec 17, 2018)

Schweik said:


> I don't mean the Pacific Theater, I'm talking about in the Med. To be clear.


Got it


> See this is pretty typical of a lot of the posts in this thread and some others. Sometimes, if you have made up what you believe before you start reading, it affects your reading comprehension. I know very well what was in the post I linked because I researched it myself and I transcribed it to that post.


Got it


> Of the 8 pilots I quoted in that thread, only 2 (*TWO*) only fought in the Pacific - Shilling and DeHaven. Of the other 6, Clive Caldwell, Nicky Barr, General Davis, Charlie Hall and Billy Drake fought in the Med. Caldwell also fought later in the Pacific as well but almost all of his 28 some odd victories were with the P-40 in the Middle East. Drake also fought in various other Theaters around Europe in Spitfires and Hurricanes and scored 13 of his 22 kills with the Kittyhawk.



Lets look at what they actually said:-

Shilling and DeHaven - Both Pacific and therefore irrelevant as we are talking Med (see your first comment)

Golodnikov said that the P-40 was just as good as the Bf 109 through *THE END OF 1943*. That is to say, until 1944. He also said and I quote: "_the Tomahawk was equal to the Bf 109F *and the Kittyhawk was slightly better. *_" - Correct he did say that, and if you believe that the Tomahawk was equal to the Me109F I suggest you read the other volumes on the war in the Middle East and see what happened to the Tomahawk before the Spitfires arrived to give them some fighter cover. You also may want to try to comment on why the Russians never asked for additional P40's.

Clive Caldwell - It had almost no vices, could take punishment ect. He didn't say it was better or as good as the 109 or 190. He didn't say it could equivalent performance

Nick Barr - It was a friend that could normally get you out of trouble. He also didn't say it was as good or better than the 190 or 109

General Davis - said If the German fighters wanted to stay away, the P40's couldn't get them, but if the Germans did come down then the P40 was superior. In other words the initiative was with the Germans which is hardly a ringing endorsement.

Charlie Hall - Sure we liked them Most of us got home that flew them He also didn't say it was as good or better than the 190 or 109

Bob O'Neil - Also fought the Japanese so that's out

Billy Drake - Thought it was as good as anything they were likely to meet

So to sum up 
a) One of your quotes thought the P40 was as good as the Germans. 
b) One thought the P40 was superior but admitted that the Germans had the initiative as to when to fight or not
None of the others expressed any statement as to the performance of the P40 against the German aircraft

I will just repeat your statement earlier
_Sometimes, if you have made up what you believe before you start reading, it affects your reading comprehension _
I totally agree, it does affect your comprehension



> They used them and we do know the history of it. Spit V's were used in the Crimea where they got slaughtered and were pulled out of the line, Spit IXs were used exclusively for PVO (rear area air-defense) units. An important job, one which P-40s were eventually relegated to as well and to which the Spitfire was far better suited, but not front line duty.


Slaughtered? For a bunch of second hand MkV's they did very well and were far from slaughtered. They suffered unreliability which limited their performance but not slaughtered and as mentioned earlier the Russians were impressed sufficiently to ask for practically as many Spitfires as they could get.


> What this has to do with a Mustang I have no idea. But I stand by what I said - the Mustang wouldn't have been good for the Russian Front.


This is simply priceless, If you cannot see the advantages the Mustang would bring to the Russian front, it says more than words could tell.

S [/QUOTE]

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 17, 2018)

Schweik said:


> As for the *Eindhoven* raid, first of all no it's not "inadmissable" because of the date - just because you said something about 1943 doesn't mean that the whole discussion is confined to that year or later - both the Typhoon and the P-40F were active in Dec 1942 it's well within the operationally active period for both fighters.............................................
> 
> So there were fighters and therefore, enemy planes for Typhoons to go shoot down. Get it? It is of zero relevance how many were lost to flak or bird strikes vs. fighters. There were fighters there and they did damage.



We seem to splitting hairs here. You seem to think the Typhoon should have been doing hunter/killer mission looking for enemy fighters over occupied NW Europe in 1942/43. A Policy/tactic that had failed miserably in 1941/42 using Spitfires. Changing the type of fighter used was unlikely to bring about much change in the viability of the tactic. 
A good part of the losses suffered on these cross channel missions were from flak, The German fighters did a fair share. But the Germans were NOT going to send up fighters to fight British fighters which were of little threat to the Germans. The British did have to use bombers as "bait" something like the B-17s and B-24s were used as "bait" in early 1944. 

It took awhile to figure out how much bait to use and what kind, the planes (and pilots/crew) had to have a fair chance of survival and not be on suicide missions but pose enough of a threat that the germans would commit an interceptor force to discourage future raids even if they didn't stop the the present one. Shooting down bombers on the way home means you still lost this fight, it does mean the enemy has less assets for the next fight).

The Germans were doing little or nothing in the way of "standing patrols" and would only come up when presented with a viable target. A pair of fighters zipping along at 300mph plus at 100 ft up is not really a viable target but it is a whole lot more tempting that 2 or 3 squadrons coming over at low level. Germans could just sit on the ground, let the flak and inevitable accidents/operational losses take care of things while saving their own fighters/pilots/fuel for either an easier target or a more valuable one (twin engine multi seat bombers). 

The first Typhoon squadron went into service in late 1941 but the two squadrons involved spent months just getting the Typhoon up to the standard needed for combat operations and still didn't quite make it before the Typhoon was committed to combat operations. the first Typhoon wing came into being in the summer of 1942. It took until Dec of 1942 for the British to get 12 squadrons in service. BTW the tail falling off problem had been pretty much cured by the end of 1942. Bracket that held the elevator balance counter weight would break and the fluttering elevator would overload the rear fuselage. 

The British figured, rightly or wrongly, that the Typhoon should take over from the Hurricane and Whirlwind squadrons that had been part of the "bait' in some of these operations
(fighters going by and sometimes strafing is one thing. 250 and 500lb bombs being dropped is another) and more and more of the Typhoon squadrons were switched (or formed up) to perform that role and not the anti-fighter role you invision. 
The Typhoon's air superiority role faded considerably when the Spitfire went from the MK V to the MK IX.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Dec 17, 2018)

Glider said:


> Got it



First of all, you need to figure out how to use quote tags, it's not that hard. [ ] brackets with the word quote inside at the beginning of your post, [/ ] brackets with a slash, followed by the word quote, at the end of the text you want to quote.



> Lets look at what they actually said:-
> Shilling and DeHaven - Both Pacific and therefore irrelevant as we are talking Med (see your first comment)



Irrelevant to this specific discussion perhaps - I was helpfully linking a post from another thread which referred to P-40s in general. You made a mistake in counting the number of pilots, which you didn't acknowledge by the way, and you falsely insinuated that most of the pilots who I quoted that liked the P-40 only used it against Japanese pilots.



> Correct he did say that, and if you believe that the Tomahawk was equal to the Me109F I suggest you read the other volumes on the war in the Middle East and see what happened to the Tomahawk before the Spitfires arrived to give them some fighter cover. You also may want to try to comment on why the Russians never asked for additional P40's.



Again no acknowledgement that you read it wrong. If I hadn't corrected you that would have stood here right?

Actually Tomahawks did pretty well against Bf 109Fs. This is directly from Shores earlier volumes (MAW Volume 1) page 329

_"On November 22, 1941 there was a significant engagement in which the Tomahawk was put to a hard test by the Bf 109F. At 1540 nine Tomahawks of No. 112 Squadron RAF were joined by thirteen Tomahawks of No. 3 Squadron RAAF for an offensive sweep over the Tobruk-El Adem area[7]. At roughly 1600 hours they were intercepted near Bir Hacheim by 20 Bf 109Fs attacking from 3,000 feet above [8]. During the subsequent hour long engagement, which took place near two German airfields, JG 27 fighters landed and refueled to rejoin the fight. In the melee DAF fighters claimed three Bf 109s shot down and four "probables", while JG 27 claimed 11 P-40s [9]. The actual losses were 6 Bf 109F-4s and 7 Tomahawk IIbs shot down and 1 badly damaged (the aircraft of future RAAF Ace Bobby Gibbes) [10]. In the aftermath of the bloody fight both sides were shaken. The Germans believed they had come out ahead but felt the losses were unacceptable , and therefore made the decision not to dogfight the Tomahawk with the Bf 109F in the future [11], and instead to rely on 'boom and zoom' tactics[12], which while effective, imposed certain Tactical limitations. "_

This incident, incidentally, started with the Bf 109s having a major advantage (starting 3000 feet above) and with additional fresh fighters joining the affray from several friendly airbases. For the Russians the situation was different. 9 months out of the year in Russia (on average) there is a heavy cloud ceiling at 5 - 6,000 feet over the steppe. Therefore much harder for high flying Bf 109s to attack from above. Soviet Tomahawks were able to operate entirely within their performance ceiling in other words and most of the fights were down low. In those kind of conditions, which Golodnikov and the several dozen other Soviet P-40 Aces fought in, Tomahawks may have had an edge. I don't know for sure because there isn't enough data. I wouldn't form an opinion just on the basis of one pilots testimony, but I also wouldn't utterly dismiss the (quite detailed and accurate so far as can be verified) personal accounts of a combat veteran and fighter ace, even if he is a naughty Russian. (Why Russian accounts are always dismissed by some people because "Commie" but German accounts are always believed despite Nazi I don't know...)

The only problem they had with P-40s were related to maintenance, and wearing out engines for which they lacked replacements. Though those were considerable.

Now keep in mind, *I never asserted, and I probably never will, that the P-40 was superior to the 109 in general*, I think they both had advantages and disadvantages, which one came out on top depended on the Theater. I just don't think it was necessarily generally _inferior_, and I do think they were close to parity in many, and the P-40 may have had the edge in some. So I don't doubt Golodnikov at his word, if anything he would be expected / under pressure to praise Soviet designs over Lend Lease, which he did generally as he put the Yak -1 over the P-40. He was talking about his Theater and his personal experience of it.



> Clive Caldwell - It had almost no vices, could take punishment ect. He didn't say it was better or as good as the 109 or 190. He didn't say it could equivalent performance



You are making a fool of yourself. You do realize Caldwell scored 22 of his 28 victories with the P-40, and was a well known advocate of the fighter? If you really need me to I can produce many more quotes. It is a bit exhausting to go out and transcribe stuff only to be told black is white, and for people like you to refuse to admit when they make mistakes as you made several times in this discussion already.



> Nick Barr - It was a friend that could normally get you out of trouble. He also didn't say it was as good or better than the 190 or 109



When he says "It was to me, a friend" he was referring to combat with Bf 109s. I don't believe you'll find too many similar comments from Hurricane pilots in the same Theater at the same time period.



> General Davis - said If the German fighters wanted to stay away, the P40's couldn't get them, but if the Germans did come down then the P40 was superior. In other words the initiative was with the Germans which is hardly a ringing endorsement.



The initiative was definitely with the Bf 109s in the sense that if they wanted to stay away, they could hang out at 28,000 feet. However if they wanted to play a role in the drama down at the tank battle in Tunisia or on the beach where Allied landing craft were deploying, or if they wanted to try to stop medium bombers from shellacking their troops with bombs, they had to come down to play. That is how and when these guys scored their victories.



> Charlie Hall - Sure we liked them Most of us got home that flew them He also didn't say it was as good or better than the 190 or 109



He was up against Bf 109s and 190s almost exclusively. These were the victims of all of his victory claims with the P-40, which you can see here, two Fw 190s and 1 Bf 109



> Billy Drake - Thought it was as good as anything they were likely to meet



All he met fighter wise were Bf 109s and MC 202s. For the record.



> So to sum up
> a) One of your quotes thought the P40 was as good as the Germans.
> b) One thought the P40 was superior but admitted that the Germans had the initiative as to when to fight or not



You left out the Russian Golodnikov. But it's beside the point as all of them liked the P-40 and 6 of the 8 flew it against the Germans.



> None of the others expressed any statement as to the performance of the P40 against the German aircraft





> I will just repeat your statement earlier
> _Sometimes, if you have made up what you believe before you start reading, it affects your reading comprehension _
> I totally agree, it does affect your comprehension



..... and... right back at you. One or two of you guys seem to get easily embittered in these discussions and I think it affects your judgement, hopefully just temporarily. You might want to have an egg nog and relax.



> Slaughtered? For a bunch of second hand MkV's they did very well and were far from slaughtered. They suffered unreliability which limited their performance but not slaughtered and as mentioned earlier the Russians were impressed sufficiently to ask for practically as many Spitfires as they could get.



Read about it yourself, they had a very disappointing record. Far worse than any Soviet P-40 unit I know of. They lost half of their fighters (14 out of 25) in one month (May 1943) and had to be taken out of the line. Part of the problem was with maintaining the engines though as was typical with Lend Lease fighters.

Spitfires over the Kuban



> This is simply priceless, If you cannot see the advantages the Mustang would bring to the Russian front, it says more than words could tell.



I'll reply to another poster on that specific issue in the hopes of having a more civilized discussion about it!

S


----------



## Schweik (Dec 17, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> The Germans also dropped the ball as far as having a large scale bombing program of areas even 3-400 miles behind the lines, for get the whole idea of bombing anything even near the Urals, that would have taken planes equivalent to the B-29.
> This simplified things for the Russians, they designed and built prototype high altitude aircraft but didn't put them into production because the threat never became too great.



To be fair to the Germans, longer ranged bomber raids with He 111s, Ju 88s etc. did some serious damage to Russian industrial capacity and logistics (like trains, marshalling yards etc.) in the early years of the war. Production of several aircraft were severely impacted, famously the original Yak 3 for example was basically cancelled due to a factory pulverized by German bombs. German bomber raids were quite deadly and efficient, they just lacked sufficient range once the factories were moved over the Urals. But German bomber raids are part of why they were moved (i.e. not just the threat of German tanks)

It also does emphasize that the need for the Spit IX was real and it's role was significant even if relegated to air defense.

But I think increasingly it was the threat of tanks that obsessed the commanders of both sides (*and filled their nightmares) and that is where they concentrated all their efforts - over the forward battlefield.

Of course the Soviets wanted the capability of high altitude fighters, and I believe they did eventually have a reasonably effective high altitude Yak 9. It just wasn't the main priority. In the long run the real need was probably at least in part due to the potential threat of Anglo-American heavy bombers and American long range fighters. 

I think a Yak 9 pilot (or was it a Yak 3?) shot down a couple of P-51s over Berlin right?

S


----------



## BiffF15 (Dec 17, 2018)

Schweik said:


> To be fair to the Germans, longer ranged bomber raids with He 111s, Ju 88s etc. did some serious damage to Russian industrial capacity and logistics (like trains, marshalling yards etc.) in the early years of the war. Production of several aircraft were severely impacted, famously the original Yak 3 for example was basically cancelled due to a factory pulverized by German bombs. German bomber raids were quite deadly and efficient, they just lacked sufficient range once the factories were moved over the Urals. But German bomber raids are part of why they were moved (i.e. not just the threat of German tanks)
> 
> It also does emphasize that the need for the Spit IX was real and it's role was significant even if relegated to air defense.
> 
> ...



Schweik,

Earlier you mentioned a Spit IX and questioned was it or a Mustang / P47 better. The answer is it depends. There is a reason that Mustangs were prowling over Berlin, and it’s because they could. The P47 wasn’t as leggy but could go surprisingly far. The Spit, like the Fw190 and Me109, the Mig21, Mig29, are all point defense fighters meant to protect the home plate and not escort offensive AirPower deep into your enemies homelands.

The Spit is a great plane, far more maneuverable than the P51 P47. It’s all about strengths and weaknesses compared to the task at hand. Again, which is better “depends on what you want to do”!

Also you mentioned you don’t like being lectured. Look at the number and size of your posts. It looks like you are doing more “lecturing” than any others.

Cheers,
Biff

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Dec 17, 2018)

BiffF15 said:


> Schweik,
> 
> Earlier you mentioned a Spit IX and questioned was it or a Mustang / P47 better. The answer is it depends. There is a reason that Mustangs were prowling over Berlin, and it’s because they could. The P47 wasn’t as leggy but could go surprisingly far. The Spit, like the Fw190 and Me109, the Mig21, Mig29, are all point defense fighters meant to protect the home plate and not escort offensive AirPower deep into your enemies homelands.
> 
> The Spit is a great plane, far more maneuverable than the P51 P47. *It’s all about strengths and weaknesses compared to the task at hand. * Again, which is better “depends on what you want to do”!



This is essentially exactly what I was saying about P-40s (see two posts above this one), and other planes like the various Russian fighters, Japanese fighters, Italian fighters and so on. Relevant to the specific issue of P51 and P47 vs Spit IX, I was jut pointing out that fastest and most guns doesn't always mean bestest, which had been previously asserted. Originally I pointed out the A6M and Ki 43 for the early part of WW2, but I was told that was inadmissible (and dishonest of me to mention it) because it's irrelevant to the thread title.



> Also you mentioned you don’t like being lectured. Look at the number and size of your posts. It looks like you are doing more “lecturing” than any others.
> 
> Cheers,
> Biff



I didn't say I didn't like being lectured - I pointed it out one user, Shortround had done a lecture (I think I specifically said dissertation). I specifically said "Listen, *I'm perfectly happy to read a long dissertation about the ballistic properties of different aircraft ordinance, it's exactly the kind of thing I come to this board for. *"

And I meant it! It was a very interesting dissertation on cannon and heavy machine gun ballistics. It was also slightly at right angles to the actual discussion and the crowing about what how it pwned my argument about two fighters was misplaced.

I have posted a lot in this thread because every time I post anything from about page 5 there are about 3 guys replying and accusing me of either lying or making huge mistakes, (while themselves making numerous careless mistakes, see above) and because I seem to be the only active poster here with a library of sources available on the P-40 to correct the record on it, as I've done some research on that fighter. I do not however seem to be the only poster in the Thread who recognizes the merits of the P-40.

When I have tried to write short posts in an attempt at brevity, any ("yes but") detail I didn't specifically address has been pounced on by those same 3 guys as if I made some huge mistake (see above) so I have to write each post with every single clause and caveat like a legal contract. Obviously some people are triggered by any challenge to subjects they feel they personally own, so I can't claim I didn't expect this, but I have tried to remain somewhat collegial and give credit where it is due throughout the conversation in spite of repeated accusations of dishonesty etc. This is just kind of how it goes when you challenge the conventional wisdom on anything in a place with a lot of knowledgeable people. Some people who are knowledgeable are also opinionated and can be resistant to new information.

I promise though this is my last thread on the p-40 for a while. I may add some combat records to the P-40 vs. 109 thread since a new source came out (MAW Volume IV) but this is the last new thread on the subject for a while.

I may start some on some other planes though


----------



## Schweik (Dec 17, 2018)

tomo pauk said:


> Pray tell, why is that so? Too fast?



Three reasons:

Too vulnerable to ground fire
Too difficult to maintain (they seemed to have trouble with merlin engines in forward deployments)
Insufficiently maneuverable at low altitude
Mainly 3 - they preferred small, highly agile fighters that could out-turn Bf 109s and performed well down low. That is why they liked the P-39 so much. P-51 was a great long range escort fighter but not, IMO, ideal for nap of the earth dogfighting of the type faced on the Russian Front.


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 17, 2018)

Then you don't dog fight.

You boom and zoom although at low angles. The Mustang is faster than the 190 (10-20mph easy) and climbs several hundred fps faster at sea level and perhaps 500fps faster at 5000ft?
This is for a P-51B using 60.5in vs a 190 using 1.58 Ata and not 1.42. 
A P-51D can climb at 3600fps at any altitude between sea level and 5000ft using 67in of MAP while weighing 9760lbs. that would be with full main tanks and empty rear tank.


----------



## michael rauls (Dec 17, 2018)

Schweik said:


> This is essentially exactly what I was saying about P-40s (see two posts above this one), and other planes like the various Russian fighters, Japanese fighters, Italian fighters and so on. Relevant to the specific issue of P51 and P47 vs Spit IX, I was jut pointing out that fastest and most guns doesn't always mean bestest, which had been previously asserted. Originally I pointed out the A6M and Ki 43 for the early part of WW2, but I was told that was inadmissible (and dishonest of me to mention it) because it's irrelevant to the thread title.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Well I for one would like to see more threads on the p40. I think more than any other aircraft I can think of there is alot of false information out there about it.
Alot of things I had believed about it for years I have recently come to realize are not true at all. It is exactly the kind of a plane that needs to be discussed and debated over in my opinion.
By the way I would like to thank you and others here as well for dispelling alot of those myths.

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


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 17, 2018)

as to the vulnerability of the P-51s cooling system
Yak 9






yeah, I can see how the Yak series has so much better placement of the radiator from combat damage. (sarcasm)
Yak 3 one of WW IIs finest fighters according to some people




Yep, much better placement of the radiator for resistance to combat damage than the p-51 

If you want your fighters to shoot up/blow up stuff on the ground the six .50 cal guns are a whole lot better than one 20mm and 1-2 12.7mm machine guns. (Russian 20mm was sort of a middle of the road 20mm) and most Russian fighters were limited to a pair of 220lb bombs for bombing. forgetting the 1000lb bombs that leaves the P-51 with a pair of 500lb bombs (vs the P-39s one 500lb bomb) Yep poor P-51 just can't deliver the goods in ground attack can it? 

everybody had problems with engine durability in forward deployments. 

P-51 using 61 in of MAP (military power) may be 20-30mph faster than a P-39 using 57in of MAP (WEP)


----------



## Schweik (Dec 17, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> Then you don't dog fight.
> 
> You boom and zoom although at low angles. The Mustang is faster than the 190 (10-20mph easy) and climbs several hundred fps faster at sea level and perhaps 500fps faster at 5000ft?
> This is for a P-51B using 60.5in vs a 190 using 1.58 Ata and not 1.42.
> A P-51D can climb at 3600fps at any altitude between sea level and 5000ft using 67in of MAP while weighing 9760lbs. that would be with full main tanks and empty rear tank.



I think P-51s were very good against Fw 190s at low altitude, as the P-51 was both faster _and _probably turned better. And close to parity in roll too I would think. They were in a way the perfect antidote to the 190, (despite being much less heavily armed I might also note) but I think they were at somewhat of a disadvantage to Bf 109s down low. 

Interestingly the Russians themselves didn't rate the Fw 190 that much of a problem, they seemed to feel the 109s or 'messers' as they called them were the real menace.

(Conversely the Germans didn't think much of the La 5 which the Russians felt was their best fighter for a long time)


----------



## Schweik (Dec 17, 2018)

michael rauls said:


> Well I for one would like to see more threads on the p40. I think more than any other aircraft I can think of there is alot of false information out there about it.
> Alot of things I had believed about it for years I have recently come to realize are not true at all. It is exactly the kind of a plane that needs to be discussed and debated over in my opinion.
> By the way I would like to thank you and others here as well for dispelling alot of those myths.



Thank you and you are more than welcome!

I'm not going to give up posting about that plane, there will be some operational data posted to Bf 109 vs P-40 soon. But I think it's good to allow time for certain things to sink in, and be checked and verified etc. And there are other interesting stories to tell about many other aircraft. I'm a little weary of this particular debate just because it seems to really push peoples buttons. A lot of very determined P-40 haters out there!

I think in general there was a consensus, at least in the English language, after WW2 about a lot of things and now that quite a bit more data has emerged, thanks in part to good forums like this and resources like WWIIperformance.org, pacificvictoryroll.com, ciel de gloire and lend-lease.ru etc., and books like Shores various series and Black Cross / Red star and so on, a new and perhaps more accurate picture is emerging about a lot of operations during the war and various specific planes.

Some which deserve revised appreciation or a closer look IMO include:

The P-36 / Hawk 75 (early direct ancestor of the P-40) - gave excellent service to the French (including the Vichy) and the Finns in particular, kept in use albeit in a tertiary Theater by the British quite late in the war.
The Beaufighter - it really shines in Shores MAW and did some real damage to the Axis in the Med
The A-20 - in heavy use by the British, Americans and Russians far later than I had ever realized
The Maryland and the Baltimore - critical to the English war effort in the early years of the war in the Med
the Ki-43 - apparently Japans highest scoring fighter
The SM.79 - a very old design by WW2 standards, and originally an airliner, but sunk a lot of ships!
The Yak -1/7/9 series - generally very underestimated on the design and operational level, the story is of huge problems gradually overcome and eventual triumph.
The La 5 - another underdog to champion story not well enough understood in the West
The P-39 in Soviet service - still somewhat of a mystery and I'd like to plunge deeper into operations
The Hudson / Ventura family - surprisingly useful in many Theaters
The Reggianne fighter family (2000-2005) - never fully realized their potential but excellent design
And for me personally, the battle of the float planes, flying boats, seaplanes and long range patrol bombers way out to sea which I personally find fascinating. I'm particularly enamoured of the Sunderland, the He 115, the Rufe and the Z.506


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 17, 2018)

Some of these discussions take left turns because some people want see things in black and white while in reality there were a considerable number of shades of grey. 
The Mustang may not have been the best ground attack plane ever built (in fact there may have been a number that were much better) but it was "pretty good" and a whole lot better than some other planes. 
It was more vulnerable to ground fire than some other planes, that doesn't mean the other planes were invulnerable. Sometimes you have to figure weight of ordnance delivered per plane lost vs number of planes lost per mission. If Plane A is delivering twice the ordinance of plane B per mission but only suffering 50% more losses it is the better plane for that mission because you have to use twice the number of plane B to get the job done and then you wind up loosing more planes/pilots. 
Sometimes advantages of longer range/endurance are also overlooked. P-51s don't have to be based 20-30 miles behind the front lines to do ground support. 
A P-51D can fly 450 miles (225miles radius) on 120 gallons at 293mph at 5,000ft while carrying a pair of 500lb bombs. That leaves (without rear tank) 60 gallons to warm up and take off, reserve and a brief period of combat. Adjust as you see fit. with the bombs gone it can do 323mph for about the same fuel burn. 
Granted you might not get up to 4-6 missions per day but the P-51s do have a pretty good transit time. 

I have said it before, Russian fighters really weren't all that good at ground support. That certainly doesn't mean they didn't do it. or that they didn't do a lot of it. It means you need a lot or Russian planes to get the same number of bullets/and weight of bombs to the battlefield as some western planes. If you have to use 2-3 times the number of planes to get the same target effect then you need that much more fuel and maintenance and have bigger logistics tail


----------



## pbehn (Dec 17, 2018)

Schweik said:


> No, I didn't "change theatre AGAIN" you are not on the level here at all - and I agree DEFINITELY ridiculous! You said for "all fighters" rate of climb, combat speed and firepower were decisive, I pointed out one example among many where they were not. You didn't say decisive in one of these two Theaters. Give me a break.
> 
> And in that theater, let me ask you does anyone think that a P-51B is an all-around better fighter than a Spit IX? It's a lot faster! How about a P-47? Faster _and _heavier firepower. But better?
> 
> ...


From Barbarossa in 1941 through to the end of the war the events elsewhere dictated what the LW did, because it didn't have the resources to do everything. Dates are not academic, by the end of 1943 the Typhoon was mainly employed in the 2nd Tactical airforce. Neither the Typhoon nor the Spitfire put an end to Jabo raids on UK, the eastern front did. Your preference for rate of turn and dive over others qualities is purely because that's where you see an advantage for the P-40. Did anyone consider removing cannon on the Typhoon to improve roll rate? Was diving ability ever specified in an aeroplane or roll rate? What happened in the example you quoted? Did Japan win? Or were the Japanese eventually swept from the conflict by faster, more powerfully armed aircraft. Unless you are competitive on speed and climb you cannot force a conflict, they don't care how well you turn if you cant catch them, the ability to dive is a quality, but it takes you out of the conflict by handing a height advantage to your opponent.


----------



## Schweik (Dec 17, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> I have said it before, Russian fighters really weren't all that good at ground support. That certainly doesn't mean they didn't do it. or that they didn't do a lot of it. It means you need a lot or Russian planes to get the same number of bullets/and weight of bombs to the battlefield as some western planes. If you have to use 2-3 times the number of planes to get the same target effect then you need that much more fuel and maintenance and have bigger logistics tail



Yest but you are forgetting three things:

The Russians had something the Anglo-American Allies didn't have, the very dangerous dedicated ground attack aircraft, the Il-2 Sutmovik, as well as the high speed dive bomber the Pe -2. (The Yanks did have the A-36 but it had a mixed record as we have discussed*).
The Russians were also early pioneers of the mass deployment of the air to ground rocket.
As previously mentioned by others in this thread, the Russians fielded variants of their main fighters with heavy cannon installed (23mm, 37mm, 45mm etc.) which could be used for attacking ground targets.
The Anglo-Americans both leaned heavily on their fighters to use as ground attack aircraft - with mixed results. P-38s and P-47s, Corsairs and Hellcats were all heavily armed and carried a lot of ordinance but were also big targets. P-51s as noted were vulnerable to ground fire.

You and I have debated the efficacy of Soviet rockets but in my opinion, as much as I like the Hurricane and the P-40, their large bomb load was all too often blowing up little more than sand or Jungle. Rockets are more dangerous and I suspect (though I can't prove) that an I-153 with 6 small rockets often did more damage than a big bad P-40 with 3 huge bombs.

I think I actually could prove that a single squadron of mid-war Il2s could do more damage with rockets, bombs and cannon than two or three squadrons of Anglo-American fighters from the same era. But it would take more effort in terms of cracking books and gogling stuff and transcribing than I really have time for. I think there is a pretty good Air Force study on this somewhere though which crunches a bunch of numbers from around the time of Kursk.



Anyway back to the P-51 thing - the emphasis on Soviet fighter design was on _simplicity _and ease of maintenance. All fluids, battery acid, hydraulics, oil, fuel, everything, had to be drained out of every aircraft every night in the winter. In the summer dusty conditions and very bad airfields had to be contended with. Yak and Mustang may have had similarly shaped cooling systems but I'm fairly confident the Yaks was simpler and easier to maintain... and maybe that vulnerability was part of why it was better to be based close to the front anyway instead of making long flights home. No doubt the radial engined La 5 was better in that respect which is maybe one of the reasons the Russians liked it so much.

The Mustang, good as it was, was not a simple plane and lacked the low level maneuverability that the Russians preferred.


*The Americans also had the medium bomber / heavy strafers and the Soviets did try to use these but found them too vulnerable for that role.


----------



## Schweik (Dec 17, 2018)

pbehn said:


> Your preference for rate of turn and dive over others qualities is purely because that's where you see an advantage for the P-40.



Actually I don't have a preference for rate of turn and dive over speed or altitude performance or climb. I think all of them are useful and valuable qualities in a fighter. Roll too, especially as the war progressed became more and more important.

I'm not valuing P-40's strengths over other fighters, I'm just arguing that various combinations of strengths and weaknesses played out differently in different contexts in the war and one doesn't automatically trump the others. Catch my drift?



> Did anyone consider removing cannon on the Typhoon to improve roll rate? Was diving ability ever specified in an aeroplane or roll rate? What happened in the example you quoted? Did Japan win? Or were the Japanese eventually swept from the conflict by faster, more powerfully armed aircraft. Unless you are competitive on speed and climb you cannot force a conflict, they don't care how well you turn if you cant catch them, the ability to dive is a quality, but it takes you out of the conflict by handing a height advantage to your opponent.



I agree ultimately speed is life for WW2 fighters, and there is a point below which if your speed has fallen beneath that of the enemy, you are toast. The P-40 was barely able to stay within that envelope probably to early 1944, after which I think it was eclipsed at any altitude. But by staying in the ballpark on speed, the other merits came into play.

The (to me insufficiently respected) A6M and Ki-43 fell behind in 1943 but were still competitive, and still shooting down Allied planes to the end of the War, though they had probably slipped too far behind in speed by 1944. I think the bigger problem the Japanese had though was really with pilot training and availability.


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 17, 2018)

Schweik said:


> A lot of very determined P-40 haters out there!



There is a difference between hating it and swallowing a bunch of candy coated counter tropes about it. 

Still looking for any evidence the "Bomber mafia" hated the P-40 in particular and/or went out of their way to downplay the P-40 or denigrate it's reputation. 
Britain's "bomber Mafia" didn't want to spend money on the Hurricane and Spitfire in the 1930s, fortunately they were overruled. 
The American bomber Mafia may not wanted to spend money on ANY "pursuit" planes not just the P-40. There may have been a few people in the Bomber mafia who wanted "escorts" but escorts at the state of technology in the late 30s and 1940/41 just weren't possible. At least not very good ones (BF 110 being one of the better ones and look how that turned out Other members of bomber mafia thought that since a practical (useful) escort was NOT possible then the bombers should have large amounts of defensive guns. And still didn't want to spend money on fighters. 
It took 3 things to make the escort fighter (as used in the west, the Japanese Zero is an exception of sorts) possible, 

It took the better aerodynamics of the P-51, it took the development of 100/130 fuel and it took the development of the _efficient _two stage supercharger.
Only one of those things existed in 1940, none had existed in 1939 and all would exist in 1942 so changing some generals minds about what was possible and what was not possible in regards to escort fighters also took a while. 

I have no idea why the bomber Mafia would have singled out the P-40 for degrading out of the mix of US Army fighters. 



I do like your list of aircraft 


The Maryland and the Baltimore - critical to the English war effort in the early years of the war in the Med
and a major reason the British were so slow to replace the Blenheim, they thought they had the more modern light bomber covered with their American purchases. 
the Ki-43 - apparently Japans highest scoring fighter
that will need careful examination, with about 3500 hundred out of the total 5900 ?) being built in 1944/45 that means the first 2400 shot down a lot of airplanes. 
The SM.79 - a very old design by WW2 standards, and originally an airliner, but sunk a lot of ships!
The airliner story is a little iffy. First SM 79 was an 8 passenger plane built for the The MacRobertson Trophy air race of 1934 but finished too late. Race may have been for civilian planes only? The company did build the very similar SM 83 10 seat airliner.


----------



## Navalwarrior (Dec 17, 2018)

Schweik said:


> To be fair to the Germans, longer ranged bomber raids with He 111s, Ju 88s etc. did some serious damage to Russian industrial capacity and logistics (like trains, marshalling yards etc.) in the early years of the war. Production of several aircraft were severely impacted, famously the original Yak 3 for example was basically cancelled due to a factory pulverized by German bombs. German bomber raids were quite deadly and efficient, they just lacked sufficient range once the factories were moved over the Urals. But German bomber raids are part of why they were moved (i.e. not just the threat of German tanks)
> 
> It also does emphasize that the need for the Spit IX was real and it's role was significant even if relegated to air defense.
> 
> ...


Resp:
It is very likely that the Russians followed the BoB (planted agents?) and believed the Spitfire defended Britain's skies. Were Russia's Allies holding back their best fighters? Russians were a paranoid bunch, so did they put pressure on England to supply their best?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Dec 17, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> We seem to splitting hairs here. You seem to think the Typhoon should have been doing hunter/killer mission looking for enemy fighters over occupied NW Europe in 1942/43. A Policy/tactic that had failed miserably in 1941/42 using Spitfires. Changing the type of fighter used was unlikely to bring about much change in the viability of the tactic.
> A good part of the losses suffered on these cross channel missions were from flak, The German fighters did a fair share. But the Germans were NOT going to send up fighters to fight British fighters which were of little threat to the Germans. The British did have to use bombers as "bait" something like the B-17s and B-24s were used as "bait" in early 1944.



Look, I don't know what the operational history of the Typhoon was or what the big picture was in the Channel from 1942 - June 1944 except in broad strokes. I'm just doubting the rationale that there weren't any enemy aircraft to tangle with for 3 or 4 years.



> The first Typhoon squadron went into service in late 1941 but the two squadrons involved spent months just getting the Typhoon up to the standard needed for combat operations and still didn't quite make it before the Typhoon was committed to combat operations. the first Typhoon wing came into being in the summer of 1942. It took until Dec of 1942 for the British to get 12 squadrons in service. BTW the tail falling off problem had been pretty much cured by the end of 1942. Bracket that held the elevator balance counter weight would break and the fluttering elevator would overload the rear fuselage.



Ok this is helpful - so *12 squadrons of Typhoons operational by Dec 1942 *with tail breaking problems resolved, vs. roughly the same number of P-40F/L at that time. By the summer of 1943 there were 20 squadrons of P-40Fs in the Med, 15 USAAF, 2 RAF, and 3 Free French. Do you know how many Typhoon squadrons were ultimately deployed? If they never had more than 12 that would help explain the discrepancy in victory claims.



> The Typhoon's air superiority role faded considerably when the Spitfire went from the MK V to the MK IX.



Same for the P-40F/L though not entirely. Of the 20 squadrons I mentioned, basically 6 - the 325 and 57 FG - were flying mainly as escorts or fighter sweeps, RAF 260 sqn and RAAF 3 sqn and three squadrons of the 33rd FG were on mixed fighter / fighter-bomber missions (but probably more of the latter), and the others were mostly flying fighter bomber missions. The French I think were mostly flying maritime patrol though I'm not certain.

Interestingly after 3 RAAF sqn converted from Kittyhawk IIa (P-40L) to Kittyhawk III and IV (due to stocks of the former being used up) they went back to fighter bomber use. 260 sqn found some more Kittyhawk II somehow and switched back to those for a while after suffering heavier losses with Mk IIIs (probably P-40M though it's hard to be certain)


----------



## Schweik (Dec 17, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> There is a difference between hating it and swallowing a bunch of candy coated counter tropes about it.



Though I dislike the appellation 'candy coated', I didn't say you were one of the haters. At least you bring the signal to noise ratio up with all your dissertations.

I'll plunge into the Bomber Mafia stuff later when I have more time, but I think it's as you alluded, most didn't want any fighters, but gradually came around to supporting the P-38 and then the P-47 as the need for escorts became more obvious, and eventually fell in love with the P-51 of course.


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 17, 2018)

Schweik said:


> Yest but you are forgetting three things:
> 
> The Russians had something the Anglo-American Allies didn't have, the very dangerous dedicated ground attack aircraft, the Il-2 Sutmovik, as well as the high speed dive bomber the Pe -2. (The Yanks did have the A-36 but it had a mixed record as we have discussed*).
> The Russians were also early pioneers of the mass deployment of the air to ground rocket.
> ...



Didn't forget anything.
I believe the IL-2 was so important to the Russians because their fighters were so underwhelming at ground attack.
the IL-2 could carry the ordnance load of several of the small Russian fighters. and use only one pilot doing it. 

The Russians were an early pioneer of the air to ground rocket except the rockets were not very good, even the big one was small and inaccurate (the British 3in rocket wasn't much, if any better at accuracy. ) russian designation was the diameter of the whole rocket, British designation was the diameter of the rocket motor with a mcu larger heavier warhead. 

The quantity of aircraft actually equipped with the heavy gun ( 45mm) was minuscule out of the total production. 

Like 53 of the Yak 9Ks with 45mm gun built and they needed to be escorted by Yak 3s. how many available for any one battle or campaign, interesting to talk about or make models of but not really significant in the general scheme of things.


----------



## pbehn (Dec 17, 2018)

The problem with this is that the Spitfire Mk IX was in squadron service in August 1942 and the Spitfire XII (single stage Griffon) was in Squadron service from Oct 1942, this is why the Typhoon was quickly developed as a ground attack A/C.


----------



## Navalwarrior (Dec 17, 2018)

Schweik said:


> I don't mean the Pacific Theater, I'm talking about in the Med. To be clear.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Resp:
The P-40 was there when other fighters weren't available. Chenault knew the P-40B/C's weaknesses, but was able to use it to good effect by training his pilot's to avoid certain manuvers, etc.. It was rugged, fairly easy to maintain and was not difficult to fly. It held up well in every theater of WWII, which is saying something for its design and construction. I hate to imagine us fighting WWII without it.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 17, 2018)

Schweik said:


> Ok this is helpful - so *12 squadrons of Typhoons operational by Dec 1942 *with tail breaking problems resolved, vs. roughly the same number of P-40F/L at that time. By the summer of 1943 there were 20 squadrons of P-40Fs in the Med, 15 USAAF, 2 RAF, and 3 Free French. Do you know how many Typhoon squadrons were ultimately deployed?



The most TYphoon squadrons at any one time was 30

However many of the later Typhoons had hundreds of pounds (over 400lbs?) of armor added for protection against ground fire so it was not a question of drop the bombs/fire the rockets and go 109 hunting. It was get, in drop the ordnance,fire the cannon and then get back to England ( or bases on the continent once established) 
British squadrons were specialised to the point where the rocket equipped squadrons ony fired rockets and the bomb dropping squadrons may not have had rocket rails even in local storage. The attack profiles/techniques were different for both weapons so the squadrons specialized. By 1944 there were plenty of Spitfires and other aircraft to give top cover. 
The Typhoons in the later stages of the war weren't being used as fighter bombers as much as they were single engine tactical bombers. 
Now when did they cross over??

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Dec 17, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> Didn't forget anything.
> I believe the IL-2 was so important to the Russians because their fighters were so underwhelming at ground attack.
> the IL-2 could carry the ordnance load of several of the small Russian fighters. and use only one pilot doing it.



I think it was just a _different _strategy. Not better or worse in general, though maybe better for them. They liked having small nimble fighters, felt that ground attack planes needed to be heavily armored, and from a training perspective felt it was a very different mission to attack tanks or artillery vs. shooting down stukas and enemy fighters (though there were couple of Sturmovik aces I believe amazingly). I know from reading a lot of pilot accounts many Anglo American pilots really hated flying CAS and bombing missions. And many really weren't suited for them - P-47 did well in the role for example but it was really a high altitude fighter at home killing enemy planes at 30,000 ft, it was a great big flak target down at treetop level and vulnerable to enemy fighters there too.

The Russians could have used P-47s incidentally for air superiority or ground attack, as they were given some, but almost laughed at that prospect.



> The Russians were an early pioneer of the air to ground rocket except the rockets were not very good, even the big one was small and inaccurate (the British 3in rocket wasn't much, if any better at accuracy. ) russian designation was the diameter of the whole rocket, British designation was the diameter of the rocket motor with a mcu larger heavier warhead.
> 
> The quantity of aircraft actually equipped with the heavy gun ( 45mm) was minuscule out of the total production.
> 
> Like 53 of the Yak 9Ks with 45mm gun built and they needed to be escorted by Yak 3s. how many available for any one battle or campaign, interesting to talk about or make models of but not really significant in the general scheme of things.



WW2 rockets were primitive, hard to aim etc. but they tended to damage actual targets a little more often than bombs, especially if the latter weren't dropped by dive bombers.


----------



## Milosh (Dec 17, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> The most TYphoon squadrons at any one time was 30



30 is the total number of units that flew the Typhoon. 23 is the largest number of units operation at one time, Jan '44.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Dec 17, 2018)

Milosh said:


> 30 is the total number of units that flew the Typhoon. 23 is the largest number of units operation at one time, Jan '44.



Vs 20 squadrons for the P-40F in the Med at the peak, which would have been June or July 1943. Seems pretty close.


----------



## pbehn (Dec 17, 2018)

Schweik said:


> Vs 20 squadrons for the P-40F in the Med at the peak, which would have been June or July 1943. Seems pretty close.


Yes, but by this time the Typhoon was not a fighter, the RAF had Spitfire Mk IX and Mk XII and Hawker Tempest from Jan 44 plus P-51s either with RAF or UK forces.


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 17, 2018)

Schweik said:


> And many really weren't suited for them - P-47 did well in the role for example but it was really a high altitude fighter at home killing enemy planes at 30,000 ft, it was a great big flak target down at treetop level and vulnerable to enemy fighters there too


The P-47 was one of the few Allied fighters the Luftwaffe loathed.

It's firepower meant certain destruction, it was able to withstand tremendous punishment while staying in the fight and it was fast. Add to that, that if the P-47 were above an adversary, they had no chance of escaping it because of it's ability to dive.

The Soviets weren't interested in it (although they were impressed by it's size), because they already had well established ground attack aircraft in the form of the IL-2 and Pe-2 as well as a high altitude interceptor in the form of the La-7, which had comparable performance but packing four 20mm cannon (two cowl ShVak, one B-20 in each wing ) compared to the P-47's eight .50 MGs.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Milosh (Dec 17, 2018)

La-9 was a post war a/c.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Dec 17, 2018)

How about a P-47 down low vs 109s?


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 17, 2018)

Milosh said:


> La-9 was a post war a/c.


Opps, you're right...it's been a real Monday so far...crossed up my Lavochkins


----------



## Milosh (Dec 17, 2018)

Thought so.


----------



## wuzak (Dec 17, 2018)

Schweik said:


> Vs 20 squadrons for the P-40F in the Med at the peak, which would have been June or July 1943. Seems pretty close.



As Pbehn notes, by that time the Typhoon squadrons were concentrating on ground attack.

Much of the time Typhoon spent defending British skies, rather than venturing over Europe.

As for the build up of Luftwaffe fighters in the west in late 1943, much of that was concentrated over Germany. Also, their main goal was shooting down the "Boeings" rather than raids that the Typhoon would have participated in (as a fighter-bomber or escort fighter).

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 17, 2018)

I would note that the LA-7 didn't start service tests until Sept of 1944. Soviets tended to do things in a big way and they had about 400 aircraft on hand (from both factory No 21 and No 381) 30 aircraft were issued to the 63rd Guards fighter air corp at the First Baltic air front for one month. after 462 Sorties they claimed 55 German aircraft for 8 losses ( only 4 combat related).
All of the accidents were engine related. Although satisfactory in the LA-5FN the engine gave a number of problems in the LA-7 (or at least the early ones) due in part to the lower air intakes sucking dirt and sand into the cylinders.
Combat operations revealed the planes had insufficient fire power. "A burst of fire was rarely sufficient to bring down an enemy fighter, especially a FW 190, even though Soviet pilots opened fire at 163 to 328 feet (50 to 100M).

this is paraphrased from "Soviet Combat Aircraft of the Second World War, Vol. 1: Single-Engined Fighters" except for the part in quotes which is (hopefully) word for word.
Early LA 7 s had two 20mm guns. later ones had three (or according to some sources the difference was in which factory they were produced in) In any case some of th etwo gun fighters used ShVak cannon and most (all?) of the 3 gun fighters used the B-20 cannon.


----------



## wuzak (Dec 17, 2018)

Schweik said:


> Though I dislike the appellation 'candy coated', I didn't say you were one of the haters. At least you bring the signal to noise ratio up with all your dissertations.
> 
> I'll plunge into the Bomber Mafia stuff later when I have more time, but I think it's as you alluded, most didn't want any fighters, but gradually came around to supporting the P-38 and then the P-47 as the need for escorts became more obvious, and eventually fell in love with the P-51 of course.



The "Bomber Mafia" held to the theory that a heavily armed bomber would always get through.

In a way they were correct - as I understand it, not 8th AF heavy bomber raid was turned back or prevented from attacking their target by enemy fighters.

However, it was soon evident that the amount of losses for unescorted bombers in hostile airspace was unsustainable. But that was in late 1943. 

It is often said that the 8th AF stopped air raids on Germany until a suitable escort was available. This is probably not true - weather conditions over Europe is the more likely culprit. 

The P-38 and P-47 were supported long before the need for long range escorts were acknowledged.

The P-38 was designed as an interceptor - it was designed to defend US air space.

As was pretty much any pursuit type aircraft, including the P-35, P-36, P-40 and P-47. Though the P-38 was designed, more so than the others, to climb quickly, intercept and shoot down enemy bombers.

When the need for a long range escort became very evident after the 2nd Schweinfurt raid, the USAAF went looking for something suitable, even supporting the P-75 project. 

The P-51B was being produced in sizeable numbers by that stage, and its performance showed that it was capable of escorting the bombers deep into enemy territory. It wasn't pushed as a long range escort, but that is what it became.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Dec 17, 2018)

The Typhoon was commissioned as a fighter to replace the Hurricane and Spitfire, but advances in fuels and engines meant that it never really did replace the Spitfire apart from a brief period. At the Dieppe raid there were 3 squadrons of Typhoons but 4 squadrons of Spitfire MkIXs escorting B-17s. it also saw the use of the Allison Mustang. So from 19 August 1942 the RAF already had better fighter options in terms of altitude performance range and speed. If the Typhoon couldn't carry a big payload it would probably have been shelved, as it was it was a massive waste of resources.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Dec 17, 2018)

wuzak said:


> The "Bomber Mafia" held to the theory that a heavily armed bomber would always get through.
> 
> In a way they were correct - as I understand it, not 8th AF heavy bomber raid was turned back or prevented from attacking their target by enemy fighters.
> 
> However, it was soon evident that the amount of losses for unescorted bombers in hostile airspace was unsustainable. But that was in late 1943.



So the conventional wisdom goes. However I don't think they went into their bombing campaign completely blind. They did know how the German bombing offensive went and why they switched to night bombing, and what happened to English daylight bombers and why the British had switched to night bombing, and then explicitly to area bombing in early (February) 1942, followed by the "Dehousing" policy memo in March of that same year. Some time between them and the first US fighter escort of a B-17s mission later in 1942, it had begun to dawn on some of them that there would be a need.

The American Army Air Force generals, and the bomber mafia specifically, still believed in their doctrines like "the bomber will always get through" and their perceived super weapons especially the B-17 and the Norden Bombsight, and they still believed in precision daylight bombing. But a nagging counter narrative was already taking shape even in 1941. The British were doing their best to talk the Yanks down from the ledge (as they saw it) and give up the idea of bombing in the daytime altogether. By mid 1942 this was becoming a rather heated argument. In theory B-17s were so extraordinary they could get the job done, but combat experience all through 1942 did not indicate any aircraft that could attack German targets alone in the daytime, except maybe Mosquitos.

The middle position between night bombing and unescorted daylight bombing is _escorted_ daylight bombing. So they were hedging their bets a bit in supporting the development of fighters which looked like they could perform escort duties, in spite of the long and painful development cycle of both planes (P-38 and P-47). P-38s incidentally were being used to escort B-24s and B-17 in the Med from mid November 1942 and all through 1943. The first escort mission by P-38s was on 19 November 1942, they escorted a group of B-17s bombers on a raid over Tunis. I think it was already quite clear in early 1943 that B-24s in particular needed escorts over Tunisia and later Sicily and Italy etc. They were surprisingly effective at wiping out air bases - I think more German and Italian planes were destroyed on the ground by the heavy bombers in winter 1942/43 than by any other single method in that Theater. But they needed help to survive, they were taking losses even with escorts.

The proof that escorts were required over Northern Europe may not have been _irrefutable_ until after Schweinfurt etc., but remember at the time of Schweinfurt many of the raids were already being escorted, it's just that the best targets were _beyond the range of the escorts_, tempting them to send the bombers out alone in the last leg of their trip. The Regensburg raid was escorted by 87 P-47s from the 353rd and 56th Fighter Groups as far as Belgium. The Schweinfurt raid had 88 P-47s and 96 Spitfires watching their backs on the way in,. They were then met in "withdrawal support" by different fighter groups (totallying 93 P-47s and 95 Spitfires for Schweinfurt) on the way back out again. The P-47s of the 56th Fighter Group were escorting bombers (so called "_Ramrod_" missions) from 29 April 1943. 78th Fighter Group were flying escort missions from Duxford also from April 1943.

So it's not like the notion of escorting B-17s and B-24s was new in 1944. That is just a shorthand version of a more nuanced reality. Given that they were flying heavy bomber escort missions with P-38s in the Med from November 42 and with P-47s in April 43, I think they conceived of the idea of using them in that way maybe a little earlier than that.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## slaterat (Dec 18, 2018)

Just a couple notes on the performance difference between these two aircraft.

By August of 43 the Typhoon with the bubble canopy could make 398 @ 8.800' and 417 @20,500 TAS

This compares to 320 @9,800 and 370 @19,270' for the P-40F that's an 80 mile an hour advantage down low and 47 mph at 20k for the Typhoon 

all numbers from WWII Aircraft Performance

Carbon monoxide poisoning occured in other WW2 era fighters as well, notably the F4U which, which when operating for the the FAA, had the same requirements for oxygen at all times when the engine was running. Strange how this almost never gets mentioned. In any case, its probably just the smart thing to do when you have a 2000 hp engine spewing exhaust in your face.

Total loss of Typhoon aircraft due to loss of tail was 25 aircraft, or less than 1%, which, when you consider the urgency of the war effort, wasn't a lot, and has been greatly over played in the post war record of the Typhoon. It also proves that the remedies worked.

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


----------



## slaterat (Dec 18, 2018)

Schweik,

If you can find a used copy of "KittyHawk Pilot" by Wing Cdr James (Stocky) Edwards, I think you would really enjoy it.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greyman (Dec 18, 2018)

Made some graphs cause I can't stop myself. Most information here at: WWII Aircraft Performance







*Kittyhawk II - FL220 - Merlin V16501 - 8,910 lbs*
*Speed: 48 inch, 3000 rpm (combat, 5 min) **54 inch, 3000 rpm *_(estimate by me)_

*Typhoon Ib - R7700 - Sabre II - 11,070 lbs
Speed: +7 lb and +9 lb, 3700 rpm (combat, 5 min)*

*Typhoon Ib - R8805 - Sabre II
Speed: +7 lb and +9 lb, 3700 rpm (combat, 5 min)*







*Kittyhawk II - FL220 - Merlin V-1650-1 - 8,910 lbs
Climb: 48 inch, 2850 rpm, 2990 rpm at 20,000 ft. (max climb, 30 min)*

*Typhoon Ib - R7700 - Sabre II - 11,070 lbs
Climb: +6 lb boost, 3500 rpm (max climb, 1 hr limit) 1942 rating*

*Typhoon Ib - R8762 - Sabre II - 11,090 lbs
Climb: +7 lb boost, 3700 rpm (max climb, 1 hr limit) 1943 rating*

For the *later Typhoon* I placed the older A&AEE Typhoon curve onto the two speeds given. This wasn't an official A&AEE test like all the rest. This machine incorporated all of the modifications that were put into production:
- tail wheel doors​- internal mass balance rudder​- cannon fairings​- whip aerial​- 4-blade propeller​- shrouded exhausts​- sliding hood​- general improvement of finish, fits and paintwork​​This wasn't a production machine, and it seems a more representative late Typhoon would be about 5-7 mph slower.

My P-40 knowledge is pretty low, but it seems like the F started out with a 5 min combat limit of 48 inches, raising to 54 inches, and finally 61 inches (?). I hope to get more information and take a stab at estimating the higher boost speeds.

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


----------



## pbehn (Dec 18, 2018)

Schweik said:


> So the conventional wisdom goes. However I don't think they went into their bombing campaign completely blind. They did know how the German bombing offensive went and why they switched to night bombing, and what happened to English daylight bombers and why the British had switched to night bombing, and then explicitly to area bombing in early (February) 1942, followed by the "Dehousing" policy memo in March of that same year. Some time between them and the first US fighter escort of a B-17s mission later in 1942, it had begun to dawn on some of them that there would be a need.
> 
> The American Army Air Force generals, and the bomber mafia specifically, still believed in their doctrines like "the bomber will always get through" and their perceived super weapons especially the B-17 and the Norden Bombsight, and they still believed in precision daylight bombing. But a nagging counter narrative was already taking shape even in 1941. The British were doing their best to talk the Yanks down from the ledge (as they saw it) and give up the idea of bombing in the daytime altogether. By mid 1942 this was becoming a rather heated argument. In theory B-17s were so extraordinary they could get the job done, but combat experience all through 1942 did not indicate any aircraft that could attack German targets alone in the daytime, except maybe Mosquitos.
> 
> ...


There were/are several long and informative posts about the P-38 and P-51 here. If you wanted a high altitude long range fighter plane first flying in 1939, only a twin engine would do it hence the P-38. If you want a single engine long range fighter based on the Merlin you get it in mass production in 1943. Taking the best case scenario without completely re writing history compared to what actually happened could advance things by (perhaps) months not years. The B-17 was used at Dieppe escorted by Spitfire IXs (August 1942). There were some unescorted raids which may have given a false sense of security, its easier to hit a French port than a German city for obvious reasons. In addition to the use of escorts the bombers used also changed especially regarding front turret armament. The aeroplane is only one issue, aeroplanes need pilots and runways. To escort a mission deep into Germany required any waves of fighters, meaning you need thousands of planes and thousands of pilots, to be effective those pilots need circa 200 hrs on type and miles of runway. Whatever a bomber mafia may or may not have thought and said, things could not really have been done much quicker anyway, the engines planes fuels people and infrastructure just wasn't there and had to be put there. In addition many hard lessons had to be learned as far as actually mounting missions and just as importantly calling them off.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 18, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> It took 3 things to make the escort fighter (as used in the west, the Japanese Zero is an exception of sorts) possible,
> 
> It took the better aerodynamics of the P-51, it took the development of 100/130 fuel and it took the development of the _efficient _two stage supercharger.
> Only one of those things existed in 1940, none had existed in 1939 and all would exist in 1942 so changing some generals minds about what was possible and what was not possible in regards to escort fighters also took a while.



The Ki-61 managed to be a long range fighter without 100/130 grade fuel (even without 100 oct), with aerodynamics of yesterday (16% thick wing of 2R profile) and also yesterday's 1-stage supercharger. IIRC no one in Allied camp regarded the Ki-61 as a push-over.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## MIflyer (Dec 18, 2018)

Undoubtably the Tempest took over for the Typhoon when the unit was not disbanded. That book I cited said that when the unit was disbanded they were first told to leave their Tempests in Germany and then fly Spitfires out of a narrow short strip surrounded by rubble to ferry them back to England. This worried the commander a great deal since only he and one other pilot had flown a Spitfire before! They all made it, though.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Dec 18, 2018)

MIflyer said:


> Undoubtably the Tempest took over for the Typhoon when the unit was not disbanded. That book I cited said that when the unit was disbanded they were first told to leave their Tempests in Germany and then fly Spitfires out of a narrow short strip surrounded by rubble to ferry them back to England. This worried the commander a great deal since only he and one other pilot had flown a Spitfire before! They all made it, though.


Kinda get the impression that the RAF were glad to see the back of the Typhoon don't you?

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 18, 2018)

tomo pauk said:


> The Ki-61 managed to be a long range fighter without 100/130 grade fuel (even without 100 oct), with aerodynamics of yesterday (16% thick wing of 2R profile) and also yesterday's 1-stage supercharger. IIRC no one in Allied camp regarded the Ki-61 as a push-over.


 
Come on Tomo.
GIve the Americans 500 Ki 61 in late 1942 or early 1943 and how far would they have gotten into Germany?
Or Use hundreds of Ki 61s in 1942 to escort British bombers past the Ruhr in daylight.

How well would it have worked?

There are all kinds of figures for fuel capacity of the KI 61 but a lot seem to be around 150 US gallons internal. The P-40 held 148?

A P-40 had theoretical range of over 1000 miles with a drop tank, (75 gallon?) but it was useless as an escort fighter over Europe in 1942.

The Ki 61 wasn't a pushover but it wasn't really a viable escort fighter for 4 engine bombers either.

the Ki 61 did use one of the highest aspect ratio wings on WW II fighter for good cruise efficiency


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 18, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> Come on Tomo.
> GIve the Americans 500 Ki 61 in late 1942 or early 1943 and how far would they have gotten into Germany?
> Or Use hundreds of Ki 61s in 1942 to escort British bombers past the Ruhr in daylight.
> 
> ...



Ki 61 carried 199 US gals of internal fuel, plus 2 x 50 US gals in drop tanks.
My point about Ki-61 is that it used aerodynamics from late 1930s and engine from 1939. The Ha-40 was no better engine than V-1710-39, or even than -33. Merlins can do it even better, without need for 130 grade fuel and more than 1-stage S/C. So I'd say that Ki-61 with Merlin would've escorted British bombers over Ruhr already by 1939. Let's not forget that need for escort was there years before USAAF appeared over Europe, and it was not USAAF that needed them. A term '4 engined bomber' does not equal to B-17, while escort altitudes were not always 25000 ft. Especially before late 1942.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Dec 18, 2018)

Greyman said:


> Made some graphs cause I can't stop myself. Most information here at: WWII Aircraft Performance
> 
> My P-40 knowledge is pretty low, but it seems like the F started out with a 5 min combat limit of 48 inches, raising to 54 inches, and finally 61 inches (?). I hope to get more information and take a stab at estimating the higher boost speeds.



Elegant graphs but there are a few things off on your P-40 stats. Some of this is understandable because it's hard to find much online about the F or L variants.


I think your weight is really high here (original factory production? it's closer to max gross weight (i.e. with external fuel tank etc.) P-40F normal loaded weight (with 6 guns) is 8,500 -source and -source, P-40L normal loaded weight is 8,079 lb - source. The stripped P-40F as actually used in combat should be similar to that.
Climb boost setting is undoubtedly low at 48" - takeoff power rating is supposed to be 54" (giving 1,300 hp) and they routinely took off at higher settings than that, pilots often mentioned climbing at WEP particularly during interceptions.
Initial rate of climb is supposed to be 3,250 for the P-40F (with six guns), 3,300 ft / min for the P-40L- source
S


----------



## Schweik (Dec 18, 2018)

tomo pauk said:


> Ki 61 carried 199 US gals of internal fuel, plus 2 x 50 US gals in drop tanks.
> My point about Ki-61 is that it used aerodynamics from late 1930s and engine from 1939. The Ha-40 was no better engine than V-1710-39, or even than -33. Merlins can do it even better, without need for 130 grade fuel and more than 1-stage S/C. So I'd say that Ki-61 with Merlin would've escorted British bombers over Ruhr already by 1939. Let's not forget that need for escort was there years before USAAF appeared over Europe, and it was not USAAF that needed them. A term '4 engined bomber' does not equal to B-17, while escort altitudes were not always 25000 ft. Especially before late 1942.



I think Ki-61 could pose a challenge for a Bf 109E or F ... much more maneuverable plane. However they were not introduced until 1942 right?


----------



## Schweik (Dec 18, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> A P-40 had theoretical range of over 1000 miles with a drop tank, (75 gallon?) but it was useless as an escort fighter over Europe in 1942.



Perhaps in theory, but! Sometimes historical facts get in the way of theories. P-40s were not only "not useless" but were probably the main "go-to" escort fighter for medium bombers over Italy in 1943 and early 1944. 

Italy is Europe right? 

For example, as of 10 July 1943 the 325th Fighter Group, equipped a that time with P-40Ls, was attached to the US 2686th bomb wing, consisting of 3 bomber groups flying B-26s, as their main escort asset. Source Christopher Shores MAW IV, p 155

Maybe you meant it was useless as a high altitude escort fighter or as an escort fighter to four engined bombers.

Don't mean to be pedantic here but I"m trying to correct a very persistent myth that P-40s were only being used for ground attack or low level army cooperation with Spitfire high cover etc. P-40s squadrons were venturing out on their own over Axis territory all through 1943, engaging the best Luftwaffe and Regia Aeronautica fighters that were available to the enemy and winning.


----------



## Milosh (Dec 18, 2018)

When people say 'Europe' they are referring to the ETO.


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 18, 2018)

A lot of what you say is true but I thought the extra 50 gallons (difference between your 200 and my 150 gallon) was an overload ferry tank , not always fitted? Or different, larger tank in one location? 
Some of these overload tanks were dangerous to use in combat (P-40 with longer heavier engine in the front could fight with full or nearly full rear fuselage tank that caused Hawk 75s to spin/crash) or P-51s had to burn off some of the fuel in the rear tank. 

Trouble with the Merlin in 1939 is that it was an 880hp engine for take-off on 87 octane gas, Lots of luck getting out of a 1939 British fighter field with 300 gallons in/under your fighter with that amount of power even if you have a constant speed propeller. Adding 1200lbs of gas is also going to do wonders for the tires sinking into the grass airstrips.
Yes a lot of these little, niggly problems can be solved (fit the escorts with two speed Merlin X engines for better take-off and fatter tires) but at the cost of weight/drag. 

To do the job of escorting as it should be done ( and this did take a while to work out) you can't fly at the same height as the bombers at the same speed. At least some of the escorts need to be 3-5000 ft higher and moving faster.


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 18, 2018)

A P-40 had theoretical range of over 1000 miles with a drop tank, (75 gallon?) *but it was useless as an escort fighter over Europe in 1942*.



Schweik said:


> Perhaps in theory, but! Sometimes historical facts get in the way of theories. P-40s were not only "not useless" but were probably the main "go-to" escort fighter for medium bombers over Italy in *1943 *and early *1944*.
> 
> *Italy is Europe right*?



.



> Don't mean to be pedantic



It doesn't appear that P-40s were escorting anything over Italy in 1942, whether or not you count Italy as part of Europe or not.


----------



## pbehn (Dec 18, 2018)

Italy is in Europe but also considered in the Mediterranean theatre of operations in many military discussions. It does my head in at times.


----------



## Schweik (Dec 18, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> A P-40 had theoretical range of over 1000 miles with a drop tank, (75 gallon?) *but it was useless as an escort fighter over Europe in 1942*.
> 
> It doesn't appear that P-40s were escorting anything over Italy in 1942, whether or not you count Italy as part of Europe or not.



Ok haha I guess you are right mate, must have been useless in 1942 but just fine in 1943 lol.


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 18, 2018)

Yes, it was a way of differentiating NW Europe from "Southern Europe" 

It is 730 miles from Brussels to Rome and with France and Spain in the way the possibility of mutual support or _easy_ transfer of forces was not practical. 

For instance many of the early P-40s used in the NA Campaign based in Egypt were offloaded in central west Africa, flown across Africa to South Sudan(?) and then flown North to Egypt.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 18, 2018)

Schweik said:


> Ok haha I guess you are right mate, must have been useless in 1942 but just fine in 1943 lol.



This is part of what gets people upset with you or challenge you so often,
In effort to disprove those "tropes" you hate you take things out of context and try to force the P-40 into the roles you claim the tropes said it couldn't do. 

The P-40 was useless in escorting bombers over NW Europe in 1942 (so were the Spitfire, the Hurricane and the Typhoon) 
The P-40s "success" as an escort was at escorting medium bombers over shorter ranges at lower altitudes.
Gee whiz, Ha Ha, a rather different mission profile isn't it? 

This _tangent_ started with me claiming that an escort for _long range _bombers was not technically possible in 1939-41 due to the state of the art in those years.

So unless you can show that those "escort Missions" the P-40s were flying in 1943-44 were at 15,000ft and over (to cover even British bombers, forget B-17s) and at ranges of 300-400 miles from the home airfields ( I won't even say they need to go to Berlin but they do need to cross the Rhine) then they are immaterial to this tangent discussion.


----------



## Navalwarrior (Dec 18, 2018)

Schweik said:


> So the conventional wisdom goes. However I don't think they went into their bombing campaign completely blind. They did know how the German bombing offensive went and why they switched to night bombing, and what happened to English daylight bombers and why the British had switched to night bombing, and then explicitly to area bombing in early (February) 1942, followed by the "Dehousing" policy memo in March of that same year. Some time between them and the first US fighter escort of a B-17s mission later in 1942, it had begun to dawn on some of them that there would be a need.
> 
> The American Army Air Force generals, and the bomber mafia specifically, still believed in their doctrines like "the bomber will always get through" and their perceived super weapons especially the B-17 and the Norden Bombsight, and they still believed in precision daylight bombing. But a nagging counter narrative was already taking shape even in 1941. The British were doing their best to talk the Yanks down from the ledge (as they saw it) and give up the idea of bombing in the daytime altogether. By mid 1942 this was becoming a rather heated argument. In theory B-17s were so extraordinary they could get the job done, but combat experience all through 1942 did not indicate any aircraft that could attack German targets alone in the daytime, except maybe Mosquitos.
> 
> ...


Resp:
You covered the "Bomber Mafia" of the USAAF (or USAAC) quite well. It was so bad that they forced Claire Chennault to resign from the service, when they caught him teaching advanced fighter tactics to young pilots. He pushed for incorporating 'drop tank' capability in fighters, but it got so heated that in 1939 the USAAC put a restriction on aircraft manufacturers from incorporating 'external fuel stores' (drop tanks) on all fighters built for AAC service! Insane! The US Navy had no such restriction. The sole exception, was the P-38, and it was because the test pilot at the time went to the chief engineers and told them to 'make them drop tank capable.' Lockheed initially declined, but the test pilot told them "this is going to be a long range war.!' So Lockheed redesigned those Lightnings on the production line for carrying external fuel stores as the P-38F! They were coming off the production line when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor. These P-38s were the first USAAF fighters to England, as they flew across (w 2 drop tanks) the Atlantic via the Northern route to Europe using a B-17 for navigation.
In circa 1940, Chennault sent a full report on Japan's A6M to the Leaders of the USAAF and RAF, noting among other things, its 1,000 mile range. I can't speak for the RAF, but the USAAF simply tossed the report in a drawer when they saw Chennault's name. It was never shared with the pilots who would meat Japan's Air Force. Hap Arnold, Commander of all USAAFs . . . largely ignored the subtle reference when his staff began to use the term "ferry tanks" capability, when they were actually made as drop tanks (capable of feeding at high altitude and jettsonable by the pilot). There would have been no Yamamoto Shootdown if the P-38 (G model) was not drop tank capable.

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


----------



## Schweik (Dec 18, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> This is part of what gets people upset with you or challenge you so often,
> In effort to disprove those "tropes" you hate you take things out of context and try to force the P-40 into the roles you claim the tropes said it couldn't do.



I'm not claiming - and never did, they were suitable for escorting B-17s over NW Europe. The issue is that the 'Trope' goes a bit too far and kind of relegates them to a tertiary status. I'm trying to explain the nuance. I wasn't trying to ding you so much as simply point out something that usually slips by unheeded.



> The P-40 was useless in escorting bombers over NW Europe in 1942 (so were the Spitfire, the Hurricane and the Typhoon)



Agreed



> The P-40s "success" as an escort was at escorting medium bombers over shorter ranges at lower altitudes.
> Gee whiz, Ha Ha, a rather different mission profile isn't it?



Agreed again.



> This _tangent_ started with me claiming that an escort for _long range _bombers was not technically possible in 1939-41 due to the state of the art in those years.



Agree with that too, pretty much.



> So unless you can show that those "escort Missions" the P-40s were flying in 1943-44 were at 15,000ft and over (to cover even British bombers, forget B-17s) and at ranges of 300-400 miles from the home airfields ( I won't even say they need to go to Berlin but they do need to cross the Rhine) then they are immaterial to this tangent discussion.



Well I think they did escort at about 20,000 feet and a bit more - keep in mind these were the Merlin P-40F/L, critical altitude somewhere around 19,500 ft, so some of them were flying high cover, usually one squadron out of three, and that could be as high as 25,000 or even a little higher, while they others would be down around 12 - 15,000 ft, closer to the medium bombers at 8-10,000 ft.


So I'm again, not trying to be pedantic I just want to make clear what their mission actually was - since few people are aware of it, namely escorting medium bombers at a fairly long distance (I'm not sure precisely how many miles I'd have to check where the bases were etc.) all by themselves without (necessarily) any higher cover from other fighters. The reason for this is the different characteristics of their main fighters.

They did of course also sometimes fly fighter bomber missions and low altitude sweeps with cover from Spitfires, or later from P-47s sometimes, but that wasn't their only mission despite the shorthand that you can read in dozens of books and websites that all they did in the Med was fighter bomber work from day one.

With history in general, it is in the shorthand where we tend to miss a lot of important nuance, and incidentally I kind of wonder if that is true for the Typhoon as well -for all it's faults it clearly was a dangerous weapon and if they claimed 80 or 90 Fw 190s they must have been flying some combat missions as a fighter not just a fighter bomber.


----------



## Schweik (Dec 18, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> Yes, it was a way of differentiating NW Europe from "Southern Europe"
> 
> It is 730 miles from Brussels to Rome and with France and Spain in the way the possibility of mutual support or _easy_ transfer of forces was not practical.
> 
> For instance many of the early P-40s used in the NA Campaign based in Egypt were offloaded in central west Africa, flown across Africa to South Sudan(?) and then flown North to Egypt.



All quite reasonable but also as you know, bombing campaigns from Italy started to coincide closely with the 8th AF stuff after a while, though that had a lot more to do with P-38s and P-47s and later P-51s than P-40s which were not used for TransAlpine raids so far as I know, though they were part of raids into Yugoslavia.


----------



## MIflyer (Dec 18, 2018)

I ma quite sure that the RAF was very happy to get rid of the Typhoon and use the Tempest. An island nation with a fighter that could not be ditched was enough reason right there.

And I think that some US pilots were not too impressed with the Ki61. Capt William L. Shomo, for one.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 18, 2018)

MIflyer said:


> ...
> And I think that some US pilots were not too impressed with the Ki61. Capt William L. Shomo, for one.



I'm not sure that P-51D vs. Ki-61 is a fair fight


----------



## Navalwarrior (Dec 18, 2018)

Schweik said:


> I'm not claiming - and never did, they were suitable for escorting B-17s over NW Europe. The issue is that the 'Trope' goes a bit too far and kind of relegates them to a tertiary status. I'm trying to explain the nuance. I wasn't trying to ding you so much as simply point out something that usually slips by unheeded.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Resp:
I know P-40s were used in the MTO as escort, as well as ground attack by USAAF groups such as the 99th. They certainly were shorter distances than the missions flown in the ETO, and if flown at or around 20,000 ft . . . were for a very short duration (my opinion only). I also suspect that the fighter pilots had more freedom inre to the term 'escort.'


----------



## MIflyer (Dec 18, 2018)

Well, he was in an F-6D, a recon plane.


----------



## Schweik (Dec 18, 2018)

Navalwarrior said:


> Resp:
> I know P-40s were used in the MTO as escort, as well as ground attack by USAAF groups such as the 99th. They certainly were shorter distances than the missions flown in the ETO,



99th FS did a little of both I think but other than that I agree



> and if flown at or around 20,000 ft . . . were for a very short duration (my opinion only).



Why would you assume that? These were Merlin engined P-40s, 20,000 ft was the critical altitude for that aircraft... I don't get it.



> I also suspect that the fighter pilots had more freedom inre to the term 'escort.'



Definitely true. 24 victory RAF Ace Billy Drake mentioned in an interview, referring to Kittyhawk escort operations : "_Escort was a brand new role, weren’t quite sure how to do it. The main idea was don’t formate closely like Germans in the Battle of Britain but to be 'in the area'. Floating air cover._”

I think this was actually pretty standard for escort flights in the Med, though it started out more rigid in Northern Europe they did also shift to that 'looser' type of escort mission there as well, right?


----------



## Schweik (Dec 18, 2018)

MIflyer said:


> Well, he was in an F-6D, a recon plane.



Wow just read that story, dude was a bad ass. I'm guessing the IJA pilots weren't too experienced in 1945 but regardless, that has to be one of the most impressive fighter actions of WW2 or for that matter, ever.


----------



## Milosh (Dec 18, 2018)

In the BoB Luftwaffe escorts did fly 'in the area'. When bombers pilots complained the escorts were told to fly closer to the bombers.


----------



## Glider (Dec 18, 2018)

MIflyer said:


> I ma quite sure that the RAF was very happy to get rid of the Typhoon and use the Tempest. An island nation with a fighter that could not be ditched was enough reason right there.


I am afraid that is off the mark. The RAF were happy to switch to the Tempest because it was a better aircraft, arguably the best Low / Medium altitude fighter of the war. Ditching ability had nothing to do with it. The Hurricane was a dreadful plane to ditch in and we used those on land and as a carrier fighter


----------



## Navalwarrior (Dec 18, 2018)

Schweik said:


> 99th FS did a little of both I think but other than that I agree
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Resp:
You answered your own question in that 20,000 ft was the critical altitude. Also, it takes a while to get to that altitude, and if the missions were not too distant, one would be at the maximum altitude for a very short duration. Also, just because one can, doesn't mean they did. I spoke to a B-17 pilot who flew missions in late 1944 to the end of the war from Italy, where he rarely flew above 20,000 ft. Why? There was no need.


----------



## Schweik (Dec 18, 2018)

Navalwarrior said:


> Resp:
> You answered your own question in that 20,000 ft was the critical altitude. Also, it takes a while to get to that altitude, and if the missions were not too distant, one would be at the maximum altitude for a very short duration. Also, just because one can, doesn't mean they did. I spoke to a B-17 pilot who flew missions in late 1944 to the end of the war from Italy, where he rarely flew above 20,000 ft. Why? There was no need.



I think you are confusing critical altitude with ceiling. It only took them 8-10 minutes to climb to that altitude depending on boost setting.


----------



## Navalwarrior (Dec 18, 2018)

Schweik said:


> I think you are confusing critical altitude with ceiling. It only took them 8-10 minutes to climb to that altitude depending on boost setting.


Follow up:
A formation of fully fueled, to include drop tank, P-40s takes how long to get to 20,000 ft?


----------



## Schweik (Dec 18, 2018)

Greyman said:


> Made some graphs cause I can't stop myself. Most information here at: WWII Aircraft Performance
> 
> View attachment 522294
> 
> ...



Another issue with your chart -

Please note this wartime document from WWIIaircraftperformance.org here

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/P-40/Kittyhawk_II_performance_9sept42.jpg

Top speed for Kittyhawk II (that is RAF designation for P-40F) is *370 mph at 20,400 ft and 347 at 30,000 feet.*

You seem to be showing a top speed of 360 mph at 17000 at 54" boost and what looks like it's going to be about 320 mph at 30,000


----------



## Schweik (Dec 18, 2018)

Navalwarrior said:


> Follow up:
> A formation of fully fueled, to include drop tank, P-40s takes how long to get to 20,000 ft?



Maybe 20-30 minutes, depending how many units? I think the climb up was often done during flight across from Tunisia to Sicily, Sicily to Sardania or in a later era, Corsica to Anzio.

Forming up over, or waiting for bombers might take longer though.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Jeff Hunt (Dec 18, 2018)

While I agree the P-40 was an adequate aircraft in many theatres and in many air forces I have never really understood the absolute love affair that mostly Americans have for this aircraft. The only parallel I can draw is always having something special for your first girlfriend. She may not have been the prettiest or smartest or "best performer" but the first is always special.


----------



## Schweik (Dec 18, 2018)

I think Americans are of decidedly mixed opinion on the fighter - the Flying Tigers legend is very popular but most US aviation enthusiasts don't like the P-40 very much and prefer more glorious mounts like the P-51, P-47 or the Corsair. Most Americans focus on what was going on during the final victory in 1945 and what was the fastest etc. Americans like _"winners"._ Quite a few Americans also really prefer Luftwaffe planes if we are honest about it. There are a few die hard 'fans' of the Hawk like myself out there, people who like underdogs or have read some of the revisionist narrative and find it interesting, but most of what little you find in terms of American literature that is pro-P-40 comes from pilots who flew it, and their praise is usually at odds with the rest of the book.

Almost nobody knows about it's actual record, I didn't myself until I started posting here about a year ago.

Brits usually like the Spitfire or sometimes the Hurricane or Mosquito or some other English plane.

I think a lot of the 'love' for the P-40s, at least in terms of what you can find in books, comes from the Australians, New Zealanders and to a lesser extent (more mixed) the Russians. Some Chinese aviation guys like the P-40 too. Anzac guys like the P-40 for obvious reasons - some of their top aces flew it.


----------



## Navalwarrior (Dec 18, 2018)

Jeff Hunt said:


> While I agree the P-40 was an adequate aircraft in many theatres and in many air forces I have never really understood the absolute love affair that mostly Americans have for this aircraft. The only parallel I can draw is always having something special for your first girlfriend. She may not have been the prettiest or smartest or "best performer" but the first is always special.


Resp:
Maybe because it brought them home. In reading about the 78th FG of the 8th AF, most of these P-47 pilots didn't want to transition to P-51s. Only later, after flying them (and often getting multiple kills in a single mission) did they change their view.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greyman (Dec 18, 2018)

Schweik said:


> I think your weight is really high here (original factory production? it's closer to max gross weight (i.e. with external fuel tank etc.) P-40F normal loaded weight (with 6 guns) is 8,500 -source and -source, P-40L normal loaded weight is 8,079 lb - source. The stripped P-40F as actually used in combat should be similar to that.
> Climb boost setting is undoubtedly low at 48" - takeoff power rating is supposed to be 54" (giving 1,300 hp) and they routinely took off at higher settings than that, pilots often mentioned climbing at WEP particularly during interceptions.
> Initial rate of climb is supposed to be 3,250 for the P-40F (with six guns), 3,300 ft / min for the P-40L- source



The sources from those links are all *a)* of the "Biff's Big Book of WWII Airplanes***" type and *b)* lacking in any information on aircraft condition, weight, and engine settings. Methods of correction are also potentially different. I'll stick with A&AEE measurements, which listed 8,910 lb as "typical service fighter load". It seems the A&AEE, as a rule, tested all aircraft fully loaded or at maximum take-off weight for the aircraft at the time of testing.

RE: engine settings in the climb -- in order to compare like-with-like I illustrated the maximum continuous climb settings, not 1-minute take-off settings.



***_no relation/disrespect to any forum members - been using the phrase for about 20 years._


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 18, 2018)

I would guess, repeat guess, that not very many P-40Fs flew at 20,000 ft or above when escorting B-26s. WHY????

Because the B-26 had engines with critical altitudes of 13,500 ft. and max continuous of 13,000 ft. 
B-25 engines had critical height of 12,000ft. 

My reason has nothing to do with the critical altitude of the engine in the P-40F

BTW you get best fuel economy using low blower as high as you can as long as it provides the power needed for the speed you are flying. 

B-17 engines had critical altitudes 25-27,000ft although they rarely flew quite that high in large formations. Turbo rules are a bit different. 

While you want at least some of the escort above the bombers you do want to keep them in sight. A lot depends on weather conditions. 

We have manuals for many of these planes in the technical section of the website. 

for the P-40F the manual says it took 12.8 minutes to get to 20,000ft with a gross weight of 8500lbs and an under fuselage load (52 gallon or 75 gallon tank or 500lb bomb.
It took 43 US gallons of fuel to start, warm up, taxi and climb to 20,000ft (it only took 34 gallons to get to 15,000ft) 

At 9300lbs (and P-40F could go over 8500lb without a drop tank) it took 17.5 minutes to get to 20,000ft and the plane use 51 US gallons. This is using 3000rpm and 48.2 in for the first 5 minutes of climb and 2650rpm and 44.2 in for the time after 5 minutes. 

This is for a single plane, not a formation. 

And by the way, a P-40F at 9300lbs may need a bigger airfield than a Handley Page Halifax. 
3950ft to clear 50 ft at sea level on a 32 degree F day. 

for your consideration the fuel tanks on the P-40F were used this order.
1. front wing tank for starting and take-off
2. the belly tank.
3. The fuselage tank (behind pilot) until 35 US gallons are left.
4. the front wing tank .
5. The rear wing tank.
6. the fuselage tank 35 gallon reserve.

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


----------



## pbehn (Dec 18, 2018)

The British had Gloster Gladiators on Malta in 1940, it shot some enemy aircraft down. That doesn't mean the Gladiator was the best plane in 1940s RAF it means it was the only one they had in Malta. The planes they shot down weren't the best in the Axis either they were just the ones they had there That is how I see most of these discussions about the P-40 in N Africa and Italy, sometimes things get used for stuff they were never really designed for but in many situations you use what you have because waiting isn't an option.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 18, 2018)

Game show announcer voice........

THE MANUAL SAYS

Empty weight...................................................................................... 6537lbs
Basic weight with 6 guns, gun sight and oxygen...................7027lbs
Guns weighed 471lbs for 6, adjust as you see fit.

Pilot 200lbs
gas weights
222lbs for forward wing tank
324lbs for rear wing tank
396lbs for fuselage tank
312lbs for the drop tank
54lbs for the drop tank installation. 
423lbs for 1410 rounds of .50 cal ammo. 

gross weight for max fuel .............................................................9116lbs
gross weight for design load*......................................................8505lbs 
gross weight for max internal fuel.***.......................................8860lbs
Gross weight for ground attack**...............................................9347lbs

* no drop tank and forward wing tank empty
"" single 500lb bomb and full internal fuel
** and *** have 1686 rounds of .50 cal ammo
*** also has 27lbs of extra radio gear.

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


----------



## Greyman (Dec 18, 2018)

Navalwarrior said:


> In circa 1940, Chennault sent a full report on Japan's A6M to the Leaders of the USAAF and RAF, noting among other things, its 1,000 mile range. I can't speak for the RAF, but the USAAF simply tossed the report in a drawer when they saw Chennault's name.



An Air Ministry intel report dated 20 May 1940 says:

_The following information in respect of a new type 0 (i.e. made in 1940) fighter with retractable u/c has been received. These figures will not be included in C.D. 131 until confirmation is obtained._
_
Type: T.O Mitsubishi S.S.F. (T.S.F.?) L.W.M. Deck. landing?
Engine: One 14 cylinder radial 800 - 900 H.P.
Ceiling: 23,000 to 34,000 ft.
Max. Speed: 345 to 380 m.p.h.?
Cruising Speed: 210 to 250 m.p.h.
Endurance*: 6 - 8 hours with extra tanks
Armament: 2 x 20 mm. cannons in the wings. 2 x 7.7 mm. M.G. positions unknown.
_
_* Combat reports indicate that this aircraft has a range of 840 miles with an ample margin for combat._

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


----------



## Navalwarrior (Dec 18, 2018)

Greyman said:


> An Air Ministry intel report dated 20 May 1940 says:
> 
> _The following information in respect of a new type 0 (i.e. made in 1940) fighter with retractable u/c has been received. These figures will not be included in C.D. 131 until confirmation is obtained._
> 
> ...


Resp:
Thanks much for the confirmation on the report of 1940 received by the Air Ministry. Any such info needs/requires confirmation from a secondary source before it is accepted as accurate, but at least someone read the report!


----------



## Schweik (Dec 18, 2018)

Greyman said:


> The sources from those links are all *a)* of the "Biff's Big Book of WWII Airplanes***" type and *b)* lacking in any information on aircraft condition, weight, and engine settings. Methods of correction are also potentially different. I'll stick with A&AEE measurements, which listed 8,910 lb as "typical service fighter load". It seems the A&AEE, as a rule, tested all aircraft fully loaded or at maximum take-off weight for the aircraft at the time of testing.



Well now that's just rude. I have much more authoritative books such as Americas 100,000, American Victory Roll, The Curtiss Hawks, all four volumes of Christopher Shores Mediterranean Air War, all the old Martin Caiden and Bill Gunston books, all the Black Cross Red Star books, autobiographies of 9 or 10 aces, about 40 Osprey books on aviation and so on and a couple of dozen others. I don't make up numbers out of my ass. I posted links to online sources for your convenience. As I pointed out already, it's very hard to find much about the P-40F, L or K online. I can quote sources from the books too.

Anyway, as Shortround noted in his posts, 8500 was in fact the design loaded weight. I think every other number I gave you checked out as well. I'll comment further on the weight issue in my reply to his post.



> RE: engine settings in the climb -- in order to compare like-with-like I illustrated the maximum continuous climb settings, not 1-minute take-off settings.



As you yourself seemed to notice, the original WEP setting (which later became the military power setting) moved up from 48 to 54 to 60" Hg over time, and I have already posted pilot commentary (see here - direct pilot testimony from a wartime diary not from "Biff's Big Book of WWII Airplanes") where he mentioned a running fight going all the way from a Luftwaffe base back to his own base, with the P-40F going between 55- 65" Hg the whole time.

I didn't see any explanation as to why you used so much of a lower top speed than the English report I so helpfully linked for you? Did I miss that?

S


----------



## Schweik (Dec 18, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> Game show announcer voice........
> 
> THE MANUAL SAYS
> 
> ...



I quoted 8500 as "loaded weight" I believe. That is again for the six gun fighter. Now we know that units which were doing a lot of air to air combat (some Fighter Groups more than others which I hope you remember me pointing out) *tended to take 2 of their guns out* of their P-40Fs along with the 480 rounds of ammunition that went with them* and other gear like the forward wing tanks, bomb shackles, radiator armor and one of the radios and some other stuff. Every US P-40 pilot I know of who commented on this mentioned that he had two guns taken out at some point. Robert Baseler apparently had 4 guns taken out for a while. Later on in Italy when Messerschmits were rare and they were flying more strafing missions some put the guns back in.

The P-40L, which had all these changes and maybe a couple more right out of the factory, and came with four guns, weighed in at just over 8,000 lbs loaded.

These weights are important because loaded with maximum fuel and especially with bombs or an external fuel tank, the P-40F/L was a bit_ overloaded_. But this is not that unusual especially with later war fighter aircraft. What is the performance of a P-51D with maximum fuel and full external tanks? Is that the basis on which it's usually evaluated? Because I have read they didn't fly so well with that much petrol, especially in the rear fuselage tank.

The initial rate of climb for the P-40 seems to jump up from a dismal ~2,000 ft per minute with all the extra gas and six guns, to a far more sprightly ~3,300 ft per minute, possibly with a higher boost setting. I think that is one of the main reasons they took out those guns. I'm sure it helped with turn and roll but they already had an edge there.

Now when we are discussing these aircraft, do we want to consider how they were actually used? Or are we just trying to make a point? 

S

* Sometimes more - P-40Ls only had 200 rounds per gun standard, sometimes less so they could have more rounds per gun as certain pilots apparently did


----------



## Schweik (Dec 18, 2018)

pbehn said:


> The British had Gloster Gladiators on Malta in 1940, it shot some enemy aircraft down. That doesn't mean the Gladiator was the best plane in 1940s RAF it means it was the only one they had in Malta. The planes they shot down weren't the best in the Axis either they were just the ones they had there That is how I see most of these discussions about the P-40 in N Africa and Italy, sometimes things get used for stuff they were never really designed for but in many situations you use what you have because waiting isn't an option.



Aw that is really sweet.

The Gladiator had it's day, it was a good fighter. Shot down a lot of enemy planes. If you ever read Shores MAW Volume I there are some crazy battles between Gladiators and CR 42s in the Middle East.

But obviously they peaked quite early in the War. Faith Hope and Charity notwithstanding, Hurricane and even Spitfire units were having a very hard time in Malta for quite a while in 1942-43.

If you find records showing Gladiators shot down hundreds of Bf 109s, or even two or three standout incidents where they got 3 to 1 victory ratios against them, please definitely let me know I'll come running notebook in hand, that would definitely force me to re-evaluate the Gladiator and a whole lot of other things...


----------



## wuzak (Dec 18, 2018)

Schweik said:


> The initial rate of climb for the P-40 seems to jump up from a dismal ~2,000 ft per minute with all the extra gas and six guns, to a far more sprightly ~3,300 ft per minute, possibly with a higher boost setting. I think that is one of the main reasons they took out those guns. I'm sure it helped with turn and roll but they already had an edge there.



Not exactly sure when this happened, but note that the Typhoon improved climb to ~3,800ft/min in early 1943 as the Sabre was allowed higher climb settings, which was similar to the Spitfire XII with the Griffon II. The Spitfire XII with the Griffon VI had a peak climb rate of ~5,000ft/min.

The Spitfire IX had a maximum climb rate of 3,860ft at introduction, using the Merlin 66.

The Spitfire IX with Merlin 66 (LF.IX) had a climb rate of 4,620ft/min at sea level and a peak of 4,700ft/min at 7,000ft. In FS gear the peak climb rate was 3,860ft/min @ 18,000ft. At 30,000ft a climb rate of over 2,000ft/min could be achieved.

"Sprightly" must be a relative term!


----------



## Greyman (Dec 18, 2018)

Schweik said:


> I didn't see any explanation as to why you used so much of a lower top speed than the English report I so helpfully linked for you? Did I miss that?



Same reason as the other sources, no idea on the weight/condition of the aircraft. Plus I'm not too sure about how solid a (seemingly) quick test from the British Air Commission would be.

The A&AEE Kittyhawk II speed/climb I used is preferable because the testing appears to be exactly same as done on the Typhoon -- and with all the particulars listed. Weight, external equipment, engine settings, etc. Most books, even the great ones, don't have this kind of detail and are a very useful guide -- but again, when comparing 'like-with-like', you can't do better than looking into all the thorough work done at the A&AEE.

Anyone have a rough idea on how much speed would be gained from knocking 500 lb off of a 360mph fighter?


----------



## Schweik (Dec 18, 2018)

I would point out Item 1 on the memo which states "Following performance figures for Kittyhawk II have been obtained by B.A.C. pilot and agree well with US Army results."

There are several books which give the top speed for the P-40F variously as 364, 368 or 370. For the P-40L it's usually 370 or 372.

Speed may not be affected very much by a ~400-500 lbs weight reduction; turn rate, ceiling and climb rate would be more impacted, roll rate too since they were removing wing guns.

Speed would be more impacted by things like removing bomb shackles or believe it or not, a radio antenna.

AVG and some other units did things like sanding, waxing, filling in or faring over holes etc. to get an extra 10 mph out of their fighters, but I have never read anything like that for the Western Desert (yet). It's possible they didn't have time. But the amount of actual records that are publically available are very few.


----------



## Schweik (Dec 19, 2018)

wuzak said:


> Not exactly sure when this happened, but note that the Typhoon improved climb to ~3,800ft/min in early 1943 as the Sabre was allowed higher climb settings, which was similar to the Spitfire XII with the Griffon II. The Spitfire XII with the Griffon VI had a peak climb rate of ~5,000ft/min.
> 
> The Spitfire IX had a maximum climb rate of 3,860ft at introduction, using the Merlin 66.
> 
> ...



There's sprightly and then there's _cheetah_. But 3,300 fpm isn't terrible for mid 1943. 

P-51D had a climb rate of 3,200 ft per minute 
Fw 190A-8 had a climb rate of 2,953 ft per minute
Bf 109G-6 had a climb rate of 3,345 ft per minute and so on*

Anyway I never claimed the P-40F or L had a great rate of climb, it didn't, I was just pointing out it became much more competitive when used as it was used in combat in the Med - with a bit of weight cut out and slightly higher boost settings than the original factory limits (not talking about crazy overboost here either).

*I'm sure 109G maintained that rate of climb forever compared to a P-40L, I'm not claiming otherwise.


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 19, 2018)

Schweik said:


> As you yourself seemed to notice, the* original WEP setting (which later became the military power setting*) moved up from 48 to 54 to 60" Hg over time



Please stop with this. The 48in was Military power from the start It is 9lb of boost. Unless you think the Merlin XX or Packard V-1650-1 had a military rating of 6lbs (42in) or something originally. Take off was allowed 54in (12 lbs) boost from the start. With an override on the throttle. WIth a two speed supercharger the engine would often tolerate more boost in low gear than in high gear because low gear heated the air less and so it was less prone to detonation. However there was only boost control mechanism so after the throttle was retarded after take-off the boost limit for both gears was 9lbs. Yes it was later changed to 60in when the US approved WEP power settings. Please note the British on some models of the XX series wound up with different allowable boosts for high and low gear but reversed 14lbs in low gear and 16lbs in high gear? 
Also note that the US government did not allow combat or War emergency power settings until Dec of 1942, which is 11 months after production begin on the P-40F. 
Please remember the main difference between military power and WEP power was that the use of Military power by the pilot did NOT require notifying the crew chief, logging the minutes used in the aircraft/engine record book, and did NOT require more frequent spark plug changes and/or maintenance procedures. 


Schweik said:


> That is again for the six gun fighter. Now we know that units which were doing a lot of air to air combat (some Fighter Groups more than others which I hope you remember me pointing out) *tended to take 2 of their guns out*



That is why I gave the weight of 6 guns and said adjust weight accordingly. 


Greyman said:


> Anyone have a rough idea on how much speed would be gained from knocking 500 lb off of a 360mph fighter?



3-5mph for the weight maybe less. As mentioned, it is the associated drag that is the speed killer. extra gun muzzles protruding through wing, extra cartridge case slots and so on.
easier to take out than add on. Many tests will state if the gun muzzles are taped/covered and some even state if the cartridge case slots are left uncovered. bullets will blow the muzzle covers off. Taped or covered ejection slots are a cheat as there is no great force to the ejected round to move/tear any such covering and after as very sort period time the cases that don't get out of the airplane will back up and jam the gun/s.


----------



## Schweik (Dec 19, 2018)

I know... Greyman said (if I read him correctly) that 54" was a 1 minute power setting or something similar. I was pointing out that it was not.

Also keep in mind what the War Dept officially allowed and what was used in the field are two different things and one followed the other often. The war diary anecdote I quoted (with 65" Hg mentioned, no doubt at low altitude) was from Oct 42. So obviously he was able to get his throttle where he wanted it.


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 19, 2018)

true but there is still a difference between the two different powers. The engine chart in the manual is dated Dec 18th 1942. (the manual is later as it specifies at which serial number P-40L the forward fuel tank was taken out) .
The Throttle had a crossover gate the lever had to moved through in order to get the 54in pressure on the ground, no time limit is given in the chart but the the manual for taking off says the "extreme throttle position should be used only until all obstacles are cleared." and then goes on. granted when manuals were updated they didn't always change all the language. 
The engine chart also says at the bottom after the asterisk in the time slot for war emergency 

*To be used in pre-combat or combat zones ONLY. EMERGENCY ONLY

underlining and capitols are in the original. 
Military power just says 5 minute limit. there is no time limit given for the take-off power, everything else says "cont."


----------



## Greyman (Dec 19, 2018)

Did some digging around ... first few tests at the A&AEE (August 1942) list the following limitations:

Take-off (3 min. or 1,000 feet) 54 inches, 3000 rpm
Max. climb (30 min. limit) 48 inches, 2850 rpm
Max. emergency climb above 20,000 ft. (short periods only) 48 inches, 3000 rpm
Max. cruising (rich) 44 inches, 2650 rpm
Max. cruising (weak) 38 inches, 2650 rpm
All-out level/combat (5 min. limit) 48 inches, 3000 rpm

But, I see a later paper (still August 1942 testing), detailing engine cooling trials adds this line to the limitations:

_Note__ A max. of 54 in.Hg. boost pressure is permitted in M. gear only, for short periods during an emergency. This is obtained by operating the boost control cut out._

It also ups the 30 minute limit on the max climb setting to 60 minutes.

***EDIT*: I should say the report itself is from 18 Oct 1942, which may account for the difference in engine limitations, even though the flight testing itself was done earlier that August.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## eagledad (Dec 19, 2018)

Gentlemen:

Basic weight of P-40F is listed as 7027 pounds. That is with 6 machine guns and no ammunition for the guns. The weight of a 50 cal gun is listed as 47 pounds, so the basic weight of the P-40 L would be 7027-94 pounds or 6933. For the P-40F, useful load includes 200 pounds for pilot and parachute, 720 pounds for fuel (119 US gallons), 135 pounds for oil (17.5 US gallons) and 423 pounds of ammunition. This gives a gross weight of 8500 pounds. For the P-40L, I reduced the ammunition weight by one third to 282 pounds. The gross weight of a P-40L would then be 8270 pounds.
Data Source P-40F and P-40L Pilot Flight Operating Instructions, revised June 20th 1943.

Please note that to reach 8500 pounds, the P-40F/L has the front wing tanks empty.

Also, for the speed of a P-40F, please see

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/P-40/P-40F-Specifications_Performance.jpg

and

P-40 Performance Thread

Neither of the above sources give a max speed of 370 (though the speeds listed are roughly between 2 and 3 percent of 370), nor do they list any climb rates approaching 3000 feet/minute. However, they do give “average performance” of the P-40 in the field. The second source is from Tactical Planning Characteristics and Performance 

FWIW

Eagledad.


----------



## Schweik (Dec 19, 2018)

P 40L has more than just the two guns and ammunition removed. They took out the forward wing tanks, radiator armor and some other stuff. I've already pointed this out a few times.

I've seen that stat block many times but it looks like something made for public release. it's alll low ball figures.


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 19, 2018)

Schweik said:


> P 40L has more than just the two guns and ammunition removed. They took out the *forward wing tanks, radiator armor and some other stuff. *I've already pointed this out a few times.
> 
> I've seen that stat block many times but it looks like something made for public release. it's alll low ball figures.



From the Manual. 
"On P-40L-5 airplanes serial number 41-10480 and up, the front wing tank installation has been eliminated. "

That is tank, singular, not plural. This saved about 100-105lbs? AHT says 103. 

Units in the field could accomplish this but it took a bit of work as you needed to change some of the fuel lines and install a second fuel pick up in the rear tank to do a proper job. 

the armor was included in the armament provisions weight catagory (which might well include gun mounts/brackets, ammunition boxes, feed chutes, gun controls in the cockpit and so on.) which varied form a high of 328lbs to a low of 297lb on an N (six gun), the next lowest was 313lbs on a K. 
The armor was a 3/8in plate (15lbs per sq ft) located forward of the instrument panel and the 5/16s (12.5lbs per sq ft) plate/s located behind the pilot. 
The manual says nothing about any changes between the F and L, while it does detail the changes in unlocked landing gear warning device (horn to light, change in flap position indicators, change from electric to manual cowl flaps and several other items of "stuff". the forward armor (specified as non magnetic) goes from side to side and from about the center of the propeller to the top of the cowl It is very roughly 1/4 the size of the rear armor. No mention is made of any armor protecting any part of the cooling system. 


I would note that the overload figures are certainly subject to change in the field as not only was 52 gallon drop tank replaced by a 75 gallon tank but the F (and L?) had a little known feature whereby they could carry a 100lb under each wing (or 3 smaller bombs). Units in the field _may_ have adapted such a mounting point to heaver bombs before the factory and government officials increased the bomb load on later planes. Or local units brought older aircraft more into line with the newer ones? You had a mounting point, you had a release mechanism in place/control in the cockpit. adapting the brackets/rack to take bigger bomb would have been how hard? And if you yanked a pair of guns and restricted the ammo load of the remaining guns you might not be overloading the plane that badly. Max ammo load for six guns was 506lbs so there was certainly some wiggle room.


----------



## eagledad (Dec 19, 2018)

Schweik
.
Fair enough, I did not deduct the weight of the front wing tanks. So, you sent me digging to another source

From America's Hundred-Thousand (AHT) by Francis Dean

Empty Weight: P-40F 6576 lbs. P-40L 6485 lbs
Basic Weight:  P-40F 7089 lbs, P-40L 6840 lbs (includes guns, trapped oil and gas, gun sight,)
Gross Weight P-40F 8678 lbs P-40L 8120 lbs (includes pilot, gas. oil, and ammo)

Eagledad


----------



## pbehn (Dec 19, 2018)

Schweik said:


> P 40L has more than just the two guns and ammunition removed. They took out the forward wing tanks, radiator armor and some other stuff. I've already pointed this out a few times.
> 
> I've seen that stat block many times but it looks like something made for public release. it's alll low ball figures.


Are figures like the markings on a sports field, they become less accurate with time? Are we now at a stage where the only stats allowed are ones you like the look of? When you start removing guns to improve performance you are conceding performance is lacking, in terms of the thread subject, the 4 cannon of the Typhoon had approx. 3 times the hitting power of 4 MGs and no one discussed removing them even though they were much heavier and caused much more drag.


----------



## Navalwarrior (Dec 19, 2018)

pbehn said:


> Are figures like the markings on a sports field, they become less accurate with time? Are we now at a stage where the only stats allowed are ones you like the look of? When you start removing guns to improve performance you are conceding performance is lacking, in terms of the thread subject, the 4 cannon of the Typhoon had approx. 3 times the hitting power of 4 MGs and no one discussed removing them even though they were much heavier and caused much more drag.


Resp:
I believe it may be more of a psychological advantage rather than an actual one; although the figures do actually change, their impact may have almost no effect. Ground crews normally wanted to help in any way, so some may have suggested changes, which were incorporated.
I nearly always allowed my guys leeway in how they prepared for a mission (ground or water). It does have an effect on morale, which is GOOD. One issue is the idea that 'one' extra round 'could' determine whether you lived or died. This is one area that loading magazines (springs do wear and become weak) two rounds (M-4, M-16, etc) less (28 in 30 rd) for long guns, and one round less for pistols (M-9 or M11) actually helps ensure feeding. Therefore, they stayed combat ready. So I guess 'reducing' as they did for the P-40s, actually did help in this situation by increasing the reliability of the weapon. However, I am sure some men did load them to the 'max.'

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


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 19, 2018)

To be fair the P-40 carried by far the heaviest amount of guns and ammo of it's generation and power (claims of 1700hp at sea level aside) 
It carried (full or overload ammo) under _30lbs less_ than the 4 cannon Typhoon with much less power.
It carried over 100lbs more than a 109G-6 with 20 gun pod under each wing and there are plenty of complaints about the climb and handling of the gunboats even if the speed wasn't too bad. 

I don't mind that they yanked a pair of guns, four .50s still puts out a fair amount of firepower compared to the MC 202, the 109F-4, most Japanese fighters and good number of Russian ones. 

What tends to bother me is restricting the ammo to 235-201 rounds per gun (15-18 seconds firing time) and yanking 23% of internal fuel and then telling me what a great escort fighter it was. 

As far as four gun vs six gun F4Fs go. the six gun planes had 240 round per gun and the 4 gun planes _could_ (but maybe weren't) be loaded with 430 round per gun. Just something to consider when somebody drags out the they used four guns in the later F4F argument.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Dec 19, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> To be fair the P-40 carried by far the heaviest amount of guns and ammo of it's generation and power (claims of 1700hp at sea level aside)
> It carried (full or overload ammo) under _30lbs less_ than the 4 cannon Typhoon with much less power.
> It carried over 100lbs more than a 109G-6 with 20 gun pod under each wing and there are plenty of complaints about the climb and handling of the gunboats even if the speed wasn't too bad.
> 
> ...


Its just the endless whataboutery adding or taking off guns fuel ariels bombs racks armour etc. The P-40 was of its time, it was a great early war design, then its time came to an end.


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 19, 2018)

Also...are these weights listed for factory fresh aircraft or ones on the front lines?

Have they been painted and if so, one, two or more coats? Have they had battle damage repaired (patches over bullet holes)?

Is the pilot's weight approximate and is the pilot wearing gear for Europe or the Pacific (layers of clothing under coat versus shorts and a light shirt)?


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 19, 2018)

GrauGeist said:


> Is the pilot's weight approximate and is the pilot wearing gear for Europe or the Pacific (layers of clothing under coat versus shorts and a light shirt


 If we are worried about the weight of the pilots clothing somebody has really dropped the ball in aircraft design department 

Weight of boots, coveralls and heavy coat in an 8000 lb airplane? 

Yeah, my SUV gets better gas mileage when I wear summer clothes too 

I would note that the weight of the P-40F in AHT is noted as being 109lbs above the contract guarantee weight, Curtiss may have had to pay a penalty or the plane was skating on the thin edge of not being accepted (or both?) but if two planes on the flight line are 100lbs apart when empty yanking a few do-dads out of both of them is not going to change speed at which the pair (or group of four?) can climb or turn.


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 19, 2018)

Well, I thought I'd add that because it's getting down to nitpicking. 

However, paint does add weight to an airframe, though not as much as on larger types like a B-17, where a single coat could add 300 pounds to it's weight.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Dec 19, 2018)

Its not so much whataboutism is just catching up to the level of detail as most other important aircraft in the war.

If you read the histories of the Spitfire are a variety of other UK -type's there is all kind of detail about boost levels + 9 + 12 + 14 + 16 etc., and how they affected performance right? These things were not around in the really old spitfire books I have , the nuanced stuff seemed to emerge later as result of research a lot like what's going on here.

It's not an excuse it's just a wartime reality.

But most of the history for the later model P 40's like the F , L or K - the most important types in a lot of ways, and operational history in general in the middle of a war it's pretty lacking for the P40.

Which is something I've been trying to rectify and draw attention to. If you notice closer they look at what little available data there is that we're getting to what I said originally because I've already done all this searching. Unfortunately there's just not enough yet.

Shores has helped us a lot on operational history and but we are still very lacking in technical data.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Dec 19, 2018)

Sorry if that is slightly garbled I'm at work xmas "party" on my phone via voice to text LOL.


----------



## Schweik (Dec 19, 2018)

Navalwarrior said:


> Resp:
> I believe it may be more of a psychological advantage rather than an actual one; although the figures do actually change, their impact may have almost no effect. Ground crews normally wanted to help in any way, so some may have suggested changes, which were incorporated.
> I nearly always allowed my guys leeway in how they prepared for a mission (ground or water). It does have an effect on morale, which is GOOD. One issue is the idea that 'one' extra round 'could' determine whether you lived or died. This is one area that loading magazines (springs do wear and become weak) two rounds (M-4, M-16, etc) less (28 in 30 rd) for long guns, and one round less for pistols (M-9 or M11) actually helps ensure feeding. Therefore, they stayed combat ready. So I guess 'reducing' as they did for the P-40s, actually did help in this situation by increasing the reliability of the weapon. However, I am sure some men did load them to the 'max.'



That's a good point but I think it's actually not just psychological but also tactical. It's very good to give some flexibility to the fighter pilot's especially as their job a lot more individualized then say Infantry. They fly out as a squadron but a lot of times they're going to be coming home alone or in a pair

The thing with lightening the aircraft is not unusual in World War II and the reason in that theater is because they were up against probably the fastest climbing axis aircraft of the war and one of the two or three best climbing propeller fighters in wide production ever.

Taking out two guns, 4-500 rounds of .50 cal(by the way the p40L apparently only had two hundred rounds per gun out of the factory, -check your sources) the radiator armor (which I have eight books mentioning that I can cite on request), forward fuel tanks and the gas that would go in them clearly does reduce the weight by several hundred lbs even according to your own figures.

And that 400 or 500 lb did seem to make a difference though it was only something they would bother with if they're up against a lot of enemy fighters.

I think it's just an adaptation to the theater. And some other theaters and at different times in the med they might be trying to put more bombs on or more ammunition or whatever, some other places they were adding extra navigation equipment in a field and so forth

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Dec 19, 2018)

Schweik said:


> Its not so much whataboutism is just catching up to the level of detail as most other important aircraft in the war.
> 
> .


You misunderstood my point S/R I commend your heroic efforts to bring discussions back to reality.

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


----------



## Glider (Dec 19, 2018)

I find it interesting that with the P40 it seems to have been a not unusual practice to take out a fair amount of equipment including two guns, ammunition and a radio. There is only one reason why people take out such critical equipment and that is to remain competitive with the opposition. Clearly the pilots believed that four guns gave them a better chance of hitting the target, rather than have six guns which cannot be fired at the target.
There are a number of examples where four HMG were sufficient notably the P51B but there is a reason why the P51D was equipped with 6 x HMG, namely because it was better.

In the report on the Operational Suitability of the P40N it says the following:-
_c. The fire power of four (4) present slow firing .50 caliber machine guns is considered insufficient for the majority of combat missions where heavily armored enemy aircraft are encountered, or for most ground strafing missions_.

I think this view shows why the P51D and P40 were given six x HMG

Back to the original objective of the Thread Which is the better fighter the P40F or the Typhoon?

Speed
P40 seems to max out at approx. 370mph give or take depending on source
Typhoon max's out at about 415 mph give or take

Climb
P40 about 3,300 ft/min (lightened) About 2,200 ft/min (Normal)
Typhoon about 3,800 ft/min

Time to 15000ft 
P40 7.25 mins
Typhoon 4.9 mins

Time to 25000ft
P40 14.25 mins
Typhoon 10.0 mins

Dive IAS
P40 I am not sure on this number but the Tomahawk I was limited to 470mph, no doubt this was improved but I don't know to what level 
Typhoon Again I don't know the actual number but they did tests on opening the new bubble canopy at 500mph so it was more than that. Pilots notes I understand say 525mph but haven't seen them myself

Range
P40 with drop tank was over 1000 miles theoretically
Typhoon with drop tank 1090 miles
An observation on the use of the Typhoon as an escort. They were often used to escort Mosquito's because their cruising speed was very high. P51's often had problems escorting Mosquito's because the cruising speed of the P51 with drop tanks was much slower. As a result the Mosquitos had two choices, slow down making them much easier to intercept, or leave the escort behind. With the Typhoon they didn't have that problem, plus Mosquitos often flew at low to medium altitudes where the Typhoons were more than capable.

Firepower obvious I know but its worth mentioning
P40 - six or four HMG
Typhoon four x 20mm approximately equivalent to twelve HMG

Payload
P40 the max I have seen is 1,000lb but open to correction
Typhoon 2,000lb

Protection
P40 as original protection but some was often removed to help performance
Typhoon this was considerably enhanced and included armour to the floor and sides of the cockpit.

Agility
An unknown but the following was from the AFDU report on the Typhoon
_The aircraft was compared to the Spitfire Vb between 15,000 and 26,000 ft for dogfighting, both aircraft weighted for full warload. The Typhoon while not quite as manoeuvrable as the Spitfire could get in a good burst in the initial stages of the turn. During the turn it was always found that the Spitfire could always turn more tightly than the Typhoon and if the Typhoon was behind the Spitfire could get on the tail of the Typhoon in about two turns_. The paper then goes on to recommend that against the Spitfire the Typhoon should uses its greater speed and dive in a similar manner to the 109F.
I have read very similar reports when the Hellcat is compared to the Zero in particular the ability to get a good burst in the initial stages of the turn. 

Summary
The Typhoon is considerably faster, has a significantly better climb, almost certainly dives faster, has double or triple the firepower depending on how you want to play it and carries double the payload. The Typhoon seems to have a similar range and far more protection. Agility is the unknown but its clear the Typhoon was no slouch. It wasn't a Spitfire but then again neither was the P40. Its quite possible that the P40 was more agile than the Typhoon but the Typhoon could as noted by the AFDU almost certainly have time for one good burst and then use its speed climb and dive to follow German tactics and dictate the combat.

Note
Nearly all the above are from the Mike Williams web site and the P40 figs are for the P40F. On the Typhoon the tests were done up to end of 1943 before there were considerable additions to the boost settings and better fuel. However they are also before the additional protection was added to the floor and sides of the cockpit, so my working assumption is that one would counterbalance the other.



Everyone can make there own choices but the above are the facts as best I can tell. For obvious reasons I would take the Typhoon every time.

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


----------



## Schweik (Dec 19, 2018)

I think most of that is accurate, minor quibble on dive speed but it probably doesn't matter that much, the only area I would really debate on is "agility". I think this can be partly measured as we do usually know the roll rates and the wing loading, and we have some published figures for turn times for the P-40, presumably those could be find for the Typhoon too since they did tests?

Roll rate might actually be the bigger factor relative to "agility", turning is another thing. Handling is also a factor. Turning is an option, agility gives you options.

Overall though, one thought occurred to me - almost all of these same advantages could be said to exist for the Bf 109G-6 but that aircraft seems to have suffered worse at the hands of P-40F/Ls than earlier marks of 109 or the MC 202. I'm guessing the dive speed (and retaining the ability to roll fast especially) being high enough to evade or disengage from enemies at least some of the time, turning giving another more reliable if less permanent evasion option, and also together meaning that any time a P-40 was in a higher E state, however rare it was, it would be very hard for the target to escape... all contributed to victories. Maybe beyond that it was just tactics or training? I don't know.

What matters to their combat performance as far as turn rate and roll characteristics - Agility if you will- of the Typhoon vs. P-40 was probably more how each of them matched up to their opposition, Bf 109s, MC 202s (and some 205s) and Fw 190s for the P-40, more Fw 190s and Bf 109s for the Typhoon. How would a Typhoon evade a Bf 109 or Fw 190 that was on it's tail? How did they measure up in a dogfight?

However the only way to settle this to my satisfaction (which probably doesn't matter to anybody but me) would be to get some kind of operational history of the Typhoon so it can be compared to what we have now (via Shores mainly) on the operational history of the P-40F/L. So we can get some idea of how close of a comparison it actually was - how many Typhoon squadrons active for how long, how many missions they flew, how many losses and so on.


----------



## Kevin J (Dec 19, 2018)

So, its 1942/43 and my task is defend the UK against low level Fw 190A fighter bomber raids. Naturally, I chose the Typhoon, with all its faults, because of its high speeds at low altitude and if the Fw 190A climbs to escape then its medium altitude speed is equivalent. If I'm in the Med escorting twin engine bombers then I would chose the P-40F/L, it is more agile than a Typhoon and has none of its problems, yes its slower but that doesn't matter because the enemy is after my bombers so they have to come back to me. If I wanted to mount standing patrols as in the UK to intercept low level Fw 190A raids then I'd use the P-40K with override boost giving 1750/80 hp. The Spitfire LIX/XVI of 1944 with 150 grade fuel gave about 1720 hp at sea level and had a top speed of 355 mph there, so I would expect the P-40K to be able to match both that and the speed of a Typhoon at low altitude. If I wanted to intercept Axis bombers in either the UK or the Med then it has to be a Spitfire Vc/IXc as they had cannon. The P-40F/L and Typhoon are being used in different roles and are not really comparable.

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


----------



## Schweik (Dec 19, 2018)

Typhoons did also apparently shoot down a fair number of Bf 109s, I forget how many.

I bet a firewalled P-40K was fast on the deck at 70" boost but I am not sure it would be faster than a Spit IX. Maybe the Typhoon but I wouldn't hold my breath. More maneuverable than a Typhoon at 300+ mph almost certainly.


----------



## pbehn (Dec 19, 2018)

In performance I don't think its an issue the Typhoon is better, on service record it also isn't an issue the P-40 was indispensable in the early years. Whatever the pros are of the Typhoon, with hindsight there were much better things that could have been done.


----------



## Schweik (Dec 19, 2018)

It's really too bad it took so long to create the Tempest but it did finally arrive. If they had that in say, early 1943 it would have wrought havoc on the Germans.


----------



## Schweik (Dec 19, 2018)

We really need more records especially on the performance, turn roll etc. And more clear documentation on how they kitted them out in the field. Where do they find all these wonderful records on WWIIAircraftperformance.org? I know what University archives etc. to check for very detailed documents on other historical periods centuries ago, and you'd be amazed what you can find, a lot has been digitized. But I don't know where to look for stuff for WW2 stuff. A lot of the memos and records I have seen are disappointingly vague.

I'm thinking about writing some people with a couple of the squadron or fighter group organizations and see if they have any records they'd be willing to share.


----------



## Kevin J (Dec 19, 2018)

Schweik said:


> It's really too bad it took so long to create the Tempest but it did finally arrive. If they had that in say, early 1943 it would have wrought havoc on the Germans.


For that Hawkers need to know in 1940 that the thick wing of the Typhoon is a problem. In 1941 they start design on the Tempest, first fly it in 1942 and it enters service in 1944. I think the timescales are the best you can get.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Dec 19, 2018)

Kevin J said:


> For that Hawkers need to know in 1940 that the thick wing of the Typhoon is a problem. In 1941 they start design on the Tempest, first fly it in 1942 and it enters service in 1944. I think the timescales are the best you can get.



Sydney Camm was hard headed, the wing was already too thick on the Hurricane. Didn't they have wind tunnels? They should have figured that out sooner IMO. Hindsight is 20/20 I guess.

Rate of climb on the *Tempest* 4,700 ft / min (vs 2,700 for the Typhoon)
Top speed: 435 mph at 19,000 ft. (lower but still quite respectable 412 mph for the Tiffy)
Wing loading 37.75 lbs / sq ft (40.9 for the Tiffy)
Power/mass 0.21 (still quite good on the Tiffy at 0.20)
Range 720 miles (510 for Typhoon)

Looks like a much more agile and 'sprightly' Typhoon. And the tail doesn't fall off.


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 19, 2018)

Schweik said:


> So we can get some idea of how close of a comparison it actually was - how many Typhoon squadrons active for how long, how many missions they flew, how many losses and so on.



And as we keep saying, this does NOT tell you what you think it does as it it doesn't tell you the types of mission flown, the type/quantity/quality of opposition and so on. 

AS a sort of example from my shooting days, another competitor (George) had a rifle chambered for a hot benchrest cartridge, the 6mm PPC which uses short, light bullets 60-70 grains. Problem was that benchrest matches are usually shot at 100 or 200 yrds and we were firing at 300yds. Over several years (3-4 at least) at one match per month from April to Oct/Nov He won a large share of the matches and I won a large share. It took us a while but finally most of the regulars noticed that George did better on calm days (little or no wind) while I did better on slightly windier days. George's gun/ammo may have been just a hair more accurate but out of 40 shots the wind would blow 1-3 of his light bullets out of the ten ring ( I had seen him shoot enough 400s out of 40 shots to believe that he could do it most days), my heavier bullets (6.5mm 120 grain) did get blown around as bad. I might have 0 or 1 shot blown out. 
Which gun/cartridge was better at 300 yds?? 
At 100 yds George would probably beat me most of the time. I shot my rifle in 600yd matches which George would never do (not with that rifle anyway) 

It doesn't matter that we shot the same number of matches over the same time period and won a similar number of times. There were differences between the guns/cartridges that became more apparent at other matches/ locations/distances. 

focusing in air to air kills from the same number of squadrons for a similar time period (but not the same one?) in a different environment may not give you the answer you think it does.


----------



## Schweik (Dec 19, 2018)

I realize that some things are impossible to fully quantify in a comparison, trust me. I'm regularly making that point myself especially vis a vis history.

However,

You could get pretty close in this case and the more details that come out the more interesting it gets. What else are we doing around here? I guess I could work on something more important than wasting time in forums but forums are fun. And real data does sometimes emerge from these kinds of discussions


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 19, 2018)

Kevin J said:


> For that Hawkers need to know in 1940 that the thick wing of the Typhoon is a problem. In 1941 they start design on the Tempest, first fly it in 1942 and it enters service in 1944. I think the timescales are the best you can get.



He just needs to peek at a) aerodynamics theory books & papers from UK, USA and Germany (UK papers plainly saying that wing of thickness above 15% gets too draggy) and b) racers & race winners from 1930s, both from UK (from Supermarine, De Havilland and Percival) and abroad. Supermarine went with 13% thick wing far eariler than Typhoon emerged, and Mosquito was also thin-winged A/C.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 19, 2018)

Schweik said:


> Sydney Camm was hard headed, the wing was already too thick on the Hurricane. Didn't they have wind tunnels? They should have figured that out sooner IMO. Hindsight is 20/20 I guess.



The whole Gloster?Hawker organization did NOT have wind tunnel at this time, I don't think any private English company did in years leading up to WW II or for the first few years. 
And not all wind tunnels are created equal, the ones that could actually tell you anything about 400mph airflow were non-existent at this time. 

Poor Sydney believed the guys at the RAE and was lead down the garden path. So were they guys at Bristol when they thought the Beaufighter could do 360-370mph with under 1400hp engines.

The Big wind tunnel (british didn't have full size tunnel?) that the P-39 and others were tested in was good for around 80mph of wind speed? 
There were only one or two "high speed" tunnels in the US (out of 13?) in 1939-40 and they had "throats of around 8 or 10 feet so you had to use models and scale the results up. 
By the end of 1945 the US had over 40 wind tunnels. 


20/20 hindsight is wonderful.


----------



## Schweik (Dec 19, 2018)

Like I said, he was hard headed. Spit wing was so thin though it did cause some other problems like how to fit the big guns, though they worked it out...


----------



## Schweik (Dec 19, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> Poor Sydney believed the guys at the RAE and was lead down the garden path. So were they guys at Bristol when they thought the Beaufighter could do 360-370mph with under 1400hp engines.
> .



Beaufighter might be my next Troll adventure in revisionist history here, as it really comes out smelling like a rose in the operational history in the Med as depicted by Shores. He even noticed this himself and commented on it a couple of times, he clearly likes the Beaufighter (unlike the P-40). I like the Beaufighter as well. Maybe not as fast as they hoped but pretty damn lethal all the same.

It really seems to have wrought havoc in the Maritime zone with a _lot_ of claims that were actually linked to real kills.


----------



## Kevin J (Dec 19, 2018)

Schweik said:


> Beaufighter might be my next Troll adventure in revisionist history here, as it really comes out smelling like a rose in the operational history in the Med as depicted by Shores. He even noticed this himself and commented on it a couple of times, he clearly likes the Beaufighter (unlike the P-40). I like the Beaufighter as well. Maybe not as fast as they hoped but pretty damn lethal all the same.
> 
> It really seems to have wrought havoc in the Maritime zone with a _lot_ of claims that were actually linked to real kills.


If you look at the RAAF victory statistics for their last year of the war in the Pacific, it should become clear that the Beaufighter was the best fighter they had as it shot down the most Jap planes. LOL.


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 19, 2018)

That "estimate" of 370 mph is one reason the Whirlwind had a low priority or was canceled. for t least a short period of time it was thought they would have two twin engine, four cannon fighters that could do 360-370mph and they thought it was a duplication of effort. 

For all of the good stuff the Beaufighter did, it was NOT a 360-370mph airplane.


----------



## pbehn (Dec 19, 2018)

Schweik said:


> Beaufighter might be my next Troll adventure in revisionist history here, as it really comes out smelling like a rose in the operational history in the Med as depicted by Shores. He even noticed this himself and commented on it a couple of times, he clearly likes the Beaufighter (unlike the P-40). I like the Beaufighter as well. Maybe not as fast as they hoped but pretty damn lethal all the same.
> 
> It really seems to have wrought havoc in the Maritime zone with a _lot_ of claims that were actually linked to real kills.


Anything carrying 4 cannon and 6 0.303mgs and also able to launch torpedoes and rockets can make a mess of things. The Beaufighter was overshadowed by the later Mosquito in many roles but was a good plane.


----------



## fubar57 (Dec 19, 2018)

44 Beaufighter aces, 37 aces with Beaufighter claims, & 4 Beaufighter V-1 aces.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Dec 19, 2018)

The Germans really suffered for the lack of a good long-range fighter in that theater.


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 19, 2018)

a few corrections if I may.



Glider said:


> Back to the original objective of the Thread Which is the better fighter the P40F or the Typhoon?
> 
> Speed
> P40 seems to max out at approx. 370mph give or take depending on source
> Typhoon max's out at about 415 mph give or take



for a good part of it's career the Typhoon seems to have been an under 405mph fighter,
Build quality,finish (paint?) and other problems in addition to the engine. 




> Firepower





> obvious I know but its worth mentioning
> P40 - six or four HMG
> Typhoon four x 20mm approximately equivalent to twelve HMG



The Typhoon had about 14 seconds of firing time a P-40 with 235 rpg had about 17 1/2 seconds. 
There was room in the amo bins for increased ammo on the inner and middle guns though (only about 5 extra round for the outer?) about 260- 270 more rounds total. 
Not a big differnce and disappears with the reduced ammo "light load" 




> Payload





> P40 the max I have seen is 1,000lb but open to correction
> Typhoon 2,000lb



This is one of the biggest quagmires.
The Typhoon started with a 500lb under each wing and required quite a few modifications to be considered satisfactory with the pair of 1000lb bombs. Bigger brakes on the main wheels, a solid tailwheel to prevent blowouts, most Typhoons cleared to use 1000lb bombs had 4 blade props (take off problems on short strips?) and had the Tempest horizontal tail surfaces. Needed them for the bombs or to counter act all the extra armor I have no idea. 

P-40s are all over the map. From NONE (?) on the P-40B to a 500lb bomb on the P-40C (and the six 20-40lbs under wings are rarely mentioned) to the manual for the P-40N claiming the plane could carry a 1000lb under each wing PLUS a 500lb under the fuselage No data whatsoever on take-off or climb with such a load.
P-40s did carry a pair of 1000lbs on occasion in Italy and apparently in the Pacific or CBI although details there are lacking. At least one use in Italy seems well documented. 
Photos do exist of P-40s with six 250lb bombs Two under the fuselage and two under each wing on the same rack. We know it was done, we don;t know what they took out or what they didn't put in (fuel?) to compensate for the big bomb loads. The raid in Italy was something like 30-40 miles from the airfield. I have no idea if they could go significantly further.

Just saying it was done.

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


----------



## Greyman (Dec 19, 2018)

Schweik said:


> How did they measure up in a dogfight?



I found these two excepts complimented each other quite well:

AFDU Report:
_The manoeuvrability of the FW.190 and the Typhoon was compared during one flight at 2,000 feet, the Typhoon being flown by a very experienced test pilot from Hawkers, and it appeared that there was little to choose between the two aircraft in turning circles. The opinion of both pilots was that it was doubtful whether either aircraft would be able to hold his sights on sufficiently long for accurate sighting. It should be borne in mind, however, that the pilot of the FW.190 was reluctant at the time to risk stalling the aircraft in the turn at such low height, and it is therefore possible that the turn could have been tighter._


Osprey's Typhoon and Tempest Aces of World War 2 (Sqn. Ldr. Desmond Scott, 486 Sqn., 24 June 1943):
_"I had engaged in mock combat with the 190 in the skies above Sussex and was surprised by its speed and manoeuvrability. But was confident I could get the better of it, providing we remained below 10,000 feet. Above that altitude it was a different story. The higher we went the more like a carthorse I became. However, since we were essentially on low-attack ops, our chances of becoming embarrased at 10,000 feet or above were remote."_

His chance to put his findings to the test came in the afternoon. Returning from escorting Typhoon fighter-bombers to Abbeville, and pursued by Fw 190s which were unable to close, the formation was suddenly attacked by two more which seemed to appear from nowhere;

_"I quickly broke to starboard. The Fw 190s foolishly dived under us towards the sea, and gave us the immediate advantage. I took a quick look round while sprinting down after them. Fitz, my No. 2, was hanging on to my tail, and I could see nothing else close to me except our own Typhoons. Within seconds I was firing directly down on a Fw 190. He turned to port close to the water. My deflection was astray -- I could see cannon shells splashing in the sea just behind his tail. Suddenly we were at the same level and locked in a desperate battle to out-turn each other._

_I applied the pressure to get my sights ahead of him, but kept losing my vision as the blood was forced away from my head; a little less pressure on the control column would bring my sight back into focus. I could see him looking back at me on either side of our tight circle. I knew he was experiencing the same effects, and although I could feel my aircraft staggering, I continued to apply the pressure. I was beginning to gain on him, but I was still well off the required deflection. With my heart pounding in my throat, I applied some top rudder to get above him. Just as I did so, his wings gave a wobble and he flicked over and hit the sea upside-down._

_I saw a great shower of spray his aircraft sent up, but not much else. I blacked out, went out of control myself, and recovered from my downward plunge just clear of the water. According to Fitz I had spun upwards. It could have easily been the other way, and both my Luftwaffe opponent and I would have finished up in the water."_

Reactions: Informative Informative:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 19, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> That "estimate" of 370 mph is one reason the Whirlwind had a low priority or was canceled. for t least a short period of time it was thought they would have two twin engine, four cannon fighters that could do 360-370mph and they thought it was a duplication of effort.
> 
> For all of the good stuff the Beaufighter did, it was NOT a 360-370mph airplane.


The Peregrines were the Elephant in the room for the Whirlwind.


----------



## wuzak (Dec 19, 2018)

Kevin J said:


> So, its 1942/43 and my task is defend the UK against low level Fw 190A fighter bomber raids. Naturally, I chose the Typhoon, with all its faults, because of its high speeds at low altitude and if the Fw 190A climbs to escape then its medium altitude speed is equivalent. If I'm in the Med escorting twin engine bombers then I would chose the P-40F/L, it is more agile than a Typhoon and has none of its problems, yes its slower but that doesn't matter because the enemy is after my bombers so they have to come back to me. If I wanted to mount standing patrols as in the UK to intercept low level Fw 190A raids then I'd use the P-40K with override boost giving 1750/80 hp. The Spitfire LIX/XVI of 1944 with 150 grade fuel gave about 1720 hp at sea level and had a top speed of 355 mph there, so I would expect the P-40K to be able to match both that and the speed of a Typhoon at low altitude. If I wanted to intercept Axis bombers in either the UK or the Med then it has to be a Spitfire Vc/IXc as they had cannon. The P-40F/L and Typhoon are being used in different roles and are not really comparable.



1944 may be 1 or 2 years too late to combat Fw 190A raiders. 

The P-40K may have matched the Spitfire LF.IX near sea level, but probably not at 10,000ft or above.

It still does not match the Typhoon, the Tempest, P-51, Spitfire XII or Spitfire XIV at low level.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Dec 20, 2018)

wuzak said:


> 1944 may be 1 or 2 years too late to combat Fw 190A raiders.
> 
> The P-40K may have matched the Spitfire LF.IX near sea level, but probably not at 10,000ft or above.
> 
> It still does not match the Typhoon, the Tempest, P-51, Spitfire XII or Spitfire XIV at low level.



My guess would be that the P-40K in 1942 would almost match the A-36A for speed in 1942, 344 mph at sea level and 364 mph from 5 to 15 thou feet, or be pretty close, so maybe 10 mph less, and with over boost maybe a little faster at sea level, so add back that 10 mph at sea level. That's still fast enough to catch the Fw 190A raiders. I agree, certainly not as fast as the other fighters you mentioned at all altitudes, but this is 1942 not 1943/44 so the P-40K would probably be a fast fighter low down, second only to a P-39D-2/K/L and as fast as a Typhoon.


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 20, 2018)

Kevin J said:


> My guess would be that the P-40K in 1942 would almost match the A-36A for speed in 1942, 344 mph at sea level and 364 mph from 5 to 15 thou feet, or be pretty close, so maybe 10 mph less, and with over boost maybe a little faster at sea level, so add back that 10 mph at sea level. That's still fast enough to catch the Fw 190A raiders. I agree, certainly not as fast as the other fighters you mentioned at all altitudes, but this is 1942 not 1943/44 so the P-40K would probably be a fast fighter low down, second only to a P-39D-2/K/L and as fast as a Typhoon.


The cube law says that to take a P-40 from 287mph using 1010hp at sea level to 344mph you need 1738hp. play with the numbers as you see fit. 
at 5000ft you need 1743hp to go 364mph. The Allison with 8.80 gears was down to about 1450hp at 5000ft with no ram and even adding in 2500ft worth of RAM you are still at 1560hp,

adjust as you see fit but it doesn't look good

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Navalwarrior (Dec 20, 2018)

pbehn said:


> Its just the endless whataboutery adding or taking off guns fuel ariels bombs racks armour etc. The P-40 was of its time, it was a great early war design, then its time came to an end.


Reap:
Agree. It served well enough in all theaters it was assigned. Curtiss upgraded the P40 within its design limits. It held the 'line' until newer and more advanced designs were built. I also believe it gave pilots time to build on their combat experience which benefitted them when they graduated to newer fighter designs. 
Thanks to all who took time to discuss this fine fighter. I learned much. I will re-read the data over the next few days to get a better idea of what constitutes the Merlin Warhawks.


----------



## Kevin J (Dec 20, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> The cube law says that to take a P-40 from 287mph using 1010hp at sea level to 344mph you need 1738hp. play with the numbers as you see fit.
> at 5000ft you need 1743hp to go 364mph. The Allison with 8.80 gears was down to about 1450hp at 5000ft with no ram and even adding in 2500ft worth of RAM you are still at 1560hp,
> 
> adjust as you see fit but it doesn't look good


I think you'll find that 1750/1780 hp is exactly what you can get out of a V-1710-39/63 from later in 1942. Thanks for your confirmation. http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/P-40/V-1710_Service_Use_of_High_Power_Outputs.pdf


----------



## Schweik (Dec 20, 2018)

Here is the difference in the real world. If a Typhoon pilot was attacked from behind by a Fw 190, he really had no recourse except to try to skid and side-slip to avoid being shot until the Fw passed him. It will be very dangerous because the Fw 190 with it's large number of heavy guns has a much faster roll rate and can react very quickly to most of what the Typhoon pilot can do. The Typhoon pilot can try to turn but he has no advantage and his roll to bank will be anticipated by the Fw 190 pilot if he's paying attention.





http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/naca868-rollchart.jpg
Consider this famous roll rate chart, note which aircraft appears at the bottom of it.

If a P-40L pilot was attacked in the same way by a Fw 190, _so long as he saw it coming_, he could easily out-turn it (if he _doesn't_ see it coming he'll probably get torn to pieces by those 4 x 20mm guns). At higher speed, i.e. in a dive, (350 mph or faster) he will have a similar or better roll rate so can react just as quickly. Same for a Spitfire or a P-51. He has less chance of stalling than the 190 so he can get away with trying more things to evade.

If the situation is reversed, with the Fw 190 being the one pursued, both aircraft (Typhoon and P-40L) can follow it in a dive, but the P-40 still retains superior turning ability and can match it in high speed roll, therefore can pull lead much quicker. The P-40L can catch it when they hit sea level or at whatever point the Fw tries to straighten out or turn. The Fw pilot is in trouble, his best bet is to try to outrun the P-40 but the latter has pretty long range guns which can sometimes score hits in a long chase. Fw is well armored though and can roll very well, he has a reasonable chance of escape.

The Typhoon has the advantage of much bigger guns and is more likely to destroy or disable the Fw with a quick burst, but is also more likely to lose the Fw as it twists and rolls because the 190s roll rate is between 3 and 5 times as fast depending on the speed.

Against a Bf 109 the Typhoon pilot is even more challenged. It might be able to dive away (depending on the 109 variant) but probably not. It can't try to turn because it will be instantly owned, and it is out-rolled at all speeds by a wide margin. The P-40L by contrast can out turn the Bf 109 and will usually be able to out-roll it especially at higher speeds. Dive speed is basically equivalent, the best option for the 109 pilot is to execute a climbing turn. If the P-40L has sufficient power it can follow it in the turn at least part of the way and fire off a burst. Four 0.5 guns may be a little weak for shooting down a 190 but it's plenty against a 109.

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


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 20, 2018)

I really wonder if people read that memo all the way through or stop after it says they ran 70-72In of MAP, see what they want to see and run with it. 

And 70in of MAP at zero altitude and over 300mph of forward speed does not mean 70in of MAP at 4000ft with 320mph of forward speed. 
Nowhere in that memo does it say that it does. It suggest very strongly that such pressures are achieved by running the engine at 3200rpm or above insead of the usual 3000 rpm limit. 
I can't think of any case where an American engine was allowed higher rpm at a WER setting than at military power setting. 
The memo does say the forward speed has to be enough to generate 3000 ft of ram, in other words enough extra pressure to equal what would happen if the engine was running stationary at 3000ft *below *sea level. 

I actually have no problem with people thinking the P-40 could and did develop such power in the circumstances described. 

My objection is that those particular circumstances are not a common area of flight. And that climbing even few thousand feet can cut HP (as can turing or even banking much) 
Yet people want to compare this power level/speed to other planes which are somewhat less restricted. (or are in less danger of damaging the engine) 

Please note Mustang running across the North Sea or Belgium Holland can actually fly quite far at 100 feet or less. There are areas of Egypt and Libya where you can do it too, (although there are few sand dunes that are over 500ft high). Once you get west of Tripoli However it gets harder to find that low/flat ground.


----------



## pbehn (Dec 20, 2018)

Schweik said:


> Here is the difference in the real world. If a Typhoon pilot was attacked from behind by a Fw 190, he really had no recourse except to try to skid and side-slip to avoid being shot until the Fw passed him. It will be very dangerous because the Fw 190 with it's large number of heavy guns has a much faster roll rate and can react very quickly to most of what the Typhoon pilot can do. The Typhoon pilot can try to turn but he has no advantage and his roll to bank will be anticipated by the Fw 190 pilot if he's paying attention.
> 
> View attachment 522542
> http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/naca868-rollchart.jpg
> ...


Why didn't the Fw190 pilots being chased across the channel not just turn around and blast those pesky Typhoons out of the sky? When your fantasy combat starts with one plane(your favourite) behind the other (Typhoon) and about to open fire I do believe you are loading the dice ever so slightly against the Typhoon.


----------



## Schweik (Dec 20, 2018)

Pbehn said:


> Why didn't the Fw190 pilots being chased across the channel not just turn around and blast those pesky Typhoons out of the sky?



Typhoon and Fw were about equal in low alt performance from my understanding. Fw pilot could try that against a P-40 if he was able to extend enough.



> When your fantasy combat starts with one plane(your favourite) behind the other (Typhoon) and about to open fire I do believe you are loading the dice ever so slightly against the Typhoon.



Dude sometimes you don't seem to be on the level.

Are you saying Fw 190 is my favorite? I put all four types of aircraft behind each other ... did I miss something? I was just describing typical combat scenarios (attacking from behind and being attacked from behind) which happened a lot in WW2 fighter combat.

Head to head, Typhoon would be basically equal to the Fw in firepower, have an edge against most Bf 109 up to gun gondola versions. P-40 is at a disadvantage but still in the game head to head vs Fw, has an edge over early 109s and equal up to gun gondola.

High deflection angles ... Typhoon has good firepower to make a quick snapshot count, but less maneuverability to pull lead or evade same as the chase scenario... and handling probably an issue too. What else am I missing?

S


----------



## pbehn (Dec 20, 2018)

Schweik said:


> High deflection angles ... Typhoon has good firepower to make a quick snapshot count, but less maneuverability to pull lead or evade same as the chase scenario... and handling probably an issue too. What else am I missing?
> 
> S


Speed, rate of climb and operating in radar controlled airspace for three. You cannot make any case for the P40 being better that the Typhoon when it is so much slower.


----------



## Schweik (Dec 20, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> I really wonder if people read that memo all the way through or stop after it says they ran 70-72In of MAP, see what they want to see and run with it.



Sometimes I think you really wish neither of those memos existed! Be honest, if you could delete them from the interwebs, would you? 

Though I have thoroughly read through both memos (P40/ Allison Engine abuse and RAF Allison P-51), I personally haven't claimed they were necessarily flying at 72" or 70" alot of the time, the other 66" and 60" Hg settings are probably more important to the combat history. I believe 66" was the one mentioned in the Med context. I suspect 60" was probably fairly routine.

The thing is, I don't see any reason to assume either or both of those memos were made up or the authors were lying. Or that they were flying in some bizarre circumstances or at the end of a dive or something contrary to what you keep implying. I think they could and did do it at some risk to their engine and down near Sea Level. Probably not just ten feet over the water either. I think it's a safe bet if they were being chased by an enemy fighter they would use this option if they knew about it.

We can't say for sure though since we have very little detail in terms of records Somebody needs to find some squadron records.


----------



## Schweik (Dec 20, 2018)

pbehn said:


> Speed, rate of climb and operating in radar controlled airspace for three. You cannot make any case for the P40 being better that the Typhoon when it is so much slower.



It sounds like you are talking about interception, but once an interception is made, one way or another aircraft are going to get into the ballpark of a shooting solution right?

Granted the interception is a different phase of the fight, maybe the Typhoon does have an advantage there. But that also depends on a lot of other factors unrelated to individual aircraft performance - pilots spotting targets, radio communication, radar as you said, relative altitude of antagonists or their ostensible charges or targets (like escorted bombers) and so on.


----------



## pbehn (Dec 20, 2018)

Schweik said:


> It sounds like you are talking about interception, but once an interception is made, one way or another aircraft are going to get into the ballpark of a shooting solution right?
> 
> Granted the interception is a different phase of the fight, maybe the Typhoon does have an advantage there. But that also depends on a lot of other factors unrelated to individual aircraft performance - pilots spotting targets, radio communication, radar as you said, relative altitude of antagonists or their ostensible charges (like escorted bombers) and so on.


Typhoons generally did not intercept Jabos its almost impossible, they chased them and shot them down, despite the FW having a big advantage in roll rate. You have an ideological hierarchy with US fighters at the top German fighters in the middle. Your post about the Beaufighter shows it, apparently some claims are matched by records you say.

Reactions: Creative Creative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greyman (Dec 20, 2018)

Schweik said:


> Against a Bf 109 the Typhoon pilot is even more challenged. It might be able to dive away (depending on the 109 variant) but probably not. It can't try to turn because it will be instantly owned, and it is out-rolled at all speeds by a wide margin.



Per British testing, in the initial dive the 190 and perhaps the 109 will pull away from the Typhoon, but the British fighter will catch both of them in a prolonged dive.

I haven't come across a test between the Typhoon and the 109, but the AFDU test of the Tempest V noted that the turning circle of the Tempest vs. the Typhoon was "_Very Similar. Any difference appears to be in favour of the Typhoon._" And later noted in turning vs. a Bf 109G "_The Tempest is slightly better, the Me.109G being embarrassed by its slots opening near the stall._"

So we can infer that if they had tested the Typhoon Ib vs. the 109G, it probably would not have been 'instantly owned'.


----------



## Schweik (Dec 20, 2018)

pbehn said:


> Typhoons generally did not intercept Jabos its almost impossible, they chased them and shot them down, despite the FW having a big advantage in roll rate.



Never claimed that was the only thing that mattered... 



> You have an ideological hierarchy with US fighters at the top German fighters in the middle. Your post about the Beaufighter shows it, apparently some claims are matched by records you say.



What a bizarre claim to make? First of all, the Beaufighter was an English aircraft old chap. Bristol Aircraft Corporation. Bristol being a city in the UK. Is that where all the malice is coming from with you mate? Some kind of nationalism thing? Why don't you spell out what your beef really is instead of constantly sniping from the sidelines?

If you really think I have a nationalist agenda you haven't been paying attention. Let me be clear. I do not think that US fighters were at the top. And certainly the P-40 wasn't.
But that is an interesting challenge!

I guess it would vary year by year but my top 3 would be something like:

*1935 - 1937*
----- Cr 32
----- I-15
----- Ki-27

*1938 - 1939*
----- Hawker Hurricane Mk I
----- I-16
----- P-36

*1939 - 1940*
----- Spitfire I
----- Bf 109E
----- Hawker Hurricane MK II

*1940 - 1941*
----- Bf 109F-4
----- Spitfire V (early)
----- A6M

*1941 - 1942*
----- Fw 190A-4
----- Spitfire VC (2)
----- Ki 43

*1942 - 1943*
----- Spitfire IX
----- Fw 190A-8
----- La 5 FN

*1943 - 1944*
----- P-51B/C/D
----- F4U-1A
----- Yak 9

*1944 - 1945*
----- Spit XIV or XXII
----- Yak 3
----- Me 262

Honorable mention for top spots would include: Spit VIII, Bf 109G- K, MC 202, P-38L, P-47D-25 to M, Tempest, La 5FN, Fw 190D, and Hellcat in their various eras and Theaters.

I'd put the I-153, Gladiator, D.520, P-40, F4F, La 5, Whirlwind, P-38F through J, P-47C through D-23, Beaufighter, Yak-1 and Yak 7, Re 2002, Re 2005, Fiat G.55, Ki-61, N1K1, Ki-44, J2M and the Ki-84 in a second tier in their various eras and contexts. Most were either very good but not properly utilized, or good and widely utilized but significantly flawed in some way.

Others like Bf 110, Me 410, MS.406, LaGG-3, D.XXI, P-39, P-63*, Typhoon, P-61, He-219, Ki-45, Ki-100 I would put in a third tier of really promising designs that never quite achieved their potential and were crippled by flaws, but still did some substantial damage to the enemy (or at least worried them a little).

But you know to me, if you are still reading by this point Pbehn, I actually do prefer the second and third tier fighters, I find them a little more interesting. Depending on the context etc. More often I think that is where the good stories are anyway. And some of the fighters in the second or third tier could successfully challenge first tier fighters in certain Theaters.

* not sure where to put P-63 precisely, not really used by the US but it was a good interceptor and probably was fairly useful for the Soviets.


----------



## Schweik (Dec 20, 2018)

Greyman said:


> Per British testing, in the initial dive the 190 and perhaps the 109 will pull away from the Typhoon, but the British fighter will catch both of them in a prolonged dive.
> 
> I haven't come across a test between the Typhoon and the 109, but the AFDU test of the Tempest V noted that the turning circle of the Tempest vs. the Typhoon was "_Very Similar. Any difference appears to be in favour of the Typhoon._" And later noted in turning vs. a Bf 109G "_The Tempest is slightly better, the Me.109G being embarrassed by its slots opening near the stall._"
> 
> So we can infer that if they had tested the Typhoon Ib vs. the 109G, it probably would not have been 'instantly owned'.



I think you ought to look a little deeper into that one. It might be closer with a G-6 carrying gun gondolas, but most variants of the Bf 109 would turn rings around a Typhoon. Bf 109F has a wing loading of around 36 or 37 lbs / sq ft, G-2 and G-4 are similar maybe 38. Still better than a Typhoon.

I could be wrong but in Northwest Europe I believe gun pod carrying 109s would mostly be up at high altitude going after the heavy bombers.


----------



## wuzak (Dec 20, 2018)

Schweik said:


> *1935 - 1937*
> ----- Cr 32
> ----- I-15
> ----- Ki-27
> ...



Interesting list, but there seem to be some issues.

There is some overlap, obviously.

Somehow the Bf 109F is better than the Spitfire V in 1940-1941, but doesn't make the top 3 in 1941-1942, while the Spitfire V keeps its 2nd top billing.

The Spitfire XIV arrives at much the same time as the P-51B/C, ahead of the D. The Spitfire XIV > P-51D. Except in range, obviously.

Also, the Spitfire XIV >>>>>> Yak 3. Or Yak 9. Or F4U-1.

Whether the Fw 190A is better than the Spitfire IX, or not, probably depends mostly on the altitude you are talking about. They were pretty close.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Dec 20, 2018)

Schweik said:


> I think you ought to look a little deeper into that one. It might be closer with a G-6 carrying gun gondolas, but most variants of the Bf 109 would turn rings around a Typhoon. Bf 109F has a wing loading of around 36 or 37 lbs / sq ft, G-2 and G-4 are similar maybe 38. Still better than a Typhoon.
> 
> I could be wrong but in Northwest Europe I believe gun pod carrying 109s would mostly be up at high altitude going after the heavy bombers.


Now you are adding "gondolas" to justify an argument, it is complete BS. Yes the gondolas affected performance but so did the Typhoons cannon, carrying armament affects performance, it is this ridiculous whataboutery that drives me nutz. You most certainly are wrong because you are now talking about Bf109s intercepting bombers with gondola mounted cannon while Bf 109s carried cannon when acting as escorts where combat went down to church spire height. When quoting roll rates for the Bf109 are the wings full of ammunition?


----------



## Greyman (Dec 20, 2018)

It seems that the 109G in the trials vs. the Tempest had the under-wing gondolas. My gut tells me a Typhoon dogfighting a 109 (especially above 10-15,000 feet) would probably have been bad idea. 

But again, going about things in an indirect way re: AFDU reports ...

The Typhoon Ib was (if anything) slightly better in the turn than the Tempest V.
The Tempest V was (if anything) slightly better in the turn than the Tempest II.
The Tempest II was always able to out-turn the Thunderbolt II (P-47D).

USAAF Thunderbolts were confident in scrapping with Luftwaffe fighters at low level, were they not?


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 20, 2018)

Schweik said:


> I think you ought to look a little deeper into that one. It might be closer with a G-6 carrying gun gondolas, but most variants of the Bf 109 would turn rings around a Typhoon. Bf 109F has a wing loading of around 36 or 37 lbs / sq ft, G-2 and G-4 are similar maybe 38. Still better than a Typhoon.
> .



Wing loading is not everything. It is a very good place to start but it ignores the actual coefficient of lift of the airfoil and even the coefficient of lift of the airfoil doesn't tell you the coefficient of the whole wing ( in which the aspect ratio comes into play but for most WW II fighters that was not very different.) 

I would note that the Pilots notes for the Typhoon gives it a stalling speed (flaps down) about 10mph slower than a P-40 with with Flaps down. the Typhoon didn't use a flap system any more sophisticated than the one on a P-40, Maybe it means something and maybe it doesn't. Approach speeds are higher but the Typhoon is still about 5mph less. 
Many British designers liked those thick wings because they were high lift. If somebody told them they were not Iigh drag maybe they bought into into it because they wanted the lift to get in and out of the small airfields without complicated high lift devices. Just a thought, if somebody wants to shoot it down I won't fight very hard. 

dive speeds in the Manual (all indicated) are 525mph clean with hood closed. 480mph with rockets and rails or rails alone, 450mph with bombs (up to 1000lb bombs) and 400mph for all other stores)


----------



## pbehn (Dec 20, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> Many British designers liked those thick wings because they were high lift. )


As I understand it Hawkers and the RAE in the early years considered thick wings to be essential to retain the turning performance of bi planes as much as was possible, the contrary school of thought was that if you give 30MPH to your opponent with thick wings how do you get him to fight, except on his terms, from this developed the boom and zoom strategy.


----------



## Schweik (Dec 20, 2018)

Greyman said:


> It seems that the 109G in the trials vs. the Tempest had the under-wing gondolas. My gut tells me a Typhoon dogfighting a 109 (especially above 10-15,000 feet) would probably have been bad idea.
> 
> But again, going about things in an indirect way re: AFDU reports ...
> 
> ...



Honestly I don't think Thunderbolts were that good low level. They were used down low as fighter bombers but from what I've seen they took rather heavy losses. P-47 was designed for high altitude and that was where it excelled. Confidence probably came from numbers.

And I don't think there is that much guesswork involved in figuring out which aircraft could out turn which others - it's basically a function of wing loading. There are other things that can affect turn, like the use of "combat" or partial flaps settings, slats or slots to help with stall speed and so on... flaps especially can be a factor. And engine power helps too but only to a point.

From what I understand wing loading is a pretty good determinant of turn radius in WW2 fighters. And everything I've seen shows Typhoon around 41 lb / sq ft. I believe Tempest V was supposed to be a little less, closer to 38. The Tempest wings though thinner had a larger wing area, 302 sq ft vs. 279 in the Tiffy.

Fw 190 and P-51 had a high wing loading too... but they made up for that by having a very fast roll rate.


The other factor is altitude, some fighters - like the P-47, were particularly good at high altitude not just the engines but the airframe too. Generally bigger planes with bigger wings did well up high so long as their engines had the turbo or two stage or water injection or whatever got them to run hot at 30k ft'.

S


----------



## Schweik (Dec 20, 2018)

pbehn said:


> Now you are adding "gondolas" to justify an argument, it is complete BS. Yes the gondolas affected performance but so did the Typhoons cannon, carrying armament affects performance, it is this ridiculous whataboutery that drives me nutz. You most certainly are wrong because you are now talking about Bf109s intercepting bombers with gondola mounted cannon while Bf 109s carried cannon when acting as escorts where combat went down to church spire height. When quoting roll rates for the Bf109 are the wings full of ammunition?



Reign it in there Francis. The Gondola thing is "a thing". I didn't make it up. I think they were removable too? I'm not sure I'm not really a 109 guy. But I do know they were made for extra firepower for killing bombers - four engined heavies in the West and Il-2s in the East. They stuck out in the slipstream a lot and they were heavy.

Maybe somebody more versed on 109s can chime in.


----------



## Schweik (Dec 20, 2018)

wuzak said:


> Interesting list, but there seem to be some issues.
> 
> There is some overlap, obviously.
> 
> ...



Edited slightly - I actually rate the Spit IX over the Fw 190, I didn't mean anything by the order initially but I've adjusted the list so that now it does.

Spit V had a lot of variants and was in service a long time, I think the later VC(2) was better than the contemporaneous 109s, especially the G's which were starting to get a little heavy.

I give P-51 props due to the escort role it was playing and very high rate of air to air victories.

I know it's not a popular school of thought around here but I personally rate the Yak 3 very highly. I think the F4U is a pretty extraordinary bird as well though it had some teething issues early on.

Feel free to post your own list including second and third tier.


----------



## pbehn (Dec 20, 2018)

Schweik said:


> Reign it in there Francis. The Gondola thing is "a thing". I didn't make it up. I think they were removable too? I'm not sure I'm not really a 109 guy. But I do know they were made for extra firepower for killing bombers - four engined heavies in the West and Il-2s in the East. They stuck out in the slipstream a lot and they were heavy.
> 
> Maybe somebody more versed on 109s can chime in.


Rein (reign) what in, compare the low level fighter Typhoon's standard armament to your supposedly specifically anti bomber Bf 109.


----------



## Schweik (Dec 20, 2018)

pbehn said:


> Rein (reign) what in, compare the low level fighter Typhoon's standard armament to your supposedly specifically anti bomber Bf 109.



Just for perspective - Bf 109 is a ~6500 lb fighter with a 32' wing span. And thin wings.

Typhoon is a ~11,000 lbs fighter with a 41' wing span. Thick wings.

So yeah it's a lot easier for a plane that big to carry four big guns. And it also a cinch for the smaller plane to out-turn the big one (unless weighed down with the gun pods).

By the way Fw 190 had the four 20mm cannon _plus_ two machine guns (heavy machine guns on the A-8). And still managed to roll like it was on ball-bearings...


----------



## wuzak (Dec 21, 2018)

I may be wrong here, but the 109 was never great in turns.


----------



## fubar57 (Dec 21, 2018)



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


----------



## Schweik (Dec 21, 2018)

Typhoon wing loading 40-41
Bf 109 wing loading 36-38
Spit wing loading 25-30
Hurricane wing loading 28-30


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 21, 2018)

Schweik said:


> By the way Fw 190 had the four 20mm cannon _plus_ two machine guns (heavy machine guns on the A-8). And still managed to roll like it was on ball-bearings...


The A-8 had two MG131 (13mm) MGs in the cowl and two MG151/20 in either wing root - but - depending on the subvariant, they could (and many did) have the MK103 30mm cannon in the outboard wing position on the A-8/R2 and A-8/R8 models that replaced the MG151/20.


----------



## wuzak (Dec 21, 2018)

Spitfire IX: 30.6lb/ft²
Spitfire XIV: 35lb/ft²
Supermarine Spitfire variants: specifications, performance and armament - Wikipedia

As that chart shows, the XIV and IX (XVI) had the same turn radius, despite the XIV having about 16% higher wing loading.


----------



## pbehn (Dec 21, 2018)

Schweik said:


> Typhoon wing loading 40-41
> Bf 109 wing loading 36-38
> Spit wing loading 25-30
> Hurricane wing loading 28-30


The ability to sustain a turn depends on much more than wing loading.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Milosh (Dec 21, 2018)

GrauGeist said:


> The A-8 had two MG131 (13mm) MGs in the cowl and two MG151/20 in either wing root - but - depending on the subvariant, they could (and many did) have the MK103 30mm cannon in the outboard wing position on the A-8/R2 and A-8/R8 models that replaced the MG151/20.



No, the outer wing cannons were MK108s (A-8/R2/R8). The MK103s were tried as underwing pods but never implemented.


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 21, 2018)

Schweik said:


> Typhoon wing loading 40-41
> Bf 109 wing loading 36-38
> Spit wing loading 25-30
> Hurricane wing loading 28-30




If you have a large disparity in wing loading then you probably don't have to look any further. If the difference is only a few percent or single digits then the difference may not give you an accurate picture.


----------



## BiffF15 (Dec 21, 2018)

fubar57 said:


> View attachment 522571​


Great chart, but is it for instantaneous or sustained. The one thing that might be a little misleading is by how much better or worse each aircraft was relatively. I suspect the differences between the Spit ix and the Fw190 was probably no more than a few hundred feet (in other words not much).

Cheers,
Biff


----------



## pbehn (Dec 21, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> If you have a large disparity in wing loading then you probably don't have to look any further. If the difference is only a few percent or single digits then the difference may not give you an accurate picture.


I agree but power and drag also are important. There is an encounter posted on this thread between a Typhoon and an Fw 190 where the Typhoon pilot says he was greying out and suspected his opponent was too, both planes turning ability was therefore set by the pilot.


----------



## Schweik (Dec 21, 2018)

pbehn said:


> I agree but power and drag also are important. There is an encounter posted on this thread between a Typhoon and an Fw 190 where the Typhoon pilot says he was greying out and suspected his opponent was too, both planes turning ability was therefore set by the pilot.



And flaps, that was one of the secrets of the Ki-43


----------



## Schweik (Dec 21, 2018)

Oh and P-40 wing loading: 31-35


----------



## pbehn (Dec 21, 2018)

Schweik said:


> And flaps, that was one of the secrets of the Ki-43


Don't forget gondolas!. A P-47 can out turn a Bf 109 if you go high enough because the Bf 109 no longer produces enough power/lift to stay there, that could be considered academic if not for the fact that the P-47 was frequently seen at high altitude.


----------



## Schweik (Dec 21, 2018)

pbehn said:


> Don't forget gondolas!. A P-47 can out turn a Bf 109 if you go high enough because the Bf 109 no longer produces enough power/lift to stay there, that could be considered academic if not for the fact that the P-47 was frequently seen at high altitude.



No argument from me! P-47 was at it's best up high. Not so great down low except for engine power.


----------



## pbehn (Dec 21, 2018)

Schweik said:


> No argument from me! P-47 was at it's best up high. Not so great down low except for engine power.


So it is obviously more than wing loading.


----------



## Schweik (Dec 21, 2018)

Altitude does play a role, at lower altitude smaller planes do better (because thick air) at very high altitudes bigger planes with bigger wings do better.
Engine power does also matter especially up high.

But wing loading is the main factor.

Gondolas never help...

One thing that did occur to me about the Typhoon, seeing as a lot of the stats seem to be for late war planes, Typhoon wing loading might include that infamous 400 lbs of extra armor, which probably would make a difference. Might want to check the weights for the earlier (pre Fighter Bomber) Typhoon marks.


----------



## Milosh (Dec 21, 2018)

During Bodenplatte, a P-47 chased a Bf109 around the slag heaps and shot it down. The 109G-10 was flown by an experienced pilot.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## P-39 Expert (Dec 21, 2018)

fubar57 said:


> View attachment 522571​


Excellent attachment, really puts maneuverability into focus.


----------



## pbehn (Dec 21, 2018)

Schweik said:


> Altitude does play a role, at lower altitude smaller planes do better (because thick air) at very high altitudes bigger planes with bigger wings do better.
> Engine power does also matter especially up high.
> 
> But wing loading is the main factor.
> ...


Wing loading is only an important factor when power and thrust are equal. The Fw 190 could out turn a Spitfire MkV but not a Mk IX, the more thrust you have the higher speed you can turn at or the more drag you can overcome in a tight turn. This is why such encounters always descend to the ground, pilots trade height for energy. If the issue was as simple as wing loading designers would just put bigger wings on.


----------



## Schweik (Dec 21, 2018)

Ah, no because drag. Generally big wings = good turn but high drag (think Hurricane) small wings = less turn but low drag... all depending on weight as well of course. The unique thing about the Spitfire and a major part of what made it so special was it had a pretty big (36' span, 242 sq ft area) wing but it was so aerodynamically efficient it had quite low drag.

If a Fw 190 could out turn a Spit V that is news to me. I know they were dominating Spit V but I always understood that was due to speed (and roll) basically boom and zoom.

Fw 190 out turns a Spit V?

Googled it just now - found this post by our very own eagledad:

Spitfire Mk. V turn performance

*From a British test in late 1942 with a clipped wing Spitfire, standard wing spitfire and FW-190:
Turning circle at 20,000 feet:
Spitfire V, standard wing 970 feet
Spitfire V, clipped wing 1025 feet
FW-190 1450 feet (RAE Farnborough figures)
No info on time or speed however. *

Maybe he has a link to the test?


----------



## Schweik (Dec 21, 2018)

It's a good example though of how a fast BnZ plane can dominate a slower good-turning plane, if the speed advantage is sufficient.


----------



## Glider (Dec 21, 2018)

Schweik said:


> It's a good example though of how a fast BnZ plane can dominate a slower good-turning plane, if the speed advantage is sufficient.


Bit like a Typhoon over a P40?

Be fair it was a bit of an open goal


----------



## Schweik (Dec 21, 2018)

Sure could be, depending on the version. That is what I was getting at. Or to be more historical, Typhoon vs. 109, or Fw 190 vs P-40. A lot of it depended on the context of the Theater. 

But the Typhoon had one major flaw that would make it a little less effective at BnZ, i.e roll rate.


----------



## Glider (Dec 21, 2018)

Schweik said:


> Sure could be, depending on the version. That is what I was getting at. Or to be more historical, Typhoon vs. 109, or Fw 190 vs P-40. A lot of it depended on the context of the Theater.
> 
> But the Typhoon had one major flaw that would make it a little less effective at BnZ, i.e roll rate.


BnZ effectiveness has nothing to do with roll rate.


----------



## Schweik (Dec 21, 2018)

Disagree. Speed is the most important thing, - dive speed especially. Climb too. Firepower of course. But all good BnZ fighters I know of had good roll rates.


----------



## fubar57 (Dec 21, 2018)




----------



## Schweik (Dec 21, 2018)

Works great as long as the Mustang doesn't see it coming, roll and turn slightly...


----------



## fubar57 (Dec 21, 2018)

*boom and zoom*
A style of fighter attack utilizing energy as opposed to maneuverability. The method consists of “booming” the target by diving on it from a higher altitude, and then after the firing pass “zooming” back up to relative safety. Also called _B and Z_.
An Illustrated Dictionary of Aviation Copyright © 2005 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (Dec 21, 2018)

Schweik said:


> Disagree. Speed is the most important thing, - dive speed especially. Climb too. Firepower of course. But all good BnZ fighters I know of had good roll rates.


The whole idea of BnZ is you don't get into a turning rolling combat. Roll rates are almost irrelevant.


----------



## Schweik (Dec 21, 2018)

Totally disagree. Rolling and turning are different things. You can roll without losing speed. Rolling (and turning, slightly) allows the attacking fighter to keep targets lined up.

Think of the good (i.e. successful) BnZ fighters:

Fw 190 - fastest roll rate in the war basically
P-51 - excellent roll rate
P-47 - good roll rate
F4U Corsair - excellent roll rate
Ki-44 - (I just learned this) excellent roll rate

and in the early war -I-16 (excellent roll rate)



Just googled this and it's from a dubious source but it is a good summary of how I see it:

"Once the pilot reaches a significantly higher altitude than the opponent, the pilot should dive to transform the potential energy into speed. Usually the plane is now close to its maximum speed, but will retain its velocity for a long time. To maintain energy, only conduct gentle curves and rolling maneuvers in this state. *Thus, an outstanding agility and roll rate at high speeds is required of the plane*, such as the characteristics of the Focke-Wulf series.

The attack itself can occur while diving or zooming and also usually more than one target can be attacked, because turning targets are difficult to hit and therefore the success rate is low. A good fire power is a help.'


----------



## fubar57 (Dec 21, 2018)

I see it as a dubious source


----------



## Schweik (Dec 21, 2018)

Even a broken clock is right twice a day. That is how BnZ works. What is a good Bnz plane with a bad roll rate? Only one I can think of is a P-38 but they didn't really do Bnz it was attack and climb away in a high speed climb...


----------



## Graeme (Dec 21, 2018)

However, some pilots, like Chis, mastered the powerful Typhoon and could perform amazing rolls/turns...

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (Dec 21, 2018)

Schweik said:


> Even a broken clock is right twice a day. That is how BnZ works. What is a good Bnz plane with a bad roll rate? Only one I can think of is a P-38 but they didn't really do Bnz it was attack and climb away in a high speed climb...


I admit to being interested as to what you see as the difference between the two. You dive make the attack and then use your energy to get away, you can continue the dive, use it to climb do almost anything you like with it.

Typhoon see P40, gets above it, dives, attacks and then does what he wants, dive, run away or climb. Probably climb and make another pass. What he will not do is to roll and turn.


----------



## Schweik (Dec 21, 2018)

Well roll comes in if your dive isn't perfectly lined up, like if you or your target moves slightly in some way that makes it hard to line up a shot. A fighter can dive at high speed into an enemy formation, and attack targets of opportunity, rolling to pick a target and turning slightly or climbing or diving to line up a shot. To break off another roll and pick another target. Then use momentum / speed to safely dive past the formation followed by a zoom climb and another pass.


P-38s couldn't safely dive very fast so from what I understand their strategy against Japanese fighters was a little bit different... fly up at maximum speed shoot, and immediately shift into a shallow high-speed climb. An A6M could climb well but not at a very high speed and would soon be left behind to their immense frustration.

Somewhat similarly, the main strategy used by Bf 109s and MC 202s against Hurricanes was to dive, attack (shoot if possible) then dive through and zoom climb back up to altitude to do it all over again. Against P-40s they could be caught in a dive so instead they would usually dive, shoot, and then do a high speed climbing turn to the right.


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Dec 21, 2018)

wuzak said:


> I may be wrong here, but the 109 was never great in turns.



Well, according to Erwin Leykauf, that was not the case...

"During what was later called the 'Battle of Britain', we flew the Messerschmitt Bf109E. The essential difference from the Spitfire Mark I flown at that time by the RAF was that the Spitfire was less manoeuvrable in the rolling plane. With its shorter wings (2 metres less wingspan) and its square-tipped wings, the Bf 109 was more manoeuvrable and slightly faster. (It is of interest that the English later on clipped the wings of the Spitfire.) For us, the more experienced pilots, real manoeuvring only started when the slats were out. For this reason it is possible to find pilots from that period (1940) who will tell you that the Spitfire turned better than the Bf 109. That is not true. I myself had many dogfights with Spitfires and I could always out-turn them. This is how I shot down six of them."
- Erwin Leykauf, German fighter pilot, 33 victories. Source: Messerschmitt Bf109 ja Saksan Sotatalous by Hannu Valtonen; Hurricane & Messerschmitt, Chaz Bowyer and Armand Van Ishoven.


----------



## Glider (Dec 21, 2018)

Schweik said:


> Well roll comes in if your dive isn't perfectly lined up, like if you or your target moves slightly in some way that makes it hard to line up a shot. A fighter can dive at high speed into an enemy formation, and attack targets of opportunity, rolling to pick a target and turning slightly or climbing or diving to line up a shot. To break off another roll and pick another target. Then use momentum / speed to safely dive past the formation followed by a zoom climb and another pass.


If the target moves you either track the change which is normally fairly easy to do as the change to the target is significant but to the attacking aircraft is a very minor change in angle and would normally involve the use of the rudder. If you cannot get a bead on the target as you rightly say, you simply pull up and have another go. Sooner or later one will line up. 

A P40 would be a fairly easy target for the Typhoon. It has a massive speed advantage both in a straight line, and in a dive. It also has a massive advantage in the rate of climb. The P40 would have no reply to the Boom and Zoom tactic.


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Dec 21, 2018)

As previously stated, wing loading is great starting place, but only tells part of the story. Leading edge devices on the Bf 109, and trailing edge "butterfly flaps" on the Ki-43 and 84, contributed significantly to their respective slow speed handling and turning radius. The 109 was never a slouch in the turning department, if flown correctly. I suspect allied personnel testing captured examples never got the maximum performance out of the machines


----------



## Schweik (Dec 21, 2018)

Glider said:


> Typhoon see P40, gets above it, dives, attacks and then does what he wants, dive, run away or climb. Probably climb and make another pass. What he will not do is to roll and turn.



So this is purely speculative since they never fought so far as I know, but here are two possible alternative scenarios:

Typhoon dives down at P-40L, P-40L pilot doesn't see it, blasted by 20mm cannons torn to shreds. Dies instantly.
Typhoon dives down on P-40L, pilot is warned by his wingman or something, instantly rolls to the left* until he is upside down, and pulls a _slight_ turn so that he's going downward and at an oblique angle to his previous flight path, and firewalls the throttle, picking up speed - Typhoon can't keep him lined up in his sights, no longer has a shot and overshoots, flies by. P-40L pilot keeps rolling until rightside up, puts the nose down and starts shooting as he chases the Tiffy down to the deck...
For a P-40 I'm sure you would assume that scenario #2 would be impossible but it's also probably what Fw 190 pilots did. To visualize scenario #2 start with a more or less linear flight path and then turn it into a cone with the target freeely moving around the edge in a spiral or back and forth. This makes them hard to hit.

However this is all speculative and for amusement purposes only I am not claiming to have any idea what would actually happen if a Typhoon had a dogfight with a P-40. I'm just trying to illustrate how a high roll rate works in these scenarios.

*I don't know how a Typhoon worked but several Axis fighters had a lot of torque going right so if as a US P-40 pilot they were diving on you a turn left was the standard escape technique.


----------



## Schweik (Dec 21, 2018)

Clayton Magnet said:


> Well, according to Erwin Leykauf, that was not the case...
> 
> "During what was later called the 'Battle of Britain', we flew the Messerschmitt Bf109E. The essential difference from the Spitfire Mark I flown at that time by the RAF was that the Spitfire was less manoeuvrable in the rolling plane. With its shorter wings (2 metres less wingspan) and its square-tipped wings, the Bf 109 was more manoeuvrable and slightly faster. (It is of interest that the English later on clipped the wings of the Spitfire.) For us, the more experienced pilots, real manoeuvring only started when the slats were out. For this reason it is possible to find pilots from that period (1940) who will tell you that the Spitfire turned better than the Bf 109. That is not true. I myself had many dogfights with Spitfires and I could always out-turn them. This is how I shot down six of them."
> - Erwin Leykauf, German fighter pilot, 33 victories. Source: Messerschmitt Bf109 ja Saksan Sotatalous by Hannu Valtonen; Hurricane & Messerschmitt, Chaz Bowyer and Armand Van Ishoven.



You are both right - it depends on the variant of the Bf 109 - and gondolas.

Roll is different than turn though keep in mind. "Maneuverability" in such accounts can mean either or both or something else entirely.


----------



## Schweik (Dec 21, 2018)

Glider said:


> If the target moves you either track the change which is normally fairly easy to do as the change to the target is significant but to the attacking aircraft is a very minor change in angle and would normally involve the use of the rudder. If you cannot get a bead on the target as you rightly say, you simply pull up and have another go. Sooner or later one will line up.
> 
> A P40 would be a fairly easy target for the Typhoon. It has a massive speed advantage both in a straight line, and in a dive. It also has a massive advantage in the rate of climb. The P40 would have no reply to the Boom and Zoom tactic.




Disagree, (not surprisingly) - the Typhoon has very little advantage in the dive if any, not enough to matter anyway- and BnZ strategy was pretty common for Luftwaffe fighters fighting against P-40 units in the Med. Something they stopped using because they realized how dangerous it was.

It did work sometimes but the Allied squadrons adopted strategies such as what I described. If an aircraft is diving on you (and therefore likely to be going faster) you have two options for evasion - turn very sharply which is what a Zero or a Hurricane would do, or dive yourself to pick up speed and roll, turn a little, roll (the same direction or the other way), turn a little more etc., it makes it much easier to evade. This is what Fw 190 pilots did when chased. 

Both strategies are good for evading if you see the enemy fighter coming, but the second strategy makes it easier to chase them after they pass by. 

P-40L actually has a better rate of climb at least down low, than a Typhoon by the way. 3300 fpm vs. 2740 for the Typhoon.


----------



## fubar57 (Dec 21, 2018)

109 data and comparisons to some Allied aircraft. I don't know this stuff or how accurate it is, that's for you guys to quibble over  Kurfurst - Your resource on Messerschmitt Bf 109 performance

Reactions: Useful Useful:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Dec 21, 2018)

Clayton Magnet said:


> As previously stated, wing loading is great starting place, but only tells part of the story. Leading edge devices on the Bf 109, and trailing edge "butterfly flaps" on the Ki-43 and 84, contributed significantly to their respective slow speed handling and turning radius. The 109 was never a slouch in the turning department, if flown correctly. I suspect allied personnel testing captured examples never got the maximum performance out of the machines



I think that is unlikely, the real issue is what version of the Bf 109. The Emil is pretty good in a turn, not as good as a Spit or a Hurricane but not bad either. Franz is very good, more competitive. Gustav not so much. And ... sorry for saying this Pbehn but it's the God's honest truth - particularly slow to turn if they had gunpods.

The Ki-43 and Ki-84 and N1K1 had automatic maneuvering flaps but many aircraft either had dedicated combat flap settings or had enough flexibility in their flap controls so as to be able to use them in combat.

The Bf 109 for example had combat flaps settings as well as those famous slats. The flaps helped tighten a turn.


----------



## Glider (Dec 21, 2018)

Schweik said:


> So this is purely speculative since they never fought so far as I know, but here are two possible alternative scenarios:
> 
> Typhoon dives down at P-40L, P-40L pilot doesn't see it, blasted by 20mm cannons torn to shreds. Dies instantly.
> Typhoon dives down on P-40L, pilot is warned by his wingman or something, instantly rolls to the left* until he is upside down, and pulls a _slight_ turn so that he's going downward and at an oblique angle to his previous flight path, and firewalls the throttle, picking up speed - Typhoon can't keep him lined up in his sights, no longer has a shot and overshoots, flies by. P-40L pilot keeps rolling until rightside up, puts the nose down and starts shooting as he chases the Tiffy down to the deck...
> ...


Your right option 2 is a fantasy. Standard tactic when bounced in any airforce was to climb into the attack. A typhoon diving into the attack could easily have a speed advantage of 120mph+ over a P40. It wouldn't have time to do anything clever.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fubar57 (Dec 21, 2018)

virtualpilots.fi: 109myths

Reactions: Useful Useful:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Dec 21, 2018)

Glider said:


> Your right option 2 is a fantasy. Standard tactic when bounced in any airforce was to climb into the attack. A typhoon diving into the attack could easily have a speed advantage of 120mph+ over a P40. It wouldn't have time to do anything clever.



I can't say I'm shocked you think that but it's not reality. They did also climb into the attack guns blazing but that was not the only strategy. Rolling into a Spit-S was actually a standard escape maneuver for P-40s in every Theater in the war and also used by basically every other fighter that could dive fast without problems.

Which strategy you choose depends on the Theater and the opponent and your own aircraft's capabilities. If your fighter doesn't turn that well you may not turn into the attack because you won't get your nose pointed in the right direction in time. Similarly you won't try a tight evasive turn if the other plane can out turn you. 

Good roll rate is what gives you the option to react instantaneously. You can also skid and slip of course which is another go-to solution to being shot at. But rolling fast gives you other options very fast with no risk of going into a spin etc. and without losing speed.

How much time you had depends on how fast you were flying to begin with, how far away the attack was when spotted and so on.

The other strategy was to pull into a sharp turn or skid to avoid being hit.

I can transcribe multiple WW2 pilot accounts describing all three strategies being used quite reliably against Luftwaffe fighters.


----------



## Schweik (Dec 21, 2018)

Here is an example I have posted elsewhere around here before, by a 57th Fighter Group P-40F pilot named Lt. George D. Mobbs. The description comes from an entry in his diary he wrote right after the combat. He doesn't get into the specifics of rolling or skidding but does described evading while in a high speed dive, catching an enemy fighter after it made a pass at him and evading in a high speed chase. He also does turn into the attack firing at least once. His opponents were four Bf 109F-4s. In theory much faster, better performing fighters of course superior in every way. The source is this book , you can actually read the account here.



> _Another 64th FS _[57th FG] _pilot taking part in the 9 October mission was 1Lt George D Mobbs, who had a much rougher time of it. He recorded this description in his diary:_
> 
> _'We got mixed up and got to the landing ground ahead of the bombers, but went in to strafe anyway. That is, most of us did. I was on the outside, and just as we started to go down, for or five '109s started to attack me. I turned into them and got a short burst at one, but it was a 90 -degree deflection shot. Three of them kept attacking me, and I kept evading them, and occasionally getting a shot. Meanwhile, the rest of our aeroplanes had gone in to strafe and then flown out to sea, but I couldn't join them because the three German fighters kept on attacking me._
> 
> ...



I looked up that second combat mentioned above on the 13th. On that day Kittyhawk I from 4 SAAF claimed 2 Ju 87, and P-40Fs from 57th FG claimed 2 Bf 109s, one by *Lt George Mobbs*. Actual German losses (per Shores MAW II P. 372) were two Bf 109F-4 and one Ju 87.


----------



## Glider (Dec 21, 2018)

One question what is the VNE for a P40F/L. I don't think you have ever said as one who is very keen on the P40 here must be a chance that you have a set of pilots notes. The Pilots notes I saw for the Tomahawk said 470mph but that I would expect to be increased, but I don't know to what.

You do say that the Typhoon didn't have much advantage in a dive but I don't know what that advantage may or may not be.


----------



## Schweik (Dec 21, 2018)

Glider said:


> One question what is the VNE for a P40F/L. I don't think you have ever said as one who is very keen on the P40 here must be a chance that you have a set of pilots notes. The Pilots notes I saw for the Tomahawk said 470mph but that I would expect to be increased, but I don't know to what.
> 
> You do say that the Typhoon didn't have much advantage in a dive but I don't know what that advantage may or may not be.



Well I already posted the test pilot video of a 660 mph dive. We know that was a real test done by Curtiss aircraft company with a P-40D, though I assume that means something wrong with the pitot tube due to the high speed. Somebody else told me that for that test they covered the gun tubes and did some other faring over of things.

This training video says 485, this manual says 480

At speeds near 480 mph pilots reported having to use (rudder) trim tabs.

You have dozens of pilots like Bobby Gibbes in this case saying they could out dive Bf 109s, for example "*Kittyhawk could out turn it quite comfortably and if the Messerschmitt boys came in and tried to dog fight, they were gone*. *We could dive away from them. If we started with same speed and they dived away, we could catch them in the dive.*"

I assume from so many comments like that that the actual combat speed limit is somewhat over the official manual VNE speed or the one from the later training movie, the airframe seems to be able to handle it. Of course diving at speeds like that is very risky regardless and you have to be careful about pulling out or going transonic.

But I have yet to find front line documentation about the fighter operations in the Med, the closest is Shores operational histories and some squadron histories but those are mostly operational / anecdotatal data not technical specs.


----------



## Glider (Dec 21, 2018)

Thanks for that, so the P40 VNE is 480-485. However the VNE for the Typhoon is 525mph ( A.P. 1804 Pilot's Notes for Typhoon - Marks IA and IB Sabre II or IIA Engine - 2nd Edition)

Why do you continue saying that the Typhoon didn't have much of an advantage, when they clearly did?

The combat example wasn't the P40 fighting a Zoom and Boom attack. If it had been at the start of the attack when the P40 turned into the attack the 109's would have been gone as the P40 wold have been climbing and the 109 diving.


----------



## Greyman (Dec 21, 2018)

Put me in the "Roll-Rate Very Important for Boom n' Zoom attacks" camp. 



Schweik said:


> Disagree, (not surprisingly) - the Typhoon has very little advantage in the dive if any ...
> 
> P-40L actually has a better rate of climb at least down low, than a Typhoon by the way. 3300 fpm vs. 2740 for the Typhoon.



As posted earlier, the dive limit on the Typhoon was 525 mph, while the Merlin P-40 was 480 mph (Pilot's Flight Operating Instructions, revised June '43).

Per the A&AEE: On the deck, a fully loaded (11,090 lb) Typhoon climbed at 3380 fpm at 1hr climb rating and 3840 fpm at 5min combat setting.


----------



## Greyman (Dec 21, 2018)

For what it's worth ... added another piece of information to my post here that appears to be somewhat at odds with the RAE measurements of the Typhoon roll - as seen in the NACA roll chart.

*AFDU, FW.190 Trials vs. 4-cannon Typhoon, 9 Aug 1942*
_Dive_
_The controls of the Typhoon, although good in a dive, are not so light and responsive as those of the FW.190._​

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## BiffF15 (Dec 21, 2018)

Schweik said:


> Totally disagree. Rolling and turning are different things. You can roll without losing speed. Rolling (and turning, slightly) allows the attacking fighter to keep targets lined up.'



Schweik,

If you are rolling you are creating drag and will slow. The harder the roll the more drag you will create the more speed you will lose. Same in pitch. The harder you pull the more drag you create, the more speed you scrub off.

Cheers,
Biff

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Dec 21, 2018)

Glider said:


> Thanks for that, so the P40 VNE is 480-485. However the VNE for the Typhoon is 525mph ( A.P. 1804 Pilot's Notes for Typhoon - Marks IA and IB Sabre II or IIA Engine - 2nd Edition)
> 
> Why do you continue saying that the Typhoon didn't have much of an advantage, when they clearly did?



Lol you people seem to be saying I make stuff up. I do not sir!

Because P-40 pilots routinely described diving at 500 - 550 mph. I don't know why limitations on the manual were so low (the early ones started as low as 450, then 460, then 480 then 485 that I know of) but I guess due to not wanting trainees to black out from G load. Maybe the Typhoon manuals were set too high seeing as how many lost their tails and broke up! I really don't know, but it was common knowledge among pilots. There actually is a Wartime RAF video talking about this with Tomahawks but it appears to no longer be on youtube. 

However when I was researching the infamous 660 mph test flight, reading about Curtiss test pilots, I ran across this page:

Herbert O. Fisher - Wikipedia

According to this page, in the notes the standard checkout flight for a new P-40 was: "_Fisher had a specialty, he would take an aircraft up to "20,000, strain the engine upward, then go inverted, throttle full forward, and nose it over, losing 10,000 feet or more at *500mph+. He knew it was almost impossible to tear a P-40 apart in a dive*" _It says_ "He flew 2,498 P-40s in his role as a production test pilot"_ so presumably he knew what he was talking about. 

To be honest it never occured to me until many pages into this very thread that it was a controversial topic, it seemed to be widely known. Otherwise I would have made note of it when I ran across such mentions.



> The combat example wasn't the P40 fighting a Zoom and Boom attack. If it had been at the start of the attack when the P40 turned into the attack the 109's would have been gone as the P40 wold have been climbing and the 109 diving.



He is describing BnZ attacks. When he says "_I couldn't join them because the three German fighters kept on attacking me." _and_ "They would keep alternating the attacks between them. " _and _"After a few minutes I got on one of their tails and was overtaking him. I didn't open fire until I was about 100 yards from him." _he's talking about in a dive after an attacking pass. And_ "The other two kept attacking, one after the other. Later, I got a few shots at one from directly behind and slightly above as we were diving. "_

He's talking about the Bf 109s taking turns making passes at him, diving away, zooming back up to altitude and trying again. That is what they did. The 109s would BnZ until they ran out of "E" and could no longer safely extend, then they either had to disengage as best they could in a dive, or dogfight (either were dangerous options). A couple of times the pilot Mobbs managed to catch them in the dive and get some shots off.

I can post a lot of other examples that make it much clearer and more explicit, I posted that one because I had already posted it to another thread (in a different argument about manifold pressure*. But the reason I posted that one was *so I didn't have to transcribe it*.

Transcribing is a pain in the ass and I can tell you on this board, not appreciated if it suggests that goes against popular consensus here! But I'll see if I can find some examples of guys talking about diving over 500 mph.



By the way, it occured to me they have a P-40F at Duxford. Maybe it would be worth emailing them and find somebody who knows the pilot, he might be able to give us some technical specs.

*which we also discussed in this one, notable that he was flying at 55-65" Hg. That account is exceptional in particular because it's so rare for them to mention manifold pressure at all


----------



## Schweik (Dec 21, 2018)

BiffF15 said:


> Schweik,
> 
> If you are rolling you are creating drag and will slow. The harder the roll the more drag you will create the more speed you will lose. Same in pitch. The harder you pull the more drag you create, the more speed you scrub off.
> 
> ...



Wouldn't you say pitch causes you to lose a lot more speed a lot faster than rolling?


----------



## pbehn (Dec 21, 2018)

Schweik said:


> *From a British test in late 1942 with a clipped wing Spitfire, standard wing spitfire and FW-190:
> Turning circle at 20,000 feet:
> Spitfire V, standard wing 970 feet
> Spitfire V, clipped wing 1025 feet
> ...


That is a minimum turn circle 970 ft is 320 yards, it is the absolute minimum, what speed do you think they were going to turn a full circle in 970ft? Turning performance starts as soon as you deviate from flying straight and level. From the early days of leaning into France cruising speed was increased, the maximum speed of these planes was around 400MPH, the turning circle progressively reduced as speeds reduced but the Spitfire Mk V coming up trumps on minimum turning circle of 300mtrs at 20,000 ft. means nothing. Over France a Spitfire Mk V had no means of escape against an Fw 190


----------



## BiffF15 (Dec 21, 2018)

Schweik said:


> Wouldn't you say pitch causes you to lose a lot more speed a lot faster than rolling?



Yes because you are moving the tail one direction while moving the nose in th


Schweik said:


> Wouldn't you say pitch causes you to lose a lot more speed a lot faster than rolling?




Yes because you creating more drag. Also realize that two otherwise identical aircraft with different C/Gs will bleed energy at different rates while doing the exact same maneuvers. The further aft the CG the better for sustaining energy but worse for stability . This is why the F16 is such a great BFM (dogfighting) machine. Aft CG also helps fuel economy at cruise speeds.

Cheers,
Biff

Reactions: Informative Informative:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Dec 21, 2018)

pbehn said:


> That is a minimum turn circle 970 ft is 320 yards, it is the absolute minimum, what speed do you think they were going to turn a full circle in 970ft? Turning performance starts as soon as you deviate from flying straight and level. From the early days of leaning into France cruising speed was increased, the maximum speed of these planes was around 400MPH, the turning circle progressively reduced as speeds reduced but the Spitfire Mk V coming up trumps on minimum turning circle of 300mtrs at 20,000 ft. Over France a Spitfire Mk V had no means of escape against an Fw 190



Your sentences get harder to read as you continue to write. Please show me anything that says a Fw 190 can out turn a Spit V. That was the first comparison I could find, but I think it's very well known that a Spit V could out turn a Fw 190.

Of course turning is not as abrupt at higher speeds, that is where you get the G load blackouts you were mentioning upthread. Turning at very high speed will quickly lead to heavy G loads which will begin to exceed what the pilot can take in a more or less vertical seat with no G-suit. But it's also true that as you start turning at higher speeds in a propeller aircraft, your speed decreases steadily.

Also they aren't going 400 mph in a Fw unless they are at a very high engine setting and flying strait and level (or down) for some time and at the right altitude. The Spit V top level speed was 360-375 mph.


----------



## Greyman (Dec 21, 2018)

Schweik, in dive speed anecdotes I would assume the pilot--for the benefit of the reader/layman--does a bit of math and give an approximate TAS figure. Do they specifically mention IAS?


----------



## Schweik (Dec 21, 2018)

Greyman said:


> Schweik, in dive speed anecdotes I would assume the pilot--for the benefit of the reader/layman--does a bit of math and give an approximate TAS figure. Do they specifically mention IAS?



All the pilots are talking about is IAS I would assume.


----------



## wuzak (Dec 21, 2018)

Clayton Magnet said:


> Well, according to Erwin Leykauf, that was not the case...
> 
> "During what was later called the 'Battle of Britain', we flew the Messerschmitt Bf109E. The essential difference from the Spitfire Mark I flown at that time by the RAF was that the Spitfire was less manoeuvrable in the rolling plane. With its shorter wings (2 metres less wingspan) and its square-tipped wings, the Bf 109 was more manoeuvrable and slightly faster. (It is of interest that the English later on clipped the wings of the Spitfire.) For us, the more experienced pilots, real manoeuvring only started when the slats were out. For this reason it is possible to find pilots from that period (1940) who will tell you that the Spitfire turned better than the Bf 109. That is not true. I myself had many dogfights with Spitfires and I could always out-turn them. This is how I shot down six of them."
> - Erwin Leykauf, German fighter pilot, 33 victories. Source: Messerschmitt Bf109 ja Saksan Sotatalous by Hannu Valtonen; Hurricane & Messerschmitt, Chaz Bowyer and Armand Van Ishoven.



The RAE tested the 109E against the Spitfire, flown by service pilots, and found they could out-turn the Spitfire.

However, when an experienced test pilot flew the Spitfire, the roles were reversed. It seems that the service pilots were reluctant or incapable of taking the Spitfire to its limits, either because of lack of skill or experience.

So I would be unsurprised that many Spitfires were lost to 109s in the BoB because they were out-turned.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Dec 21, 2018)

Maybe the Typhoon could get over 500 mph in a shallower and therefore safer dive. Most of the (many) anecdotes I've read of P-40s going 500+ mph, including the one above, mention vertical or near vertical dives. At 500 mph you can go from 20,000 feet to the ground in around 20 or 30 seconds I would assume, right? Giving time to accelerate call it two or three minutes before you are down at Sea Level. You can't even initiate a dive that steep unless you are pretty high up.


----------



## pbehn (Dec 21, 2018)

Schweik said:


> Your sentences get harder to read as you continue to write. Please show me anything that says a Fw 190 can out turn a Spit V. That was the first comparison I could find, but I think it's very well known that a Spit V could out turn a Fw 190.
> 
> Of course turning is not as abrupt at higher speeds, that is where you get the G load blackouts you were mentioning upthread. Turning at very high speed will quickly lead to heavy G loads which will begin to exceed what the pilot can take in a more or less vertical seat with no G-suit. But it's also true that as you start turning at higher speeds in a propeller aircraft, your speed decreases steadily.
> 
> Also they aren't going 400 mph in a Fw unless they are at a very high engine setting and flying strait and level (or down) for some time and at the right altitude. The Spit V top level speed was 360-375 mph.


This is getting tiresome, as glider who flies a glider has posted a glider can out turn a combat aircraft and I have seen gliders turning with the inner wing describing a 20 -30 mtr diameter circle. When the RAF were issued with Mk IX spitfires and pilots encountered FW 190s they first engaged in a climbing fight, when they could beat the FW190 in a climb they knew they could also in a turn, they are essentially the same thing in different planes.


----------



## Schweik (Dec 21, 2018)

pbehn said:


> This is getting tiresome,
> as glider who flies a glider has posted a glider
> in a climb they knew they could also in a turn, they are essentially the same thing in different planes.



I know _I'm_ not drunk because I haven't had a beer yet even though it's Friday on the weekend before Christmas, which is probably a mistake and I shall soon rectify it.

I say again - (and I agree it's tiresome) *show me some evidence that a Fw 190 could out turn a Spit V.* If you can I'll learn something and all your creepy malice will be worth enduring.


----------



## pbehn (Dec 21, 2018)

wuzak said:


> So I would be unsurprised that many Spitfires were lost to 109s in the BoB because they were out-turned.


Well I would too if the pilot knew what they were doing right up to the limit. On a race circuit I have seen a rider brake earlier than me, but not as hard as I was breaking, let the brakes off too early and fly off the circuit in a blaze of crap, With the 109 it depended how much you were prepared to push things once the LE slats deployed, as I understand it, for the aces in the LW that was when the "fun" started for others it induced a sense of panic.


----------



## Schweik (Dec 21, 2018)

wuzak said:


> The RAE tested the 109E against the Spitfire, flown by service pilots, and found they could out-turn the Spitfire.
> 
> However, when an experienced test pilot flew the Spitfire, the roles were reversed. It seems that the service pilots were reluctant or incapable of taking the Spitfire to its limits, either because of lack of skill or experience.
> 
> So I would be unsurprised that many Spitfires were lost to 109s in the BoB because they were out-turned.




I believe that, the same thing happened with Spits, Kityhawks and Hurricanes in the Med. Pilots were afraid to pull G's because they thought the wings would fall off or they would get in a spin they couldn't recover from. Some of the guys who later became aces like Nicky Barr, Bobby GIbbes and Clive Caldwell figured it out on their own and spread the news so to speak on this and many other things like deflection shooting (and for example techniques of bearing down so as to not pass out when they were pulling G's) This is one of the reason they started doing a lot better by the middle of 42, it took them about 6 months to figure out how to get he most out of their planes, and change to finger 4 from 'vic' formations.

Also some of the battles in the BoB were hairballs so large it would have been very very hard to even track all the enemy fighters let alone turn with them intelligently.


----------



## pbehn (Dec 21, 2018)

Schweik said:


> I know _I'm_ not drunk because I haven't had a beer yet even though it's Friday on the weekend before Christmas, which is probably a mistake and I shall soon rectify it.
> 
> I say again - (and I agree it's tiresome) *show me some evidence that a Fw 190 could out turn a Spit V.* If you can I'll learn something and all your creepy malice will be worth enduring.


 at what speed? The evidence is this, the Mk IX, tell me what speed your combat is when the circle is 370ft? The evidence, if you want more, is the tragic loss rate of Spitfire MkVs over France. You see turn rate didn't matter a damn, it just allows you to circle until you run out of fuel or hit the ground.


----------



## Schweik (Dec 21, 2018)

pbehn said:


> at what speed? The evidence is this, the Mk IX, tell me what speed your combat is when the circle is 370ft? The evidence, if you want more, is the tragic loss rate of Spitfire MkVs over France. You see turn rate didn't matter a damn, it just allows you to circle until you run out of fuel or hit the ground.
> View attachment 522618




Ok but which is it? One argument at a time right? Is it that the Fw 190 could out turn the Spit V or that turn rate didn't matter a damn? Or both?


----------



## pbehn (Dec 21, 2018)

Schweik said:


> Ok but which is it? One argument at a time right? Is it that the Fw 190 could out turn the Spit V or that turn rate didn't matter a damn? Or both?


If you were over France in a Mk V and you met a FW 190 you had a small chance of getting home. If the MkV slowed the turning fight down to where he had the advantage he was treated to a glorious changing view of the French landscape, but he couldn't get home, because that involves flying in a straight line, which is why, many posts ago I said speed and rate of climb were decisive.


----------



## Schweik (Dec 21, 2018)

Well now we are back where we started. That is at least a coherent argument, and we do certainly know that Spit V's had trouble with Fw 190s over France. That much I agree with. And going home requiring flying in a strait line, there is something to that too.

However I don't think it proves your thesis that speed and rate of climb are decisive. That depended on the Theater and the specific aircraft involved. The two strategies - agility vs. speed, and a few others besides have been with us throughout the history of air combat, from WWI to the most recent conflicts. You are oversimplifying the reality.


----------



## slaterat (Dec 21, 2018)

This is a quote from the AFDU report on the FW 190, comparing to the Spit V,

" In terms of Manoeuvrability, the FW was superior in all aspects , except that of turning circles... Other than utilizing the Spitfire's(v) superior turn performance, the most effective defence when attacked by a FW was to enter a high speed shallow dive, which forced the Fw into a long stern chase . Although it caught up eventually , a considerable distance was covered, and it was thought that this tactic was liable to draw the 190 too far from its base."

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## slaterat (Dec 21, 2018)

The sudden appearance of the FW 190 helped save the Typhoon program but also probably caused its rush into front line service. From flying to the Limit, " For a period of twelve months ( until the arrival of the Spit 9 in appreciable numbers in late 42), it (the Typhoon) was the only aircraft on the RAF's inventory capable of dealing with the Focke-Wulf Fw 190"

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## slaterat (Dec 21, 2018)

As for the NASA roll chart , it is cut off at 380 IAS, and at that point you see many planes roll rates drastically falling , but the Typhoon's is still fairly level. Remember ADFU testing showed the Typhoon still with an acceptable roll rate at 460 IAS, a speed at which the P-40 ailerons are " locked solid" and it must be heavily trimmed nose down. " Testing also demonstrated that " at 440-450 the the pilot was unable to exert enough force on the controls to prevent it from coming out of the dive and yawing to the right". Also " At speeds above 400 IAS the , elevator and rudder forces needed to hold it in a dive were very heavy" Kittyhawk I

In high speed dives it is the Typhoon that has the advantage in control and maneuverability over the Kittyhawk.


----------



## Schweik (Dec 21, 2018)

slaterat said:


> As for the NASA roll chart , it is cut off at 380 IAS, and at that point you see many planes roll rates drastically falling , but the Typhoon's is still fairly level. Remember ADFU testing showed the Typhoon still with an acceptable roll rate at 460 IAS, a speed at which the P-40 ailerons are " locked solid" and it must be heavily trimmed nose down. " Testing also demonstrated that " at 440-450 the the pilot was unable to exert enough force on the controls to prevent it from coming out of the dive and yawing to the right". Also " At speeds above 400 IAS the , elevator and rudder forces needed to hold it in a dive were very heavy" Kittyhawk I
> 
> In high speed dives it is the Typhoon that has the advantage in control and maneuverability over the Kittyhawk.



Yeah but I think that is rubbish. Pilots described the P-40 as having very good high speed controls. Aileron did have to be trimmed out, and many P-40 pilots mentioned having a strong right leg to hold the rudder steady in a high speed dive, (there was a joke about this) but they could still roll and turn when the 109 and Zero couldn't (due to controls and / or torque). It's one of the main reasons so many P-40 pilots survived the war. I believe I have some quotes that talk about this.

As for the Typhoon and the Fw 190, Tiffy had the speed to put it back in the game, but the Fw still had several advantages. Much better roll we've discussed, also more guns, I think more and better armor, and probably most important, less drag. 34' wings instead of 41', I think a bit less drag. Translates to more maneuverability and a higher combat speed I suspect. 

Typhoon has a lower wing loading though for most variants so can probably out turn it.


----------



## slaterat (Dec 21, 2018)

In 42 the Typhoon and the FW 190 are pretty close. At 5000' and 20,000' their speeds are virtually the same but at 10,000 ' the Typhoon has a 30 mph advantage. As for fire power I'll take the 4 hispannos over the 190s cannon and mgs, although they both are quite heavily armed. Climb and roll rate go to the 190, turn rate to the typhoon and dive rate might be too close to call, it depends on which report you read. They are a very close match it would come down to pilot skill.


----------



## Greyman (Dec 21, 2018)

AFDU figured the Fw 190 would pull away from the Typhoon initially in the dive, but the Typhoon would eventually catch up.

I'd say the four Hispanos were better than the two Oerlikons and two Mausers on paper - but the Mausers being nicely placed right next to the fuselage make it a wash. Machine guns are a good bonus too.

Re: the NACA chart - I take your point, slaterat, about the flatness of the curve and the extrapolation out to 450-500 IAS ... but you'd think that if the Typhoon was the worst rolling fighter--by a healthy margin--that the RAE had ever tested, that fact would pop up over and over. That really doesn't seem to be the case.


----------



## slaterat (Dec 22, 2018)

Greyman,
You are right there is something fishy about that roll chart. It gives the Typhoon 30 degrees/sec @ 380 IAS with 50lbs stick force. Testing by A&AEE on P5212 gave between 46 and 56 degrees/sec @ 240 to 460 IAS with 1/4 aileron. So that would be at least 46 degrees/[email protected] IAS with 1/4 aileron. I would like to see the full table on the A&AEE test as it would have the stick force applied.


----------



## Greyman (Dec 22, 2018)

*EDIT*: figures edited re: later posts

You might be reading the test incorrectly. Are we looking at the same one? _(3rd Part of Typhoon Trials, Fuel Consumption, Handling and Diving Trials, 18th December 1940)_

I get 23 to 28 degrees per second throughout 240 - 460 mph IAS. *But* - that's with a standing start and a full stop/direction change on the clock. So the A&AEE roll rate tests here aren't too far behind the NACA roll chart (at high speeds), and that's with the rolling velocity being stopped _twice_ while the timer is running. _And_ with only 1/4 aileron ...

The test involved:
- _(stopwatch started)_ apply 1/4 aileron within one second​- rolling 45 degrees​- applying 1/4 opposite aileron​- rolling 90 degrees opposite direction until banked 45 degrees _(stopwatch stopped)_​
The test noted that even at 460 IAS the force required for 1/4 aileron was 'moderate'.

As an aside - to Biff's very point a few posts ago the trial noted that during the test sequence outlined above, the Typhoon lost about 10 mph IAS when carried out at 400 mph and 440 mph, and lost 20 mph when carried out at 460 mph.


----------



## slaterat (Dec 22, 2018)

Yes i think it is the same test. The explanation of the test in "Flying To the Limit", is

The method of testing aileron response involved placing the aircraft in a 45 degree bank, then applying one quarter opposite aileron, and measuring the time taken to roll back to level flight to 45 degrees the opposite bank.

So the stop watch would be timing a 270 degree roll from 45 degrees down one side to 45 degrees down the other side.

I don't know what testing protocol is the correct one


----------



## Greyman (Dec 22, 2018)

Reading it more carefully, I think we both have it wrong. Here's the exact wording from the A&AEE report:

_One quarter aileron was applied in one second (approximately), and as soon as the aeroplane had banked through 45°, one quarter opposite aileron was applied. The time was measured from the instant aileron was first applied until the aeroplane had rolled back through level flight to 45° opposite bank._

I'll amend my post above.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## slaterat (Dec 22, 2018)

GregP said:


> Take a careful read on NACA 868. The chart that most peopple trot out from that report is not a measured roll rate for ANY of the aircraft on the chart.
> 
> It is the pb/2V roll helix angle calculated at 10,000 feet with 50 pounds of side force applied to the stick. In real life, most aircraft cannot meet the ideal helix angle, most didn't fight at 10,000 feet in Europe and, in combat, people applied whatever force was necessary to get the desired rersult or to hit the control stop, whichever happened first.
> 
> ...



So the chart isn't measuring real world roll rates. You learn something every day.


----------



## slaterat (Dec 22, 2018)

Ok now I get it. Total roll measured would be 45 degrees down and then back 90 dgrees, for a total of 135 degrees. Timing would start from level flight an include stopping and reversing to the other direction.

Two things I have learned now.


----------



## Greyman (Dec 22, 2018)

slaterat said:


> So the chart isn't measuring real world roll rates ...



Hmm, I think they are. Though admittedly "pb/2V roll helix angle" sails clear over my head.

Over half of the curves shown in the NACA chart I've seen from earlier wartime RAE reports.

**EDIT*: Google to the rescue. Found the report here: https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19930090943.pdf

The helix angle chart is the page before the one in question (page 39).


----------



## Schweik (Dec 22, 2018)

pbehn said:


> Well I would too if the pilot knew what they were doing right up to the limit. On a race circuit I have seen a rider brake earlier than me, but not as hard as I was breaking, let the brakes off too early and fly off the circuit in a blaze of crap, With the 109 it depended how much you were prepared to push things once the LE slats deployed, as I understand it, for the aces in the LW that was when the "fun" started for others it induced a sense of panic.



Fun unless he was against an experienced Spitfire pilot, in which case he was probably never heard from again and his 'experten' pals would be pouring out some schnapps on the tarmac in his memory that night.... Spitfire can easily out turn the 109. Wing loading is ~30% lower with a more efficient wing.


----------



## Glider (Dec 22, 2018)

Thought this might be of interest. I mentioned that the Russians were very keen to get their hand on more Spitfires and P39's and were not asking for P40's. Also there were some observations that the Russians were not that keen on the Spitfire.

Attached is an internal memo held at the National Archives which shows just how keen the Russians were on getting their hands on Spits and P39's.







.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Dec 22, 2018)

Schweik said:


> Fun unless he was against an experienced Spitfire pilot, in which case he was probably never heard from again and his 'experten' pals would be pouring out some schnapps on the tarmac in his memory that night.... Spitfire can easily out turn the 109. Wing loading is ~30% lower with a more efficient wing.


You are obsessed with turning and rolling. Take one plane that is best at turning and rolling and another which has 30MPH advantage in speed. Now you are in one of the aircraft and spot a flight of four of the others, do you want to out turn and roll 4 enemy aircraft or just get out of their place?
. The ability to turn is just one aspect, you say "an experienced Spitfire pilot" any experienced pilot uses his advantages and minimises disadvantages. Turning performance is across the whole speed range not just the speed which produces the minimum turning radius, there were many German aces perfectly confident of taking on a Spitfire, they shot many down and lived to tell the tale.


----------



## Schweik (Dec 22, 2018)

Glider said:


> Thought this might be of interest. I mentioned that the Russians were very keen to get their hand on more Spitfires and P39's and were not asking for P40's. Also there were some observations that the Russians were not that keen on the Spitfire.
> 
> Attached is an internal memo held at the National Archives which shows just how keen the Russians were on getting their hands on Spits and P39's.
> 
> ...


Yes we discussed Stalins memo.

Here is the history of the P40 in Soviet service

The P-40 in Soviet Aviation

A thorough account of the (brief) history of Spitfires on the Soviet front line 

Spitfires over the Kuban


----------



## Schweik (Dec 22, 2018)

pbehn said:


> You are obsessed with turning and rolling. Take one plane that is best at turning and rolling and another which has 30MPH advantage in speed. Now you are in one of the aircraft and spot a flight of four of the others, do you want to out turn and roll 4 enemy aircraft or just get out of their place?
> . The ability to turn is just one aspect, you say "an experienced Spitfire pilot" any experienced pilot uses his advantages and minimises disadvantages. Turning performance is across the whole speed range not just the speed which produces the minimum turning radius, there were many German aces perfectly confident of taking on a Spitfire, they shot many down and lived to tell the tale.



I'm not going to speculate what you are obsessed with but once again you are trying to shift the argument a little. All I said upthread that started this particular side argument was that the Spitfire Mk V could out turn the Fw 190, I didn't say the Fw had no advantage - clearly it did.

Yes each pilot would use his aircrafts advantages and exploit his enemies weaknesses, turning was one of the main advantages of the Spitfire and it was no slouch at rolling either.

Me 109s couldn't out turn a Spitfire either, or to be more specific, certainly the 109E could not out turn a Spit I and no Bf 109 could out turn a Spit V. I stand by that there assertion you can love it or lump it bruh.


----------



## Schweik (Dec 22, 2018)

pbehn said:


> You are obsessed with turning and rolling. Take one plane that is best at turning and rolling and another which has 30MPH advantage in speed.



By the way, if a 30 mph advantage in speed was always more important than turning and rolling ability, then the P-51B would be a much better fighter than a Spitfire Mk IX... is that what we really think? It would make a MiG 3 superior to the Bf 109E. It would make a P-39 far superior to an A6M. But that is not how it typically shook out.


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 22, 2018)

Speed alone may not be good enough, but unlike most (or all?) of your examples the Typhoon could outclimb the P-40F by a fair margian. We can argue back and for a bit about when each type got approved for higher engine ratings 

Once again climb rate is an indicator of excess power and as such indicates (but does not prove) better _sustained _turning performance. 

And the Typhoon will out dive a P-40. Limiting speed with 8 under rockets and the launch rails is the dive limit for a P-40 Clean. 

Some pilots may well have dived their P-40s at 500mph + contrary to the instructions in the manual but since the Typhoon was listed at 525 that pretty well covers it.

So the Typhoon is faster, climbs better, dives better (or at least as good) has better firepower (after they switch to the cannon) 
yeah, I can see how rolling better means the P-40 is the superior fighter. not

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 23, 2018)

Glider said:


> Thought this might be of interest. I mentioned that the Russians were very keen to get their hand on more Spitfires and P39's and were not asking for P40's. Also there were some observations that the Russians were not that keen on the Spitfire.
> 
> Attached is an internal memo held at the National Archives which shows just how keen the Russians were on getting their hands on Spits and P39's.
> 
> ...


I don't mean to cast doubt on this document, but there is so much wrong in the image, I don't know where to start.
The object edges in the photo (pages, typewriter text, etc. are slightly blurred yet the signature is razor-sharp.
The typewriter text (and the ghost text from the other side) is aligned square to the photo's parameters yet the page it's supposedly typed on is canted by several degrees.
As the page is presented to the viewer, the text (including the -2-) should be to the right and slanted.

Not sure what's going on here, but it's not looking very legitimate, to be honest.

Reactions: Disagree Disagree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (Dec 23, 2018)

All I can say is that it's a photograph that I took at the NA of an original paper. Original doc's in the NA are often blurred as they were typed and to produce multiple copies the process produced the blurred effect. People often would write on their blurred original and that of course would be sharp.
Showing my age I can remember using carbon copies and duplicating machines at work..

If you wish I could post other examples of doc's with similar characteristics

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


----------



## Glider (Dec 23, 2018)

Schweik said:


> By the way, if a 30 mph advantage in speed was always more important than turning and rolling ability, then the P-51B would be a much better fighter than a Spitfire Mk IX... is that what we really think? It would make a MiG 3 superior to the Bf 109E. It would make a P-39 far superior to an A6M. But that is not how it typically shook out.


this is a good example of your single track approach to a complex issue. In a dogfight there were other factors which have the Spit IX the advantage over a P51,namely climb, acceleration agility plus others.



ps thanks for the links to the P40 Russian site.


----------



## Schweik (Dec 23, 2018)

Glider said:


> this is a good example of your single track approach to a complex issue. In a dogfight there were other factors which have the Spit IX the advantage over a P51,namely climb, acceleration agility plus others.



Quite to the contrary. I was pointing out that speed alone does not trump all pther factors.



> ps thanks for the links to the P40 Russian site.



You might also find this useful, esp pages 2 and 3

Conversations with N.Golodnikov


----------



## Schweik (Dec 23, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> Speed alone may not be good enough, but unlike most (or all?) of your examples the Typhoon could outclimb the P-40F by a fair margian. We can argue back and for a bit about when each type got approved for higher engine ratings


Climb rate for the P-40L was 3,300 fpm so not that wide a margin if any. Wikipedia says Typhoon climbs at 2,900.



> Once again climb rate is an indicator of excess power and as such indicates (but does not prove) better _sustained _turning performance.


Quite a stretch, in fact I don't think even you believe what you are trying rather slyly to imply here. P-40L had a wing loading of 33 lbs per sq ft. vs 41 for the Typhoon.



> And the Typhoon will out dive a P-40. Limiting speed with 8 under rockets and ...
> 
> Some pilots may well have dived their P-40s at 500mph + contrary to the instructions in the manual but since the Typhoon was listed at 525 that pretty well covers it.




I guess you missed my post about the Curtiss test pilot who personally flew the check out flights for over 2,000 P-40's and as part of the routine process dove them from 20,000 to 10,000 ft reaching "500+" mph each time, noting that "it was pretty much impossible to damage a P 40 in a dive."

Let me pose a question about diving. In a vertucal dive from 20,000' at 500 mph, how long does it take to reach Sea Level? How about a 70 degree dive? 45 degree?



> So the Typhoon is faster, climbs better, dives better (or at least as good) has better firepower (after they switch to the cannon)
> yeah, I can see how rolling better means the P-40 is the superior fighter. not



I think you see what you want to see.

P-40F and L pilots alone shot down nearly twice as many enemy aircraft as pilots flying Typhoons, even though more Typhoons were produced and the Typhoon was in combat longer.

The Typhoon was equipped with a very powerful engine and was heavily armed & fast.

It also had a 41' wingspan with a notoriously badly designed wing that was far too thick and created very high drag. This had all kinds of knock on effects.

It turned poorly with a high wing loading and had one of the poorest roll rates of any single engined fighter flying in 1943.

It was extremely heavy and suffered from catastrophic structural failures.

Usually a good fighter either rolls well or turns well. The P 40F could do both, and dive 500 mph. Pilots said they trusted it to get them home. How many Typhoon pilots said the same?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 23, 2018)

Schweik said:


> Climb rate for the P-40L was 3,300 fpm so not that wide a margin if any. Wikipedia says Typhoon climbs at 2,900.




First problem, you believe wikipedia. 

How about comparing like to like instead of Typhoon climbing at 30 minute engine rating and P-40 climbing using WEP power.


----------



## Schweik (Dec 23, 2018)

I believe that is 54 in which is take off power. WEP would be 65 in per the description by Lt.mobs up thread.

Possible the typhoon did out-climb the p40l but I don't think it was by any wide margin.


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 23, 2018)

54 in is take-off power, but 48 in was the military power at 3000rpm and 44in at 2850 rpm was the max continous rating.

65inches would be just about 18lbs of boost. Not sure when that was approved (if ever) as opposed to a 14-16lb rating. For most of 1942 there was no official WEP rating and boost was limited to 9lbs after take-off. 1943 is a different story.

Comparing that level of boost to the Typhoons engine running at max continous is bogus.

Even an early Typhoon in combat would use 1-2 pounds more boost and several hundred more rpm than the power level used for the climb rate you posted. Later Typhoons used an additional 2lbs of boost and another 150rpm at full power.


----------



## Glider (Dec 23, 2018)

Schweik said:


> Climb rate for the P-40L was 3,300 fpm so not that wide a margin if any. Wikipedia says Typhoon climbs at 2,900.


What I find irritating is your habit of going from one source to another depending on what is most convenient to your argument.
Yes, that is what Wiki Says. It also says that's at FS Supercharger at 14,300ft. What you don't say, is that matches exactly what the Williams site says, but this also gives a climb at 1,700ft of 3,840ft/min in MS supercharger.
This leaves your 3,300 ft/min claim for the P40L looking a lot less exciting. In particular when to achieve this, you have reduced the weapons to 4 x HMG is considered insufficient by the USAAF for most missions, the range is now considerably less, you have considerably less protection and your communication ability is reduced because you have taken out a radio.


> I guess you missed my post about the Curtiss test pilot who personally flew the check out flights for over 2,000 P-40's and as part of the routine process dove them from 20,000 to 10,000 ft reaching "500+" mph each time, noting that "it was pretty much impossible to damage a P 40 in a dive."


If the P40 was safe at 500mph+ then the VNE would be 500mph+. It isn't, the VNE is 480mph and its that for a reason. The reason is when you start going over 480mph there is an increased danger that something is likely to go very wrong, very quickly. I would expect British test pilots to take the Typhoon past the 525mph limit because that's what test pilots do, they test the aircraft. 
Submarines are always tested past their max dive limit, different application of the same principle.


> I think you see what you want to see.


Correct, you do and the following is a classic example


> P-40F and L pilots alone shot down nearly twice as many enemy aircraft as pilots flying Typhoons, even though more Typhoons were produced and the Typhoon was in combat longer.


Because the P40 operated in an environment where the Germans were more active and there were less Allied fighters to provide top cover. However you know this but will not acknowledge it. 
When you do this analysis you may want to include how many of each type were shot down by fighters. I truly don't know the answer, but considering that the Typhoon pilots were normally at lower altitude, were probably jumped more often than the P40 and their pilots would have been trained more on GA combat than fighter combat I reckon they could hold their own.



> The Typhoon was equipped with a very powerful engine and was heavily armed & fast.
> 
> It also had a 41' wingspan with a notoriously badly designed wing that was far too thick and created very high drag. This had all kinds of knock on effects.


Certainly the wing design wasn't a thing of beauty but it didn't stop it having an excellent performance and it did have one advantage. It helped it pull out of a dive


> It turned poorly with a high wing loading and had one of the poorest roll rates of any single engined fighter flying in 1943.


It tuned well enough to get one good burst in when in test combat with a Spit Vb and I see no reason why it couldn't do the same with a P40. One burst from the 4 x 20mm into a lightened P40, with reduced armour is likely to be all you need.


> It was extremely heavy and suffered from catastrophic structural failures.


Which were fixed and it didn't stop the VNE being 45mph faster than the P40. Two points you never acknowledge when posting. You just keep repeating that the Typhoon suffered catastrophic failures ignoring the fix

Incidentally, the Typhoon wasn't the only aircraft to have this problem, the 109F when first introduced had a similar problem and likewise this was also addressed.


> Usually a good fighter either rolls well or turns well. The P 40F could do both, and dive 500 mph. Pilots said they trusted it to get them home. How many Typhoon pilots said the same?


The ones that got home

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 23, 2018)

Glider said:


> All I can say is that it's a photograph that I took at the NA of an original paper. Original doc's in the NA are often blurred as they were typed and to produce multiple copies the process produced the blurred effect. People often would write on their blurred original and that of course would be sharp.
> Showing my age I can remember using carbon copies and duplicating machines at work..
> 
> If you wish I could post other examples of doc's with similar characteristics


I do apologize as I meant no personal offense, the image just struck me as very odd.
Perhaps dealing with documents more from the digital age in recent years, I've become accustumed to the exact formatting and have forgotten about how documents could vary from typewriter to typewriter, or documents that came off a teletype could be a bit off...and yes, the old "Ditto" machines with their purple or blue-black text along with the unique smell that permeated the paper for days on end.
And using Carbon paper was a joy especially if the forms were triplicate (or more), where you had to nearly do bench-presses to ensure the writing tranferred across all copies.

Again, my apologies

Reactions: Friendly Friendly:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Dec 23, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> 54 in is take-off power, but 48 in was the military power at 3000rpm and 44in at 2850 rpm was the max continous rating.
> 
> 65inches would be just about 18lbs of boost. Not sure when that was approved (if ever) as opposed to a 14-16lb rating. For most of 1942 there was no official WEP rating and boost was limited to 9lbs after take-off. 1943 is a different story.



The diary excerpt I posted where the pilot rather casually mentioned going from 55" to 65" Hg boost was from October 1942. So clearly they were doing it by then with or without official approval.

You seem to have a hard time understanding or accepting this but in WW2 quite often innovations in how to run the aircraft were coming from the field and then filtering back up to the manufacturer and the Generals, who later updated their policies to adapt to the front line reality. How much later basically depended on how good the company and the administrators were. This was by no means unique to the P-40.

But it was routine with the P-40, partly perhaps because they were deployed far out in the field very distant from the home office as it were, and perhaps partly because the C/O's of those Fighter Groups flew missions with the other pilots so their lives were on the line the same as everybody else.



> Comparing that level of boost to the Typhoons engine running at max continous is bogus.
> 
> Even an early Typhoon in combat would use 1-2 pounds more boost and several hundred more rpm than the power level used for the climb rate you posted. Later Typhoons used an additional 2lbs of boost and another 150rpm at full power.



Ok well, here is the thing, I don't know what the correct figure is for the Typhoon. I'll address the larger issue here in my next post.


----------



## michael rauls (Dec 23, 2018)

For whatever it's worth ive read at least a half a dozen examples of pilots diving the p40 500 and change without problems and a qoute from at least 1 pilot in 1944 that the p40 could still" outdive anything with a propeler". 
I am however of the opinion that the Typhoon was a better plane overall as one would expect from a later design so certainly not any bias on my part talking here.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Dec 23, 2018)

Ok before I delve into responding to the latest attack on my character and the very fabric of reality, let me make one small general point about statistics and figures for WW II aircraft. When you are looking up performance statistics for most WW2 fighters whether in Wikipedia, "Bobs big book of airplanes" or something a little more refined like Americas 100,000 they typically list those statistics in a very haphazard manner.

For example if you look up P-40 stats you will almost always find numbers for the P-40E - which tells you nothing at all if for example you want to know about USAAF units fighting with them in the Med. Engine power in a stats block may be listed for continuous, military, takeoff, or boosted / WEP power depending on the aircraft. For example on the Fw 190 they often show the power with water injection, whereas for some reason on the Hawker Hurricane it usually shows continuous or military power. When it comes to the Merlin XX I've seen the same engine listed as a 1,185 hp (military, I think?), or 1300 (takeoff) or 1,480 hp (WEP) engine. Of course it's all three, but this doesn't make it to the shorthand.

We don't normally compare like with like consistently or, in our shorthand, look at the real numbers. Wikipedia is particularly bad about this.

Now for certain aircraft, I believe due to arguments just like this one we are having, much more detail eventually emerged. You can find a lot out about boost settings on various different marks of Spitfires or wing slats on Bf 109s even on Wikipedia now, and all the other variegated details that make the real picture begin to take shape. Part of the reason I start discussions like this is in the hope of more such data emerging for more types of aircraft. Get it?

I spent enough time looking into the P-40 specs and history that I believe I have a grasp of the real numbers now. I've posted my sources, or at least the ones you can easily check online. If we really wanted to settle this argument somebody needs to do the same for the Typhoon and not just cherry pick the best performance stats at maximum boost and in the optimal configuration used for 3 weeks in 1944, but whatever the main actual battlefield 

And yes by all means somebody please post an operational history of the Typhoon. Maybe we could narrow it down to a month or two to compare sortie rates to losses, victory claims, and maybe even actual verified victories where possible. That can be done for the P-40 via Shores though it will be a tedious process (I say will rather than would because I do plan to do this for the Bf 109 vs P-40 thread at some point, I just don't know when).


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 23, 2018)

In the Summer of 1942 the Sabre engine in the typhoon was rated at 3500rpm and 6lbs boost for 30 minutes. That was the power level used for climbing tests. Full power was 3700rpm and 7lbs of boost.
By the summer of 1943 they were testing and approving 3700rpm and 9lbs of boost for combat.

Low altitude climb for the Tiffy using those throttle settings was about 3800fpm. And it could reach 20,000ft in 7 minutes. This for an approved level of power. Not what a particular squadron or pilot/ crew chief did. Granted the Sabre engine was not particularly tolerate of abuse or tinkering by squadron mechanics.

While Merlin XX series engines did finally get approved for 18lbs of boost (65-66in) it took a while as I believe the supercharger drive system had to be beefed up to handle the increased load.

Edit. The Sabre IIB engine used in late Tempests and the last 500-600 Typhoons (late 1944 and 1945 production) were rated at 3850 rpm and 12 pounds boost but this is well after the time period in question.

There were Sabre II engines, Sabre IIa engines and Sabre IIb engines, Some Typhoons were built with one and then re-engined with another and some IIas could converted to IIb standard with a strengthened reduction gear and a modified boost control. But this would be 1944 or later.


----------



## michael rauls (Dec 23, 2018)

Also from the whatever its worth desk, just because people have different sets of performance stats on an aircraft doesn't mean that EITHER of them is cherry picking information. God knows there is oceans of conflicting information on most planes.
I've always tried to look at different aircraft with a dispassionate eye as far as performance even though I do have my favorites but still much of the info I have gleaned from what I have read over the years turned out to be baloney. And who knows maybe much of what I believe now will turn out to be bogus in the future.
That is kind of the point of this forum after all. Or at least one of the points is to get to the bottom of things and well all be better off for it.
Just my 2 cents.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Dec 23, 2018)

michael rauls said:


> Also from the wherever its worth desk, just because people have different sets of performance stats on an aircraft doesn't mean that EITHER of them is cherry picking information. God knows there is oceans of conflicting information on most planes.
> I've always tried to look at different aircraft with a dispassionate eye as far as performance even though I do have my favorites but still much of the info I have gleaned from what I have read over the years turned out to baloney. And who knows maybe much of what I believe now will turn out to be bogus in the future.
> That is kind of the point of this forum after all. Or at least one of the points is to get to the bottom of things and well all be better off for it.
> Just my 2 cents.



Agree 100%, that is basically what I was trying to say.


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 23, 2018)

On the subject of turning.

Wing loading is an important indicator.
However it is not the only thing going on. 
Unless somebody can explain how the Typhoon, with its higher wing loading has a slower stall speed?

I am not claiming the Typhoon can out turn the P-40 but the difference between them might not be as bad as the wing loading alone would suggest.

Now for _sustained _turning, each airplane has a combination of speeds and turn radius it can sustain over long periods of time while neither losing speed or altitude. Some planes can turn much harder (smaller radius) but only at the cost of bleeding off speed until the plane stalls or by doing a spiraling decending turn.

Planes with higher climb rates usually have more power/energy to fight this speed loss without having to lose altitude.

I would note that a Spitfire I might have lucky to sustain a 3 g turn at 10,000 ft without losing altitude and that is at speed well under 300mph.
We all know that a Spit mkI can turn much tighter than 3 Gs. It just can't do it at high speed or without losing altitude.
The 109E happened to be worse.

Hope that explains things.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Dec 23, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> In the Summer of 1942 the Sabre engine in the typhoon was rated at 3500rpm and 6lbs boost for 30 minutes. That was the power level used for climbing tests. Full power was 3700rpm and 7lbs of boost.
> By the summer of 1943 they were testing and approving 3700rpm and 9lbs of boost for combat.
> 
> Low altitude climb for the Tiffy using those throttle settings was about 3800fpm. And it could reach 20,000ft in 7 minutes. This for an approved level of power. Not what a particular squadron or pilot/ crew chief did. Granted the Sabre engine was not particularly tolerate of abuse or tinkering by squadron mechanics.
> ...




Ok if that's all correct then I concede Typhoon is faster climbing than the P-40L, the latter took 9 - 11 minutes to get to 20,000 ft depending on power settings used.


----------



## Glider (Dec 23, 2018)

GrauGeist said:


> I do apologize as I meant no personal offense, the image just struck me as very odd.
> Perhaps dealing with documents more from the digital age in recent years, I've become accustumed to the exact formatting and have forgotten about how documents could vary from typewriter to typewriter, or documents that came off a teletype could be a bit off...and yes, the old "Ditto" machines with their purple or blue-black text along with the unique smell that permeated the paper for days on end.
> And using Carbon paper was a joy especially if the forms were triplicate (or more), where you had to nearly do bench-presses to ensure the writing tranferred across all copies.
> 
> Again, my apologies


No apology needed,we're spoilt these days.


----------



## Schweik (Dec 23, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> On the subject of turning.
> 
> Wing loading is an important indicator.
> However it is not the only thing going on.
> ...




Spitfire I through V was one of the most tight turning fighters of the War, only the Japanese fighters and the biplanes could out turn them and not all of those.

Most turning fights in WW2, and even some with Jets in later eras, descended downward over time if they continued to turn. Turning for a really long time though might not be necessary, for example it only took two "circuits" for a P-40 to get on the tail of a Bf 109 in typical circumstances, according to several Russian and Australian pilots anyway and I suspect a Spit could get on the tail of any German plane quicker than that. Depending on E states a 109 might have an advantage initially, in which case for example flaps might come into play* and both aircraft could end up in a descending spiral.

Turning is for a lot more than a sustained fight. It's an asset which can be used offensively and defensively - if for example a plane is making a pass at you, one of your options is you can turn sharply to throw off their shot - especially if they are faster they won't be able to pull lead - or turn into them to go head to head in a game of chicken**. Conversely if you are chasing, a better / tighter turning circle allows you to pull lead faster and thus get your shot off more quickly which is very important in air combat (so you can shoot him before his wing man gets you for example).

However if a P-40 is outnumbered like in the anecdote I posted from Lt Mobbs, he can't _keep_ turning long enough to get a shot as he'll probably have to reverse his turn to deal with the next attack. It becomes a game with each side pushing their luck. This is also another example of why roll is so important because you may instantly need to switch from turning right to turning left in that situation, and I think it's one of the two reasons why the Hurricane wasn't really viable as a fighter after 1941 but the P-40 was still in the game well into 1944.



By the way, I don't know if anyone cares but one common tactic used by the very successful 325th Fighter Group in the Med, and specifically over Sardania in a few battles where they seriously owned Italian and German fighters, was to send in an initial attack as bait, the latter would dive away from contact, 'pulling' pursuers under a second group which would dive down to get them. The 'bait' would then heave into tight banking 180 degree turns and join the fight. Mayhem ensued.



* for the P-40, Spits didn't have those kind of flaps settings probably because they didn't need them
** common tactics against Ki-43, A6M, Bf 109 and MC 202 but you wouldn't want to try that against a Fw 190 or a Typhoon


----------



## Schweik (Dec 23, 2018)

double post- wouldn't allow me to delete for some reason


----------



## Schweik (Dec 23, 2018)

Another example - one typical tactic used by Bf 109 pilots late into the war was to fly rolling scissors. Bf 109 with powerful engines and high hp to weight ratios could keep turning even if they didn't turn that sharp, and had a good roll rate at medium speeds, so against a better turning fighter they could do rolling scissors, even better in a pair if possible (similar to a Thach weave) and could be quite effective. This is a way that power can help with maneuverability.


----------



## pbehn (Dec 23, 2018)

Two words - Joachim Marseilles......he flew a 109 and shot down quite a few P-40s.


----------



## fubar57 (Dec 23, 2018)

Scoreboard here. I gave up after counting 32 P-40 kills. Interesting that on three consecutive days he shot down 4 of them. He also shot down a whack of Hurricanes. I can't verify the accuracy of the article, it was posted late November 2014. Hans-Joachim Marseille

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


----------



## Schweik (Dec 23, 2018)

Thanks for posting this pbehn, it's a great point. My reply:



pbehn said:


> Two words - Joachim Marseilles......he flew a 109 and shot down quite a few P-40s.




So what? There were plenty of P-40 aces who shot down plenty of German fighters, including numerous _experten_.
Second, according to the other _experten _themselves, Marseille had a skill for attacking RAF fighter circles that few if any of the others had. He also apparently overclaimed a lot and actually shot down much more Hurricanes than he realized. But there is no denying he was a deadly and gifted fighter pilot.
Third, Marseille himself didn't live long enough to face American P-40s so far as I know. There was a slight overlap, the first US squadron became active in the Theater in August of 42, Marseille died in Sept 42.

This is the thing about war, there are badasses on both sides. One guy may be a real killer but then runs into another badass on the other side. The experten are a fascinating subject, apparently just 16 German pilots accounted for half of the Luftwaffe victories in North Africa. But about half of them were killed in North Africa, mostly by P-40 pilots.


Some concrete examples since I know my word wouldn't be taken on this.

Australian Ace Clive Caldwell (28 confirmed victories, 22 in the P-40) defeated no less than four experten during his career, killing two.


Took on experten Werner Shorer (114 victories) and his wingman (both flying 109E-7s) alone in a Tomahawk on August 1941, killing the wingman and heavily damaged Shorers fighter forcing him to disengage
Shot down and killed Hauptmann Wolfgang Lippert (30 victories) a squadron commander of JG 27 on 23 November. Lippert survived bailing out but died of his wounds a few days later.
Shot down and killed Erbo Graf von Kageneck (69 victories) of JG 27 in Dec 1941
Shot down Lt. Hans Arnold Stahlschmidt of JG 27 (flying a 109F-4) on Feb 1942 in a famous long range (800 meter) shot from a Kittyhawk Ia.

James Francis "Stocky" Edwards (19 confirmed victories, probably actually got 22 according to German records) shot down and killed two experten,

Otto Schultz (51) victories, was strafing a Hurricane he had shot down* (his final victory) on June 6 192 while two other JG 27 pilots orbited over him, when Edwards, racing home at low level in a Kittyhawk III spotted him and blasted him out of the sky. The wounded Hurricane pilot still trapped in his wreck, saw the whole thing. This is probably my favorite air to air combat story of WW2 by the way.
Edwards shot down and killed experte Gunter Steinhausen (40 victories) September 6 1942 after he too shot down a Hurricane

As a bonus, three days before he got Steinhausen, Edwards shot up and damaged the aircraft of Hans Joachim Marseille himself on Sept 3 1942. Marseille died later that month

As another bonus, Edwards later flew Tempests from March 1944

* This was standard practice for Otto Schultz, he liked to make sure he killed who ever he shot down and liked to thoroughly strafe the wrecks.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Dec 23, 2018)

fubar57 said:


> Scoreboard here. I gave up after counting 32 P-40 kills. Interesting that on three consecutive days he shot down 4 of them. He also shot down a whack of Hurricanes. I can't verify the accuracy of the article, it was posted late November 2014. Hans-Joachim Marseille


Things started to improve when tropicalised Spitfires arrived to escort the P-40s.


----------



## Schweik (Dec 23, 2018)

fubar57 said:


> Scoreboard here. I gave up after counting 32 P-40 kills. Interesting that on three consecutive days he shot down 4 of them. He also shot down a whack of Hurricanes. I can't verify the accuracy of the article, it was posted late November 2014. Hans-Joachim Marseille



Marseille was a strait killer, and did shoot down dozens of P-40s among other allied fighters, but he wasn't always accurate in his claims. For example his most famous combat on Sept 1, 1942, he claimed 17 aircraft shot down all fighters. Per the site you linked:

_1 Sep 1942__ Hans-Joachim Marseille flew three sorties and shot down a total of 17 enemy aircraft (two Hurricane and two Spitfire fighters between 0826 and 0839 hours while escorting Stuka dive bombers to El Taqua in Libya, seven P-40 fighters between 1055 and 1103 hours near Alam Halfa, and five Hurricane fighters between 1747 and 1753 hours while escorting bombers toward El Imayid). His score at the end of the day stood at 121._

So his totals are:

7 x Hurricanes
2 x Spitfires
7 x P-40s

Other German experten also claimed kills that day, Steinhausen claimed 1 Hurricane, Stahlsmchmit claimed 2 Hurricanes, and other German pilots (all from JG 27) claimed 3 more P-40s, two more Hurricanes and a Spitfire, for a total of 26 victory claims.

Actual Allied losses that day were 7 x Hurricane IIb and IIcs shot down, another 3 crash landing, 2 x Spitfire Mk V shot down and one crash landed, and one P-40F* 57th Fighter group attached to 2 SAAF) force landed at base.

Source is Mediterranean Air War Volume II, page 327 and 328

Total 10 Hurricanes, 3 Spits and 1 P-40 for 14 planes, still a very bad day but about half what was claimed. They also lost 2 Baltimores and a Boston reportedly to flak but these would be hard to confuse for bombers.

* this proves i was wrong Marseille did possibly encounter US P-40s and may have shot one down!

EDIT: I should add - the Germans lost 3 x Bf 109 F-4s, 1 Bf109 E-7, and a Ju 88, and the Italians lost an MC 202 on the same day.


----------



## Schweik (Dec 23, 2018)

By the way this is a (to me) amazing photo of Caldwell standing in front of his badly damaged P-40 after his epic battle with Shulz and his wingman. Note the fuel leaking out of the rear fuselage tank, the flat tire and cannon hole in the right aileron and right wing trailing edge. I think they said he had over 100 bullet holes in the plane. P-40s were tough no doubt. But also maneuverable enough to survive that kind of battle. This is why at least some of the pilots who flew them (including Caldwell) liked the P-40 so much.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Dec 23, 2018)

Marseilles was an extraordinary pilot with a method of attack that was probably unique, he would drop into a Lufbery circle flying slower on a tight radius and fire with huge deflection, it is for others to explain why P-40s would form up in Lufbery circles when only faced with Bf 109s.


----------



## Schweik (Dec 23, 2018)

pbehn said:


> Marseilles was an extraordinary pilot with a method of attack that was probably unique, he would drop into a Lufbery circle flying slower on a tight radius and fire with huge deflection,



Agreed, several of the other experten commented that nobody else seemed to be able to use this strategy safely.



> it is for others to explain why P-40s would form up in Lufbery circles when only faced with Bf 109s.



Bad tactics, according to the Germans themselves - and poor training on the type according to aces like Caldwell and Bobby Gibbes who did what they could to improve the situation. There is also a sense of abandoning the Colonials to their fate which was felt by both Australian and South African pilots and commanders in particular. The Aussies made a lot of changes and took ownership of the situation, which along with certain more flexible DAF commanders like Neville Duke, led to changes across the DAF.

It's notable for example that during the early months of the Desert War - the heyday of Marseille- the RAF were flying antiquated 'vic' formations and didn't move to flying in pairs / finger four until mid 1942 and also tended to fly very low (6-8,000 ft) even when on escort, and more or less ignore the Luftwaffe - allowing the latter to pick the time nad place of the fight, as the DAF concentrated on destroying German tanks. A more Strategically astute target but at considerable detriment to their own pilots.

However the Americans changed the strategy, flying at higher altitude in general and also focusing on attacking German air bases with medium bombers, forcing a fight. This turned out to work much better. The DAF also started using finger 4 / pairs and simultaneously adopted the tactic of turning into attacks at that same time (Summer 1942) which proved effective and greatly improved combat outcomes.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Dec 23, 2018)

Schweik said:


> Agreed, several of the other experten commented that nobody else seemed to be able to use this strategy safely.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Do you make things up just for a laugh, or do you believe what you post? During 1940 there were several leading RAF pilots who recognised the value of the German fighter tactics and tried to bring about change within the RAF, but to no effect. Tuck,.Malan, Dutton and Crossley all introduced local variations within their own Squadrons but got no further. The RAF heirachy was against variation of the standard Vic formation (Bader by the way always used the Vic formation in the September and October battles of 1940). Ultimately RAF Fighter Command did modify it's tactics in 1941 under the leadership of Sholto Douglas, who finally recognised the raised angry voices of many Squadron Commanders. Bader was by that time a very vocal supporter, but only one of many. Interestingly though RAF Fighter Command could not just accept that German tactics were superior to their own. Consequently the official use of the 'finger four' (a term coined by an anomous person) went through several mutations eg the Weaver, then the Trail (or line astern). The finger four was finally officially introduced into the training regime in early 1942 - by which time it was long being used by frontline Squadrons.

Reactions: Dislike Dislike:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Dec 23, 2018)

pbehn said:


> Do you make things up just for a laugh, or do you believe what you post?



I don't make things up unless I'm joking, in which case I make it obvious, even for somebody like you. I'm not a liar and unlike you, I admit when I'm wrong.

Do you talk like that to people in person or just online when you are anonymous?



> During 1940 there were several leading RAF pilots who recognised the value of the German fighter tactics and tried to bring about change within the RAF, but to no effect. Tuck,.Malan, Dutton and Crossley all introduced local variations within their own Squadrons but got no further. The RAF heirachy was against variation of the standard Vic formation (Bader by the way always used the Vic formation in the September and October battles of 1940). Ultimately RAF Fighter Command did modify it's tactics in 1941 under the leadership of Sholto Douglas, who finally recognised the raised angry voices of many Squadron Commanders. Bader was by that time a very vocal supporter, but only one of many. Interestingly though RAF Fighter Command could not just accept that German tactics were superior to their own. Consequently the official use of the 'finger four' (a term coined by an anomous person) went through several mutations eg the Weaver, then the Trail (or line astern). The finger four was finally officially introduced into the training regime in early 1942 - by which time it was long being used by frontline Squadrons.



It didn't show up in the DAF squadrons until mid (I believe June) 1942.


----------



## pbehn (Dec 23, 2018)

Schweik said:


> By the way, if a 30 mph advantage in speed was always more important than turning and rolling ability, then the P-51B would be a much better fighter than a Spitfire Mk IX... is that what we really think? It would make a MiG 3 superior to the Bf 109E. It would make a P-39 far superior to an A6M. But that is not how it typically shook out.


Actually yes, every time., there are many anecdotes of pilots in mock combats with P-51 and MIXs but they were goofing about doing what pilots enjoy doing, they weren't trying to kill each other. In a combat situation there is no way for a Mk IX can force a combat, the P-51 can just say goodbye. It is a different matter with the Griffon engine Mk XIV which had an advantage or parity in almost every department, except of course range.


----------



## michael rauls (Dec 23, 2018)

I think the abouve two narratives are not mutually exclusive as pinning down exactly when a tactic was " adopted" is not so easy. Is it when 30% of the units are using it or maybe 50%. How about 70%? I don't know and not sure there is a specific right answer. It's not like someone hits a switch and all of the suden everyone starts using it the same morning. I imagine in most cases its a process. How about variances by theater?
Ok, I'll get off my " everybody should respect everyone elses opinions" soap box now. 
Just my thoughts.


----------



## pbehn (Dec 23, 2018)

Schweik said:


> I don't make things up unless I'm joking, in which case I make it obvious, even for somebody like you. I'm not a liar and unlike you, I admit when I'm wrong.
> 
> Do you talk like that to people in person or just online when you are anonymous?
> 
> ...


You have worn me out with fanboyism, people much better read than me have pointed out fundamental errors in your arguments but it makes no difference. You seem to see wing loading and minimum turning radius as the deciding factors in aircraft design and combat outcome. Throughout the war the pursuit was for speed and climb. The Spitfire doubled in weight and in some cases reduced its wing area therebye increasing wing loading, oh and it doubled its power and was much faster. If we were speaking in person and you continued to maintain that a P-40 was superior to a Typhoon I would certainly laugh out loud and ask you if you were making stuff up.


----------



## pbehn (Dec 23, 2018)

michael rauls said:


> I think the abouve two narratives are not mutually exclusive as pinning down exactly when a tactic was " adopted" is not so easy. Is it when 30% of the units are using it or maybe 50%. How about 70%? I don't know and not sure there is a specific right answer. It's not like someone hits a switch and all of the suden everyone starts using it the same morning. I imagine in most cases its a process. How about variances by theater?
> Ok, I'll get off my " everybody should respect everyone elses opinions" soap box now.
> Just my thoughts.


With the finger four, the question is what was used and what was trained from the start, it was used in the BoB by some squadrons it became part of RAF training doctrine in 1942 but remember many RAF pilots were trained outside the UK especially in Canada.


----------



## pbehn (Dec 23, 2018)

Schweik said:


> I'm not going to speculate what you are obsessed with but once again you are trying to shift the argument a little. All I said upthread that started this particular side argument was that the Spitfire Mk V could out turn the Fw 190, I didn't say the Fw had no advantage - clearly it did.
> 
> Yes each pilot would use his aircrafts advantages and exploit his enemies weaknesses, turning was one of the main advantages of the Spitfire and it was no slouch at rolling either.
> 
> Me 109s couldn't out turn a Spitfire either, or to be more specific, certainly the 109E could not out turn a Spit I and no Bf 109 could out turn a Spit V. I stand by that there assertion you can love it or lump it bruh.


Turning causes drag, if a plane has 30MPH speed advantage then obviously the power required for that 30MPH is in the fastest planes pocket. It can turn, using that excess power at a speed its opponent can only maintain for straight an level flight. This advantage is maintained down through the speed range. at actual combat speeds turn rate equates to climbing rate, at the lower end turn rate equates to stall speed. On minimum turn radius I think a hurricane would be the best monoplane fighter in the Battle of Britain obviously bested by the Gloster Gladiator and the Italian bi planes that were sent over and hammered for a day or two.


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 23, 2018)

Schweik said:


> By the way this is a (to me) amazing photo of Caldwell standing in front of his badly damaged P-40 after his epic battle with Shulz and his wingman. Note the fuel leaking out of the rear fuselage tank, the flat tire and cannon hole in the right aileron and right wing trailing edge.



It is an amazing photo, thank you.

I would suggest that the fluid leaking out of the plane is oil and not gasoline however. On the long nose P-40s the oil tank was behind the rear fuel tank. The filler caps where in the rear canopy with fuel filler being in the first section and oil filler being in the rear section. Fuel would probably evaporate fairly quickly in the desert. Oil is forever

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


----------



## Glider (Dec 23, 2018)

pbehn said:


> Actually yes, every time., there are many anecdotes of pilots in mock combats with P-51 and MIXs but they were goofing about doing what pilots enjoy doing, they weren't trying to kill each other. In a combat situation there is no way for a Mk IX can force a combat, the P-51 can just say goodbye. It is a different matter with the Griffon engine Mk XIV which had an advantage or parity in almost every department, except of course range.


I know we have all read examples but one here I enjoyed was a report from a Spit IX unit that were attacked by a pair of 8th Air Force P51's. The Spits evaded and were under standing instructions not to shoot back when this happened. However these two had a second attempt and again the Spits evaded. When they didn't get the hint and tried a third time the Spit leader told his people to fire back but only with the LMGs., which they did and after taking some hits the P51's cleared off.
The RAF pilots wondered what stories they told when they got back home.

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


----------



## MIflyer (Dec 23, 2018)

In one book the author, a P-51 pilot in the Med, said that when he got there the unit, which had been equipped with Spits before, were still flying Vics. But they were flying vics of two plane elements, as in a vic made up as Rottes.

As the veteran pilots left, and were replaced by USAAF trained pilots, they switched to flying the finger four.

I have not heard that anywhere else the RAF adopted a Vic of Rottes. It is an interesting adoption of two different approaches and I wonder how much of it was experience and how much just tradition unrelieved by good sense.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Dec 23, 2018)

Glider said:


> I know we have all read examples but one here I enjoyed was a report from a Spit IX unit that were attacked by a pair of 8th Air Force P51's. The Spits evaded and were under standing instructions not to shoot back when this happened. However these two had a second attempt and again the Spits evaded. When they didn't get the hint and tried a third time the Spit leader told his people to fire back but only with the LMGs., which they did and after taking some hits the P51's cleared off.
> The RAF pilots wondered what stories they told when they got back home.


But as I said, how would the Spits draw the P-51s into combat in unfavourable terms? Why didn't they just go home? Because they cant being slower.


----------



## slaterat (Dec 23, 2018)

pbehn said:


> it is for others to explain why P-40s would form up in Lufbery circles when only faced with Bf 109s.



I have read an explanation for this, but I can't remember in what book, so I will try to paraphrase it.

In Malta the defending Hurricanes never had enough warning to gain an altitude advantage to intercept the German 109s, the 109s always had the altitude advantage. In North Africa the DAF was extremely active in supporting the ground war and hence once again were always operating at a lower altitude than the 109s. Also keep in mind that the 109 E and especially the 109 F could easily out climb the Hurricane and even more so the P-40.

The standard tactic for the slower RAF fighters to evade the diving 109s, if spotted early enough, was to make a controlled dive in formation away from the attackers, and then at the right time make a controlled 180 degree high speed turn, in formation to force a head on merge with the attackers. Now if performed correctly a tactical disadvantage has been turned into an even head on draw. Rather than accept the head on attack the 109s would pull up, using their energy advantage and their superior climb rate to regain the altitude advantage and repeat the attack. After multiple B and Z attacks like this, the defending Hurricanes or P-40s, co ordinated formations would begin to break down and eventually find themselves flying in a Lufbery, or what looks like a lufbery. Once in a lufbery the defending fighters are pretty much stuck there until the attackers run out of ammo or hit bingo fuel and depart.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Dec 23, 2018)

pbehn said:


> You have worn me out with fanboyism, people much better read than me have pointed If we were speaking in person and you continued to maintain that a P-40 was superior to a Typhoon I would certainly laugh out loud and ask you if you were making stuff up.



I don't know where you live or how old you are, or really anything about you, but in some places it is risky to be a rude to somebody especially when you don't know what you are talking about. Or who they are or anything about them. Cool your jets.


----------



## Schweik (Dec 23, 2018)

Glider said:


> I know we have all read examples but one here I enjoyed was a report from a Spit IX unit that were attacked by a pair of 8th Air Force P51's. The Spits evaded and were under standing instructions not to shoot back when this happened. However these two had a second attempt and again the Spits evaded. When they didn't get the hint and tried a third time the Spit leader told his people to fire back but only with the LMGs., which they did and after taking some hits the P51's cleared off.
> The RAF pilots wondered what stories they told when they got back home.



My money would be on a Spit IX over a P-51 three times out of four. You could make arguments either way but clearly it's not so cut and dry is it? People love to reduce everything to a short hand and the simplest possible elements, but human conflict (especially in the air) is much more complex than that.

It's much less a linear progression and much more paper scissors rock. The key to victory is to try to figure out what options you really have and which one your opponent has before the fight starts.


----------



## Schweik (Dec 23, 2018)

MIflyer said:


> In one book the author, a P-51 pilot in the Med, said that when he got there the unit, which had been equipped with Spits before, were still flying Vics. But they were flying vics of two plane elements, as in a vic made up as Rottes.
> 
> As the veteran pilots left, and were replaced by USAAF trained pilots, they switched to flying the finger four.
> 
> I have not heard that anywhere else the RAF adopted a Vic of Rottes. It is an interesting adoption of two different approaches and I wonder how much of it was experience and how much just tradition unrelieved by good sense.



Yeah obviously it took a while to disseminate through all the units, and there were all sorts of far more complex formations and experimental strategies being used. It was life and death and everybody was looking for an angle (literally and figuratively).

In the Med certain units (as I said before, notably the Aussies) were more anxious earlier on to find a solution that worked to their problem than others. The shift and beginning of the end for the Germans had a lot to do with both a change in Tactics and Strategies.


----------



## wuzak (Dec 23, 2018)

Schweik said:


> My money would be on a Spit IX over a P-51 three times out of four. You could make arguments either way but clearly it's not so cut and dry is it? People love to reduce everything to a short hand and the simplest possible elements, but human conflict (especially in the air) is much more complex than that.
> 
> It's much less a linear progression and much more paper scissors rock. The key to victory is to try to figure out what options you really have and which one your opponent has before the fight starts.



The point pbehn was making is that the P-51 can break off and run for home at will, while the Spitfire IX can't, because it can't out-run the P-51.

The P-51 could force a combat, the Spitfire IX couldn't.


----------



## Schweik (Dec 23, 2018)

wuzak said:


> The point pbehn was making is that the P-51 can break off and run for home at will, while the Spitfire IX can't, because it can't out-run the P-51.
> 
> The P-51 could force a combat, the Spitfire IX couldn't.



If you are talking F-86 vs. Spit IX, then sure, every time. P-51 vs Spit IX, the speed difference isn't enough to offset the other advantages which for the Spit also includes climb as well as all the things that comprise maneuverability. And crucially, in dive, they were basically equivalent. I'm not sure which one had the higher dive speed but per my unanswered question upthread, once you are diving at 500 mph it doesn't take long to hit Sea Level.

Maybe the P-51 can force or refuse combat more often, but what happens when they do engage? They can try a very safe strategy of hit and run only in optimal conditions but they can't protect bombers (or defend enemy bombers) that way. If they take losses with every serious engagement the operational advantage of being faster is basically checked.

A P-51 that decides to disengage can try to pull away with that 30 mph speed advantage, but that means they will probably be in range of the guns on the Spit for enough time for a burst or two, and that sure is a risk.

Speed is an advantage, but it's not the only advantage. Only an idiot thinks it's that simple.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Dec 23, 2018)

slaterat said:


> I have read an explanation for this, but I can't remember in what book, so I will try to paraphrase it.
> 
> In Malta the defending Hurricanes never had enough warning to gain an altitude advantage to intercept the German 109s, the 109s always had the altitude advantage. In North Africa the DAF was extremely active in supporting the ground war and hence once again were always operating at a lower altitude than the 109s. Also keep in mind that the 109 E and especially the 109 F could easily out climb the Hurricane and even more so the P-40.
> 
> The standard tactic for the slower RAF fighters to evade the diving 109s, if spotted early enough, was to make a controlled dive in formation away from the attackers, and then at the right time make a controlled 180 degree high speed turn, in formation to force a head on merge with the attackers. Now if performed correctly a tactical disadvantage has been turned into an even head on draw. Rather than accept the head on attack the 109s would pull up, using their energy advantage and their superior climb rate to regain the altitude advantage and repeat the attack. After multiple B and Z attacks like this, the defending Hurricanes or P-40s, co ordinated formations would begin to break down and eventually find themselves flying in a Lufbery, or what looks like a lufbery. Once in a lufbery the defending fighters are pretty much stuck there until the attackers run out of ammo or hit bingo fuel and depart.



They had some situations like that in the early war, though you are confusing earlier and later tactics.

There was one famous incident in 1941, per Shores (_A History of the Mediterranean Air War, Volume 1_, Casemate, 2012. Page 329)
, they were in a real bind as the Germans were able to land and then take off again and more German units joined the fight as it went on all day. But the Germans were experiencing frustration too:

On November 22, 1941 there was a significant engagement in which the Tomahawk was put to a hard test by the Bf 109F. At 1540 nine Tomahawks of No. 112 Squadron RAF were joined by thirteen Tomahawks of No. 3 Squadron RAAF for an offensive sweep over the Tobruk-El Adem area. At roughly 1600 hours they were intercepted near Bir Hacheim by 20 Bf 109Fs attacking from 3,000 feet above . During the subsequent hour long engagement, which took place near two German airfields, JG 27 fighters landed and refueled to rejoin the fight. In the melee DAF fighters claimed three Bf 109s shot down and four "probables", while JG 27 claimed 11 P-40s. The actual losses were 6 Bf 109F-4s and 7 Tomahawk IIbs shot down and 1 badly damaged (the aircraft of future RAAF Ace Bobby Gibbes) . In the aftermath of the bloody fight both sides were shaken. The Germans believed they had come out ahead but felt the losses were unacceptable , and therefore made the decision not to dogfight the Tomahawk with the Bf 109F in the future, and instead to rely on 'boom and zoom' tactics, which while effective, imposed certain Tactical limitations. Some Commonwealth pilots began to call into question the tactic of the Lufberry tactic though it would be another 5 months before that began to change.

However they basically gave up on the Lufberry circle by Mid 1942 except in the most dire emergencies. That is also when they changed the Tactic to the one I described upthread where the whole squadron would turn into an attack, and if the Germans broke away before getting in range they just ignored them and resumed their mission of escorting bombers or fighter bombers. Which was their actual purpose.


----------



## wuzak (Dec 23, 2018)

Schweik said:


> P-40F and L pilots alone shot down nearly twice as many enemy aircraft as pilots flying Typhoons, even though more Typhoons were produced and the Typhoon was in combat longer.



Yes, Typhoons were in service longer, because they were rushed into service in small numbers to combat certain threats.

You keep bringing up production numbers, but you are unwilling to recognise that those greater numbers were produced over 5 years against approximately 1 for the P-40F/L.
Additionally, airframe production ran well ahead of engine production such that during 1943 many airframes were flown to maintenance units, where the engine would be pulled and sent back to the factory to be fitted to another airframe.

Many of these would later be sent back to teh factory to be modified to the latest spec (eg, fitting the 4 blade prop).

Of the 3,300 or so Tyhpoons built, how many actually saw squadron service? I'm betting less than the P-40F/L.

And by the time the bulk of the Typhoons that saw active service had got to squadrons, their role had mostly changed to A2G.




Schweik said:


> The Typhoon was equipped with a very powerful engine and was heavily armed & fast.
> 
> It also had a 41' wingspan with a notoriously badly designed wing that was far too thick and created very high drag. This had all kinds of knock on effects.
> 
> ...



The Typhoon did suffer structural failures, but those were soon fixed.




Schweik said:


> Usually a good fighter either rolls well or turns well. The P 40F could do both, and dive 500 mph. Pilots said they trusted it to get them home. How many Typhoon pilots said the same?



Since the Typhoons would dive to deliver bombs or rockets, or strafe, I'm sure that there was plenty of trust in its ability to dive and its structural strength.


Now, by 1944 neither the RAF or USAAF would have considered operating the P-40 (of any variant) in the ETO (my understanding is that Italy was/is still considered part of the MTO).

But the Typhoon operated exclusively in the ETO, mostly in the A2G role.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Dec 24, 2018)

Schweik said:


> If you are talking F-86 vs. Spit IX, then sure, every time. P-51 vs Spit IX, the speed difference isn't enough to offset the other advantages which for the Spit also includes climb as well as all the things that comprise maneuverability. And crucially, in dive, they were basically equivalent. I'm not sure which one had the higher dive speed but per my unanswered question upthread, once you are diving at 500 mph it doesn't take long to hit Sea Level.
> 
> Maybe the P-51 can force or refuse combat more often, but what happens when they do engage? They can try a very safe strategy of hit and run only in optimal conditions but they can't protect bombers (or defend enemy bombers) that way. If they take losses with every serious engagement the operational advantage of being faster is basically checked.
> 
> ...


You seem to imagine every conflict starting with planes within shooting range.


----------



## MIflyer (Dec 24, 2018)

In Alan Deere's book he describes how one day they were discussing a change in tactics and using the "Line Abreast" formation of the Germans. So they went up to try it out. The result was that they encountered Werner Molders just over the Channel; Deere and Molders had a mid-air. Deere's prop cut into Molder's wing. Both made it safely to the ground and they both probably should have counted it as kill.

This incident is shown as the artwork on one of the Revell releases of their 1/32 Spitfire Mk I.

Quit ironic! The first pilot to promote the Finger Four in the RAF runs head on into the one of the main inventors of the formation in the Luftwaffe.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Dec 24, 2018)

pbehn said:


> You seem to imagine every conflict starting with planes within shooting range.



WW2 Air to Air combat certainly doesn't _start_ in shooting range but it either gets there eventually or doesn't actually happen.


----------



## pbehn (Dec 24, 2018)

Schweik said:


> WW2 Air to Air combat certainly doesn't _start_ in shooting range but it either gets there eventually or doesn't actually happen.


Exactly, if you have a speed advantage of 30 MPH you choose if it takes place or when to break it off. A squadron of Hurricanes cant force a conflict with a 109 it was a major frustration for Hurricane pilots in the BoB.


----------



## Schweik (Dec 24, 2018)

wuzak said:


> Yes, Typhoons were in service longer, because they were rushed into service in small numbers to combat certain threats.
> 
> You keep bringing up production numbers, but you are unwilling to recognise that those greater numbers were produced over 5 years against approximately 1 for the P-40F/L.
> Additionally, airframe production ran well ahead of engine production such that during 1943 many airframes were flown to maintenance units, where the engine would be pulled and sent back to the factory to be fitted to another airframe.
> ...



We seem to be going around in Lufberry circles on this. Doesn't anyone have the operational history of the Typhoon or do I have to buy a book on this? 



> The Typhoon did suffer structural failures, but those were soon fixed.



Admittedly no kind of expert on the Typhoon, but my understanding was that the problem was 'mostly' alleviated after a series of changes through to the end of 1942, some of them embarassingly stop gap, i.e. "fish scales" before they got closer to the root of the problem. They should have probably built that big wind tunnel instead of the first 1000 Typhoons, I'm a little shocked they didn't have one.

I learned about the tail problem and some of the other issues from watching a brief documentary of some surviving WW2 Typhoon pilots who seemed a bit glum about the plane and explained some of the issues. Imagine if they had made the Tempest right out of the gate instead of the Typhoon? Would have made 1942 a far better year for the English I would think.



> Since the Typhoons would dive to deliver bombs or rockets, or strafe, I'm sure that there was plenty of trust in its ability to dive and its structural strength.



Hmmmm. not so sure about that, how eager were the pilots to push the limits? From what I've been reading the problem never entirely went away did it?




> Now, by 1944 neither the RAF or USAAF would have considered operating the P-40 (of any variant) in the ETO (my understanding is that Italy was/is still considered part of the MTO).
> 
> But the Typhoon operated exclusively in the ETO, mostly in the A2G role.



Well I'm not sure Italy was a vastly different Tactical environment in 1943 or 1944 than Northern France. But it's true they only used P-40s in Italy. P-47s were better options though because even if they weren't as agile down low, they had the radial engine which is less vulnerable, and had the merit of being useful up high, very high indeed as well. So they could be used in a wider range of roles.

Plus lets be honest, US War dept. was pretty sick of Curtiss Aircraft by 1943 let alone 1944 and wanted to put taxpayer money into other firms.


----------



## fubar57 (Dec 24, 2018)

​I'm just too lazy to go through it plus I'm enjoying this too much

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


----------



## Schweik (Dec 24, 2018)

pbehn said:


> Exactly, if you have a speed advantage of 30 MPH you choose if it takes place or when to break it off. A squadron of Hurricanes cant force a conflict with a 109 it was a major frustration for Hurricane pilots in the BoB.



I'm going to respond to this, but it's my last attempt to engage with you Pbehn. If you get squirrely again I'm tuning you out mate.

P-40s - even the older Tomahawk and Kittyhawk, certainly could engage 109s in the Middle East one of several ways - for example either by escorting bombers / FBs or by attacking the Luftwaffe Airfields (or both simultaneously which worked particularly well).

Air combat doesn't exist in a vacuum. There is always an underlining Tactical or Strategic reality for fighters which boils down to a competition between bombers. 

In the BoB it was about shooting down vs protecting those Stukas, He 111, Do 17, and Ju 88s. One way for Hurricanes to be sure to encounter 109s was to start shredding through the bomber streams.
In North Africa it was a war between the Blenheims, Baltimores, Bostons and Mitchells on one hand (plus Hurri and Kittyhawk fighter bombers), vs. the Stukas, Ju 88s, CANT 1007 and Fw-190 Jabos.
In Russia, Pe 2 and Il2 and I-153 vs. Stuka and Ju 88 and HS 123, again in service of the tank war.
In the Pacific through 1943 - D3A and B5N and G4M vs. SBD and TBF... and later on Beaufighters and Kenneys A-20 and B-25 strafers and skip bombers
For the 8th AF it was about the 4 engine bombers.
In the Pacific after 1943 - the death struggle against the B-29s 
Fighters can either participate and support the bomber war and by extension the land war (or Strategic equivalent), or they can basically ignore it and try to rack up kills which is what JG 27 did for a long time in the Middle East. By contrast the DAF and the Russians both heavily focused on supporting the land war and the Tactical bombers, which cost them a lot of pilots and aircraft, but in both cases gradually adjusted to the threat of the 'snappers' as the DAF pilots called them, and started taking increasingly effective steps to neutralize that threat once the ground situation stabilized.

Germans in particular tend to get lauded for being so well prepared in the beginning of the war. Not only did they have good aircraft they had fine tuned the use of them and developed very good (the best) Tactical doctrines and trained their pilots well. I think this has largely to do with the fact that many other countries were slow to realize war was really upon them, the British and the Soviets and the French were all still thinking a little too long that WWI had been so horrible nobody would intentionally start another mass conflagration again. Of course they did realize but the German leadership had already decided war was coming much earlier so they had that initial advantage that fed into their own propaganda and crazy mindset of superiority etc. 

And the early years were dark indeed, with the turning point in 1942. Early 1942 was a nightmare for the British, Russians, Americans and ANZAC etc. By the end of 1942 things looked a hell of a lot better. In part this was because they had learned to use all their weapons much better, from the standpoint of training, straightening out all of the teething flaws, and developing good Tactics which took into account the advantages of flaws of both Allied and Axis kit.

They even got the Typhoon working, more or less!


----------



## Schweik (Dec 24, 2018)

fubar57 said:


> View attachment 522865
> ​I'm just too lazy to go through it plus I'm enjoying this too much




Breh... crack that book open! I have too much on my plate though I am tempted to buy it...


----------



## Graeme (Dec 24, 2018)

Schweik said:


> Plus lets be honest, US War dept. was pretty sick of Curtiss Aircraft by 1943 let alone 1944 and wanted to put taxpayer money into other firms.



They certainly were...






(Bowers -Curtiss Aircraft - 1987 - pp475)

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Dec 24, 2018)

Very familiar with the postwar narrative shorthand, but I think it would have gone out of production if:

It wasn't still able to continue to destroy fairly large numbers of Axis aircraft well into 1944 in the Med / Italy and to 1945 in the CBI and ...
it had a relatively low pilot casualty rate in the process and ...
other fighters like the P-39, P-46, P-60, P-75 etc. had really worked out and ...
the eventual replacements like P-38 and P-47 hadn't taken so long to shake out their teething problems ..
There were several other reasons to be mad at Curtiss, namely:

Defective engine and bribery scandal 
P-47G production debacle
Previously mentioned P-46, P-53, P-60 and P-62
C-46
SB2C Helldiver 
SO3C Seamew (a truly epic catastrophe of an airplane, of which one pilot noted "'_it is hard to imagine how, even in wartime, such an aircraft could have been accepted from the factory, let alone given valuable cargo space across the Atlantic "_
Quality control problems with late run P-40s
 C-76 Caravan
And more generally speaking, the failure of Curtiss to produce a good, truly viable aircraft after the P-36 and P-40, with the possible exception of the SC Seahawk which was a minor type (float plane fighter) that came late in the war.


----------



## Schweik (Dec 24, 2018)

Curtiss wasn't the only culprit of course - every country had their major cultural weak spots painfully visible in WW2, Englands class system and Victorian foibles, Soviet brutal Communist paranoia and deadly repression, Germany their Nazi fantasies of superiority / catastrophic weakness (especially to the British) in intelligence, waste of resources on their mass-extermination nightmare and obsession with super weapons... for the US it was mostly corporate corruption as related to procurement and other issues. 

But for that Lockheed comes to mind, Bell aircraft, and other aircraft-related weapons like for example the Torpedos.


----------



## Milosh (Dec 24, 2018)

Fish scales are fish plates.

The tail failures are one of those WW2 myths that just won't die. Yes there was a few but blown out of proportion. The early Bf109Fs also had tail failure problems.


----------



## pbehn (Dec 24, 2018)

Milosh said:


> Fish scales are fish plates.
> 
> The tail failures are one of those WW2 myths that just won't die. Yes there was a few but blown out of proportion. The early Bf109Fs also had tail failure problems.


There were dive failures with Mosquitos (undercarriage or doors opening), which don't seem to affect its status as an all time great.


----------



## Schweik (Dec 24, 2018)

Hey I can believe postwar distortions about the reputation of a fighter. Maybe when somebody finally cracks one of those Typhoon operatio9nal history books we'll get a better sense of whether it mattered in combat or not.


----------



## pbehn (Dec 24, 2018)

Schweik said:


> Curtiss wasn't the only culprit of course - every country had their major cultural weak spots painfully visible in WW2, Englands class system and Victorian foibles, .



You repeatedly post about "England" and now you blather about the class system and Victorian values. post about "England" once more and I will refer to US forces in WW2 as "Confederates" it is sheer ignorance and an insult to everyone who took part who wasn't English. And please refrain from "class system" posts when the US military tried to introduce a colour bar in British society, and were told by the British from the top to the bottom to "do one". Happy Christmas.


----------



## Schweik (Dec 24, 2018)

pbehn said:


> You repeatedly post about "England" and now you blather about the class system and Victorian values. post about "England" once more and I will refer to US forces in WW2 as "Confederates" it is sheer ignorance and an insult to everyone who took part who wasn't English. And please refrain from "class system" posts when the US military tried to introduce a colour bar in British society, and were told by the British from the top to the bottom to "do one". Happy Christmas.



You are sensitive and raw to the point of hysteria - like a Public School boy after his first proper hazing, but for reasons that are unfathomable... don't read or comment on my posts if they trigger you so bad you moppet.

I never denigrated the ANZACs or South Africans or South Asians or anyone else in the Commonwealth, quite to the contrary as I am certain you are well aware. Nor will I be baited into contrasting English Colonialism in places like India or "Rhodesia" with American racism etc., I equally condemn it all. With regard to class issues in the context of this discussion I was referring directly to conflicts between higher leadership and pilots / squadron commanders both in North Africa and the Pacific, leading to events like the famous Morotai Mutiny which was instigated by decorated veterans of the North African campaign.

You can refer to US forces by any name you like I couldn't possibly care less what you write about anything. Your posts have a low signal to noise ratio, you have demonstrated your lack of knowledge and a sort of desperate, bitter frustrated angst which while often amusing for it's sheer pointlessly outraged pathos, clearly has sources beyond any discussions here and does not add anything of any use to the subject at hand. 

You have a fine and happy Christmas yourself sir and I wish you luck with your personal issues.


----------



## wuzak (Dec 24, 2018)

Schweik said:


> Very familiar with the postwar narrative shorthand, but I think it would have gone out of production if:
> 
> It wasn't still able to continue to destroy fairly large numbers of Axis aircraft well into 1944 in the Med / Italy and to 1945 in the CBI and ...
> it had a relatively low pilot casualty rate in the process and ...
> ...



By late 1943 the P-38 and P-47 were over their "teething problems". Especially the P-47. No need to produce after that.

That the P-40 had some success in 1944 and 145 would not have any bearing on the decisions made regarding its production in 1942 or 1943. How could they know?

The P-39 was a contemporary of the P-40, so it would never have replaced the P-40. Any P-40 replacement would be replacing the P-39 as well (if it were actually being used by the USAAF).

The P-46 and P-60 programs were an indication problems with Curtiss at the time. They were unable to improve their P-40 design - not because of its excellence, but because of their own issues.

The P-75 would not have been a replacement for the P-40. It was designed for a specific role, one which the P-40 could not perform - long range high altitude bomber escort.


----------



## Schweik (Dec 24, 2018)

wuzak said:


> By late 1943 the P-38 and P-47 were over their "teething problems". Especially the P-47. No need to produce after that.
> 
> That the P-40 had some success in 1944 and 145 would not have any bearing on the decisions made regarding its production in 1942 or 1943. How could they know?



Agree on both counts, they made production decisions in 1942 and 1943 based on how the aircraft were performing at that time, in 1943 (until the end of the year roughly) P-38s and P-47s were still having substantial problems. P-38s were particularly disappointing in Europe, and maybe had been given up for the ETO by the time they were actually 'fixed'. If P-38s were performing as well in Europe as they did in the Pacific in 1942 they might have cut P-40 production out by 1943.

I think as it actually went down they were still making P-40s for a while into 1944. The Merlin 60 powered Mustang of course was the real unqualified success story for US fighters.



> The P-39 was a contemporary of the P-40, so it would never have replaced the P-40. Any P-40 replacement would be replacing the P-39 as well (if it were actually being used by the USAAF).



What I mean is if the P-39 was wildly successful for the Americans the way it seems to have been for the Russians, they might have ended P-40 production in 1942 and concentrated on P-39s a bit longer and on a larger scale.



> The P-46 and P-60 programs were an indication problems with Curtiss at the time. They were unable to improve their P-40 design - not because of its excellence, but because of their own issues.



No argument there.


----------



## pbehn (Dec 24, 2018)

Schweik said:


> Germans in particular tend to get lauded for being so well prepared in the beginning of the war. Not only did they have good aircraft they had fine tuned the use of them and developed very good (the best) Tactical doctrines and trained their pilots well. I think this has largely to do with the fact that many other countries were slow to realize war was really upon them, the British and the Soviets and the French were all still thinking a little too long that WWI had been so horrible nobody would intentionally start another mass conflagration again.


Germans in particular get particularly lauded by you, not quite as much as the confederate forces from the new world though . You make no mention of the Victorian British class system producing the first integrated defence system which halted a massively superior force of aircraft who (as you explained) had much better equipment and better pilots with better tactics.


----------



## michael rauls (Dec 24, 2018)

Schweik said:


> Agree on both counts, they made production decisions in 1942 and 1943 based on how the aircraft were performing at that time, in 1943 (until the end of the year roughly) P-38s and P-47s were still having substantial problems. P-38s were particularly disappointing in Europe, and maybe had been given up for the ETO by the time they were actually 'fixed'. If P-38s were performing as well in Europe as they did in the Pacific in 1942 they might have cut P-40 production out by 1943.
> 
> I think as it actually went down they were still making P-40s for a while into 1944. The Merlin 60 powered Mustang of course was the real unqualified success story for US fighters.
> 
> ...


Yes they did produce p40s well into 1944. The last p40N went out the door in I believe October.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Dec 24, 2018)

Schweik said:


> You are sensitive and raw to the point of hysteria - like a Public School boy after his first proper hazing, but for reasons that are unfathomable... don't read or comment on my posts if they trigger you so bad you moppet.
> 
> I never denigrated the ANZACs or South Africans or South Asians or anyone else in the Commonwealth, quite to the contrary as I am certain you are well aware. Nor will I be baited into contrasting English Colonialism in places like India or "Rhodesia" with American racism etc., I equally condemn it all. With regard to class issues in the context of this discussion I was referring directly to conflicts between higher leadership and pilots / squadron commanders both in North Africa and the Pacific, leading to events like the famous Morotai Mutiny which was instigated by decorated veterans of the North African campaign.
> 
> ...


You done it again stupid, you talk about English colonialism, when it was British, you denigrate other participants in the war by omission and your obvious obsession with English public schools and class, I am an ex steel worker you Berk. Take a look at the USA front line aircraft strength on Sept 3 1939 before you make comments about others preparations and class systems and then explain Pearl Harbour bearing in mind the war had been going on for 2 years.


----------



## Greyman (Dec 24, 2018)

re: Typhoon use - recreated a grainy B&W chart I had that seemed to be scanned from a Polish Typhoon book. It's not finished but I figured I'd post the WIP.

*Typhoon Mk.Ia* - *Typhoon Mk.Ib*

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


----------



## Schweik (Dec 24, 2018)

pbehn said:


> You done it again stupid, you talk about English colonialism, when it was British, you denigrate other participants in the war by omission and your obvious obsession with English public schools and class, I am an ex steel worker you Berk. Take a look at the USA front line aircraft strength on Sept 3 1939 before you make comments about others preparations and class systems and then explain Pearl Harbour bearing in mind the war had been going on for 2 years.




Look bruh, I was pointing out the flaws in every major country in WW2, not just the UK. Did you miss that part?

The only reason France, UK, US, Soviets etc. were not as prepared for war in say, 1938 is because _nobody thought anyone was crazy enough to start another World War_. In other words, the German leadership was literally crazy in my opinion to start the war, as you can see by how their country was doing in 1945. 

I respect somebody who was a steelworker, so cheers, just try not to be so emotional about (incorrectly) perceived national bias or the slightest whiff of teasing. I thought you Britishers were better about taking a little ribbing. I'm just "taking the piss" a little bit because you are so consistently hostile. 

For the record I don't hold any grudge whatsoever against any of the pilots in WW2 and to the contrary, respect the hell out of them. I've been lucky enough to meet a few over the course of my life. In particular I respect the DAF pilots because I read a lot about them. I'm even enough of an old nerd to have built a few plastic models and I have Spitfire MK V, Spit Mk IX, Hurricane IIC, P-40 (of course) SM 79, MC 200 and 202, Re 2002 and a Bf 109F-4 (trop) in view as I type this. Mostly Airfix kits!

S


----------



## michael rauls (Dec 24, 2018)

If all could forgive my ignorance. I'm trying to follow along here and what are " confederate forces" in the context on ww2?
I'm guessing another slang term for US forces like" Yankee"? Just never heard it before.


----------



## pbehn (Dec 24, 2018)

Schweik said:


> Look bruh, I was pointing out the flaws in every major country in WW2, not just the UK. Did you miss that part?
> 
> The only reason France, UK, US, Soviets etc. were not as prepared for war in say, 1938 is because _nobody thought anyone was crazy enough to start another World War_. In other words, the German leadership was literally crazy in my opinion to start the war, as you can see by how their country was doing in 1945.
> 
> ...


As far as air warfare is concerned, which is the subject of this forum, the RAF with Dowdings system of Command and Control has set the post war standard for air warfare, by 1940 there were airborne Radar equipped fighters and by 1944 the forerunner of AWACs. It was the Germans who were fighting the last war and the British fighting the next one in 1940. Both Dowding and Churchill could see the conflict generalled by Park better than any head of politics and head of a military force had ever seen a battle before, Goering and Hitler got "reports" a few days or weeks later. Your discussion of the adoption of the "finger four" by the RAF is as if they were simpletons, well the RAF and the LW had stopped mass unescorted high altitude deep penetration daylight raids in 1940, but the Confederate forces of Texas decided it was a great idea in 1943. Were they Victorian inbred class ridden schoolboys too? After all President Roosevelt was a very rich guy from a very rich family and he married a woman from the same very rich family and was also called Roosevelt, consider that and the Kennedys and the Bushes before you blather about other nations. In short, stick to aviation.


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 24, 2018)

Couple of points gentlemen



wuzak said:


> The P-46 and P-60 programs were an indication problems with Curtiss at the time. They were unable to improve their P-40 design - not because of its excellence, but because of their own issues.



How much was the fault of Curtiss and how much was the fault of the US army is subject to question. Curtiss may well own the P-46 but the P-53/P-60 saga sure as some fingerprints of the US Army in it. I don't know who came up with the idea of eight .50 cal machine guns but the big wing and large heavy airframe weren't far behind. Did Curtiss try to use the Continental IV-1430 engine to gain favor with the Army or had the Army let it be known that they were looking for a new fighter powered by that engine? In any case you are talking about an engine that was 180lbs heavier and about 2 ft longer than the -39 Allison used in the P-40E. You want big engines you usually need big airplanes. With the IV-1430 a non starter the Curtiss team began the mad scramble for alternative engines. 





Schweik said:


> . If P-38s were performing as well in Europe as they did in the Pacific in 1942 they might have cut P-40 production out by 1943.



The P-38 never really operated in Europe in 1942. The two (?) fighter groups that had them were reassigned to the North African invasion before they went operational and a 3rd group forming up was used for replacements. Aside from a handful of photo recon planes P-38s would NOT operate in NW Europe until Oct of 1943.


----------



## Schweik (Dec 24, 2018)

pbehn said:


> As far as air warfare is concerned, which is the subject of this forum, the RAF with Dowdings system of Command and Control has set the post war standard for air warfare, by 1940 there were airborne Radar equipped fighters and by 1944 the forerunner of AWACs. It was the Germans who were fighting the last war and the British fighting the next one in 1940. Both Dowding and Churchill could see the conflict generalled by Park better than any head of politics and head of a military force had ever seen a battle before, Goering and Hitler got "reports" a few days or weeks later. Your discussion of the adoption of the "finger four" by the RAF is as if they were simpletons, well the RAF and the LW had stopped mass unescorted high altitude deep penetration daylight raids in 1940, but the Confederate forces of Texas decided it was a great idea in 1943. Were they Victorian inbred class ridden schoolboys too? After all President Roosevelt was a very rich guy from a very rich family and he married a woman from the same very rich family and was also called Roosevelt, consider that and the Kennedys and the Bushes before you blather about other nations. In short, stick to aviation.



I'm trying hard to be polite mate, because it's Christmas and you worked in a steel mill, right? But don't try to tell me what to do - you couldn't impose your will on me in person let alone in the misty enclaves of the interwebs wherein there is no purchase for neither fang nor foot.

I already told you - you can call the Americans anything you want. I don't have a dog in that race.

I never said anything disparaging to radar or fighter command.

For the rest of the nationalistic comparisons, feel free to debate that with someone who cares - preferably in another thread.

I did my bit in the military 30 years ago and I'm glad to say I'm not going to war any time soon.


----------



## Schweik (Dec 24, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> Couple of points gentlemen
> With the IV-1430 a non starter the Curtiss team began the mad scramble for alternative engines.



Sure whatever - I'm sure the War Dept had it's share of blame. Certainly in the other Curtiss scandals there were officers taking bribes.



> The P-38 never really operated in Europe in 1942. The two (?) fighter groups that had them were reassigned to the North African invasion before they went operational and a 3rd group forming up was used for replacements. Aside from a handful of photo recon planes P-38s would NOT operate in NW Europe until Oct of 1943.



Europe as in North Africa and the middle of the Med in 1942, Italy and Yugoslavia in 1943, forgive me the shorthand - but actually P-38s ended up flying out of Italy all over Europe in later years.

The point of the comment was "P-38 against the Germans" vs. against the Japanese. It's the same German fighters whether over Brest, Tunis or Palermo.


----------



## pbehn (Dec 24, 2018)

Schweik said:


> For the rest of the nationalistic comparisons, feel free to debate that with someone who cares - preferably in another thread.
> 
> .


You started them, you don't include the British class system in the discussions of RR Merlin superchargers, even though they were obviously products of it. Your posts are dripping with flag waving fanboyism to the point that you would compare a P-40 to a Typhoon.


----------



## Schweik (Dec 24, 2018)

Ok I'm done.


----------



## Schweik (Dec 24, 2018)

Greyman said:


> re: Typhoon use - recreated a grainy B&W chart I had that seemed to be scanned from a Polish Typhoon book. It's not finished but I figured I'd post the WIP.
> 
> *Typhoon Mk.Ia* - *Typhoon Mk.Ib*
> 
> View attachment 523040



Thanks for that! So it looks like 18 Typhoon squadrons active in 1943, which is basically the same as the P-40F for the first six months of 43. Remarkably similar oeprational trajectories.

In May 1943 for P-40F/L you had:

57th FG - 3 squadrons
325th FG 3 squadrons
324th FG 3 squadrons
33rd FG 3 squadrons
79th F 3 squadrons
99th FS (Tuskgegee) 1 squadron
260 RAF 1 squadron
3 RAAF 1 squadron
Group de Chasse something or other, (Free French) 2 Squadrons (and 1 Spitfire)

So that is a total of 20 squadrons.

By Oct 1943 though 57th and 325th have converted to P-47s so then it's 14 squadrons after that. Some of the other converted to other types in 1944.

Operational histories look very similar in terms of active deployment strength though.


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 24, 2018)

Schweik said:


> Sure whatever - I'm sure the War Dept had it's share of blame. Certainly in the other Curtiss scandals there were officers taking bribes.



That is a bit like saying because Buick did something wrong in General Motors then Cadillac and Chevrolet must be guilty too. 

Curtiss-*WRIGHT *was a major corporation that comprised Curtiss aircraft in Buffalo NY, Columbus Ohio and ST Louis Missouri and Lexington Kentucky. 
Engine factories were in several locations and the scandal was in the one in Lockland Ohio. 
There were also propeller factories in New Jersey (along with the home engine plant, much expanded and provided with satellite plants) 





> Europe as in North Africa and the middle of the Med in 1942, Italy and Yugoslavia in 1943, forgive me the shorthand - but actually P-38s ended up flying out of Italy all over Europe in later years.
> 
> The point of the comment was "P-38 against the Germans" vs. against the Japanese. It's the same German fighters whether over Brest, Tunis or Palermo.



We have been over the geography before. If you want to use your own shorthand that nobody else uses then be prepared for confusion. 
BTW the weather conditions over Tunis or Palermo are hardly the same as over Hamburg or Hanover in the winter.


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 25, 2018)

michael rauls said:


> If all could forgive my ignorance. I'm trying to follow along here and what are " confederate forces" in the context on ww2?
> I'm guessing another slang term for US forces like" Yankee"? Just never heard it before.


I have no clue...it appears that the term was used as a reference to class, perhaps?


----------



## Schweik (Dec 25, 2018)

Its a real weak Troll, he's trying to insult Americans in general by calling them that.


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 25, 2018)

Schweik said:


> Its a real weak Troll, he's trying to insult Americans in general by calling them that.


Gotcha.
Anyone who knows (or understands) U.S. history (in a non-PC context) would know that the rise of the Confederate states was a result of imbalanced political representation in the Senate during the 1840's and 1850's.


----------



## Elmas (Dec 25, 2018)

It seems that soccer fans bigotry is a minor matter in comparison to Aircraft fans bigotry...

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


----------



## Schweik (Dec 25, 2018)

Anyway I posted some more operational data in the Bf 109 vs P-40 thread here

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## slaterat (Dec 26, 2018)

Here's a very good website on he Typhoon Hawker Typhoon RB396 » Restoration, with lots of information on its development.


----------



## slaterat (Dec 26, 2018)

This Tempest website has some great information on the Sabre engine and how good it was, The Hawker Tempest Page .


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 26, 2018)

I think a few of you need to tone it down and relax. Drink a beer, get laid, rub one off, something to get your internet testosterone in balance. Not taking sides here. *Both of you* are acting rediculous. It really does remind me of the FIFA World Cup thread.

Chill out, be adults or the thread will be closed for a cooling down period.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## slaterat (Dec 26, 2018)

Overall the last 28 pages have been a pretty good discussion of the original subject but I have not seen any evidence to convince me that these two aircraft are comparable. The Typhoon owns the entire flight envelope except for perhaps continuous turn rate and low speed roll rate. The Typhoon compares much more closely to the FW 190 and the F4U. Much like the Hurricane the P-40 did its job early in the war and in post war history, its accomplishments are often overshadowed by the latter higher performance fighters. The P-40 was never considered adequate to fight in Northern Europe, and was even longer in the tooth by 43.

Earlier in the thread there was some rather undeserved criticism of Sydney Camm and Hawkers. IMHO Hawker designed a very successful string of fighters in WWII, from the Hurricane -Typhoon-Tempest. Compare this to Curtis who really just flogged the P-40 for the entire war.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Dec 26, 2018)

Where do you get low speed roll rate in particular? You have some data that the Typhoon had a good (or even decent) high speed roll rate?

From what I understand P-40 owns maneuverability across the board - instantaneous turn, sustained turn, high and low speed roll, and handling overall.

Dive speed is effectively equivalent whether everybody gets that or not.

Dive speed + superior maneuverability is what made the P-40 still a substantial killer of Axis aircraft in 1943. Almost all of the 593 victory claims made by P-40 units in the Med were in 1943, in fact in the first six months. The P-40F was also peforming pretty well up to at least 20,000 ft.

And it did more harm to the enemy than the Typhoon, which is the bottom line for evaluating a fighter, no matter how you try to spin it.


Some claim that the design problems with the Typhoon are a myth, but that doesn't seem to be what the books say.
Maybe only 20 or 30 were actually destroyed in tail failure / crashes but it seemed to affect pilots faith in the aircraft. Like how far they were willing to push it.
Others claimed that the Typhoon was operating in a more deadly area, but nobody has yet showed me that Northern France in 1943 was more dangerous for Allied fighters than Italy.
Others claimed the Typhoon wasn't in the field as long or in the same numbers, but in fact the operational history data emerging in the thread show that in 1943 there were basically the same number of squadrons deployed.
There were other design problems besides the tail falling off - the overly thick wing and incredible weight of the aircraft would also affect drag and vertical maneuvering, and offset the value of the powerful engine.


----------



## Schweik (Dec 26, 2018)

Here is an interesting interview with a Typhoon pilot, I think maybe South African based on name and accent. Impressive old guy. He starts talking about the Typhoon at the 06:00 minute mark.



A few things I noticed:

He mentions he was recruited (as a volunteer) due to the high attrition of Typhoon pilots, he mentions that from June 6 - Aug 17 lost x 151 Typhoon pilots
Said they lost 21 pilots during one day out of the Wing during Market Garden. Mentions getting 6 tanks on one day.
Mentions some 'Trojan horse' traps with 8 x 20mm AA guns hidden in a train (top opens up and AAA opens up)
Losses attributed to flying at low altitude and AAA
He mentions that he was hit by an 88 and it just punched a hole through his fuselage (points up how tough the plane was). Wacked his rudder trim.
Said rudder trim is needed on a Typhoon to keep strait in a dive (they said the same thing about a P-40 when in terminal velocity). But maybe worse here. He said he couldn't land properly without rudder trim.
Nevertheless he survived three crash landings. Again tough plane.
Toward the end he mentions 666 pilots killed after D-Day if I caught that right.


----------



## Schweik (Dec 26, 2018)

Another shorter interview with a Typhoon pilot here



Called the Typhoon a 'perfect' ground attack aircraft
He mentions Canadian Typhoon squadrons carried bombs, English carried rockets (I think someone else mentioned this upthread)
"All kinds of flying problems", "not a good fighter", ideal platform to carry rockets
Best weapon Allies had for destroying tanks
Casualties with Typhoons something like 50%


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 26, 2018)

slaterat said:


> This Tempest website has some great information on the Sabre engine and how good it was, The Hawker Tempest Page .



Unfortunately, Mr. Setright presented zero evidence about claimed power levels there, whether service values or from bench tests. Hi's conspiracy theory does not hold water, either.


----------



## Schweik (Dec 26, 2018)

And another (also I think Canadian)



Mentions doing 500 mph pulling out of a dive with a holed glycol tank over Holland
Steep climb full throttle made it to 10,000' in "just a few moments"
Describes a pretty easy / gentle crash landing


----------



## Schweik (Dec 26, 2018)

Finally found some interviews with P-40F/L pilots, these are from 325th FG pilots



You'll have to skip ahead as there is a lot of fluff before and between interviews, it's an amateur documentary. Nice research though it's pretty long with a lot of heroic music etc. So I marked some time stamps with notable comments. Narrator comments indicated with a *before the time stamp. There are basically two good 5 minute pilot interviews (indicated *in bold*), one of which refers to air to air combat. I also looked up a couple of the engagements mentioned by the narrator when he gave specific dates to check his numbers and what really happened, which you can see down at the bottom.

*10:30 Pilot mentions* 5 months transition training on P-40s before going into combat (~130 hrs flying time)
13:30 Description of taking off from the USS Ranger. 20 degrees of flaps, took off at military power 42" Hg
17:20 Mentions they had no combat in January or February. One air to air collision was the first casualty in Feb. Gunnery practice etc. during this time. Convoy escort from US.
20:18 April 5 1943 first combat mission (escort). Mentions high low and side cover (which I've mentioned)
*21:20 first air combat, turned into attack by two Bf 109s. Mentions 59 escort missions without a lost bomber [ this didn't last though see below].
*23:10 first dive bombing mission (one squadron escorting one bombing)
*25:00 May 1943 first air to air combat victory claim (Bf 109 in a landing approach)
*29:10 All three squadrons of 325th established. Mission by 317th to Sardinia May 19, 1943. First victory for "Herky" Green.
*30:00 pilot interview* on May 19 mission. 317th Sqn 'caught with pants down' from above. "Herky" attacked by six, claimed one. "_He was able to turn first one way and then another way and then avoid them_"* "_whichever way he turned, the other guy was going to get him_"*. "20mm shell takes out radio, instrument panel shot out." Went into a spin to escape. Supercharger on (WEP?) for ten minutes engine smoking. Made it back home. All longerons severed in at least one place.
*35:00 Pilots learned to carry / fly with 1,000 lb bomb after a successful field experiment. Claims 325th was the only unit carrying 1,000 lb (probably not true)
*38:00 325th only fighter group flying over Sardinia. Checkerboard pattern inspired by Werner Voss, applied in July 1943
*41:00 325th operating from Mateur airfield in Tunisia (which looks pretty hellish due to bugs)
*42:00 July 20th raid on Sardinia (Decimomannu again). 325th turned into enemy fighters. Detailed account of battle with first 'triple kill' and first Ace.
*43:45 July 22nd 317th Fighter Squadron of 325th. Detailed account of low altitude fight over Sardninia. "Warhawk's strength was in it's turning ability". Fought in pairs***.
*45:00 -49:00 Detailed account of July 30 1943 engagement over Sardinia****. "Even when it looked like they might be in trouble, the P-40s turning ability would soon swing the balance in favor of the Allied pilot."
*53:00 Mentioned frequent friendly fire incidents with inexperienced 1st FG P-38 pilots. Mentions a prank played by 325th FG C/O Robert Baseler flying a 'captured' Bf 109G flying low passes over the 1st FG P-38 base. Said he wanted to "show them what a Bf 109 actually looked like".
*57:00 DFC award to Lt Watkins on August 28 shooting down 2 enemy planes and saving fellow pilots who had been bounced. This was the last mission with P-40's *****
*59:00 Narrator says they switched over to superior P-47s


So if that documentary is correct the 325th shot down all their claimed 133 victories with the P-40s between May and August 1943. Based on checking their records I would guess it probably translates to about 40-60 Axis fighters and maybe another 10 other aircraft actually destroyed in the air, and a bunch more damaged (which I don't usually count in the summaries).


* Sound familiar?
** I looked up the *May 19 engagement over Decimomannu Sardinia*, it's on Page 43 of Shores MAW Vol IV. It was a very busy day:

*Allied Claims*
RAF Spitfires claimed 2 x Fw 190s
325th FG P-40s claimed 4 x Bf 109s [it doesn't mention Herky Greens claim but one of the claims is anonymous]
P-38 pilots claimed 5 x Bf 109s and 2x MC 202s
B-17 and B-24 gunners also made ~ 20 claims

*Axis Claims*
Germans (27, 53 and 51 FG) claimed 4 x P-40s, 4 x P-38s, 2 x Spitfires, and 4 x B-17s
Italians (153, 155, 161 and 20 Gruppo) claimed 5 x P-38s and 1 x B-24

*Actual losses were*
1 x Spitfire, 3 x P-38s, 2 x P-40s, and 2 x B-25s (two P-38s also returned home on one engine) - 6 fighters
4 x Bf 109 (one specifically says lost at Decimomannu), 3 x Fw 190s, 2 x MC 205, 1 x Me 210 - 9 fighters

Shores suggests 1 x Bf 109 and 2 x MC 205s crashed as the result of combat over Decimomannu
~25 fighters were also damaged or destroyed by bombs. This is by the way one of those days I would not normally bring up because it's hard to tell who shot down what enemy plane.

*** This engagement was covered in this recent post to the Bf 109 - P-40 thread. The opposition were actually Italian C205s and C202, of which 7 were lost, plus one captured French D.520, for the loss of 2 P-40s.
**** This somewhat famous or infamous engagement was covered in the same post linked above, 317th FS / 325th FG P-40 pilots claimed 21 enemy fighters. Germans lost 6 x Bf 109G-6 and G-4s from III./JG 77, and 8./JG 77). 317th FS lost 1 Robert L. Sederberg PoW. 2x MC 202s were also listed as damaged that day.

*****I looked up this *28 August 1943 *battle too in MAW IV. It's on Pages 316-317

It was another really busy day.

*Allied Claims*
Spitfire Mk IX pilots from 81 Sqn RAF claimed 4 x Bf 109s destroyed
P-38 pilots of the 1st, 14th and 82nd FG claimed 16 enemy fighters (a mix of 109s, MC 202s and Fw 190s)
P-40 pilots from 325th FG claimed 7 x Bf 109s destroyed, 3 probables and 2 damaged
An American Spitfire pilot from the 52nd FG claimed 1 Bf 109

*Axis Claims*
JG 77 claimed 3 x P-40 and 2 x Beaufighters (none were lost that day, possibly the Baltimore)
JG 53 claimed 4 x P-38s
JG 3 (I think Fw 190?) claimed 3 x P-38s
Italian MC 202 and 205 pilots from 18, 21, 22 and 23 Gruppo claimed 16 P-38s and two B-24s

*Losses*
5 x P-38s 'shot down by e/a" (four from the 1st FG and 1 from the 14th FG)
1 x P-40 from 325th FG lost reportedly to flak.
1 x Spitfire 'after combat with Bf 109'
1 x Baltimore IV reportedly to flak

5 x Bf 109Gs (includes 2 crash landed)
1 x MC 202

Shores attributes two Bf 109s lost over Sardinia 'possibly' to the 325th P-40s

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


----------



## pbehn (Dec 26, 2018)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I think a few of you need to tone it down and relax. Drink a beer, get laid, rub one off, something to get your internet testosterone in balance. Not taking sides here. *Both of you* are acting rediculous. It really does remind me of the FIFA World Cup thread.
> 
> Chill out, be adults or the thread will be closed for a cooling down period.



ome claim that the design problems with the Typhoon are a myth, but that doesn't seem to be what the books say.
Maybe only 20 or 30 were actually destroyed in tail failure / crashes but it seemed to affect pilots faith in the aircraft. Like how far they were willing to push it.
Others claimed that the Typhoon was operating in a more deadly area, but nobody has yet showed me that Northern France in 1943 was more dangerous for Allied fighters than Italy.
Others claimed the Typhoon wasn't in the field as long or in the same numbers, but in fact the operational history data emerging in the thread show that in 1943 there were basically the same number of squadrons deployed.
There were other design problems besides the tail falling off - the overly thick wing and incredible weight of the aircraft would also affect drag and vertical maneuvering, and offset the value of the powerful engine.
[/QUOTE]
who has claimed they are a myth? Produce a book or even a post here that says they are a myth, you say they are a myth so you can disprove a non existent myth? In an era where 2,000BHP tail draggers were notoriously dangerous especially for inexperienced pilots 30 out of 3000 is not a high risk especially as most losses were early on. The P-51 was also a risk when fully loaded, many aircraft were.

You quote the high losses to ground fire of the Typhoon, and don't consider that makes the environment it was in any different to Northern Italy. The Typhoon could go into a target and hit it at 400MPH TAS that is why it was kept in front line service in 1944, it used rockets actually as a stand off weapon so it didn't have to fly over the target. Despite all the missions flown by the P-51s on bomber escort most losses were incurred in ground attack, it was an extremely dangerous place to be. You quote losses from Arnhem do you know where it is? And how significant that battle was? It is a short cycle ride from Germany 65 miles from Duisburg. To pretend that the air defence and concentration of Arnhem was the same as Italy is fantasy, like pretending the Isle of Skye was as well defended as Kent in 1940. On average more than 10% of USA pilots were lost in training and your focus is on an issue that concerned a maximum of 1% of one front line UK aircraft .
Here is a table of losses in continental USA which as far as I am aware was not a war zone for aircraft 24 fatal accidents with the A-36 (how many produced) 131 fatal accidents with the P-51 337 fatal accidents with the P-38 and Oh lo and behold a whole 324 fatal accidents involving 350 deaths and 967 aircraft wrecked IN TRAINING IN THE USA WITH THE P-40
United States World War II Aircraft Loss Statistics during Flight Training

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Dec 26, 2018)

pbehn said:


> who has claimed they are a myth? Produce a book or even a post here that says they are a myth, you say they are a myth so you can disprove a non existent myth?



Nope - you are going off half cocked again breh. See this post please. The direct quote was "The tail failures are one of those WW2 myths that just won't die. "

Now here is a question for you, are you going to admit you were wrong just now? Or double down?



> In an era where 2,000BHP tail draggers were notoriously dangerous especially for inexperienced pilots 30 out of 3000 is not a high risk especially as most losses were early on. The P-51 was also a risk when fully loaded, many aircraft were.
> 
> You quote the high losses to ground fire of the Typhoon, and don't consider that makes the environment it was in any different to Northern Italy. The Typhoon could go into a target and hit it at 400MPH TAS that is why it was kept in front line service in 1944, it used rockets actually as a stand off weapon so it didn't have to fly over the target. Despite all the missions flown by the P-51s on bomber escort most losses were incurred in ground attack, it was an extremely dangerous place to be. You quote losses from Arnhem do you know where it is? And how significant that battle was?



Yes, I'm quite familiar with Market Garden and I've been to Arnhem so I do know where it is. And mate, please let this sink in a bit - *it wasn't me that was saying this - it was the Typhoon pilot doing the interview who said it.* Did you watch any of those interviews? I also never said flak wasn't dangerous. Plenty of P-40s and every other Allied aircraft were lost to Flak in Italy.



> It is a short cycle ride from Germany 65 miles from Duisburg. To pretend that the air defence and concentration of Arnhem was the same as Italy is fantasy, like pretending the Isle of Skye was as well defended as Kent in 1940.



I think Anzio was pretty well defended. El Alamein and Tobruk battlefields were also pretty intense.



> On average more than 10% of USA pilots were lost in training and your focus is on an issue that concerned a maximum of 1% of one front line UK aircraft .
> Here is a table of losses in continental USA which as far as I am aware was not a war zone for aircraft 24 fatal accidents with the A-36 (how many produced) 131 fatal accidents with the P-51 337 fatal accidents with the P-38 and Oh lo and behold a whole 324 fatal accidents involving 350 deaths and 967 aircraft wrecked IN TRAINING IN THE USA WITH THE P-40
> United States World War II Aircraft Loss Statistics during Flight Training



You seem to be a little hysterical. I again, was just highlighting the quotes from the RAF and RCAF pilots in the interviews. Take it up with them. I don't believe I said anything about training losses.

S


----------



## Schweik (Dec 27, 2018)

Just to be clear, in the interests of *raising* the signal to noise ratio of the thread I googled "interview typhoon pilot youtube" and watched the first 4 videos that came up. Three of them had some kind of performance or operational data in them so I posted it here. I had no idea what they were going to say, I just remembered what kind of stuff I'd heard Typhoon pilots say in the past. Feel free to do the same and post your findings.

But be cautious! Instead of _thanks_ for posting the links and summarizing the main relevant points they made, I got insults, accusations of not knowing where Holland or Belgium are, claims that I refused to recognize the importance of Market Garden (I watched A Bridge Too Far and read the book too, does that count?), saw attacks against Americans in general (as if I'm Uncle Sam or something?) Let me be clear, while I am_ interested _in the battles of the first half of the 1940s, I am not personally interested in _fighting_ the battles of the 1940s. Especially those between the closest Allies of the War.

Pilot interviews or testimony about the P-40F or L was harder to come by but by searching the names of the various MTO fighter groups I eventually found a few, one of which I have watched so far and spent some time posting highlights of here, and transcribing combat records for the various days of fighting mentioned in the documentary.

As for the infamous breaking tails of the Typhoon, I am not refusing the believe it is a wartime myth, but all the books on WW2 fighters I have do mention it, and note that it was a lingering problem that lasted until the end of 1943 and was _never fully resolved_ (until they made the Tempest). This for a fighter in the field since 1941. I didn't invent that story. If it's a myth then by all means, debunk it. Maybe find a video where some actual Typhoon pilots say it was no big deal, that would be pretty convincing.


And for the record, when I started this thread 29 pages ago, I had no idea how the P-40F/L would stack up to the Typhoon*. I vaguely knew that the Typhoon was A) powerful and B) had some serious problems. I knew that the merlin P-40s in particular were much better performing fighters, especially in terms of fighting the enemy in the air, than most people realize. So I thought it would be a fun exercise to compare the two. I did not set out to belittle the Queen or cricket or for that matter George Washington or Apple Pie. I'm interested in history not ideology.

This thread was instigated by somebody else insisting that Typhoon was much better than a P-40, and then when I suggested agreeing to disagree, pushed it further until I started this thread to settle the issue. 29 pages in, I have my opinion, some people for sure never changed the ones they had from the get go. But I think I can at least say it's not so cut and dry is it.


----------



## wuzak (Dec 27, 2018)

Schweik said:


> 29 pages in, I have my opinion, some people for sure never changed the ones they had from the get go. But I think I can at least say it's not so cut and dry is it.



I believe you had that opinion one page in, and you haven't changed your position at all.

And I believe the P-40F/L vs the Typhoon I is pretty "cut and dry", and the Typhoon is the winner.


----------



## Schweik (Dec 27, 2018)

You are entitled to your opinion buddy, I can say from observation you don't seem to change it on anything.


----------



## Schweik (Dec 27, 2018)

Milosh said:


> Tiffie claims
> 
> Bf109: 54 destroyed, 8 probable
> Fw190: 94, 16
> ...



Ok so just to kind of reiterate a point here. The above, from what I understand, are the victory claims for all of the ~30 Typhoon squadrons deployed in combat at some point or another *from 1941 to 1944* (or 45? when did they phase them out?). I just learned today from watching that 325th FG documentary, that the following are victory claims for one fighter group (3 squadrons of usually 12 fighters each) for *four months* in 1943 - May, June, July and August. Source is available here. As you can see, for the P-40 it shows 133 aircraft which further breaks down to:

Bf 109 - 95
M.C. 202* -26
Me 323 - 7
Fi. 156 -3
Ju 52 -2

By the time this particular unit encountered Fw 190s in any numbers they had already converted to P-47s. These are all from May to August 1943, during which period they lost 17 fighters in combat. As you can see they mostly claimed fighters shot down. Only 5 transport planes out of 133 and no bombers. This fighter group was attached to a bomb wing and their main mission was to provide escort to three B-26 squadrons.

This is just one unit over the course of four months. In the Med, during admittedly an active period, but hardly Market Garden.

Now I've read a lot of different reasons in this thread, some of which sound plausible, why pilots flying the Typhoon didn't score so many victories, I'll admit the high number of Fw 190s destroyed at a time when they were such a menace, is a big deal and the scores against V-1s are important too. But I also heard with my own ears the descriptions by the Typhoon pilots themselves in the 3 interviews I posted above. One said and this is a direct quote not a paraphrase, the Typhoon had "All kinds of flying problems" and was "not a good fighter", but it was an "ideal platform to carry rockets.". This was a veteran who survived many combat missions and lived through the war, not something most Typhoon pilots could say. Another one pointed out he couldn't fly or land without his rudder trim tabs. That doesn't sound good.

As the man said, "_He who has eyes_ to see, _let_ him see"

S

*(some of these were actually M.C. 205s and some were Re 2002s)


----------



## wuzak (Dec 27, 2018)

How many of those Typhoon squadrons were active as fighter only units, how many were A2G units?

How many were being used in 1941? Where were they being used? How often was there contact with enemy aircraft?


----------



## Schweik (Dec 27, 2018)

Somebody posted a chart, looked like a lot active in 1943, 15 squadrons iirc?


----------



## wuzak (Dec 27, 2018)

Schweik said:


> Somebody posted a chart, looked like a lot active in 1943, 15 squadrons iirc?



18 squadrons active in 1943, according to the chart.



Greyman said:


> re: Typhoon use - recreated a grainy B&W chart I had that seemed to be scanned from a Polish Typhoon book. It's not finished but I figured I'd post the WIP.
> 
> *Typhoon Mk.Ia* - *Typhoon Mk.Ib*



But there weren't any operating in 1941 and no many 1942, at least until the end of 1942. 

Which is something you've emphasised repeatedly - that the Typhoon was active from 1941 and the P-40F was not.

The units operating in late 1942 and early 1942 were primarily chasing small numbers of low level fighter bomber raiders (ie Fw 190 Jabos). This is also why Spitfire Vs were modified for better low down performance and why the Spitfire XII was put into the field (100 made).

How many of the 18 squadrons active in 1943 operated over Europe, which wasn't an overly target rich environment at that time - that would change later in 1943 as the 8th AF day time bombing campaign ramped up.

But also at that time Typhoon squadrons were starting to concentrate on A2G missions. 

From that list:
No. 245 Squadron RAF - Wikipedia
"In January 1943 it moved to Scotland again, where it began converting to Typhoons, taking these back down south in March. The squadron was then allocated to the 2nd Tactical Air Force on its formation in June 1943 and soon began attacking enemy lines of communication and other suitable targets in preparation for Operation Overlord. From April on it began using rocket projectiles and on 27 June 1944, it moved onto the continent, from where it continued to support the Allied advance[10] through France, the Low Countries and into Germany."

No. 247 Squadron RAF - Wikipedia
"As well as continuing its night defence role the squadron was involved in early offensive 'intruder' attacks against Luftwaffe aerodrome in northern France. When the Hawker Typhoon replaced the Hurricane, these type of operations continued in daylight. No. 247 was heavily involved in attacks prior to and including D-Day. Targets included transport systems, and weapon emplacements as well as providing close air support to ground forces. On 27 June 1944, the squadron moved to Coulombs in Normandy, beginning the subsequent drive through France, Belgium, the Netherlands and into Germany."

No. 193 Squadron RAF - Wikipedia
"No. 193 Squadron was formed at RAF Harrowbeer, Devon on 18 December 1942 as a fighter/ground attack unit. Although designated to operate the new Hawker Typhoon, the squadron at first used the Hawker Hurricane until the Typhoon was declared operational in April 1943.

In November 1943 the squadron was used to attack the German V-1 launch sites. The squadron then moved base in the south of England a number of times supporting the buildup for invasion. From 6 June 1944 the squadron was busy supporting the invasion force in the close-support fighter-bomber role. It was based on the Continent from 11 September 1944 as it continued to support the advancing armies in France, Belgium and Germany."

No. 3 Squadron RAF - Wikipedia
"In February 1943 it re-equipped with the Hawker Typhoon for fighter-bomber and anti-shipping strikes. It re-equipped in March 1944 with the new Hawker Tempest fighter, operating over the Normandy beach-head and against German V1 flying bombs, claiming 288 V-1s shot down."

No. 174 Squadron RAF - Wikipedia
"The squadron formed on 2 March 1942 at RAF Manston and equipped with Hurricanes and then rocket armed Typhoons in April 1943. They participated in the Dieppe Raid[1], and were involved in attacks on shipping and V-1 flying bomb launch sites from several bases in the UK. The squadron moved to Camilly, France after D-Day and then withdrew back to the UK, before joining the allied advance across Europe."

No. 175 Squadron RAF - Wikipedia
"No. 175 Squadron RAF was a part of 121 Wing; 83 Group; 2nd Tactical Airforce; RAF in support of World War II Normandy landings, and supported the allied advance through France Holland and Belgium on into Germany. The squadron was active from under canvas on temporary landing grounds in a matter of days after the D-Day landings. The squadron initially flew Hawker Hurricane fighters and was later outfitted with Hawker Typhoons prior to the invasion. The squadron was based in various locations during World War II such as RAF Redhill and RAF Dunsfold."

No. 198 Squadron RAF - Wikipedia
"The squadron reformed at Digby as a fighter squadron equipped with the Hawker Typhoon on 8 December 1942. From March 1943 198 Squadron joined 609 Squadron at Manston where it provided fighter-escorts to the twin-engined Westland Whirlwind fighter bomber on sorties into continental Europe. *Over the next nine months 198 Squadron and 609 Squadron were the only Typhoon units to operate full-time on escort duties for RAF and USAAF bombers and long-range fighter sweeps (code-named "Ramrods") over France, Belgium and the Netherlands*; during these operations the squadron used long-range Typhoons each equipped with a cigar-shaped 45 gallon fuel tank mounted below each wing. In these roles the unit was very successful, becoming one of the top scoring Typhoon units.

During this time most of the other Typhoon units began to be equipped with bomb racks or rocket rails and had started training to carry out ground attack operations in preparation for the cross-channel invasion.

After building up a score of enemy aircraft destroyed the squadron changed role to ground attack at the beginning of 1944, when the Typhoons were fitted with RP-3 rockets. In January 1944 the squadron became part of the Second Tactical Air Force's 123 Airfield (later known as 123 Wing), partnered with 609 Squadron."

No. 197 Squadron RAF - Wikipedia
"The squadron reformed on 21 November 1942 at RAF Turnhouse and was supplied with Typhoons. It then operated from RAF Manston, RAF Tangmere and RAF Hurn. It supported the Normandy landings in June 1944 and re-located to France where it followed the Allied advance across Europe seeking targets of opportunity. On 3 May 1945 the squadron took part in the attack that resulted in the sinking of the SS Cap Arcona. It disbanded at Hildesheim, Germany, on 31 August 1945."

No. 195 Squadron RAF - Wikipedia
"No. 195 Squadron was formed at RAF Duxford on 16 November 1942 with the Hawker Typhoon. After a long training phase the squadron became operational at RAF Ludham with the Typhoon operating offensive Rhubarb sorties and from the end of the year was involved with Roadstead operations using the Typhoons as bombers. The squadron was disbanded at RAF Fairlop on 15 February 1944.

On 1 October 1944 the squadron was reformed at RAF Witchford mainly from the former C Flight of 115 Squadron. Part of No. 3 Group it operated the Avro Lancaster in the heavy bomber role and operated from RAF Wratting Common until the end of the war in Europe. At the end of the European war the squadron was involved in supply drops over the Netherlands and transporting Prisoners of War to the UK from Germany and Italy. The squadron was disbanded for the final time on 14 August 1945."

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


----------



## wuzak (Dec 27, 2018)

I started with units that first equipped with Typhoons in 1943 or late 1942. 

I stopped because there was a clear pattern.

Also:
Rhubarb – fighter or fighter-bomber sections, at times of low cloud and poor visibility, crossing the English Channel and then dropping below cloud level to search for opportunity targets such as railway locomotives and rolling stock, aircraft on the ground, enemy troops, and vehicles on roads.
Roadstead – dive bombing and low level attacks on enemy ships at sea or in harbour.
Ramrod – short range bomber attacks to destroy ground targets

Glossary of RAF code names - Wikipedia

These are some of the type of sorties that the Typhoons were involved in.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 27, 2018)

Thank you for the time/ effort in typing that out and doing the research.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Dec 27, 2018)

Well, I've been sitting on the sidelines watching this incredible schoolboy lunchroom food fight with my jaw hanging open, and all I've got to say is it's been part entertaining, part ing, and part educational.
It seems to me the Tiffie was a slightly higher performance aircraft with flaws, while the 'Hawk had more opportunity to accumulate impressive air-to-air combat statistics due to numbers, timing, and location. 29 pages to get here, and my appreciation to everybody for their research efforts and disappointment with the nationalistic flag waving and insults.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 27, 2018)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Well, I've been sitting on the sidelines watching this *incredible schoolboy lunchroom food fight* with my jaw hanging open, and all I've got to say is it's been part entertaining, part ing, and part educational.
> It seems to me the Tiffie was a slightly higher performance aircraft with flaws, while the 'Hawk had more opportunity to accumulate impressive air-to-air combat statistics due to numbers, timing, and location. 29 pages to get here, and my appreciation to everybody for their research efforts and disappointment with the nationalistic flag waving and insults.
> Cheers,
> Wes



And that is exactly what it is. Very childish, and one of them cannot seem to drop it (Not you...)

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 27, 2018)

First, if this is a violation of the lock on the P-40 vs Typhoon thread I apologize and ask that it be deleted.

2nd, the only intent of this post is to show how different aircraft, being flown at the same time, in the same theater, by the same air force can have wildly different statistics due to the intend or assigned missions.







I am making no claims what so ever as to which planes were better at anything listed in the chart.

edit, originally posted by Timppa over two years ago, It was pointed out that these are claims and not verified results (at least as far as ground targets go) .

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


----------



## Greyman (Dec 28, 2018)

What I was able to dig up on the Typhoon from skimming more of Christopher Shores' work on the 2nd Tactical Air Force:

For June-August 1944:

*Typhoons destroyed by enemy fighters:*
18 (possibly another 2) plus 1 destroyed in head-on collision with 109​*Enemy fighters (claimed) destroyed by Typhoons: *
2 x 190s destroyed, 9 x damaged​10 x 109s destroyed, 12 x damaged plus 1 destroyed in head-on collision​

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Timppa (Dec 29, 2018)

Attached the article, where the table is from.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 31, 2018)

Thread re-opened, and other thread merged...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fubar57 (Dec 31, 2018)



Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Elmas (Dec 31, 2018)

Frankly, I can’t understand why the Congress did allow to spend an horryfing amount of money developing before and producing after such planes like P-38, P-47, P-61 and so on (not speaking of P-51, that had other Godfathers…) while AAF had those jack of all trades and aeronautical engineering wonders that were P-39 and P-40, perfectly capable to perform as interceptors, long range escorts, ground attack, night fighters, intruder catchers and, once navalised, just a minor matter, simply adding an arresting hook, could have perfectly substituted F6F and F4U for the Navy.

Truly a pity that in the post-war period they were not sent to combat to Korea and afterward re-proposed to the N.A.T.O., together with another timeless aircraft, Fiat CR-42.

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


----------



## Navalwarrior (Jan 1, 2019)

Schweik said:


> I'm not claiming - and never did, they were suitable for escorting B-17s over NW Europe. The issue is that the 'Trope' goes a bit too far and kind of relegates them to a tertiary status. I'm trying to explain the nuance. I wasn't trying to ding you so much as simply point out something that usually slips by unheeded.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Resp:
In listening to a military history professor, Robert Citino said that attack aircraft, Particularly during D-Day of 6 June 1944 and after . . . destroyed much enemy equipment. The attacks were so successful, that the Germans resorted to moving at night. The Germans were considered the best military force at moving their men/equipment in a short period of time, but restricted such movement (when they could) to time of darkness. The Typhoon, as well as other allied aircraft should get its share of credit, even though it likely got fewer air-to-air kills vs the P-40. It may have been easier to keep records of air-to-air kills, but the destruction of ground forces from ground attack aircraft was just as important.

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


----------



## Schweik (Jan 2, 2019)

Agreed but you could say the same about P-40Fs at Anzio and a lot of the other Allied fighting in Sicily and Italy, where several units like 324th FG were heavily involved in FB sorties. CAS is basically how they prevented the German counter attack from pushing them into the Sea at Anzio, and it was a role for which the P-40 in general was particularly well suited.


----------



## Schweik (Jan 2, 2019)

Greyman said:


> What I was able to dig up on the Typhoon from skimming more of Christopher Shores' work on the 2nd Tactical Air Force:
> 
> For June-August 1944:
> 
> ...



Thanks for posting this. I believe I can show the same data for May - August 1943 for the P-40F via Shores. My computer is down right now and a new one is to be installed today or tomorrow. Once its up and running I'll post it.


----------



## Schweik (Jan 2, 2019)

Elmas said:


> Frankly, I can’t understand why the Congress did allow to spend an horryfing amount of money developing before and producing after such planes like P-38, P-47, P-61 and so on (not speaking of P-51, that had other Godfathers…) while AAF had those jack of all trades and aeronautical engineering wonders that were P-39 and P-40, perfectly capable to perform as interceptors, long range escorts, ground attack, night fighters, intruder catchers and, once navalised, just a minor matter, simply adding an arresting hook, could have perfectly substituted F6F and F4U for the Navy.
> 
> Truly a pity that in the post-war period they were not sent to combat to Korea and afterward re-proposed to the N.A.T.O., together with another timeless aircraft, Fiat CR-42.



Pardon the typos as I'm typing this on my phone.


Show me a case where CR 42s were shooting down Bf 109s and MC 205s at a ratio of 5-1 (or Spitfires, or P-40s, or even P-39s) and I'll re-evaluate my opinion of that mighty biplane.

I think it did have its day back in 1940 in North Africa and Greece against Gladiators. They also did shoot down some Hurricanes in North Africa and over Malta too.

I get the joke but to be real, I think the CR 42 and CR 32 did have interesting combat histories and did quite well in their day. I don't think World War II Aviation begins and ends with bomber escorts over Berlin or the Marianas Turkey Shoot. Nor was the Early War confined to the Battle of Britain.

I know we all have opinions about a lot of things we believe we know the history already but if that was really true what would be the point of a forum like this? If Everything's already been figured out about WW2 air combat we woukd have little to discuss.

Volume four of Christopher Shores Mediterranean Air War just came out in November. I believe it does tell us some new things about the war in that area that defy some of the shorthand we had come to accept. I believe the Black Star Red Cross series is still in progress as well. Just a couple examples of major sources of information that we really haven't digested yet.

Of course if you already know then by all means spread the news, I'm eager to learn. Been trying to figure out everything I could of World War II fighter combat since I was 12 years old and that's a lot longer ago than I care to even think about.


----------



## Elmas (Jan 2, 2019)

> Frankly, I can’t understand why the Congress did allow to spend an horryfing amount of money developing before and producing after such planes like P-38, P-47, P-61 and so on (not speaking of P-51, that had other Godfathers…) while AAF had those jack of all trades and aeronautical engineering wonders that were P-39 and P-40, perfectly capable to perform as interceptors, long range escorts, ground attack, night fighters, intruder catchers and, once navalised, just a minor matter, simply adding an arresting hook, could have perfectly substituted F6F and F4U for the Navy.
> 
> Truly a pity that in the post-war period they were not sent to combat to Korea and afterward re-proposed to the N.A.T.O., together with another timeless aircraft, Fiat CR-42.


----------



## Navalwarrior (Jan 2, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Agreed but you could say the same about P-40Fs at Anzio and a lot of the other Allied fighting in Sicily and Italy, where several units like 324th FG were heavily involved in FB sorties. CAS is basically how they prevented the German counter attack from pushing them into the Sea at Anzio, and it was a role for which the P-40 in general was particularly well suited.


Resp:
You sure can include the P-40, as well as the A-36 and P-47. But by 1944 the P-40 was quickly being replaced by the P-47. So one could also compare the Typhoon against the P-47.


----------



## wuzak (Jan 2, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Agreed but you could say the same about P-40Fs at Anzio and a lot of the other Allied fighting in Sicily and Italy, where several units like 324th FG were heavily involved in FB sorties. CAS is basically how they prevented the German counter attack from pushing them into the Sea at Anzio, and it was a role for which the P-40 in general was particularly well suited.



"Well suited" in that they had thousands of P-40s and had to find them something they could do?


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 2, 2019)

wuzak said:


> "Well suited" in that they had thousands of P-40s and had to find them something they could do?



The P-39s were already flying coastal patrol


----------



## Schweik (Jan 2, 2019)

So now you are arguing that the P-40 wasn't a good fighter bomber? Lol I think you are the ones taking the outlier position now.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 2, 2019)

Sigh...

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


----------



## pbehn (Jan 2, 2019)

Schweik said:


> So now you are arguing that the P-40 wasn't a good fighter bomber? Lol I think you are the ones taking the outlier position now.


The P51 was promised to be a better fighter than the P-40 and it was. The USA had two factories producing P-51B and Cs which were in service in Europe from mid 1943. That relegated the P-40 to secondary roles in the USA inventory for that type of aircraft.


----------



## Schweik (Jan 2, 2019)

Be that as it may, P-40s were simultaneously shooting down Axis fighters and wrecking Axis weapons and materiel at Salerno and Anzio just like Typhoons did at Normandy. Except P-40 units were also shooting down plenty of messerschmits in the process.


----------



## pbehn (Jan 2, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Be that as it may, P-40s were simultaneously shooting down Axis fighters and wrecking Axis weapons and materiel at Salerno and Anzio just like Typhoons did at Normandy. Except P-40 units were also shooting down plenty of messerschmits in the process.


The fall of Rome to allied troops on 5th June 1944 was completely overshadowed by D-Day operations
.


----------



## fubar57 (Jan 2, 2019)

Tick......tick........tick......

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


----------



## Schweik (Jan 2, 2019)

Anzio was a bit earlier. But pretty intense.


----------



## michael rauls (Jan 2, 2019)

I think everyone can agree that the p40 and the Typhoon were two aircraft that had some shortcomings but still contributed to the war effort in a HUGE way.......And, both have certainly had more than there share of detractors selling them short for decades.
Undersung heros you might say. Something cool about a plane that has been derided all these years but as it turns out did really well. I think this aplies to both these aircraft and I've gained a new respect for both of them.

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


----------



## wuzak (Jan 2, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Be that as it may, P-40s were simultaneously shooting down Axis fighters and wrecking Axis weapons and materiel at Salerno and Anzio just like Typhoons did at Normandy. Except P-40 units were also shooting down plenty of messerschmits in the process.



Simultaneously?

Must be amazing to have a plane that does it all, and can do two things at once!

EDIT: There were few, if any, 109s over Normandy. They had, for the most part, been withdrawn to defend Germany from the "Boeings", and had been hit pretty hard since the arrival of the P-51B escorting the bombers.


----------



## wuzak (Jan 2, 2019)

michael rauls said:


> I think everyone can agree that the p40 and the Typhoon were two aircraft that had some shortcomings but still contributed to the war effort in a HUGE way.......And, both have certainly had more than there share of detractors selling them short for decades.
> Undersung heros you might say. Something cool about a plane that has been derided all these years but as it turns out did really well. I think this aplies to both these aircraft and I've gained a new respect for both of them.



I think the P-40 had more impact during the war, mainly because it was there when it was needed.

The Typhoon was largely a bit player in WW2. Its role was significant in certain periods, but overall it wasn't a big contribution.

That said, the Typhoon was still a better fighter, and definitely was a better fighter-bomber.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Jan 2, 2019)

wuzak said:


> I think the P-40 had more impact during the war, mainly because it was there when it was needed.
> 
> The Typhoon was largely a bit player in WW2. Its role was significant in certain periods, but overall it wasn't a big contribution.
> 
> That said, the Typhoon was still a better fighter, and definitely was a better fighter-bomber.


I would concur that the Typhoon was a better design overall but one would expect this from a later design. It would certainly be surprising if it were not.
I don't think that in any way takes away from how remarkably successful the p40 seems to have been. Especially in contrast to how it has too often been portrayed all these years.
Also from the numbers I've seen anyway it seems the p40 was just about as effective in the fighter role. Efficacy has to be the ultimate yardstick of how "good" an aircraft is whatever the performance stats are.
So yes I think Typhoon was a better plane but it certainly appears the Warhawk wasn't to far behind in effectiveness anyway and considering its substantially earlier vintage thats no small achievement.

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


----------



## Schweik (Jan 3, 2019)

Ok some hard data from the 79th Fighter Group.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jan 3, 2019)



Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jan 3, 2019)

fixing image...


----------



## Schweik (Jan 3, 2019)

fixing image


----------



## Schweik (Jan 3, 2019)

Apologies if this is hard to read. Doing my best on a phone as my new computer isnt fully operational yet. 

If you can read it, this is my answer to the query "simultaneously?" Yes. They did both. I have more data from the squadron history including all claims and losses.


----------



## Schweik (Jan 3, 2019)

79th FG incidentally switched over to P 47s in March of 44


----------



## GrauGeist (Jan 3, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Be that as it may, P-40s were simultaneously shooting down Axis fighters and wrecking Axis weapons and materiel at Salerno and Anzio just like Typhoons did at Normandy. Except P-40 units were also shooting down plenty of messerschmits in the process.


Oddly enough, there were more bombers than there were fighters and it were the bombers most encountered. There were never more than 35 fighters (Bf109 and Fw190) in service at any one given time during the battle for Anzio, so I'm not sure what number "plenty" would work out to being.


----------



## wuzak (Jan 3, 2019)

Schweik said:


> 79th FG incidentally switched over to P 47s in March of 44



Downgraded?

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Jan 3, 2019)

Schweik said:


> If you can read it, this is my answer to the query "simultaneously?" Yes. They did both. I have more data from the squadron history including all claims and losses.



And here I was thinking you were talking about an individual aircraft, not a squadron or air force.....







Obviously I am, as before, being facetious.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Milosh (Jan 3, 2019)

The 79th sank an aircraft carrier?


----------



## Elmas (Jan 3, 2019)

Considering:

that the whole production of Macchi 202 was on the whole less than 1200 units at best (between 1100 and 1200, actually);

that Alfa Romeo never produced more than 50 DB 601/month, at the best;

that Macchi 202 were deployed from 1941 in Libya, over Malta, in Russia and then in Sicily and Sardinia and were used in the advanced flying schools, and a couple of dozens were given to Croatia,

that in 1943 the production of this airplane was vastly reduced for the lack of raw materials and then completely stopped to build Macchi 205;

that a couple of dozens were used by Aeronautica Repubblicana and by Aeronautica Cobelligerante, and some even survived the War;

all of this premised and considered 

I think the claims of all Allied Squadron fighters in 1943 for this plane are probably three or four times (if not five) the number actually present on the War theater…


----------



## fubar57 (Jan 3, 2019)

The 79th FG operated P-40s from Mar. '43 to June '44 when they converted to P-47s. The aerial victories listed above are listed by squadrons but not by type flown. Would be interesting to see the breakdown. I've also found a different totals for aerial victories...79th_FG


----------



## Schweik (Jan 3, 2019)

fubar57 said:


> The 79th FG operated P-40s from Mar. '43 to June '44 when they converted to P-47s. The aerial victories listed above are listed by squadrons but not by type flown. Would be interesting to see the breakdown. I've also found a different totals for aerial victories...79th_FG
> 
> View attachment 523901​



They began converting to P-47s in March 44 as I already mentioned. It took a little while to convert. 

The totals in the picture I uploaded include victories by the 99th FS which while also flying P-40s at the time was really an independent squadron temporarily attached to the 79th FG. And they alao include the victory claims for the HQ sqns which are sometimes left out.

In that squadron history book, they do include the rest of the victories as well as the losses. You can tell which are P 40 vs P 47s by the date pretty easily. If you want I can post those too.


----------



## Schweik (Jan 3, 2019)

This is the rest of their claims. I put a dot where they stsrted using P 47s. Maybe a few P40s left in May.


----------



## fubar57 (Jan 3, 2019)

"Combat History of the 79th Fighter Group 1942-1945" lists the changeover as complete in April '44 in time for the "Rome push". As for the aircraft carrier destroyed, this is listed in the actions of June 2nd. I don't think this is an actual aircraft carrier but something that is carrying an aircraft, possibly a barge with a damaged aircraft on board


----------



## Schweik (Jan 3, 2019)

Losses


----------



## Schweik (Jan 3, 2019)




----------



## fubar57 (Jan 3, 2019)

From the same book I have 104 aircraft claimed shot down by P-40s as of Feb 10 '44. There are others after that as well but I'm into it right now


----------



## Schweik (Jan 3, 2019)

My main point in posting all this was the ground attack records. I think the air to air claims and losses also speak for themselves. I have double checked some of the claims in Cheistopher Shores, for example June 7 and June 10. I'll link those posts later.


----------



## Schweik (Jan 3, 2019)

fubar57 said:


> "Combat History of the 79th Fighter Group 1942-1945" lists the changeover as complete in April '44 in time for the "Rome push". As for the aircraft carrier destroyed, this is listed in the actions of June 2nd. I don't think this is an actual aircraft carrier but something that is carrying an aircraft, possibly a barge with a damaged aircraft on board



I think it may have been this thing, listed as 'damaged ' on June 16

Italian aircraft carrier Aquila - Wikipedia


----------



## fubar57 (Jan 3, 2019)

I thought the main point of the thread title was which was the best fighter


----------



## Schweik (Jan 3, 2019)

fubar57 said:


> I thought the main point of the thread title was which was the best fighter





I think that is already clear, and of coutse these records also speak to that.

But I was replying specifically to several comments posted about the fighter bomber & CAS role right before I posted the pages from the book.

The book those pages are from is called The 79th Fighter Group over Tunisia Sicily and Italy in WW 2 by Don Worpel, Schiffer military history 2001


----------



## fubar57 (Jan 3, 2019)

I have the book. Mine was posted from this book, dated 1947, 288 pages...

Reactions: Informative Informative:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jan 3, 2019)

Neat! Time to hit up Abe books...


----------



## Navalwarrior (Jan 3, 2019)

wuzak said:


> I think the P-40 had more impact during the war, mainly because it was there when it was needed.
> 
> The Typhoon was largely a bit player in WW2. Its role was significant in certain periods, but overall it wasn't a big contribution.
> 
> That said, the Typhoon was still a better fighter, and definitely was a better fighter-bomber.


Resp:
Numbers used by the Allies defined the P-40's significance.


----------



## pbehn (Jan 3, 2019)

The clear advantage of the Typhoon was that it used a Sabre engine. That isn't saying the sabre engine was any good, but if the Typhoon/Tempest used another 2000 BPH engine some other plane wouldn't be.


----------



## wuzak (Jan 3, 2019)

Schweik said:


> I think that is already clear, and of coutse these records also speak to that.



I think it was already clear, but you keep posting reports of victories of P-40Fs in air-to-air and don't ever consider the disadvantage that the Typhoon had in that role - ie, it wasn't used for that long in that role, in small numbers and with little enemy contact.

I think it was established that there were about 30 squadrons that operated the Typhoon. IIRC there were 12 aircraft in a squadron, which would make it 360 in service. Assuming they were serviceable.

Even if it was 20 to a squadron, that is still only 600. Compared to 2,000 P-40Fs and Ls made (obviously not all were operational).

The majority of Typhoon squadrons operated in roles other than air superiority. In fact, it appears only two squadrons operated as pure fighter squadrons, and only for 9 months.

There is much more to the story of aerial victory counts than how good the aircraft was. If you seldom met the enemy in combat, you aren't going to run up huge victory numbers.

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


----------



## Schweik (Jan 3, 2019)

Elmas said:


> Considering:
> 
> that the whole production of Macchi 202 was on the whole less than 1200 units at best (between 1100 and 1200, actually);
> 
> ...




Christopher Shores MAW series checks all these claims and many others against Italian records. An Italian researcher named Giovanni Massimello is also listed as co-author. 

Many of the specific claims by the 79th FG can be verified by those very same Italian records. Of course there was overclaiming, always was by all nations at some ratio or another, but many of these claims are real. By the time 79th FG was in action incidentally the MC 205s were active against Allied Air forces and were part of the fight. There were some G.55s mentioned as well though I don't know that any P-40 units shot any of those down. It is true however that MC 202 were confused for Bf 109s and vice versa.

For example during the heavy fighting of Pantelleria, on *June 7 1943*, 57th FG (P-40F) pilots claimed 2 x Bf 109 and 79th FG pilots claimed 2 x MC 202, B-17 gunners claimed 6, an RAF Mustang III claimed a twin engine float plane and two American Spitfires of 31 FG jointly claimed a Bf 109. Germans claimed 2 x P-40s and a P-38). Allied losses that day included an A-36 and a P-38G. According to German records they lost 5 x Bf 109s - 3 specifically to fighters (one specifically to a P-40) and 2 to B-17 gunners, and the Italians lost a CANT Z.506.

*June 8, 1943,* 79th FG P-40F pilots claimed 6 enemy fighters (Bf 109 and MC 202), 52nd FG Spitfires claimed 1, 1st FG P-38s claimed 1. Italian pilots claimed 8 Spitfires and 1 x P 38 Actual losses were 2 x MC 205 and 3 x MC 202 and no Allied fighters. Even if you assume 2 were lost to the Spit and P 38, that leaves 3 for the P 40s for no losses. So that is a ratio of 7 claims for 5 actual losses.

*June 10, 1943 *- Allied fighter pilots made 35 claims that day:

185 sqn RAF (Spitfire IX) claimed 2
307 fs / 31 FG (Spitfire) claimed 5
309 fs / 31 FG (Spitfire) claimed 6
309 fs / 31 FG (Spitfire) claimed 1 later on

Thats 14

325 FG (P-40F) claimed 5 fighters
79th FG (P-40F) claimed 16 fighters

Thats 21 

Actual Axis losses according to German and Italian records were 23 fighters: 15 x Bf 109s (13 from JG 27, 2 from JG53, and 1 from 2 (H)/14) and 8x MC 202. So the ratio here is 35 for 23

This is all in Christopher Shores MAW Volume IV pp 73 - 84. .



For the record, I think the MC 202 was an excellent fighter, the MC 205 even better, and the G.55 and Re 2005 two of the best fighters ever made in WW2. There is no doubt from those same records that MC 202 pilots shot down quite a large number of Spitfires, P-40s, Hurricanes, P-38s and various Allied bombers.

I believe they only sent a very small number to Russia, one or two squadrons right?


----------



## Schweik (Jan 3, 2019)

wuzak said:


> I think it was already clear, but you keep posting reports of victories of P-40Fs in air-to-air and don't ever consider the disadvantage that the Typhoon had in that role - ie, it wasn't used for that long in that role, in small numbers and with little enemy contact.
> 
> I think it was established that there were about 30 squadrons that operated the Typhoon. IIRC there were 12 aircraft in a squadron, which would make it 360 in service. Assuming they were serviceable.
> 
> Even if it was 20 to a squadron, that is still only 600. Compared to 2,000 P-40Fs and Ls made (obviously not all were operational).



Yes but you are being quite selective yourself, you transform 3,000 Typhoons into 360 or 600 based on 30 squadrons, but somehow 2,000 merlin P-40s remain the same number? The biggest ommission here is that _there were no more than 21 or 22 P-40F / L squadrons in service at any one time_ ....



> The majority of Typhoon squadrons operated in roles other than air superiority. In fact, it appears only two squadrons operated as pure fighter squadrons, and only for 9 months.
> 
> There is much more to the story of aerial victory counts than how good the aircraft was. If you seldom met the enemy in combat, you aren't going to run up huge victory numbers.



... and they too also mostly performed fighter bomber missions (see the stats for 79th FG above). Only one unit - 325FG- predominantly flew air superiority missions - and as I pointed out, *they racked up all their P-40 victories in a mere 4 months*, from May to August 1943. Most P-40 units were used for mixed types of sorties, at least two 324th FG and 27 FB group (which I just 'discovered' had switched from A-36 to P-40 for a few months in 1944) flew almost exclusively FB missions, though they still made some air to air claims.

The numbers are actually surprisingly equivalent. For both the P-40F and the Typhoon, 1943 was their most active year in terms of squadrons in the field. They were both limited to low to medium altitude in terms of performance. They both fought similar opponents (note how many FW 190 claims are listed above). They had I think similar range and in both cases had to fly across the sea to get to their targets and back home again.

I think if we crunch the numbers a little more we'll find that P-40Fs suffered considerably fewer losses flying roughly the same kind of missions. Granted, AAA may have been more formidable in Europe, but the Wermacht and Luftwaffe were no slouch in Italy. Clearly the P-40F pilots scored a lot more air to air victories. The only thing remaining is to compare the number of fighter sorties and air to air combats with victories, verified claims where possible, and losses.




I think the Typhoon had some advantages. Clearly performance was much better. I suspect it was a better Fw 190 chaser and very important in that role during most of 1942 when the RAF had no other answer for the threat posed by the FW. Undoubtedly more capable of shooting down V-1s as well and that too was a uniquely valuable contribution. And of course, a lethal fighter bomber with rocket armament (which was eventually added to P-40s as well but not to the same effect I think).

The P-40 however does show up as more effective, more lethal, and more survivable than most people would have assumed. I believe this is due to a combination of it's excellent maneuverability (helpful both in air combat and in CAS), good low level speed and excellent dive performance which gave it the ability to disengage or chase, and of course it's much hyped toughness. 

The Typhoon was forgiven many teething problems due to the promise of it's 2000 hp engine and its ability to chase down Fw 190s when Spit Vs couldn't do that job. The P-40 was not looked on with favor by Allied commanders and it was kept in combat through 1944 because it continued to surpass expectations. If they had taken the same kind of heavy losses as the Typhoon had they would have pulled it out of the line like the Hurricanes or relegated it to 'coastal patrol' like the P-39s.

Ultimately, the Typhoon led to the Tempest which was a world beater, and one of the best low altitude fighters ever made. This was the actual origin of this side debate - I was pointing out that low altitude fighters were 'a thing', and someone else who disagreed, mentioned off hand that the Typhoon was vastly better than a P-40. I think we can see here that they are at least comparable.


----------



## Schweik (Jan 3, 2019)

Incidentally normal squadron strength for the US P-40F/L units was 16, often in the field down to about 10-12 depending on maintenance.

I've posted this before but just for ease of reference, the squadrons using P-40F/L are as follows. The source is P-40 Aces of the MTO except where stated. I included the months of operations and number of victory claims by unit. The only one I don't have data for is the Pacific Theater squadron or squadrons (still not sure if it was one or two).

*33rd FG *(3 squadrons, *137 victories*, Nov 42 - Feb 44)
*57th FG *(3 squadrons*, *144 victories*, Aug 42 - Jan 44)
*325th FG (*3 squadrons, *133 victories*, Apr 43 - Oct 43 )
*324th FG* (3 squadrons, *66 victories*, March 43 - July 44)
*79th FG *(3 squadrons, *118 victories*, Dec 42 - March 44)
*99th FS *(1 squadron / independent - Tuskegee, *17 victories*, June 43 - June 44)
*27th FBG* (3 squadrons**, *0 victories*, Feb 44 to June 44)
*RAF 260 Sqn *(1 squadron, *23 victories* - source, Feb 42 to Nov 42)
*RAAF 3 Sqn* (1 squadron, *19 victories* - source, Sept 42 to March 44)
*Free French GC II/5 *(2 squadrons, *8 P-40 victories* according to this, July 43- Sept 43)
*49th FG? *(Pacific Theater 1-2 squadrons, don't know the number of P-40F claims or how long they were used)

Total number of squadrons is 25 but the most active at any one time was 20 squadrons in June of 43 by my estimate.

The RAF squadrons also used Kittyhawk III's (which could be either P-40K or M) at the same time, though the listed victories are for the Kittyhawk II / P-40F or L)

*Total victories for all the P-40F / L units in the Med are 665 by my count. *Most of these are during Nov 42 - August 43. About 90% of these claims are for fighters, primarily Bf 109 and MC 202.

* one of their 3 squadrons flew P-40Ks for a while
** by the time they had switched over from the A-36 to the P-40 57th and 325 FG were converted to P-47s


----------



## Schweik (Jan 3, 2019)

20 squadrons means about ~300 P-40F / Ls active on operations on a given day.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 3, 2019)

wuzak said:


> I think it was already clear, but you keep posting reports of victories of P-40Fs in air-to-air and don't ever consider the disadvantage that the Typhoon had in that role - ie, it wasn't used for that long in that role, in small numbers and with little enemy contact.
> 
> I think it was established that there were about 30 squadrons that operated the Typhoon. IIRC there were 12 aircraft in a squadron, which would make it 360 in service. Assuming they were serviceable.
> 
> ...



Well said, and all of this obviously being ignored. 

Using claims to determine an aircraft is better is ridiculous. There are far too many variables being ignored. Using his logic the Bf 109 is the greatest thing ever to fly as it shot down more aircraft than any other type.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jan 3, 2019)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Well said, and all of this obviously being ignored.
> 
> Using claims to determine an aircraft is better is ridiculous. There are far too many variables being ignored. Using his logic the Bf 109 is the greatest thing ever to fly as it shot down more aircraft than any other type.



Please see post 634 on this. I'm not doing anything nearly as crude as you are suggesting.

This thread examines the combat history of the two aircraft during the same period of time. And the more we looked at their combat history the more remarkably similar they appear to be.

It turns out that roughly 300 aircraft in both cases were active at the same time (Mid 1943) and they flew roughly the same kinds of missions, i.e. some fighter missions but mostly bomber or interdiction. Both the P-40 F / L and the Typhoon had a small number of squadrons flying mostly 'pure' fighter missions (3 for the P-40F and 2 for the Typhoon) and in both cases for a short time (4 months for the P-40F and 9 months for the Typhoon). Both were flying over the sea to and from their targets. The threat environment may have been a little greater in NW Europe than Italy or it may have been close to equivalent, (the former including the notion that there were fewer fighters to contend with).

Comparing claims, verified victories and losses for very similar missions for a nearly identical number of aircraft at the same time against the same enemy aircraft is not the same as just comparing total victories without any consideration of context. In this case the context appears very similar to me.

I'm not saying that the Operational History is the only measure of which is the better fighter, performance and maneuverability, reliability and maintenance, armament and other equipment also matter. I'm just saying that the Operational History is part of the story, as another poster noted, ultimately it is how well the aircraft does in action against the enemy that really matters.


----------



## Schweik (Jan 3, 2019)

Ask yourself honestly, if the Typhoon had scored more victory claims than the P-40F in the same time period, would that have been noted in this thread? Perhaps heavily emphasized?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 3, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Please see post 634 on this. I'm not doing anything nearly as crude as you are suggesting.
> 
> This thread examines the combat history of the two aircraft during the same period of time. And the more we looked at their combat history the more remarkably similar they appear to be.
> 
> ...



No that is exactly what you are doing. 

What were the mission perameters? What were the squadron orders? What were the enemy aircraft’s orders. How many aircraft were contacted. What type of aircraft were contacted, and what was it’s mission perameter during contact? Was the aircraft ordered to carry out ground attack, while another fighter type was ordered for air superiority top cover? 

Loss statistics mean nothing except that a particular aircraft was killed on a particular date. 

You are being overly simple and black and white in your very agenda biased research, which is onviously only telling you what you want to hear to begin with.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 3, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Ask yourself honestly, if the Typhoon had scored more victory claims than the P-40F in the same time period, would that have been noted in this thread? Perhaps heavily emphasized?



See post above...

[sarcasm]Again using your logic the Bf 109 is the bestest aircraft ever as it shot down everything, and the mostest.[/sarcasm]


----------



## pbehn (Jan 3, 2019)

Some victories are much more significant than others, once one spitfire shot at and damaged one Ju 86 at 41,000ft over south England no more high altitude raids were tried. Fw190 Jabo raids were a problem affecting industry and life all over the south of England, however it doesn't take the loss of many pilots and planes to make the dropping of a small bomb not worth the losses on what were nuisance raids. A P-38 shooting down a Mitsubishi GM4 isn't a fantastic achievement, when it has Admiral Yamamoto on board it is viewed differently.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jan 3, 2019)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> No that is exactly what you are doing.
> 
> What were the mission perameters? What were the squadron orders? What were the enemy aircraft’s orders. How many aircraft were contacted. What type of aircraft were contacted, and what was it’s mission perameter during contact? Was the aircraft ordered to carry out ground attack, while another fighter type was ordered for air superiority top cover?



resp:

You seem to be suggesting that Operational History is inadmissible or irrelevant when comparing two types of WW2 fighter planes. Obviously there are limits to it's relevance but I think you are overstating your case. There are dozens if not hundreds of threads on this forum where Operational History IS used as at least one criteria for comparing two fighters. It's part of the story isn't it?
Someone in this thread already mentioned that they have the Operational History of the Typhoon. We can get a lot closer to matching the details. I don't have it.



> Loss statistics mean nothing except that a particular aircraft was killed on a particular date.
> 
> You are being overly simple and black and white in your *very agenda biased research*, which is onviously only telling you what you want to hear to begin with.



I really don't appreciate that. I do not conduct "agenda biased research". I can see that very few appreciate the time I have spent researching, transcribing, finding images etc and writing posts here, that message is received and very clear. But all I have done is look at new data that has emerged, and present it to the forum. I don't have my thumb on the scale and all my cards are on the table. I posted all of my sources. I already mentioned this in another post in this thread or some other one, but I'd like to remind everybody that _new data is still emerging about WW2 air combat_. I thought some people would be_ interested_ in all this stuff from Shores MAW. Clearly not (with a few exceptions). But if all these discussions were already settled we would have very little to discuss on forums like this at all would we?

You speculated freely on my "agenda" so I'll speculate on that of some of the people making the most vehement posts on here - I think it's just a matter of being presented with something they thought they already knew about and _owned_. Somebody argues a different interpretation and they get emotional and dig their heels in. This happens in Academia all the time. What I have seen so far are a host of reasons why people believe the Typhoon is better. and the specs make it look better, but the actual Operational data shows something different. Not just data I posted either.

This is definitely my last thread on the P-40. I generally enjoy discussing aviation but I'm really sick of being insulted or accused of being dishonest. I will continue to defend my posts here until I'm banned or whatever. Assuming I am not, the next thread I start will be about different aircraft.

I think there is a Catch 22 at work here. If you post something that offends the status quo and get pat responses that ignore reality, and then let it lie, you look like you just posted nonsense. But if you defend the points you made, correct errors and present data to support it, you get accused of having a bias for a particular position (or being a Nationalist bigot or a liar etc.), so it gets to the point that you have to move on to something else. I have a lot more interests in WW2 Aviation than just one plane. I just noticed that the popular narrative about this particular story seems to be at odds with the data. It's hardly the only one or the only case like that though.


----------



## Schweik (Jan 3, 2019)

pbehn said:


> Some victories are much more significant than others, once one spitfire shot at and damaged one Ju 86 at 41,000ft over south England no more high altitude raids were tried. Fw190 Jabo raids were a problem affecting industry and life all over the south of England, however it doesn't take the loss of many pilots and planes to make the dropping of a small bomb not worth the losses on what were nuisance raids. A P-38 shooting down a Mitsubishi GM4 isn't a fantastic achievement, when it has Admiral Yamamoto on board it is viewed differently.



I don't disagree with that and I've pointed out repeatedly that the value of the Typhoon victories over Fw 190 (especially in 1942) and V-1s in particular were of extra merit. See the last couple of paragraphs of post 634 as one of many examples. I don't think I've been unfair here.


----------



## michael rauls (Jan 3, 2019)

wuzak said:


> I think it was already clear, but you keep posting reports of victories of P-40Fs in air-to-air and don't ever consider the disadvantage that the Typhoon had in that role - ie, it wasn't used for that long in that role, in small numbers and with little enemy contact.
> 
> I think it was established that there were about 30 squadrons that operated the Typhoon. IIRC there were 12 aircraft in a squadron, which would make it 360 in service. Assuming they were serviceable.
> 
> ...


In my humble opinion its the comparative ratio of air to air victories to losses that is pertinent not the raw numbers.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 3, 2019)

Schweik said:


> You seem to be suggesting that Operational History is inadmissible or irrelevant when comparing two types of WW2 fighter planes. Obviously t*here are limits to it's relevance* but I think you are overstating your case. There are dozens if not hundreds of threads on this forum where Operational History IS used as at least one criteria for comparing two fighters. It's part of the story isn't it?
> 
> This happens in Academia all the time. What I have seen so far are a host of reasons why people believe the Typhoon is better. and the specs make it look better, but the actual Operational data shows something different. Not just data I posted either.
> 
> ...




Please look at the chart in post #581.

Same Group (No 83) operating as part of the 2nd tactical air force operating in the same area, at the same time. 10 squadrons of Typhoons in over 11,000 sorties claim one German aircraft damaged. Either the Typhoon is the _*worst* fighter of* all time* _or the Spitfires and Mustangs were so good that the Typhoons never saw German fighters? 
Or compare the Mustang IIIs to the Mustang Is. The Allison powered MK Is have an astronomical lower loss rate than the Merlin powered ones, but then they weren't flying the same missions even if flying in the same area at the same time.

The basic methodology of comparing planes shot down by similar numbers of planes deployed while interesting, is obviously flawed. 
We need a lot deeper "Operational data" to draw any remotely valid conclusions. Even such simple stuff as the distances operating form base can affect the number losses vs the number of damaged planes that made it home. Just saying that both types operated over water (at times) doesn't quite cut it.

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


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 3, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> Please look at the chart in post #581.
> 
> Same Group (No 83) operating as part of the 2nd tactical air force operating in the same area, at the same time. 10 squadrons of Typhoons in over 11,000 sorties claim one German aircraft damaged. Either the Typhoon is the _*worst* fighter of* all time* _or the Spitfires and Mustangs were so good that the Typhoons never saw German fighters?
> Or compare the Mustang IIIs to the Mustang Is. The Allison powered MK Is have an astronomical lower loss rate than the Merlin powered ones, but then they weren't flying the same missions even if flying in the same area at the same time.
> ...



Said better than I could, but that is essentially what I am getting at. There are so many variables involved. Just looking at kills and losses only paints a small picture of it, and it is naive to think one can make conclusions from it.


----------



## Schweik (Jan 3, 2019)

Obviously you get a much clearer picture of the merits of each fighter the more precise your operational history is. But to start with you have to have the basic data which is what I've been trying to provide on the P-40 side.

Also I don't I think it's maybe clear that I have not made any definitive statements. I just pointed out some of the trends you can already see in the data. I agree it does not conclusively prove anything.

As for what Shortround was saying you can also see that in the P-40 history summaries, for example the 27th fighter bomber group has no claims because it was operating when there were fewer Axis aircraft around anymore, the pilots probably weren't trained as fighter pilots, and it was flying almost exclusively bomber missions.

Similarly the 324th has a much worse record than the 325th (less than half as many clains) essentially just because of the missions it was flying were more bomber oriented and maybe something to do with the leadership. But I think they both got the same kind of training and had the same planes.

However I don't think the statistics Shortround posted prove anything definitively either. It just shows you part of the story from a late period for I think one Wing right?

In other words I get it there were periods where Fighters didn't have planes to shoot down. I have expressed doubts that the target environment was that barren for the entire Operationsl History of the Typhoon and all 30 squadrons or however many were actually operational. But that is just a guess.

At this point I have access to data (and I think one or two other people here do as well) that can tell us a lot of detail about the operational history of at least 2 P-40F Fighter Groups, 79th and 325th. I have a book somewhere on the 57th Fighter Group as well I think, plus MAW III and IV

We could compare those with the operational history of the Typhoon for a few months, which I remember somebody here mentioned that they have.

Then it's just a matter of how fine of a point you want to put on it. You can still always point out reasons why you can't compare them but pilots, generals, enemies did compare on the basis of operations.

I also think that we as a group here would be putting more emphasis on the victory claims if the ratio was reverse of what it was.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 3, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Obviously you get a much clearer picture of the merits of each fighter the more precise your operational history is. But to start with you have to have the basic data which is what I've been trying to provide on the P-40 side.
> 
> Also I don't I think it's maybe clear that I have not made any definitive statements. I just pointed out some of the trends you can already see in the data. I agree it does not conclusively prove anything.
> 
> ...





I highly doubt it...


----------



## Schweik (Jan 3, 2019)

At some point everything you say today about World War II is an educated guess as we weren't there


----------



## wuzak (Jan 3, 2019)

Schweik said:


> In other words I get it there were periods where Fighters didn't have planes to shoot down. I have expressed doubts that the target environment was that barren for the entire Operationsl History of the Typhoon and all 30 squadrons or however many were actually operational. But that is just a guess.



In the case of the Typhoon, those periods were significant.

And for the majority of time, the Typhoon did not operate as a fighter.


----------



## Schweik (Jan 3, 2019)

I get that. But there were a couple of squadrons operating as fighters for 9 months, and some others flying 'mixed' mission profiles right? 

I think we really need to dive into the Typhoon Operational History now but I don't have those books available. I guess I could order one...


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Jan 3, 2019)

Theoretically substitute the Typhoon in place of the P-40F. 
Do the victory claims and successes in the Med go up or down? The Typhoon has the performance and load carrying advantage over the P-40F, so when put in the same circumstances, should it not perform better? I assume it would have
Conversely, if the P-40F had taken over the Typhoon's role in Northern Europe, what would have been the result?

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (Jan 3, 2019)

Clayton Magnet said:


> Conversely, if the P-40F had taken over the Typhoon's role in Northern Europe, what would have been the result?


Carnage

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jan 3, 2019)

Clayton Magnet said:


> Theoretically substitute the Typhoon in place of the P-40F.
> Do the victory claims and successes in the Med go up or down? The Typhoon has the performance and load carrying advantage over the P-40F, so when put in the same circumstances, should it not perform better? I assume it would have
> Conversely, if the P-40F had taken over the Typhoon's role in Northern Europe, what would have been the result?



Good question. They had all those Typhoons sitting there in England and if they really weren't doing much, I don't know why they didn't send some to the Med. There was certainly a need for more fighters. Somebody mentioned they did send 2 or 3 for some kind of testing, I'd love to hear how it went. Maybe issues with the engine? How good were Typhoons against Bf 109s? That would be the main question. And MC 202 / 205s...

As for how the P-40 would have fared in England, well the same question holds. They had basically ruled out P-40's for Northwest Europe around 1941 due to altitude limitations but in the low-altitude role the Typhoon was used for I don't see why they wouldn't have done at least as well.

They used early P-40 / Tomahawks in an interdiction / recon mode for a little while from England, I don't doubt a P-40F or L would do better than a Tomahawk, I or II in the same job. They replaced them basically with P-51As , which did well, reportedly. P-40F/L shared airspace with A-36s in the Med which were very similar aircraft... and P-40F had a lot better service record in the Med than the A-36.


----------



## Schweik (Jan 3, 2019)

Glider said:


> Carnage



Indeed, to the Germans. If JG 27 couldn't handle them how could those back bencher Western front guys have held up?

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (Jan 3, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Indeed, to the Germans. If JG 27 couldn't handle them how could those back bencher Western front guys have held up?


Once again priceless

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


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 3, 2019)

Why did we build any other aircraft? The P-40 won the war by itself!


----------



## Schweik (Jan 3, 2019)

Nah the Yak 1 / 7/ 9 did that. Lets keep in mind, 1943 until June 1944, the Germans had 70% of their men and their gear on the Russian Front. Even after D-Day I think it was still ~60%


----------



## Schweik (Jan 3, 2019)

Glider said:


> Once again priceless



Yeah you are right, there is some kind of magic dust in the air around the English Channel and Belgium which makes the same exact Bf 109s flown by the same Luftwaffe pilots who were dueling with 325th and 57th FG et all over Sardinia, Italy Yugoslavia and the South of France suddenly get ten times as fast, their turning circle shrinks to half the size, climb rate doubles, dive mach number rises to 2.6, their MG 151 doubled it's rate of fire and they carried three times as many shells with no weight gain, and their gunsights became gyroscopic.

If they shipped them back down to Italy or the Crimea of course everything went back to normal, and their outer wings were filled with sand..

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fubar57 (Jan 3, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Good question. They had all those Typhoons sitting there in England and if they really weren't doing much, I don't know why they didn't send some to the Med. There was certainly a need for more fighters. Somebody mentioned they did send 2 or 3 for some kind of testing, I'd love to hear how it went. Maybe issues with the engine?



From Warpaint Series No. 5 "Hawker Typhoon""...The three modified aircraft were shipped out to North Africa, erected at Casablanca, and flown to Egypt for trials with No. 451 Squadron RAAF at Idku. Although the trials established the feasibility of operating Typhoons in these climates, build up of the 2nd TAF mean that none could be spared for the Desert Air Force. One further Typhoon, MN290 was sent to the Middle East for trials, arriving in Alexandria in October 1944, but the trials at Khartoum were abandoned after two cooler failures."

Reactions: Informative Informative:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## fubar57 (Jan 3, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Yeah you are right, there is some kind of magic dust in the air around the English Channel and Belgium which makes the same exact Bf 109s flown by the same Luftwaffe pilots who were dueling with 325th and 57th FG et all over Sardinia, Italy Yugoslavia and the South of France suddenly get ten times as fast, their turning circle shrinks to half the size, climb rate doubles, dive mach number rises to 2.6, their MG 151 doubled it's rate of fire and they carried three times as many shells with no weight gain, and their gunsights became gyroscopic.
> 
> If they shipped them back down to Italy or the Crimea of course everything went back to normal, and their outer wings were filled with sand..


The tropicalized version of the Bf 190F was slower than the standard Bf 190F by 6-7 km/h


----------



## Glider (Jan 3, 2019)

Schweik said:


> As for how the P-40 would have fared in England, well the same question holds. They had basically ruled out P-40's for Northwest Europe around 1941 due to altitude limitations but in the low-altitude role the Typhoon was used for I don't see why they wouldn't have done at least as well.


Let see. 
The first main use of the Typhoons was in intercepting the Fw190 on their tip and run raids. The P40F is about 60mph slower than the Typhoon at approx. 10,000ft so that will no doubt help the cause as the Fw190 seems to be about 30mph faster than the P40 at most altitudes.
Intercepting the V1 rockets again the slower speed on the P40 is no doubt an advantage.
GA missons again the much lower firepower would be of considerable assistance, plus of course the lower cruising speed will make it harder to intercept, its slower diving speed will ensure its survival when things get difficult and its much slower climb will help it make the most of any opportunities. 
Finally the P40's lower protection will help it survive aa fire compared to the Typhoon and it less flexible GA weapons will add to the P40's effectiveness and in later years the reduced payload/range of the P40 would assist. 


> They used early P-40 / Tomahawks in an interdiction / recon mode for a little while from England,


A very little while, in fact they were replaced just as quickly as they could. I admit to not understanding why this happened seen as (according to your previous postings) a Tomahawk was more than capable of taking on an Me109F. Have you any ideas why the RAF did such an illogical thing?

I admit the above is more than a little sarcastic but the performance differences are unarguable and the roles fulfilled by the Typhoon are again accurate. Put the two together and any thought that the P40 could do them nearly as well is simply foolish.


----------



## pbehn (Jan 3, 2019)

Not everything to do with shooting down a V1 was to do with speed, they were very small and very streamlined there were only a few things you could hit that would take it out, to hit them and take them down was difficult with MGs. Mosquitos at night got the second highest number of "kills" they certainly weren't the fastest in 1944 but they did have 4 fuselage mounted cannon.


----------



## fubar57 (Jan 3, 2019)

Not a lot to add to the discussion but I did find this interesting, from the 402 Squadron(RCAF) ORB...


----------



## wuzak (Jan 3, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Good question. They had all those Typhoons sitting there in England and if they really weren't doing much, I don't know why they didn't send some to the Med. There was certainly a need for more fighters. Somebody mentioned they did send 2 or 3 for some kind of testing, I'd love to hear how it went. Maybe issues with the engine? How good were Typhoons against Bf 109s? That would be the main question. And MC 202 / 205s...



As far as the British were concerned, home defence got priority pick - and they chose Spitfires and Typhoons.

Overseas commands got what could be spared - which was Hurricanes and P-40s, until enough Spitfires had been built that they could be sent O/S.

I don't think that there were ever enough Typhoons that they could afford too many O/S.


----------



## BiffF15 (Jan 3, 2019)

Schweik,

I’m not in agreement with your hypothesis, however you have opened a chapter in the P40 I didn’t realize it had. For that I’m grateful as the P40 has long been a favorite and I was a 325th FW guy many years ago (and a 33rd FW - both previous Warhawk units).

Cheers,
Biff

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 3, 2019)

BiffF15 said:


> Schweik,
> 
> I’m not in agreement with your hypothesis, however you have opened a chapter in the P40 I didn’t realize it had. For that I’m grateful as the P40 has long been a favorite and I was a 325th FW guy many years ago (and a 33rd FW - both previous Warhawk units).
> 
> ...



There is nothing wrong with the P-40. It was an excellent aircraft, and it held its own even when it was surpassed by better aircraft. I don't think anyone will ever dispute it. It still should not be put on a pedestal too high though.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## fubar57 (Jan 3, 2019)

How about here....

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


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 3, 2019)

Maybe just a little lower...


----------



## slaterat (Jan 3, 2019)

The P-40 is just too slow and too poor climbing to be competitive in 43 Northern Europe. The RAF never had any confidence in the P-40 in Europe, they used Hurricanes up until mid 42 when they were rapidly replaced by Typhoons or moved to other theaters. You could make the same arguments for the Hurricane being better than the Typhoon as have been presented here for the p-40 > Typhoon debate, but honestly if you had too lock horns with a FW-190, and if you value your life, you would pick the Typhoon.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Jan 3, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> Please look at the chart in post #581.
> 
> Same Group (No 83) operating as part of the 2nd tactical air force operating in the same area, at the same time. 10 squadrons of Typhoons in over 11,000 sorties claim one German aircraft damaged. Either the Typhoon is the _*worst* fighter of* all time* _or the Spitfires and Mustangs were so good that the Typhoons never saw German fighters?
> Or compare the Mustang IIIs to the Mustang Is. The Allison powered MK Is have an astronomical lower loss rate than the Merlin powered ones, but then they weren't flying the same missions even if flying in the same area at the same time.
> ...


Very good point that there are so many variables that come into play when compairing any two planes as to make it difficult to draw any conclusions from said comparison. It seems to me that there are two basic approaches to address this conundrum one being to include all the variables of circumstance and try to wieght them in some manner or more simply and in my view more practically draw the comparison from the most similar circumstances posible i.e. missions with a great degree of similarities. And while of course it could never be perfect it seems like if that condition were met one could draw about as valid conclusion about the comparison as would ever be possible.


----------



## Schweik (Jan 4, 2019)

slaterat said:


> The P-40 is just too slow and too poor climbing to be competitive in 43 Northern Europe. The RAF never had any confidence in the P-40 in Europe, they used Hurricanes up until mid 42 when they were rapidly replaced by Typhoons or moved to other theaters. You could make the same arguments for the Hurricane being better than the Typhoon as have been presented here for the p-40 > Typhoon debate, but honestly if you had too lock horns with a FW-190, and if you value your life, you would pick the Typhoon.



Just FYI Hurricanes were slaughtered in air combat in the Med in 42 and were basically phased out in early 43.

P 40s meanwhile were still shooting down Axis fighters in large numbers into 44.

They were a lot faster than Hurricanes, could divw much faster and could roll as well as turn. Which apparently made a difference in combat.

I don't get why the Ludtwaffe would have been more dangerous for P-40s over Belgium than over Salerno. Same planes, same pilots right?


----------



## GrauGeist (Jan 4, 2019)

Schweik said:


> P 40s meanwhile were still shooting down Axis fighters in large numbers into 44.


I really have to ask the question: where?
The bulk of the air war in '44 was at higher altitudes than the P-40 was suitable at.

Are you perhaps referring to Soviet P-40s on the Eastern Front? The average altitude would have been more favorable to the Allison's performance, but by 1944, the VVS was recieving newer (native) Soviet types that would out-perform the P-40, so I can't see the Curtiss being used in any significant numbers.


----------



## fubar57 (Jan 4, 2019)

P-40 in Russia The P-40 in Soviet Aviation The second paragraph begins "The Kittyhawk was considered an "average" aircraft in the Soviet VVS........"

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jan 4, 2019)

fubar57 said:


> P-40 in Russia The P-40 in Soviet Aviation The second paragraph begins "The Kittyhawk was considered an "average" aircraft in the Soviet VVS........"



В Съветска Русия P-40 ви лети !!

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jan 4, 2019)

GrauGeist said:


> I really have to ask the question: where?
> The bulk of the air war in '44 was at higher altitudes than the P-40 was suitable at.
> 
> Are you perhaps referring to Soviet P-40s on the Eastern Front? The average altitude would have been more favorable to the Allison's performance, but by 1944, the VVS was recieving newer (native) Soviet types that would out-perform the P-40, so I can't see the Curtiss being used in any significant numbers.



Read the thread a little.

Italy / Med

Not Allison emgine


----------



## fubar57 (Jan 4, 2019)

The thread title was lost after the first page

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Elmas (Jan 4, 2019)

_“The Typhoons, in spite of the two 1,000-lb bombs under their wings, were setting a crackimg pace and we had a job to keep up with them.”_

Pierre Clostermann, the Big Show. Pag. 91.

And Clostermann was flying Spitfire IX. What would have happened if the escort was composed of P-40s? _"Please, Typhoons, please, a little bit slower..."_


----------



## Schweik (Jan 4, 2019)

GrauGeist said:


> I really have to ask the question: where?
> The bulk of the air war in '44 was at higher altitudes than the P-40 was suitable at.
> 
> Are you perhaps referring to Soviet P-40s on the Eastern Front? The average altitude would have been more favorable to the Allison's performance, but by 1944, the VVS was recieving newer (native) Soviet types that would out-perform the P-40, so I can't see the Curtiss being used in any significant numbers.



See this post, screenshot of P-40 victories in 1944 from the unit history just one Fighter Group.

1943 was the stand out year for the P-40 in warfare against the Luftwaffe, Merlin engined P-40F and Ls routinely shot down large numbers of Luftwaffe and Regia Aeronautica Fighters, it's quite well documented by the Germans and Italians themselves.

I really never get tired of posting this data so you can troll to your hearts desire. Some examples:

June 8 1943 - 3 MC 205 and 202 lost / 0 P-40Fs lost
June 10 1943 - 9 Bf 109s lost / 2 P-40Fs lost
July 8 1943 - 5 x German Bf 109G-6 lost and 1 x Italian Bf 109G lost / 3 P-40s lost
July 22 1943 - 4 x MC 205 shot down, (+ 2 x 205 'shot up by P-40s') 3 x MC 202 & 1 X D.520 shot down , Ca 309 shot down / 2 x P40 lost 
July 26 1943 - 2 x Bf 109G shot down, 1 x MC 205 (+1 205 'shot up by fighters') / 0 P-40s lost 
July 30 1943 - 6 x Bf 109G Shot down / 1 P-40 shot down 

So far I only found one day where the Merlin engined P-40 units got defeated by a similar ratio which was in February 1943.

Now, when all these sarcastic claims are made about how slow and pathetic the P-40 was ensuring it would have been doomed in combat in NW Europe, I ask again, are there some other types of German fighters? Were they attacking Dover with Me 262 ? Did the Ta 152 have some surge in activity I never heard about?


----------



## Schweik (Jan 4, 2019)

fubar57 said:


> P-40 in Russia The P-40 in Soviet Aviation The second paragraph begins "The Kittyhawk was considered an "average" aircraft in the Soviet VVS........"




I see your article and raise you a more detailed one from the same site:

Part 2

_Nikolay Gerasimovich, how would you evaluate the speed, rate of climb, acceleration, and maneuverability of the P-40? Did it suit you?

* N. G. * I say again, 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 t*he 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._


Of course, Golodnikov never got to fly the most effective variant, the Merlin engined P-40F or L.


----------



## Schweik (Jan 4, 2019)

GrauGeist said:


> I really have to ask the question: where?
> The bulk of the air war in '44 was at higher altitudes than the P-40 was suitable at.
> 
> Are you perhaps referring to Soviet P-40s on the Eastern Front? The average altitude would have been more favorable to the Allison's performance, but by 1944, the VVS was recieving newer (native) Soviet types that would out-perform the P-40, so I can't see the Curtiss being used in any significant numbers.




As for other Theaters, as just one example - see if you can count which fighter type claimed the most victories in Australian service in 1944

Pacific Victory Roll - Sep 43 - Jul 45

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


----------



## Schweik (Jan 4, 2019)

GrauGeist said:


> В Съветска Русия P-40 ви лети !!



Даже Сталин не может изменить историю, товарищ


----------



## Schweik (Jan 4, 2019)

Generally, in Russia, the P-40 was an important part of their arsenal in 1942 and 1943, the latter year in particular saw a lot of Soviet Aces scoring well particularly in P-40Ks, but by the third quarter it was indeed eclipsed by the locally made types. The Yak series production issues had been largely straightened out by mid '43 and more important from the Russian point of view, the La 5FN was ideal for their needs. They also still liked the P-39 (which they preferred over the P-40 and all other Lend Lease types) well into '44. The Soviets had over 40 P-40 Aces with 3 _double_* H*ero of the* S*oviet* U*nion awards given to P-40 pilots. Most P-40 units became 'Guards' squadrons over time and were switched to Yak or La 5 series.

This is the end of that P-40 in Soviet Aviation article you linked: "Altogether the VVS VMF USSR received 360 P-40s of all models from 1941-1945, and lost 66 in combat (18 percent), *the lowest loss percentage among fighters of all types.* In conclusion, one fact should be noted: three Twice HSU (of 27) in Soviet aviation fought in the Kittyhawk: B. F. Safonov, P. A. Pokryshev (22 personal victories and 7 in group), and M. V. Kuznetsov (22 + 6). Pokryshev and Kuznetsov flew the Kittyhawk for more than a year. Many pilots became aces and HSU while flying the P-40, achieving good combat scores. A number of regiments gained their guards status while flying the P-40. On the whole this aircraft fought well, though the conceptual errors that were built into it significantly reduced the sphere of its effective employment."






In the Med 4 out of the 5 US P-40 Fighter Groups had high scores and excellent kill ratios in the first half of 1943 (borne out by Axis data), but by mid 1943 the Spit IX and (rarer but more useful) Spit VIII were clearly dominant over German fighters and the P-47 and P-38, and A-36 were also available in numbers, though not doing fantastic in air combat against the Luftwaffe. P-40F/L were still needed for medium bomber escorts and CAS through the end of 43. They seem to have had a lower loss rate than the other US types and the Spit IXs had limited range. P-40s were still scoring kills during Anzio in Jan / Feb '44, after which they were mostly used for FB.

The Americans had 18 P-40 Aces in the Med, and the RAF / Commonwealth had 46 (including 11 double aces on the P-40)






In the Pacific, per Robert DeHaven, range was basically the limitation on the P-40 and while they played a critical role in 1942, by mid 43 they were mostly being used for CAP etc., a little bit on raids. The Hellcat and the P-38 were the dominant fighters there. But P-40s were still shooting down significant numbers of enemy fighters in 1944. There were 30 US P-40 Aces in the Pacific plus I'm not sure how many Australian and New Zealand.






In the CBI the P-40K, M and N were the most effective fighters in the Theater. Shot down by far the most (over 900) enemy planes etc. There were 38 US P-40 Aces in the CBI (including 6 double Aces in the 23rd FG alone), plus 23 AVG aces and 3 Chinese.


In all of those Theaters on paper the P-40 should have been inferior by say, mid 1942 at the latest. But they turned out to have merits that were harder to precisely define than rate of climb or top speed. That is one of the things I've tried to figure out. It is however the real reason why they kept producing so many of them and why they were in such wide use. To some extent I think it came down to training and familiarity - tactics were developed for fighting the Japanese or the Germans and Italians by mid 1942 which were effective and remained effective.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 4, 2019)

“Troll to your hearts desire...”

I think there is confusion as to who the real troll is.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jan 4, 2019)

I really don't appreciate that.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 4, 2019)

Schweik said:


> I really don't appreciate that.



Fine with me...

Many have grown tired of your snide trolling comments. It goes both ways. What gives you the right to insert your trolling comments into your posts, and not expect it in return. We have been down this road before. Snide comments are sprinkled all through your “informational posts”. Treat others as you want to be treated.


----------



## Schweik (Jan 4, 2019)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Fine with me...
> 
> Many have grown tired of your snide trolling comments. It goes both ways. What gives you the right to insert your trolling comments into your posts, and not expect it in return. We have been down this road before. Snide comments are sprinkled all through your “informational posts”. Treat others as you want to be treated.



I was responding to this exchange with Graugeist:

_" P 40s meanwhile were still shooting down Axis fighters in large numbers into 44. 

I really have to ask the question: where?
The bulk of the air war in '44 was at higher altitudes than the P-40 was suitable at.

Are you perhaps referring to Soviet P-40s on the Eastern Front? The average altitude would have been more favorable to the Allison's performance, but by 1944, the VVS was recieving newer (native) Soviet types that would out-perform the P-40, so I can't see the Curtiss being used in any significant numbers._ "

All of this had already been covered repeatedly in the thread. We were not talking about Allison engined P-40s or the Soviet. I assumed he was joking (Trolling) as there was a lot of that in the last couple of pages. If he was serious than I apologize.

In case he was, I answered anyway providing data. I can take a joke (and I posted a couple of joke posts as well) but I am also trying to seriously address a lot of comments many of which aren't 100% on the level. That is what I meant.


----------



## Schweik (Jan 4, 2019)

Keep in mind, sometimes what may be written as a 'lite joke' can come across as a snide comment in a forum or via text. I am trying to do that myself.


----------



## Schweik (Jan 4, 2019)

BiffF15 said:


> Schweik,
> 
> I’m not in agreement with your hypothesis, however you have opened a chapter in the P40 I didn’t realize it had. For that I’m grateful as the P40 has long been a favorite and I was a 325th FW guy many years ago (and a 33rd FW - both previous Warhawk units).
> 
> ...






By coincidence those are the two highest scoring P-40 units in the MTO

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jan 4, 2019)

Schweik said:


> See this post, screenshot of P*-40 victories in 1944* from the unit history just one Fighter Group.
> 
> 1943 was the stand out year for the P-40 in warfare against the Luftwaffe, Merlin engined P-40F and Ls routinely shot down large numbers of Luftwaffe and Regia Aeronautica Fighters, it's quite well documented by the Germans and Italians themselves.
> 
> ...


I asked a legitimate question in regards to the comment about the comment stating that the P-40 inflicting considerable damage in 1944 and I get stats (that appear to be a blend of ground kills and aerial kills) from *1943*.
We get it that you like the P-40, that's great, but the fact of the matter is that being an older type, it's glory days came and went by mid-war. Curtiss went to great lengths (like Messerschmitt did with the 109) to keep the P-40 (or a derivitave) at the forfront, but there were other types that emerged to take the lead.
Back to 1944, the airwar in northwestern Europe had evolved into a war of attrition, where long-range escorts were drawing the Luftwaffe up into large-scale battles. *IF* the P-40 were the flying miracle as it's been alledged, then where was the P-40 in all of this? I have yet to read ANY instance of a P-40 escorting B-17s or B-24s into Germany (or France or the low countries) and I certainly have not read any accounts of the P-40 escorting any medium bombers on raids over the continent.

Sorry...that's not trolling, that's simply asking for details to back a specific claim.

By the way, in regards to the comment, "Даже Сталин не может изменить историю, товарищ" (nice Russian translator work, the syntax was pretty close, by the way), he most certainly did and he did it most often by altering the textbooks (facts) when it suited him.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jan 4, 2019)

GrauGeist said:


> I asked a legitimate question in regards to the comment about the comment stating that the P-40 inflicting considerable damage in 1944 and I get stats (that appear to be a blend of ground kills and aerial kills) from *1943*.



I'm sorry but I don't believe I posted any "ground kills from 1943" that is complete nonsense. If you are referring to the scan of the page from the 79th FG squadron history page that I linked that is mostly air to air kills (and some probables etc.) from 1944.

The summaries I posted from 1943 are simply because in 1943 there were several significant combats between US P-40 units and Axis fighters in the Med where either no other aircraft were involved, or only P-40 claims matched the Axis losses. These were 100% *air to air losses,* for example the *July 30 combat where 6 Bf 109s were shot down for 1 P-40.* I can give you the serial numbers of the lost planes if you need them.

By 1944 almost all combats involved multiple types of Allied fighters, so it makes it hard to determine let alone prove which fighter was responsible for which victory. I can see days where Spitfire pilots, P-40 pilots, P-47 pilots and A-36 pilots all made claims, and that the Germans lost 5 or 10 Bf 109s or Fw 190s or whatever, but it's really hard to say which fighters were shot down by what Allied plane. However I can give you some specific examples from Axis records where they mention losses to the P-40 during Anzio:

Jan 23 1944 - FW 190G-3 5./SG 4 "lost in combat with P-40s"
Jan 24 1944 - FW 190G-3 5./SG 4 "lost in combat with P-40"
Jan 25 1944 - FW 190G-3 6./SG 4 "lost in combat with P-40"

Of course, they usually just say "lost in combat" without indicating by what enemy plane, or "shot down by fighters" or "crashed on landing after battle damage" or just "MIA" and often misattribute who shot them down anyway, but there are many losses that match the claims from that 79th FG history I posted earlier.



> We get it that you like the P-40, that's great, but the fact of the matter is that being an older type, it's glory days came and went by mid-war. Curtiss went to great lengths (like Messerschmitt did with the 109) to keep the P-40 (or a derivitave) at the forfront, but there were other types that emerged to take the lead.
> Back to 1944, the airwar in northwestern Europe had evolved into a war of attrition, where long-range escorts were drawing the Luftwaffe up into large-scale battles. *IF* the P-40 were the flying miracle as it's been alledged, then where was the P-40 in all of this? I have yet to read ANY instance of a P-40 escorting B-17s or B-24s into Germany (or France or the low countries) and I certainly have not read any accounts of the P-40 escorting any medium bombers on raids over the continent.



There was more to air combat in WW2 than bomber escort in NW Europe. In fact you could make the argument that by the time B-17s were flying large scale raids into Germany the outcome of the war was already decided. Yes there was an important war of attrition regardless, and no P-40s would not have been useful in that role. But there was plenty of use for a low / mid altitude fighter in other Theaters.
I never claimed the P-40 was a "flying miracle" and never claimed that it could escort B-17s or B-24s on high altitude raids. For the record, it would have been useless in that role. I just said it was a bit better and for a longer time than has been assumed. (and they did escort some B-17s and B-24s at lower altitude in the MTO though the P-38 was better for that role).
P-40s certainly did however escort quite a few medium bomber raids over the Continent if by the Continent you include Italy, Southern France, Yugoslavia etc., in fact as I already pointed out that was the main mission of the 325th FG (they were attached to a B-26 bomber group as escort fighters). All of the other five US Fighter Groups flying P-40s also did those kinds of medium level escort missions.
I agree the P-40 peaked in usefulness in Europe (meaning Italy / MTO and Russia, _not_ NW Europe where it wasn't used) somewhere in the mid-war, specifically I would say in the middle of 1943. But that is later than most people would guess. It remained in use in Italy as a fighter through mid 1944 and as a bomber (by the RAF) until 1945. In the China / Burma Theater it was still in use as an air superiority fighter into 1945, and in the Pacific through 1944.

What was specifically being debated was whether the Typhoon and P-40 could have done each others jobs, the former meaning low-level raids or interdictions over the Continent, and defensive sorties against Fw 190s etc. over England. It was suggested that P-40s would have gotten slaughtered in this purely speculative scenario. My objection to the claims being made was that they were facing the exact same aircraft, sometimes even the same units, in Italy.



> Sorry...that's not trolling, that's simply asking for details to back a specific claim.



No worries, I think maybe they merged two threads and that may explain why you missed some of this earlier.



> By the way, in regards to the comment, "Даже Сталин не может изменить историю, товарищ" (nice Russian translator work, the syntax was pretty close, by the way), he most certainly did and he did it most often by altering the textbooks (facts) when it suited him.



Yes Stalin could alter text books, Soviet records, newspaper accounts (including old ones) but he couldn't change history. Now we can see some of the reality emerging. Guys like Golodnikov would not have been safe to say positive things about P-40s, Spitfires or P-39s while Stalin the world's greatest serial killer since Ghenghis Khan was alive.

Are you a native Russian speaker?

S


----------



## Schweik (Jan 4, 2019)

It's not a binary argument. It's not "P-40 was obsolete from day one" vs. "P-40 was the best fighter in WW2" I am no where near crazy enough to make such a suggestion. I'm pointing out that P-40, though flawed and limited by altitude performance, did surprisingly well in it's operational history through 1943 and even into 1944.

I've pointed this out before but maybe it merits reiteration - I don't rate the P-40 as the top fighter at any point in the war.

I would still say the Spitfire was the best fighter of the war overall, especially the Spit IX for those crucial mid-war years. Yak-9, La 5FN probably were the most important contributors to overall Allied victory over Germany because the Russian Front was so crucial to the demise of Nazi forces. P-39 was the most important Lend Lease fighter because the Soviets got so much use out of it.

P-51 became the most important fighter for the end of the war for a variety of reasons -certainly it wrought havoc on the Lufwaffe. The Hellcat was the most deadly aircraft in the Pacific. P-38 close behind. FW 190 probably owned 1942 as the best fighter of that year. Bf 109 and Zero were probably the best fighters in 1941 and MC 202 and Ki 43 were also excellent. Spitfire and Hurricane were crucial to the survival of England in the BoB and together played the most important role in 1940.

P-40 was always third or fourth in importance from it's introduction to combat in 1941. Only in the CBI, a Tertiary Theater, was it a dominant fighter. But as second fiddle it remained very useful for a lot longer than most realized, all over the world, and shot down a surprisingly large number of Axis aircraft. Combined US and British / Commonwealth claims add up to *2924.5* and that doesn't include Soviet victories. That puts it ahead of the Wildcat and the Corsair. If the Soviets managed at least 700-800 victories with the P-40 it would make the P-40 the third most important US made fighter after the P-51 and the Hellcat. Which isn't bad for a 1941 design that was supposed to be obsolete.


----------



## Glider (Jan 4, 2019)

Schweik said:


> What was specifically being debated was whether the Typhoon and P-40 could have done each others jobs, the former meaning low-level raids or interdictions over the Continent, and defensive sorties against Fw 190s etc. over England. It was suggested that P-40s would have gotten slaughtered in this purely speculative scenario. My objection to the claims being made was that they were facing the exact same aircraft, sometimes even the same units, in Italy.


The P40 in Europe trying to do the same role as the Typhoon would have failed for the reasons I stated earlier.
a) It was too slow to catch the FW190 tip and run raiders
b) It was too slow to catch the V1
c) It was less well protected than the Typhoon and would have taken more losses for that reason
d) It was slower in the dive and would have found it much harder to escape from a Fw190
e) It didn't climb nearly as well as the Typhoon so would have lost the ability to dictate combat
f) It didn't have the same firepower as the Typhoon and would have less punch in the GA or fighter role
g) It didn't carry the same range of weapons as the Typhoon namely it lacked rockets
h) Being slower it would have taken more hits from AA fire then see (c)
I) It couldn't carry the same payload as the Typhoon further limiting is effectiveness
J) It cruised at a slower speed and would be easier to intercept

If I try hard I could probably add more but that is sufficient I think

PS this isn't tolling its trying to get an answer to valid points saying why the P40 would have suffered in this role. Your stock reply _Because they did OK in the desert_ doesn't count because we are talking about how effective the P40 would have been over France and occupied territories. Where the role and the issues are very different.


----------



## pbehn (Jan 4, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Spitfire and Hurricane were crucial to the survival of England in the BoB and together played the most important role in 1940.
> 
> .


Yes England did well to survive the Battle of *BRITAIN*.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jan 4, 2019)

Schweik said:


> ...Are you a native Russian speaker?


No, I speak български (Bulgarski aka Bulgarian), but can understand Russian well enough.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jan 4, 2019)

Glider said:


> The P40 in Europe trying to do the same role as the Typhoon would have failed for the reasons I stated earlier.
> a) It was too slow to catch the FW190 tip and run raiders
> b) It was too slow to catch the V1
> c) It was less well protected than the Typhoon and would have taken more losses for that reason
> ...



resp:

Here is my problem with the above very convincing list of claims: With the exception of V-1 flying bombs, pilots flying P-40s faced _exactly _the same aircraft and _shot them down_, without taking heavy casualties. Which seems significant to me. Not just "over the desert" but over *Italy*, Yugoslavia, various Mediterranean Islands, and the South of France.

It also seemed to always have a low loss rate against both AAA and enemy aircraft which I think may have something to do with maneuverability. As noted above it apparently had the lowest loss rate of any fighter in Soviet use. I know my opinion counts for nada in here but just reviewing MAW IV it looks like P-40 losses were lower than most other Allied types.


----------



## Schweik (Jan 4, 2019)

pbehn said:


> Yes England did well to survive the Battle of *BRITAIN*.



I'm not sure what the issue is here, is it somehow offensive to say England instead of "Great Britain"? I have tried to be careful to typically indicate "RAF / Commonwealth" to include the important contributions of Australian, South African and New Zealand pilots. Is this something to do with Welsh or Scots pilots ? I admit I'm baffled.


----------



## Elmas (Jan 4, 2019)

Already said in a 3d about P-39...

The problem that all self-taught people have is clear: they always look for everything that confirms their opinions, and they totally refuse everything that refutes them.
Karl Popper's reading would be useful.
_"Whenever a theory seems to you to be the only one possible, take it as a sign that you have not understood either the theory or the problem that you intended to solve."_
(Karl Popper, Objective Knowledge: an evolutionary point of view.)

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jan 4, 2019)

While I appreciate the philosophical advice, I am not suffering from confirmation bias. There is also an equivalent psychological effect for people who learn something new that they don't like the sound of initially. 

12 Ways To Overcome Your Resistance To Change

I draw your attention to #3 from that list in particular:

"_*3. Ask Yourself What It Is You're Resisting* 

Resistance is a normal reaction, so acknowledge that it's OK. Then begin to overcome it by exploring, "What am I resisting?" Be specific and honest with yourself. Often, what we resist is categorized into what we can and cannot control. Focus on what you can control (including your gradual acceptance of the change and finding others who can help) and try to let go of what you can't control."_

Sometimes it is helpful to at least consider ideas from outside of your group:

Psychology says that outsiders are the most innovative people

I am not some simple autodidact with a one track mind, I have just provided data to refute the numerous inaccuracies that came up in this specific argument and a couple of similar ones. I recognize a few people here find it very irritating. But it doesn't mean it's wrong, made up, cherry picked or fudged.

The origin of this data is not some obsession, but the publication of new data. Especially this book.


----------



## pbehn (Jan 4, 2019)

Schweik said:


> I'm not sure what the issue is here, is it somehow offensive to say England instead of "Great Britain"? I have tried to be careful to typically indicate "RAF / Commonwealth" to include the important contributions of Australian, South African and New Zealand pilots. Is this something to do with Welsh or Scots pilots ? I admit I'm baffled.


England ceased to be a political or military entity with the act of union in 1707. It would actually make more sense to say Britain survived the battle of England or Kent, as Kent would be where any landing took place. It isn't offensive it is just wrong/inaccurate, its easy to get confused sometimes but I would have thought it easy to understand that the Battle of Britain was about the survival of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, England does not appear.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 4, 2019)

Shooting down FW 190s that are trying to intercept the bombers you are escorting (even if the bombers are other P-40s) is different than shooting down tip and run raiders, They have no interest in combat. They want to get in, drop the bomb and get out. Now if we look hard enough we can find that probably a number of aircraft happened to shoot down one or more tip and run raiders simply by being in the right place at the right time, doesn't mean they were good at it.

If the Typhoon is better than the Spitfire of the same time and if the Spitfire is as fast as the P-40 why are we to believe the P-40 can do what the Spitfire cannot do on a consistent basis as far as chasing down tip and run raiders.

We also seen to be spreading the time line out. The Early Typhoons employed against the tip and run raiders had pretty much standard protection.(self sealing tanks BP windscreen some armor behind the seat and perhaps another piece or two) By the time of Normandy they Typhoons doing the bombing and rocketing had hundreds of extra pounds of armor. But hey, the P-40 is more maneuverable and doesn't need armor against ground fire because it is a harder target? While flying slower?
Since the Typhoon was never used in Italy we don't know it's survival rate against AA in that theater.

And before we start up with the the Germans used the same AA guns in both theaters, it isn't so much the guns but the quantity/scale of issue. Or perhaps it is better to say the number of AA guns per sq mi of territory flown over.

We also need to remember that while the channel was only 20 miles wide in one spot it was over 100 miles wide in a lot of other areas.
P-40s acting as fighter bombers may have had a much more restricted area of action than the Typhoons. 


There were differences in the two theaters and it wasn't just escorting B-17/B-24s.

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


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Jan 4, 2019)

Schweik said:


> I have tried to be careful to typically indicate "RAF / Commonwealth" to include the important contributions of Australian, South African and New Zealand pilots.


Its easy to forget Canada, all tucked away down there...

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


----------



## Schweik (Jan 4, 2019)

Clayton Magnet said:


> Its easy to forget Canada, all tucked away down there...



Lol... sorry, no offense to Canada, the (arguably) best P-40 pilot is from there James Edwards.

Canada, Northern Ireland, Wales, England, the Isle of Man. Australia, New Zealand, Bermuda, South Africa, Rhodesia, and the British Virgin Islands. Were there any Indian pilots?

I'll just write UK / Commonwealth from now on.


----------



## pbehn (Jan 4, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Lol... sorry, no offense to Canada, the (arguably) best P-40 pilot is from there James Edwards.
> 
> Canada, Northern Ireland, Wales, England, the Isle of Man. Australia, New Zealand, Bermuda, South Africa, Rhodesia, and the British Virgin Islands. Were there any Indian pilots?
> 
> I'll just write UK / Commonwealth from now on.


You could ask yourself why you habitually write English in the first place, it cannot come from any reputable source. There were not only Indian pilots but also some from USA too, like Billy Fisk and John McGee. That is why its best just to say RAF. Last of the second world war Sikh RAF fighter pilots - SikhiWiki, free Sikh encyclopedia.


----------



## Schweik (Jan 4, 2019)

Yes but RAF doesn't include RAAF, RCAF, RNZAF or RSAF right? Some Colonials fought in the RAF but some fought in their own units too. In North Africa there were RAAF and RSAF squadrons and in the Pacific RNZAF. In the UK itself I believe there were RCAF Typhoon squadrons right?

I write "English" because it's common use where I live to describe people from the British Isles and their language, and it's also the correct term for the (far older) historical periods I'm most familiar with on a semi-professional basis. Of course your Islands have gone by many names and have had many different rulers over the centuries.


----------



## Elmas (Jan 4, 2019)

_Kentu concas kentu berrittas..._
says a proverb of my Island...

and I refrain from mentioning a more sharp Neapolitan proverb...

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jan 4, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Yes but RAF doesn't include RAAF, RCAF, RNZAF or RSAF right? Some Colonials fought in the RAF but some fought in their own units too. In North Africa there were RAAF and RSAF squadrons and in the Pacific RNZAF. In the UK itself I believe there were RCAF Typhoon squadrons right?
> 
> I write "English" because it's common use where I live to describe people from the British Isles and their language, and it's also the correct term for the (far older) historical periods I'm most familiar with on a semi-professional basis. Of course your Islands have gone by many names and have had many different rulers over the centuries.


USA history books use the term "English" long after it ceased to be correct. All the RAF bomber fields around my home were stationed by RCAF squadrons, however they were all part of the RAF, some further south had French squadrons but likewise they were flying for the RAF.


----------



## Glider (Jan 4, 2019)

Schweik said:


> resp:
> 
> Here is my problem with the above very convincing list of claims: With the exception of V-1 flying bombs, pilots flying P-40s faced _exactly _the same aircraft and _shot them down_, without taking heavy casualties. Which seems significant to me. Not just "over the desert" but over *Italy*, Yugoslavia, various Mediterranean Islands, and the South of France.
> 
> It also seemed to always have a low loss rate against both AAA and enemy aircraft which I think may have something to do with maneuverability. As noted above it apparently had the lowest loss rate of any fighter in Soviet use. I know my opinion counts for nada in here but just reviewing MAW IV it looks like P-40 losses were lower than most other Allied types.


Maybe you didn't see this part of my posting
PS this isn't tolling its trying to get an answer to valid points saying why the P40 would have suffered in this role. Your stock reply _Because they did OK in the desert_ doesn't count because we are talking about how effective the P40 would have been over France and occupied territories. Where the role and the issues are very different. 

a) If the FW190 doesn't want to get caught and is 30mph faster than you, then you are not going to catch it.
b) In Europe the role was primarily GA which means that all the other points are valid. Why was it mainly GA? simple, the RAF had plenty of Spit IX's as cover 

PS you never did try to explain why the P40 was removed from Europe so quickly


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 4, 2019)

#trolling

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fubar57 (Jan 4, 2019)

LOL.....resp:


----------



## Milosh (Jan 4, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Yes but RAF doesn't include RAAF, RCAF, RNZAF or RSAF right? Some Colonials fought in the RAF but some fought in their own units too. In North Africa there were RAAF and RSAF squadrons and in the Pacific RNZAF. In the UK itself I believe there were RCAF Typhoon squadrons right?



One would think with all your research you would know that the squadrons in the RAF composed of other nationalities were under the control of the RAF.


----------



## Schweik (Jan 4, 2019)

Thanks for getting into the weeds on this, its the only way to move the conversation forward.



Shortround6 said:


> Shooting down FW 190s that are trying to intercept the bombers you are escorting (even if the bombers are other P-40s) is different than shooting down tip and run raiders, They have no interest in combat. They want to get in, drop the bomb and get out. Now if we look hard enough we can find that probably a number of aircraft happened to shoot down one or more tip and run raiders simply by being in the right place at the right time, doesn't mean they were good at it.



So here's the thing - most of their encounters with FW 190s were exactly that, Jabos on fast hit and run raids - Fw 190Gs mostly as you'll note in the post upthread.

I don't know the exact German TO & E but there seems to have been at least two types of FW units. JG 2 was around for a while flying at least some fighter missions, other SKG units were flying only fast Jabo strikes, on ships, tanks, airfields etc.

In Aug 1943 Shores shows a total of 72 Fw 190s in 3 such SKG units with 49 operational.

He also shows 158 Bf 109s operational out of 246.

Anyway point being *they seem to have been dealing with 190 Jabo hit and run raids.* I don't know how effective in terms of protecting targets but they inflicted casualties and the text mentions FW 190s dropping their ordinance early and sometimes on their own troops. On the other hand they did also hit and sink ships, bomb Allied troops and supplies and etc. they certainly weren't 100% stopped by any means.



> If the Typhoon is better than the Spitfire of the same time and if the Spitfire is as fast as the P-40 why are we to believe the P-40 can do what the Spitfire cannot do on a consistent basis as far as chasing down tip and run raiders.



Beats me though this is 1943 so Spit IX and VIII are also shooting them down.

Chasing and catching FW 190 does require speed but diving will get any of these planes going 500+ mph which puts you at Sea Level pdq but also means if you are above a fighter that just dived you can dive on it.

If you are the one pursued being able to out turn your antagonist gives you another option. Maybe due to weight the P 40 retained dive speed better than a Spit V I don't know.



> We also seen to be spreading the time line out. The Early Typhoons employed against the tip and run raiders had pretty much standard protection.(self sealing tanks BP windscreen some armor behind the seat and perhaps another piece or two) By the time of Normandy they Typhoons doing the bombing and rocketing had hundreds of extra pounds of armor. But hey, the P-40 is more maneuverable and doesn't need armor against ground fire because it is a harder target? While flying slower?
> Since the Typhoon was never used in Italy we don't know it's survival rate against AA in that theater.



Maybe AAA us more concentrated in NW Europe but I'd like to see data showing that. I think you are overstating the vulnerability of the P 40 which was hardly known as fragile, also aside from the issue of agility the Tiffy is also a bit bigger isn't it? And with a touchier engine.



> And before we start up with the the Germans used the same AA guns in both theaters, it isn't so much the guns but the quantity/scale of issue. Or perhaps it is better to say the number of AA guns per sq mi of territory flown over.



Again you might have something there but I'd like to see data as Italy and Yugoslavia don't sound like "mild flak" environments based on pilot accounts.



> We also need to remember that while the channel was only 20 miles wide in one spot it was over 100 miles wide in a lot of other areas.
> P-40s acting as fighter bombers may have had a much more restricted area of action than the Typhoons.



Please see this map of Allied and Axis bases in the Med in Summer 1943. Note for example the 325 FG base at that time in Mateur Tunisia is 120 - 150 miles away from targets in Sardinia where they routinely operated. It also shows the bases for 324, 33 and 57 FGs.





> There were differences in the two theaters and it wasn't just escorting B-17/B-24s.


----------



## Schweik (Jan 4, 2019)

Milosh said:


> One would think with all your research you would know that the squadrons in the RAF composed of other nationalities were under the control of the RAF.



All I can tell you is that the primary sources (particularly ANZAC ones) routinely make distinctions and therefore I follow suit. I have tried to be as careful as I can, I am not all that great at Political Correctness in any form and without meaning to offend I honestly don't care much about this particular issue of England vs Britain or rivalries, sensitive feelings or any other matters within the Commonwealth - like I said when referring to aircraft I'll just say UK and RAF / Commonwealth except where I mean something more specific.


----------



## pbehn (Jan 4, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> If the Typhoon is better than the Spitfire of the same time and if the Spitfire is as fast as the P-40 why are we to believe the P-40 can do what the Spitfire cannot do on a consistent basis as far as chasing down tip and run raiders.
> .


The situation was changing rapidly in 1942. The Typhoon was seen as the future fighter for the RAF but by the time it was sorted the Spitfire had the Griffon engine and was coming into service. The Spitfire MKIX was also in service which had high altitude performance the Typhoon lacked, there was little doubt that the Griffon would be able to do the same with a two stage supercharger. From what is posted on this thread it seems the fighter squadrons formed with Typhoons remained as fighter squadrons, the later squadrons were as fighter bombers. 8 rockets fired from a Typhoon are no more or less devastating than fired from a Hurricane, but your chances of getting back and doing it again were much higher with a Typhoon. As I understand it a fighter bomber and its pilot must be divorced from the air war, if they aren't, they wont use their cannon on ground targets but save the ammunition for any air to air combat, which means they are not doing their job. Once a typhoon had hit a target its only job was to get itself home, essentially the Typhoons themselves were tip and run raiders, just a bit faster.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jan 4, 2019)

Glider said:


> Maybe you didn't see this part of my posting
> PS this isn't tolling its trying to get an answer to valid points saying why the P40 would have suffered in this role. Your stock reply _Because they did OK in the desert_ doesn't count because we are talking about how effective the P40 would have been over France and occupied territories. Where the role and the issues are very different.
> 
> a) If the FW190 doesn't want to get caught and is 30mph faster than you, then you are not going to catch it.
> ...



To be clear, I was referring to Italy and the South of France and Yugoslavia, which having been to all three places I can assure you they are not generally deserts.

A) Unless you are above it in a fast-diving plane which case dive and your speed will easily outpace the level speed of the intruder. This is why it was so dangerous to fly at very low altitude even in a fast plane.
B) The role of which aircraft do you mean, Typhoons? The role of P-40s was also mainly GA.

PS The P-40 was removed from NW Europe because of the altitude limitations of the Allison engine that powered it. Merlin (XX / 28) engined P-40s were a bit better in that department though still limited. But probably Ok down low.

I can't say that for sure though if it's true there was vastly more flak over Calais than Salerno that would be a legitimate reason that would require faster planes.


----------



## Glider (Jan 4, 2019)

Schweik said:


> To be clear, I was referring to Italy and the South of France and Yugoslavia, which having been to all three places I can assure you they are not generally deserts.


PLease make your mind up. Are you comparing the P40 against the Typhoon where the Typhoon operated ie Northern France or are you not.


> PS The P-40 was removed from NW Europe because of the altitude limitations of the Allison engine that powered it. Merlin (XX / 28) engined P-40s were a bit better in that department though still limited. But probably Ok down low.



My understanding was that they lacked performance, firepower, protection and range. That is why they were replaced

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jan 4, 2019)

Schweik said:


> I can't say that for sure though if it's true there was vastly more flak over Calais than Salerno that would be a legitimate reason that would require faster planes.


There were reasons the allies built their own ports in Normandy rather than trying to capture one.


----------



## fubar57 (Jan 4, 2019)

Flak positions around Cherbourg, '44

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jan 4, 2019)

fubar57 said:


> Flak positions around Cherbourg, '44
> 
> View attachment 524298​


But a skilled pilot could sneak in behind a big wave.


----------



## Schweik (Jan 4, 2019)

Not trying to prove anything here, just thought this was interesting:

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 4, 2019)

If you pick and chose you can find heavily defended locations anywhere. 

There might very well have been a few locations in Italy that as much or more flak than anywhere in France/low countries. 

However the British had been bombing/strafing German targets in France and the Low countries as far back as the BoB, they sent night intruders over German bases in during the night Blitz over the winter of 1940/41. After a good part of the Luftwaffe went to Russia the British tried any number of raids/tactics to get the remaining German fighters to come up and fight during the whole "Lean forward into France" fiasco. 
The British and later the Americans pretty much treated the coast from Brest to Emden as an advanced training ground. Many bomber squadrons/groups doing their first few missions on coastal targets before going further inland. By the Fall of 1943 the Germans had 3 years to fortify and set up AA guns in this stretch of the coast. Yes there were areas with less flak than others but on _average_ would you think that this area of occupied territory had more or less Flak guns than Yugoslavia? Or large parts of Italy? 

We are also getting a bit mixed up about the P-40. I, for one, don't really care why the British passed on using the early Tomahawks in England in late 1940/early 1941 if what we are discussing is what it did (or was capable of doing) in late 1942 and 1943. That is like saying the Spitfire MK IX was no good in 1943 because squadron XXX couldn't do something in 1940 with their Spitfire MK IIs. 
On the other hand don't tell me about the bomb loads the late P-40Ns could carry in late 1943/44 (and it was substantial) if what we are discussing is the P-40F and (I assume) the Typhoon of 1942/43. 

There is/was an awful lot of grey in what these planes did or could do (or how they were used) and picking/choosing certain instances to demonstrate overall ability is a little too black and white. 

Flying in the Med, even in the south of France, in winter is not like flying out of England (or not flying due to weather) in the winter. Sure, there days when the weather was bad, buton average there were more flying days per month in the Med than in NW Europe. Visibility may have been better _on average. _and so on.


----------



## pbehn (Jan 4, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> Flying in the Med, even in the south of France, in winter is not like flying out of England (or not flying due to weather) in the winter. Sure, there days when the weather was bad, buton average there were more flying days per month in the Med than in NW Europe. Visibility may have been better _on average. _and so on.


The whole Battle of the Bulge took place because allied aircraft couldn't support the US ground forces, as soon as the weather changed so did the battle.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 4, 2019)

I would also view the ability of the P-40 to dive to catch faster aircraft with a bit of suspicion. I am sure it was done, but perhaps not at the speeds given in this thread? or as easily as it is being presented? 
we already have a debate about whether the P-40 could dive at 480 mph IAS or at 500+ mph IAS. 
The manual that says 480 IAS was the red line also says that 5000-8000ft of altitude is needed to recover from a high speed dive. 

So how much higher does the P-40 have to start out to be able to hit even 450mph in it's dive to catch the tip and run raiders?

Not every dive is vertical dive (or close to it) and considerable speed can be picked up in a less than 45 degree dive. 

Perhaps a speed of only 420mph was needed to catch some of those planes, I don't know, but lets stop quoting max possible from a higher altitude than most P-40s aside from the F and Ls flew at.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Jan 4, 2019)

pbehn said:


> England ceased to be a political or military entity with the act of union in 1707. It would actually make more sense to say Britain survived the battle of England or Kent, as Kent would be where any landing took place. It isn't offensive it is just wrong/inaccurate, its easy to get confused sometimes but I would have thought it easy to understand that the Battle of Britain was about the survival of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, England does not appear.


I must admit most of us Americans, or at least most of the ones I've known use " Britain" and " England" interchangeably. Thanks for clearing that up.


----------



## Greyman (Jan 4, 2019)




----------



## Dan Fahey (Jan 4, 2019)

Learned an interesting statistic piecing together data about the P40 and Me109. The Me109 shot down more P40s than P40s shot down all German Aircraft. Something like that. P40 Pilots were used for bombing missions as well as fighter only missions. Loaded with bombs they became easy and numerous targets for the high flying German fighters. From reading all kinds of books the Germans rarely used the Me109 for bombing missions. So all their pilots racked up good air to air scores as they were not faced with bomb load like a P40 or for that matter subject to anti aircraft batteries and gun placement. Have not found a clear number of P40 losses but something in the order of 1500 planes in the MTO. 

That means a lot of budding P40 aces were lost to bombing missions. Where the German pilots could rack up huge scores as they were only used as fighters. Fighter to fighter...P40s to Me109 would have been a near 1-1 ratio, probably favoring the Me109. However the P40 caused massive havoc to German airfields and Rommel’s Army. A lot of P40s got through to hit the Germans successfully. German pilots became masters of the sky because they survived more battles and not subject to the effective ground fire attacking Allied positions. That was left to other German aircraft. Kind of stark to see the highest Allied Pilots having a maximum of 20 kills. Yet the Number of German pilots with 50 or more kills was huge in comparison. 

Another reason P40 had more losses was they had the range to attack Germans and Italians and not the other way around. The ability to loiter over in enemy territory provided targets of opportunity but potential for damage. Landing or bailing out someplace along the way back to base. Here the P40 wrecked a lot of parked German aircraft. Which imho made the P40 a more versatile and dangerous combat plane than the Me 109. I do not think the Me109 had a large enough wing to carry 1000lbs of bombs.


----------



## fubar57 (Jan 4, 2019)

I have 110 *Bf *109E-1/Bs and 226 *Bf *109E-4/Bs produced. Looking for *Bf *109E-7/B numbers. Where do you get rarely used and the other made up info from?


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Jan 4, 2019)

GrauGeist said:


> В Съветска Русия P-40 ви лети !!



не понимаю!

- иван



Elmas said:


> _“The Typhoons, in spite of the two 1,000-lb bombs under their wings, were setting a crackimg pace and we had a job to keep up with them.”_
> 
> Pierre Clostermann, the Big Show. Pag. 91.
> 
> And Clostermann was flying Spitfire IX. What would have happened if the escort was composed of P-40s? _"Please, Typhoons, please, a little bit slower..."_



Hello Elmas,
At low altitudes, most models of the P-40 from the D/E series onward were actually faster than the Spitfire Mk.IX.
The Spitfire Mk.IX had much better altitude performance but wasn't very fast at low altitudes.



Schweik said:


> _Nikolay Gerasimovich, how would you evaluate the speed, rate of climb, acceleration, and maneuverability of the P-40? Did it suit you?_
> 
> _* N. G. * I say again, the P-40 significantly outclassed the Hurricane, and it was far and away above the I-16._
> 
> ...



Hello Schweik,
The Merlin P-40F/L may not have been as effective as the Allison P-40 on the Eastern Front.
It was slower at low altitudes by quite a lot because the Allison tolerated quite a bit more "overboosting" and would not have climbed quite as fast because it had less engine power and more weight.
The Merlin did give an advantage but it was above about 15,000 feet or so.

My own opinion is that the P-40 was a second rate Air Superiority fighter by 1942 and treated accordingly:
In other words, in places where it continued to serve as a front line fighter, it was because the opposition was not considered of the highest caliber or where there simply wasn't anything comparable that was available. If there was anything else available, it got a secondary role.
Note that by the time the P-40M and P-40N came out, the P-40M was not even in use by US forces except as trainers. The ones that did enter combat did so as Lend-Lease aircraft.
This is getting a bit off topic from the discussion of Merlin P-40's though.

- Ivan.


----------



## Schweik (Jan 4, 2019)

Dan Fahey said:


> Learned an interesting statistic piecing together data about the P40 and Me109. The Me109 shot down more P40s than P40s shot down all German Aircraft. Something like that. P40 Pilots were used for bombing missions as well as fighter only missions. Loaded with bombs they became easy and numerous targets for the high flying German fighters. From reading all kinds of books the Germans rarely used the Me109 for bombing missions. So all their pilots racked up good air to air scores as they were not faced with bomb load like a P40 or for that matter subject to anti aircraft batteries and gun placement. Have not found a clear number of P40 losses but something in the order of 1500 planes in the MTO.
> 
> That means a lot of budding P40 aces were lost to bombing missions. Where the German pilots could rack up huge scores as they were only used as fighters. Fighter to fighter...P40s to Me109 would have been a near 1-1 ratio, probably favoring the Me109. However the P40 caused massive havoc to German airfields and Rommel’s Army. A lot of P40s got through to hit the Germans successfully. German pilots became masters of the sky because they survived more battles and not subject to the effective ground fire attacking Allied positions. That was left to other German aircraft. Kind of stark to see the highest Allied Pilots having a maximum of 20 kills. Yet the Number of German pilots with 50 or more kills was huge in comparison.
> 
> Another reason P40 had more losses was they had the range to attack Germans and Italians and not the other way around. The ability to loiter over in enemy territory provided targets of opportunity but potential for damage. Landing or bailing out someplace along the way back to base. Here the P40 wrecked a lot of parked German aircraft. Which imho made the P40 a more versatile and dangerous combat plane than the Me 109. I do not think the Me109 had a large enough wing to carry 1000lbs of bombs.



Try looking at the US P 40 units records against the Bf 109 as distinct from RAF / Commonwealth. I think you will find it an eye opener.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jan 5, 2019)

Ivan1GFP said:


> не понимаю!
> 
> - иван


беше малка комедия !

виж тук -

Reactions: Funny Funny:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Jan 5, 2019)

Schweik said:


> See this post, screenshot of P-40 victories in 1944 from the unit history just one Fighter Group.
> 
> 1943 was the stand out year for the P-40 in warfare against the Luftwaffe, Merlin engined P-40F and Ls routinely shot down large numbers of Luftwaffe and Regia Aeronautica Fighters, it's quite well documented by the Germans and Italians themselves.
> 
> ...


Yes the enduring criticism of the p40 as being slow has always puzzled me. The Spitfire V witch seems like a fair mark to use as comparison to the best of my knowledge had a top speed of about 370. The Bf109 E slightly less, the F slightly more. The A6m 335 to 350 depending on subtype and whose numbers you believe.
All in the balpark of the p40 F/L or most models for that matter. Some a bit more, some a bit less but I have never heard criticism that the A6m or the Spitfire MkV for example were" slow". 
There certainly are some lagit criticisms to be made of the p40 but I don't see how being slow is one of them.

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


----------



## pbehn (Jan 5, 2019)

michael rauls said:


> I must admit most of us Americans, or at least most of the ones I've known use " Britain" and " England" interchangeably. Thanks for clearing that up.


It is understandable because many things didn't change, the King of Scotland became the King of both England and Scotland but Kings are still referred to as King/Queen of England. I was looking at a timeline of USA history. It mentioned the act of union in 1707 then in 1715 said emigration from Scotland started because of high rents, that emigration wouldn't have taken place without the act of union. In any case most of the people are from England but should be called British. It is similar with Holland and Netherlands, Holland is part of Netherlands, not all of it but many think they are one and the same.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Jan 5, 2019)

michael rauls said:


> Yes the enduring criticism of the p40 as being slow has always puzzled me. The Spitfire V witch seems like a fair mark to use as comparison to the best of my knowledge had a top speed of about 370. The Bf109 E slightly less, the F slightly more. The A6m 335 to 350 depending on subtype and whose numbers you believe.
> All in the balpark of the p40 F/L or most models for that matter. Some a bit more, some a bit less but I have never heard criticism that the A6m or the Spitfire MkV for example were" slow".
> There certainly are some lagit criticisms to be made of the p40 but I don't see how being slow is one of them.


Add to that, no criticism to Allison for not developing a 2 speed V-1710 because the US Gov could have Merlins licence produced by Packard without having to pay Royalties to Rolls Royce, so it didn't need them.


----------



## BiffF15 (Jan 5, 2019)

pbehn said:


> England ceased to be a political or military entity with the act of union in 1707. It would actually make more sense to say Britain survived the battle of England or Kent, as Kent would be where any landing took place. It isn't offensive it is just wrong/inaccurate, its easy to get confused sometimes but I would have thought it easy to understand that the Battle of Britain was about the survival of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, England does not appear.



Thanks for the explanation. I would have made the same mistakes / been oblivious as well and I have passed through several RAF bases!

Cheers,
Biff


----------



## Navalwarrior (Jan 5, 2019)

pbehn said:


> The P51 was promised to be a better fighter than the P-40 and it was. The USA had two factories producing P-51B and Cs which were in service in Europe from mid 1943. That relegated the P-40 to secondary roles in the USA inventory for that type of aircraft.


Resp:
Ops! Not so. The P-51B did not enter combat until last month (or two) of 1943! Yes, they were coming off the production line in mid 1943.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jan 5, 2019)

Navalwarrior said:


> Resp:
> Ops! Not so. The P-51B did not enter combat until last month (or two) of 1943! Yes, they were coming off the production line in mid 1943.


It makes no difference to my point, once the two factories were producing the days were numbered for the P40.


----------



## Dan Fahey (Jan 5, 2019)

pbehn said:


> It makes no difference to my point, once the two factories were producing the days were numbered for the P40.


The late model P40s went to Russia and China as a front line fighter.
Chennault And Chinese used them to the end even though P38s P47s and P51s systematically replaced them.
The higher altitude combat benefited the newer types.
At Low altitude the P40 was still preferred. 
Just a more maneuverable veritile low altitude fighter.

However the emphasis was about producing the new Jets.
So eventually alll prop planes were replaced.


----------



## Greyman (Jan 5, 2019)

Ivan1GFP said:


> Hello Elmas,
> At low altitudes, most models of the P-40 from the D/E series onward were actually faster than the Spitfire Mk.IX.
> The Spitfire Mk.IX had much better altitude performance but wasn't very fast at low altitudes.



Under 10,000 feet the Spitfire IX (Merlin 61, +15 lb-boost) appears to have roughly 20-30 mph on the Kittyhawk (v1720-39, 42-in boost).

With the Merlin 66 (+18-lb boost) it's around 30-40 mph.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jan 5, 2019)

Greyman said:


> Under 10,000 feet the Spitfire IX (Merlin 61, +15 lb-boost) appears to have roughly 20-30 mph on the Kittyhawk (v1720-39, 42-in boost).
> 
> With the Merlin 66 (+18-lb boost) it's around 30-40 mph.



Yes but hes talking about P-40E or K (V-1710-73) at 60" boost or more. As I'm sure you know 70" was not unheard of especislly for V-1710-73 (but also -39s) in both P-40s and Allison engined Mustangs.

42" was military power...

56" was standard WEP for all 1710-39 and -73 by mid 42 and Allison aircraft company acknowledged they were alloweling 60" boost as a standard WEP setting in that infamous memo.


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Jan 5, 2019)

michael rauls said:


> Yes the enduring criticism of the p40 as being slow has always puzzled me. The Spitfire V witch seems like a fair mark to use as comparison to the best of my knowledge had a top speed of about 370. The Bf109 E slightly less, the F slightly more. The A6m 335 to 350 depending on subtype and whose numbers you believe.
> All in the balpark of the p40 F/L or most models for that matter. Some a bit more, some a bit less but I have never heard criticism that the A6m or the Spitfire MkV for example were" slow".
> There certainly are some lagit criticisms to be made of the p40 but I don't see how being slow is one of them.



Hello Michael Rauls,
I figure the Merlin P-40F/L was good for somewhere between 365 MPH and 375 MPH at critical altitude.
Down low, it lost quite a bit of speed as compared to Allison P-40s, but still was a relatively fast early war aircraft.
The A6M and Spitfire Mk.V have also been criticized as slow at various times.
At low altitude the Spitfire Mk.V in its "clipped and cropped" versions was a pretty decent hot rod but it didn't have that much altitude capability and didn't serve as an air superiority fighter that late into the war.
As for A6M, it is what you use if that is all you have.



Greyman said:


> Under 10,000 feet the Spitfire IX (Merlin 61, +15 lb-boost) appears to have roughly 20-30 mph on the Kittyhawk (v1720-39, 42-in boost).
> 
> With the Merlin 66 (+18-lb boost) it's around 30-40 mph.



Hello Greyman,
How do they compare to a P-40K with a V-1710-73 (F4R) and running 60 inches (+15 pounds boost)?
This was approved by Allison in December 1942 for the V-1710-39 (F3R) as well as the -73 engine and that was to address reports from the field that significantly exceeded these settings....
Try making a comparison at Sea Level. By the time you get to 10,000 feet, those early single speed supercharged engines were not going to keep up all that well with a two stage Merlin.

- Ivan.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (Jan 5, 2019)

so where is your evidence that the extra boost will make up the 30 to 40mph increase in speed.


----------



## Greyman (Jan 5, 2019)

Are there tests for the Kittyhawk with those boost pressures? Using A&AEE tests of the Mustang I (F3R, 56-in boost) as a guide, it looks like the Kittyhawk would be in-between the Merlin 61 and Merlin 66 Spitfires under 8,000 feet (ie: roughly 10 mph faster than the former and 10 mph slower than the latter).

At 60 inches ... with eyeballing things it looks like it would be about equal to the Merlin 66 Spitfire under 6,000 feet. Probably a few mph faster than the Spit.

Though with +25-lb boost the Spitfire is ahead again by about 20 mph.


----------



## Glider (Jan 5, 2019)

Rememering that the Typhoon was faster than all of them

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jan 5, 2019)

True but it handles like an overloaded bus...


----------



## Schweik (Jan 5, 2019)

They mention running the p40f & L at 55 to 65 in remind me what that translates to in lbs of boost?

In Mediterranean Ait War volume 4 there are a lot of P40 L lost to engine trouble. I don't know if that has to do with overboosting or not sometimes it seems to be on days when they didn't even face any air combat


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 5, 2019)

I don't mind the extra boost making up a good part of the speed *where the extra boost existed*.
What really bugs me is the assumption that the extra boost was available or useful at a range of altitudes. 
It gets trotted out like like a magic talisman in just about every one of these discussions. 

for Spitfire see:
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/bs543speed.jpg. 
18lbs boost (not 15lbs ) which darn close to 66in available on a Merlin 70 engine from sea level to just under 16,000ft in all out level flight in low(medium) gear. 
The much vaunted 70in of pressure in the Allison started disappearing at 2,000ft or less. 

Cut the Merlins pressure for 18lbs down to 15lbs (60in) the SPit could hold 15lbs boost from sea level to over 18,000ft without ever shifting to high gear. 

The older Merlin 61 engine could hold 15lbs of boost to 14,750ft in low gear in level flight. 
A Spit IX with a Merlin 61 was tested at 363mph at 14,500ft at 15lbs boost while carrying a 500lb bomb. 

No loss of hundreds of horsepower when climbing 4-5000ft above sea level. No loss of power when climbing??

The 57in or 60 in limits were realistic for the Allison they didn't disappear when the plane banked, or slowed while climbing.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 5, 2019)

Schweik said:


> They mention running the p40f & L at 55 to 65 in remind me what that translates to in lbs of boost?
> 
> In Mediterranean Ait War volume 4 there are a lot of P40 L lost to engine trouble. I don't know if that has to do with overboosting or not* sometimes it seems to be on days when they didn't even face any air combat*



What a surprise, not. 

The "famous memo" does mention that very problem. see page 2, second paragraph. 

Of course some of the engine trouble may have been due to ingesting dust/sand.


----------



## Greyman (Jan 5, 2019)

Off topic yes but I had to do it. My brain is too right-sided for a bunch of numbers.

*Kittyhawk IA*
- A&AEE curve placed on data sheet FTH max speed at 42-inches (to the benefit of the P40)​- thin line is my estimate (probably optimistic) of 60 inches based on A&AEE tests of Mustang I​*Spitfire IX*
- A&AEE, Merlin 61, +15 pounds​*Spitfire IX*
- A&AEE, Merlin 66, +18 pounds (thin line +25 pounds)​

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jan 5, 2019)

Greyman said:


> Off topic yes but I had to do it. My brain is too right-sided for a bunch of numbers.
> 
> *Kittyhawk IA*
> - A&AEE curve placed on data sheet FTH max speed at 42-inches (to the benefit of the P40)​- thin line is my estimate (probably optimistic) of 60 inches based on A&AEE tests of Mustang I​*Spitfire IX*
> ...



Why not add a Kittyhawk III / P 40K, a Kittyhawk II, a Spit V and a Typhoon to the chart.

Kittyhawk Ia is a much earlier vintage than Spit IX.


----------



## Schweik (Jan 5, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> What a surprise, not.
> 
> The "famous memo" does mention that very problem. see page 2, second paragraph.
> 
> Of course some of the engine trouble may have been due to ingesting dust/sand.



It does though the All8son memo is referring to later higher gear ratio engine variants, ala V-1710-81 /P-40M, and isnt appliccable to (Merlin engine) P-40 L anyway.

Though we know they overboosted those too...


----------



## Glider (Jan 5, 2019)

Schweik said:


> True but it handles like an overloaded bus...



Clearly the US Test Pilots don't agree with you

The didn't like its longitudinal stability or the vibration from the engine but the Summary is very clear

Conclusion
The Typhoon has proved to be a very useful fighter bomber. Good high speed and maneuverability at low altitude coupled with sufficient firepower and exceptional load carrying ability make it an formidable weapon.

Other comments 
Trim adjustments are slight for speed or power. (see observation on the P40N below)
The aircraft has an ideal gentle stall with proper warning
All control forces are reasonable up to 450 IAS where the ailerons become heavy

Manoeuvrability and Aerobatics 
In General handling during manoeuvres and aerobatics is very good. Radius of turn is short and the aeroplane rolls well although aileron forces become heavy. 

Its interesting to this last one to the same report done on the P40N
Aerobatics
Normal aerobatics may be performed, but require excessive strength on the controls due to high stick and rudder force

Another comment on the P40N
Gun Platform
Unsatisfactory due to change in rudder trim due to speed

So which of these is closer to handling like an overloaded bus?

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


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 5, 2019)

Schweik said:


> It does though the All8son memo is referring to later higher gear ratio engine variants, ala V-1710-81 /P-40M, and isnt appliccable to (Merlin engine) P-40 L anyway.
> 
> Though we know they overboosted those too...



Metal fatigue is metal fatigue. The RR engine may react a bit differently but it will follow the same general pattern, while exceeding the design limits of the parts by 20-25% for a short period of time might not cause immediate failure it might shorten up the time to failure by 10-20 times (not percent).
On the Allison increasing the stress on the crankshaft by 25% above what it would tolerate forever for all practical purposes (10 million cycles) could cause failure in 200,000 cycles.


----------



## Schweik (Jan 5, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> I would also view the ability of the P-40 to dive to catch faster aircraft with a bit of suspicion. I am sure it was done, but perhaps not at the speeds given in this thread? or as easily as it is being presented?
> we already have a debate about whether the P-40 could dive at 480 mph IAS or at 500+ mph IAS.
> The manual that says 480 IAS was the red line also says that 5000-8000ft of altitude is needed to recover from a high speed dive.
> 
> ...




We know they did catch faster-flying aircraft like Bf 109G-6 and Fw 190s - you can see the Luftwaffe loss records on that pretty clearly. The question is how they did it - some in head on passes and so on, but a lot of these were chases, as described by the pilots themselves. Pilot after pilot (German and American) noted that the P-40 could catch Axis fighters in a dive, and could evade in a dive.

The oldest manuals say 460 IAS, then they say 480 IAS, the later flight films (which you can find as videos) say 485, but this is for new pilots. Flight students. Combat pilots did push the limits a bit more. I have already posted the account of the Curtiss test pilot Herbert O. Fisher who personally flew check out flights on over 2,000 P-40s and also went out to various Operational Theaters to train pilots. He said that he did a split S and dove from 20 to 10,000 feet and pulled out at 500mph. The exact quote is:

"_The standard procedure for an acceptance flight was a one-hour check of all major systems. Fisher had a specialty, he would take an aircraft up to "*20,000, strain the engine upward, then go inverted, throttle full forward, and nose it over, losing 10,000 feet or more at 500mph+*. He knew it was almost impossible to tear a P-40 apart in a dive, "_

Now seeing as he checked out 2,498 P-40s in his role as a production test pilot, I'd say it's a safe bet it was generally normal practice to exceed 500 mph just as the various pilot accounts claim they did. The account above does also give us some idea how much altitude is needed to pick up that speed, with the caveat that it's different if you start lower. However I doubt they needed more than 3 or 4,000 ft to pick up ~450 mph. 

Lets also keep in mind, once you are going say, 500 mph, even in a 45 degree dive, you are going to be at sea level _very quickly indeed_. 22,000 feet per minute downward if my math is right. So from 10,000 ft you can be down to sea level in ~ thirty seconds, maybe a minute or minute and a half depending how fast you accelerate into your dive. Either way it doesn't take long. Standard combat practice in P-40s (for evasion or pursuit) was to initiate a Split S into a vertical dive which helps initial acceleration, but you would want to pull out to a much more shallow dive in not too many seconds after that unless you were starting from very high up and being chased. Sometimes they also describe doing a chandelle before a dive instead, presumably because they were already going fast.

Now it is true that not every pilot may have been aware of the limits of the P-40 or how far they could push it. From reading pilot accounts I gather transition training was pretty marginal at best particularly in the RAF. The Soviets didn't even have manuals they could read so had to basically figure everything out on their own. Guys like Fisher did go out to the combat zones, he apparently flew several missions with US units in Burma for example, but it's unclear how fast all this disseminated. I think training was a major factor.


----------



## Schweik (Jan 5, 2019)

Ivan1GFP said:


> Hello Schweik,
> The Merlin P-40F/L may not have been as effective as the Allison P-40 on the Eastern Front.
> It was slower at low altitudes by quite a lot because the Allison tolerated quite a bit more "overboosting" and would not have climbed quite as fast because it had less engine power and more weight.
> The Merlin did give an advantage but it was above about 15,000 feet or so.



But I think they did overboost the Merlins as well. I believe the Soviets got a few P-40Fs by the way but I have been unable to trace how they used them. Probably sent to PVO units or the Baltic. I believe the Russians liked the Allisons better than the Merlins particularly for forward field areas though they burned them out very fast anyway partly due to problems keeping the oil clean, from what I've read.



> My own opinion is that the P-40 was a second rate Air Superiority fighter by 1942 and treated accordingly:
> In other words, in places where it continued to serve as a front line fighter, it was because the opposition was not considered of the highest caliber or where there simply wasn't anything comparable that was available. If there was anything else available, it got a secondary role.
> Note that by the time the P-40M and P-40N came out, the P-40M was not even in use by US forces except as trainers. The ones that did enter combat did so as Lend-Lease aircraft.
> This is getting a bit off topic from the discussion of Merlin P-40's though.
> ...



Lol ... fair enough but I think you are overstating the limitations. Don't make me start another thread because I think P-40K compares pretty well to a Yak 1 or even a YAk-9D.

P-40M was intended as an "export only" variant though some did end up in the CBI and the Pacific somehow. It had a higher altitude rated Allison but at the expense of being a weaker engine and it was quite heavy.

The P-40L however was IIRC about 500 lbs lighter than an E or a K. But the Russians didn't need the higher altitude performance and would have preferred the P-40K, which you can see in the personal history of some of their Aces.


----------



## Schweik (Jan 5, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> Metal fatigue is metal fatigue. The RR engine may react a bit differently but it will follow the same general pattern, while exceeding the design limits of the parts by 20-25% for a short period of time might not cause immediate failure it might shorten up the time to failure by 10-20 times (not percent).
> On the Allison increasing the stress on the crankshaft by 25% above what it would tolerate forever for all practical purposes (10 million cycles) could cause failure in 200,000 cycles.




But as you know they strengthened both the crank shaft and crank cased (going from peened to heat treated etc.) startin with the 1710-39 and culminating with the -73. The Allison memo was referring to the -81 which had a higher gear ratio so was more dangerous to overboost or over-rev.

We do know that almost all WW2 engines did gradually move to higher boost ratings through the war, certainly the Merlins did. The thing with the Allisons is that they were initially overly conservative in their recommended power ratings, and most of that was ditched almost from day one. They were not flying at 42" in combat for long (I mean, I'm sure people did but they died quickly or if lucky, got shot down and had the chance to explore more options)


----------



## Schweik (Jan 5, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> I don't mind the extra boost making up a good part of the speed *where the extra boost existed*.
> What really bugs me is the assumption that the extra boost was available or useful at a range of altitudes.
> It gets trotted out like like a magic talisman in just about every one of these discussions.



But you constantly lowball the numbers. P-40s weren't flying in combat at 42" Hq, certainly P-40F and Ls weren't. When the stats get rolled out they don't talk about the actual high boost settings of 57" or 60" they talk about 42" or 45" - because it's in the manual.

Notice in this chart that a 1944 RAAF test of a P-40N running at 57" boost (Allison engine) showed 3380 fpm up to 6800 ' at 57" boost, though it drops off rapidly after that. This means the critical altitude for that WEP rating was 6800'. That isn't high but it's hardly plowing altitude.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/P-40/A29-412-climb-WEP.jpg



> No loss of hundreds of horsepower when climbing 4-5000ft above sea level. No loss of power when climbing??
> 
> The 57in or 60 in limits were realistic for the Allison they didn't disappear when the plane banked, or slowed while climbing.



I agree 66" or 70" boost was limited to probably quite low altitude, but show me some evidence that they would lose power banking or climbing. As far as I know that is just your theory that you keep trotting out.


----------



## Schweik (Jan 5, 2019)

Glider said:


> Clearly the US Test Pilots don't agree with you
> 
> The didn't like its longitudinal stability or the vibration from the engine but the Summary is very clear
> 
> ...



The Typhoon mate.

P-40 need for a strong right leg and / or the use of trim tabs at very high speeds were well known. Good pilots could easily manage it though.

I posted an account upthread of an _actual wartime _Typhoon pilot, a decorated combat veteran and one of the few survivors of his unit, in which he mentioned that the plane wasn't even flyable without the trim tabs. He barely managed to get home (flying at a 45 degree bank, (holding the rudder bar with his hands!) the whole way) and considered it a miracle he was able to land when his trim cable was damaged by an 88 mm AA gun.



Watch for yourself, he starts describing this at 13:00. His direct quote was "*if the rudder trim goes on a Typhoon, you have no chance.*"

The Typhoon had basically the worst roll rate of any modern Allied fighter, and one of the worst turn rates for any single engined Allied fighter. It was fast but not very maneuverable.


----------



## Schweik (Jan 5, 2019)

To be fair though, I think all this and more was fixed with the new wing on the Tempest. That is a sweet beast.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jan 5, 2019)

decided to use the ignore function.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## slaterat (Jan 5, 2019)

Schweik said:


> The Typhoon had basically the worst roll rate of any modern Allied fighter, and one of the worst turn rates for any single engined Allied fighter. It was fast but not very maneuverable.



Where is your evidence for this? All you have posted is the infamous NACA roll rate, chart which apparently is all calculated. If you read some of these posts more thoroughly, you would of read that there is a difference between roll rate and time to bank. Time to bank is more important in ACM. I have posted data form A&AEE testing stating that the Kittyhawks aerlerons were set solid at 460 IAS , while the Typhoon is still able to roll from level to 45 degrees left and back to 45 degrees right in 5.75 seconds while applying just 1/4 aerleron at 460 IAS. In mock combat with a Spit V , the Typhoon can match the Spit in instantaneous turn ability. The Typhoon was also able to defeat the Spit V , by using its superior speed and dive ect, to extend and gain the advantage whenever necessary. The Typhoon also has a far better power loading than the P-40 F, a combat ready early Typhoon 1b comes in at 11,040 lbs, with the saber engine making 2180 hp in Sept of 42 giving a power loading of 5.06 lbs/ hp, the P-40 F comes in at 8,910 lbs and a Merlin XX at 1,300 hp giving a power loading of 6.85 lbs /hp. Test pilot Sammy Wroath praised the Typhoon for its" light and well harmonized controls".


----------



## Schweik (Jan 5, 2019)

pbehn said:


> This is ridiculous, you are describing a pilot getting a battle damaged plane home, how does a P-40 do when hit by a 88mm shell? Previously on this thread there is a Typhoon pilot describing how a Fw-190 had a power on stall in a turning fight and landed in the sea. Since turn rate roughly equates to climb rate which is also allied to lift and the Typhoon could carry a ton of bombs and half a ton of armour at 400MPH I don't believe your claim on turn rate for a second. An 88mm shell does not neatly render a control cable inoperative.



The pilots direct quote was ""*if the rudder trim goes on a Typhoon, you have no chance.*" 

The turn rate and roll rate figures for the Typhoon were not invented or initially posted by me, nor does climb rate equate to turn rate. To be honest I had no idea what those figures would be when I started this thread but it looks like the Typhoon was a bit of a buffalo.

This report notes "_severe vibration of the airframe is apparent in steep turns over 4G_" and mentions trying to do a 4G turn to the left (harder than the right due to torque) which resulted in a snap-roll and a loss of 2,000 ft of altitude. In WW2 air combat 5 or 6G turns weren't that unusual, and 7G weren't unheard of.


----------



## Schweik (Jan 5, 2019)

slaterat said:


> Where is your evidence for this? All you have posted is the infamous NACA roll rate, chart which apparently is all calculated. If you read some of these posts more thoroughly, you would of read that there is a difference between roll rate and time to bank. Time to bank is more important in ACM. I have posted data form A&AEE testing stating that the Kittyhawks aerlerons were set solid at 460 IAS , while the Typhoon is still able to roll from level to 45 degrees left and back to 45 degrees right in 5.75 seconds while applying just 1/4 aerleron at 460 IAS. In mock combat with a Spit V , the Typhoon can match the Spit in instantaneous turn ability. The Typhoon was also able to defeat the Spit V , by using its superior speed and dive ect, to extend and gain the advantage whenever necessary. The Typhoon also has a far better power loading than the P-40 F, a combat ready early Typhoon 1b comes in at 11,040 lbs, with the saber engine making 2180 hp in Sept of 42 giving a power loading of 5.06 lbs/ hp, the P-40 F comes in at 8,910 lbs and a Merlin XX at 1,300 hp giving a power loading of 6.85 lbs /hp. Test pilot Sammy Wroath praised the Typhoon for its" light and well harmonized controls".



I don't know why you guys keep lowballing the numbers.

That is about 500 lbs too heavy for the P-40F - we had a bunch of discussions about this already in the thread. Loaded weight for a P-40F with 6 guns is ~8400 lbs. Most used in combat had 2 of those guns and their ammunition taken out. The P-40L came from the factory that way and had a loaded weight of 8,020 lbs.

Your engine rating for the Merlin XX is also too low, 1300 is military power, 1435 is (normal) WEP. Not talking overboosting here either. Obviously at 65" they went a bit faster.

Anyway regardless, power ratio is not measured that way. It's HP to lbs not lbs to HP. 

P-40F is 0.15 hp/lb (245 Watts/kg) - 0.16 at WEP 
P-40L is 0.16 hp/lb - 0.18 at WEP 

Actual battlefield P-40F when facing a lot of air to air combat would be stripped to match P-40L.

Typhoon is still much better at 0.20 hp/lb (0.33 kW/kg) 

However the Typhoon handled like an overloaded bus.


Anyway, if you think it didn't, post some charts. Go out and find some actual statistics or tests. The NACA roll rate chart is the only one I could find, if you have a better one produce it.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 5, 2019)

Schweik said:


> But you constantly lowball the numbers. P-40s weren't flying in combat at 42" Hq, certainly P-40F and Ls weren't. When the stats get rolled out they don't talk about the actual high boost settings of 57" or 60" they talk about 42" or 45" - because it's in the manual.
> 
> I agree 66" or 70" boost was limited to probably quite low altitude, but show me some evidence that they would lose power banking or climbing. As far as I know that is just your theory that you keep trotting out.



I don't believe I have said that they limited the planes to 42-45in but there is a big difference between 45in and 60 inches isn't there? let alone 70 inches. There is also a difference in the maintenance requirements.

Now lets look at the P-40N-1 for example
*10550ft.......378mph............3000rpm..............1480hp...............57in
*8,000ft........174mph.............3000rpm..............1480hp...............57in

The first is in level flight the 2nd is while climbing. the drop of about 200mph caused the loss of 2550ft of altitude at which 57in could be maintained.
Allison ratings are all over the place, this engine was supposed to do 1410hp at 9500ft at 57 in with no ram.

Look at any other planes at WWII Aircraft Performance and see the difference in altitude between level speed and climbing.

The 8.80 supercharger gear airplanes were lucky they could hit 61-62in of MAP with the engine stationary in a test house. They needed some forward speed just to get to 66in and a lot of forward speed to get to 70in. So much speed that the people that wrote the memo doubted they could do it without over revving the engine.

An early 8.80 supercharger geared engine was down to 52in at 5000ft with no Ram or the later ones were rated at 56in at 4300ft. WEP

In any case you now need to make up a lot if inches of pressure to make 66in of manifold pressure. The air at 5000ft is about 83% if the pressure it is at sea level.

So whip that P-40 doing 335-340mph at sea level using 66-70in of MAP into a steep climb and watch (and feel) as the speed bleeds off and the plane climbs into thinner air in under two minutes and you have lost 10in or more of your manifold pressure, yeah you still have a lot more power than the "book" 1150hp at 44in but you sure don't have 1600-1700hp anymore,

Banking may be an exaggeration but if you are turning you are loosing speed or at least not going at full speed and if you are not going full speed you don't have full ram and that means you don't have full power (or the 66-70 in power anyway) pull a real tight turn with your oh so maneuverable P-40 and the closer you slip to climbing speed (200mph or under) the more inches of RAM you loose. Yes you can still beat the book 44in by a hefty margin but if it took 330mph or more to get to that magic 70inchs you may be in the mid to low 60s coming out of a hard turn (depending on it's length.

Now please note that a Mustang using the same engine is 50-60mph faster than a P-40 and has that much more RAM due to speed. The fact that Mustangs may have used 70in at times without overspeed the engine doesn't mean the P-40 can do the same at all altitudes and conditions of flight the Mustang did.

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


----------



## Schweik (Jan 5, 2019)

pbehn said:


> This is ridiculous, you are describing a pilot getting a battle damaged plane home, how does a P-40 do when hit by a 88mm shell? Previously on this thread there is a Typhoon pilot describing how a Fw-190 had a power on stall in a turning fight and landed in the sea. Since turn rate roughly equates to climb rate which is also allied to lift and the Typhoon could carry a ton of bombs and half a ton of armour at 400MPH I don't believe your claim on turn rate for a second. An 88mm shell does not neatly render a control cable inoperative.



This one apparently landed just fine


----------



## pbehn (Jan 5, 2019)

as previously.


----------



## Schweik (Jan 5, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> I don't believe I have said that they limited the planes to 42-25in but there is a big difference between 45in and 60 inches isn't there? let alone 70 inches. There is also a difference in the maintenance requirements.



You haven't but it keeps coming up at 42" whatever in this thread and many others as you well know. And you don't seem to mind when people less well informed or knowledgeable than yourself spout all kinds of BS about P-40s for some reason.



> Now lets look at the P-40N-1 for example
> *10550ft.......378mph............3000rpm..............1480hp...............57in
> *8,000ft........174mph.............3000rpm..............1480hp...............57in
> 
> ...



I get that but even at 174 mph there is still a pretty comfortable margin for combat maneuvering (8,000') at boost for somewhere like Tunisia or Sicily, let alone Russia. Right?



> The 8.80 supercharger gear airplanes were lucky they could hit 61-62in of MAP with the engine stationary in a test house. They needed some forward speed just to get to 66in and a lot of forward speed to get to 70in. So much speed that the people that wrote the memo doubted they could do it without over revving the engine.
> 
> An early 8.80 supercharger geared engine was down to 52in at 5000ft with no Ram or the later ones were rated at 56in at 4300ft. WEP
> 
> ...



I'll grant you they might not be able to overboost to 66" or 70" Hg and do a steep climb, but I don't think that is what they were talking about doing anyway. Overboosting like that means one of three things -

Running away / disengaging from a battlefield (I think first and foremost),
Chasing an enemy, or
Dogfighting.
And in any of those scenarios such as are described in numerous fighter accounts some of which I have transcribed and posted here, that extra boost down low would come in very handy... and in fact _did _come in very handy and saved their lives. I'm not quite sure to what extent this translates to for Merlin XX / 28s but it was presumably similar.

Neville Duke described in one big hairball of a battle, diving out to evade Bf-109s, diving all the way down to the deck and opening up his throttle, then climbing back up into the fight and doing it again, then diving after a fleeing Bf 109 and shooting it down, all in a Kittyhawk III presumably the K type not the M. If I have time I'll try to find it again and transcribe it. James Stocky Edwards shot down one of the German experten while in a high speed flight away from another battle, he spotted the guy strafing the wreck of a Hurricane he had just shot down, and Edwards blew him away and kept going, easily outrunning the rest of his rotte of 109G2s. This won't work at 42" Hg.

Another US pilots account (whose name escapes me at the moment, George Moody or somebody) which I posted in this or another thread mentioned dueling with 3 Bf 109s and finally out-running them in a long fight and chase that went from a German airbase all the way back to his own. That was probably in a P-40F though it could have been a K.



> *Banking may be an exaggeration* but if you are turning you are loosing speed or at least not going at full speed and if you are not going full speed you don't have full ram and that means you don't have full power (or the 66-70 in power anyway) pull a real tight turn with your oh so maneuverable P-40 and the closer you slip to climbing speed (200mph or under) the more inches of RAM you loose. Yes you can still beat the book 44in by a hefty margin but if it took 330mph or more to get to that magic 70inchs you may be in the mid to low 60s coming out of a hard turn (depending on it's length.



My my ... "_your oh so maneuverable P-40_ " you wound me sir! Sure they'll lose speed in a turn - part of the value of the extra 300 hp or whatever is to accelerate back up to speed quicker and not stall out of a turn etc.

Instead of going one extreme to the other lets try to talk about the probable realities. You'll notice I don't frequently even mention the 70" Hg except as an outlier to prove a point. I am in agrement with you that 60" is probably much more common and I do grasp that it takes a toll on the engine to run so hot. Still pilot accounts I've read mention going up to 65" though they also mention their engine smoking sometimes as a result.



> Now please note that a Mustang using the same engine is 50-60mph faster than a P-40 and has that much more RAM due to speed. The fact that Mustangs may have used 70in at times without overspeed the engine doesn't mean the P-40 can do the same at all altitudes and conditions of flight the Mustang did.



60 mph? That much? I'm still not convinced, the Allison memo mentions that the 70" was used in P-40 units so i have no reason not to believe them, and while I'm sure it could only be done down low, and at some risk to the engine, I suspect it could indeed be done. The Mustangs were obviously doing it for 15 minutes per _that _memo so I guess if your life was on the line you could risk the engine and still expect to make it home. Crew chief might be mad at you of course...

S


----------



## Schweik (Jan 5, 2019)

pbehn said:


> I think your understanding of "losing trim" may need clarifying, since he was wrestling with foot controls and unable to see where he was going it was a little more serious than a trim tab, and in any case I have read of a plane crashing when a trim tab screw came loose. I am not a pilot but I have read pilots state here that climb rate does roughly equate to turn rate, it is the same property requiring the same but in a different dimension. Could a P-40 sustain a 4G turn?



P-40s could sustain far more than 4Gs and the limit was basically what the pilot could endure. Of course any WW2 fighter will lose altitude in a turn though naturally. Usually you aren't pulling G's at all unless you are going pretty fast to begin with.


----------



## Schweik (Jan 5, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> Now please note that a Mustang using the same engine is 50-60mph faster than a P-40 and has that much more RAM due to speed. The fact that Mustangs may have used 70in at times without overspeed the engine doesn't mean the P-40 can do the same at all altitudes and conditions of flight the Mustang did.



Just thinking about it one other difference with the Mustangs is maybe the cold - a lot colder flying over the North Sea than in Tunisia. Some of the engine tests done by the Aussies etc. do mention "Tropical Temperatures" being an issue. 

It may also be the case that fighting in Italy was a bit easier on the Allied planes (cooler weather more of the year) than flying over Egypt, Algeria and Libya was.


----------



## slaterat (Jan 5, 2019)

That's a great video, did you catch where he calls the ambulance "the blood wagon". _Its great that he made it back to survive this amazing action. We don't actually know the total damage done to the aircraft, ie the fuslage could be bent ect, but I would assume that a 2000 plus hp engine turning a14 ' propeller is going to need some trim._

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## slaterat (Jan 5, 2019)

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/P-40/FL220.pdf

Heres the actual performance of fully loaded combat ready P-40 F, not a dyno tuned stripped down factory ringer for the sales brochure.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 5, 2019)

pbehn said:


> decided to use the ignore function.

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


----------



## fubar57 (Jan 5, 2019)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> View attachment 524515



LOL, I do that with resp: and certain metal jacket fastener all the time


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Jan 5, 2019)

Hello All,
It always gets to be much more of a personal argument when one starts discussing the merits of one fighter aircraft as compared to another.
No aircraft is superior in every respect to its contemporaries no matter how much we have glorified them since WW2. Regardless of how much we like a particular aircraft, we should be able to acknowledge that every aircraft had its faults.



Schweik said:


> But I think they did overboost the Merlins as well. I believe the Soviets got a few P-40Fs by the way but I have been unable to trace how they used them. Probably sent to PVO units or the Baltic. I believe the Russians liked the Allisons better than the Merlins particularly for forward field areas though they burned them out very fast anyway partly due to problems keeping the oil clean, from what I've read.



I actually had not heard of the Merlin P-40 in Soviet service. As I see it, the advantage of the P-40F/L was above 15,000 feet at the cost of some low altitude performance and that does not sound like the kind of thing the Soviets would have liked.
The Merlin and later Allison was not nearly as tolerant of overboosting as the earlier engines.



Schweik said:


> Lol ... fair enough but I think you are overstating the limitations. Don't make me start another thread because I think P-40K compares pretty well to a Yak 1 or even a YAk-9D.
> 
> P-40M was intended as an "export only" variant though some did end up in the CBI and the Pacific somehow. It had a higher altitude rated Allison but at the expense of being a weaker engine and it was quite heavy.
> 
> The P-40L however was IIRC about 500 lbs lighter than an E or a K. But the Russians didn't need the higher altitude performance and would have preferred the P-40K, which you can see in the personal history of some of their Aces.



Start another thread if you feel the need to. I believe the P-40K has SOME advantages over the Yak-1 and Yak-9D, but they are mostly in the areas of construction quality and refinement of equipment. Other than that, from a performance standpoint except at VERY low altitude, the Yak fighters are at least very comparable. You picked some of the lesser performing examples of those.
The problem with the P-40K is that it was a very heavy aircraft and except at Sea Level where the supercharger was able to supply enough boost to give it some serious performance, it didn't have enough engine power.
This is why when comparing speeds to the Spitfire Mk.IX, I was saying that 10,000 feet or even 6,000 feet was too high and the comparison should be made at Sea Level if the P-40 was to have any advantage.
The P-40M did see service in the Asia and Pacific but as a Lend-Lease aircraft to Australia and New Zealand.
You comment that the P-40M was quite heavy but its basic weight was 6899 pounds as compared to the 6880 pound basic weight of the P-40K.
A difference of 19 pounds is meaningless.

The problem with the P-40L and its weight reduction is that it was at the cost of durability of components with many aircraft requiring extensive service before they were fit for use. Often the older components were swapped in as replacements and so went the weight savings.
Figure that the Merlin added quite a bit of weight to the aircraft.
Basic Weight for a P-40E was 6702 pounds and for an otherwise identical P-40F was 7089 pounds.
Note that the lightened P-40L had a basic weight of 6840 pounds which is only 40 pounds less than the P-40K.
Gross weight is about 400 pounds less because it carries a lot less fuel and ammunition.

The reason why Shortround6 commented about maintaining performance while climbing and banking is because at least according to the Allison memo, 70 inches Hg could not be achieve without a LOT of ram effect and only very near Sea Level or by significantly exceeding RPM limits.

- Ivan.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Jan 5, 2019)

Ivan1GFP said:


> Hello Michael Rauls,
> I figure the Merlin P-40F/L was good for somewhere between 365 MPH and 375 MPH at critical altitude.
> Down low, it lost quite a bit of speed as compared to Allison P-40s, but still was a relatively fast early war aircraft.
> The A6M and Spitfire Mk.V have also been criticized as slow at various times.
> ...


While I certainly would not question your assertion that you have heard the A6m or the Spitfire called slow I must admit in all my years of reading and conversations with people about ww2 aircraft I have never heard it once. I have however heard or read slow as a discriptive term for the p40 more times than I can possibly hope to even estimate dispite most makes of the Warhawk being as fast or in some cases faster than these and other of its contemporaries as well.


----------



## michael rauls (Jan 5, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> I don't believe I have said that they limited the planes to 42-45in but there is a big difference between 45in and 60 inches isn't there? let alone 70 inches. There is also a difference in the maintenance requirements.
> 
> Now lets look at the P-40N-1 for example
> *10550ft.......378mph............3000rpm..............1480hp...............57in
> ...


I wish I could be more specific but I have read several times that the Merlins that were used in the p40F/L and that which were used in the Mustang were different. Something about the supercharger I believe. Was this not the case?


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Jan 5, 2019)

michael rauls said:


> While I certainly would not question your assertion that you have heard the A6m or the Spitfire called slow I must admit in all my years of reading and conversations with people about ww2 aircraft I have never heard it once. I have however heard or read slow as a discriptive term for the p40 more times than I can possibly hope to even estimate dispite most makes of the Warhawk being as fast or in some cases faster than these and other of its contemporaries as well.



Hello Michael Rauls,
In the case of the A6M, I have heard it may times, though they were not all that slow in comparison to contemporaries until at least the A6M3 series came out. With the Spitfire, I have seen the comment about the Spitfire Mk.V and about no other mark that I can remember.
The problem with the P-40 is that the numbers tend to go all over the place.



michael rauls said:


> I wish I could be more specific but I have read several times that the Merlins in that were used in the p40F/L and that which was used in the Mustang were different. Something about the supercharger I believe. Was this not the case?



You are correct regarding the single stage two-speed Merlin in the P-40 and the two stage Merlin in the P-51.
I believe Shortround6 was actually referring to the Allison equipped Mustangs though.
They had about a 30-40 MPH advantage over the similarly equipped P-40 but the amusing thing is that with the switch to the Merlin, they had a similar advantage over the similarly equipped Spitfire Mk.IX and Mk.XVI.

- Ivan.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jan 5, 2019)

michael rauls said:


> I wish I could be more specific but I have read several times that the Merlins that were used in the p40F/L and that which were used in the Mustang were different. Something about the supercharger I believe. Was this not the case?


Single stage


----------



## fubar57 (Jan 5, 2019)

Single stage


----------



## Glider (Jan 6, 2019)

Schweik said:


> The Typhoon mate.
> 
> P-40 need for a strong right leg and / or the use of trim tabs at very high speeds were well known. Good pilots could easily manage it though.
> 
> ...




I would be amazed if any single engine fighter hit by an 88mm AA gun didn't find difficulties in getting home.

I also find it interesting that you are happy to quote test pilots who exceeded 500 mph on a regular basis, (a claim I do not deny) as I am confident British test pilots exceeded 525mph in Typhoons because that is what test pilots do, they test aircraft.
But when a test pilot makes the comments they put in writing about the P40N its ignored. not mentioned and the question I put to you:-

_So which of these is closer to handling like an overloaded bus?_

Remains unanswered 

Another question I would put to you is. _Where is your evidence that the Typhoon wasn't maneuverable _I ask this as clearly the American test pilots disagree with you. Remember that roll rates is only part of the maneuverability question and even here they said if rolled well.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (Jan 6, 2019)

Schweik said:


> P-40s could sustain far more than 4Gs and the limit was basically what the pilot could endure. Of course any WW2 fighter will lose altitude in a turn though naturally. Usually you aren't pulling G's at all unless you are going pretty fast to begin with.


I've pulled approx. 6G in a glider at around 150 knots on a number of occasions when doing aerobatics and the most just above 8G when on a course. Speed has almost nothing to do with G forces. Where did you get that idea from?


----------



## Schweik (Jan 6, 2019)

Glider said:


> I've pulled approx. 6G in a glider at around 150 knots on a number of occasions when doing aerobatics and the most just above 8G when on a course. Speed has almost nothing to do with G forces. Where did you get that idea from?



I'm no aeronautical engineer but I'm gonna go out on a limb and say gliders have a much lower stall speed than a 7,000 lb fighter...


----------



## Glider (Jan 6, 2019)

Schweik said:


> I'm no aeronautical engineer but I'm gonna go out on a limb and say gliders have a much lower stall speed than a 7,000 lb fighter...


The question is what has that got to do with the relationship between G forces and speed. By the way stalling speed also has nothing to do with it and I am confident that every fighter could pull over 4G. It's nothing special.

So just to repeat myself where did you get the idea that the following statement has anything to do with reality?

_P-40s could sustain far more than 4Gs and the limit was basically what the pilot could endure. Of course any WW2 fighter will lose altitude in a turn though naturally. Usually you aren't pulling G's at all unless you are going pretty fast to begin with_

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


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 6, 2019)

Glider said:


> The question is what has that got to do with the relationship between G forces and speed. By the way stalling speed also has nothing to do with it and I am confident that every fighter could pull over 4G. It's nothing special.
> 
> So just to repeat myself where did you get the idea that the following statement has anything to do with reality?
> 
> _P-40s could sustain far more than 4Gs and the limit was basically what the pilot could endure. Of course any WW2 fighter will lose altitude in a turn though naturally. Usually you aren't pulling G's at all unless you are going pretty fast to begin with_



I was about to post the same question.


----------



## Schweik (Jan 6, 2019)

slaterat said:


> http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/P-40/FL220.pdf
> 
> Heres the actual performance of fully loaded combat ready P-40 F, not a dyno tuned stripped down factory ringer for the sales brochure.



That's quite interesting and thanks for posting it because I hadn't seen it before.

But that is an overloaded P-40F, and much more importantly, *flown at cruising power to max continuous power*, not combat power settings.
The Merlin XX (the type used in the P-40F/L) is a pretty well known engine, and it's normal boost settings are also well established. 48" Hg (American) is just under 9 lbs boost under the British system (see here for a helpful conversion chart). My understanding is that the normal allowed boost was up to +14, with WEP at +16 lbs. That is considerably more horsepower.

These things can be confusing as comparisons between aircraft are often made showing HP of one under military power, another under normal WEP boost, and another using water injection or overboost settings. Similarly tests were done under different conditions and for different purposes, at various engine settings.

Here is another British test from Sept 42 

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/P-40/Kittyhawk_II_performance_9sept42.jpg

I'll repeat the key passages:
_
"Following performance figures for Kittyhawk II have been obtained by B.A.C. pilot and *agree well with U.S. Army results*:

Level speeds
(a) Without air cleaner *370 mph at 20400 feet *and 347 m.p.h. at 30,000 feet_"

So obviously they are using different boost settings. US Army figures often quote 368 mph or 370.

Of course, in the field when frequently facing enemy fighters they typically stripped two of the four guns out, removed forward wing tanks and bomb shackles, and carried less fuel. Hence the P-40L at 8,000 lbs.


----------



## Schweik (Jan 6, 2019)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I was about to post the same question.



This isn't something I particularly want to wade into since, as previously stated I'm no aeronautical engineer. I don't claim to know the physics of any of this particularly well. But Ok I'll bite.

Having read a lot of WW2 pilot accounts there is a close association with maneuvering at high speed and excessive G forces. Pilots routinely report blacking out during pull outs from high speed dives and while doing hard bank turns at high speed.

I know in my car if I turn 90 degrees around a city block corner at 10 mph I feel less G force than if I make that same turn at 60 mph. At the latter speed my tires squeal etc. and I feel pressure pulling me toward the outside of the turn. If I'm not careful I could flip the car.

From what little I understand about the physics, in an airplane a given turn will normally take longer in space at a higher speed. I think maybe you get G forces when you try to cut that turn tighter (like for example, when trying to pull lead on a target or trying not to let an enemy pull lead on you). I do know you can also pull G at lower speeds too if you turn very tight. In civilian flying you have 'normal' turn rates and everything is kind of standardized, but in stunt or combat flying you would push the limits much more, particularly the latter where your life is on the line. Sharp bank turns also increase stall speed and it was routine for combat pilots to snap roll and go into spins when trying to execute hard bank turns.

My only very limited piloting experience is in a Cessna 172 and that aircraft neither flies fast nor has acrobatic capabilities. I have experienced (light) G forces in a turn in a Cessna but it's nothing like a WW2 fighter. I think similarly while gliders or sailplanes can be acrobatic don't fly at 400-500 mph. I could be wrong though no expert and don't claim to be.


Maybe somebody else who does know the physics better can explain it.


----------



## Elmas (Jan 6, 2019)

Centripetal acceleration is directly proportional of the square of the speed and inversely proportional of the radius of turn.

At 600 km/h and 166 m/s ( circa 372 mph), with a turning radius of 700 m you'll have 4 gs.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jan 6, 2019)

Elmas said:


> View attachment 524646
> 
> 
> 
> Centripetal acceleration is directly proportional of the square of the speed and inversely proportional of the radius of turn.



Ah, gotcha, so a tighter turn at higher speed will pull G quickly, but a very tight turn at lower speed will also pull G. Is that right?

The reason I had previously mentioned low stall speed on gliders / sailplanes is that I assume with their very low wing loading that they can pull lots of very tight turns for longer than a much heavier fighter plane can (because the latter will stall quicker). Therefore gliders can do more high G turns at lower speed.


----------



## slaterat (Jan 6, 2019)

Schweik said:


> But that is an overloaded P-40F, and much more importantly, *flown at cruising power to max continuous power*, not combat power settings.
> The Merlin XX (the type used in the P-40F/L) is a pretty well known engine, and it's normal boost settings are also well established. 48" Hg (American) is just under 9 lbs boost under the British system (see here for a helpful conversion chart). My understanding is that the normal allowed boost was up to +14, with WEP at +16 lbs. That is considerably more horsepower.



It does not state that the P40-f is in overload state but it does have full fuel, ammo, radios, 6 x.50 mgs and armour ect. The merlin XX was, as you say, a pretty well known engine as it was first seen in action with Hurricane IIs in 1940. That being said I have not seen any engine rating for it higher than 9lbs that was not the 5 min WEP rating. Typical settings for the XX were just that 9lbs @ 3000rpm and 12 lbs at WEP using the emergency boost over ride cutout. 12 lbs was limited to the low speed supercharger gear. In late 42 the settings were inxcreased to 14 lbs WEP in low and then very shortly later to 14 in low and 16lbs in high, these were all WEP 5 minute ratings. Check here http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/merlin-xx-18nov42.jpg and here http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/merlin-xx-21nov42.jpg

After having read the whole report it is interesting to note that the limitations stated for the Merlin XX in the P-40F, for all out level were 3000 rpm and 9 lbs boost with a 5 minute limit. 12lbs boost was only allowed for take off. I wonder why that would be as 12lbs boost had been used by Hurricanes for years, were there problems with the proper operation of the merlin XX in the P-40F?


----------



## Schweik (Jan 6, 2019)

Glider said:


> I would be amazed if any single engine fighter hit by an 88mm AA gun didn't find difficulties in getting home.
> 
> I also find it interesting that you are happy to quote test pilots who exceeded 500 mph on a regular basis, (a claim I do not deny) as I am confident British test pilots exceeded 525mph in Typhoons because that is what test pilots do, they test aircraft.



Well, lets be precise, that guy wasn't just a test pilot he did the checkout flights for ~ 2,400 P-40s, in other words he put them through their paces to make sure they were capable of the normal combat performance expected of the aircraft and engine. P-40s were incidentally rated for 10Gs which is of course far more than a WW2 pilot could normally endure in the types of seats they had and without a G suit and so on. It's also why P-40s were so tough they were a little bit overbuilt.

I brought this up because it shows not merely that one or two guys dove the P-40 at 500+ mph, (or 600+ mph as was done in at least two other individual tests by Curtiss) but that a dive of 500+ mph was part of the normal routine checkout flight for the aircraft. Also Shortround had brought up the question of how many feet did you have to descend to reach high enough speed to intercept a Fw 190 and I thought that example gave us some insight into that question though it does not answer it definitively.



> But when a test pilot makes the comments they put in writing about the P40N its ignored. not mentioned and the question I put to you:-
> 
> _So which of these is closer to handling like an overloaded bus?_
> 
> Remains unanswered



No, I answered it. I am basing that on the previously posted (not by me) turn radius chart and the NACA roll chart that everyone has seen. I also pointed out that per the memo you yourself reported the pilots said there was extreme vibration any time they tried to enter more than a 4G turn, which as you noted is not that much of a turn for a fighter, and that turning left at 4G caused the plane to go into a snap roll and stall. They did overall say favorable things about it though anyway I agree, and tended to say less than favorable things about the P-40N in some similar tests.

Finally, I also pointed out a couple of times the video in which one Typhoon pilot noted that "if the trim tab goes on a Typhoon your a finished". One of the other Typhoon pilots in another interview I posted upthread said "the Typhoon was not a good fighter" (but that it was an ideal rocket platform).

I didn't go cherry picking through Typhoon pilot interviews to find negative comments about the plane. I just googled "Typhoon Pilot interview" - for all I knew I was going to get pilot after pilot praising the Tiffy and describing how great it was at shooting down enemy fighters, but that is not what they said. You try it yourself and see what comes up.



> Another question I would put to you is. _Where is your evidence that the Typhoon wasn't maneuverable _I ask this as clearly the American test pilots disagree with you. Remember that roll rates is only part of the maneuverability question and even here they said if rolled well.



See above for the answer. But that is just my opinion, I'm not claiming it's definitive. You said the NACA chart is an estimate? That is the only real hard data I know of. If it turns out that the Typhoon turned and rolled _very well_ then I definitely agree it was a better fighter than a P-40. I don't think that was the case but I'm ready to be surprised. There must be some more concrete data somewhere that we can compare.

I know from previous discussions about the Hurricane roll can be tricky to test because sometimes they test with moderate stick force vs. heavy, there is a difference between maximum roll rate and roll acceleration and so on.

To summarize based on what I've seen so far, the Typhoon rolled slowly and had a limited turn rate. Maybe they only lost 20 or 30 to tails falling off but I suspect if you were a pilot that knew some were lost that way, and started a turn and felt "_severe vibration of the airframe_ " he might hesitate to turn more. However that doesn't mean they were necessarily a bad fighter - that was a very fast plane especially down low and hit and run tactics do work very well. I think a good rate of roll is helpful but it isn't required.


----------



## Schweik (Jan 6, 2019)

slaterat said:


> It does not state that the P40-f is in overload state



No it doesn't but it posts the weight at ~8,900 lbs which is 400 lbs more than the official "loaded weight" for a P-40F and about 850 lbs more than the "loaded weight" of a P-40L. 8900 lbs is closer to the gross weight. I've already posted sources for this and I believe other posters here acknowledged it but if you need me to I can do it again.



> but it does have full fuel, ammo, radios, 6 x.50 mgs and armour ect. The merlin XX was, as you say, a pretty well known engine as it was first seen in action with Hurricane IIs in 1940. That being said I have not seen any engine rating for it higher than 9lbs that was not the 5 min WEP rating. Typical settings for the XX were just that 9lbs @ 3000rpm and 12 lbs at WEP using the emergency boost over ride cutout. 12 lbs was limited to the low speed supercharger gear. In late 42 the settings were inxcreased to 14 lbs WEP in low and then very shortly later to 14 in low and 16lbs in high, these were all WEP 5 minute ratings. Check here http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/merlin-xx-18nov42.jpg and here http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/merlin-xx-21nov42.jpg



Well, as you noted - the ratings kept going up didn't they (partly due to improving fuel) long before the P-40F or L were even in action. From 12 to 14 to 16, and that is the official limit. By the time 16 lbs is the WEP setting do you think 14 is still just safe for 5 minutes? How about 12? Or 9 lbs?

By the time the Merlin XX / 28 was in action in the P-40 the engine was quite thoroughly tested and had been improved by Packard who introduced "indium" coatings to the crankshaft bearings, making them more resistant to corrosion and more importantly, wear.



> After having read the whole report it is interesting to note that the limitations stated for the Merlin XX in the P-40F, for all out level were 3000 rpm and 9 lbs boost with a 5 minute limit. 12lbs boost was only allowed for take off. I wonder why that would be as 12lbs boost had been used by Hurricanes for years, were there problems with the proper operation of the merlin XX in the P-40F?



No there was no problem. Those are just the old restrictions. I've already posted war diaries describing flying from 55-65 Hg (from +14 to +17 lb) for more than 20 minutes.

S


----------



## Greyman (Jan 6, 2019)

slaterat said:


> After having read the whole report it is interesting to note that the limitations stated for the Merlin XX in the P-40F, for all out level were 3000 rpm and 9 lbs boost with a 5 minute limit. 12lbs boost was only allowed for take off. I wonder why that would be as 12lbs boost had been used by Hurricanes for years, were there problems with the proper operation of the merlin XX in the P-40F?



I found reference to +12 lb here. I haven't come across the Kittyhawk II pilot's notes but I'd put money on allowance for higher than +9 lb.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 6, 2019)

The revised June of 1943 manual for the P-40F says 61in of MAP in both low and high gear for WEP. 
The chart also says 1300hp which is absurd.

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


----------



## Schweik (Jan 6, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> The revised June of 1943 manual for the P-40F says 61in of MAP in both low and high gear for WEP.
> The chart also says 1300hp which is absurd.



Very interesting, thanks. Do you have a source for that? Is the manual online somewhere?


----------



## Greyman (Jan 6, 2019)

For the Merlin 28 I've got:
+14 boost -- M ratio -- (6,250 ft) -- 1,460 bhp
+16 boost -- S ratio -- (11,000 ft) -- 1,435 bhp


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 6, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Very interesting, thanks. Do you have a source for that? Is the manual online somewhere?



The manual is here, on this site. 
P-40 Flight Manual

see. Other Mechanical Systems Tech.

for all kinds of manuals.

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


----------



## BiffF15 (Jan 6, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Well, lets be precise, that guy wasn't just a test pilot he did the checkout flights for ~ 2,400 P-40s, in other words he put them through their paces to make sure they were capable of the normal combat performance expected of the aircraft and engine. P-40s were incidentally rated for 10Gs which is of course far more than a WW2 pilot could normally endure in the types of seats they had and without a G suit and so on. It's also why P-40s were so tough they were a little bit overbuilt.
> 
> I brought this up because it shows not merely that one or two guys dove the P-40 at 500+ mph, (or 600+ mph as was done in at least two other individual tests by Curtiss) but that a dive of 500+ mph was part of the normal routine checkout flight for the aircraft. Also Shortround had brought up the question of how many feet did you have to descend to reach high enough speed to intercept a Fw 190 and I thought that example gave us some insight into that question though it does not answer it definitively.
> 
> ...



Schweik,

Just a few things that at are food for thought. First, your assessment of speed relative to G available is pretty close. The faster you go, the more G available you have, up unto either the Flight Manual limit, your limit, or the structural limits of the plane. The speed where you can full aft snatch the stick and not over G the plane is today called corner velocity. Above corner velocities any extra speed can be used to sustain max allowable G, or over-stress the AC if required. Conversely the slower you go the less G available all the way down to stall speed (wings level).

Second you have commented about the P40 dive speed allowing intercepting or catching Me109s or 190s. Realize the dive intercept is not easy as you have to realize whether a target is in range, then dive on it and do a good enough attack that you actually get a snap shot (quick squeeze of the trigger), and maintain enough energy / speed to safely get away. It’s not easy is what I’m saying.

Third the comments by the Typhoon pilot regarding how the plane flew terrible, what was his perspective or comparison? The guys who went from the Spit to the Tbolt probably said the same thing. However each airplane has its strengths and weaknesses and it’s up to the community to teach and the pilot to learn how to use them. If a Viper / Hornet guy jumped into an Eagle he would hate it at first since it flies nowhere near as nice however it’s a much better war machine at heart. I have flown with these guys and they came around but it took a while. I flew it initially and had no reservations as it was what I knew. Earlier I mentioned the Spit, which has a wonderful reputation as a great, easy, responsive plane. If that’s your first, you measure all others that follow by that yardstick if you will.

Lastly is Squadron versus Squadron comparisons. Two squadrons flying the same planes are not by any means to be assumed equal. The experience/ maturity of the pilots is one thing, the same for maintenance is another, and wing, theater, numbered Air Force is yet more of the same. Logistics, weather, and morale are variables as well. I’ve been in a wing with three squadrons of 24 A/C, and one squadron would always be stronger than the other two, and that changed every year to year and a half. Lots of variables. Comparing one squadron of German fighters in the MTO or Africa with a unit in Germany that’s been in constant contact with Allied fighters / bombers in a different environment (high altitude at least initially), flying two or three times a Day is not a good comparo. 

Once again just food for thought.

Cheers,
Biff

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


----------



## wuzak (Jan 6, 2019)

BiffF15 said:


> If a Viper / Hornet guy jumped into an Eagle he would hate it at first since it flies nowhere near as nice however it’s a much better war machine at heart. I have flown with these guys and they came around but it took a while. I flew it initially and had no reservations as it was what I knew. Earlier I mentioned the Spit, which has a wonderful reputation as a great, easy, responsive plane. If that’s your first, you measure all others that follow by that yardstick if you will.



So the Hornet is more responsive/agile, but the Eagle has greater all round capability?


----------



## BiffF15 (Jan 6, 2019)

wuzak said:


> So the Hornet is more responsive/agile, but the Eagle has greater all round capability?



The Hornet has higher AOA limits, lower max G limits and a lower thrust to weight. It’s a tremendous slow speed fighter, bleeds energy like mad and is slower to accelerate. They are a fun fight!

The later model Vipers have gigantic motors, bleed energy slowly, and accelerate like a rocket. They are small, difficult to see and can sustain high G well, and can even accelerate at 9Gs in some regimes. Very difficult fight if flown well.

Cheers k
Biff

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## slaterat (Jan 7, 2019)

Heres the power curves for the merlin XX series
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/merlin-xx-curve-c1.jpg
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/merlin-xx-curve-c2.jpg

It looks like the merlin XX is already down to 10 lbs boost @ 17.5 k, at 20k its down to 7.5 lbs, therefore the increased boost allowances won't have any affect on the P-40 F max speed of 354 mph @ 20,200 ft.


----------



## Navalwarrior (Jan 7, 2019)

Schweik said:


> View attachment 524219
> 
> 
> Generally, in Russia, the P-40 was an important part of their arsenal in 1942 and 1943, the latter year in particular saw a lot of Soviet Aces scoring well particularly in P-40Ks, but by the third quarter it was indeed eclipsed by the locally made types. The Yak series production issues had been largely straightened out by mid '43 and more important from the Russian point of view, the La 5FN was ideal for their needs. They also still liked the P-39 (which they preferred over the P-40 and all other Lend Lease types) well into '44. The Soviets had over 40 P-40 Aces with 3 _double_* H*ero of the* S*oviet* U*nion awards given to P-40 pilots. Most P-40 units became 'Guards' squadrons over time and were switched to Yak or La 5 series.
> ...


Resp:
The P-40 certainly couldn't have been that bad of an aircraft with the number of Aces it produced. But I think air-to-air tactics (what not to do as well as what to do) were passed down from the veteran fighter pilots . . . as well as what part of a 'mission' P-40s flew. Also, the skill of enemy pilots, or lack of, likely played a part. But this could be said for all allied fighter pilots, regardless what they were flying toward the end of the war. The P-40 also had no serious flight characteristics, so new and inexperienced pilots lived long enough to gain experience/skills, as compared to a beginner in the P-38, for an example. It's time in service (combat in nearly every Theater by so many Countries) is phenomenal in my book. It thrived (may not be the best word) in all climates it was used in, except possibly Russia. It was 'the mule in the barn' while the Thorobreds were being refined! It is not my favorite WWII fighter, but a 2002 color photo of a refurbished P-40K in Aleutians' markings hangs on my office wall. I'd hate to think what the Allies would have done without it.
Thanks for the data you provided.

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


----------



## Schweik (Jan 7, 2019)

slaterat said:


> Heres the power curves for the merlin XX series
> http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/merlin-xx-curve-c1.jpg
> http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/merlin-xx-curve-c2.jpg
> 
> It looks like the merlin XX is already down to 10 lbs boost @ 17.5 k, at 20k its down to 7.5 lbs, therefore the increased boost allowances won't have any affect on the P-40 F max speed of 354 mph @ 20,200 ft.



Well you have one chart which says 354 mph, I have this other chart which says 370 mph and notes it 'agrees well with US Army results' (reposted below in case you missed it)

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/P-40/Kittyhawk_II_performance_9sept42.jpg

I'll repeat the key passages:

_ "Following performance figures for Kittyhawk II have been obtained by B.A.C. pilot and *agree well with U.S. Army results*:

Level speeds
(a) Without air cleaner *370 mph at 20400 feet *and 347 m.p.h. at 30,000 feet_" 

So where does that leave us?

First I am not an expert on the Merlin XX, I'll leave that part of it to others.

What I can say operationally is this. In a nutshell, this aircraft was configured in different ways depending on the mission. In North Africa, and in the islands in the Med like Pantelleria, Sardinia and Sicily, and in Italy until the Axis resistance lost a step, they were usually if not always c*onfigured for air to air combat *- meaning 4 guns, removed extra fuel tanks, removed bomb racks, removed IFF, removed extra radio etc. That is your 8,000 - 8,400 lb fighter (or the factory P-40L at 8,080 loaded).

When they were doing more strafing missions (and this also varied by squadron) they put in 6 guns, more ammunition, the extra radiator armor, and so on. That is your 8,600 - 8,900 lb fighter.

This is all well established historical record. Nor was the P-40 the only aircraft to be modified this way. I already posted data in this thread showing that they took wing guns out of Hurricanes (20mm cannon) and Spitfire MK Vs (one of the .303 MGs) in the same Theater.

It's a pretty normal field modification to tailor the aircraft to the combat needs faced by the pilots. The enemy aircraft (Bf 109 F and G, MC 202 and 205 etc.) had some of the best climb and altitude performance of the war. Lightening the P-40F certainly helped deal with this in terms of rate of climb and altitude performance.

And the results are a matter of historical record, as quite a few of those Axis fighters fell to those 4 guns...

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Navalwarrior (Jan 7, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Well you have one chart which says 354 mph, I have this other chart which says 370 mph and notes it 'agrees well with US Army results' (reposted below in case you missed it)
> 
> http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/P-40/Kittyhawk_II_performance_9sept42.jpg
> 
> ...


Resp:
Field modifications seem to be a common, if not important aspect of success. Ground Crews, as well as pilots, played an important part in the creative field modifications. The more I read, the more I learn of the ingenuity of airmen and ground pounders. Impressive!

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jan 7, 2019)

Ivan1GFP said:


> Hello All,
> It always gets to be much more of a personal argument when one starts discussing the merits of one fighter aircraft as compared to another.
> No aircraft is superior in every respect to its contemporaries no matter how much we have glorified them since WW2. Regardless of how much we like a particular aircraft, we should be able to acknowledge that every aircraft had its faults.



First let me say, I agree with this and don't worry, I was kidding I am definitely *not *opening another P-40 related thread and if I opened one on the Yak series it would be in praise of them. You are right people can take comparisons of aircraft personally, but I doubt there are that many dedicated Typhoon fans here. Something about P-40s in particular seems to rub sandpaper on peoples privates to an extent I am often amazed by. So I'm going to leave that topic alone for a while once this thread tapers off. There is probably already a hit out on me on the Dark Web over this one.

Nothing against you at all. I disagree with you a little but I'm definitely not mad about it. I was kidding.



> I actually had not heard of the Merlin P-40 in Soviet service. As I see it, the advantage of the P-40F/L was above 15,000 feet at the cost of some low altitude performance and that does not sound like the kind of thing the Soviets would have liked.
> The Merlin and later Allison was not nearly as tolerant of overboosting as the earlier engines.



Yeah I'm no expert on the Merlin but from what the others have posted, +16 lb is pretty good performance probably and for the Russian Front, a P-40 with higher altitude capability that would confer some advantages - namely it could fly top cover over the battlefield. I think they did have more maintenance trouble with the Merlins though for whatever reason. I don't know if any P-40F ever got into service in Russia I just found some mentions that some of the ones intended for the British were diverted to Russia, maybe 50 maybe 100. They may have been used for maintenance or spares or the boat carrying them could have been sunk. I haven't seen any mention of their use in Russia yet.



> [Start another thread if you feel the need to. I believe the P-40K has SOME advantages over the Yak-1 and Yak-9D, but they are mostly in the areas of construction quality and refinement of equipment. Other than that, from a performance standpoint except at VERY low altitude, *the Yak fighters are at least very comparable*. You picked some of the lesser performing examples of those.
> The problem with the P-40K is that it was a very heavy aircraft and except at Sea Level where the supercharger was able to supply enough boost to give it some serious performance, it didn't have enough engine power.



Yes I agree the Yak fighters were _comparable_, but they were (at least among) the best the Russians had. They probably climbed better, and had a bit better combat speed at medium altitude but a P-40K could out turn them, could dive _much_ faster, was safer for the pilot, had longer range and had _a lot _more firepower (albeit the nose guns are more accurate). But in general this is what I would say, a P-40E was probably about as good as an early 1941 Yak and a P-40K was about as good as a later 1942 Yak, better than the other available planes (LaGG, MiG, I-16, Hurricane and so on) except the P-39 which seems to have been ideally suited for the Russians, and most importantly, a P-40K in the (Low Altitude) conditions of the Russian Front would definitely give a Soviet pilot a good chance to survive and deal death to the Germans. This is why so many high ranking Russian aces and HSU winners flew that specific subtype such as M. V Kuznetzov (seen here celebrating some victories in famous propaganda photos with a P-40K in the background) who ended the war with 36 individual (22 with the P-40) and 12 shared victory claims, Leonovich Ivan Semyonovich (28 victories, most in P-40), and Denisov Konstantin Dmitrievich who scored all of his 13 individual and 6 shared victories while flying the P-40K specifically.

This would not make it a "second rate" fighter in my book unless you also considered the Yak 1, Yak 9 etc. second rate. I wouldn't. I would say they were good fighters and at least some of the P-40s were closely matched.

Of course the Russians didn't have that many P-40Ks. And ultimately the Yak 1b / 9 / 3 series and La 5 / 7 series became the perfect fighters for the Russian Front, ideally tailored to the conditions and superior to any P-40 *for that Theater*. But I think what made the P-40 superior in one sense, was that while the P-40 could fairly easily be adapted by Soviet pilots and ground crew to conditions in Leningrad, Crimea or Murmansk, it could also be adapted by American pilots and groundcrew to conditions in Rangoon, Kunming, and the Himalayas, by British and Australian pilots and ground crew to conditions in Alexandria and Syria, by American and Australians to conditions in New Guinea, the Solomons and Darwin (and as far north as Alaska), and by Americans and British fighting in Tunisia, Sardinia and Italy. How good would a Yak 1 perform over Darwin or Rangoon? I don't know honestly so it's not a facetious question, but I do consider the Yak series to be more specialized.

I think it may not have been the best fighter in all of those Theaters and certainly not for the whole war but it was pretty competitive, more than is generally acknowledged, in all of them and as I have pointed out a few times, shot down a lot of enemy aircraft and destroyed a lot of enemy ground and Sea targets well into 1944. That is what made the P-40 (in my opinion) a damn good fighter.



> This is why when comparing speeds to the Spitfire Mk.IX, I was saying that 10,000 feet or even 6,000 feet was too high and the comparison should be made at Sea Level if the P-40 was to have any advantage.



I really don't think the P-40 is competitive in general against the Spit IX which has both excellent performance _and_ maneuverability though it is interesting to learn that they may have been competitive in speed down low.



> The P-40M did see service in the Asia and Pacific but as a Lend-Lease aircraft to Australia and New Zealand.
> You comment that the P-40M was quite heavy but its basic weight was 6899 pounds as compared to the 6880 pound basic weight of the P-40K.
> A difference of 19 pounds is meaningless.



Some P-40M were apparently diverted to 23rd Fighter Group and some other US units by what means I don't know, such last minute diversions of Lend Lease were not unusual. Both the M and the K were quite heavy, the difference is that the K was kind of a 'hot rod' at least at low altitude while the M was designed to have better high altitude performance at the expense of a much more tepid engine regime. I think the M was only really suitable for FB missions, unfortunately the Soviets and British got a lot of them. Both P-40M and K of course may have been partly stripped by the Russians as they had done with earlier Tomahawk and Kittyhawk variants though I don't know if they did.



> The problem with the P-40L and its weight reduction is that it was at the cost of durability of components with many aircraft requiring extensive service before they were fit for use. Often the older components were swapped in as replacements and so went the weight savings.
> Figure that the Merlin added quite a bit of weight to the aircraft.
> Basic Weight for a P-40E was 6702 pounds and for an otherwise identical P-40F was 7089 pounds.
> Note that the lightened P-40L had a basic weight of 6840 pounds which is only 40 pounds less than the P-40K.
> Gross weight is about 400 pounds less because it carries a lot less fuel and ammunition.



I think you are confusing the 'stripped' so called "high altitude interceptor" early version of the P-40N with the P-40L. The P-40N had several parts exchanged for new and lighter types - aluminum radiators instead of brass, a smaller cheaper wooden seat, removed some instruments, smaller wheels, removed battery and starter (replaced by an external starting system) different hydraulic system and many other changes. Many of these such as the starter _were_ put back in in the field and the radiator and oil cooler may well have been replaced with brass ones for all I know. I know that some pilots complained about the starters in particular and in places like Burma they added extra navigation gear. But they also sometimes lightened them such as for 'Hump' missions over the Himalayas.

The P-40L by contrast did not have any different radiators or anything, they just had all the field stripping already being done on the P-40F by ground crew done in the factory. These are the items I already mentioned: extra forward wing fuel tank(s) removed (and the fuel that went with it), some armor under the radiator, two guns and some ammunition, some oil and so on. These all could be and were added back in whenever there was a reduced threat of enemy fighters. But the stripped version was how they were often used in the heavy air combat over Tunisia, Pantelleria, Sardinia, Sicily and so on where the US fighter groups racked most of all their victories in the first 6 months of 1943.




> The reason why Shortround6 commented about maintaining performance while climbing and banking is because at least according to the Allison memo, 70 inches Hg could not be achieve without a LOT of ram effect and only very near Sea Level or by significantly exceeding RPM limits.
> 
> - Ivan.









I believe that was speculation, guessing, and it's worth noting that some Soviet pilots like Golodnikov specifically mentioned raising the RPM a little. However I have always suggested that the slightly lower but still very high ratings from 60" to 66" could be and were used. The 60" rating was eventually approved as the official WEP setting for the P-40K and was apparently achievable at 2,500 ft. Not very high but reasonable for the Russian Front - that boost level conferred over 1550 hp which makes a P-40K pretty scary.

S

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 7, 2019)

Schweik said:


> the difference is that the K was kind of a 'hot rod' at least at low altitude while the M was designed to have better high altitude performance at the expense of a much more tepid engine regime.



I am not sure that being allowed to use only 57in of MAP compared to 60in is best described as "tepid" especially once you get over 5000ft. For example at 8,000ft the engine in the K was good for around 1300hp. The supercharger could NOT come close to providing 60in, in fact without RAM it would have trouble providing 50in of manifold pressure while that "tepid" engine the M could provide 57 in at 9,500ft. Up at 8-10,000ft the M had 100-200hp more than the K. Ir doesn't matter how much boost the supercharger couldprovide at sea level, it just can't do it as the lane climbs into thinner air.. 



Schweik said:


> I think you are confusing the 'stripped' so called "high altitude interceptor" early version of the P-40N with the P-40L. The P-40N had several parts exchanged for new and lighter types - aluminum radiators instead of brass, a smaller cheaper wooden seat, removed some instruments, smaller wheels, removed battery and starter (replaced by an external starting system) different hydraulic system and many other changes. Many of these such as the starter _were_ put back in in the field and the radiator and oil cooler may well have been replaced with brass ones for all I know



The Original starters were duel source, A flywheel was spun up to speed and when moving fast enough it was clutched into the gear train that lead to the crankshaft to turn the engine over. The flywheel could either be spun up by a built in electric motor or by the hand crank/s seen on many other aircraft (in fact early P-40s were supposed to carry the hand crank in the airplane, I don't know about later ones) the planes were lightened up by taking out the electric motor or by using a different model starter that was hand crank only. Since the starters were all made by the same company and fit on the same accessory pad it was no big deal to switch back, Assuming there were enough spare electric starters (or spare motors?) 
The "external" starting system was there all along. 
I would doubt that anybody put Brass/copper radiators back in a plane in service unless the original was damaged and there were no replacement aluminum ones available. This can also play merry hell with the CG as there was considerable difference in the weight, 40-60lbs? Ns cooling system was 60lbs lighter but I don;t know if the cooling capacity changed. 



Schweik said:


> I already mentioned: extra forward wing fuel tank(s) removed (and the fuel that went with it), some armor under the radiator,








There is only ONE forward fuel tank. It may have changed size a bit from one model to another but there was only one. 

Merlin and Allison powered planes did not quite follow the same sequence of tank usage. The Merlin powered planes kept around 30-35 gallon in the rear tank and didn't use it until the main tank was empty.

Allison powered planes emptied the fuselage tank before switching to the wing main tank. 

without the "extra" forward wing tank you have about the same amount of internal fuel as Hurricane.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jan 7, 2019)

Navalwarrior said:


> Resp:
> Field modifications seem to be a common, if not important aspect of success. Ground Crews, as well as pilots, played an important part in the creative field modifications. The more I read, the more I learn of the ingenuity of airmen and ground pounders. Impressive!



Yes I agree - it's one of the key factors.

First, they have to have an aircraft which is in the ballpark of competitiveness on some level. The pilots have to be reasonably well trained (sometimes only a few of them are as was often the case in the early days for the Allies). Then there are five phases:

Pilots learn the performance envelope of their own aircraft during early training.
Pilots encounter the enemy and, if they survive, gain some idea of how enemy aircraft capabilities compare to their own aircraft. 
Field modifications are made at behest of the pilots to enhance strengths and minimize weaknesses 
Tactical (squadron level) and Operational leaders adopt tactics based on pilot observations, and these are implemented in a disciplined manner.
These tactics are widely disseminated among friendly units.
As we have often noted in these discussions, technical performance and maneuverability parameters of WW2 fighters in a given Theater are often quite close. A ten or fifteen mph speed advantage, five hundred feet per minute climb rat (or thirty mph climb speed), three or four seconds advantage in a turning circle, a one second advantage in roll, easy handling in a dive vs. heavy torque to the right, slightly more intimidating firepower of four HMG vs. one auto cannon and two LMG, a quirk like the carb flooding on early Merlins vs fuel injection, these are all fairly subtle differences. They only make a difference in combat if tactics are designed and implemented effectively. 

The Germans were very good at this initially but had a hard time in later periods for a variety of cultural, organizational and political reasons.

In the early years of the war the Allies in places like Russia, Egypt, and the South Pacific were hard pressed to get even step 1 out of the way. Step 2 was obviously the most perilous and challenging - only good pilots with good luck got through it in the early days. Step 3 was only possible with good and _strong _local leadership (and / or enough leeway from up above) which wasn't always available (so some squadrons made these changes and some didn't, resulting in wildly different outcomes). Step 5 was what made it all come together and Anglo-American policies in general such as rotating experienced fighter pilots back home to help train new pilots helped assure that their units were much better in the latter part of the war.

But in the see-saw middle, and leading up to the tipping point in late 1942 and early 1943, it was still pretty scattershot.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jan 7, 2019)

Oh and if they are lucky:

6. Field reports and battle analysis contribute to planning and make it back to aircraft manufacturers in time for a new generation of fighters to appear that is better suited to taking on the enemy. Classic examples of this are the Wildcat to Hellcat and Spit V to Spit IX.


----------



## Navalwarrior (Jan 7, 2019)

Schweik said:


> First let me say, I agree with this and don't worry, I was kidding I am definitely *not *opening another P-40 related thread and if I opened one on the Yak series it would be in praise of them. You are right people can take comparisons of aircraft personally, but I doubt there are that many dedicated Typhoon fans here. Something about P-40s in particular seems to rub sandpaper on peoples privates to an extent I am often amazed by. So I'm going to leave that topic alone for a while once this thread tapers off. There is probably already a hit out on me on the Dark Web over this one.
> 
> Nothing against you at all. I disagree with you a little but I'm definitely not mad about it. I was kidding.
> 
> ...


Resp:
Your photo of a Soviet P-40K, number 34, has unusual (non-standard) rear canopy panels. Almost similar to ones on the non-early P-40N.


----------



## Schweik (Jan 7, 2019)

Navalwarrior said:


> Resp:
> Your photo of a Soviet P-40K, number 34, has unusual (non-standard) rear canopy panels. Almost similar to ones on the non-early P-40N.



I hadn't noticed, good catch! That may be a two seater, maybe a trainer or modified for some other specialty.


----------



## fubar57 (Jan 7, 2019)

P-40K trainer. The photo is from "Red Stars in the Sky", Vol.1 by C.F.Geust and K.Keskinen

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 7, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Oh and if they are lucky:
> 
> 6. Field reports and battle analysis contribute to planning and make it back to aircraft manufacturers in time for a new generation of fighters to appear that is better suited to taking on the enemy. Classic examples of this are the Wildcat to Hellcat and Spit V to Spit IX.


The Wildcat to Hellcat story is another one of those classic tropes (or myths). 
The contracts for the F6F were signed in the summer of 1941, months before any F4F engaged any Japanese aircraft. With first flight of the F6F June 28th of 1942 there was darn little that could have been changed even with feed back from the Coral Sea and Midway battles.


----------



## Navalwarrior (Jan 7, 2019)

fubar57 said:


> P-40K trainer. The photo is from "Red Stars in the Sky", Vol.1 by C.F.Geust and K.Keskinen


Resp:
Yes, but was it a field or factory modification?


----------



## Schweik (Jan 7, 2019)

Navalwarrior said:


> Resp:
> Yes, but was it a field or factory modification?



Field almost without a doubt, the Soviets did all kinds of stuff like that


----------



## Schweik (Jan 7, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> The Wildcat to Hellcat story is another one of those classic tropes (or myths).
> The contracts for the F6F were signed in the summer of 1941, months before any F4F engaged any Japanese aircraft. With first flight of the F6F June 28th of 1942 there was darn little that could have been changed even with feed back from the Coral Sea and Midway battles.



Well, I think there was still some influence 

Grumman F6F Hellcat - Wikipedia
_
"Based on combat accounts of encounters between the F4F Wildcat and A6M Zero, on 26 April 1942, BuAer directed Grumman to install the more powerful 18-cylinder Pratt & Whitney R-2800 Double Wasp radial engine — already powering Chance Vought's Corsair design since its own beginnings in 1940 — in the second XF6F-1 prototype.[20] Grumman complied by redesigning and strengthening the F6F airframe to incorporate the 2,000 hp (1,500 kW) R-2800-10, driving a three-bladed Hamilton Standard propeller. With this combination Grumman estimated the *XF6F-3*s performance would increase by 25% over that of the XF6F-1.[5] The Cyclone-powered *XF6F-1* (02981) first flew on 26 June 1942, followed by the first Double Wasp-equipped aircraft, the *XF6F-3* (02982), which first flew on 30 July 1942. The first production F6F-3, powered by an R-2800-10, flew on 3 October 1942, with the type reaching operational readiness with VF-9 on USS Essex in February 1943.[21] [Note 5] "_

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


----------



## Schweik (Jan 7, 2019)

BiffF15 said:


> The Hornet has higher AOA limits, lower max G limits and a lower thrust to weight. It’s a tremendous slow speed fighter, bleeds energy like mad and is slower to accelerate. They are a fun fight!
> 
> The later model Vipers have gigantic motors, bleed energy slowly, and accelerate like a rocket. They are small, difficult to see and can sustain high G well, and can even accelerate at 9Gs in some regimes. Very difficult fight if flown well.
> 
> ...




So here is the dangerous question - how does the F-35 compare to those three?


----------



## Greyman (Jan 7, 2019)

Head on over to the F-35 thread to prevent inevitable derail: some F35 info

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fubar57 (Jan 7, 2019)

While searching for some info about the trainers I found this quote..."“In the hands of a skilled pilot, the P-40 could exceed its limitations and could out-maneuver and out-fight anything in the sky,” said Flying Tiger ace David L. “Tex” Hill in a 2005 interview. “It was sturdy and handled well, except in a spin, but you never piloted a P-40 without wishing you had something a little better.

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


----------



## Schweik (Jan 7, 2019)

Interesting dichotomy...


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 7, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Well, I think there was still some influence
> 
> Grumman F6F Hellcat - Wikipedia



Sorry, that doesn't seem to line up well the Time line in 'Grumman Aircraft since 1929" 

Grumman had been doodling improved F4Fs for quite some time. They started the last project in Sept 1940 (project 50) and a mock up was ready for inspection Jna 12th 1941, modifications were recommended (more length , longer wings with more area,etc) The Navy ordered the two prototypes June 30th 1941. 
The Navy was ordering the 2nd prototype to be completed with the R-2800 engine on April 26th as you say, however the Battle of the Coral Sea, was fought from 4 to 8 May 1942. so the only combat experience was some of the raids into the Marshal Islands in Feb/March? which resulted in very little air to air action. On a few of the raids there was no air to air action although bombing and strafing went on. 

The next thing to consider is that all we know is what we don't know. A bit of riddle but, The XF6F-1 flies with a two stage mechanical supercharged R-2600, I believe it was the ONLY prototype aircraft to do so, I don't know what Wright had for test hacks that may have flown with this engine. No production aircraft ever used this engine. The 2nd XF6F prototype (the -2) was supposed to use a turbocharged R-2600 but was ordered to change engines several months before completion. Again, I don't know what the Wright company had for test hacks but the only plane I know of that used a turbo R-2600 was ONE prototype A-20 over year before. Perhaps there is another prototype plane I am not aware of? 
The P & W two stage R-2800 is not a production time at this time but perhaps it is showing more promise or is further along in development/testing than the wright engines? 

Wright did build both types of R-2600s but in numbers that can be counted on one hand and the number that actually flew?????

So we have some almost non-existent combat experience (Marines on Wake had experience but had no way to tell the Navy about it.) One account of the first raid Marshal raid says "No information was obtained on the relative performance of the type Zero fighter and the F4F-3. " 
USN Combat Narrative: Early Raids in the Pacific Ocean

and we have the somewhat coincidental fact that neither the engine for the XF6F-1 or the Xf6F-2 ever made it into production. 
And we have an oft repeated claim that the F6F was 'designed" with help of combat experience? 

Something smells and it isn't dairy products in Denmark.


----------



## Navalwarrior (Jan 7, 2019)

fubar57 said:


> While searching for some info about the trainers I found this quote..."“In the hands of a skilled pilot, the P-40 could exceed its limitations and could out-maneuver and out-fight anything in the sky,” said Flying Tiger ace David L. “Tex” Hill in a 2005 interview. “It was sturdy and handled well, except in a spin, but you never piloted a P-40 without wishing you had something a little better.


Resp:
Clive Caldwell, RAAF, likely would have agreed, having claimed 22 air-to-air kills in the Tomahawk/Kittyhawk . . . 10 of which were ME 109s. He also shot down 5 Stuka JU87s in a single mission. These 22 kills were in North Africa. One of his traits was to remove all tracer ammo from his guns, in case his first rounds missed his target, they would not give away his attack.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Dan Fahey (Jan 7, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Try looking at the US P 40 units records against the Bf 109 as distinct from RAF / Commonwealth. I think you will find it an eye opener.


A few may have had more then 20 kills. 
Most US less than 20...most missions were to hit Rommel’s and Italian armies..


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Jan 7, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Nothing against you at all. I disagree with you a little but I'm definitely not mad about it. I was kidding.



Hello Schweik,
Actually that part of my post really wasn't directed toward you.
I just find it strange that there are people arguing that the Typhoon had good agility.
There was actually a comparative test between Mustang, Spitfire, and Me 109G that included the Typhoon in some parts and from what I recall, it wasn't that good except for acceleration. It is in one of the Spitfire or Mustang books but I haven't gone looking for it yet.



Schweik said:


> Yes I agree the Yak fighters were _comparable_, but they were (at least among) the best the Russians had. They probably climbed better, and had a bit better combat speed at medium altitude but a P-40K could out turn them, could dive _much_ faster, was safer for the pilot, had longer range and had _a lot _more firepower (albeit the nose guns are more accurate). But in general this is what I would say, a P-40E was probably about as good as an early 1941 Yak and a P-40K was about as good as a later 1942 Yak, better than the other available planes (LaGG, MiG, I-16, Hurricane and so on) except the P-39 which seems to have been ideally suited for the Russians, and most importantly, a P-40K in the (Low Altitude) conditions of the Russian Front would definitely give a Soviet pilot a good chance to survive and deal death to the Germans. This is why so many high ranking Russian aces and HSU winners flew that specific subtype such as M. V Kuznetzov (seen here celebrating some victories in famous propaganda photos with a P-40K in the background) who ended the war with 36 individual (22 with the P-40) and 12 shared victory claims, Leonovich Ivan Semyonovich (28 victories, most in P-40), and Denisov Konstantin Dmitrievich who scored all of his 13 individual and 6 shared victories while flying the P-40K specifically.



I believe you are giving the P-40K a little too much credit. I don't believe it was nearly as agile as the Russian fighters except perhaps in rolling ability or zoom climbs and when fighting at tree top level, diving ability isn't really that useful. The Russian Yaks had very small wings, but they were also very light aircraft with engine power that wasn't that much lower except at very low altitude. Their turn rates were relatively high. The P-40K and P-40E were screamers but only down very very low.

Among the names you listed, I can recognize Mikhail Kuznetzov, but the other two names seem to have been corrupted.



Schweik said:


> This would not make it a "second rate" fighter in my book unless you also considered the Yak 1, Yak 9 etc. second rate. I wouldn't. I would say they were good fighters and at least some of the P-40s were closely matched.



The big difference is that the performance of the Yak fighters wasn't so tied to very high Emergency Power settings at Sea Level. These characteristics of the early Allison P-40 were useful in the very unique conditions on the Eastern Front that eliminated the advantages of their German opponents.
If everyone is willing to fight at 2,000 feet, then things are great. If the fight goes up to 5,000 or 10,000 feet, life isn't so pretty any more.



Schweik said:


> Of course the Russians didn't have that many P-40Ks. And ultimately the Yak 1b / 9 / 3 series and La 5 / 7 series became the perfect fighters for the Russian Front, ideally tailored to the conditions and superior to any P-40 *for that Theater*. But I think what made the P-40 superior in one sense, was that while the P-40 could fairly easily be adapted by Soviet pilots and ground crew to conditions in Leningrad, Crimea or Murmansk, it could also be adapted by American pilots and groundcrew to conditions in Rangoon, Kunming, and the Himalayas, by British and Australian pilots and ground crew to conditions in Alexandria and Syria, by American and Australians to conditions in New Guinea, the Solomons and Darwin (and as far north as Alaska), and by Americans and British fighting in Tunisia, Sardinia and Italy. How good would a Yak 1 perform over Darwin or Rangoon? I don't know honestly so it's not a facetious question, but I do consider the Yak series to be more specialized.



The Soviet fighters were designed for a very specific kind of war. It was probably the exact kind of war that the pre-war US fighters were also designed for. The reason I believe the P-40 was really a second-rate fighter is that although it did a competent job in other theaters and even at medium altitudes, it wasn't the preferred aircraft and was usually used by organizations that had no other choice.... Or it was put up against lightly armed Ki 27 or Ki 43 or less competitive Italian aircraft.



Schweik said:


> Some P-40M were apparently diverted to 23rd Fighter Group and some other US units by what means I don't know, such last minute diversions of Lend Lease were not unusual. Both the M and the K were quite heavy, the difference is that the K was kind of a 'hot rod' at least at low altitude while the M was designed to have better high altitude performance at the expense of a much more tepid engine regime. I think the M was only really suitable for FB missions, unfortunately the Soviets and British got a lot of them. Both P-40M and K of course may have been partly stripped by the Russians as they had done with earlier Tomahawk and Kittyhawk variants though I don't know if they did.



Perhaps some of the P-40M were supplied as Lend-Lease to China and ended up in US service by that route.
Officially, they were all either Lend-Lease or training aircraft. I have been told anecdotally that there were Chinese pilots flying P-40s very late in the war.



Schweik said:


> I think you are confusing the 'stripped' so called "high altitude interceptor" early version of the P-40N with the P-40L. The P-40N had several parts exchanged for new and lighter types - aluminum radiators instead of brass, a smaller cheaper wooden seat, removed some instruments, smaller wheels, removed battery and starter (replaced by an external starting system) different hydraulic system and many other changes. Many of these such as the starter _were_ put back in in the field and the radiator and oil cooler may well have been replaced with brass ones for all I know. I know that some pilots complained about the starters in particular and in places like Burma they added extra navigation gear. But they also sometimes lightened them such as for 'Hump' missions over the Himalayas.
> 
> The P-40L by contrast did not have any different radiators or anything, they just had all the field stripping already being done on the P-40F by ground crew done in the factory. These are the items I already mentioned: extra forward wing fuel tank(s) removed (and the fuel that went with it), some armor under the radiator, two guns and some ammunition, some oil and so on. These all could be and were added back in whenever there was a reduced threat of enemy fighters. But the stripped version was how they were often used in the heavy air combat over Tunisia, Pantelleria, Sardinia, Sicily and so on where the US fighter groups racked most of all their victories in the first 6 months of 1943.



Perhaps I am getting the models confused.... and perhaps it is somewhere in between.
Please note that in the manual, there are specific items of equipment that are noted as present in the P-40F but not in the P-40L.
Let's do a few calculations:
My earlier quote for basic weight for a P-40F (from AHT) was 7089 pounds
The Weight and Balance Chart in the manual says 7027 pounds.
Of that, 6 Guns are 471 pounds.
Note that the basic weight in AHT is higher because it includes trapped oil which is listed as disposable load below (38 pounds) It is a pretty detailed itemized list but also has a note that the P-40F has an empty weight that is 109 pounds over guarantee. (I wonder how much that cost Curtiss?) Taking the engine oil into account, the difference is only 24 pounds.

+ 200 pounds - Pilot
+ 222 pounds - Front Wing Tank (37 Gallons)
+ 324 pounds - Rear Wing Tank (54 Gallons)
+ 396 pounds - Fuselage Tank (65 Gallons)

+ 135 pounds - Engine Oil (18 Gallons Normal)
+ 23 pounds - Engine Oil (3 Gallons Extra)

+ 423 pounds - Ammunition (6 Guns x 235 Rounds Per Gun)
or
+ 506 pounds - Ammunition (6 Guns x 281 Rounds Per Gun)

The total weight without the extra ammunition and without extra oil is
8727 pounds.

With an empty front wing tank and two guns and their ammunition removed, the weight drops to
8207 pounds.

AHT numbers seem to be a bit lower but for some reason, their weights for internal fuel do not agree with what is in the manual.

One factor that might explain the speed discrepancy in tests is that starting with the L-15, a Permanent Carburetor Filter was installed. This would certainly have added some air restriction and may have eliminated some of the ram effect.

- Ivan.


----------



## Schweik (Jan 7, 2019)

Dan Fahey said:


> A few may have had more then 20 kills.
> Most US less than 20...most missions were to hit Rommel’s and Italian armies..



I'm a little disappointed that I seem to keep having to post the same stuff over and over. 

Here are the (P-40 only) victory claim totals by Fighter Group:

33rd FG - *137 victories *(active with P-40s Nov 42 - Feb 44)
57th FG - *144 victories* (active with P-40s Aug 42 - Jan 44
325th FG - *133 victories* (active with P-40s March 43 - Oct 43)
324th FG - *66 victories *(active with P-40s March 43 - July 44)
79th FG - *118 victories *(active with P-40s Dec 42 - March 44)


----------



## Schweik (Jan 7, 2019)

Ivan1GFP said:


> I believe you are giving the P-40K a little too much credit. I don't believe it was nearly as agile as the Russian fighters except perhaps in rolling ability or zoom climbs and when fighting at tree top level, diving ability isn't really that useful. The Russian Yaks had very small wings, but they were also very light aircraft with engine power that wasn't that much lower except at very low altitude. Their turn rates were relatively high. The P-40K and P-40E were screamers but only down very very low.



Couple of points. 

The P-40 out-turned the Yak 1 and Yak 7. Not sure about the 9. Soviet pilots noted this. For example in this interview with *Leonid Sergeevich Kulakov* who flew I-16, Yak 1 and 7, P-39, Spitfire and P-40Es. He scored 3 victrories in the P-40 and one with the P-39. He notes that a Kittyhawk could _easily_ out turn a Yak-7, though he says the Yak 7 was faster.
_
"Once, above Osinovets. Denisenko was shot down on that day. A Yak-7 tried to get behind me, but I never let anybody at my tail. The Kittyhawk had a tighter turn, so I easily outmaneuvered him and positioned myself behind him. After that the Yak pilot dove down, and I was not going to chase him. When I landed I was told that it was a Yak piloted by Germans. I could have shot him down easily. But I did not know who the pilot was at the time of the engagement and was afraid to kill one of our own pilots by mistake.

*Interviewer: Do you say that the Kittyhawk was better in terms of maneuverability than Yaks?*

In horizontal maneuver? Of course! But the Yak was better at vertical maneuver. It was a lot faster."_

This is what I would expect since the P-40 with it's large wings has a lower wing loading than the 7 or 9. Yak 1 is closer and maybe slightly better depending on which types you are comparing..

Golodnikov in his famous interview gives us more insight into how they used the P-40. The interviewer reads a passage by aviation author Mike Spick describing the P-40 as second rate and unable to cope with the Bf 109. He asks Golodknikov directly. His reply:

*"N.G.*_ Even during the war I recognized the fact that the Allies considered it inadvisable and almost impossible to conduct aerial combat in the P-40. We considered the P-40 to be a full-fledged fighter plane. When we began to use the P-40, we immediately discovered two deficiencies that reduced its value as a fighter. 1. The P-40 was a slug in acceleration, rather slow to acquire speed. This weak dynamic resulted in a low combat speed. It had trouble maintaining the speed required for combat. Speed is essential for a fighter. 2. It was weak in the vertical, especially the Tomahawk.

We compensated for poor acceleration by holding the engine at higher revolutions and cruising at a higher speed. We corrected the second deficiency by removing a pair of machine guns. That was all. The fighter came up to par. _"

I read this as, basically the same as what the Australians and later the Americans did in North Africa - strip some weight overboost (he seems to specifically be talking about flying higher RPMs) and remove two wing guns. Later he clarifies further:

*N.G. *_Not at all. Tactics has nothing to do with it. The primary difference in evaluating the combat capabilities of the P-40 arises from the fact that we and the Allies exploited the aircraft in a completely different manner. They were required to use the aircraft in accordance with written instructions, technical manuals. Any violation of those guidelines was a "no-no".
In our case, as I have already mentioned, the primary rule was to get everything out of an aircraft that it was capable of and a bit more. How much is "everything" the documentation for an aircraft does not say. Often even the designer of an aircraft himself did not have even a clue. It would only be revealed in combat.
By the way, everything I have said also applies to the Airacobra. If we had flown it in those regimes that the Americans outlined in the aircraft specifications, they would have shot us down immediately. This fighter was a "dud" in its "native" [by-design] regimes. But we conducted normal combat in "our" regimes, be it with the Messer or with the Fokker. But in some cases we flew 3-4 such aerial battles and it was done. "Replace the engine."
...
The Kittyhawk did not have [nose-mounted] synchronized machine guns. It had only six (three in each) wing-mounted heavy machine guns. We removed two of these machine guns immediately, leaving four. "_

In other words, the manual and it's throttle settings are a joke. The pilots had to figure things out on their own.



> Among the names you listed, I can recognize Mikhail Kuznetzov, but the other two names seem to have been corrupted.



I got those names from the English language version of this site It's possible auto-translate scrambled them a bit. Kuznetsov, "Denisov Konstantin Dmitrievich " and "Mitrohin Vasiliy Borisovich" (19 victories) are mentioned specifically with the P-40K.



> The big difference is that the performance of the Yak fighters wasn't so tied to very high Emergency Power settings at Sea Level. These characteristics of the early Allison P-40 were useful in the very unique conditions on the Eastern Front that eliminated the advantages of their German opponents.
> If everyone is willing to fight at 2,000 feet, then things are great. If the fight goes up to 5,000 or 10,000 feet, life isn't so pretty any more.



But the P-40E or K engine had reasonably good performance up to 12,000 ft. WEP made it a beast but the Yak-1 only had an 1,100 hp engine.



> The Soviet fighters were designed for a very specific kind of war. It was probably the exact kind of war that the pre-war US fighters were also designed for. The reason I believe the P-40 was really a second-rate fighter is that although it did a competent job in other theaters and even at medium altitudes, it wasn't the preferred aircraft and was usually used by organizations that had no other choice.... Or it was put up against lightly armed Ki 27 or Ki 43 or less competitive Italian aircraft.



They shot down hundreds of Bf 109s and dozens of Fw 190s in North Africa. And quite a few of the excellent MC 202 and 205 fighters as well.



> Perhaps I am getting the models confused.... and perhaps it is somewhere in between.
> Please note that in the manual, there are specific items of equipment that are noted as present in the P-40F but not in the P-40L.
> Let's do a few calculations:



I've already been through all this with Shortround more than once, I think we hashed it out. Don't mean to be rude but you'll forgive me if I don't indulge in this yet again only to wind up right where we started.


----------



## Schweik (Jan 7, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> Sorry, that doesn't seem to line up well the Time line in 'Grumman Aircraft since 1929"
> 
> Wright did build both types of R-2600s but in numbers that can be counted on one hand and the number that actually flew?????
> 
> ...



So that Wikipedia article is a conspiracy?


----------



## wuzak (Jan 7, 2019)

Schweik said:


> In other words, the manual and it's throttle settings are a joke. The pilots had to figure things out on their own.



Really?

Or it could be that the quote you posted:



Schweik said:


> _If we had flown it in those regimes that the Americans outlined in the aircraft specifications, they would have shot us down immediately. This fighter was a "dud" in its "native" [by-design] regimes. But we conducted normal combat in "our" regimes, be it with the Messer or with the Fokker. B*ut in some cases we flew 3-4 such aerial battles and it was done. "Replace the engine."*_



Is why the settings recommended in the manuals were devised.

Note that inexperienced pilots were unlikely to get the maximum from the aircraft. The manual's settings were written for them and the average pilot.


----------



## wuzak (Jan 7, 2019)

Schweik said:


> So that Wikipedia article is a conspiracy?



No, just edited by someone who doesn't have the full facts, perhaps.


----------



## Schweik (Jan 7, 2019)

wuzak said:


> Really?
> 
> Or it could be that the quote you posted:
> 
> ...



The Russians had a much more severe maintenance situation than the Americans, Aussies or British did. They didn't know how to deal with engines like the Merlin or the Allison (they eventually figured out the Allison with the P-39 but it took a while) there were a number of issues specifically with the oil cleanliness and improvised methods for draining fluids out every night in the winter. So they burned them out much faster.

But it still made sense for them. In the early years of the Soviet war, especially during major battles like the siege of Moscow or Stalingrad, whole squadrons were being wiped out in a matter of days. So if you fly 3 or 4 missions and have to change engines and send the old ones for refurbishment, but score victories and don't lose as many pilots, as bad as that is it's better than losing the whole squadron with all the pilots.

There is no reason why engines would burned out just from being overboosted though. Remember, according to this memo, properly maintained, Allison engines could be run at 70" for 1500 hours between main bearing changes (let alone full engine replacement)

_"This aircraft is powered with the Allison 1710-39 engine having a rated power of 1150 H.P. at 3000 R.P.M. and 44” Hg. at 12,000 ft. The engine was originally equipped with an automatic boost control limiting the manifold pressure at the lower altitudes to 44”. The British remove this so as to get the vastly increased performance at lower altitudes thru the judicious use of over-boost. "_

_"In view of the British operation and the fact that we have an approved war emergency rating on the 1710-39 engine of 56”, it is suggested that immediate steps be taken to remove the automatic boost controls from our P-51 airplanes in this theatre and that the instrument dials be marked with the proper lights. The British have operated at full throttle at sea level (72” Hg) for as much as 20 min. at a time without hurting the engines. According to them, the Allison is averaging 1500 hours between bearing failures as compared to 500 to 600 hours for the Merlin. The Allison, they have found, will drag them home even with the bearing ruined. "_


----------



## slaterat (Jan 8, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Well you have one chart which says 354 mph, I have this other chart which says 370 mph and notes it 'agrees well with US Army results' (reposted below in case you missed it)





Schweik said:


> So where does that leave us?



Easy to solve. Lets use the fastest data for the P-40 F and the slowest for the Typhoon 1b

P-40-F [email protected] [email protected] Typhoon 1b [email protected] 10 k [email protected] 20 k adv Typhoon of 20 to 47 mph

Climb rate
P-40 F ini 2,100 ft/min, time to 20 k 10.2 minutes Typhoon ini 2,790 ft/min, time to 20 k 8.7 minutes adv Typhoon

The advantage is with the Typhoonin 42 but closer than I previously thought.

By mid 43 the Typhoons advantage becomes much more clear

[email protected], [email protected] ini 3840 ft/min, time to 20 k 7 min

Typhoon IB Performance Data

P-40 Performance Tests

I you check farther down on the Typhoon page you will see some roll rate data for a Typhoon 1a going from 45 degrees one way to 45 the other, averaging just less than 2 seconds at 200 and 300 ASI


----------



## wuzak (Jan 8, 2019)

This:


Schweik said:


> _The British have operated at full throttle at sea level (72” Hg) for as much as 20 min. at a time without hurting the engines. According to them, the Allison is averaging 1500 hours between bearing failures as compared to 500 to 600 hours for the Merlin. The Allison, they have found, will drag them home even with the bearing ruined. "_



Does not say that:


Schweik said:


> There is no reason why engines would burned out just from being overboosted though. Remember, according to this memo, properly maintained, Allison engines could be run at 70" for 1500 hours between main bearing changes (let alone full engine replacement)




Also, 1,500 hours is >> TBO for V-1710s in war time.


----------



## Schweik (Jan 8, 2019)

I apologize - badly written, it's late, I was obviously not trying to suggest they ran them at 70" for 1500 hours strait - I was saying what the memo said. They ran them routinely at 70" or actually 72", for 20 minutes at a time, and in spite of that got 1500 hours between main bearing failures.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jan 8, 2019)

Ivan1GFP said:


> Among the names you listed, I can recognize Mikhail Kuznetzov, but the other two names seem to have been corrupted.


I think that he didn't realize the last names were listed first.
Konstantin Denisov, 7th Fighter Aviation Regiment - flew the P-40 exclusively.
Ivan Leonovich, 154(29G)IAP

Other Soviet aces (many higher scoring than the two mentioned above), who flew the P-40, were:
Pyotr Pokryshev
Fyodor Chubukov
Nikolaiy Kuznetsov
Vasiliy Naydenko
Nikolaiy Zelenov
Boris Safonov
Andrey Chirkov
Alexandr Bulayev
Alexey Nikolayenkov (also flew the P-40 exclusively - KIA 1943)
Pyotr Liholetov
Stepan Novichkov
Alexandr Smirnov
Georgiy Zhidov
Victor Zotov
Vladimir Kamenschikov
Dmitriy Yermakov 
Nikolaiy Chasnyk 
Sergey Kuznetsov 
Pavel Klimov 
Nikolaiy Lavitskiy 
Fyodor Kalugin 
Vasiliy Mitrohin 
Vladimir Pokrovskiy (p-40e)
Victor Mironov 
Vladimir Snesarev 
Georgiy Petrov 
Alexandr Gorbachevskiy 
Nikolaiy Hramov 
Vasiliy Adonkin 
Vasiliy Matziyevich 
Pavel Shevelev 
Vasiliy Dobrovolskiy 
Vyacheslav Bashkirov
Konstantin Korshunov 
Vladimir Latyshev 
Nikolaiy Terehin 
Alexandr Matveyev (P-40E)
Ilia Shishkan 
Konstantin Zaharov (P-40 - KIA 1944)
Igor Fyodorchuk 
Nikolaiy Golodnikov 
Pyotr Kolomietz 
Ivan Ryazanov 

This is not the definitive list of Soviet aces who flew the P-40, just the ones I had the time to post.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jan 8, 2019)

I'd also like to say I think Golodnikov was exaggerating a little to make a point he lists burn out of after 3 or 4 missions as an extreme case. Even 50 hours which he mentions would be 20-25 missions probably and that too is almost surely a bit of an exaggeration.

If you read that P 40s in Soviet Aviation article they initially had a lot of trouble with the engines (and similar problems with their Hurricanes). The first couple of Tomahawk squadrons basically fought until all the aircraft were grounded by maintenance problems.

The Anglo American engines had much finer tolerances, were designed to use higher octane gas and much more importantly required very clean lubricants.

They had higher octane gas provided via Lend-Lease and eventually they figured out the oil culture as it's called. They had to modify these planes so that all the fluids: battery acid, oil, hydraulic, fuel everything had to be drained out every night in the winter. They had to make plugs usually in the field and sometimes not very delicately.

Eventually they figured all this out though.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 8, 2019)

Schweik said:


> In other words, the manual and it's throttle settings are a joke. The pilots had to figure things out on their own.



You might want to appreciate the difference in combat areas a little more and quit assuming the factory engineers were lucky they could design a decent lunch box. 

Manual and the throttle settings in it were based off the 150 hour type test. Yes , in war time it is conservative. The US went to war in Dec of 1941 and it had been a frantic effort to build up aircraft, engines and pilots during 1940-41-42. The US had differed delivery of many of the aircraft and engines that it had ordered so that the French, British and Russians could get quicker delivery as the US factories geared up. Wrecking engines by too enthusiastic settings of the throttle is going to affect the availability of engines, it is going to cost aircraft and it is going to cost pilots. Switching to a 'war' standard took some time. Russians were in a somewhat different situation than the US and British in 1941/42. DO you blow up engines defending your cities against not just bombing raids but being overrun by ground forces? The threat was much more immediate than the threat in North Africa or in the Pacific. Those were areas were longer term goals (weeks or months vrs days) were in mind and also areas were reinforcements-replacements were weeks-months away. Blow up your engines getting a few extra victories this week and have fewer fighters next week or next month? 
Russian pilot who trashed his engine and didn't quite make it back to base was faced with a different reality than pilots in NA or the Pacific. He was going to land (either wheels up or parachute ) on dry land in an environment that wasn't going to kill him in couple of days, assuming he landed in "friendly" territory. Forced landings in the desert were a bit rougher. forced landings at sea?
The manual writers had to go with factory recommendations and the Military could try to adjust. For P-40s in the NA desert, while they could off load P-40s in Central West Africa (Ghana)and fly them across Africa and north to Egypt (3700 miles in 6 days) the spare engines and overhaul parts had to go around the Cape of Good Hope, Over 8000 miles by sea from Ghana to Suez. Getting replacement aircraft, engines, and pilots to Australia, New Guinea in early 1942 wasn't easy either. 
Yes the pilots and squadron commanders had to balance aircraft performance in combat vs engine life and forced landings. 

Lets also note that only 138 Mustangs had been built by the end of 1941 vs just over 3000 P-40s and 939 P-39s and Allison made the switch to the stronger crankshaft in Dec of 1941, how many engines were sitting in crates waiting to be installed in Dec/jan I don't know but assuming that because Mustangs in British service used 70-72in in their engines (built when?) means it was OK to use 66-70 in MAP in P-40E engines of unknown age (or older P-40s) is a big assumption. 






Schweik said:


> So that Wikipedia article is a conspiracy?



Well, you find the "combat" experience with the F4F that influenced the F6F design/development by April of 1942. 

Or are you only interested in tropes that negatively affect the P-40? 

So far I have found *one *engagement of a few planes on each side that could have been the basis for this "combat" experience. 
I am leaving out the Marines on Wake Island as while they certainly racked up some experience they were in no position to report that experience. 
Perhaps there are more? 

a lot of stuff on wike is copied form other places. You object to inaccuracies about the p-40 being repeated, there are plenty of other inaccuracies (or out right lies) repeated about other aircraft.

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


----------



## Dimlee (Jan 8, 2019)

GrauGeist said:


> Konstantin Denisov, 7th Fighter Aviation Regiment - flew the P-40 exclusively.


Just a small correction...
Not exclusively.
I-16s of two modifications and test flights on Yak-1 in 1941. I-16, Yak-1, Yak-7 and probably MiG-3 in 1942. P-39, P-40K and probably Yak-7 or Yak-9 in 1943. P-39 and Yak-9 in 1944. Probably Yak-9 in 1945.
In his book he did not mention P-40 at all - for whatever reason.
ВОЕННАЯ ЛИТЕРАТУРА --[ Мемуары ]-- Денисов К.Д. Под нами - Черное море (in Russian).

Experienced pilot and good leader. He started on TB-3 in 1936 and continued on fighters since 1937 or 1938. Took part in Khalkin Gol battles in 1939. Served as squadron leader and squadron navigator before the German invasion. I'd say that K.Denisov was a part of VVS fighter "elite" already in 1941. And after he has survived 1941-1942, he was in very top league when Lend Lease equipment arrived.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jan 8, 2019)

Almost had to be to survive the war from 1941...

Maybe it lists only P-40 because that is what he scored his victories in? or maybe that list is just a little unreliable it looks like somebodies personal project.


----------



## Schweik (Jan 8, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> You might want to appreciate the difference in combat areas a little more and quit assuming the factory engineers were lucky they could design a decent lunch box.
> 
> Manual and the throttle settings in it were based off the 150 hour type test. Yes , in war time it is conservative. The US went to war in Dec of 1941 and it had been a frantic effort to build up aircraft, engines and pilots during 1940-41-42. The US had differed delivery of many of the aircraft and engines that it had ordered so that the French, British and Russians could get quicker delivery as the US factories geared up. Wrecking engines by too enthusiastic settings of the throttle is going to affect the availability of engines, it is going to cost aircraft and it is going to cost pilots. Switching to a 'war' standard took some time. Russians were in a somewhat different situation than the US and British in 1941/42. DO you blow up engines defending your cities against not just bombing raids but being overrun by ground forces? The threat was much more immediate than the threat in North Africa or in the Pacific. Those were areas were longer term goals (weeks or months vrs days) were in mind and also areas were reinforcements-replacements were weeks-months away. Blow up your engines getting a few extra victories this week and have fewer fighters next week or next month?
> Russian pilot who trashed his engine and didn't quite make it back to base was faced with a different reality than pilots in NA or the Pacific. He was going to land (either wheels up or parachute ) on dry land in an environment that wasn't going to kill him in couple of days, assuming he landed in "friendly" territory. Forced landings in the desert were a bit rougher. forced landings at sea?
> ...




Shortround, you make a couple of good points. I tend to see things from the point of view of the front line soldier - I was in the military myself long ago, and most of my research consists of reading pilot records and accounts. You bring the point of view of the manufacturer and the designers. Both are good to know and relatively hard to understand. Both tend to be somewhat at odds. Almost contradictory. But they do come from the same universe.

This is a constant in history - you _do_ have to accept different seemingly mutually exclusive perspectives. After all, to make sense of WW2 you have to somehow combine and synthesize German, Italian, American, British, Chinese, Russian, Finnish, Japanese, Croatian, French, Bulgarian, Romanian and etc. points of view which have so little in common.

From the point of view of the front line pilot, the throttle settings, maximum dive speed and many other requirements from the manual are rubbish. If he sticks to them too religiously, he'll die almost without a doubt. From the point of view of the manufacturer, the guidelines are common sense, and to push the limits beyond them is irresponsible in light of the challenges of production and logistics. The overly conservative settings and guidelines are also in part the result of military bureaucrats lets keep in mind.

I agree with you that conditions in the Soviet Union were a bit more desperate than in other Allied Theaters of Operations. If you are within a few days of the fall of Moscow by an annihilating Army, that changes the calculus a little bit for the defenders. Of course, times were tough for the Allies all over the globe in 1942 - the Philippines and Java weren't too much different of a situation in some respects and in the minds of the defenders, Darwin and even Milne Bay and so on were edging toward the same kind of acute crisis (even if the Japanese didn't have realistic plans for the invasion of Australia, the Aussies didn't know that, and the rapid conquest of Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines and most of China were certainly cause for alarm, and once bombing of the Australian mainland began panic was starting to edge in)

But I agree that the extreme / dire emergency status on the Russian front from June 1941 and all of 1942 were really beyond the pale. I read a statistic I believe 70% of German troops and war materiel were on the Russian Front. The losses in the first year and a half of the war were so staggering that we can't really conceive of it.

Ultimately however what pilots and ground crew everywhere had to do was find the 'sweet spot' for how far they could push the engines and what field modifications they needed to make, whether in Murmansk or Mateur or Milne Bay. The manufacturers had to take whatever feedback they got from the front lines and incorporate that into upgrades and new aircraft designs, while keeping in mind the long gestation period between design change and arrival at the front. So for the P-40 - throttle settings of 44" got moved up to 57" or 60", dive speed limits of 460 mph moved up to 500 or 520. And so on.




> Well, you find the "combat" experience with the F4F that influenced the F6F design/development by April of 1942.
> 
> Or are you only interested in tropes that negatively affect the P-40?



Fair point! I'm indeed interested in correcting mistaken tropes throughout the war - I am _familiar _with the data about the P-40 and a few others. Not so much the Hellcat (yet) though I am interested. The Hellcat was certainly an important plane it was the second most successful American fighter of WW2.



> So far I have found *one *engagement of a few planes on each side that could have been the basis for this "combat" experience.
> I am leaving out the Marines on Wake Island as while they certainly racked up some experience they were in no position to report that experience.
> Perhaps there are more?
> 
> a lot of stuff on wike is copied form other places. You object to inaccuracies about the p-40 being repeated, there are plenty of other inaccuracies (or out right lies) repeated about other aircraft.



Again, fair point - I don't but just as you were skeptical of my 'outlier' data about the P-40, I'm interested in verifying counter-narratives about other aircraft too, such as the Wildcat or Hellcat, P-39, Yak or MC 202.

One thing I thought of reading this. Wasn't the famous tactic of the 'Thach Weave' by Lt John Thach invented to address maneuverability of the zero before the US Navy had actually encountered it?

With the caveat that wikis are sometimes wrong, from the wiki:

"Thach had heard, from a report published in the 22 September 1941 Fleet Air Tactical Unit Intelligence Bulletin, of the Japanese Mitsubishi Zero's extraordinary maneuverability and climb rate. Before even experiencing it for himself, he began to devise tactics meant to give the slower-turning American Grumman F4F Wildcat fighters a chance in combat. While based in San Diego, he would spend every evening thinking of different tactics that could overcome the Zero's maneuverability, and would then test them in flight the following day "

So maybe we need to look at that 22 September 1941 Fleet Air Tactical Unit Intelligence Bulletin and see what it was based on.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jan 8, 2019)

This says that the Bulletin was translated from a Chinese fighter pilot's report. This is perhaps an example of US Naval intelligence doing a remarkably good job, and John Thach taking his job very seriously as well, and higher ranking Navy officers doing an excellent job of recognizing the merits of the new technique and disseminating it into general training.

The Thach Weave is perhaps a very rare example of Steps 2, 4 and 5 from my list on post 806 being implemented _before_ combat which is pretty impressive. No doubt it saved many American lives because on paper the Wildcat doesn't look very good against the Zero. Even with the good tactics it barely held it's own.

Modifications to the Hellcat, if indeed influenced by that same report or others, would represent Step 3 being implemented also quite early. Representative of considerable agility on the part of Grumman (if true).


----------



## Schweik (Jan 8, 2019)

This does not change, but only ads nuance to you point that the F6F was already largely designed before F4F went into combat. It just suggests there _may_ have been some influence from combat reports to the later stages of the F6F development - probably overstated in the Trope as you suggested.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jan 8, 2019)

Dimlee said:


> Just a small correction...
> Not exclusively.
> I-16s of two modifications and test flights on Yak-1 in 1941. I-16, Yak-1, Yak-7 and probably MiG-3 in 1942. P-39, P-40K and probably Yak-7 or Yak-9 in 1943. P-39 and Yak-9 in 1944. Probably Yak-9 in 1945.
> In his book he did not mention P-40 at all - for whatever reason.
> ...


The list I have for Captain Denisov's victories seem to indicated that they were solely made in the P-40...this could be an error, of course.


----------



## Schweik (Jan 8, 2019)

maybe two guys with the same last name...


----------



## Navalwarrior (Jan 8, 2019)

Schweik said:


> I'm a little disappointed that I seem to keep having to post the same stuff over and over.
> 
> Here are the (P-40 only) victory claim totals by Fighter Group:
> 
> ...


Resp:
I took a quick look the above Fighter Groups, and verified that the 57th, 324th and the 79th flew Merlin engined P-40s in North Africa, and later in Italy (later transitioned to P-47s). 
There were no pilots with 20 or more kills. In fact (if the data I viewed is correct) none scored above 4 air-to-air kills (79th FG), and only one had 4, two had 3 . . . most, if they had any, had just a single kill. 
The highest scoring in the 324th FG was 2 air-to-air kills. 
The 33rd and 325th I found no data (just wasn't listed).
So barring the kills of 33rd and 325th, it is a far cry from the magic number of 20.


----------



## Schweik (Jan 8, 2019)

Navalwarrior said:


> Resp:
> I took a quick look the above Fighter Groups, and verified that the 57th, 324th and the 79th flew Merlin engined P-40s in North Africa, and later in Italy (later transitioned to P-47s).
> There were no pilots with 20 or more kills. In fact (if the data I viewed is correct) none scored above 4 air-to-air kills (79th FG), and only one had 4, two had 3 . . . most, if they had any, had just a single kill.
> The highest scoring in the 324th FG was 2 air-to-air kills.
> ...



I didn't realize you meant 20 kills for _individual pilots_. I was referring to units. There were 18 Aces in those 5 Fighter Groups, one double Ace - none of them had 20 victories. I have a list of them.

But an Ace with 20 or more victories is a _very high threshold_ for US, British or Anzac pilots because they were usually rotated out of a given Theater after a relatively short time (compared to German, Japanese, Finnish, Croatian, Russian etc. pilots) particularly if they did well. By the time most became an Ace they were back in their home country training new pilots and helping to organize new units.

Australia only had 1 ace with 20 or more kills (Clive Caldwell)
Canada had 5 (or 6 if you include James "Stocky" Edwards)
New Zealand had 5
The UK (according to this list) had 13 in the whole war (including Neville Duke) I think mostly Spitfire pilots from the Battle of Britain (a few Hurricane, Mosquito night fighter etc.)
The US (according to the same list) had 27 in the whole war. Most were Thunderbolt, Mustang or Hellcat aces who scored their kills in 1944 or 1945. A few P-38 Aces in the Pacific (Bong, McGuire, and MacDonald) and some Corsair Aces (Boyington, Hanson, Foss etc.) who scored in 42 or 43.

So out of the thousands (tens of thousands? how many exactly? Anybody know?) of Anglo-American fighter pilots in WW2, and hundreds (thousands?) of Aces, there were only 51 aces with 20 or more victories.

I don't know this for certain, but I _think _most of these (Anglo-American) Allied "quadrouple Aces" 'made their bones' in 1940 or 41 when the fighting was super intense (Battle of France, Battle of Britain, early days in the Middle East or the Pacific), or in 1944 and 1945 when the Axis was unable to field trained pilots and the Allied advantages were over the tipping point.


----------



## fubar57 (Jan 8, 2019)

Why would you not include Edwards as a Canadian?


----------



## Schweik (Jan 8, 2019)

fubar57 said:


> Why would you not include Edwards as a Canadian?



I do of course - his official tally was only 16 victories though, very unusually he apparently _under_claimed. Post war analysis looks like he got 22 victories including a couple of Experten.


----------



## fubar57 (Jan 8, 2019)

You said ".....6 if you include.............". Why would you say that? It's like saying "The best German aces, if you include Marsaille."


----------



## michael rauls (Jan 8, 2019)

fubar57 said:


> You said ".....6 if you include.............". Why would you say that? It's like saying "The best German aces, if you include Marsaille."


That was in reference to the number of kills not the nationality is what i think he meant.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fubar57 (Jan 8, 2019)

Check. RCAF site has him at 20 On Windswept Heights II | RCAF | Historical | Royal Canadian Air Force | The Second World War | 1939-1945 | James "Stocky" Edwards

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jan 8, 2019)

By the way there were 11 American double-Aces (ten or more victories) who flew the P-40 - 1 in the MTO (Levi Chase), 2 in the PTO (49th FG), the other 8 in Burma (4 in the AVG, 3 in the 23rd FG, and one in 23rd FG / and AVG -David "Tex" Hill)

There were 14 'British' double aces on he P-40 in the UK / Commonwealth mostly MTO (8 Australians, 3 from the UK including Billy Drake and Neville Duke, and 1 Canadian - Edwards) plus 11 more who ended the war with 10 or more victories and got at least 5 of those on the P-40 (4 from the UK, 4 South Africans, and 3 Aussies).

The only P-40 pilots with 20 or more victories on the type were in Russia, I think Kuznestov and maybe 2 others. Not sure how many double Aces but there were a few. It's harder for me to determine how many victories Soviet Aces got on each type.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jan 8, 2019)

michael rauls said:


> That was in reference to the number of kills not the nationality is what i think he meant.



What he said. Edwards was a P-40 pilot for most of his career.


----------



## Schweik (Jan 8, 2019)

Badass kid.

























On July 17, 1942 this guy - 51 victory Ace / Experte Otto Shulz was strafing the wreck of a Hurricane he had just shot down (whose wounded pilot, himself an Ace, - Flight Lieutenant Walter “Wally” Conrad (6.5 confirmed, 3 probable and 11 damaged victories) of 274 Sqn, RAF- was watching helplessly) when Edwards, heading home on the deck at full throttle after a previous victory, blew Schulz out of the sky.

Edwards, as was typical, only reported a 'probable'. They didn't figure out he shot down Shulz until the 1970s.

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


----------



## Glider (Jan 8, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Well, lets be precise, that guy wasn't just a test pilot he did the checkout flights for ~ 2,400 P-40s, in other words he put them through their paces to make sure they were capable of the normal combat performance expected of the aircraft and engine.


I admit to not knowing what you are getting at here. He was a test pilot who tested the production aircraft to ensure that they performed against the set performance targets in a safe manner. I don't have a problem with that and cannot see what you are getting so excited about.


> P-40s were incidentally rated for 10Gs which is of course far more than a WW2 pilot could normally endure in the types of seats they had and without a G suit and so on. It's also why P-40s were so tough they were a little bit overbuilt.


This I do question for a few reasons. 
a) I believe the F16 is limited to 9G
b) The Hunter I flew in was limited to 7G
Both of the above the crew were protected with the latest (at the time) G suits
c) modern competition aerobatic aircraft are normally limited to 9G

In fact I have never seen an aircraft of any type stressed to 10G, hence my doubt



> I brought this up because it shows not merely that one or two guys dove the P-40 at 500+ mph, (or 600+ mph as was done in at least two other individual tests by Curtiss) but that a dive of 500+ mph was part of the normal routine checkout flight for the aircraft. Also Shortround had brought up the question of how many feet did you have to descend to reach high enough speed to intercept a Fw 190 and I thought that example gave us some insight into that question though it does not answer it definitively.



As mentioned before I firmly believe that the claim of a P40 diving with an IAS of 600mph is a fantasy. A spit almost tore itself apart when doing just over 600 mph and that was a special programme with appropriate technology. If the P40 had done it then the record would have stood for many years and everyone would have heard about it.
There is an important factor to be recalled. The controls of a P40 were pretty well locked solid at high speed, I believe that the speed mentioned was 480mph and the test pilots report on the P40N mentions the excessively high control forces when simply doing ordinary aerobatics. This 480mph almost certainly has something to do with the VNE of 485 mentioned in the pilots notes. You may well go faster, but there is a good chance an average pilot would simply make a hole in the ground.
Compared to the American test pilots who reported that the Typhoons ailerons started to get heavy at 450 MPH, the fact that we know the Typhoon test pilots did tests opening the cockpit at 500mph and the VNE of a Typhoon is set at 525, all point to the Typhoon diving faster.


> No, I answered it. I am basing that on the previously posted (not by me) turn radius chart and the NACA roll chart that everyone has seen


.
Which is a theoretical paper


> I also pointed out that per the memo you yourself reported the pilots said there was extreme vibration any time they tried to enter more than a 4G turn, which as you noted is not that much of a turn for a fighter, and that turning left at 4G caused the plane to go into a snap roll and stall.


None of this is what I said and I strongly suggest you read it again. The American test pilots did say that they didn't like the high frequency vibration at all times. It had nothing to do with turning. Neither did I say that the Typhoon had any limit of 4G, you had said the P40 could do 4G and I was saying that is a very low figure for any fighter. 
For others this is the link to the US test of the Typhoon
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/typhoon/Typhoon_Eng-47-1658-E.pdf



> .
> Finally, I also pointed out a couple of times the video in which one Typhoon pilot noted that "if the trim tab goes on a Typhoon your a finished". One of the other Typhoon pilots in another interview I posted upthread said "the Typhoon was not a good fighter" (but that it was an ideal rocket platform).
> 
> I didn't go cherry picking through Typhoon pilot interviews to find negative comments about the plane. I just googled "Typhoon Pilot interview" - for all I knew I was going to get pilot after pilot praising the Tiffy and describing how great it was at shooting down enemy fighters, but that is not what they said. You try it yourself and see what comes up.


.
The Typhoon wasn't a good fighter, compared to the Spit IX, but it was a much better fighter than the P40 outperforming it in every aspect apart from the roll and turn. Even here if it was good enough to get a good shot at a Spit Vb then it would be good enough to get a good shot at a P40


> .
> To summarize based on what I've seen so far, the Typhoon rolled slowly and had a limited turn rate. Maybe they only lost 20 or 30 to tails falling off but I suspect if you were a pilot that knew some were lost that way, and started a turn and felt "_severe vibration of the airframe_ " he might hesitate to turn more. However that doesn't mean they were necessarily a bad fighter - that was a very fast plane especially down low and hit and run tactics do work very well. I think a good rate of roll is helpful but it isn't required.


We have to agree to disagree on certain points.


----------



## Navalwarrior (Jan 8, 2019)

Schweik said:


> By the way there were 11 American double-Aces (ten or more victories) who flew the P-40 - 1 in the MTO (Levi Chase), 2 in the PTO (49th FG), the other 8 in Burma (4 in the AVG, 3 in the 23rd FG, and one in 23rd FG / and AVG -David "Tex" Hill)
> 
> There were 14 'British' double aces on he P-40 in the UK / Commonwealth mostly MTO (8 Australians, 3 from the UK including Billy Drake and Neville Duke, and 1 Canadian - Edwards) plus 11 more who ended the war with 10 or more victories and got at least 5 of those on the P-40 (4 from the UK, 4 South Africans, and 3 Aussies).
> 
> The only P-40 pilots with 20 or more victories on the type were in Russia, I think Kuznestov and maybe 2 others. Not sure how many double Aces but there were a few. It's harder for me to determine how many victories Soviet Aces got on each type.


Resp: Clive Caldwell claimed 22 in the in North Africa in the P-40 (Tomahawk/Kittyhawk). My point was that I was surprised at the low number of Aces (5 or more air-to-air kills) in these US FG. Even one A-36A pilot attained Ace status (his story; the enemy just happened to get in from of him . . . LOL!).


----------



## Schweik (Jan 8, 2019)

Glider said:


> I admit to not knowing what you are getting at here. He was a test pilot who tested the production aircraft to ensure that they performed against the set performance targets in a safe manner. I don't have a problem with that and cannot see what you are getting so excited about.
> 
> This I do question for a few reasons.
> a) I believe the F16 is limited to 9G
> ...



I am not excited, trust me. I was just pointing out that it was a reference not to a one time thing, an extreme testing of limits such as test pilots often do (like the purported 600 mph dives), but a routine checkout flight he did on 2,400 aircraft. Which I think more definitively makes the point that P-40s could handle 500 mph.

The G load is somewhat complex, there is the service load and the percentage that is guaranteed, and it also depends on the weight. But it's a well known fact, the P-40 was a bit overbuilt. 10G is not a normal G loading that pilots would pull, from what I understand 6 or 7G is the normal limit for WW2 pilots.



> As mentioned before I firmly believe that the claim of a P40 diving with an IAS of 600mph is a fantasy. A spit almost tore itself apart when doing just over 600 mph and that was a special programme with appropriate technology. If the P40 had done it then the record would have stood for many years and everyone would have heard about it.



The 600+ dives (plural) were conducted by Curtiss aircraft corporation and I have no reason to assume they didn't have "appropriate technology" as well. I don't know any more details than what have been posted so it's up for interpretation, I have no particular reason to disbelieve it.



> There is an important factor to be recalled. The controls of a P40 were pretty well locked solid at high speed, I believe that the speed mentioned was 480mph and the test pilots report on the P40N mentions the excessively high control forces when simply doing ordinary aerobatics. This 480mph almost certainly has something to do with the



The dive speed toruqe on a P-40 required rudder trim after about 450 mph, this was mentioned in detail by many pilots who flew the plane. The normal process was to put in about half rudder trim in the dive and then dial it back out in the climb out. It was considered a bit of a nuisance and at half trim, some substantial arm strength was still required, but the aircraft could fly normally - unlike for example a Bf 109 or the Zero both of which seemed to be only able to turn right after a certain speed.



> None of this is what I said and I strongly suggest you read it again. The American test pilots did say that they didn't like the high frequency vibration at all times. It had nothing to do with turning. Neither did I say that the Typhoon had any limit of 4G, you had said the P40 could do 4G and I was saying that is a very low figure for any fighter.
> For others this is the link to the US test of the Typhoon
> http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/typhoon/Typhoon_Eng-47-1658-E.pdf



I believe I understand the source of confusion - a couple of Typhoon papers were posted to the thread at about the same time. this is an earlier evaluation by the RAF:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/typhoon/Typhoon_Eng-47-1658-E.pdf

The exact quote was (from the section on "Maneuverability":

"At 26,000 feet, steep turns to the right were found to be more satisfactory than to the left, probably due to torque. To the right a sustained turn with 4 or more 'G' was comfortable, whereas when turning steeply to the left which much less 'G', the turn tightened itself and the aircraft eventually flicked over to the right, losing about 2,000 feet. Below 20,000 feet the Typhoon is gfood in all turns and combat maneuvers, *but severe vibration of the airframe is apparent in steep turns of over 4 G."*

They also mentioned that a Spitfire could out turn the Typhoon sufficiently that it would be on it's tail after two turns.

Now I don't know if that is something they later fixed or what, I just want to be clear I was not making it up or failing in my reading comprehension, I was just dutifully reading the stuff that was posted (on my phone at the time).

As for roll rate, somebody find something more definitive.
.


> The Typhoon wasn't a good fighter, compared to the Spit IX, but it was a much better fighter than the P40 outperforming it in every aspect apart from the roll and turn. Even here if it was good enough to get a good shot at a Spit Vb then it would be good enough to get a good shot at a P40
> 
> We have to agree to disagree on certain points.



No doubt about it - I think roll and turn are very important for a fighter, and you kind of need to have either one or the other, preferably both. But the Typhoon was _very_ fast particularly down low, (370 mph at ~ 1000 feet is extremely impressive) no doubt about that, and that mattered a great deal as well.


----------



## Schweik (Jan 8, 2019)

Navalwarrior said:


> Resp: Clive Caldwell claimed 22 in the in North Africa in the P-40 (Tomahawk/Kittyhawk). My point was that I was surprised at the low number of Aces (5 or more air-to-air kills) in these US FG. Even one A-36A pilot attained Ace status (his story; the enemy just happened to get in from of him . . . LOL!).



Well Caldwell was in a different world so to speak, most of his fighting about a year or two before the Americans arrived - He was active from June 1941 through I think April 1942. His last victory claim was in April 42, the first Americans arrived in small numbers in June. Clive was sent first to the US where he visited the Curtiss factory and was involved in an incident during a test flight of the C-46, and then to Australia to help organize the defense of Darwin in early 1943.

During Caldwells active time in the Med there was very intense fighting around Tobruk, El Alemain etc. and the DAF / RAF was taking very heavy casualties, including 250 Squadron where he started out and in 112 Squadron which Caldwell later commanded. There were a couple of dozen really tough pilots like Caldwell with a great deal of individual courage who scored a lot, but a lot who got shot down as well. Clive himself was one of the people trying to make organizational and tactical changes in the DAF, but the fighting was much more individualized - they weren't even flying with wingmen- and the priority of the higher ups was on the bombing, leaving the fighter squadrons in a difficult bind. There were also more targets like Fiat G .50s and Ju 87s (Caldwell shot down 7 of those) which were not around as much by 1943.

Part of why the American units did better in terms of the ratio of victories vs losses though, is that they worked more as a team. Flew as wingmen and in flights, attacked as a squadron etc.* So that's why you see relatively high unit scores for a given time but not as many aces. They also weren't in action nearly as long for the most part. The 325th FG for example scored all of their P-40 victories in _4 months_. By the second half of 1943 Axis air activity fell off a lot and there fewer planes to engage, aside from brief flareups like at Anzio. About 90% of the US victories are from fall of 42 through Summer of 43.

By the way the 324th had the worst record of those groups because they were the one group almost exclusively sent on fighter bomber missions.

* DAF / Commonwealth units did this too of course but it seems to have started in the Med after Caldwell left, around June 1942

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greyman (Jan 8, 2019)

Glider said:


> In fact I have never seen an aircraft of any type stressed to 10G, hence my doubt



From that big (Ministry of Aircraft Production?) chart that was floating around a while ago:

Ultimate Flight Factors (_US types are specification factors, not achieved factors_)
Hurricane IIc (7600 lb): 10.7 g
Spitfire IX (7240 lb): 10.0 g
Typhoon Ib (11350 lb): 11.5 g
Tempest V (11640 lb): 14.0 g
Tomahawk (6835 lb): 12.0 g
Airacobra (7400 lb): 12.0 g
Thunderbolt (---- lb): 12.0 g
Mustang (7836 lb): 12.0 g

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


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Jan 8, 2019)

Schweik said:


> The P-40 out-turned the Yak 1 and Yak 7. Not sure about the 9. Soviet pilots noted this. For example in this interview with *Leonid Sergeevich Kulakov* who flew I-16, Yak 1 and 7, P-39, Spitfire and P-40Es. He scored 3 victrories in the P-40 and one with the P-39. He notes that a Kittyhawk could _easily_ out turn a Yak-7, though he says the Yak 7 was faster.
> .....
> _*Interviewer: Do you say that the Kittyhawk was better in terms of maneuverability than Yaks?*
> 
> ...



Do you have a number for the turning times for the various models of P-40?
I believe the typical Soviet measurement of turn performance was time to turn rather than radius of turn.
As for comparisons, the Yak-1 and Yak-7 are really on the low end of their fighter line for maneuverability.
The Yak-7 is their "Heavy Fighter" and sometimes came in a two seat version.



Schweik said:


> Golodnikov in his famous interview gives us more insight into how they used the P-40. The interviewer reads a passage by aviation author Mike Spick describing the P-40 as second rate and unable to cope with the Bf 109. He asks Golodknikov directly. His reply:
> 
> *"N.G.*_ Even during the war I recognized the fact that the Allies considered it inadvisable and almost impossible to conduct aerial combat in the P-40. We considered the P-40 to be a full-fledged fighter plane. When we began to use the P-40, we immediately discovered two deficiencies that reduced its value as a fighter. 1. The P-40 was a slug in acceleration, rather slow to acquire speed. This weak dynamic resulted in a low combat speed. It had trouble maintaining the speed required for combat. Speed is essential for a fighter. 2. It was weak in the vertical, especially the Tomahawk._
> 
> ...



As I commented before, the Eastern Front conditions were not even remotely close to anything other environment the P-40 flew in. The idea that the necessary combat performance was achieved by abusing the aircraft and replacing the engine after several aerial battles is not something that anyone else could support.
Think about this: Distances over the Eastern Front were short. The pilots often flew multiple missions in one day.

One of the comments in the Allison memo was that abuse of the engine may not cause an immediate failure but may result in a failure at a later date under routine conditions. If you are always close to your own airfield, that may be tolerable. Otherwise, an engine failure over the ocean or way behind enemy lines might not be so good.

The manual is not a joke. It is a guide from the manufacturer that their product will have a predictable and reliable life span under the listed conditions. Keep in mind that there are many other kinds of failure other than the main bearings and some of them are less survivable.

Your document describing the Allison V-1710-39 as installed in the Mustang Mk.I and Mk.IA does not say what you seem to think it does.
The British were only running 72 inches Hg at SEA LEVEL for UP TO 20 Minutes at a time.
That is pretty far from 72 inches Hg for 1500 hours.
Note also that the Mustang Mk.I is a LOT faster than the P-40 at Sea Level.
Figure the difference without WEP is about 40-50 MPH, so there is a lot more ram than the P-40 would get.



Schweik said:


> But the P-40E or K engine had reasonably good performance up to 12,000 ft. WEP made it a beast but the Yak-1 only had an 1,100 hp engine.



Up at 12,000 feet, the P-40E or P-40K had about the same amount of power: 1150 HP @ 3000 RPM.
Depending on ram effect the critical altitude of these engines was somewhere around 11,500 feet to about 13,000 feet. At that altitude there was no WEP available any more and if maneuvering, there obviously wasn't ram effect either.

Thanks, GrauGeist.
I eventually figured out Denisovich wasn't really a patronymic and found Konstantin Denisov.
The other fellow was the one I never could find.
What is amusing is that another friend of mine did exactly the same thing with the name of another Soviet ace.

- Ivan.


----------



## DarrenW (Jan 8, 2019)

Schweik said:


> The G load is somewhat complex, there is the service load and the percentage that is guaranteed, and it also depends on the weight. But it's a well known fact, the P-40 was a bit overbuilt. 10G is not a normal G loading that pilots would pull, from what I understand 6 or 7G is the normal limit for pilots.



You are absolutely right about that. From what I can gather, the maximum G rating that one may see in a pilot's manual is the SAFE limit, but the aircraft _can_ be stressed beyond this (maybe up to 20% or more????). If this occurs a thorough inspection of the airframe would be required to see what if any damage resulted from the "Over G" (our A-10s do this on a semi-routine basis).

A pilot must also take into effect IAS, as this effects the maximum allowable Gs. According to the pilot's manual, an F6F-5 Hellcat weighing 12,000lbs could regularly sustain a +7/-3 G acceleration while flying at approximately 425 mph IAS at 10,000ft, but this drastically changed as the pilot flew higher and higher. Due to changing (or less) air pressure at altitudes above S/L (which in turn effect IAS readings) the same Hellcat would be limited to only +3.5/-3G acceleration at approximately 240 mph IAS at 30,000ft.

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


----------



## Glider (Jan 8, 2019)

Greyman said:


> From that big (Ministry of Aircraft Production?) chart that was floating around a while ago:
> 
> Ultimate Flight Factors (_US types are specification factors, not achieved factors_)
> Hurricane IIc (7600 lb): 10.7 g
> ...



I admit to being totally surprised by this, whoever thought that the planes I quoted were so relatively weak. There must be some definition that's wrong. A Tempest was a tough aeroplane but 50% stronger than the most modern aerobatic and combat aircraft around, I just don't get it.

At Culdrose we had an F4 which had pulled G over its limit, I really cannot remember what it was. Wings were twisted, rivets and panels popped, it never flew again, the fact it got back was deemed a minor miracle.

I will now retire to a dark corner

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


----------



## Schweik (Jan 8, 2019)

Ivan1GFP said:


> Do you have a number for the turning times for the various models of P-40?
> I believe the typical Soviet measurement of turn performance was time to turn rather than radius of turn.
> As for comparisons, the Yak-1 and Yak-7 are really on the low end of their fighter line for maneuverability.
> The Yak-7 is their "Heavy Fighter" and sometimes came in a two seat version.



Yes there are a famous series of Soviet turn tests which have been posted in many forms in various threads here. Here is one version of it (I think this also includes data from some Finnish tests).

Results of the Soviet turn times tests

Here a couple of excerpts:

Yakovlev Yak-1 (1941, 2,934 kg, 1,085 hp/1,035 hp Klimov M-105PA, 1 x 20mm ShVAK + 2 x 7.62mm ShKAS): 19-20 secs
Yakovlev Yak-1 (1942, 2,917 kg, 1,193 hp/ 1,163 hp Klimov M-105PF, 1x20mm ShVAK + 2 x 7.62mm ShKAS): 19-20 secs
Yakovlev Yak-7B (1942, 3,005 kg, 1,193 hp/ 1,163 hp Klimov M-105PF, 1x20mm ShVAK + 2 x 12.7mm UBS): 19-20 secs
Yakovlev Yak 1B (1942, 2,884 kg, 1,193 hp/ 1,163 hp Klimov M-105PF, 1 x 20mm ShVAK + 1 x 12.7mm UBS): 17 - 19secs or 19 secs depending the source. 
Yakovlev Yak-1 (1942, 2,900 kg, 1,193 hp/ 1,163 hp Klimov M-105PF, 1 x 20mm ShVAK + 1 x 12.7mm UBS): 18-19 secs 
Yakovlev Yak-9T (1943, 3,025 kg, 1,193 hp/ 1,163 hp Klimov M-105PF, 1x37mm NS-37 + 1 x 12.7mm UBS): 18-19 secs. 
Yakovlev Yak-9D: (1943, 3,117 kg, 1,193 hp/ 1,163 hp Klimov M-105PF, 1x20mm ShVAK + 1 x 12.7mm UBS): 19-20 secs
Yakovlev Yak-9M: (1944, 3,095 kg, 1,193 hp/ 1,163 hp Klimov VK-105PF, 1x20mm ShVAK + 1 x 12.7mm UBS): 19-20 secs
Yakovlev Yak-9U (1944, 3,260 kg, 1,479 hp/1,430 hp Klimov VK-107A, 1x20mm ShVAK + 2x12.7mm UBS): 20 secs 

Lavochkin La-5 (1943, 3,208 kg, 1,676 hp/1,311 hp Shvetsov M-82, 2 x 20mm ShVAK): 19 secs
Lavochkin La-5FN (1943, 3,305 kg, 1,825 hp/1,410 hp Shvetsov ASh-82FN, 2 x 20mm ShVAK): 19 or 19.5 secs, depending on the source 

Curtiss P-40C (3,390 kg, 1,055 hp Allison V-1710-33, 2x12.7mm+4x7.62mm): 18.0 secs mid
Curtiss P-40E-1-CU (1942, 3,840 kg, 1,150 hp Allison V-1710-39, 6x12.7mm): 19.2 secs mid 
Curtiss P-40M-5-CU (1943, 3,958 kg, 1,200 hp/1,125 hp V-1710-81, 6x12.7mm): 18.8 sec 

Bell P-39D (3,556 kg, 1,150hp Allison V-1710-35, 1x37mm+2x12.7mm+4x7.62mm): 19 secs
Bell P-39Q (1943, 3,495 kg, 1,420 hp/1,200 hp Allison V-1710-85, 1x37mm+4x12.7mm so with gunpods): 19.5 secs 

Supermarine Spitfire Mk VB (1943, 2,920 kg, 1,130 hp/1,166 hp Merlin 46, 2 x 20mm + 4 x 7.7mm): 18.8 secs 
Supermarine Spitfire F Mk IX (1944, 3,292 kg, 1,275 hp/1,380 hp Merlin 61, 2 x 20mm + 4 x 7.7mm): 17.5 secs 
Supermarine Spitfire LF. Mk IXE (1945, 3,351 kg, 1,320 hp/1,580 hp Merlin 66, 2 x 20mm + 2 x 12.7mm): 18.5 secs 

Messerschmitt Bf109F-2 (2,780 kg, 1,144 hp DB 601N, 1x15mm MG 151 + 2x7.92mm MG 17): 19.6 secs (some sources 19.8) -20.5 NII 
Messerschmitt Bf 109G-4 (1943, 1,454 hp/1,233 hp DB 605A-1, 1 x 20mm MG 151 + 2 x 7.92mm MG 17): 20.5-21 secs 
Messerschmitt Bf 109G-2/R6 (1942, 3,235 kg, 1,454 hp/1,233 hp DB 605A-1, 3 x 20mm MG 151 + 2 x 7.92mm MG 17): 22.6 - 22.8 secs 

Republic P-47D-10-RE (1944, 5,961 kg, 2,000 hp R-2800-63, 6(8)x12.7mm, 661km/h at 8,500m): 26 secs 

Focke-Wulf FW 190A-5 (1942, 4,070 kg, 1,558 hp/1,440 hp BMW 801 D-2): 21 - 22 secs 
Focke-Wulf FW 190A-4 (3,989 kg, 1,706 hp/1,341 hp BMW801D, 4x20mm + 2x7.92mm): 22 - 23 secs NII-VVS, 23 - 24 secs LII-NKAP 

So from the above (this was all the Yak and P-40 stats I could find in there) the P-40 looks like it turns a little bit better depending on the subtype(s). However I'm aware a lot of people disagree with these Soviet tests, and they don't measure vertical maneuverability.



> As I commented before, the Eastern Front conditions were not even remotely close to anything other environment the P-40 flew in. The idea that the necessary combat performance was achieved by abusing the aircraft and replacing the engine after several aerial battles is not something that anyone else could support.
> Think about this: Distances over the Eastern Front were short. The pilots often flew multiple missions in one day.



All true. Also true that the Soviets had more trouble managing the Anglo-American engines, at least through 1942.



> One of the comments in the Allison memo was that abuse of the engine may not cause an immediate failure but may result in a failure at a later date under routine conditions. If you are always close to your own airfield, that may be tolerable. Otherwise, an engine failure over the ocean or way behind enemy lines might not be so good.



They were also referring to the later type (-81 etc.) Allisons such as used in the P-40M and N.



> The manual is not a joke. It is a guide from the manufacturer that their product will have a predictable and reliable life span under the listed conditions. Keep in mind that there are many other kinds of failure other than the main bearings and some of them are less survivable.
> 
> Your document describing the Allison V-1710-39 as installed in the Mustang Mk.I and Mk.IA does not say what you seem to think it does.
> The British were only running 72 inches Hg at SEA LEVEL for UP TO 20 Minutes at a time.
> That is pretty far from 72 inches Hg for 1500 hours.



I was never under the impression that it says you could run the engine for 1500 hours continuously. I've posted this link and typed out this same data so many times in this thread, I hope I will be forgiven a typo. Yes I get that they were running at 72" Hg - and 20 minutes is a long time for WEP by the way. 

I take this to mean they could easily run at say 60 or 65" for 20 minutes at a time too.



> Up at 12,000 feet, the P-40E or P-40K had about the same amount of power: 1150 HP @ 3000 RPM.
> Depending on ram effect the critical altitude of these engines was somewhere around 11,500 feet to about 13,000 feet. At that altitude there was no WEP available any more and if maneuvering, there obviously wasn't ram effect either.



But it could still make ~360 mph which compares fairly well to most versions of the Yak-1, Yak 7 and earlier Yak 9s.

S


----------



## Schweik (Jan 8, 2019)

DarrenW said:


> You are absolutely right about that. From what I can gather, the maximum G rating that one may see in a pilot's manual is the SAFE limit, but the aircraft _can_ be stressed beyond this (maybe up to 20% or more????). If this occurs a thorough inspection of the airframe would be required to see what if any damage resulted from the "Over G" (our A-10s do this on a semi-routine basis).
> 
> A pilot must also take into effect IAS, as this effects the maximum allowable Gs. According to the pilot's manual, an F6F-5 Hellcat for example could regularly sustain a +7/-3 G acceleration while flying at approximately 425 mph IAS at 10,000ft, but this drastically changed as the pilot flew higher and higher. Due to changing (or less) air pressure at altitudes above S/L (which in turn effect IAS readings) the same Hellcat would be limited to only +3.5/-3G acceleration at approximately 320 mph IAS at 30,000ft.




Wow that is interesting and a bit counter-intuitive. Do you know why thinner air or higher altitude made G more risky / damaging for the airframe? Is that just a matter of the TAS?


----------



## Schweik (Jan 8, 2019)

Glider said:


> I admit to being totally surprised by this, whoever thought that the planes I quoted were so relatively weak. There must be some definition that's wrong. A Tempest was a tough aeroplane but 50% stronger than the most modern aerobatic and combat aircraft around, I just don't get it.
> 
> At Culdrose we had an F4 which had pulled G over its limit, I really cannot remember what it was. Wings were twisted, rivets and panels popped, it never flew again, the fact it got back was deemed a minor miracle.
> 
> I will now retire to a dark corner



I had no idea about the extent of this either. And look how tough the Tempest is. I think WW2 planes were a bit more heavily built than modern fighters. Most modern fighters (with certain exceptions like the A-10 and the Su-27) don't even have armor any more. Carbon fiber and so on is much lighter but not quite as strong by weight. I think?

I admit I'm out of my depth here so forgive me if I'm wrong about that.


----------



## DarrenW (Jan 8, 2019)

Glider said:


> I admit to being totally surprised by this.....



I was too, but that's what Greyman's reference states. Maybe he can give us some more details regarding these stats....


----------



## Schweik (Jan 8, 2019)

By the way I believe the variations on those Soviet tests, 18-20 seconds for example, means one time for a left turn the other for a right turn, some planes turning better in one direction than the other due to torque.


----------



## Schweik (Jan 8, 2019)

DarrenW said:


> I was too, but that's what Greyman's reference states. Maybe he can give us some more details regarding these stats....



I think there was different ways to measure this - the limit, then there is a guarantee like 50% or 100% - a 100% guarantee on a 6G limit means 12G effectively, whereas a 50% guarantee on a 6G limit is 9G. Or something like that.


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Jan 8, 2019)

slaterat said:


> I you check farther down on the Typhoon page you will see some roll rate data for a Typhoon 1a going from 45 degrees one way to 45 the other, averaging just less than 2 seconds at 200 and 300 ASI



Hello Slaterat,
On the assumption that "Less than 2 seconds" in this case means around 1.5 seconds:
The roll rate would only be about 60 degrees per second which is quite poor performance and this is not even at high speed.

Just for a performance comparison:
The early P-40 (Probably Tomahawk) had a peak roll rate of 135 degrees per second at 350 MPH IAS.
At 200 MPH IAS, roll rate was around 75 degrees / second
At 300 MPH IAS, roll rate was around 115 degrees / second
(from AHT graph)

The Merlin P-40 seems to be a lot slower for some reason. 
(By reputation the P-40 had a pretty good roll rate.)
At 200 MPH IAS, 84 degrees / second
At 300 MPH IAS, 83 degrees / second
(my read of the graph)



Greyman said:


> From that big (Ministry of Aircraft Production?) chart that was floating around a while ago:
> 
> Ultimate Flight Factors (_US types are specification factors, not achieved factors_)
> Hurricane IIc (7600 lb): 10.7 g
> ...



Thanks for the data, Greyman,
I wonder what the operational limits actually were because at least for the US types, these are the maximum loads above which the wings are expected to fail. Typically, the US aircraft as originally designed could tolerate up to 8G without permanent structural damage but that limit drops as aircraft weight inevitably grows.

Hello Schweik,
Thanks for the listing of turning times.
I would have thought there would be an advantage for the Soviet Yak fighters, but they look pretty close to even. I am very surprised the lightened Yak-1 did not show a more consistent advantage.

- Ivan.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## BiffF15 (Jan 8, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Wow that is interesting and a bit counter-intuitive. Do you know why thinner air or higher altitude made G more risky / damaging for the airframe? Is that just a matter of the TAS?



Close. At higher altitudes you generate less lift for a given airspeed and sustain it for less time due to engines making less power.

Also expect that the G limits posted above are probably ultimate design loads or where structural failure is to be expected.

Twice that I know of Eagles at Eglin pulled over 11 G’s and flew again. They were fairly new at the time. I’ve also seen 10 G’s force a wing change. Max allowable in the Eagle is 9 down to about 6.5 depending on speed and altitude (positive G’s).

Cheers,
Biff

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jan 8, 2019)

Ivan1GFP said:


> Hello Slaterat,
> On the assumption that "Less than 2 seconds" in this case means around 1.5 seconds:
> The roll rate would only be about 60 degrees per second which is quite poor performance and this is not even at high speed.
> 
> ...



Well one of the Yak 1s said it turned in 17 seconds which is very fast indeed. The test shown were mostly done at 1,000 ft and at I forget at what speed. It's probably different at different altitudes and speeds without a doubt.

It's also odd that the Hurricane had such bad turn times since most people say it out turned most of the other planes listed. So who knows there could be issues with those tests.

So I wouldn't take it as definitive proof it's just a data point.

From what I read one of the traits of the Yak which isn't that easy to quantify is that they did not lose speed much in a turn (or as much) having small wings they had a lot less drag. So they could turn and keep turning. If that makes sense.


----------



## BiffF15 (Jan 8, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Well one of the Yak 1s said it turned in 17 seconds which is very fast indeed. The test shown were mostly done at 1,000 ft and at I forget at what speed. It's probably different at different altitudes and speeds without a doubt.
> 
> It's also odd that the Hurricane had such bad turn times since most people say it out turned most of the other planes listed. So who knows there could be issues with those tests.
> 
> ...



Schweik / Gents,

There are two types of steady turns. The sustained, usually accomplished at higher speeds, which will be measured in degrees per second or time for a complete 360. This turn is your fastest 360 but the circle is larger.

An example of when to use this one if you are being bounced from behind and you have time to turn, meet the attack and sustain or maintain energy/ airspeed.

The second turn is a radius turn, meant to makea smaller or smallest turn circle.

Use this one if your trying to get someone out of your chili or to get into someone else’s or bring your nose to bear for a gunshot.

This is the cliff cliff cliff notes version as there is an encyclopedia Britannia worth of discussion on turning fights.

Cheers,
Biff

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


----------



## wuzak (Jan 8, 2019)

Schweik said:


> I had no idea about the extent of this either. And look how tough the Tempest is. I think WW2 planes were a bit more heavily built than modern fighters. Most modern fighters (with certain exceptions like the A-10 and the Su-27) don't even have armor any more. Carbon fiber and so on is much lighter but not quite as strong by weight. I think?
> 
> I admit I'm out of my depth here so forgive me if I'm wrong about that.



Carbon Fibre is lighter because it is stronger by weight.

Well, in tension.


----------



## wuzak (Jan 8, 2019)

Ivan1GFP said:


> Just for a performance comparison:
> The early P-40 (Probably Tomahawk) had a peak roll rate of 135 degrees per second at 350 MPH IAS.
> At 200 MPH IAS, roll rate was around 75 degrees / second
> At 300 MPH IAS, roll rate was around 115 degrees / second
> ...



Perhaps because the P-40F had 6 guns and armour?

Though the roll rate of the P-40F is shown to be superior at 200mph IAS.


----------



## slaterat (Jan 8, 2019)

Ivan1GFP said:


> Hello Slaterat,
> On the assumption that "Less than 2 seconds" in this case means around 1.5 seconds:
> The roll rate would only be about 60 degrees per second which is quite poor performance and this is not even at high speed.
> 
> ...



There were no other specifics on that time to roll rate for the Typhoon. In other time to roll tests at the A&AEE, for what ever reason, they tend limit the application to 1/4 aileron.

Other testing at A&AEE, previously posted by me, the Kittyhawk's ailerons were solid at 460 IAS, whereas the Typhoon still had good aileron control at the same speed.


----------



## Greyman (Jan 8, 2019)

DarrenW said:


> I was too, but that's what Greyman's reference states. Maybe he can give us some more details regarding these stats....



No more granularity in the data unfortunately.

I did copy down figures from destruction tests of the Spitfire I, Hurricane I and 109E. Those are much more detailed.

_eg_ *Spitfire I (design factor 10.0) 6,200 lb:*
High incidence condition
no permanent set at 10.0 G​no serious effect below 11.5 G when rivets begin to fail​collapse by fracture of main spar at 12.3 G​Low incidence condition
no effect other than waving skin up to 9.0 G​collapse by failure of skin attachment at 12.0 G​


----------



## DarrenW (Jan 8, 2019)

Greyman said:


> No more granularity in the data unfortunately.
> 
> I did copy down figures from destruction tests of the Spitfire I, Hurricane I and 109E. Those are much more detailed.
> 
> ...



Thank you for the added information Greyman....


----------



## DarrenW (Jan 8, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Wow that is interesting and a bit counter-intuitive. Do you know why thinner air or higher altitude made G more risky / damaging for the airframe? Is that just a matter of the TAS?





BiffF15 said:


> Close. At higher altitudes you generate less lift for a given airspeed and sustain it for less time due to engines making less power.



BiffF15 is right on the money. In my Hellcat example, the TAS at 30,000ft is about 130 mph less than it is at 10,000ft, while the "safe" positive G load is only about half that found at the lower elevation. Reduced lift had to play a big part.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 8, 2019)

Most US fighters were _designed _to have an ultimate 12 G load, that is point at which they figured there would be permanent structural damage. 
This ultimate load was actually a safety factor as they were trying for an 8 G load in flight. 
G loading was relatively primitive at the time as was testing for metal fatigue in general.

G load tests were often done by suspending the aircraft (or it's wing) upside down and piling on (or hanging) sandbags/weights until they reached the desired "test weight" which, while better than not testing, is hardly reflective of the dynamic loads imposed by flying. One reason for the 50% safety margin.

Now days it is done in specially constructed jigs using calibrated hydraulic jacks on large aircraft, Small planes (small manufacturers still do the old way) 










Since just about every aircraft known to man gained weight somewhere along the design/development process the actual G loading went down. The Mustang was good for *8*"G"s in service (12 Gs ultimate) at *8000lbs, *since flying a Mustang at 8,000lbs meant you were seconds away from running out of fuel or oil you had to make allowances. 8 times 8,000 is 64,000. If the Mustang is grossing 9000lbs you divide 64,000 by 9,000 and get 7.111 There is actually a chart in the manual that explains this. 

Please note that armor has nothing to do with aircraft strength. in fact it is a liability. Very few aircraft used armor (IL-2 and siblings excepted) as structural components. Most armor has little or no bend unlike some structural members than can bend/deflect and return to "normal" after the load is removed. Armor is either going to permanently bend or break. Granted it may no do so until something else has already broken.
However for some of these load/stress limits to work the weight has to be evenly distributed over the structure. Too much weight in one location can break the structure even if the total weight is less than the ultimate load. B-17s needed to fill the outer wing tanks in order to get close to the max gross weight. Running several thousand pounds below max gross but having all the weight in the bombbay and inner fuel tanks put too much bending stress on the wing. 

The designers/engineers were learning an awful lot about structures and stress during this time and even a few years could mean major changes under the skin. 

There were different ways that some of this was measured or different allowances made from country to country so trying to compare the English G load levels to the American ones is not strictly accurate for example. 

Pilots tolerance to G load is rather variable. I will defer to the people on this board who are actual pilots but I believe it is somewhat time related. As in a pilot may be able to tolerate 6-8 Gs for a few seconds without totally blacking out but trying to stay conscious at 4-5 Gs for 30 seconds may not be doable? 
Just throwing numbers out. feel free to correct. You also had varying degrees of greying out before total blackout. 
Many dive bomber pilots routinely blacked out during pull outs from dives but since the plane was climbing (or about to ) in a pretty much level attitude when the blackout occurred the pilot had time to recover (both consciousness and the airplane). A pilot trying to pull 5-6Gs in a turning dog fight only a few hundred feet above the ground doesn't have that luxury.

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


----------



## Schweik (Jan 8, 2019)

Being able to withstand G loads was another of those rare skills (like marksmanship in general, or deflection shooting specifically, or a knack for riding a stall) that some pilots used to their advantage. Greg Boyington and the Australian Ace Nicky Barr both had developed personal techniques of 'bearing down' to withstand G load. Boyington was a wrestler and Barr was a rugby player, which apparently contributed to their having the right kind of (thick, muscular) necks for that business.

I think in later periods they started teaching this but I don't know when.


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Jan 8, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Well one of the Yak 1s said it turned in 17 seconds which is very fast indeed. The test shown were mostly done at 1,000 ft and at I forget at what speed. It's probably different at different altitudes and speeds without a doubt.



Hello Schweik,
That Yak-1b (predecessor of the Yak-3) was the lightened Yak-1 I was referring to.
Note though that its times were not consistent.
They probably all started out at cornering speed.



Schweik said:


> It's also odd that the Hurricane had such bad turn times since most people say it out turned most of the other planes listed. So who knows there could be issues with those tests.
> 
> So I wouldn't take it as definitive proof it's just a data point.



I believe BiffF15 already gave a pretty good explanation of the difference between turn rate and turn radius.
The British tended to be interested in Turn Radius. The Soviets tended to be interested in Turn Rate.

Consider this: One fellow flies a Fokker Eindecker with a stall speed of around 40 MPH and can make a 360 degree turn inside a 200 yard circle. He is flying so slowly that a full 360 degree turn takes about 30 seconds.
The other fellow is flying our venerable P-40 and can make a full 360 degree turn in 22 seconds but needs 700 yard circle to do it.
Which fellow turns better?
(The numbers are all invented, so I don't know if the physics actually fits together, but I think it still makes a good enough illustration.)

I believe that other factors may also be masked here such as how good the initial turn rate is. If a fighter bleeds speed at a higher rate, it will not show up as well here because although its initial turn rate is the same, it can't sustain it for as long before it gets down to stall speed while pulling G.
Note how the P-40M has a better time than the P-40E?
The P-40M weighs more and has exactly the same wing and I don't think the longer tail is going to change things.



Schweik said:


> From what I read one of the traits of the Yak which isn't that easy to quantify is that they did not lose speed much in a turn (or as much) having small wings they had a lot less drag. So they could turn and keep turning. If that makes sense.



That idea actually doesn't make much sense.
A smaller wing does have less Parasitic Drag but because of the smaller area is going to need more Angle of Attack to lift the same weight and that would cause Induced Drag to be higher. Parasitic Drag tends to influence maximum speed while Induced Drag tends to influence how much speed is lost when pulling G.
Instead I would look for lower weights and wing loading, wing planform and differences between the 2200 series airfoil of the P-40 and the Clark-Y of the typical Yak fighter.

- Ivan.


----------



## Greyman (Jan 8, 2019)

I have almost nothing on WWII G resistance but there is this bit from a report on a liaison visit by two Central Fighter Establishment members to various USAAF and USN stations late 1944:

_"G" Suits_

_The Berger type "G" suit, operated by air pressure on the calves, thighs and abdomen, was worn by the CFE representatives while undergoing tests in a centrifuge chamber. The majority of personnel available for the trials had been able to withstand no more than 4 "G" without the suit and the Department were disturbed by the fact that both CFE representatives reached 6.5 "G" unassisted. Wearing the suit both blacked out at 6.5 "G" and this is explained by the fact that the suit is extremely uncomfortable and therefore counteracts the natural resistance which some pilots develop. As a result of discussion it was agreed that whereas the suit would be valuable to those pilots whose threshold was about 4 "G", the discomfort caused would not be compensated for by the gain of 1.5 "G" by pilots whose threshold was more than 5 "G"._

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


----------



## Schweik (Jan 9, 2019)

Ivan1GFP said:


> Hello Schweik,
> That Yak-1b (predecessor of the Yak-3) was the lightened Yak-1 I was referring to.
> Note though that its times were not consistent.
> They probably all started out at cornering speed.



Well, most of the P-40 variants generally had a lower wing loading than most of the Yak variants. Big wing with a large wing area.

Aside from wing loading, power also makes a difference - the P-40M may have had a better (quicker by time) turning circle in their test because they flew it at a higher power setting.

Most of the M-105 powered Yaks (except the Yak 3 with a more souped up 105PF) seem to have similar power to mass ratios as P-40s, so long as the latter were flying at moderately high power settings, i.e. 57" Hg or 60" Hg etc. which they were capable of at all the altitudes combat normally took place on the Russian Front (up to about 10,000 ft). The VK-107 powered Yaks were considerably zippier of course.

As for the rest of it, my main sources aside from whatever hard data gets posted here or WWIIAircraftPerformance.org are pilot accounts and operational histories. The latter report that the P-40 out turned all the other modern fighters in Russia and the Med (German, Italian or Russia). In Russia only the older I-16 or I-153 etc. would out turn it. I already posted one Soviet pilots account that the P-40 could "easily out turn" a Yak 7 - I don't mean just turn time I mean getting on the other aircraft's tail.

As for

P-40E is .14 hp / lb at 42" (1,150 hp) and* .17* at 56" Hg (1,470 hp)
P-40K is .16 hp / lb at 51" (1,325 hp) and *.18* at 60" Hg (1550 hp)
P-40M is .13 hp / lb at 51" (1,200 hp) and .15 at 57" (1,360 hp)
P-40N** is .15 hp / lb at 51" (1,200 hp) and *.17* at 57" (1,360 hp)

These are from Wikipedia so cut me some slack if there are mistakes:

Yak-1B is* .19* hp / lb (M-105PF / 1,180 hp)
Yak-7 is* .16* hp / lb (M-105 / 1050 hp)
Yak-9D is .*17* hp / lb (M-105 / 1,180 hp)
Yak-9U is .21 hp / lb (VK-107 / 1,500 hp) - 1944
Yak-3 is .22 hp / lb (VK-105PF / 1,300 hp) - 1944

Per the above, only the rather 'tepid' P-40M* is too sluggish to compete. The V-1710-81 etc. can make 57" up to 8-10,000 ft. V-1710-39 or -73 are a little lower than much. Not not talking about heavy duty overboosting which is available down below 2,500 ft. By 1944 the Yaks are clearly pulling ahead but in 1942 or 1943 the P-40s look competetive (just as Golodnikov noted). Also keep in mind, unlike in the tests I posted where they indicate 6 guns, the Soviet pilots mentioned routinely taking one pair of guns out of the P-40 which would also improve wing loading, acceleration and roll rate a bit more.

I'm not saying the P-40s were _better_ mind you. Soviet pilots generally still preferred the Yak due to "higher combat speed" whatever that means precisely and better climb rate and vertical turn performance. The P-40 had the much higher dive speed, stronger build and heavier armament. All I am saying is that they were clearly comparable and not 'second rate'


* P-40Ms would handle and fly better at higher altitudes 10-15,000 ft of course lol
** This is the lightened early P-40N

S


----------



## Dan Fahey (Jan 9, 2019)

Schweik said:


> I'm a little disappointed that I seem to keep having to post the same stuff over and over.
> 
> Here are the (P-40 only) victory claim totals by Fighter Group:
> 
> ...



Those are Claims not confirmed!
Who actually are shot down are in Luftwaffe records.
After a day of Combat you always know who did not return.


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Jan 9, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Well, most of the P-40 variants generally had a lower wing loading than most of the Yak variants. Big wing with a large wing area.
> 
> Aside from wing loading, power also makes a difference - the P-40M may have had a better (quicker by time) turning circle in their test because they flew it at a higher power setting.



Hello Schweik,
If these tests really were flown at 1,000 feet as you commented earlier, then the P-40E/K would have the greater engine power available. It sounds like altitude was a bit higher where the P-40M had a slight advantage in power that was enough to offset its higher induced drag.



Schweik said:


> Most of the M-105 powered Yaks (except the Yak 3 with a more souped up 105PF) seem to have similar power to mass ratios as P-40s, so long as the latter were flying at moderately high power settings, i.e. 57" Hg or 60" Hg etc. which they were capable of at all the altitudes combat normally took place on the Russian Front (up to about 10,000 ft). The VK-107 powered Yaks were considerably zippier of course.



The only problem with this theory is that the P-40E/K were not capable of 57 or 60 inches Hg by 10,000 feet. In climbing flight (un-rammed) they were down to around 42 inches by 11,500 feet. I believe Shortround6 already commented on this

Here is another article about the P-40 in Soviet Service that has a lot more specifics.
It also paints a much less pretty picture of the Soviets' opinions of the P-40 series.
The P-40 in Soviet Aviation

- Ivan.


----------



## Schweik (Jan 9, 2019)

Dan Fahey said:


> Those are Claims not confirmed!
> Who actually are shot down are in Luftwaffe records.
> After a day of Combat you always know who did not return.



I'm well aware. This whole thread was started as the result of my posting exactly such (German and Italian) combat records, which show units like the 325th FG winning numerous engagements at the rates of 5-1, 3-1, 4-0 etc. I have posted a few of those in this thread already.


----------



## Milosh (Jan 9, 2019)

Dan Fahey said:


> Those are Claims not confirmed!
> Who actually are shot down are in Luftwaffe records.
> After a day of Combat you always know who did not return.



What is missing from that data posted is the losses that occurred.


----------



## Schweik (Jan 9, 2019)

Milosh said:


> What is missing from that data posted is the losses that occurred.



I have the rather uncomfortable feeling that we are kind of going in circles as several points raised on this page have already been dealt with I think two or three times. But I do have some of this data and I'll post it again for the benefit of those who missed it before. If you skipped it last time please read this.

In general, I don't have the summaries for every fighter group but you can see the data for the 325th FG. They post victories here. Losses vs. victories here. That page also shows the operational history which can be contrasted with the 79th FG mission history that I posted upthread - it's notable that by contrast 325th FG flew mostly escort and fighter sweep missions and only roughly 1/4 fighter bomber attacks.

Breakdown for the P-40 is *133 'confirmed' air combat victories* (almost all fighters), 16 air combat losses, plus another 24 'probable' air combat losses for 43 total. There is also a more detailed breakdown showing *12 losses to enemy aircraft* and *12 to "unknown"* most of which are probably enemy aircraft.* So that is 133 vs. 24.*

There are also some interesting comparisons by type:

Sortie to victory ratio for the P-40 was 30.2/1
Sortie to loss ratio for the P-40 was 93.3/1

Sortie to victory ratio for the P-47 was 26.47/1
Sortie to loss ratio for the P-47 was 98.1/1

Sortie to victory ratio for the P-51 was 40.4/1
Sortie to loss ratio for the P-51 was 107.2/1

Shores MAW Volume IV corroborates the above data, and of the 43 'probable' air combat losses it's clear that many of these are to Flak, some to accidents and some are to mechanical problems. I'll post a summary of 325th FG P-40 activity based on MAW IV when I have some time.

Of course all the claims aren't real, overclaiming is universal. So we can look at some examples where Axis records corroborate Allied claims and to what extent they can be verified.

More specifically, from Mediterranean Air War Volume IV, here are a few engagements for several days of action in the summer of 1943 (already posted and somewhat debated here). These are just the days for which it's verifiable that the victories were attributable to P-40 units. There are many other days where the Germans and Italians reported losses, P-40 units made numerous claims but so did units flying other fighters and it's not possible on many days to determine who got what victory.

On these days however it's clear:

*June 8* *1943*- 79th FG P-40Fs made 6 claims, 52nd FG Spitfires claimed 1, 1st FG P-38s made 1. Italian pilots claimed 8 Spitfires and 1 x P 38 *Actual losses were 2 x MC 205 and 3 x MC 202 and no Allied fighters*. Even if you assume 2 were lost to the Spit and P 38, that leaves 3 for the P 40s for no losses.
*June 10 1943* (US 325th and 79th FG and 31st FG [Spit] vs JG 27 and JG 53, and Italian 161, 22, and 53 Stormos) *15 x Bf 109s lost, 8 MC 202 lost / 3 P-40s lost**
*July 8 1943 *(US 324th FG vs. JG 77 and JG 53 and Italian 150 Gr CT)* 5 x German Bf 109G-6 lost and 1 x Italian Bf 109G lost / 3 P-40s lost
July 22 1943 *(US 325th FG vs. Italian 22 and 51 Stormo)* 4 x MC 205 shot down, *(+ 2 x 205 'shot up by P-40s')* 3 x MC 202 & 1 X D.520 shot down , Ca 309 shot down / 2 x P40 lost
July 26 1943* (US 325th FG vs. JG 53 and Italian 51 Stormo)* 2 x Bf 109G shot down, 1 x MC 205 *(+1 205 'shot up by fighters')* / 0 P-40s lost
July 30 1943 *(US 325th FG vs. JG 77) P-40s claimed 21 enemy fighters shot down for one loss. *Actual losses were 6 x Bf 109G Shot down / 1 P-40 shot down*

Overclaiming - my count for these days is 87 claims (71 by P-40s and 16 by other Allied fighters) vs. 51 actual losses**. So that will give you some idea of the overclaiming ratios. Total P-40 verified victories (assuming zero overclaiming by Spitfires or P-38s on these days) are at least 35 verified kills for 9 losses.

So far I found one day in Vol IV where the P-40s took substantial losses in air combat which significantly outpaced their victories:

*July 10 1943 *(day of the Invasion of Sicily) losses included* 8 x Spitfires, 6x P-38s, 5 x P-40Ls, 4 x B-25s, 2 x B-26 and 5 x A-36 *(P-51 dive bombers) which were all to "undertermined" reasons. German / Italian losses included *7 x Bf 109, & 4 x RE 2002. *That is 19 Allied fighters lost vs. 11 Axis.

So overall, in the Summer of 1943 in particular, these US P-40 Fighter Groups seem to have done pretty well. It has been suggested that the Axis planes were outnumbered, but I can show that was not always or even usually the case. It has also been suggested that P-40 victories were due to Spitfire top cover. But this was also not usually the case. On two of the above six occasions the P-40 units had support from Spitfires or P-38s, but on the other four they were on their own. The 325th FG in particular was flying a lot of escort and Fighter Sweep missions over Sardinia during this period with no friendly company other than B-26s. The July 22, 26 and 30 combats were all over Sardinia with no other Allied fighters present.

S

* on this day *June 10 *both Spitfire and P-40 units made claims, but the losses show that the P-40 units shot down at least 9 enemy fighters. Claims break down as follows

Allied fighter pilots made 35 claims for fighters that day:

185 sqn RAF (Spitfire IX) claimed 2
307 fs / 31 FG (Spitfire) claimed 5
309 fs / 31 FG (Spitfire) claimed 6
309 fs / 31 FG (Spitfire) claimed 1 later on

That's 14

325 FG (P-40F) claimed 5 fighters
79th FG (P-40F) claimed 16 fighters

That's 21

Actual Axis losses were 23 fighters. So even if you assume for some reason that none of the Spitfire units overclaimed and all of the P40 units did, it still leaves 9 x Bf 109s definitely lost to P-40s.

** It ads up to an overclaiming rate of 58% (as in 58% of the claims were real). If we applied that same ratio to the 325th FG's totals - it would give us 77 victories for 24 losses, or a 3.25 -1 victory ratio. Of course that is just a guess but it gives you something to hang your hat on.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jan 9, 2019)

Ivan1GFP said:


> Hello Schweik,
> If these tests really were flown at 1,000 feet as you commented earlier, then the P-40E/K would have the greater engine power available. It sounds like altitude was a bit higher where the P-40M had a slight advantage in power that was enough to offset its higher induced drag.



The P-40E would in theory have the potential of higher engine power, but we don't know what engine settings they tested at - what I was suggesting is they probably used the military power setting from the manual, as in so many of the British and American tests we have seen. That is a mere 42" IIRC so quite low HP. The P-40M may have been tested at a higher power setting since it arrived much later and as we have discussed quite a bit in here, the manual was adjusted upwards for power settings repeatedly over the years.

Unfortunately they did not test the P-40K that I know of (or at least that has been published - I assume they probably _did_ test it).

Sadly we don't know the actual details of course, that is just an educated guess.



> The only problem with this theory is that the P-40E/K were not capable of 57 or 60 inches Hg by 10,000 feet. In climbing flight (un-rammed) they were down to around 42 inches by 11,500 feet. I believe Shortround6 already commented on this



The P-40E or K should be able to make 57" in level flight up to around at least 7,000 or 8,000 ft. which is plenty for the Russian Front on most days. Low speed climb is not something you would do in combat in a P-40, partly to maintain combat speed, but it would also keep RAM - you can dive a little and zoom climb. This is how pilots reported using it.



> Here is another article about the P-40 in Soviet Service that has a lot more specifics.
> It also paints a much less pretty picture of the Soviets' opinions of the P-40 series.
> The P-40 in Soviet Aviation
> 
> - Ivan.



This too has been posted multiple times. I don't know how closely you read it, but I draw your attention to the last two paragraphs:

_"Altogether the VVS VMF USSR received 360 P-40s of all models from 1941-1945, and lost 66 in combat (18 percent), *the lowest loss percentage among fighters of all types.*

In conclusion, one fact should be noted: three Twice HSU (of 27) in Soviet aviation fought in the Kittyhawk: B. F. Safonov, P. A. Pokryshev (22 personal victories and 7 in group), and M. V. Kuznetsov (22 + 6). Pokryshev and Kuznetsov flew the Kittyhawk for more than a year. *Many pilots became aces and HSU while flying the P-40, achieving good combat score*s. *A number of regiments gained their guards status while flying the P-40*. *On the whole this aircraft fought well*, though the conceptual errors that were built into it significantly reduced the sphere of its effective employment."_

The Soviet authorities didn't love the P-40, though some of it's pilots clearly did. They generally preferred the P-39 for reasons I tried to outline carefully in another post - I would suggest the 4 month workup they did on it (which helped clear many of the maintenance issues) the nose guns - including the big 37mm which they actually _liked,_ small wings / low drag which matched the way they liked to fight with the Yak and La 5 / 7 series fighters, and the fact that the Soviet pilots weren't as bothered by slightly 'twitchy' handling characteristics.

If you read that article carefully, the main problem they had with the P-40 was maintenance. Also keep in mind that article was written when the general consensus about P-40s was still that they were very much 2nd rate. The author notes with surprise that P-40s could take out Bf 109s without a problem.



S


----------



## Stig1207 (Jan 9, 2019)

There are some differences in USAAF losses depending on sources. The USAAF Statistical Digest gives for the period June, July and August 1943 391fighters lost on combat missions. MAW IV in the same period has about 260, including damaged aircraft that returned.


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Jan 9, 2019)

Schweik said:


> I have the rather uncomfortable feeling that we are kind of going in circles as several points raised on this page have already been dealt with I think two or three times. But I do have some of this data and I'll post it again for the benefit of those who missed it before. If you skipped it last time please read this.
> 
> .....
> 
> ...



Hello Schweik,
Thanks for reposting. I had not seen this the first time but I also didn't read all 30-something pages of posts that were here before I joined in.

Are you sure you are interpreting the statistics correctly?
26 Sorties per Victory is better than 40 Sorties per Victory
and
93 Sorties per Loss is not as good as 107 Sorties per Loss.

I believe Shortround6 mentioned this before, but a lot of this might have to do with different mission profiles.
How long in duration is each sortie and what is the likelihood of running into aerial opposition?

- Ivan.


----------



## Schweik (Jan 9, 2019)

Stig1207 said:


> There are some differences in USAAF losses depending on sources. The USAAF Statistical Digest gives for the period June, July and August 1943 391fighters lost on combat missions. MAW IV in the same period has about 260, including damaged aircraft that returned.



Well in the above posts the loss data is from the 325th squadron history, not MAW IV. The only losses I'm quoting from there are the Axis losses.

As for the statistical digest, they may be including aborts, minor crash landings etc. I draw your attention to this note on the 325th FG page:

"b. "Operational" and "Other" losses include aircraft accidents at base or other friendly territory on a combat mission. Many of these aircraft were not heavily damaged and were flying again after the necessary repairs were made. This condition also exists as regards P-51 aircraft and all loss figures and rates are inflated in this respect. "


----------



## Schweik (Jan 9, 2019)

Ivan1GFP said:


> Hello Schweik,
> Thanks for reposting. I had not seen this the first time but I also didn't read all 30-something pages of posts that were here before I joined in.
> 
> Are you sure you are interpreting the statistics correctly?
> ...



You are right- I removed that comment from my post. Just something I thought I noticed while transcribing it, my bad.



> I believe Shortround6 mentioned this before, but a lot of this might have to do with different mission profiles.
> How long in duration is each sortie and what is the likelihood of running into aerial opposition?
> 
> - Ivan.



Yes that is why I was careful to say it does not prove anything. (and I'm glad I did since I made an error!) The mission durations are probably the same but the amount of air opposition had definitely declined by the time the P-51 came on the scene.


----------



## Stig1207 (Jan 9, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Well in the above posts the loss data is from the 325th squadron history, not MAW IV. The only losses I'm quoting from there are the Axis losses.



You also posted data ffrom MAW IV in the above posts and I am pointing out that another source has some 50% more USAAF fighter losses than MAW IV. Whether that has any bearing on the USAAF flown P-40's combat record I don't know; but it is curious that there is such a differnce in losses between the sources.

Edited due to bad maths


----------



## Schweik (Jan 9, 2019)

Stig1207 said:


> You also posted data ffrom MAW IV in the above posts and I am pointing out that another source has some 33% more USAAF fighter losses than MAW IV. Whether that has any bearing on the USAAF flown P-40's combat record I don't know; but it is curious that there is such a differnce in losses between the sources.



Yes you are right! Christopher Shores and his team of researchers probably missed 131 victories of the mongrel Allied pilots by the experten! And so did the Fighter Group historians who posted the stats here. Possibly due to a Bolshie conspiracy.

OR - the other possibility is something like _"b. "*Operational" and "Other"* *losses include aircraft accidents at base or other friendly territory on a combat mission. *Many of these aircraft were not heavily damaged and were flying again after the necessary repairs were made. This condition also exists as regards P-51 aircraft and all loss figures and rates are inflated in this respect. " _

Shores et al might be filtering such incidents out especially if they took place at or near the friendly base and not over enemy territory. I don't know.

I haven't had time to crunch the numbers in MAW IV - I'm rather amazed you apparently have to some extent. Any actual data is always welcome.


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Jan 9, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Part of why the American units did better in terms of the ratio of victories vs losses though, is that they worked more as a team.


I have a hard time believing that brand new American crews in combat for the first time were somehow more effective with the same equipment than their DAF counterparts. Some of whom had been in combat almost continuously for 2 years at that point


----------



## Schweik (Jan 9, 2019)

Clayton Magnet said:


> I have a hard time believing that brand new American crews in combat for the first time were somehow more effective with the same equipment than their DAF counterparts. Some of whom had been in combat almost continuously for 2 years at that point



A few comments:

Sorry to be blunt but this is what the data says (at least so far). So it doesn't really matter what you believe.
DAF squadrons were not using proper tactics until about the same time the Americans arrived. I have some RAF pilot commentary on this which I'll post later when I have time to transcribe it. But suffice to say (for now) things were really bad on that level.
DAF P-40 squadrons were mostly using older Allison engined P-40s. DAF used over 1,000 'Tomahawk' and nearly 2,000 of P-40D and E. They got some, maybe 200 (much better) K and a few - about 300 F or L in mid 1942 (only two Sqns got Kittyhawk II / P-40 F/L - 260 RAF and 3 RAAF were equipped with Mk IIs, and only for a relatively short time).
DAF combat victory / loss ratios also improved after Summer 1942
The USAAF squadrons had a lot more training in general and a lot more training on type specifically. I have already posted the details of this but you can find it upthread somewhere if you are really interested. On average it was like 4 or 5 times as much training time.
The USAAF squadrons also trained with DAF squadrons, in fact they embedded with them as they came into the Theater. The squadron leaders generally flew with the DAF for several weeks at least before the main squadrons came in, and then they too flew with DAF (as attached units) until they got up to speed.
So in short - the Americans were flying better tactics (flying in pairs with wingmen / higher altitude sorties / group attacks when bounced) had better aircraft (Merlin XX P-40s had an effective ceiling of ~20k ft vs 12k ft for a Kittyhawk Ia) and more training, part of which was derived directly from the DAF.

The Operational Strategy also improved as by late summer 1942 they were flying sorties against Luftwaffe airfields and forcing fights on their own terms, instead of being sitting ducks as previously.

It is worth noting however that (as recently discussed in the thread) the DAF / Commonwealth had far more Aces, and higher scoring Aces flying the P-40 than the US units did.


----------



## Schweik (Jan 9, 2019)

Not that DAF P-40 units did terrible either, here are some stats from the Wiki:

*Victory claims and losses for three Tomahawk/Kittyhawk squadrons of the Desert Air Force, June 1941–May 1943.*

*Unit 3 Sqn RAAF [112 Sqn RAF] 450 Sqn RAAF*

*Claims with Tomahawks * 41 [36] 
*Claims with Kittyhawks * 74.5 [82.5] 49 
*Total P-40 claims * 115.5 [118.5] 49 
*P-40 losses (total) * 34 [38] 28


----------



## Dimlee (Jan 9, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Being able to withstand G loads was another of those rare skills (like marksmanship in general, or deflection shooting specifically, or a knack for riding a stall) that some pilots used to their advantage. Greg Boyington and the Australian Ace Nicky Barr both had developed personal techniques of 'bearing down' to withstand G load. Boyington was a wrestler and Barr was a rugby player, which apparently contributed to their having the right kind of (thick, muscular) necks for that business.
> 
> I think in later periods they started teaching this but I don't know when.



Some trivia.
Ivan Kozhedub was amateur weight lifter. At the age of 13 he could lift 2 _poods_ (2x16.4kg) kettlebell with one hand. Later, as a flight cadet and a pilot he repeated this exercise many times - but keeping the kettlebell with his pinky.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Dislike Dislike:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jan 9, 2019)

Dimlee said:


> Some trivia.
> Ivan Kozhedub was amateur weight lifter. At the age of 13 he could lift 2 _poods_ (2x16.4kg) kettlebell with one hand. Later, as a flight cadet and a pilot he repeated this exercise many times - but keeping the kettlebell with his pinky.









Another badass. Wiki also says "He was also reputed to have a natural gift for deflection shooting"


----------



## DarrenW (Jan 9, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> Since just about every aircraft known to man gained weight somewhere along the design/development process the actual G loading went down. The Mustang was good for *8*"G"s in service (12 Gs ultimate) at *8000lbs, *since flying a Mustang at 8,000lbs meant you were seconds away from running out of fuel or oil you had to make allowances. 8 times 8,000 is 64,000. If the Mustang is grossing 9000lbs you divide 64,000 by 9,000 and get 7.111 There is actually a chart in the manual that explains this.



So was this the basic formula used for US warplanes as a whole, or do you believe it to be somewhat isolated to the Mustang?


----------



## Schweik (Jan 9, 2019)

It's for all US warplanes, the Mustang just gained more weight than most, largely because it ended up carrying so much fuel.

Fully loaded with fuel Mustangs didn't fly that well either...

Reactions: Useful Useful:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Jan 9, 2019)

Schweik said:


> It's for all US warplanes, the Mustang just gained more weight than most, largely because it ended up carrying so much fuel.
> 
> Fully loaded with fuel Mustangs didn't fly that well either...



Hello Schweik, DarrenW,
Keep in mind that the Mustang was originally equipped with an Allison engine and just the switch to a Merlin with the fuselage modifications added substantial weight.
Remember that the Fuselage Fuel Tank that caused all the CoG problems wasn't fitted until fairly late into the P-51B production run.

Most other aircraft gained weight to some extent. A very notable and significant example was the F4F Wildcat.
From the F4F-3 to F4F-4/FM-1, the Wildcat gained a bit over 500 pounds in Basic Weight and Gross Weight (over 5% of Gross Weight).

- Ivan.


----------



## Stig1207 (Jan 10, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Yes you are right! Christopher Shores and his team of researchers probably missed 131 victories of the mongrel Allied pilots by the experten! And so did the Fighter Group historians who posted the stats here. Possibly due to a Bolshie conspiracy.
> 
> *It's American sources that differ, there doesn't have to be a conspiracy; the victories of experten or other Axis aces/ pilots have nothing to do with it.*
> 
> ...


----------



## Schweik (Jan 10, 2019)

I don't get why everyone has such a problem using quote tags here. Just put [ quote ] in front of the text you want to respond to followed by [ / quote ]



Stig1207 said:


> *It's American sources that differ, there doesn't have to be a conspiracy; the victories of experten or other Axis aces/ pilots have nothing to do with it.*



Shores isn't American, he's from the UK. I don't even think he likes Americans. If anything his books have a pro-Axis bias.



> *The losses (casualties) in MAW IV that I counted are to all causes, incl. damaged; in Table 103 of the Digest there are 492 losses to combat & accident for the period mentioned. *



I grant you, it's an interesting discrepancy, but I can't think of any reason why squadron or Fighter Group histories would lie or not know about how many planes they lost. Nor Shores and his international team that works on MAW. I haven't counted up page by page all the victories and losses in Shores for every day but for the specific days I looked into (including those posted above plus about 20 more) between June and August, Shores numbers match those of the 325th and 79th FG squadron histories.

Without more detail, like losses by unit, by type, and / or by day, it's very hard to get to the bottom of it, but I can make a couple of guesses. I would assume the discrepancy comes down to differences categorization in some way or another. Since the Air Force digest includes both accidents and combat losses it's hard to tease out the latter or more generally the reason for the discrepancy.

I assume (I think I remember?) the number you are referring to is specifically fighter losses, right?

As I already suggested some of the accidents or other incidents (engine failure shortly after takeoff) may have been left out by Shores if they happened at or near home base. This was mentioned in the 325th FG history as an issue and there were always a lot of such incidents, so I think this is the most likely reason. 131 aircraft is a lot but there were at least 12 US Fighter Groups active in the Med that I can think of, 5 P-40, 2 Spitfire, 2 P-38, 2 P-39, that is about 600 aircraft and I'm not counting the Beaufighters or A-36 groups (I think there were two groups but I'm not sure). I think the first P-47s arrived some time in August as well and there were a lot of training accidents with those (about a dozen of these incidents are listed in the 79th FG history I posted upthread)
It could be a matter of the categorization of aircraft - for example are A-36 counted as bombers or fighters? They are P-51s with dive brakes in a "Fighter Bomber" group, they could be counted either way. They did lose a fair number of these in 1943 though I don't think anywhere near 131 in two months.
Shores often puts maritime operations in a separate section from the regular fighter ops. So activities involving Beaufighters etc. may have been in different chapters. I'll check that myself. While they did take losses on maritime ops again I doubt that adds up to 131 planes either.
The USAAF figures may also include things like aircraft lost in transit etc. such as when being flown across Africa.
It could be a combination of some or all of the above.
I would encourage you to look into more detail on the Air Force Journal records if you can find them and if you are really interested in this beyond implying that Shores filtered out pertinent data.

S

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


----------



## Schweik (Jan 10, 2019)

I just looked up the Allied Order of Battle for* July 1943* and it's a bit more fighters than I had originally guessed. This might be helpful to understanding the Mediterranean Theater in general so I thought I'd post it. This is from Shores MAW pp 153-157

I'm just showing US fighter, fighter-recon, or fighter bomber units here though these were all mixed US / RAF. Each US Fighter Group had 3 squadrons of 16 fighters plus an HQ unit of 2-4 aircraft except where otherwise stated (one of the P-39 groups only had one squadron for some reason). Nominal US squadron strength was 16 aircraft though they would typically have about 20 or 25 in various states of repair, with ~8-16 active at any one time. So nominal strength of a FG was about 50 fighters active.

*North African Tactical Air Force* 
Desert Air Force *-216 fighters
57th Fighter Group - P-40
79th Fighter Group - P-40
33rd Fighter Group - P-40
324th Fighter Group - P-40
99th Fighter Squadron (Tuskgegee) - P-40
*US 12th Air Support command *-170 fighters
31st Fighter Group - Spitfire
27th Fighter Bomber Group - A-36
86th Fighter Bomber Group - A-36
111th Tactical Recon Squadron - P-51A
1437 Flight - A-36

*North African Strategic Air Force
5th Bomb Wing* - (three groups of B-17s) -100 fighters
1st Fighter Group - P-38
14th Fighter Group - P-38
*47th Bomb Wing* (two groups of B-25s) -50 fighters
82nd Fighter Group - P-38
*2686th Bomb Wing* (three groups of B-26s) - 50 fighters
325th Fighter Group - P-40

*North African Coastal Air Force*
81st FG / 92nd Fighter Squadron - P-39 - 16 fighters
350th Fighter Group - P-39 - 50 fighters
*US 1st Defense wing *- 100 Fighters
52nd Fighter Group - Spitfire
81st Fighter Group - P-39

*North African Photographic Reconnaissance Wing
US 3rd Photo Recon Group *-32 fighters
5th Squadron - F-4 (Lightning)
12th Squadron - F-5 (Lightning)

In addition to this Shores left out the *US Night Fighter Squadrons*, which also performed day-time coastal patrols and maritime strikes near Algeria and Tunisia, Malta, Sardinia, Corsica and Italy. These included three squadrons, all equipped with the Beaufighter while in the MTO:

414th Night Fighter Squadron - Beaufighter - 16 fighters
415th Night Fighter Squadron - Beaufighter - 16 fighters
416th Night Fighter Squadron - Beaufighter - 16 fighters

So by my count (correct me if I'm wrong my arithmetic isn't stellar) that ads up to 832 US Fighters active in the MTO at that time in official strength, which means probably at least 1,000 counting replacements, aircraft under repair etc. Of that number, in my opinion, ~130 losses to accidents or mechanical failure on or near base in two months doesn't seem necessarily beyond the ballpark of reality, though that is only a guess. Hopefully the TO&E is useful or interesting in it's own right.

Breakdown by type, by my count - is
P-40s - 266
Spitfires - 100
P-38s - 182 (counting recon)
P-51s - 120 (counting A-36 and recon)
P-39s - 116
Beaufighters - 48


*North African Tactical Air Force / Desert Air Force is also where most of the RAF Spitfire units were.

EDIT: Here is the Commonwealth breakdown for anyone interested.

*DAF Commonwealth Fighter Units included:*
40 SAAF sqn - Spitfire
60 SAAF sqn - Mosquito
6 sqn -Hurricane
7 SAAF Wing ( 3 x squadrons) -Kittyhawk
239 Wing ( 5 x squadrons) - Kittyhawk
244 Wing (5 x squadrons) - Spitfire
322 Wing (5 squadrons) - Spitfire
324 Wing (5 x squadrons) - Spitfire
225 Sqn - Spitfire
241 Sqn - Hurricane

There were also 6 x Spitfire squadrons, 3 x Beaufighter squadrons and a Mosquito squadron based on *Malta.*

*Coastal Air Force RAF units included*
77 Sqn - Spitfire
255 Sqn - Beaufighter
GC 2/3 (Free French) - P-40
GC 2/7 (Free French) - Spitfire

Plus "*HQ Air Defense Eastern Mediterranean*" which included 4 Groups consisting of 21 squadrons of mixed Hurricanes, Beaufighters and Spitfires, plus two flights of Gladiators! I think this was a reserve?

From what I understand RAF squadrons were usually 12 fighters nominally with 6-10 probably being more typical of available strength for an active unit.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Stig1207 (Jan 11, 2019)

Schweik said:


> I don't get why everyone has such a problem using quote tags here. Just put [ quote ] in front of the text you want to respond to followed by [ / quote ]



It seems the quote function in the posts wasn't working yesterday, for me at any rate; but you are right adding quote tags manually probably did.



Schweik said:


> Shores isn't American, he's from the UK. I don't even think he likes Americans. If anything his books have a pro-Axis bias.



ffs



Schweik said:


> I would encourage you to look into more detail on the Air Force Journal records if you can find them and if you are really interested in this beyond implying that Shores filtered out pertinent data.



I am not implying that Shores *et al *filtered out anything; but their numbers for this particular period don't agree with a USAAF source. I am not speculating why, but pointing it out as this period is referenced quite a lot by you; so I would think that it is relevant. 

As for some of your other points, it's not just with the fighters that there is discrepancy, but also with the light and medium bombers, some 30-40 less losses in MAW IV compared to the Digest. I counted the A-36 as a fighter; I'll leave it to you to work out what effect it would have on the fighter losses, if the A-36 should be counted as a light bomber.

The 391 combat losses are attributed to e/a, AAA, and other; I assume accidents occurring on operations would be recorded under 'other', while non-operational accidents would be recorded in the Combat and *Accident *losses. Iirc, there is also a table that records airplane losses en route to the theatre.


----------



## Milosh (Jan 11, 2019)

The usual RAF establishment strength of a fighter squadron was 16 or18 a/c (depending on the time period) with 12 being flown.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Jan 11, 2019)

Milosh said:


> The usual RAF establishment strength of a fighter squadron was 16 or18 a/c (depending on the time period) with 12 being flown.


Also, a squadron needed 50 for 6 months operation in the front line then you will understand why so many aircraft need to be built for so small a number of squadrons.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jan 11, 2019)

Yeah because of the high turn over of fighter planes, even if they aren't engaged in heavy combat. Fighter planes are somewhere in between Drag racers or Grand Prix race cars, a demolition derby car and a light tank... that flies. They get messed up a lot and they wreck a lot.

Thanks to someones suggestion upthread, i have acquired and am reading the biography of James "Stocky" Edwards, the formidable Canadian P-40 ace. I already have a couple of biographies of Clive Caldwell and I have one on Nicky Barr, but this one on Edwards is good and I've learned a lot already. When I'm done I'll post a little "book report" synopsis.

Yesterday I read that after a heavy dust storm in Egypt, dust got deep inside many of the planes causing a host of problems. Edwards encountered two engine failures in two days. On the first occasion, his engine seized right after takeoff, just after he got his wheels up. On the second, the very next day, his engine seized at 2,000 ft as he was forming up with some Baltimore bombers over his airfield. In both cases Edwards, who was a good pilot, was able to dead-stick his fully fueled, heavily laden Kittyhawk back to base and land more or less normally without any damage or injuries. But apparently his squadron had 5 or 6 more engine failures during or right after takeoff in that same two day period and not all of the other pilots, or their planes, were so lucky.

Now I don't know Chris Shores methodology or that of his 4 or 5 collaborators, however I don't notice a lot of those kinds of incidents in MAW. Usually he shows engine failures when they happen over the target, or crash landings when returning to base after battle damage. For US fighter groups like the 325th, their base was in Mateur Tunisia during the periods of June and July where I posted some of their combat results upthread. Their targets were in Sardinia, Sicily or Southern Italy 120 - 180 miles away. Incidents at or near Mateur may not have that much relevance to the battlefield. If an engine seizes 5 minutes after takeoff and the pilot force-lands, bending a propeller or worse, I'm not sure if that makes it into MAW or not.

However this is just a guess on my part and I really don't know what the reason for the discrepancy in the count is that *
S
 Stig1207
* keeps bringing up.

But it is irrelevant to this discussion because on the dozen or so days of action by USAAF P-40 units that I have posted from MAW IV, the American losses can be verified in their squadron histories and other sources. I have six of these squadrons histories plus other books that are derived from several more, *Allied fighter losses have been known to the aviation community for a long time - for decades.* There are dozens of sources for them. All of the squadrons involved do have their own individual histories, as do the fighter groups and regional Air Forces, plus there are numerous biographies by group and squadron leaders, mechanics, and pilots. Even the Osprey books are pretty accurate on this kind of data for Anglo-American units. And the official records themselves are intact and available if you look hard enough. What we didn't have was a way to verify their _claims_.

I have not relied on Shores for overall statistics of any kind, at least not yet, I have only compared known Allied losses on certain days with his records of Axis losses.

*What Chris Shores* (and Guest, Massimello, Winfried Bock, Frank Olynyk, and former Wing Commander Andy Thomas) *brings that we didn't have before are the Axis losses. * This is really the _only _thing we didn't have before.

To be more specific, I have known about the 325th FGs impressive victory _claim_-to-loss ratio for 20 years. They actually created a bit of a stir online about 10 years ago when they became more widely publicized I think due to debates springing out of flight Sim video games. The response from guys like Stig1207 was that there was no way Allied pilots flying P-40s could defeat Luftwaffe pilots flying Bf 109s. They cited the records of the _experten_, and suggested that all Allied claims, especially DAF claims, were wildly exaggerated or just made up altogether. This is still incidentally being said about Soviet claims and also quite a bit about Japanese claims.

I more or less accepted this until 2007 when an Australian guy named Russell Brown wrote a book called "Desert Warriors" that called this narrative into question and he researched some of the Axis records and compared them with the DAF unit histories. Then Shores MAW and other series, and some other data like the lend-lease.ru site, Black Cross Red Star and others started checking Axis loss records. That is what I started posting here last spring. I think comparing those records gives us a much clearer idea of how these aircraft really performed where it mattered - on the battlefield.


Of course Shores did, does and has made mistakes. That data will no doubt continue to be further clarified - I'm under no illusions nor am I claiming he is the last word. To the contrary he's basically the first. Now the Luftwaffe fans if they really think he's wrong can go and check his sources themselves.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jan 11, 2019)

Stig1207 said:


> *Schweik *:"Shores isn't American, he's from the UK. I don't even think he likes Americans. If anything his books have a pro-Axis bias."
> 
> Stig1207: "ffs"



I'm not making that up. Shores made his name in the aviation history community way back in 1969 when he published a book called "Fighters over the Desert" in collaboration with another guy called Hans Ring, later augmented with another book called "Fighters over Tunisia" in 1975 in collaboration with the same guy. Ring, a German author, wrote books about the Condor Legion and JG 27. I think in his day job he was an Airbus executive.

Shores 'Fighters over the Desert" book was ostensibly the same type as his more recent works - an effort to set the record strait on WW2 by looking at the records. But it turned out much later that the records they used were incomplete.

It was published during the period when many German Aces autobiographies were getting popular and a kind of obsession with German WW2 prowess that is still somewhat with us, the notion of the _experten_ etc. was just rising to popularity. Biographhies or autobiographies of guys like Hans Ulrich Rudel, Joachim Marseille, Willi Heilman, Adolf Galland, Erich Hartmann etc, were published in the 1950's and 60's and became very popular. For some they were seen as anti-Communist heroes. Biography and history soon tipped into fantasy. For example the somewhat ridiculous Eric Hartmann historical novel "The Blond Knight of Germany" was published in English 1970 and was a big hit in the US. Adolf Galland participated in the film Battle of Britain in 1969 and became something of a celebrity in the UK at that time. Similar interest in the exploits and superiority of WW2 German tanks, battleships, U-boats etc. was also widespread in Anglo-American spheres in the 60's and 70's. It was just part of the Cold War mood.

Shores two early books basically undermined the records of Allied Aces including the likes of Clive Caldwell, Neville Duke and Billy Drake, while upholding and emphasizing the records of guys like Marseille. This was revisionist and controversial but it fit the mood of the times. It wasn't until Russell Browns book directly challenged this research, poking holes for example in some of Marseilles wilder claims, that Shores had to revisit the whole thing.

So when he acknowledges Allied victories in MAW II, III or IV, he is sometimes directly contradicting his own previously published books. And he does so with a certain not very veiled reluctance, for example "It is not impossible that these losses correspond with claims by the 79th FG which was operating in the same area"

S

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


----------



## Schweik (Jan 11, 2019)

I should add that subsequent research has vindicated Caldwell and the others. For example Caldwell apparently shot down three experten and killed two (Wolfgang Lippert and Erbo Graf von Kageneck), Edwards shot down and killed two (Otto Schulz and Gunter Steinhausen) all while flying Kittyhawks.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DarrenW (Jan 11, 2019)

Schweik said:


> I'm not making that up. Shores made his name in the aviation history community way back in 1969 when he published a book called "Fighters over the Desert" in collaboration with another guy called Hans Ring, later augmented with another book called "Fighters over Tunisia" in 1975 in collaboration with the same guy. Ring, a German author, wrote books about the Condor Legion and JG 27. I think in his day job he was an Airbus executive.
> 
> Shores 'Fighters over the Desert" book was ostensibly the same type as his more recent works - an effort to set the record strait on WW2 by looking at the records. But it turned out much later that the records they used were incomplete.
> 
> ...



Bravo! You nailed it concerning the whole Nazi invincibility BS that many of us were forced to endure in our youth.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jan 11, 2019)

It is a known issue, something talked about in military history circles these days. Of course it's also possible to swing the pendulum too far in the other direction. There is no doubt guys like Marseille and Hartmann etc. were excellent pilots, nor that the Bf 109 and Fw 190 weren't excellent fighters - they certainly were. 

But it is possible to overstate such things.


----------



## Schweik (Jan 11, 2019)

I also want to be clear I'm *not* claiming Shores was sympathizer to WW2 Germany as such, let alone their ideology. What I'm talking about is much less extreme than that. It's simply that there was a "revision" movement and general rising wave of interest in German war machines and techniques which was going on in the 60's and 70's. There are some good things that to an extent came out of all that such as all those cool Avalon Hill and SPI tabletop wargames.... And some _not_ so good things, some romanticizing and glossing over of the nasty stuff and some exaggeration of data, as well as a few people who go over the edge. A lot of decidedly mediocre History Channel shows about Nazi UFOs and so on. The more general issue especially in the US but also the UK was that there was this intense fascination with the 'elite' and 'uber' qualities of the German War machine which has been talked about a lot in many places and is way beyond the scope of this thread. But it comes up especially whenever you compare German and Allied aircraft or pilots among other things.

To the extent Shores was really caught up in this I don't know, but his original book "Fighers over the Desert" was a big part of this "Germans were the best!" arguments during discussions in aviation circles for years _and it definitely had some mistakes, errors or omissions in it_. I think he's made some effort to correct earlier mistakes - and do a much more thorough examination of all the records- in his MAW series, I just do notice some reluctance to acknowledge Allied victories in certain entries.

Some historical commentary on this general phenomenon can be heard here by an Historian from the Museum of Flight named JD Wyneken, and there is a book that tackles part of the issue called "The Myth of the Eastern Front: The Nazi-Soviet War in American Popular Culture"... you can read some reviews on Amazon here. Obviously it's a controversial issue, and it's not one I'm hugely invested in or very worried about but I do think it's real.


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Jan 11, 2019)

DarrenW said:


> Bravo! You nailed it concerning the whole Nazi invincibility BS that many of us were forced to endure in our youth.


Conversely, keep in mind that much of the rest of the world must contend with a barrage of "assumed" American superiority. The real truth lies somewhere in between

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jan 11, 2019)

Definitely agree with that too.


----------



## Schweik (Jan 12, 2019)

Some interesting details about the Tiffy in this article, which I ran across accidentally when googling the weight of armor in a Tempest.

The Hawker Typhoon 1A & 1B: Worst RAF Fighters in WWII?

Among some of the data points claimed in the article, it noted that:

The Typhoon went into service as an interceptor in the summer of 1941.
Typhoons were switched to fighter bomber missions from interceptor missions in the second half of 1942
"All told, during 1943 low-level attacks resulted in the loss of 380 Typhoons in exchange for the downing of 103 German aircraft including 52 Focke-Wulf 190s. "
Issues with oil coolers, engines cutting out in tails breaking continued through 1943
Typhoons destroyed 26 tanks from the 21st Panzer Division on D-Day, leaving them with 6 to attack the beaches.
Typhoons were the aircraft that shot up Rommels staff car.
Total loss of pilots in 4 years of service was 670
I don't know if any of it is true. Just thought it was interesting.


----------



## Milosh (Jan 12, 2019)

Rommel's car was shot up by a Spit IX flown by F/L Charlie Fox of RCAF 412 squadron.

He dies in an auto accident Oct 18 2008.

Again this tail failure is blown out of all proportion.

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


----------



## Kevin J (Jan 12, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Some interesting details about the Tiffy in this article, which I ran across accidentally when googling the weight of armor in a Tempest.
> 
> The Hawker Typhoon 1A & 1B: Worst RAF Fighters in WWII?
> 
> ...


Typhoon deliveries began late 1941, squadrons operational early Summer 42, switched to fighter bomber 1943 with arrival of Spitfire LF IX and XII.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## KiwiBiggles (Jan 12, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Some interesting details about the Tiffy in this article, which I ran across accidentally when googling the weight of armor in a Tempest.
> 
> The Hawker Typhoon 1A & 1B: Worst RAF Fighters in WWII?
> 
> ...


A bit History Channel.


----------



## Kevin J (Jan 12, 2019)

KiwiBiggles said:


> A bit History Channel.



Not very accurate though.


----------



## KiwiBiggles (Jan 12, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> Not very accurate though.


That's pretty much what I meant

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


----------



## Schweik (Jan 12, 2019)

Yeah fair enough


----------



## Stig1207 (Jan 13, 2019)

Schweik said:


> However this is just a guess on my part and I really don't know what the reason for the discrepancy in the count is that *
> S
> Stig1207
> 
> ...


+

I brought it up because in a period of some of the heaviest aerial combat during 1943 in the MTO their is a significant difference in the number of operational losses between what the USAAF Statistical Digest and what is noted in MAW IV. Whether the Digest is wrong or MAW has missed some records or they don't exist, I don't know. However, that there is a discrepancy does mean that we may not have 'the whole story'; that shouldn't be ignored. 

I am in no way defending the Luftwaffe or anyone else; I am fan of WWII airwrfare and aircraft in general, not of any particular faction. I don't remember Chris Shores as coming across as particularly pro- Axis in Fighters over Tunisia, but then it is awhile since I read it. The main problem with his early works was a lack of reliable soures; the increased availibility of sources in the later years was a major reason for the MAW series.

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


----------



## Zipper730 (Jan 13, 2019)

The reason, from what I remember, the Hurricane and Typhoon had such thick wings had to do with a wind-tunnel used at the time. The turbulence in the tunnel happened to make it difficult to ascertain how much turbulence was produce by the aircraft's wings. Ironically the reason Supermarine didn't make such a mistake was because they built race-aircraft and had their own data to rely on.

Keep in mind I'm on page #29 so if somebody said that -- I apologize

Reactions: Informative Informative:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jan 13, 2019)

Stig1207 said:


> +
> 
> I brought it up because in a period of some of the heaviest aerial combat during 1943 in the MTO their is a significant difference in the number of operational losses between what the USAAF Statistical Digest and what is noted in MAW IV. Whether the Digest is wrong or MAW has missed some records or they don't exist, I don't know. However, that there is a discrepancy does mean that we may not have 'the whole story'; that shouldn't be ignored.
> 
> I am in no way defending the Luftwaffe or anyone else; I am fan of WWII airwrfare and aircraft in general, not of any particular faction. I don't remember Chris Shores as coming across as particularly pro- Axis in Fighters over Tunisia, but then it is awhile since I read it. The main problem with his early works was a lack of reliable soures; the increased availibility of sources in the later years was a major reason for the MAW series.



Like I said, the Allied losses for the actions on the days I posted are accounted for by multiple sources outside of Shores. More generally, losses for those fighter groups are well accounted for through the war. The new sources Shores brought to the table with the MAW series were mostly *Axis *sources.

I certainly get what you are trying to imply here but while Shores could miss records, or he could make decisions as to what to include or not include (I don't believe he makes any claims to include _all_ operation losses of any kind in MAW, since he is focused on air _combat_) the squadron histories, wing and fighter group histories are fully up to speed, in my opinion, on their own losses. I don't think they are hiding any, I don't think they missed any, and I don't think they forgot any.

S


----------



## Stig1207 (Jan 14, 2019)

All i am _implying _is that WWII airwar records are generally uncertain to some degree. Look at the 325th fg stats that you have linked to; how certain is the compiler(s) as to the *causes *of their losses?


----------



## Schweik (Jan 14, 2019)

They may not always know what caused the loss of an airplane but* they did know if they lost an airplane*. In the statistics posted above for 325th FG for example they list 12 lost to enemy aircraft and 12 lost to 'unknown' reasons. I included those in the total lost to enemy fighters, though I agree probably some were lost to mechanical issues or flak.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 14, 2019)

Stig1207 said:


> *All i am implying is that WWII airwar records are generally uncertain to some degree.* Look at the 325th fg stats that you have linked to; how certain is the compiler(s) as to the *causes *of their losses?



Yet you use them as your main point of evidence in this whole discussion?

Edit: I thought it was Schweik who posted this, and my post was meant for him. My apologies for the confusion.


----------



## Stig1207 (Jan 14, 2019)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Yet you use them as your main point of evidence in this whole discussion?



Evidence for what? My main point is rather that it is difficult , imo, to know exactly what happened or what the actual results were (claims, losses, cause of losses, etc; not who won) when there is conflicting information from different sources. To me, Schweik reaches very definite conclusions on the back of data that is not perfect. In other words, in my experience it's not that straight forward analysing the operational records.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jan 14, 2019)

I only make provisional conclusions based on the _available_ data. Everything we can say about a war from 70 years ago is an educated guess at best. But you can describe what you know at a given point. I don't think your implicit contention about the Air Force journal is compelling for reasons I have already stated several times. If you really thought there was an issue worth exploring there, I would think that you would go try to find more data, such as day by day loss records or loss records by aircraft subtype. But perhaps it's better to keep it vague?

This has nothing to do with the record of the Typhoon by the way, it has to do with the record of the Luftwaffe and JG 27 and so on.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 14, 2019)

Stig1207 said:


> Evidence for what? My main point is rather that it is difficult , imo, to know exactly what happened or what the actual results were (claims, losses, cause of losses, etc; not who won) when there is conflicting information from different sources. To me, Schweik reaches very definite conclusions on the back of data that is not perfect. In other words, in my experience it's not that straight forward analysing the operational records.



Sorry my apologies. I thought I was quoting Schweik not you.

And I agree with you in regards to Schweik.

Reactions: Friendly Friendly:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jan 14, 2019)

Lol


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 14, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Lol



I wouldn’t laugh...


----------



## Schweik (Jan 14, 2019)

Hey bruh, if you want to ban me because you disagree with some of my posts, go ahead. You are a mod you have the privilege. I don't think I merit the hostility some have shown me on here and I think _that_ is funny. You are a moderator but I am my own boss partner. If you have some beef with me I'd say spell it out.


----------



## Zipper730 (Jan 14, 2019)

While off-topic, I figured I'd respond to this first because when I attempted to reply to everything it said that I went over the 20,000 character limit (that and Fubar57 would be sure to go apoplectic...)



Schweik said:


> Think of the good (i.e. successful) BnZ fighters:
> 
> Fw 190 - fastest roll rate in the war basically
> P-51 - excellent roll rate
> ...


The P-38's roll rate was either poor or average depending on speed until the P-38J came along.



 BiffF15
,

1. F-15 vs F-18: Honestly I was surprised that the F-15 would out-accelerate and out-sustain the F-18 in turns. What variant of F-15 and F-18 out of curiosity?

2. G-Loads: I remember hearing somewhere that the normal rated loads for the F-15 were 7.33 or so and later increased to 9g. It wouldn't be the first time I was wrong, but there was a documentary in which a pilot said he pulled 12g and managed to avoid coming unglued (his name was Larry Pitts if I recall), which is within the 9g normal load-factor.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jan 14, 2019)

Good point about the P-38, though they had a kind of unique BnZ strategy due to the nature of their (much slower) opponents.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 14, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Hey bruh, if you want to ban me because you disagree with some of my posts, go ahead. You are a mod you have the privilege. I don't think I merit the hostility some have shown me on here and I think _that_ is funny. You are a moderator but I am my own boss partner. If you have some beef with me I'd say spell it out.



Why would I ban you?

But please do not call me your “bruh” or your “partner”. I’m neither...


----------



## Schweik (Jan 14, 2019)

Fair enough


----------



## Schweik (Jan 14, 2019)

On G loading, somebody, (and I am embarrassed to say I forgot who but I think it was either Shortround or Tomo), posted the (May 1943) flight manual for the P-40F. There are some interesting tidbits in there. I was looking for the post with the link but couldn't find it. Anyway here is some data pertinent to things that came up previously:

Stall speed is 92 IAS (flaps and landing gear up) or 80 IAS (flaps down gear up)
RPM overspeed limit is indicated at 3180 rpm.
*G load limits *are indicated as *8.02g* positive or 3.6g negative with a "normal gross weight" of 8500 lbs
G load is limited to 7.0g positive or 3.3g negative when overloaded ("above the normal gross weight").
*WEP is listed as 61" Hg* in a chart on page 37 of the manual (page 42 of the PDF)
*Critical altitude for WEP *is shown as *4,800 ft for low blower and 12,000 ft for high blower* (with 61" Hg available at both altitudes)
Takeoff power is 54.3" and military power is 48.2". Max continuous is 44.2" and max cruise is 36".
The 8500 lb weight is based on a 200 lb pilot, 6 guns, 1410 rounds of ammo, empty front wing tank and one radio. This is broken down on a form on page 36 (page 41 of the PDF)
Fuel for the 'Design Load' is 119 (US) gallons. With 52 gallon external fuel tank that is 171. "Full internal" fuel includes the 37 gal front wing tank for 156 or 208 with the drop tank.
Plane also carries 18 gallons of oil, plus 3 gallons extra optional. The "Full internal" load total of 8,860 lbs includes 23 lbs of extra oil, 222 lbs for fuel for the front tank, and a 27 lb extra radio.
Late model P-40s and all P-40L had the emergency hydraulic system and glycol windscreen spray removed.
How did they measure G on a WW2 fighter, did they have an instrument for that?


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Jan 14, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Fair enough

Reactions: Funny Funny:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (Jan 14, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Shores isn't American, he's from the UK. I don't even think he likes Americans. If anything his books have a pro-Axis bias.



Personally its this kind of comment which I find at best borderline. There is no evidence that Shores is either pro or anti anybody. There is an overwhelming body of evidence that he is a very detailed researcher, proven across many books and highly respected in his field. Is he or anyone perfect, of course not, but because he doesn't tally with something you like or agree with he suddenly doesn't like Americans.
Because I disagree with a number of your posting you have at times implied that I am a hater of the P40. Never directly of course but its there. Does it worry me, no, your wrong in that and I only mention this as you have a repeating patter of behaviour.

If I had to put money on who is the more accurate researcher, you or Shores I know where my money will go.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jan 14, 2019)

Glider said:


> Personally its this kind of comment which I find at best borderline. There is no evidence that Shores is either pro or anti anybody. There is an overwhelming body of evidence that he is a very detailed researcher, proven across many books and highly respected in his field. Is he or anyone perfect, of course not, but because he doesn't tally with something you like or agree with he suddenly doesn't like Americans.
> Because I disagree with a number of your posting you have at times implied that I am a hater of the P40. Never directly of course but its there. Does it worry me, no, your wrong in that and I only mention this as you have a repeating patter of behaviour.
> 
> If I had to put money on who is the more accurate researcher, you or Shores I know where my money will go.



I have no doubt. My only serious point about Shores is that he had staked out positions (on quite limited data) which whether he intended it or not were aligned with one particular 'camp' that was revisionist in support of Axis (German) superiority and he had to contradict himself in his later books, which he sometimes does with a certain obvious reluctance. But you can put his 1969 book against his more modern ones and it's pretty clear which ones are more accurate there, right?

I believe in that passage you quoted I was responding to another post complaining about American point of view and claiming that Shores was American.

As to his attitude toward Americans I was really kind of kidding and shouldn't have even mentioned that. I agree he is a good researcher. A good researcher will rise above any bias they do have.


----------



## BiffF15 (Jan 14, 2019)

Zipper730 said:


> While off-topic, I figured I'd respond to this first because when I attempted to reply to everything it said that I went over the 20,000 character limit (that and Fubar57 would be sure to go apoplectic...)
> 
> The P-38's roll rate was either poor or average depending on speed until the P-38J came along.
> 
> ...



Zipper,

The Hornet is very agile but a slow accelerator for several reasons. Bottom line use thrust to weight to help figure out how the various modern fighters accelerate compared to one another.

The A/B model Eagle initially was a 7.3G jet but eventually it was produced with the Overload Warning System, or OWS (pronounced Owls) which allowed up to 9.0 under certain conditions (straight pull, speed, altitude, weight). All late A/Bs and beyond came with the system installed and it was retrofitted to the earlier birds.

I flew the A-D models with both the F100-100 and -220 engines. Mostly the latter motor. It offered enhanced reliability, throttle response, and thrust with I believe a very slight improvement in fuel burn. In either the -100 or -220 jets it was easy to out rate, out accel or out power the Hornet (all models). 

Was Larry a Tyndall AFB IP and what was his call sign?

Cheers,
Biff


----------



## Schweik (Jan 14, 2019)

I also want to be clear about one thing - I have the utmost respect for the British*, Australian, New Zealander, South African, Indian, Canadian, and all other Commonwealth pilots and other combat veterans. Guys like Billy Drake, Paddy Finucane, Clive Caldwell, George Beurling, Neville Duke, William Vale, Robert Tuck, James Edwards, Bobby Gibbes, Nicky Barr, Roald Dahl, and Adrian Warburton are all heroes of mine. Nor did I forget the Polish and Czech pilots who fought for and with the RAF. I also have the utmost respect for British aircraft of that era. The Rolls Royce merlin was the best in-line piston engine of the war IMO. The Spitfire, Mosquito and Beaufighter were three of my favorite aircraft of the war.

And the American pilots too of course though to be honest I've read more biographies of the Commonwealth ones so far. Some of my favorite US aces include Pappy Boyington, Ira Kepford, Robert Baseler, Robert De Haven, Benjamin O Davis, Levi Chase, and Swede Vejtasa. I also respect the Soviet Aces who I know mostly through interview transcripts. Their bravery was beyond the pale.

And yes I have a great deal of respect for the Axis aces including the Japanese, Germans, Italians, Finns, Romanians, Croats and so on. I read the biographies of Saburo Sakai, and Galland and etc. Gunther Ralls seems really likeable in interviews and is now friends with several Anglo-American pilots. I don't laud the cause but I respect the pilots and their machines too.

But part of what makes WW2 interesting to me, and WW2 air combat specifically are not just the great victories and successes *but also the failures and mistakes*. Every nation, every Air Force and every squadron had them, and quite often they were devastating. It is something to learn from. 

Sometimes in here when I offhandedly commented on flaws of the American, Soviet, German, Japanese and British Commonwealth systems, it's only the latter - the British Commonwealth- that certain people seem to notice. Is there some rule you can't say ill of a British plane unless you are British?

S


* including but not limited to English, Scottish, Welsh, Northern Irish, Cornish, those from the Isle of Man and the Shetlands, Bermuda, Trinidad and anywhere else I forgot to think of.


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Jan 14, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Totally disagree. Rolling and turning are different things. You can roll without losing speed. Rolling (and turning, slightly) allows the attacking fighter to keep targets lined up.
> 
> Think of the good (i.e. successful) BnZ fighters:
> 
> ...



Hello Gentlemen,
I had missed this post because it was in 20-something pages that I skipped when I first found this thread.
This summary is not terribly accurate and also not a fair comparison in my opinion.
Roll rate tends to be very speed dependent.
The FW 190A/F/G series had a very very good roll rate but at certain speeds other aircraft rolled faster.
At some speeds, a clipped wing Spitfire would roll faster and in many places was quite comparable though the earlier model Spitfires were not even close.
At high speeds, a P-51 would actually roll faster even though at lower airspeeds, the Mustang had a pretty mediocre roll rate.
The P-40 series had a roll rate that ranged from excellent to very good depending on the particular model.
At low airspeeds, the A6M and Ki 43 had extremely fast roll rates though the A6M lost a lot of that roll rate at higher speeds.
The Wildcat and Hellcat also had somewhat average roll rates though they didn't lose as much of that performance at higher airspeeds as the A6M did.
The spring tab ailerons used on the F6F-5 Hellcat significantly improved high speed roll rate at the expense of low speed roll rate as compared to the F6F-3.
The P-47 had at best a mediocre roll rate.
Without boosted ailerons, the P-38 had a poor roll rate but even with boosted aileron, although the roll rate was high, the response was very slow; There was a relatively long lag between control input and aircraft's response.

In addition to the roll rate at 1G, most aircraft lost some fairly substantial amount of their rolling performance under G load.
From descriptions I have seen, this is probably where the P-47 showed some advantage by not losing as much roll performance as some other aircraft.

The point is that a simple one word description is not really sufficient to account for differences in rolling performance.

Regarding BnZ fighting: It is really a matter of having better level speed and zoom climb performance than your opponent. Even the A6M Type Zero was used as a Boom and Zoom fighter against the slower opposition it encountered at its debut in China.

- Ivan.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jan 14, 2019)

So what do you think about the Typhoon? Good or bad Roll? Good or bad at BnZ? As a fighter in general

I thought the P-47 was good at rolling at high altitude though I could be wrong.


----------



## Milosh (Jan 14, 2019)

Ivan1GFP said:


> Without boosted ailerons, the P-38 had a poor roll rate but even with boosted aileron, although the roll rate was high, the response was very slow; There was a relatively long lag between control input and aircraft's response.



Very good observation which many people forget or ignore.


----------



## Zipper730 (Jan 14, 2019)

BiffF15 said:


> Was Larry a Tyndall AFB IP and what was his call sign?


No idea. It was mentioned in a show on History Channel called "Dogfights".


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Jan 14, 2019)

Schweik said:


> So what do you think about the Typhoon? Good or bad Roll? Good or bad at BnZ? As a fighter in general


CERTAINLY better than a P-40F

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


----------



## Kevin J (Jan 14, 2019)

Clayton Magnet said:


> CERTAINLY better than a P-40F



Just to put any comparison into perspective.

By the end of 1942, 1312 P-40F's had been produced, Britain had produced 28 Typhoons in 1941 and 686 in 1942. Subsequent production figures were 700 P-40L's from late '42 and for the Typhoon 1943(1137), 1944(1165) and 1945(299). From June 1943, only one third of the squadrons were assigned to ADGB, the rest to the 2nd TAF for ground attack duties. So we are looking at roughly half the number of Typhoons available in 1942/43 compared to the P-40F/L and unlike the latter are available until V-E Day. MTO Warhawk victories, 592 over 2 years, Typhoon ETO victories, 246 over 3 years. So 2012 P-40F/L's over 2 years destroy over twice the number of Axis aircraft as perhaps a similar number of Typhoons over a 3 year period employed as interceptors.

As, I said, just to put the comparison into perspective.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zipper730 (Jan 14, 2019)

I remember reading though this that they measured the aircraft's roll rate by applying 1/4 aileron over the course of a second going left; then doing the same going right or something. Why would 1/4 aileron be used as a measurement instead of 50% or full aileron? Also why apply it over the course of 1-second instead of a faster rate of speed (I did see that done in one case)?


----------



## wuzak (Jan 14, 2019)

Ivan1GFP said:


> Without boosted ailerons, the P-38 had a poor roll rate but even with boosted aileron, although the roll rate was high, the response was very slow; There was a relatively long lag between control input and aircraft's response.



Inertia. What a bitch!

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


----------



## Zipper730 (Jan 14, 2019)

pbehn said:


> "The Hurricane could turn very sharply but it couldn't roll and it couldn't dive. That is why it couldn't compete after 1941. " The Hurricane could only compete over its own island in 1940 with the help of RADAR.


Actually the roll-rate was kind of an interesting thing on the Hawker Hurricane.

The ailerons were often mis-rigged, which proved to greatly reduce the roll-rate. There were also issues involving lubricant and temperature conditions.



Schweik said:


> The Maryland and the Baltimore - critical to the English war effort in the early years of the war in the Med


I've heard very little about these two aircraft. Supposedly the Maryland could dive to high speeds.


> Wow that is interesting and a bit counter-intuitive. Do you know why thinner air or higher altitude made G more risky / damaging for the airframe? Is that just a matter of the TAS?


It doesn't, you don't have enough lift to be able to pull those loads.

Basically at stall speed, in order to pull 1g, results in you reaching the critical AoA; you can fly below the stall speed and not stall (you'd admittedly be doing a ballistic arc), and stall well above it. If the aircraft was to double, the stall speed would increase by the square root of two, and likewise if you were to pull 2g, you would see the stall speed increase by the same number (1.414 about). If you are only flying at 1.414 x Vs, which for the sake of this I'll assume is around 100 mph, you only have enough lift to pull 2g which requires the stick to be pulled all the way back. At 4g you'd have to fly at 200 mph, and if the A/C was rated for 8g, you would need around 282.8 mph to have enough lift to achieve the normal rated load. If you pull the stick all the way back you risk damaging the airplane and by 12g, you'd need 346.4 mph and snap the plane in half.


----------



## Zipper730 (Jan 14, 2019)

I would consider several factors for evaluating performance comparisons. These would include the aircraft's performance, the condition of the aircraft, and human factors variables.

*Performance*

One thing that seems to be an issue in some of the comparisons is the weight of the aircraft, and it has a substantial affect on climb and acceleration. Some of the figures that are listed for performance tests don't seem to be consistent with the typical loads.

Since performance would be best in the air-to-air configuration, that's a good starting point (though performance in the air-to-ground configuration could be good to know as both aircraft were used in the fighter-bomber role). I don't know how to calculate climb-performance as it requires the ability to calculate thrust based on

The propeller thrust at specific RPM, propeller pitch settings, and speed
The exhaust stack thrust based on engine boost, altitude, and both TAS/IAS
Cooling drag, which is likely based on mach number, IAS (ie AoA which is a function of weight), engine temperature/air-temperature (AoA is a function of weight and speed).
Another is the engine power settings: I'm curious whether typical P-40F and Typhoon IB pilots pushed their engines (early on) above the listed boost settings (either by simply shoving the throttle as far forward as they dared, or by convincing the engine mechanic to manipulate the boost control).

*A/C Condition*

This involved a number of things such as

Whether the engine was equipped with or without (a variety) of filters
Whether it was carrying bomb-racks on it. 
Even the presence of fuel-tanks, even if jettisoned have a considerable effect on performance (while some fuel is burned warming up on the ground and the initial climb-phase, the drop-tanks being used from that point until the start of combat means that you'd have a higher internal fuel load than if you had no tanks); then there's paint-job: While I cannot vouch for the unimpeachable painting skills of those in the USAAF, the RAF often complained about the effects of the paint used on their aircraft.
So comparisons could be made either on the typical condition the aircraft were in when they were in combat, or one could also compare a P-40F/L and Typhoon IB in similar conditions (i.e. filter or no filter, with a good or bad paint-job, with/without racks -- and the possible bomb-load/drop-tanks).

*Human Factors*

This has to do with things like the cockpit configuration, everything being in the right place, and things that affect the pilot. I'm not sure how the two cockpit layouts compared and things of that sort. The fact that most British A/C had automatic boost-control, it made it easier to operate as you were less likely to wreck the engine.

The issues with carbon monoxide leakage in the Hurricane's cockpit would definitely be a strike against it as gassing the pilot removes the human factor -- which turns out to be needed in this case. Drones work fine without people -- but boy a manned aircraft gets all interesting when the pilot dies.


----------



## Dan Fahey (Jan 14, 2019)

Quick question here on the P40 and P51A. 
In combat conditions the Mechanics figured out they could increase performance increasing the Boost a good bit. 
The US in peacetime used a lower rating with the 100 octane.
Wartime the British tuned the Allison P51 and P40 using their 100/130 octane.
They tuned the planes for more boost and performance.

MTO...did the Allies use US 100 octane or the British 100/130 octane fuel?
If they used the British fuel what percentage improvement did it offer?
Any documentation out there?

Not sure they used 130/150 in the P40 or Allison Mustang.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 14, 2019)

Zipper730 said:


> I don't know how to calculate climb-performance as it requires the ability to calculate thrust based on
> 
> The propeller thrust at specific RPM, propeller pitch settings, and speed
> The exhaust stack thrust based on engine boost, altitude, and both TAS/IAS
> Cooling drag, which is likely based on mach number, IAS (ie AoA which is a function of weight), engine temperature/air-temperature (AoA is a function of weight and speed).


You are over complicating things. especially #3
Most props (once you get rid of the fixed pitch and two pitch things) are just about 80% efficient give or take (mostly take) a couple of points. That was the whole idea of the constant speed propeller. 
Since the conversion of engine thrust to power varies with the speed of the aircraft there is a considerable reduction in "power" at climb speeds compared to max level speeds. 

We don't need to know cooling drag, that goes right in with over all drag. yes a plane in climb mode (cooling flaps and doors open and hanging in the breeze) is very dirty compared to one closed up for high speed but then instantaneous drag goes up with the square of the speed. Power needed goes up with cube of the speed. 
early P-40 could do 352 mph at 15,000ft with 1090hp. it could do 236mph on 400hp. 37% of the power gave you 67% of the speed. 
Once you are down to best climb speeds the difference in drag between all buttoned up and cooling flaps open isn't that big a deal for most planes. Best Climbing speed for an early P-40 was about 140mph (IAS?) 

Want to check your "thrust" calculations at 140-160mph climbing speed?


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 14, 2019)

Dan Fahey said:


> Wartime the British tuned the Allison P51 and P40 using their 100/130 octane.
> They tuned the planes for more boost and performance.



This stuff about 'tuning the engines" is a pet peeve of mine.
Just what the heck did they do to "tune' the engines?
The ignition timing is fixed. The valve timing is fixed. the intake track is fixed, you have very very limited options on the exhaust stacks.

You can change the jet size in the carburetor/injector but most aviation fuel (at least from the same country) had pretty much the same BTUs per gallon/pound so screwing around with the mixture isn't going to get you much. 

That leaves messing around with the boost control, which really isn't "tuning" an engine in the conventional sense. 

US 100 octane used* 2% or less *aromatic compounds and the rich response of the fuel didn't change much from the lean response. It was sort of 100/98-102 fuel. 
British BoB fuel was 100/115-20 and had *no less than 20% *aromatic compounds. 
The high aromatic compound fuel would dissolve certain rubber parts in the fuel system and degrade early self sealing tank liners so the number of early US fighters that used the two different fuels is limited. US agreed to go to the high aromatic fuel even before Pearl Harbor so fuel incompatibility wasn't really a problem. Neither was "tuning" the engines once they left the United States,


----------



## Schweik (Jan 14, 2019)

So did they use 100 / 130 gas in the middle East or no? Did they ever work out how to handle the corrosive qualities?


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Jan 14, 2019)

Schweik said:


> So what do you think about the Typhoon? Good or bad Roll? Good or bad at BnZ? As a fighter in general
> 
> I thought the P-47 was good at rolling at high altitude though I could be wrong.



Hello Schweik,
Typhoon roll rate? Pretty poor.

We discussed this back at Post #866
Which is the better fighter, P-40F or Typhoon?

With the information that was presented at the time, the estimate was that Roll Rate was around 60 degrees / second.
Instead of just using the same ESTIMATE as before, I figured I would look for some conclusive information.
Attached is a graph of comparative Roll Rates from RAE report 1231.
Turns out it is a bit worse than the estimate.

This graph is also a pretty good illustration of what I was describing about how airspeed has a pretty great influence on roll performance.

My own opinion is that the acceleration and straight line performance of the Typhoon was pretty good but the general agility was fairly poor. I had been hoping to find the comparative tactical evaluation of the Typhoon versus other fighters before making such a statement which sure to draw some angry replies.

Regarding P-47 Roll Rates:
The peak roll rate was around 85 degrees / second at 225 MPH IAS according to my reading of a graph from AHT.
This is consistent with what I have seen from other sources.
As for Altitude Performance, from observation, the P-47 series seemed to have more propeller than needed for low altitude operation but the bigger propeller was more effective as the air got thinner at high altitudes.

- Ivan.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greyman (Jan 14, 2019)

As I posted earlier, I think the RAE and NACA graph we all use as gospel may not be giving the full picture for one reason or another re: the Typhoon roll.

_(re: my earlier posts here)_
Which is the better fighter, P-40F or Typhoon?
Which is the better fighter, P-40F or Typhoon?

In service, if the Typhoon's roll rate over 250 IAS compared best with a Spitfire with fabric ailerons (and a lot worse under that) than any other fighter -- you'd think this wouldn't escape constant mention.


----------



## Stig1207 (Jan 15, 2019)

Schweik said:


> I only make provisional conclusions based on the _available_ data. Everything we can say about a war from 70 years ago is an educated guess at best. But you can describe what you know at a given point. I don't think your implicit contention about the Air Force journal is compelling for reasons I have already stated several times. If you really thought there was an issue worth exploring there, I would think that you would go try to find more data, such as day by day loss records or loss records by aircraft subtype. But perhaps it's better to keep it vague?
> 
> This has nothing to do with the record of the Typhoon by the way, it has to do with the record of the Luftwaffe and JG 27 and so on.



Well, your conclusions do come across as being very definite, with little room for doubt; though it may just be your style that gives that impression, I suppose. As for the Statistical Digest, I have tried to find more data, but I haven't found anything that can explain why there are differences between it and MAW IV or unit records; but it does underline how uncertain and confusing WWII data can be.


----------



## Schweik (Jan 15, 2019)

There are various roll rates shown for the P-40 as well












Obviously different factors affect it, weight carried, weight distribution, altitude, stick force etc. The numbers read different for various planes if they use various levels of stick force in particular. There is also roll acceleration and the lag somebody mentioned vis a vis the P-38. How quickly can you stop rolling in one direction and begin rolling in the other. I remember all this came up when we were discussing the Hurricane once, some guy kept insisting that the Hurricane had a great roll rate.

Ultimately however these are usually kind of one-offs, like the P-38. Aircraft that appeared to roll well on these charts in fact rolled well in real life.

I admit I really don't get the nuances between the chart Ivan posted and the posts Grayman made. Which interpretation is correct?


----------



## Schweik (Jan 15, 2019)

Stig1207 said:


> Well, your conclusions do come across as being very definite, with little room for doubt; though it may just be your style that gives that impression, I suppose. As for the Statistical Digest, I have tried to find more data, but I haven't found anything that can explain why there are differences between it and MAW IV or unit records; but it does underline how uncertain and confusing WWII data can be.



I try to be specific - for the days I've indicated, the conclusions are solid - *within the limits of the data currently available*.

For the rest, you can apply Ockham's razor and also observe trends over time.

If you looked at the data in the 1960's or 1970's, the P-40 was a dog. Every book said it was "unmaneuverable and slow, but rugged and available". It was only good as a fighter-bomber. Allied pilots overclaimed so all their victories were probably imaginary. The Luftwaffe were Gods. Blonde Knights of Germany. It was a mystery how they lost the war.

Over time, Luftwaffe looks a bit less stellar. The P-40 looks better and better - based on the data. Turns out that P-40s did shoot down zeroes after all. P-40s did in fact shoot down Bf 109s and more than once. Turns out several _experten_ lost their lives to P-40 pilots. Turns out the Bf 109 did have a few flaws. So did the Fw 190.

You seem to want to imply that everything we know may be wrong. I think that is overstating the uncertainty - I don't know that much about Shores sources for Axis losses, it would be nice if they were published online. I have some idea where he gets the German records but less so about the Italian. However I don't feel there is a lot of doubt about _Allied_ losses for reasons I have already stated at least 5 times now.

It is _possible_ that everything we know right now _is _wrong. That would depend on how much of the data, in terms of claims vs. losses on both sides, is actually hidden, gone or currently unavailable. Most of the Anglo-American records survived the war. It is true that something like 90% of the Luftwaffe records were lost. But fortunately for researchers they kept _a lot _of records. So even that 10% tells us quite a bit. We have some gaps in the unit histories for North Africa and Italy, but for the most part it is complete. More to the point, I don't know of any reason to assume that their losses as we currently know them are _over_stated.

But if it turns out that we actually only know 10% of the pertinent data and 90% is still out there waiting to be found - it is possible the picture could reverse itself again. They might find another 500 Allied fighters shot down. Maybe there is another Marseille we never even heard of somehow and his photo, knights cross and flight log book will be found in a shoe box in Tunisia tomorrow.

Possible but I think at this point, unlikely.

I think we could still see new data that changes our overall perception - I would still expect it to, but incrementally - not by 200 or 300 planes shot down.

However if you have any data showing that please post it by all means!

S


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 15, 2019)

No your conclusions are not solid in regards to which aircraft is better. Why? Because as just about everyone pointed out to you, they only paint a part of the picture. There are far to many variables.


----------



## Schweik (Jan 15, 2019)

If you mean P-40 vs Typhoon, I never said definitively which aircraft is better - I agree there isn't enough data for that. I said this already but at the risk of boring everyone by repetition, Stig1207 isn't referring to the Typhoon here. He and I debated in another thread about the Bf 109 vs. the P-40 which is a much more direct and measurable comparison since they fought each other. (There too I wouldn't say one was better than the other, but that alone is a radical notion since the Bf109 is supposed to be infinitely better according to some.)

To be honest, I am not sure the P-40 and the Typhoon are truly comparable, I thought attempting to compare them would reveal interesting data and it certainly has. The Typhoon seems very flawed to me but the P-40 also had flaws.

I remain unconvinced the Typhoon was maneuverable though I'm ready to learn more. On the other hand it was considerably faster than I had realized. Speed does matter. The maintenance / structural issues may have been less than I thought or maybe they were just as bad, the evidence seems contradictory. Armament was certainly excellent.

Typhoon and P-40F did have a surprisingly similar combat history - both were mostly used for fighter bomber missions albeit for different reasons, both had roughly the same number of planes flying true fighter missions vs. CAS or whatever especially around mid 1943. Both had a similar number of aircraft in action.

But it is unclear if the threat environment was the same. The Luftwaffe had suffered a morale dip around the times the USAAF arrived in the Middle East. There were more FW 190s operational in NW Europe and probably more flak.

So while I might tend toward the P-40 due to the combat histories, I couldn't claim to know definitively which one was better. I do think they are comparable which is more than some would admit. However if it turns out that the Typhoon really did turn and roll well then I would give the nod to the Typhoon. The only real advantage of the P-40 seems to be maneuverability.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zipper730 (Jan 15, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> You are over complicating things. especially #3
> 
> Most props (once you get rid of the fixed pitch and two pitch things) are just about 80% efficient give or take (mostly take) a couple of points. That was the whole idea of the constant speed propeller.


I knew 80% efficiency was a figure at certain speeds, and never connected that data with the constant-speed propeller. I figured the constant-speed propeller did allow the efficiency of the propeller to be varied for speed.


> Since the conversion of engine thrust to power varies with the speed of the aircraft there is a considerable reduction in "power" at climb speeds compared to max level speeds.


Of course -- that variation is proportional to speed?


> We don't need to know cooling drag, that goes right in with over all drag. yes a plane in climb mode (cooling flaps and doors open and hanging in the breeze) is very dirty compared to one closed up for high speed but then instantaneous drag goes up with the square of the speed. Power needed goes up with cube of the speed.


This might sound silly but why does drag go up with the square of speed and power needed go up with the cube?


> Want to check your "thrust" calculations at 140-160mph climbing speed?


That was kind of what I was going for. While this might sound silly could I simply use the TAS of the airplane to do a rise over run sort of thing where I factor the speed in fps; then compute climb-rate in fps at that speed and use the slope equation to just figure out how high-up the nose is pointed and then use that to establish a power-to-weight ratio (T/W of 0.5 = 45-degree maximum climb which is 1/1).



Greyman said:


> As I posted earlier, I think the RAE and NACA graph we all use as gospel may not be giving the full picture for one reason or another re: the Typhoon roll.
> 
> ...
> 
> In service, if the Typhoon's roll rate over 250 IAS compared best with a Spitfire with fabric ailerons (and a lot worse under that) than any other fighter -- you'd think this wouldn't escape constant mention.


I didn't even think of that variable. That said, what was the roll-rate of the Spitfire using fabric covered ailerons?


----------



## Schweik (Jan 15, 2019)

Zipper730 said:


> I didn't even think of that variable. That said, what was the roll-rate of the Spitfire using fabric covered ailerons?



Not fantastic but much better than the Typhoon according to this which Ivan already posted upthread.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 15, 2019)

Zipper730 said:


> I knew 80% efficiency was a figure at certain speeds, and never connected that data with the constant-speed propeller. I figured the constant-speed propeller did allow the efficiency of the propeller to be varied for speed.







That is one chart, others may differ a bit (not go over 80%?) but basically the constant speed propeller will have a good efficiency over quite a speed range. 



> This might sound silly but why does drag go up with the square of speed and power needed go up with the cube?


Drag is the force acting at one one moment. Or perhaps the resistance to force at any one moment?
Power introduces a time element. Plane A for instance is going 20 % faster than Plane B. It needs 44% more force at any one moment in time. However if you change the speed of plane A by 20 % it is trying to cover more ground (move aside ) 20% more air in the same amount of TIME as the slower plane, in addition to moving the air aside faster and the higher friction impact. Stick arm out of car window at 40mph and 50mph. more force acts on the arm in any one moment and keeping the arm out there is going to require a lot more work (muscles get more tired) in the same amount of time


----------



## Zipper730 (Jan 15, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> View attachment 525845
> 
> That is one chart, others may differ a bit (not go over 80%?) but basically the constant speed propeller will have a good efficiency over quite a speed range.


I know J is advance-ratio, what's 0.75R, and that funny looking N sub pe on the y-axis?


> Drag is the force acting at one one moment. Or perhaps the resistance to force at any one moment?


I follow


> Power introduces a time element. Plane A for instance is going 20 % faster than Plane B. It needs 44% more force at any one moment in time.


I figured force would be based on surface area, (L x W), but we live in a 3D world so you have L*W*H. I figured it'd have all cubed up.

Disclaimer: I was born in the early 1980's and as a result went to school during the late 1980's to early 2000's. Our education and curriculum suck.


----------



## Dan Fahey (Jan 15, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> This stuff about 'tuning the engines" is a pet peeve of mine.
> Just what the heck did they do to "tune' the engines?
> The ignition timing is fixed. The valve timing is fixed. the intake track is fixed, you have very very limited options on the exhaust stacks.
> 
> ...



I race cars and have for more than 40 years.
On the Allison and Merlin engines you can adjust the Magneto's for more/less Timing then matching the Jetting for the Fuel and Boost Used.
The jetting was designed to match the Specific Gravity of the fuel. 

British increased the Boost on the early Mustang and P40 especially focused attacking French and German targets.
The Brits stated the aircraft behaved much better with increased Boost..
Did they use the US 100 Octane or British 100/130...in the MTO and CBI ?

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


----------



## Schweik (Jan 15, 2019)

I believe the Desert Air Force did use 100/130 fuel in the Med but I'm not sure precisely when that started.

For the CBI I am not sure but most of the supplies came via India which at the time was part of the British Commonwealth.


----------



## wuzak (Jan 15, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> Drag is the force acting at one one moment. Or perhaps the resistance to force at any one moment?
> Power introduces a time element. Plane A for instance is going 20 % faster than Plane B. It needs 44% more force at any one moment in time. However if you change the speed of plane A by 20 % it is trying to cover more ground (move aside ) 20% more air in the same amount of TIME as the slower plane, in addition to moving the air aside faster and the higher friction impact. Stick arm out of car window at 40mph and 50mph. more force acts on the arm in any one moment and keeping the arm out there is going to require a lot more work (muscles get more tired) in the same amount of time






Zipper730 said:


> I know J is advance-ratio, what's 0.75R, and that funny looking N sub pe on the y-axis?
> I follow
> I figured force would be based on surface area, (L x W), but we live in a 3D world so you have L*W*H. I figured it'd have all cubed up.
> 
> Disclaimer: I was born in the early 1980's and as a result went to school during the late 1980's to early 2000's. Our education and curriculum suck.




Drag is the force resisting motion of a body through a fluid.

Power is the rate of doing work. Ie P = W/t

Work done by a force is equal to the force multiplied by the displacement. ie W = f * d

So, P = (f * d) / t or f * d/t = f * v

Drag force is proportional to the square of the velocity. ie Fd = k * v^2

So power P = k * v^2 * v = k * v^3

Of course the drag equation only works in certain situation, and certainly not very well at higher mach numbers.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 15, 2019)

Thank you.


----------



## Dan Fahey (Jan 15, 2019)

Schweik said:


> I believe the Desert Air Force did use 100/130 fuel in the Med but I'm not sure precisely when that started.
> 
> For the CBI I am not sure but most of the supplies came via India which at the time was part of the British Commonwealth.


That is important...because the mechanics adjusted maximum boost for more power.
But just not for WEP it was used at Military power which allowed them to operate at a higher speed. Making them more competitive with Axis fighters.
The Density Altitude of summer weather killed HP..
Can document as much as 4 tenths improvement in my Stocker in the 1/4 mile on Cold air day at sea level track compared to hot day.
In Russia the density altitude in cold weather can see being well below 1500 ft below sea level.
The cold fuel able to keep temperatures lower under combat power.
Compared to the DA of the hot desert that could have been 3000 above sea level.
The Me 109 did not use near the boost or rpm of the Allison or Merlin

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


----------



## wuzak (Jan 15, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> Thank you.



You're welcome.


----------



## Glider (Jan 15, 2019)

Schweik said:


> I believe the Desert Air Force did use 100/130 fuel in the Med but I'm not sure precisely when that started.
> 
> For the CBI I am not sure but most of the supplies came via India which at the time was part of the British Commonwealth.



The RAF in the desert used 100/130 fuel for combat operations from about May 1940 onwards, maybe a slight delay in the furthest reaches of the war by a couple of months. But for the period we are talking about it was exclusive.


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Jan 15, 2019)

Greyman said:


> As I posted earlier, I think the RAE and NACA graph we all use as gospel may not be giving the full picture for one reason or another re: the Typhoon roll.
> 
> _(re: my earlier posts here)_
> Which is the better fighter, P-40F or Typhoon?
> Which is the better fighter, P-40F or Typhoon?



Hello Greyman,
Those posts do give an alternative OPINION of the relative maneuverability of the Typhoon.
What they don't give is an quantitative view of the performance.

As Schweik brought up, the P-47 Thunderbolt also has a pretty good reputation for roll rate but the actual numbers suggest roll rate was not particularly good. Schweik also commented that the P-51 Mustang had an Excellent roll rate, but if you check the graph and review other accounts, you will find that this "Excellent Roll Rate" was only at high speed. At lower airspeeds, it is pretty similar to Typhoon.
Many tactical descriptions disparage the roll performance of the A6M series and describe how US Navy fighters used their faster roll rates to defeat the Type 0 Fighter. This can be contrasted with modern pilots who have flown both the Hellcat and A6M and state in interviews that the A6M rolled much faster. Videos can also be found which show very good rolling performance by the A6M5.
Assuming that everyone is being honest, how does all this fit together?
It seems to me that everyone is telling the truth, but the evaluation criteria are quite different.

The graph I posted is just one snapshot of relative performance under very specific conditions: 50 pounds of Stick force at 10,000 feet altitude for a STEADY STATE Roll. Some other tests use 30 pounds of force on the stick. Some are done with only 1/4 aileron deflection. Perhaps other folks are looking for responsiveness.
If measured under those other conditions, perhaps Typhoon does better. Under the conditions listed in this graph (which are fairly common test conditions), Typhoon did relatively poorly.
The P-38 Lightning with boosted ailerons would have also done well in this test for steady state roll, but pilot reports often mention the terrible lag in response, so how would you judge that kind of rolling performance?



Greyman said:


> In service, if the Typhoon's roll rate over 250 IAS compared best with a Spitfire with fabric ailerons (and a lot worse under that) than any other fighter -- you'd think this wouldn't escape constant mention.



Perhaps if the pilots had flown the Typhoon in the air superiority role, they would have commented on the poor roll rate. Keep in mind that the greatest use of the Typhoon was in the ground attack role in which a poor roll rate may not be so obvious and certainly would not be noticed while carrying ordnance.
One also has to wonder why the Typhoon as the fastest (at low altitude) and most modern fighter in the RAF inventory got pushed to the role of mud mover. Perhaps its shortcomings in air-to-air combat were obvious.
As for escaping constant mention, the Typhoon also had some serious compressibility issues but one doesn't hear much about those either because it generally wasn't operated in a way that would manifest those.

- Ivan.

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


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Jan 15, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Not fantastic but much better than the Typhoon according to this which Ivan already posted upthread.



Hello Schweik,
That graph I posted shows a Spitfire Mk.V with clipped wings and with full span wings but both have metal ailerons.
The Spitfire with Fabric covered ailerons had much inferior rolling performance at high speed.

- Ivan.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greyman (Jan 16, 2019)

I'm basically on the same page, I think. As I said earlier, a simple, steady rate with 50 lb force 'may not be giving the full picture'. When you read all the opinions from the A&AEE, USAAF, and AFDU what you don't see is "this is the worst rolling aircraft at any speed this establishment has ever seen". So I'm fully prepared to believe there's more nuance to roll performance than steady rate at 50 lb force.

Re: the Zero, that can easily be explained by speed. Under 250 IAS (according to Allied tests) the Japanese fighter handily out-rolled the Wildcat/Hellcat - above that speed the US fighters held the advantage.

I'm fairly certain the Typhoon was used for ground attack over the Spitfire more due to superior lifting capacity and inferior high-level performance (vs. the Spit IX). Though I'm sure the Spitfire's superior climb and manoeuvrability played a part.

I would probably disagree about the compressibility issues - if we're talking about the same thing. Typhoons were routinely dived at high speed while bombing.

Quick photoshop of the fabric-aileron performance of the Spitfire:

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Useful Useful:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Jan 16, 2019)

Greyman said:


> I'm basically on the same page, I think. As I said earlier, a simple, steady rate with 50 lb force 'may not be giving the full picture'. When you read all the opinions from the A&AEE, USAAF, and AFDU what you don't see is "this is the worst rolling aircraft at any speed this establishment has ever seen". So I'm fully prepared to believe there's more nuance to roll performance than steady rate at 50 lb force.



Hello Greyman,
I suspect that the ailerons on Typhoon were very responsive and for a plus or minus 45 degrees roll test gave a good impression but the peak roll rate was just as low as shown in the graphs. Depending on what the pilot is looking for, that could be seen as quite good or quite bad.



Greyman said:


> Re: the Zero, that can easily be explained by speed. Under 250 IAS (according to Allied tests) the Japanese fighter handily out-rolled the Wildcat/Hellcat - above that speed the US fighters held the advantage.



Take a look at how the Japanese Zero performs according to the graph and then look for one of the you-tube videos of a A6M5 in flight. The times I was getting with a stopwatch did not even come close to what would be expected from the graph shown here.
Note also that the A6M had very long span ailerons and that was probably done for a reason.
It would be extraordinarily stupid for a designer to put a feature like that in an aircraft without some benefit.



Greyman said:


> I'm fairly certain the Typhoon was used for ground attack over the Spitfire more due to superior lifting capacity and inferior high-level performance (vs. the Spit IX). Though I'm sure the Spitfire's superior climb and manoeuvrability played a part.



Perhaps. Consider though that the Spitfire did not have much internal fuel capacity and not much load lifting capacity as you mentioned. Why not use the Typhoon as a long range fighter carrying a couple large drop tanks instead of committing them all to the ground attack role? My BELIEF is that it wasn't really a competitive fighter and that was the reason the Tempest was developed so quickly to address Typhoon's shortcomings.



Greyman said:


> I would probably disagree about the compressibility issues - if we're talking about the same thing. Typhoons were routinely dived at high speed while bombing.



Compressibility tends to be a high altitude thing. As long as the Typhoon stayed below about 8,000 feet, the air was dense enough and the speed of sound was high enough that there was no loss of control. The Thunderbolt had a very similar problem at high altitude but not at low altitude.

- Ivan.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greyman (Jan 16, 2019)

Ivan1GFP said:


> Why not use the Typhoon as a long range fighter carrying a couple large drop tanks instead of committing them all to the ground attack role?



It was uncompetitive over about 15 thousand feet. You can't base an ETO RAF fighter force on that.

Re: Zero roll ... I added 50 lb stick force roll (A6M3) from an RAAF document. It had both right and left rolls -- I eyeballed the two curves and drew a line between them. The NACA graph seems to use a stick force of 20lb (at best) for the Zero.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jan 16, 2019)

There seems to be a pattern with a lot of early war fighters that they were designed to roll well at very low speed but this fell off at higher speed. Ideal for TnB or WWI style fighting. Later war designs seemed to have better roll at higher speeds, suitable to BnZ fighting (I know some people think roll doesn't matter for BnZ). Everything I've read about the Zero agrees with this and the chart above would seem plausible in that sense - at 150 - 180 mph the Zero would outroll all Allied fighters but closer to 250 mph the advantage is on the Allied side. This would match the pilot accounts and the tactics they developed, like using low-Yo-Yo turns and so on.

From what I read both cloth ailerons and cable or even cord linkages to the ailerons were part of the reason for this. Larger ailerons like on the Zero can also be a factor, while on the other hand overly small ones cause different problems, as on the P-51A / A-36.

I think a longer or medium range fighter would have been useful in NW Europe even if they didn't have high altitude chops - look at all the low-level "Ramrod" etc. bomber raids they were doing. They probably should have deployed a few P-40 squadrons


----------



## Schweik (Jan 16, 2019)

TnB vs. BnZ is a bit of an oversimplification, really it should be "designed for low speed maneuverability" (100 - 200 mph) vs. "medium speed maneuverability" (200 - 350 mph)

Medium speed maneuverability can help a lot with a lot of things including various escape maneuvers (split S, outside roll, rolling scissors etc.) as well as successfully shooting aircraft during a chase.

Of the aircraft tested in the various examples presented so far, only the Mustang seems to have good roll over 350 mph which I would call high speed maneuverability.

I went looking for Bf 109 roll rate info but that seems like a rabbit hole...


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Jan 16, 2019)

Greyman said:


> It was uncompetitive over about 15 thousand feet. You can't base an ETO RAF fighter force on that.



Hello Greyman,
Perhaps you can't base an entire ETO RAF fighter force on a low / medium altitude fighter, but please note that when the Tempest arrived, IT served as part of the ETO RAF fighter force with Spitfires taking on the high altitude role. Initially, Tempest had the same engines and thus had the same altitude issues as Typhoon did but still served in the air superiority role. The power curves of the Sabre II and Sabre IIA and their critical altitudes were identical according to the Aircraft Type Description.

In looking at their performance figures, I would have put their practical limits a bit higher at about 20,000 feet where these fighters were able to achieve their maximum speeds. Even at 15,000 feet, the Typhoon had a pretty respectable climb rate which indicates a pretty good reserve of engine power.



Greyman said:


> I decided to get a bit deeper into the Typhoon's aileron characteristics and I'm starting to think the RAE and NACA graph (link) I've been using---and looking no further--may not be giving the full picture for one reason or another re: the Typhoon.
> 
> _*Army Air Forces Materiel Command, Memorandum Report on Typhoon I, 6 Dec 1943* (link)
> Handling & Control at Various Speeds_
> ...



http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/typhoon/Typhoon_Eng-47-1658-E.pdf

In looking for a few more details, I decided to read through the full report that this is taken from rather than just selected excerpts.
The difference in conclusion is most interesting. Here are a few factors worth noting:

1. This was a Typhoon IA as can be seen from the complaints about visibility especially during the climb.
2. The test aircraft carried full fuel and oil but carried NO AMMUNITION. At 140 rounds of 20 mm for each Hispano Mk.II, this would have resulted in 175 pounds less weight in the outboard section of each wing and 350 pounds less for the aircraft which is sure to have affected the roll response to some extent.
3. Although the handling is described as "very good", note that Typhoon is unstable longitudinally, neutrally stable laterally and stable directionally but had a very noticeable roll when yawed.
4. Although its load carrying ability is described as "exceptional", the actual numbers listed in the aircraft type sheet only show 2 x 500 pound bombs which is surprisingly little for such a large and powerful aircraft.

One of the really surprising things I found out in poking around for performance data was that the early Typhoons had a lot of trouble achieving 400 MPH in level flight until modifications were made during the production run.

- Ivan.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Jan 16, 2019)

Schweik said:


> There seems to be a pattern with a lot of early war fighters that they were designed to roll well at very low speed but this fell off at higher speed. Ideal for TnB or WWI style fighting. Later war designs seemed to have better roll at higher speeds, suitable to BnZ fighting.....



Hello Schweik, 
I believe this to be an overly general description.
Note that the P-40 was a pre-war design and according to AHT had an excellent roll rate.
The Ki 43 Hayabusa was a contemporary of the A6M and had a ridiculously fast roll which degraded much more slowly than A6M.
The Spitfire initially did not have a good medium and high speed roll but metal ailerons and clipped wings were a serious improvement that were not great modification to the design.
Soviet fighters of this era also were not bad.

- Ivan.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Mike Williams (Jan 17, 2019)

Ivan1GFP said:


> http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/typhoon/Typhoon_Eng-47-1658-E.pdf
> 
> 1. This was a Typhoon IA as can be seen from the complaints about visibility especially during the climb.
> 2. […]At 140 rounds of 20 mm for each Hispano Mk.II, […]
> - Ivan.



The Typhoon flown by the flight section pilots at the A.&A.E.E. was serial number DN-340 equipped with 4 x 20 mm. guns, i.e. a Typhoon IB. As an interesting aside, Hawker Langley tested DN.340 and obtained 400 mph at 20,800’ in December 1942. Also worth noting “The results on D.N.340 which was an aircraft picked at random, are particularly encouraging as the engine installed was known to be some 45 h.p. down in power in the M.S. gear.”

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


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Jan 17, 2019)

Mike Williams said:


> The Typhoon flown by the flight section pilots at the A.&A.E.E. was serial number DN-340 equipped with 4 x 20 mm. guns, i.e. a Typhoon IB. As an interesting aside, Hawker Langley tested DN.340 and obtained 400 mph at 20,800’ in December 1942. Also worth noting “The results on D.N.340 which was an aircraft picked at random, are particularly encouraging as the engine installed was known to be some 45 h.p. down in power in the M.S. gear.”



Hello Mike Williams,
Thanks for the correction.
Do you disagree with any of the other conclusions?
Lower power in M.S. gear alone should not have affected the maximum speed at 20,000 feet so it sounds like that maximum speed result is still quite valid.

- Ivan.


----------



## Dan Fahey (Jan 17, 2019)

Glider said:


> The RAF in the desert used 100/130 fuel for combat operations from about May 1940 onwards, maybe a slight delay in the furthest reaches of the war by a couple of months. But for the period we are talking about it was exclusive.



If this is true than the P40 was running with more Boost and made it more competitive against the Me109 and FW190.
One of the interesting things about Air Combat are all the stories of the Pilots..
But none about the Crew that maintained and how they maintained and kept the planes flying.
I am sure they had a few P40s nd P51 stripped for high altitude recon and getting parts from one airbase to another quickly.


----------



## Glider (Feb 8, 2019)

I don't want to reopen an old debate but when going through some files on an old computer I found the following which will be I think of interest to a number of you. Personally I think it pretty balanced and it shows how the initial small no of Spits had a significant impact on the fighting. I have to admit that it does put a nice gloss on the effectiveness of the Hurricane.


----------



## Glider (Feb 20, 2019)

One question that kept rising was how well did the Typhoon do in air to air combat. I have found a partial answer.
The highest scoring Typhoon pilot was Johnny Baldwin who was credited with 15 victories while flying the Typhoon. He was declared missing in action in Korea whilst flying the F86.
During the three month period December 1943 to February 1944, 198 Typhoon Squadron was the highest scoring squadron in Fighter Command being credited with 49 victories. At the end of this period the emphasis switched to GA with the 2TAF which officially it joined in Jan 1944, but they didn't move station until April 1944.
In early 1943 609 Squadron another Typhoon squadron was the highest scoring fighter command squadron until it too moved to GA duties. By the end of the war 609 had been credited with 272 victories and lost 73 aircrew killed

So given the aircrew trained in air to air combat, and the chance, the Typhoon was more than capable of taking care of itself.

Reactions: Like Like:
7 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Feb 28, 2019)

Dan Fahey said:


> But none about the Crew that maintained and how they maintained and kept the planes flying.



Oh it's not just in air combat that aircraft maintenance personnel don't always get their stroies told, yet are equally as fascinating! Believe me! The stories engineers could tell! There are a few on this forum.


----------



## Navalwarrior (Mar 10, 2019)

Glider said:


> One question that kept rising was how well did the Typhoon do in air to air combat. I have found a partial answer.
> The highest scoring Typhoon pilot was Johnny Baldwin who was credited with 15 victories while flying the Typhoon. He was declared missing in action in Korea whilst flying the F86.
> During the three month period December 1943 to February 1944, 198 Typhoon Squadron was the highest scoring squadron in Fighter Command being credited with 49 victories. At the end of this period the emphasis switched to GA with the 2TAF which officially it joined in Jan 1944, but they didn't move station until April 1944.
> In early 1943 609 Squadron another Typhoon squadron was the highest scoring fighter command squadron until it too moved to GA duties. By the end of the war 609 had been credited with 272 victories and lost 73 aircrew killed
> ...


Resp:
I just finished reading a story (No 452 of FlyPast) about an RAF pilot Johnny Baldwin, who had 15 confirmed kills while flying Hawker Typhoons (Note: his first claim actually survived, by making it back to an airfield). He said that the Typhoon had "an appalling reputation as being a fighter and for being extremely unreliable. Only the unreliability was true." He flew with several Squadrons, ending with 123 Wing. This article clearly shows the destruction the Typhoon created as the Allies marched across Europe from the west.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Mar 11, 2019)

I had been debating whether it was worthwhile to point out that a successful combat record is not necessarily an indication that an aircraft was a particularly good fighter. If it were, one might conclude that a Gloster Gladiator or an early Brewster Buffalo was a great fighter.

- Ivan.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Mar 11, 2019)

Eh? 
No understando. 
If the Buffalo had a good combat record then it was a good fighter! 
It has achieved its destiny. 
Made a better fighter than a dishwasher.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Navalwarrior (Mar 11, 2019)

Ivan1GFP said:


> I had been debating whether it was worthwhile to point out that a successful combat record is not necessarily an indication that an aircraft was a particularly good fighter. If it were, one might conclude that a Gloster Gladiator or an early Brewster Buffalo was a great fighter.
> 
> - Ivan.


Resp:
Agreed. Luck certainly played its hand, as in 'just happened to be in position' when sighting the enemy. But 15 kills couldn't have been all luck. The skill of the pilot and the ability of his aircraft . . . had to have played a role. It would be nice to know how one did when attacked!


----------



## Glider (Mar 11, 2019)

Navalwarrior said:


> Resp:
> Agreed. Luck certainly played its hand, as in 'just happened to be in position' when sighting the enemy. But 15 kills couldn't have been all luck. The skill of the pilot and the ability of his aircraft . . . had to have played a role. It would be nice to know how one did when attacked!


Luck always plays a part but not a large part. In a Typhoon your in an aircraft that's a lot faster than the enemy, dives a lot faster and turns just as well as the enemy. So you have options.

For me the important thing isn't the pilot with 15 kills over the course of his time in combat. It's that the squadron was for three months. the highest scoring squadron in fighter command. That isn't luck or the actions of one pilot, its a consistent performance by the squadron over a decent period of time.

The stats for 609 I also found illuminating, 272 victories with 72 pilots killed when a lot, probably most of those losses would have been in its ground attack role is pretty good. Obviously there would have been more losses with pilots wounded or safely crash landing or baled out. But overall it's not bad at all

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Navalwarrior (Mar 15, 2019)

Navalwarrior said:


> Resp:
> I just finished reading a story (No 452 of FlyPast) about an RAF pilot Johnny Baldwin, who had 15 confirmed kills while flying Hawker Typhoons (Note: his first claim actually survived, by making it back to an airfield). He said that the Typhoon had "an appalling reputation as being a fighter and for being extremely unreliable. Only the unreliability was true." He flew with several Squadrons, ending with 123 Wing. This article clearly shows the destruction the Typhoon created as the Allies marched across Europe from the west.


Cont:
Baldwin writes: "I became a flight commander in August 1943. At that time Fighter Command was carrying out innumerable and fruitless sweeps over the French coast. We were all tired of doing the same old thing day after day, and when we heard that jettisonable fuel tanks (drop tanks) were available for Typhoons, we worked out an operation that later became known as a Ranger. This consisted of penetrating deeply into occupied territory while flying 'on the deck' and seeking out enemy aircraft on training, transport and night-flying tests. This rapidly became successful, and I was sent to command 198 Typhoon Squadron. In three months, the squadron had destroyed 47 aircraft and had become the highest-scoring squadron in Fighter Command."
So not only was Baldwin an excellent pilot, he was also a creative commander in making adjustments in taking the 'fight' to the enemy.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fubar57 (Mar 15, 2019)

The book, "Czechs in the RAF", by Zdenek Hurt, published 2004, Air Research Publications, says "Deep penetrations over enemy territory on a freelance basis, attacking targets of opportunity were known as _Rangers(book italics), _and started in February, 1943. ......The first night _Ranger(book italics) _missions were flown by Nos. 25 and 151 Squadrons in mid February, 1943............"


----------



## fubar57 (Mar 15, 2019)

RCAF 406 Squadron were operating Mosquitos on night "rangers" by the end of Mar. '43 from Middle Wollop


----------



## Greyman (Mar 15, 2019)

For what it's worth, Air Fighting Committee paper No.141 Offensive Operations By Home Based Fighters (Dec '42) does not list 'Ranger' as one of the operation types, while the 14 May '43 revision does.


----------



## Greyman (Mar 16, 2019)

From the paper:

_RHUBARB__ 
A small offensive operation, using cloud cover, carried out by 1 or 2 sections, the primary object of which is the destruction of enemy aircraft. Rhubarb operations may also be directed against suitable predetermined ground targets, in accordance with current Rhubarb Instructions. Aircraft should approach ground targets at 0 ft. climbing only to make their attack. Cloud cover must be available in which to evade any enemy fighters encountered or to avoid intensive flak. Cloud 10/10 at 1,000 - 3,000 ft. with good visibility provide the most suitable conditions for Rhubarb operations. If weather proves to be unsuitable when approaching the enemy coast, the sortie should be abandoned. Pilots undertaking Rhubarb sorties must be carefully briefed. Navigation at 0 ft. must be accurate.

RANGER 
Similar to operation RHUBARB but with deep penetration._

Reactions: Informative Informative:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Mar 16, 2019)

Greyman said:


> From the paper:
> 
> _RHUBARB__
> A small offensive operation, using cloud cover, carried out by 1 or 2 sections, the primary object of which is the destruction of enemy aircraft. Rhubarb operations may also be directed against suitable predetermined ground targets, in accordance with current Rhubarb Instructions. Aircraft should approach ground targets at 0 ft. climbing only to make their attack. Cloud cover must be available in which to evade any enemy fighters encountered or to avoid intensive flak. Cloud 10/10 at 1,000 - 3,000 ft. with good visibility provide the most suitable conditions for Rhubarb operations. If weather proves to be unsuitable when approaching the enemy coast, the sortie should be abandoned. Pilots undertaking Rhubarb sorties must be carefully briefed. Navigation at 0 ft. must be accurate._
> ...


 You'd have thought that the Tomahawk would have been the perfect fighter in 1941 for doing this, that plus its longer range and speed higher than the Spitfire Vb.


----------



## Navalwarrior (Mar 16, 2019)

Greyman said:


> For what it's worth, Air Fighting Committee paper No.141 Offensive Operations By Home Based Fighters (Dec '42) does not list 'Ranger' as one of the operation types, while the 14 May '43 revision does.


Resp:
Thanks. I suspect that the formal technology 'followed' operational uses. Hence Baldwin's statement 'that later became known as' etc, etc. His memo on his war experiences was written sometime after the end of WWII, where he made a general statement that emphasized how they carried out their missions in the Typhoon. I don't believe Baldwin was 'tooting' his own horn when he wrote what he and his unit accomplished.


----------



## fubar57 (Mar 16, 2019)

It is written in an official paper in May. Baldwin says it became "later became known" well into August. How is May following August?


----------



## Navalwarrior (Mar 16, 2019)

fubar57 said:


> It is written in an official paper in May. Baldwin says it became "later became known" well into August. How is May following August?


Resp:
I don't know. Maybe he, Baldwin didn't get the memo!


----------



## fubar57 (Mar 16, 2019)

You're probably right. Flight Commanders are rarely in the loop


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 16, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> You'd have thought that the Tomahawk would have been the perfect fighter in 1941 for doing this, that plus its longer range and speed higher than the Spitfire Vb.


doesn't matter if the Tomahawk is enough faster than a Spit MK v to win a bar bet. What matters is, is either one fast enough to get away with this tactic/strategy against the 109F-4 in the summer of 1941?


----------



## Kevin J (Mar 16, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> doesn't matter if the Tomahawk is enough faster than a Spit MK v to win a bar bet. What matters is, is either one fast enough to get away with this tactic/strategy against the 109F-4 in the summer of 1941?


According to the Russians the Tomahawk was as good as the Bf109F, and the Kittyhawk slightly better.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Mar 16, 2019)

Will all due respect to the Russians, the only thing better than a Bf 109F-4 in the summer of 1941 was the Fw 190A-1


----------



## Kevin J (Mar 16, 2019)

Clayton Magnet said:


> Will all due respect to the Russians, the only thing better than a Bf 109F-4 in the summer of 1941 was the Fw 190A-1


Easy meat for their fighters according to them.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Mar 16, 2019)

I think it would depend on the theater. If most of the combat is happening under 20,000 feet then the p40 is great. If most of the combat in said theater is over 20,000 feet maybe not so much.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 16, 2019)

This may depend on how the planes were operated.

It is very difficult to get good. reliable information on how the P-40 performed in combat due to the combat units greater or lesser extent of using higher boost than the manuals called for. The Testing units in both the US or England tended to fly by the book and not use higher than normal boost settings. In fact the British tended to under rate American aircraft because they used the 30 minute or 1 hour rating for the entire climb rather than using the military power setting that Wright Field in the US used for the first 5 minutes. 
For the early Allisons (and for many of the later ones?) this meant 2600rpm and 37 in of MAP instead of 3000rpm and 43-45in (depending on exact model) that the US used for the first 5 minutes. 

Now when in 1941 you want to push the snot out of an Allison engine is also subject to question. Dec 1941 might be one thing. Jan 1941 is another story, it taking a very brave or foolish pilot to over boost an Allison at the beginning of 1941. Allisons had several major problems in the beginning and the early Curtiss Wright electric props had a few problems of their own. 

About 228 of the first Allison engines had to be sent back to the factory and reworked (include a new crankcase). There were bearing troubles, the Electric prop didn't govern properly and allowed the engine to over speed, the drive/s to the generator/s often failed in spite of the first modification with rubber dampers. At one point the Russians claimed ALL of their Tomahawks were grounded due to broken generator drives. They were resorting to removing the Generator and flying on the battery. If the battery got low the prop could no longer be controlled in pitch and the rpm governor would not work. 

Most or all of these troubles were sorted out in 1941 and early 1942 ( and the P-40D&E used a newer Allison with some of the problems already eliminated)

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Navalwarrior (Mar 17, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> According to the Russians the Tomahawk was as good as the Bf109F, and the Kittyhawk slightly better.


Resp:
I've read that the P-40 could take a lot of punishment, but what about the various 109s?


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Mar 17, 2019)

Navalwarrior said:


> Resp:
> I've read that the P-40 could take a lot of punishment, but what about the various 109s?


I guess that might depend on whether that punishment was .303, .50, or 20MM. There are pictures out there of 109s parked on the flight line at home base perforated like swiss cheese with small caliber holes.
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## wuzak (Mar 18, 2019)

How many Tomahawks were available in Britain in the summer of 1941?

I’d have thought that deliveries were only just getting going by then.


----------



## Navalwarrior (Mar 18, 2019)

XBe02Drvr said:


> I guess that might depend on whether that punishment was .303, .50, or 20MM. There are pictures out there of 109s parked on the flight line at home base perforated like swiss cheese with small caliber holes.
> Cheers,
> Wes


Resp:
From what I read, the P-40B/Cs flown in response to the attack at Pearl Harbor (including those by Welch and Taylor) only had ammo in their wing mounted 30 cal guns (two in each wing) while the two nose mounted 50s had not been loaded. In spite of their light armament Welch and Taylor managed to survive to shoot down several enemy planes.
While the US entered WWII with several front line fighters equipped with 30 cal MG, newer models deleted or replaced these guns with 50 cal MG. Their ineffectiveness in air-to-air combat was quickly recognized.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Mar 18, 2019)

Navalwarrior said:


> In spite of their light armament Welch and Taylor managed to survive to shoot down several enemy planes.


We all know how damage tolerant and fireproof IJN aircraft were. Not quite the same as an ME or an FW.
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## Navalwarrior (Mar 18, 2019)

XBe02Drvr said:


> We all know how damage tolerant and fireproof IJN aircraft were. Not quite the same as an ME or an FW.
> Cheers,
> Wes


Yes, but calibers above standard rifle rounds also were effective at greater range, an added benefit.


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 18, 2019)

The range thing is usually exaggerated. It exists in theory but the problems of hitting limited the practical range to nearly identical.


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Mar 18, 2019)

Navalwarrior said:


> Yes, but calibers above standard rifle rounds also were effective at greater range, an added benefit.


Effective range is great in theory, but wing mounted machine guns are set to converge at 400 or less yards. Good luck hitting anything beyond that distance, even if the projectile is more than capable


----------



## Navalwarrior (Mar 18, 2019)

Clayton Magnet said:


> Effective range is great in theory, but wing mounted machine guns are set to converge at 400 or less yards. Good luck hitting anything beyond that distance, even if the projectile is more than capable


Resp:
I could have said that better. Energy was certainly greater. Agree with the 400 yrds as a practical limit. I have read that Douglas Bader preferred .303 wing mounted guns over cannons. Likely due to preferring shorter range contact. My guess only.


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Mar 18, 2019)

Navalwarrior said:


> I have read that Douglas Bader preferred .303 wing mounted guns over cannons. Likely due to preferring shorter range contact. My guess only.


If Bader in fact said that, I would assume he would be referring to the woeful reliability of the early war drum fed Hispano's. 2 functional 20mm cannons would have been exponentially more effective against ALL targets


----------



## Glider (Mar 18, 2019)

wuzak said:


> How many Tomahawks were available in Britain in the summer of 1941?
> 
> I’d have thought that deliveries were only just getting going by then.





Navalwarrior said:


> Resp:
> I could have said that better. Energy was certainly greater. Agree with the 400 yrds as a practical limit. I have read that Douglas Bader preferred .303 wing mounted guns over cannons. Likely due to preferring shorter range contact. My guess only.


Most had a harmonisation of approx. 200 - 250 yards. Re Bader, he had the clout to have a Spit Va with 8 x LMG if he wanted, but he didn't and soon switched to a Vb


----------



## Greyman (Mar 18, 2019)

Did Bader not fly a Va until the end? (9 August '41, Spitfire W3185)


----------



## Glider (Mar 18, 2019)

I have looked further and stand corrected, apologies for the error


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 18, 2019)

The trajectories weren't that different out to 400-500 meters. after that the US. 50 has an increasing advantage. 
However the time of flight comes into play, how far will the target move before the bullet gets there? 
I have some old tables published during the war and I am not sure they are 100% accurate.
But they show the US .30 cal M1 ball ammo getting to 600yds in 0.86 seconds while the .50 cal (type not given) takes 0.72 seconds. 
Remaining velocity at 600yds is 1634fps for the .30 and 1950fps for the .50 and the angle of departure is 19 minutes for the .30 and 14 minutes for the .50
The advantage for the .50 at 1000yds is tremendous. time of flight is 1.32 seconds for the .50 compared to 1.75 seconds for the .30 and other measures are in proportion. 
however look at the numbers again. A 300mph airplane will move 580 ft in the time it takes the .50 cal bullet to cover 1000yds (at sea level) at 600yds the target plane will move 317ft. Most pilots have no business trying to fire at those ranges with the sights they had for most (all?) of WW II. 
At 300 yds the difference in time of flight is a few hundredths of a second and the trajectory is within inches, not feet. Yes the .50 cal bullet hits much harder. 

The idea that you could stay out of effective .30 cal range while actually hitting with a .50 might work pretty good on the ground (within reason) working at sea gets a lot iffier and working in the air?????

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ThomasP (Mar 18, 2019)

For what it is worth,

In pre-war air exercises (e.g. war-games) the RAF/Air Ministry rated the .50 cal Browning twice as effective as the .30 cal Browning, and rated the 20mm HS404 twice as effective as the .50 cal Browning. The exercises were intended to help figure out what the best armament was for the coming war. It should be noted that most of the aircraft of the time were unarmoured and had no SSFT, so solid rounds would not have been at as much of a disadvantage relative to explosive rounds.

In the early- to mid-war period the USAAC considered the 20mm HS404 three times as effective as the .50 cal Browning.


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 18, 2019)

In the 1930s the British .303 had a relatively ineffective incendiary tracer. The .50 Browning had no incendiary at all, It was a hole puncher or hole puncher with tracer. 
We have been over this several times in other threads but the British made the right decision to go with the .303 as the 1930s .50 Browning was not the .50 cal Browning of 1942/43.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Mar 18, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> In the 1930s the British .303 had a relatively ineffective incendiary tracer. The .50 Browning had no incendiary at all, It was a hole puncher or hole puncher with tracer.
> We have been over this several times in other threads but the British made the right decision to go with the .303 as the 1930s .50 Browning was not the .50 cal Browning of 1942/43.


The UK and USA were moving away from rifle calibre guns at the same time for the same reasons. I think it is the Spitfire continuing with a mix of cannon and 0.303 Mgs gives a different impression.


----------



## ThomasP (Mar 19, 2019)

In response to(?) Shortround6's post#1027,

All true, but I feel it should be noted that the RAF/Air Ministry recognized the(an?) advantage of the .50 Browning even with a lower MV and pre-war ammunition types. And even the USAAF felt that the 20mm HS404 was significantly better than even the wartime M2 Browning with the higher MV and improved ammunition types. (I am separating out the M3 variant due to it not seeing any significant amount of service in WWII??)

If armament is going to be compared between the P-40 and Typhoon as measured by RAF/Air Ministry standards it would be:

.30 cal Browning______1 point
.50 cal Browning______2 points
20mm HS 404________4 points

yielding

P-40E______________12 points
Typhoon 1A_________12 points
Typhoon 1B_________16 points

And for the USAAF it would be:

.30 cal Browning______1 point?
.50 cal Browning______2 points
20mm HS 404________6 points

yielding

P-40E______________12 points
Typhoon 1A_________12 points?
Typhoon 1B_________24 points

I also feel that it should be pointed out that I do not recall any nation's fighter pilots saying things like "You have to watch out for those __________, they'll get you every time, but don't worry about the __________, HA HA, they are worthless".  (Feel free to substitute different weapons for either of the blank positions in the preceding sentence.) The only disparaging comments I remember reading about fighter armament involved armament that was kind of 'light' (2x 7.7mm in the Ki-47 for most of the war for example), but if I remember correctly the Ki-47 shot down more enemy aircraft than any other particular fighter in the Japanese inventory?? (I realize I may be wrong about this, if so someone please point it out to me, preferably with some numbers as I have not been able to find any so far.)

[edit] Sorry, I meant Ki-43, not Ki-47.


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Mar 19, 2019)

ThomasP said:


> I also feel that it should be pointed out that I do not recall any nation's fighter pilots saying things like "You have to watch out for those __________, they'll get you every time, but don't worry about the __________, HA HA, they are worthless



Hello ThomasP,
Perhaps what you are describing is exactly what happened in F4F versus A6M battles.
My understanding is that the US figured out pretty early that the F4F-4 (especially) had no hope of matching the A6M2 in dogfights.
in a 1 v 1, it had very little chance.
In a many versus many battle though, it was superior because of exactly the kind of tactic you are describing.
They could ignore the Zero that was on their tail and go after the Zero's that were attacking their squadron mates.
The A6M2 had such a low ammunition load (60 rounds) for its cannon that it would be relying mostly on its 7.7 mm MG.
The Ki 43-II and later at least had a pretty good chance that at least one of the cowl MG would be a 12.7 mm.
Sometimes both guns would be 12.7 mm. Only the Ki 43-I was normally found with just two 7.7 mm guns and that aircraft had other problems.

- Ivan.


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 19, 2019)

ThomasP said:


> All true, but I feel it should be noted that the RAF/Air Ministry recognized the(an?) advantage of the .50 Browning even with a lower MV and pre-war ammunition types. And even the USAAF felt that the 20mm HS404 was significantly better than even the wartime M2 Browning with the higher MV and improved ammunition types. (I am separating out the M3 variant due to it not seeing any significant amount of service in WWII??)



The .50 cal as a gun and ammo system was superior to the .303 at the time (1930s) if you disregard weight and volume, which you could not do given the engines and propellers of the time. The Mid 30s .50 (I wish we had a short nick name for it) was worth two .303 Brownings, the trouble was it weighed 2 1/2 to 3 times as much and the ammo weighed five times as much as .303 (or US .30) ammo. 
the US .50 round in the .30s wasn't that much better than the Vickers .5 (Italian and Japanese 12.7mm) heavier, better shaped bullet but nearly identical velocity. Both of those countries set about building explosive ammunition or incendiary ammo increasing (hopefully) the target effect for the size and weight of the guns. The UK developed a much better incendiary round for the .303 (about twice as effective as the old one) just in the nick of time (but well after the decision to keep the .303) which makes trying to use the old test or wargame evaluation difficult to apply to the combat results of the BoB and later.
As has been noted in other places the .303s in the BoB used up to 3 guns firing "ball" ammo which was a copper jacket. a lead core in the back and aluminum (or other filler) in the nose so penetration on anything substantial was doubtful compared to steel cores. Although it would penetrate engine cooling jackets and some other alloy castings. Some fighters in the BoB only had one gun with the good incendiary ammo and one with the old incendiary tracer. Spitfires later in the war had two .303s with AP (hardened steel cores) and two guns with good incendiary, which means they were more effective than four .303 guns in the BoB. 

The US was improving the velocity but right around 1940/41, the British were ordering new .50 cal ammo from commercial suppliers in 1940 with the older velocity, they were also getting older "surplus" military ammo. It was in 1940 that the gun's rate of fire was increased. Incendiary ammo was still in development. 

The Jump to the 20mm wasn't quite as dramatic. Or should we say traumatic 
The 20mm was about twice as heavy, the ammo was just over twice as heavy and the effectiveness was at least double if not triple. Effectiveness for installed weight was at least as good if not better.


----------



## ThomasP (Mar 19, 2019)

If anyone is interested and has not seen it already, the earliest reference I have run across as to the higher velocity ammunition for the .50 cal Browning is the 1940 version of the field manual. It references "current production" ammunition of 2400-2500 fps and "new production" ammunition of 2700-2800 fps. It is the only reference that I have found that mentions both types and indicates a time for the changeover.

I have also read that some of the reliability problems for the .50 cal in the very early-war period, particular in the PTO, was due to use of the wrong velocity ammunition in the wrong mod of the M2. Specifically, some aircraft encountered situations where they would get only 1 round fired and then the gun(s) would fail to function. The actual failures were mentioned in official messages but there was no analysis in the messages as to the cause. There were several missions where multiple aircraft experienced multiple gun failures of this type (possibly implying that the gun was a high velocity mod but the ammunition was the old low velocity??).


----------



## ThomasP (Mar 19, 2019)

In response to Ivan1GFP's post#1030,

I am not sure, but I think you misunderstood what I meant in my post#1029. If I am understanding what you said correctly you are saying almost the exact opposite of what I meant.

What I meant to get across was that regardless of who was firing at who's airplane, no one could afford to ignore or laugh at the enemy's weapons set.

As far as I know the Wildcat pilots turned toward the enemy on their squadron mates tails out of desperation, since there was basically no chance of them doing anything about the enemy on their own tail. If their squadron mates could do the same to help them out, there was at least some chance of shooting down the enemy, or at least helping their squadron mates not get shot down by denying the enemy a free shot. Saburu Sakai scored many of his kills with his 7.7mm MGs only. While he was not an average pilot by any definition, there were many other pilots who did the same (I mentioned the Ki-47 pilots as an example).

In an interview a long time after the war, Gunther Rall commented on the quality of difference nations aircraft. When asked what he thought the best fighter weapon of the war was, his reply (I am paraphrasing here because I do not have a transcript of the interview to hand) went something like this. "If you were to pick only one type of weapon to carry the Americans probably had the best balance in the .50 cal Browning. But people who disparage the British with their .303 cal MGs are incorrect. When there are 8 or 12 of them firing, you would end up with a hole in every part of the airplane...including you."


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Mar 19, 2019)

Hello ThomasP,
I wasn't really describing the Thach Weave / Beam Defense Maneuver.
I believe it really was a belief that the Wildcat was strong enough to take more than a few hits from the 7.7 mm MG on the A6M especially from astern and survive long enough for someone else to come along and scrape the attacker off his tail. As I understand it, this was a tactic used in a many versus many type fight as opposed to just one aircraft clearing the wingman's tail.

- Ivan.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Mar 19, 2019)

ThomasP said:


> As far as I know the Wildcat pilots turned toward the enemy on their squadron mates tails out of desperation, since there was basically no chance of them doing anything about the enemy on their own tail.


That was the famous "Thach weave"; far from desperation, those turns were according to plan. That plan worked for a Grumman Iron Works product that could withstand a brief spray of 7.7 while it shot the persecutor off its wingman's tail. It wouldn't work so well for a fragile tinderbox like a Zeke or an Oscar. With their limited cannon ammunition, Japanese pilots would often begin firing with their 7.7s, to get on target, then kick in the 20s. Thus a brief "ranging" burst would often not have any 20MM in it.
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Mar 20, 2019)

For what it's worth:
The A6M2 had 2 x 7.7 mm MG with about 650 rounds per gun (680?) for a total firing time of around 45 seconds.
The 20 mm Type 99-1 cannon had firing rate of about 500 rounds per minute but only 60 rounds were carried for each gun.
Total firing time for the cannon was only about 7 seconds which is rather pitiful.

- Ivan.


----------



## ThomasP (Mar 20, 2019)

Hey guys, in response to Ivan1GFP's post#1034 and XBe02Drvr,

(Please bear in mind that I am not a fighter pilot, and I apologize ahead of time for any mistakes.)

In a mass dogfight any pilot that could get a shot on an enemy aircraft, whether from behind, to the side, or somewhat head-on, would normally do so. If this meant turning into the enemy this was done, even in the earliest days of WWI aerial combat (at least once they were using forward fixed guns). Head-on shots were not uncommon, but most pilots tried to avoid them.

My understanding of the Thatch Weave is that it was intended to be used by a 'loose two' (i.e. 2 aircraft more or less abeam and far enough apart that if they turned toward each other they could hopefully meet head-on approximately in the middle or, even better, a little before the middle) or a 'loose 4' formation (i.e. same as for the 'loose 2' but with two groups of two turning toward each other).

The Thatch Weave came about because once an enemy (who is as skilled as you are or possibly better, often outnumbers you, and in an airplane that outclasses your plane in all areas of maneuver but dive speed and roll at high speed) is in a shooting position or almost in a shooting position, there is almost nothing else that will accomplish anything. The only options you have are to start as tight a turn as you can, roll and start a turn, turn and climb, half-loop, full loop, or half-roll and dive (none of the WW2 aircraft had enough excess energy to use a rolling scissors or climbing roll effectively, and the Ki-47 and A6M were 2 of the very few that could do more than 1 loop consecutively). The Ki-47 and A6M were better at all of the options except maybe the half-roll and dive (but even then the Wildcat had to gain enough speed that the enemy could not follow them in a roll and turn) or turn into the enemy where if the enemy chose, they could usual turn it into a mutual head on pass. When I said desperate I did not mean the pilots were panicking, I meant that the pilots understood that there was very little else that they could do to achieve an acceptable outcome. If an acceptable outcome is to achieve a head-on pass where mutual destruction was a distinct possibility, and where at best the odds were about 50/50 as to who won, I would call that desperate. (I realize that even head-on passes usually did not result in hits.)

As to the effectiveness of the 20mm vs the .50 cal Browning vs the .303/7.7mm cal MGs I refer you back my post#1029 with the addition:

All(?) the major combatants in WWII initially equipped their 20mm armed aircraft with ~60-round drums. As far as I have read, although all combatants attempted to increase the ammo load, none of the combatants thought the short firing time was worthless or pitiful.

Again, if anyone has run across WWII fighter pilots saying something like "You have to watch out for those __________, they'll get you every time, but don't worry about the __________, HA HA, they are worthless".  (Feel free to substitute different weapons for either of the blank positions in the preceding sentence.) please let me know (seriously).

[edit] Sorry again, I meant Ki-43, not Ki-47.


----------



## Glider (Mar 20, 2019)

Ther


Ivan1GFP said:


> For what it's worth:
> The A6M2 had 2 x 7.7 mm MG with about 650 rounds per gun (680?) for a total firing time of around 45 seconds.
> The 20 mm Type 99-1 cannon had firing rate of about 500 rounds per minute but only 60 rounds were carried for each gun.
> Total firing time for the cannon was only about 7 seconds which is rather pitiful.
> ...


There are a number of negative comments 're the Zero only having 60 rounds. It's worth remembering that the RAF, Luftwaffe, USAAF also started with 60rpg for their 20mm.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Mar 20, 2019)

ThomasP said:


> the Thatch Weave is that it was intended to be used by a 'loose two' (i.e. 2 aircraft more or less abeam and far enough apart that if they turned toward each other they could hopefully meet head-on


Well, I have a lifetime score of only two conversations with combat experienced F4F pilots, but being a "fighter nerd" in my younger days, I focussed on their comments on the Tach weave. One of them had learned it "straight from the horse's mouth". Apparently in practice, they would fly not quite as loose as you described, and angle in so as to cross at about a 45° angle, giving the shooter a nice lead for a deflection shot at the victim's pursuer, followed by an immediate reversal allowing the former victim a deflection shot at any pursuers his partner may have acquired. Given the nimbleness of Japanese aircraft, this only worked if it was kept close and tight with a high weave rate, thus guaranteeing that any shooting opportunities the enemy got were in a high G turn against a maneuvering target. (Read Sakai's account of "the incredible acrobatic Grumman").
The guy who was in Thach's squadron said that the Old Man was an absolute stickler for gunnery, and would transfer a pilot out of the squadron if he couldn't make a deadly deflection shooter out of him. I believe Thach was quoted as saying "A pilot who can't hit with four guns won't shoot down any planes with eight!
Cheers,
Wes

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


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Mar 20, 2019)

DISREGARD!
DUMBPHONE ERROR!



ThomasP said:


> the Thatch Weave is that it was intended to be used by a 'loose two' (i.e. 2 aircraft more or less abeam and far enough apart that if they turned toward each other they could hopefully meet head-on


Well, I have a lifetime score of only two conversations with combat experienced F4F pilots, but being a "fighter nerd" in my younger days, I focussed on their comments on the Thach weave. One of them had learned it "straight from the horse's mouth". Apparently in practice, they would fly not quite as loose as you described, and angle in so as to cross at about a 45° angle, giving the shooter a nice lead for a deflection shot at the victim's pursuer, followed by an immediate reversal allowing the former victim a deflection shot at any pursuers his partner may have acquired. Given the nimbleness of Japanese aircraft, this only worked if it was kept close and tight with a high weave rate, thus guaranteeing that any shooting opportunities the enemy got were in a high G turn against a maneuvering target. (Read Sakai's account of "the incredible acrobatic Grumman").
The guy who was in Thach's squadron said that the Old Man was an absolute stickler for gunnery, and would transfer a pilot out of the squadron if he couldn't make a deadly deflection shooter out of him. I believe Thach was quoted as saying "A pilot who can't hit with four guns won't shoot down any planes with eight!
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ThomasP (Mar 20, 2019)

Thanks for the reply XBe02Drvr,

I tried plotting out the maneuver as you described it, but I could only get to work if there were 2x Wildcat vs 1x Zero. If there were 2x Zero then #1 Wildcat would have to continue onward in order for the #2 Wildcat to gain a position on the #1 Wildcat's trailer. He might get a shot at the #1 Wildcat's trailer but the #2 Wildcat's trailer would get a shot on the #2 Wildcat. The only way that the #1 Wildcat could then get a shot on the #2 Wildcat's trailer would be if the #1 Wildcat more or less stopped and rotated in place. I realize that there is some 3d maneuvering possible, but one thing the Wildcat was not is an energy fighter, at least not in comparison to the Zero or Ki-47. I also realize that I am in effect operating as a God's Eye In The Sky, but everything else being equal including the number of opponents, I can not get it to work. I could get it to work with a front deflection shot kind of the way I described it in my post#1037, instead of a head-on shot, but only if the trailers' rate of overtake was too high. If you feel like it, would you try plotting it out and see if you can get it to work out differently from what I think??


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 20, 2019)

ThomasP said:


> In an interview a long time after the war, Gunther Rall commented on the quality of difference nations aircraft. When asked what he thought the best fighter weapon of the war was, his reply (I am paraphrasing here because I do not have a transcript of the interview to hand) went something like this. "If you were to pick only one type of weapon to carry the Americans probably had the best balance in the .50 cal Browning. But people who disparage the British with their .303 cal MGs are incorrect. When there are 8 or 12 of them firing, you would end up with a hole in every part of the airplane...including you."




I may well be reading a lot more into that than Gunther Rall actually said, but an advantage the .50 had over many other aircraft guns was the short time of flight which meant it needed less lead than most other aircraft guns, The Americans also tended to use the .50 almost by itself, P-39s, P-38s and early P-40s aside for army fighters while many other nations (like the Germans) used mixed batteries with each gun type having a different trajectory (not that important) and a different time of flight to any distance other than short. Meaning they needed different aiming points. No German fighter could carry a large battery of machine guns (although they never tried with the Fw 190, you still have smallish wing to try to stuff more than 4-6 small machine guns in. for the US ( and late model Spitfires) the .50 and 20mm Hispano actually matched very well at any practical air to air distance so the P-38 didn't suffer from the mixed battery.


----------



## michael rauls (Mar 20, 2019)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Well, I have a lifetime score of only two conversations with combat experienced F4F pilots, but being a "fighter nerd" in my younger days, I focussed on their comments on the Tach weave. One of them had learned it "straight from the horse's mouth". Apparently in practice, they would fly not quite as loose as you described, and angle in so as to cross at about a 45° angle, giving the shooter a nice lead for a deflection shot at the victim's pursuer, followed by an immediate reversal allowing the former victim a deflection shot at any pursuers his partner may have acquired. Given the nimbleness of Japanese aircraft, this only worked if it was kept close and tight with a high weave rate, thus guaranteeing that any shooting opportunities the enemy got were in a high G turn against a maneuvering target. (Read Sakai's account of "the incredible acrobatic Grumman").
> The guy who was in Thach's squadron said that the Old Man was an absolute stickler for gunnery, and would transfer a pilot out of the squadron if he couldn't make a deadly deflection shooter out of him. I believe Thach was quoted as saying "A pilot who can't hit with four guns won't shoot down any planes with eight!
> Cheers,
> Wes


Thanks for that explanation of the Thatch weave. I've never really read a consise explanation of it before so was always a little fuzzy on how it worked.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Mar 20, 2019)

ThomasP said:


> If you feel like it, would you try plotting it out and see if you can get it to work out differently from what I think??





michael rauls said:


> Thanks for that explanation of the Thatch weave. I've never really read a consise explanation of it before so was always a little fuzzy on how it worked.


I long ago gave up trying to do scale plots of ACM engagements. It's a highly dynamic event and there are too many variables happening too fast to accurately depict on paper and then duplicate in the air. And if you've ever compared an airplane's estimated maneuvering performance from published statistics to what you can actually do with it in the air, you'll know what I mean.
Experience is the best teacher, and in that department, far be it from the likes of me to question Cdr. Thach or his disciples.
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Mar 20, 2019)

Glider said:


> There are a number of negative comments 're the Zero only having 60 rounds. It's worth remembering that the RAF, Luftwaffe, USAAF also started with 60rpg for their 20mm.



Hello Glider,
That DOES seem a bit strange doesn't it? That thought had occurred to me as well, but I was figuring that it might have something to do with a particularly flimsy aircraft carrying the armament and unusually tough targets.
Did the P-38 Lightning actually start with only 60 rounds for its cannon? The ammunition load for wartime models was 150 rounds and it was the only USAAF fighter to carry a 20 mm. I figure the P-39 Airacobra really doesn't count because its 20 mm was a British specification and US spec aircraft would have had a 37 mm.

- Ivan.


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Mar 20, 2019)

ThomasP said:


> The Thatch Weave came about because once an enemy (who is as skilled as you are or possibly better, often outnumbers you, and in an airplane that outclasses your plane in all areas of maneuver but dive speed and roll at high speed) is in a shooting position or almost in a shooting position, there is almost nothing else that will accomplish anything. The only options you have are to start as tight a turn as you can, roll and start a turn, turn and climb, half-loop, full loop, or half-roll and dive.....



Hello ThomasP,
I believe in your account, you are writing with the benefit of hindsight and greater knowledge of the opposition than Cdr. Thach had at the time he devised the tactic. 
As I understand it, the context was the following: The US was getting reports of the superior performance of Japanese fighters and was discounting the reports as not being believable. "Jimmy" Thach (and others) thought about what they could do IF the reports turned out to be true and the opposition was as superior in performance as reports were claiming. The proof of concept was done with Wildcats as both attacker and defender but the defenders were only allowed to use part throttle in order to reduce their relative performance.



ThomasP said:


> As to the effectiveness of the 20mm vs the .50 cal Browning vs the .303/7.7mm cal MGs I refer you back my post#1029 with the addition:
> 
> All(?) the major combatants in WWII initially equipped their 20mm armed aircraft with ~60-round drums. As far as I have read, although all combatants attempted to increase the ammo load, none of the combatants thought the short firing time was worthless or pitiful.



This opinion that you state was not universally shared. There are some accounts that disparage the cannon because of the short duration of fire and how they were just dead weight for most of the fight. Pitiful is my choice of words, not theirs.
Are you sure that Soviet and US aircraft with 20 mm guns only carried 60 rounds per gun?

- Ivan.


----------



## Glider (Mar 20, 2019)

Ivan1GFP said:


> Hello Glider,
> That DOES seem a bit strange doesn't it? That thought had occurred to me as well, but I was figuring that it might have something to do with a particularly flimsy aircraft carrying the armament and unusually tough targets.
> Did the P-38 Lightning actually start with only 60 rounds for its cannon? The ammunition load for wartime models was 150 rounds and it was the only USAAF fighter to carry a 20 mm. I figure the P-39 Airacobra really doesn't count because its 20 mm was a British specification and US spec aircraft would have had a 37 mm.
> 
> - Ivan.


I'm pretty sure that the first P38's had 60rpg and I thought that the Japanese moved to a larger drum initially 90 then again up to 120 rounds which isn't much less than the Spit and other allied aircraft.


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Mar 20, 2019)

Glider said:


> I'm pretty sure that the first P38's had 60rpg and I thought that the Japanese moved to a larger drum initially 90 then again up to 120 rounds which isn't much less than the Spit and other allied aircraft.



Hello Glider, 
I will do some checking about the P-38. I believe it started life with a 23 mm Madsen gun but no idea of the ammunition capacity.
From my notes on the A6M series, the early A6M2 would have had only 60 round drums. Eventually the ammunition load was increased to a 100 round drum and after that, it went to a 125 round belt. Firing rate dropped slightly from around 500-520 rounds/minute down to about 480 rounds/minute. I believe this change happened with the switch to the long barrel Type 99-2.
Eventually the A6M2 types got a larger amount of cannon ammunition as well, but it wasn't the same A6M2 as fought at Coral Sea and Midway. It was by that time only built as a Fighter Bomber version by Nakajima. I know the book that should have the details but I don't happen to know where that book is at the moment.

- Ivan.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ThomasP (Mar 20, 2019)

In response to Ivan1GFP post#1046,

I think the first few US P-38s to be fitted with the 20mm (very late Ds?, very early Es?) used a 60-round drum, but I do not know if any of that variant saw combat. The model of P-38 (model 322? without turbocharger) intended to be sold to the UK used a 60-round drum (it is noted in the weight&balance sheet).

As for the Soviet 20mm weapons, all I can say is that I think I remember reading that the early production fighter aircraft fitted with the engines based on the Hispano Suiza 12Y, (at least in the aircraft also fitted with a 20mm firing through the propeller shaft) used a 60-round drum. I do not know how authoritative the source was or how these engine/gun/magazine installations evolved over time in the Soviet air forces.


----------



## ThomasP (Mar 20, 2019)

Hey Shortround6, in response to your post#1042

I do not think you are reading too much into what Gunther Rall said.


----------



## ThomasP (Mar 20, 2019)

In response to XBe02Drvr post#1044, and to Ivan1GFP post#1046,

Ivan1GFP I agree with your assessment of 20/20 hindsight, and raise you my God's Eye In The Sky comment.

XBe02Drvr, first see my comment immediately above. My main quibble (for lack of a better word) relative to the Thatch Weave is that neither I nor anyone else that I know have been able to simulate it in either an air-air combat board game or in a computer flight sim, unless it was a 2x Wildcat vs 1x Zero scenario. I also once spoke with a friend who taught air-air maneuver tactics in the USN in the 1980s and 1990s, and his comment on the Thatch Weave was that "it didn't work that way". At the time it was just part of a normal conversation so I did not think that much of it, but what I have learned since makes me wonder. Possibly what Ivan1GFP said in his post#1046 explains some of my questioning of popular accounts?


----------



## wuzak (Mar 20, 2019)

Ivan1GFP said:


> Hello Glider,
> I will do some checking about the P-38. I believe it started life with a 23 mm Madsen gun but no idea of the ammunition capacity.



It was also supposed to, at one stage, have the 37mm cannon too.

Proposals by Bell leading up to the P-39 program at times also used the Madsen, as well as an unnamed 25mm cannon.


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 20, 2019)

ThomasP said:


> As for the Soviet 20mm weapons, all I can say is that I think I remember reading that the early production fighter aircraft fitted with the engines based on the Hispano Suiza 12Y, (at least in the aircraft also fitted with a 20mm firing through the propeller shaft) used a 60-round drum. I do not know how authoritative the source was or how these engine/gun/magazine installations evolved over time in the Soviet air forces.



it may depend on the translation. The Russian 20mm guns were belt feed, at least any that made it into WW II, however









There is a rotary cage or drum around the receiver of the gun that is used to pull the ammo out of the belt. This gives a more gradual pull on rim as it comes out of the links, especially considering the rate of fire this gun used. 

Depending on how good the translation from Russian to English (or other language) is this "drum" may be confused with a normal feed drum. 
There are a lot of, shall we say, less than optimum, translations even in books about Russian equipement. It may have been correct in Russian but the translation sometimes makes no sense or uses a term that causes confusion.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Mar 21, 2019)

ThomasP said:


> neither I nor anyone else that I know have been able to simulate it in either an air-air combat board game or in a computer flight sim, unless it was a 2x Wildcat vs 1x Zero scenario. I also once spoke with a friend who taught air-air maneuver tactics in the USN in the 1980s and 1990s, and his comment on the Thatch Weave was that "it didn't work that way"


There are many details of the flight dynamics of tactical aircraft, especially in high performance maneuvering, that are not accurately depicted in board games and computer flight sim programs, especially if they've been reconstructed from historical statistics. Just too many variables.
And the ACM options of a Tomcat or Hornet pilot don't bear much analogy in detail to an F4F. The presence of guided and homing weapons is a game changer. And in a guns-only environment, a tactic that depends on accurate deflection shooting from the forward quarter is not the best option at jet speeds and ranges. Besides, with their high energy capabilities, these jets have better options. In the 70s, I used to work in support of a squadron that taught ACM in F4s, pre-Tomcat. Rode through a few episodes of "turn n' burn" while trying to learn to tweak the radar set in the trainer.
Some of the instructors there allowed as how the Thach weave was brilliant in its time, but it wasn't pertinent to modern ACM.
I think I'll stick to the descriptions I got from guys who'd been there and done it.
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Mar 21, 2019)

ThomasP said:


> XBe02Drvr, first see my comment immediately above. My main quibble (for lack of a better word) relative to the Thatch Weave is that neither I nor anyone else that I know have been able to simulate it in either an air-air combat board game or in a computer flight sim, unless it was a 2x Wildcat vs 1x Zero scenario. I also once spoke with a friend who taught air-air maneuver tactics in the USN in the 1980s and 1990s, and his comment on the Thatch Weave was that "it didn't work that way". At the time it was just part of a normal conversation so I did not think that much of it, but what I have learned since makes me wonder. Possibly what Ivan1GFP said in his post#1046 explains some of my questioning of popular accounts?



Hello ThomasP,
What exactly didn't work when trying to reproduce the Thach Weave in Flight Simulators?
I believe I have some fairly good flight models for both the A6M2 and the F4F-4. 
The low speed acceleration of the A6M2 is a touch low but it should not affect things.
It sounds from the descriptions that there isn't anything particularly difficult to execute as far as maneuvers.

Hello Glider,
From what I could find in a book by Robert Mikesh.....
Type 99 cannon models are as follows: (Type 99-1 are short barrel versions and Type 99-2 are long barrel.)
Type 99-1 Model 3 had 60 round drums with cyclic rate of 520 rounds/minute
This would have been the typical armament of the A6M2 and earlier and early A6M3-32 and A6M3-22
Type 99-2 Model 3 started with a 100 round drum with a cyclic rate of 490 rounds / minute.
They were installed starting with A6M3-22 and A6M5.
I believe they were also installed in some A6M3-32 but the book does not mention it.
Type 99-2 Model 4 was belt fed and had a cyclic rate of 500 rounds/minute
They were installed in the later A6M5 models and A6M6 and A6M7.
Type 99-2 Model 5 was belt fed and had a cyclic rate of 750 rounds/minute
It would have been installed in the A6M8 but unconfirmed.

I have seen references which list the firing rates of some Type 99-2 long barrel guns as being pretty low initially but improved as time went on.
Another interesting thing is that the A6M2 Sen Baku (Fighter Bomber) is supposed to be using 100 round drums for its 20 mm cannon but seem (according to models and paintings) to be using the short barrel Type 99-1 cannon for a variation that is not listed above.

- Ivan.


----------



## Glider (Mar 21, 2019)

Many thanks for this.


----------



## martinrn (Mar 21, 2019)

Agree entirely with Wozac. Both planes were actually failures for Northern Europe. Both had very poor high altitude performance. At altitude, every German plane outclassed them easily. However, large investments were made in their R&D and production facilities, so something had to be done with them. Rather than garbage them, they were re-purposed into ground attack planes. The Typhoon excelled at this and far surpassed the P-40 in this role. The Typhoon was also the only Allied plane that had the speed at low altitudes to catch the V-1 rocket and FW-190 recon planes. The P-40's were more successful in the Pacific, where they could use their superiour dive speed to utilize the swoop & climb tactics first instituted by Chenault's Flying Tigers. All US fighters had superiour dive speed performance than Japanese planes. Japanese were never able to overcome these tactics. As long as US fighters did not get enticed into a turning dogfight, which all Japanese planes excelled at, they would usually win. With most air combat in Northern Europe taking place at high altitude, the P-40 did not have the performance. It could not utilize the swoop & climb tactics against the Germans that it used against the Japanese. It was virtually worthless in the high altitude fight, as was the Typhoon. However, the Typhoon became a formidable ground attack plane, which the P-40 never did. However, the P-40 was better in the Pacific.

Reactions: Disagree Disagree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ThomasP (Mar 21, 2019)

In response to Shortround6 post#1053 and Ivan1GFP post#1046

I think Shortrund6 is correct as to my misinterpretation of the Russian aircraft manual. After I read your posts I did a search of "soviet russian drum fed cannon" and found very good descriptions of the cannon and MG 'bird-cage' loading system which was fed from a belt. Thanks guys.


----------



## Elvis (Mar 22, 2019)

...when given the choice...always.....






...P40's! For the win! (  )


(...and in case you're curious, that piece of art can be purchased HERE)


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Mar 24, 2019)

martinrn said:


> Agree entirely with Wozac. Both planes were actually failures for Northern Europe. Both had very poor high altitude performance. At altitude, every German plane outclassed them easily. However, large investments were made in their R&D and production facilities, so something had to be done with them. Rather than garbage them, they were re-purposed into ground attack planes. The Typhoon excelled at this and far surpassed the P-40 in this role. The Typhoon was also the only Allied plane that had the speed at low altitudes to catch the V-1 rocket and FW-190 recon planes. The P-40's were more successful in the Pacific, where they could use their superiour dive speed to utilize the swoop & climb tactics first instituted by Chenault's Flying Tigers. All US fighters had superiour dive speed performance than Japanese planes. Japanese were never able to overcome these tactics. As long as US fighters did not get enticed into a turning dogfight, which all Japanese planes excelled at, they would usually win. With most air combat in Northern Europe taking place at high altitude, the P-40 did not have the performance. It could not utilize the swoop & climb tactics against the Germans that it used against the Japanese. It was virtually worthless in the high altitude fight, as was the Typhoon. However, the Typhoon became a formidable ground attack plane, which the P-40 never did. However, the P-40 was better in the Pacific.



Hello Martinrn,
In general, this isn't a bad summary, but in specifics, it falls apart pretty fast.
The P-40 actually remained a front line fighter in the CBI theater for quite some time and later versions such as P-40N were at least equal in performance to most Japanese designs, especially in CBI.
You will find in reviewing tests of Koga's A6M2 that the conclusion was that the Wildcat did NOT have a diving acceleration or speed advantage over the A6M2. The zoom climb of A6M2 was also noted as being very good. There were quite a few late war Japanese fighters that did not have the maximum dive speed limitations as the A6M and Ki 43 series.
Not all the Japanese aircraft were good turn fighters. The Ki 44 Shoki, Ki 61 Hien, and (at least in the opinion of the Japanese) the J2M Raiden were not so good at that style of fighting.
As for the P-40 being better in the Pacific, there simply is no comparison because the Typhoon was never operated in the PTO.

As far as I am concerned, the two subjects of this thread were simply different aircraft in many performance and quality aspects.
One can find enough advantages in either aircraft to argue that it was better, but I believe it is better just to understand the differences and what they imply. 
In a head to head fight, assuming the Typhoon was working well, I would pick the Typhoon because of firepower and because speed advantages would allow it to control the fight, but one has to also remember that the P-40 was a viable fighter against the enemy for much longer than the Typhoon was. If I was running an air force, for most of their operation lives, I would pick a force of 1000 P-40s over a force of 1000 Typhoons because of the Typhoon had way too many reliability and structural issues for much of its life.

- Ivan.

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


----------



## wuzak (Mar 24, 2019)

Ivan1GFP said:


> In a head to head fight, assuming the Typhoon was working well, I would pick the Typhoon because of firepower and because speed advantages would allow it to control the fight, but one has to also remember that the P-40 was a viable fighter against the enemy for much longer than the Typhoon was. If I was running an air force, for most of their operation lives, I would pick a force of 1000 P-40s over a force of 1000 Typhoons because of the Typhoon had way too many reliability and structural issues for much of its life.



The P-40 was really no more viable as a fighter than the Typhoon in the theatre that the Typhoon operated - ie the ETO.

The structural issues of the Typhoon must have been solved by 1944 when they carried 2,000lb of bombs and dove at high speed in bomb and rocket attacks.


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 24, 2019)

I believe (but could be wrong) that the Typhoon didn't really have "structural" problems. 
I believe it had control surface flutter problems (?) and vibration problems from the Engine/prop which manifested themselves in failures near the tail. 
The famous fishplates at the tail joint not really fixing the problem (they may have delayed it) but were left on as confidence builders for the pilots.
They didn't really hurt performance.


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Mar 24, 2019)

Hello Shortround6,
Thanks for pointing out the harmonics problems that manifested as structural failures. Your description is obviously more correct.



wuzak said:


> The P-40 was really no more viable as a fighter than the Typhoon in the theatre that the Typhoon operated - ie the ETO.
> 
> The structural issues of the Typhoon must have been solved by 1944 when they carried 2,000lb of bombs and dove at high speed in bomb and rocket attacks.



Hello Wuzak,
The P-40 was available in one version or another from the beginning of the war in 1939.
If we are discussing just the short nosed P-40, that would have been available in late 1941 or about the same time as the Typhoon.

If we think about places they could have served as fighters:
As a low-medium altitude fighter over Europe, the P-40 probably was not competitive past 1941.
The Typhoon was pretty fair for the level of performance it COULD give.
As an escort fighter over Germany, neither was capable.
As a low-medium altitude fighter over Africa and the MTO until the end of the campaign, both had sufficient performance.
As a low-medium altitude fighter in the Pacific / CBI, both would have been capable except that the Typhoon was never used in that theater.
The point is that for most of the time the Typhoon was operational, it had either engine reliability or problems with structural failures to make things interesting for its pilots while the P-40 with less performance was much more reliable.

- Ivan.

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


----------



## Milosh (Mar 24, 2019)

Going thru the loss list for the Typhoon (from memory) there was only about half a dozen rear fuselage failures. Early Bf109Fs also had such a problem.


----------



## Greyman (Mar 24, 2019)

I think 26 is the official suspected number of losses due to in-flight failures.


----------



## wuzak (Mar 25, 2019)

Ivan1GFP said:


> The P-40 was available in one version or another from the beginning of the war in 1939.



No, it really wasn't.

The P-40 (no letter) was starting to be delivered in mid 1940. 200 were delivered to the USAAC before deliveries were deferred in order to supply the French, which then became the British. These were the Tomahawk I, which was deemed unfit for combat because they lacked self sealing fuel tanks and armour.

The improved P-40B didn't fly until March of 1941. The P-40C in April. These introduced self-sealing fuel tanks.

The P-40D was the first of the P-40s with the short nose V-1710. That started production in May 1941, and was being delivered to the RAF by late 1941. 





Ivan1GFP said:


> If we are discussing just the short nosed P-40, that would have been available in late 1941 or about the same time as the Typhoon.
> 
> If we think about places they could have served as fighters:
> As a low-medium altitude fighter over Europe, the P-40 probably was not competitive past 1941.



So not at all competitive in the ETO?




Ivan1GFP said:


> The Typhoon was pretty fair for the level of performance it COULD give.



The Typhoon was rushed to service before it was ready, which possibly exacerbated the reliability issues it had. 




Ivan1GFP said:


> As an escort fighter over Germany, neither was capable.



As a high altitude escort to Germany, no, but the Typhoon did perform low altitude escort over occupied Europe, including for Mosquitoes.

Not something the P-40 could have done.




Ivan1GFP said:


> As a low-medium altitude fighter over Africa and the MTO until the end of the campaign, both had sufficient performance.



The Typhoon was not used in the MTO.

But if it was, it would have been more competitive due to its performance advantage.




Ivan1GFP said:


> As a low-medium altitude fighter in the Pacific / CBI, both would have been capable except that the Typhoon was never used in that theater.



The Typhoon would have been more capable.




Ivan1GFP said:


> The point is that for most of the time the Typhoon was operational, it had either engine reliability or problems with structural failures to make things interesting for its pilots while the P-40 with less performance was much more reliable.



As above, the reliability of the Typhoon was marred by its premature introduction into service. Later in its career it was much more reliable.

Not sure the structural failures were that significant in the scheme of things. 

The point I am making is that anything the P-40 could do in any theatre, the Typhoon could do it better.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (Mar 25, 2019)

Milosh said:


> Going thru the loss list for the Typhoon (from memory) there was only about half a dozen rear fuselage failures. Early Bf109Fs also had such a problem.


Not often commented on but the G also had that problem. The VNE was significantly reduced due to structural problems.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Mar 25, 2019)

Hello Wuzak,
Thanks for the correction regarding early P-40 timeline. My goof.

If it worked, the Typhoon was obviously the better performer, but the problem is that for a long time, it simply didn't work.
How long in the middle of a war should its introduction have been delayed? Long enough for it to safely fly the Channel and back without the engine dying? Long enough to figure out why the tails were falling off? Long enough to address the poor roll rate as they eventually did with spring tab ailerons on the Tempest?
If it were such a wonderful aircraft, one has to wonder WHY with 3,000-something aircraft produced, it wasn't used in all the places that purchased and Lend-Lease P-40s were used late in the war and why all were scrapped at the end of the war. Perhaps it was just a bit too delicate and unreliable to be supported anywhere but continental Europe?

- Ivan.

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


----------



## Kevin J (Mar 25, 2019)

Ivan1GFP said:


> Hello Wuzak,
> Thanks for the correction regarding early P-40 timeline. My goof.
> 
> If it worked, the Typhoon was obviously the better performer, but the problem is that for a long time, it simply didn't work.
> ...



The Warhawk could have been improved to make it as good as the Typhoon if not better simply by installing a Merlin 60 series engine. The Mustang is the reason it never happened. IMO, the Warhawk had the better air frame.


----------



## Elvis (Mar 25, 2019)

There wasn't enough room in the airframe for the two-stage supercharger in the P-40.
Would've had to have been modified; nose lengthened, tail and/or cockpit pushed back.
Probably not too far (definitely not "YP-37 setback"!), but changes would've had to have been made.
I think the Merlin 60 in the P-51 was just an easier fit (not sure, just thinkin').


Elvis


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 25, 2019)

You probably could have stuck a two stage Merlin in a P-40. It just might have been harder than many people believe. 

Mustang MK X





this is after the forward cowl was modified. 
The Mustang and the Spitfire both had their radiators behind the center of gravity. 
Most of the Allison Mustangs had a pair of .50 cal guns _under_ the engine, not behind it. 




The P-40 is adding several hundred pounds of engine, a bigger, heavier prop all forward of the CG. 

It needs a bigger radiator, bigger oil cooler and the radiator for the intercooler. 

The P-40 Q mounted the two stage Allison which was longer than the two stage Merlin (much longer) but it took around 20in of extra fuselage length to do it. Merlin won't need that much but the radiators will probably have to be moved. The P-40Q used radiators in/under the wings just outboard of the landing gear. 




Oil cooler may have stayed in the nose. The two stage Allison in the P-40Q did not use an intercooler (?). 

I am not sure what a Merlin two stage powered P-40 looks like when you get done. Chances of it being better than a P-51 are Slim and None and Slim has already taken the noon train out of town. The P-51 (or A-36) was faster using the same engine while carrying more fuel and ammo.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Mar 25, 2019)

The 2 stage Merlin was about 8 inches longer than the single stage 2 speed Merlin.

So a V-1650-3 Merlin would make the P-40 at least 8 inches longer than the P-40F.


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 25, 2019)

wuzak said:


> So a V-1650-3 Merlin would make the P-40 at least 8 inches longer than the P-40F.



You might do it shorter than that by rearranging oil tanks and whatnot. P-40 oil tanks tended to bounce around between models. But finding space for the larger radiators (big belly scoop on P-51B and bigger radiator housings on the MK IX Spit) ditto for the oil coolers and ditto again for the intercooler radiator is going to be a bit harder. 

Some Spits got larger fuel tanks to go with the two stage Merlins. 
Where does the P-40 put extra fuel?


----------



## Elvis (Mar 25, 2019)

No Shortround, you really couldn't. Not without modifying the airframe.


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 25, 2019)

If they could fit one of these in
http://tradecoastcentralheritagepark.com.au/_dbase_upl/Allison_engine_handbook_1944.pdf

go to page 5.

Then fitting in a two stage Merlin is not an insurmountable problem.
It just won't look much like a normal P-40 any more.
Production delay while they retool might not be acceptable.
When you are done you have plane that holds less fuel than the P-51, holds less ammo and is slower.
You could do it but what was the point?

from old thread on this site.






It was much bulkier than the Merlin set up.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## BiffF15 (Mar 26, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> If they could fit one of these in
> http://tradecoastcentralheritagepark.com.au/_dbase_upl/Allison_engine_handbook_1944.pdf
> 
> go to page 5.
> ...




SR6,

You have touched on the age old question of “why didn’t or why did “ the decision makers do what they did or didn’t do. If you mod the P40 to use a better engine you could mod it to carry more ammo, fuel, bubble canopy, etc. Then the question becomes, to me anyway, how much better is it going to be? 

Personally I’m in the camp of continuous improvement, however that’s an easy place to be when you don’t have to answer to the taxpayers regarding your spending decisions. With as many P40’s that were made in the latter half of the war, having a Q type variant would definitely be an improvement and more capable. Bigger engine (HP wise), means bigger lift (two external tanks, more ammo, more bomb weight, etc.) plus longer range and higher speed.

The only drawback is that darn Mustang is faster, longer ranged, and selling like hot cakes. Could’ve, should’ve would’ve: Curtis puts more effort into airframe improvement and Allison Pays Rolls for for the supercharger knowledge to improve the V1710.

Cheers,
Biff

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


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 26, 2019)

BiffF15 said:


> SR6,
> 
> You have touched on the age old question of “why didn’t or why did “ the decision makers do what they did or didn’t do. If you mod the P40 to use a better engine you could mod it to carry more ammo, fuel, bubble canopy, etc. Then the question becomes, to me anyway, how much better is it going to be?
> 
> ...


The tests on the prototype/s show the Mustang was about 20mph faster using similar power. The test P-40Qs had four .50 cal guns and 235rpg (or ballast to represent them and dummy blast tubes.) the P-40Q-2 was tested at 9000lbs take-off weight. which included 11 gallons of water for the water injection system. 

The P-40Q is just too late to the party but is shows that the basic P-40 airframe was not as good as the P-51 using the same power, which was known back in 1941/42 with the Allison engines. 
Now there was some talk about mounting six .50s (or even four 20mm) in a production version but no mention of the hit to performance that would make. 

A Merlin powered P-40 (two stage, not the F & L) could probably have flown in late 1942 and entered production in the Spring of 1943 but for a while in early 1943 Packard couldn't supply enough two stage Merlins to North American and airframes were sitting around waiting for engines, sending engines to Curtiss for a 2nd best fighter would not have been a good idea. By the late summer/ fall of 1943 production had gone from handfuls to 400-500 a month. 

The P-40 had a darn good run for a plane that first flew in May 1935, (10 months before the Spitfire) as the Hawk 75 but at some point you have to stop "improving" and move on to something new.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (Mar 26, 2019)

A little harsh I feel


Ivan1GFP said:


> If it worked, the Typhoon was obviously the better performer, but the problem is that for a long time, it simply didn't work.


Once the IB entered service the reliability improved in particular when Bristol helped Napier with the production of the sleeve valves. Granted that took longer than it should have done but the problems were fixed. Another factor were mechanics who found they could alter some settings to increase power and this was a factor in engine failures.


> How long in the middle of a war should its introduction have been delayed? Long enough for it to safely fly the Channel and back without the engine dying?


 I believe the engine faults were resolved by mid 1943 but its worth remembering that the Typhoon always had a useful role to fulfil initially against the 190 tip and run attacks, then against the V1 and strike missions but she was nearly pulled from production.


> Long enough to figure out why the tails were falling off?


 The reason was finally identified in September 1943 and a fix installed by October 1943. As soon as possible this was part of the standard build in production aircraft and a refit process was also undertaken.  It's important to note that after this, there were no more failures of the tail due to this reason. There were a couple of examples later in the war and these were quickly checked in case the old issue had returned. However it was found that combat damage had caused the tail wheel to lower and if the pilot ignored the symptoms and went into a high speed dive, the tailwheel would vibrate which in turn could lead to the failure of the tail. 


> Long enough to address the poor roll rate as they eventually did with spring tab ailerons on the Tempest?


 I find it interesting that this is an issue as the Typhoon was quite agile and could match the 190 and 109 in a turn. It's turn circle was considerably better than the Tempest


> If it were such a wonderful aircraft, one has to wonder WHY with 3,000-something aircraft produced, it wasn't used in all the places that purchased and Lend-Lease P-40s were used late in the war and why all were scrapped at the end of the war. Perhaps it was just a bit too delicate and unreliable to be supported anywhere but continental Europe?
> - Ivan.


Probably because Europe was the most dangerous environment for GA aircraft and the RAF needed it's best and most robust aircraft for the role. The AA was thicker and the enemy fighters generally had a higher performance than the Japanese and Italian fighters. It should be noted that the USAAF didn't use the P39 or P40 over western Europe and even the P38 was replaced fairly quickly with the USAAF relying mainly on the P47 and P51, so they had the same thought.
As for the last comment. The Typhoon was being replaced by the Tempest, a much higher performing aircraft and the Typhoons day was past, and that's why they were scrapped. That's why so many thousands of combat aircraft were scrapped of all kinds.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Simon Thomas (Mar 26, 2019)

The engine reliability issues were resolved when Rod Banks forced Roy Fedden to assist Napier with sleeve manufacture. Fortunately the Taurus sleeve was the same diameter as the Sabre and the demand for the Taurus was rather weak. I don't have the timeline, but I believe that Bristol first assisted with the Sleeves in Sept 1942, and it took a while for the Sunstrand grinders "stolen" from Pratt & Whitney to be received in the UK and be put into service. Mid 1943 sounds about right.


----------



## Elvis (Mar 26, 2019)

Shortround,

The engine you pictured is not the engine I mentioned. In fact, it was never used in the P-_40_...at least not that version.
...and the link to the manual...???...why are we concerning ourselves with series of V-1710's that weren't used in the P-40?
I thought the picture I posted would show why the P-40 would need mods to house a two-stage SC...I even explained it.
I don't understand why you posted what you posted?...I respect your knowledge and _Google-foo_, but I am really at a loss here...???


Elvis


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Mar 26, 2019)

Hello BiffF15,
One of the really interesting things about the US Army and its choice of fighter development and designs was that Speed seems to be the most important consideration about all other characteristics.
The development of the P-40 from the P-36 gained some speed but lost a significant amount of climb rate and handling quality because of weight increases.
The P-40 as compared to the P-51 is a much more maneuverable and agile aircraft and roll rate is better except at very high speeds but with similar engine installations is usually about 30 MPH slower.



Glider said:


> A little harsh I feel



Hello Glider,
I would have to agree on that point.



Glider said:


> I believe the engine faults were resolved by mid 1943 but its worth remembering that the Typhoon always had a useful role to fulfil initially against the 190 tip and run attacks, then against the V1 and strike missions but she was nearly pulled from production.



The low altitude intercept mission is one that it shared with the Spitfire Mk.XII, so it was not the only aircraft capable of performing that mission.



Glider said:


> I find it interesting that this is an issue as the Typhoon was quite agile and could match the 190 and 109 in a turn. It's turn circle was considerably better than the Tempest



I actually haven't had much luck in finding a good tactical evaluation of the Typhoon. I did find a description by one of its pilots in a video who described it as "clumsy" but I don't know if he was just referring to the cockpit arrangement or general handling. We already know the roll rate was poor. As for having a turn radius better than the FW 190, that is not a particularly great achievement. I am somewhat surprised that it could match a 109 (which model?) in a turn? I know that a Me 109G-6/R6 was tested against various British and American fighters and even with cannon pods under the wings, it turned better than the Mustang. Unfortunately it was one of the lower powered versions and probably why everyone thinks the 109G was so slow.



Glider said:


> Probably because Europe was the most dangerous environment for GA aircraft and the RAF needed it's best and most robust aircraft for the role. The AA was thicker and the enemy fighters generally had a higher performance than the Japanese and Italian fighters. It should be noted that the USAAF didn't use the P39 or P40 over western Europe and even the P38 was replaced fairly quickly with the USAAF relying mainly on the P47 and P51, so they had the same thought.



This is somewhat of a contradiction because an aircraft with high performance isn't really needed for the Ground Attack role, especially since by that stage of the war, the Allies had pretty good air superiority. (Think IL-2 Sturmovik)
It is also worth noting that the choice of US Army fighters for western Europe were determined in the later stages of the war by their compressibility effects. The P-51 suffered least loss of control in a high speed dive, the P-47 had a lower speed for compressibility even though it could recover with the dive flaps added with the later aircraft. Without dive flaps, it was in the same situation as the Typhoon and had to ride down to lower altitudes to recover. The P-38 was too close to its compressibility limit even flying straight and level at high altitude.
Knowing this, and knowing that operations were at lower altitudes in the Pacific, one has to wonder why the much more altitude capable Spitfire Mk.VIII was sent rather than the Typhoon. 



Glider said:


> As for the last comment. The Typhoon was being replaced by the Tempest, a much higher performing aircraft and the Typhoons day was past, and that's why they were scrapped. That's why so many thousands of combat aircraft were scrapped of all kinds.



Many aircraft were scrapped at the end of the war, but some of the more useful though not necessarily current aircraft ended up as foreign military sales. Many countries with their new air forces were desperate for aircraft of all kinds. Older Spitfires made it to quite a few places. Macchi even rebuilt their old C.202 to C.205 standard and sold them. In that environment, one has to wonder if there was some other reason why all Typhoons were scrapped.

- Ivan.


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 26, 2019)

Elvis said:


> Shortround,
> 
> The engine you pictured is not the engine I mentioned. In fact, it was never used in the P-_40_...at least not that version.
> ...and the link to the manual...???...why are we concerning ourselves with series of V-1710's that weren't used in the P-40?
> ...



We are not really disagreeing.

The three P-40Q prototypes used Allison engines with normal reduction gears (sort of, one or more may have used a 2.36 reduction gear) on the front of the engine, however they used superchargers much like the ones in pictures/manual. Instead of the two impellers being in the same housing Allison put the first stage in it's own housing and drove it with a driveshaft and hydraulic variable speed drive (like a DB 601-605). Trying to find pictures of the engines used in the P-40Qs or the P-51J (which first flew in Aug 1945) or the F-82 is rather difficult and the only other plane that used the 2 stage Allison was the P-63 King Cobra, so be default, You wind up with pictures of the E series engines to try to show the supercharger/s.
I would note that there were at least two different setups for these two stage engines, One had the Carburetor between the stages (much like the P & W Engines) and the other had the carburetor mounted on the first stage (rear most compressor.) 

You would need mods to the airframe. Modifications were done, Modifications were also done to the Spitfire and the Mustang to mount engines with two stage superchargers. 

I am trying to point out that the mods, while possible, are extensive and are probably not worth it. And forstall arguments that say "they did it on the Mustang"

You can do a lot of things if you don't care about the cost (both of the item and cost of retooling a factory and lost production).


----------



## Glider (Mar 26, 2019)

Ivan1GFP said:


> The low altitude intercept mission is one that it shared with the Spitfire Mk.XII, so it was not the only aircraft capable of performing that mission.


True but the Spit XII was a short term development whilst they concentrated on getting the Spit XIV right and I don't think many people would argue that this wasn't the right decision.


> I actually haven't had much luck in finding a good tactical evaluation of the Typhoon. I did find a description by one of its pilots in a video who described it as "clumsy" but I don't know if he was just referring to the cockpit arrangement or general handling. We already know the roll rate was poor. As for having a turn radius better than the FW 190, that is not a particularly great achievement. I am somewhat surprised that it could match a 109 (which model?) in a turn? I know that a Me 109G-6/R6 was tested against various British and American fighters and even with cannon pods under the wings, it turned better than the Mustang. Unfortunately it was one of the lower powered versions and probably why everyone thinks the 109G was so slow.


No one is pretending that the Typhoon was a ballet dancer kind of fighter. It certainly couldn't turn with a Spit but it could hold one in its sights long enough for a burst, and with 4 x 20mm one burst may well be enough. I also agree that turning with a FW may not be fantastic, but in the real world that was quite sufficient. As for the 109 it was a matter of speed. At slower speed the 109 had a clear advantage but its controls became very heavy at speed and if the Typhoon could avoid a low speed engagement, then it had the advantage. US test pilots who flew the Typhoon and the Tempest all made the observation that the Typhoon had the advantage in a turn.
This link may help
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/tempest/Tempest-V_Eng-47-1658-C.pdf



> This is somewhat of a contradiction because an aircraft with high performance isn't really needed for the Ground Attack role, especially since by that stage of the war, the Allies had pretty good air superiority. (Think IL-2 Sturmovik)


The main danger wasn't in German Fighters, it was in the Flak. The IL 2 could take a huge amount of damage that I am sure everyone can agree, but its about the same size and performance as a Fairy Battle and it is going to take hits, lots of them. The Typhoon is going to take less hits as its a much more difficult target and it was well protected with a considerable amount of extra protection. Plus of course if they did meet German fighters, the Typhoon had a much better chance and if all else failed, could simply run for it.


> It is also worth noting that the choice of US Army fighters for western Europe were determined in the later stages of the war by their compressibility effects. The P-51 suffered least loss of control in a high speed dive, the P-47 had a lower speed for compressibility even though it could recover with the dive flaps added with the later aircraft. Without dive flaps, it was in the same situation as the Typhoon and had to ride down to lower altitudes to recover. The P-38 was too close to its compressibility limit even flying straight and level at high altitude.
> Knowing this, and knowing that operations were at lower altitudes in the Pacific, one has to wonder why the much more altitude capable Spitfire Mk.VIII was sent rather than the Typhoon.


Whatever the technical reasons for the choice of aircraft, they were chosen for their suitability for the area of combat. For the RAF over Europe the Typhoon was the aircraft of choice and for the USAAF it was the P47 for the GA role.


----------



## Greyman (Mar 26, 2019)

Ivan1GFP said:


> The low altitude intercept mission is one that it shared with the Spitfire Mk.XII, so it was not the only aircraft capable of performing that mission.
> 
> I actually haven't had much luck in finding a good tactical evaluation of the Typhoon. I did find a description by one of its pilots in a video who described it as "clumsy" but I don't know if he was just referring to the cockpit arrangement or general handling. We already know the roll rate was poor. As for having a turn radius better than the FW 190, that is not a particularly great achievement. I am somewhat surprised that it could match a 109 (which model?) in a turn? I know that a Me 109G-6/R6 was tested against various British and American fighters and even with cannon pods under the wings, it turned better than the Mustang. Unfortunately it was one of the lower powered versions and probably why everyone thinks the 109G was so slow.
> 
> ...



Early Typhoons had a good 20mph on the Spitfire XII under 5,000 feet ... assuming +7 boost. It would have been a good 30 mph with +9 boost.
*EDIT:* looking at the graphs that's probably a bit optimistic in favour of the Typhoon. Probably more like 15 and 25 mph respectively.

I agree the AFDU evaluations involving the 109G seem to be quite pessimistic compared to its potential. My general impression reading anecdotes over the years is that the 109 was a tough opponent in the comparatively rare occasions it made the (generally unwise) decision to stick it out and fight. My impression from the Typhoon pilots accounts I've read is that they were roughly equal to the 190 in turn, but the 109 would best them. That said, as long as the tactical situation was at least on an even footing it seemed like Typhoon squadrons were quite happy to charge right into 109s/190s.

I would disagree with the statement that 'high performance isn't really needed for the Ground Attack role'. Would Il-2s not have been massacred over NWE at a rate that the Western Allies wouldn't accept? Certain types of targets would be great, but attacking heavily defended targets like an important bridge would be a nightmare with Il-2s.

I imagine the main reason the Typhoon didn't go to the Far East was for supply and maintenance considerations. Also one of the main frustrations of the RAF in Singapore/Burma/etc. from '41 to '44 was getting fighters in the proper place fast enough and high enough to make an interception. They had been pleading for Spitfires for years and even the smattering of Spitfire Vs in 1943 wasn't the complete answer (with the radar coverage available). The Spitfire VIII was just what the doctor ordered.

I think the main reason the Typhoon disappeared so quickly was because there was no point to it with the Tempest around, and it had a lot of tiring, negative qualities that weren't worth putting up with at all in peacetime. Maintenance issues, vibration issues, CO contamination issues ...


----------



## Elvis (Mar 26, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> We are not really disagreeing.
> 
> The three P-40Q prototypes used Allison engines with normal reduction gears (sort of, one or more may have used a 2.36 reduction gear) on the front of the engine, however they used superchargers much like the ones in pictures/manual. Instead of the two impellers being in the same housing Allison put the first stage in it's own housing and drove it with a driveshaft and hydraulic variable speed drive (like a DB 601-605). Trying to find pictures of the engines used in the P-40Qs or the P-51J (which first flew in Aug 1945) or the F-82 is rather difficult and the only other plane that used the 2 stage Allison was the P-63 King Cobra, so be default, You wind up with pictures of the E series engines to try to show the supercharger/s.
> I would note that there were at least two different setups for these two stage engines, One had the Carburetor between the stages (much like the P & W Engines) and the other had the carburetor mounted on the first stage (rear most compressor.)
> ...


You know, I may recant my earlier post, but only slightly.
Yes, mods will need to be done to the airframe, but they may be minimal changes.
My remarks were based on a cutaway (different from the one I post earlier) I found at the old "P40.com" website that showed the area behind the engine was so small and so stuffed with...._stuff_ that there was absolutely no room for a second impeller, but I just found this pic...check this out....







...the plane shown is identified as the very plane that we're _supposed_ to be talking about, the P40*F*.
Notice the area behind the engine.
If Allison could've been persuaded to adopt the same two impeller layout that Rolls-Royce did, there's a very good chance that a second impeller could've been installed with a minimum of changes to the airframe, if any at all (maybe a couple of inches added to the engine mounting arms)......hmmm, very interesting indeed.


Elvis


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 26, 2019)

Well, you still have the CG problem (V-1650-3 engine weighs 1700lbs compared to the 1510lbs of a V-1650-1)
The need for bigger radiators and oil coolers. 
The need for the intercooler radiator. 

The naked powerplant (no cowl or fuselage parts) for a P-51B was around 540lbs more than the power plant (naked) weight of a P-40F. 

Not sure you want to use the engine mount for a 1300hp engine on a 1600hp engine either


----------



## Elvis (Mar 26, 2019)

...rats, forgot about the weight penalty.


----------



## wuzak (Mar 27, 2019)

The Merlin 2 speed single stage engines were 71" long. The 2 stage Merlins were 88.7" long according to Lumsden. http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/Aircraft_Engines_of_the_World_Rolls-Royce_Merlin.pdf has the 2 stage Merlin at 78" long, while the 130 series is shown at 88.7".

Whitney's Vees for Victory doesn't seem to list external dimensions, except to say that the 2 stage V-1710 was "considerably longer" than the 2 stage Merlin.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 27, 2019)

Data about US-produced engines' weights and dimensions and a lot more : link
There was also a single PDF with all of these data sheets, but I'm not able to locate it right now.

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


----------



## wuzak (Mar 27, 2019)

tomo pauk said:


> Data about US-produced engines' weights and dimensions and a lot more : link
> There was also a single PDF with all of these data sheets, but I'm not able to locate it right now.



Thanks Tomo.

Looks like single stage V-1710-F series engines varied between about 85" and 89". For the single stage engine.
The long nose (C series) were about 94.5" long. And nearly 98" in the YP-37!

The two stage engines varied between 98" (carburetor between stages) and 107" (carburetor behind auxiliary stage).

The P-40Q engines (V-1710-101 and V-1710-121) were 101.25" long.

In contrast, the V-1650-1 is listed as 79.75" long, the -3 and -7 were 87.11" long and the -9 was longest at 89.14".

The space in the P-40F pictured above is probably because the V-1650-1 is several inches shorter than the standard F-series V-1710. 

It looks like the single stage Allison is around the same length as a two stage Merlin!

The Allison fitted to the P-40Q was 14" longer than the V-1650-1 in the P-40F.

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


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Mar 27, 2019)

Elvis said:


> You know, I may recant my earlier post, but only slightly.
> Yes, mods will need to be done to the airframe, but they may be minimal changes.
> My remarks were based on a cutaway (different from the one I post earlier) I found at the old "P40.com" website that showed the area behind the engine was so small and so stuffed with...._stuff_ that there was absolutely no room for a second impeller, but I just found this pic...check this out....
> 
> ...



Hello Elvis,
I believe that picture is missing some stuff that would need to be there for the engine to run. Your image actually looks more like the Allison radiator and oil cooler setup.
Keep in mind that the Merlin had its carb intakes down low and there would be a mess of ducting that isn't in the photograph right now. That isn't to say that it isn't possible to work around it, but it does add to the clutter.
Please see the photograph attached.

As for weight differences with the Merlin versus Allison, I believe on the P-40F and P-40L, the engine was shifted back very slightly to maintain CoG. Also, if the radiators need to be enlarged, there is plenty of room under the Wing Roots where there is basically nothing but a fairing on most P-40s though it might begin to interfere with a belly tank or bomb. There already was a bit of a change in the fairing configuration for the F and L models to fit the different radiators.
When mounting the radiators on the Merlin P-40, the designers seem to have chosen to make the nose considerably deeper and shortened the distance to the radiator flaps. It seem to me that this would allow for space for a higher capacity radiator or for the core to be pushed back a bit to adjust CoG.

- Ivan.


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Mar 27, 2019)

Here is another image of a Merlin radiator along with side views to compare the location of the radiator flaps.
The flaps are much further forward on the P-40F than on P-40N so there appears to be room behind where the P-40 radiator is now.

- Ivan.


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 27, 2019)

I would note that fuel management (order fuel tanks were used) was different on the Merlin powered P-40s.
After taking off on the forward tank and using the belly tank (if present) the rear fuselage tank was taken down to 35 gallons US (29 imp) and then the forward tank was emptied followed by the rear wing tank leaving the 35 US gallons in the rear tank as reserve,

On Allison powered planes the rear fuselage tank was emptied before switching the rear wing tank leaving the forward wing tank as the reserve,

The single stage Merlin planes were using 210lbs worth of fuel as ballast to help the change in CG caused by using the single stage Merlin engine.

Without quite a bit of shifting things about and/or some major modifications you are going to need hundreds of pounds of ballast to get a two stage Merlin P-40 to fly right.


----------



## Elvis (Mar 27, 2019)

Shortround6,

According to this chart, it appears the V-1650-1 may have had a two-speed SC.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ivan,

Thank you for posting those side views of the various P-40 models.
It appears the fuselage was indeed modified during the plane's existance.
I never noticed that before, but always thought the "-B's" looked "odd"....now I know why!


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Mar 27, 2019)

Hello Elvis,
Yes, the Merlin P-40s did have a two-speed supercharger.
By my understanding, from the P-40C to P-40D, the fuselage modification was to replace the top half behind the firewall ABOVE the Fuselage Reference Line. Below this joint, everything was still the same.

Hello Shortround6,
210 pounds is just about the difference in weight between equivalent Allison and Merlin versions of the P-40.
From the sounds of it, there were no significant modifications to adjust the CoG with the Merlin installation and yet the aircraft was obviously still flyable with minimal fuel.
The big question would be whether or not there was room behind the current location of the engine for the larger 2 stage supercharger. 
If there was, and there were no issues in relocating equipment that was already there, then the additional weight would make very little difference because it would be at the current CoG of the aircraft.
If there was no room and the engine had to be relocated further forward, then life would get ugly pretty quick unless folks were willing to relocate the cooling system back to the belly where it was in very early P-40 designs.

- Ivan.

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


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 27, 2019)

Ivan1GFP said:


> From the sounds of it, there were no significant modifications to adjust the CoG with the Merlin installation and yet the aircraft was obviously still flyable with minimal fuel.
> The big question would be whether or not there was room behind the current location of the engine for the larger 2 stage supercharger.
> If there was, and there were no issues in relocating equipment that was already there, then the additional weight would make very little difference because it would be at the current CoG of the aircraft



Well, there is flyable and there is combat/acrobatic flyable. The French crashed a few radial engine Hawk 75s by trying acrobatics with the fuselage (rear) tank full. 

The room for the supercharger is one thing but even if you have the room, trying to use a 3 blade propeller on a V-1650-3/7 is not going to give you the performance you want. 
The Prop on a P-51B was about 100lbs heavier than prop from a P-40D/E and and 60-70lbs heavier than from a late model P-40. You need a larger radiator and more coolant and the whole intercooler set up. 

Now there are a few things that can be moved.

On the P-36/P-40 the oil tank bounced back a forth like a ping pong ball. 
On the P-36 it is between the engine and the pilot. 
On the long nose P-40 it was behind the rear fuselage fuel tank (filler at the very rear of the canopy) 
On the P-40D/E and later it was back behind the engine (or firewall?) perhaps where the .50 cal cowl gun ammo bins were? 

Point is without either relocating the radiators/oil coolers or doing some other drastic surgery the plane is going to be _very_ nose heavy. 

The Mustang and Spitfire already used rear radiators/oil coolers and made them bigger and added the intercooler radiator which helped out but may not have been the total solution. 

A MK IX Spit carried five 17.5lb ballast weights in the tail.


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Mar 27, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> Well, there is flyable and there is combat/acrobatic flyable. The French crashed a few radial engine Hawk 75s by trying acrobatics with the fuselage (rear) tank full.



Hello Shortround6,
The issue you are describing with a full Fuselage tank sounds like just the opposite situation we would be running into with a Merlin P-40. The CoG of the Hawk 75 is way too far aft while the CoG of P-40F is further forward than we would like.
The only problems I can think of is if there is not enough elevator authority to hold the nose up at low speed or flare or perhaps a little too much stability for good maneuverability.



Shortround6 said:


> The room for the supercharger is one thing but even if you have the room, trying to use a 3 blade propeller on a V-1650-3/7 is not going to give you the performance you want.
> The Prop on a P-51B was about 100lbs heavier than prop from a P-40D/E and and 60-70lbs heavier than from a late model P-40. You need a larger radiator and more coolant and the whole intercooler set up.



What is really needed in this case is a Propeller and Reduction Gear that gives a significantly higher power coefficient.
Whether it has three blades or four or five really doesn't matter much except that more blades tends to make the whole prppeller heavier. I haven't really looked at the ground clearance with the Fuselage in a level attitude, but if it allows, a slightly longer propeller blade would absorb the extra power. Wide chord blades such as from the P-38 Lightning (still just 3 blades) might be another solution. The Lockheed Ventura had a lot more power but did not have the room to swing a larger propeller so also had to go to wide chord blades.
Regarding Radiator and Intercooler, an aft mounted setup might work if no one is concerned with losing the Belly Tank or perhaps radiators in the wing roots as in the P-40Q would work without giving up he centerline rack.

FWIW, I am under no illusions that this would be a feasible project.
The Merlin engines were not really available (They were already claimed by Mustangs, Spitfires, and Lancasters) and the US Army always prized speed above everything else in fighter and there was no way a P-40 was going to be as fast as the P-51 without becoming an entirely different aircraft.

- Ivan.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Mar 27, 2019)

Just a thought/ question for those with more engineering knowledge than myself. 
Couldn't the center of gravity have been maintained by lengthening the aft section of the fuselage and or additional armor plate behind the pilot. Sort of ballast with an additional benefit.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 27, 2019)

It is all about movement arms, think kids teeter-totter/see-saw ride. the further away from the CG the more effect the same weight has. 
And any added weight as ballast affects climb and turn and landing (stall) speed.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Mar 27, 2019)

michael rauls said:


> Just a thought/ question for those with more engineering knowledge than myself.
> Couldn't the center of gravity have been maintained by lengthening the aft section of the fuselage and or additional armor plate behind the pilot. Sort of ballast with an additional benefit.



Hello Michael Rauls,
Your idea is sound, but the problem is as Shortround6 describes: a matter of how much weight and how far from the Center of Gravity. The swapping of a Merlin and Radiator assembly for the Allison and Radiator assembly added quite a bit of weight very near the front end of the aircraft. I had mis-remembered earlier but the actual weight increase was quite a bit more than I had thought: 6702 pounds Basic Weight for a P-40E to 7089 pounds for the very similar P-40F (387 pounds).
If you look at where the engine is relative to the CoG and note that the Fuselage (aft) Fuel Tank is nearly the same distance in the opposite direction, you can see why fuel can serve as ballast to offset the engine weight.

The problem is that the engine and radiator weight do not change in flight while the fuel is a disposable load and the aircraft grows increasingly nose heavy as the fuel is burned off. How bad it would get depends on how effective the elevators are at low speed.
This can be increased by airflow coming off the propeller but if the engine fails, recovery may be impossible. A rather famous pilot named Wiley Post was doing this for a while with an aircraft that was very nose heavy until he had an engine failure. He could not prevent his plane from diving into the ground and he and his passenger Will Rogers both died in the crash.

As for adding armour plate, the P-40 was pretty robust as it was and didn't need any more unnecessary weight.
Increasing the length of the tail was done at one point, but light structure doesn't significantly change the CoG.
To do things right, would mean that existing heavy non-disposable components need to get moved aft or additional equipment that may be needed for the new engine gets added well behind the CoG.

That is the problem as I see it. The end result would be that without a serious aerodynamic redesign, it still wasn't going to have the speed that the customer wanted.

- Ivan.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Mar 27, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> It is all about movement arms, think kids teeter-totter/see-saw ride. the further away from the CG the more effect the same weight has.
> And any added weight as ballast affects climb and turn and landing (stall) speed.


Yes that is why I was thinking lengthening the fuselage at the rear might have a fairly substantial counterbalancing effect dispite only adding a little weight, the further back the tail is the more counterbalancing lever affect.
This also might have the added benefit of making the p40 more stable. From the pilot quotes I've read it seems that the p40 got more docile handling characteristics as they lengthened the aft fuselage. I suppose at some point however there is a limit how much lengthening can be done before it becomes detrimental to handling instead of beneficial.


----------



## wuzak (Mar 28, 2019)

Spitfires used counter-weights in the tail structure to counteract the heavier 2 stage and Griffon engines.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Elvis (Mar 28, 2019)

...nevermind...


----------



## wuzak (Mar 28, 2019)

Elvis said:


> ...or...increase the length of the area between the base of the windshield and the firewall.
> I've circled it in the picture Ivan posted earlier....



That would exacerbate the problem of the heavier engine.

That is, it would move the centre of mass further forward.


----------



## Elvis (Mar 28, 2019)

Apologies for leaving that up so long.
It was a partial thought, but I got sidetracked halfway through it....why I ended up writing "nevermind".


----------



## Dan Fahey (Mar 28, 2019)

Reading which plane was better P40 or Typhoon.
This would be simple for me !
It was the plane that was easier to service and get out to the fight.
Had fewer quirky issues, easy enough to train new pilots to fly.

Their performances were similar enough, both expandable platforms.
Typhoon did not get sorted out until the Sea Fury.
Most of its problems were with the engine.
Finally became a competitive Naval and land based Fighter.

Just seems nonsensical that the P40Q program was not expanded.
The bubble canopy would have helped in SA if nothing else was not changed.
So what it was not an high altitude Mustang
It would have had a better flight envelop and maybe save a few more pilots.

D


----------



## fubar57 (Mar 28, 2019)

Dan Fahey said:


> Typhoon did not get sorted out until the Sea Fury.D



How was the Typhoon sorted out by the Sea Fury?

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Mar 28, 2019)

Elvis said:


> Apologies for leaving that up so long.
> It was a partial thought, but I got sidetracked halfway through it....why I ended up writing "nevermind".



Hello Elvis,
If you were thinking the same thing as I was, I believe the general idea is good but it would need a LOT of structural redesign and of course still would not end up with the speed demon the Army Air Forces was looking for. Attached is an image of what I believe would address the situation.

Note that the area that we are messing with has the heaviest and strongest structures such as the wing spars of the aircraft and where the fuselage is mounted on the wings, etc. Note also that the rather heavy Fuselage Fuel Tank is actually supported by brackets sitting on the upper surface of the wing where the left and right halves join and now it is just hovering by magic and good wishes.
Ignoring that issue for now, the extra space behind the engine would obviously be for the larger supercharger and intercoolers could be mounted in the wing roots.

If this kind of thing absolutely HAD to be done, I am still thinking the best approach would be to push the radiator and other coolers back under the aft fuselage. The nose could be seriously cleaned up with just a carb scoop remaining and the coolant and other lines could run in a reduced size version of what is now the belly fairing. This critter would look an awful lot like a P-46 though.
Moving the radiator was apparently tried at one point....

- Ivan.

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


----------



## Kevin J (Mar 28, 2019)

Dan Fahey said:


> Reading which plane was better P40 or Typhoon.
> This would be simple for me !
> It was the plane that was easier to service and get out to the fight.
> Had fewer quirky issues, easy enough to train new pilots to fly.
> ...



My question is this. Who is your customer for the P-40Q?


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Mar 28, 2019)

Dan Fahey said:


> Typhoon did not get sorted out until the Sea Fury.
> Most of its problems were with the engine.
> Finally became a competitive Naval and land based Fighter.
> 
> ...


What was "not sorted out" about the Tempest? As well, what was the point of continuing the P-40Q program when the P-51 was already available and better in almost every measurable category?

Reactions: Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## martinrn (Mar 28, 2019)

The main problem with both the P-40 and the Typhoon is that they had terrible performance at high altitude. All German Me-109 and Fw-190 marks easily outperformed them at altitude. Most combat in NW Europe took place at high altitude, because Allied heavy bombers flew at high altitude. Thus, as fighters, both planes are equal failures. In North Africa, where most (but not all) bombing missions were lower altitude ground support missions, the poor high altitude performance of the P-40 and Typhoon was not as relevant. The P-40 (Kittyhawk) gave a decent account of itself in North Africa. It could hold its own against 109's at low altitude.

With thousands of P-40's and Typhoons built, something had to be done with them other than high altitude combat, which they were really bad at. Thus, attempts were made to convert them to ground attack planes. The Typhoon, with its heavy wing construction, excelled at this. It could carry a bomb/rocket load that the P-40 couldn't match. It was also very fast at sea level. In fact, no Allied or German plane could catch it down low. It was the only plane that could intercept the German V-1 rockets. 

Where the P-40 excelled was against Japan. Japanese planes, with with their Low Wing Loading, which gave unparalleled maneuverability at low to mid altitudes, also mitigated against it at higher altitudes. The P-40 (as well as every US Fighter), had a more powerful engine and a heavier, stronger air-frame. This gave them, respectively, a higher service ceiling and superior dive performance. This enable the "dive and swoop" tactics that the Japanese were never able to counter throughout the war. These tactics were developed by General Chenault and the Flying Tigers. Thus, their fantastic victory to loss rate. The P-40 would use its higher service ceiling to gain an altitude advantage. They would then swoop down on their opponent in a single firing pass, and then use the momentum of the dive to regain altitude. The Japanese couldn't out dive them, and because their Low Wing Loading gave them inferior high altitude maneuverability, they couldn't out turn the P-40 in its dive either. As long as the P-40 (and all US fighters) did not get caught at low altitude or in a turning dog-fight, they would usually win.

Remember, there are always engineering trade-offs when designing an airplane. The Laws of Physics tell us that the factors that make a plane maneuverable at low altitude will make it less maneuverable at high altitude. An engine optimized for low level performance will mitigate against it at higher altitudes. There are also speed vs maneuverability trade-offs as well as range vs weight trade-offs. An aircraft designer can either design an all-purpose plane that does many things average-ish, but does not excel at anything (P-51), or he can design a plane optimized for a specific role (F-6 Hellcat). It all depends on what the end-user tells the designer what it wants. The military try to envision future wars and a plane's role in that war. They will then give specifications to the designer as to what they want the plane to do, and the designer will make it. This is a long process, so if the military get their initial specifications wrong, it will take years to correct. The F-4 Phantom is an example of a plane that was used in a role that the military hadn't anticipated, dog-fighting with lighter, more maneuverable fighters, rather than being a stand-off, air-to-air missile platform. It took years to overcome this screw-up, and to develop the F-15 and F-16 to overcome it. An example of a purpose built plane done right is the Spitfire. The RAF envisioned a certain role for the plane and the designers build it exactly for this role. The RAF correctly foresaw the Battle of Britain and built a fighter to fit this exact scenario, a short-range, high-speed, high-altitude point defense fighter for use over Southern England. The Spitfire was designed and optimized for this specific role. Thus, it excelled. It was not as successful in other roles, such as bomber escort, where it was handicapped by its poor range. 

So, the short answer to the question is: in NW Europe, both the P-40 and Typhoon were equally bad. However the Typhoon became an excellent ground support plane in ways that the P-40 could not match. In the Pacific, the P-40 was an effective fighter, so long as it used the right tactics. The Typhoons were never tested in the Pacific.

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


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 28, 2019)

martinrn said:


> However the Typhoon became an excellent ground support plane in ways that the P-40 could not match.



This is somewhat debatable, 
Some squadrons used P-40s carrying six 250lb bombs or three 500lb bombs, Something I don't believe the Typhoon ever did. 
Late model P-40s (and late model P-40 means introduced in 1943) could carry a 1000lb bomb under each wing, although no mention is made of what kind of runway is needed or what else might have to be sacrificed ( fuel or ammo for the ,50 cal guns?) There were a few missions flown in Italy using such a bomb load but the range was short 30-50 miles?

I will grant that six .50s don't have quite the same effect as four 20mm cannon.
as for rockets. 





Please note the P-40 in this photo seems to have five hardpoints, the one under fuselage, on bomb under the wing (on each side) and the rocket cluster.

Now the US rocket fired by the triple tube was a lot less powerful than the British rocket but that isn't really the fault of the P-40. 
The P-40 was being phased out when the better 5 in rockets showed up.

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


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 28, 2019)

Dan Fahey said:


> So what it was not an high altitude Mustang
> It would have had a better flight envelop and maybe save a few more pilots.



They were still test flying the thing in the spring of 1944. Production would have been a number of months away and issue to squadrons even longer.

Most P-40 squadrons were converting to P-47s or P-51s in 1944, so unless you think that pilots would be safer in a P-40Q than in a P-51C or later or a late model P-47D ????


----------



## wuzak (Mar 28, 2019)

Dan Fahey said:


> Reading which plane was better P40 or Typhoon.
> This would be simple for me !
> It was the plane that was easier to service and get out to the fight.
> Had fewer quirky issues, easy enough to train new pilots to fly.
> ...



Except that their performance was not at all similar.

The Typhoon's performance, in most respects, was higher.




Dan Fahey said:


> Just seems nonsensical that the P40Q program was not expanded.



Because by the time it would have come to fruition NAA were starting production of the P-51H, which had even higher performance than the D, the performance of which was greater than the P-40Q.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Mar 28, 2019)

Ivan1GFP said:


> View attachment 533441



That'd be the XP-60, which first flew a couple of months after the P-40F.


----------



## Glider (Mar 28, 2019)

There is so much wrong with this I have taken the posting and broken it down into sections


martinrn said:


> The main problem with both the P-40 and the Typhoon is that they had terrible performance at high altitude. All German Me-109 and Fw-190 marks easily outperformed them at altitude. Most combat in NW Europe took place at high altitude, because Allied heavy bombers flew at high altitude. Thus, as fighters, both planes are equal failures.


I know its not fashionable to point this out, but the Typhoon was a good match for the 190 A8 at altitude and was a lot better at lower altitude. For the RAF the issue was that at altitude the Spit IX was a lot better than the Typhoon. But its wrong to say that the Typhoon was outmatched by the Fw190. The 109 did have a significant advantage at altitude that is certainly correct.


> With thousands of P-40's and Typhoons built, something had to be done with them other than high altitude combat, which they were really bad at. Thus, attempts were made to convert them to ground attack planes. The Typhoon, with its heavy wing construction, excelled at this. It could carry a bomb/rocket load that the P-40 couldn't match. It was also very fast at sea level. In fact, no Allied or German plane could catch it down low. It was the only plane that could intercept the German V-1 rockets.


 Mustangs, Spit XII, Spit IX and Mosquitos were all used with some success against the V1


> Where the P-40 excelled was against Japan. Japanese planes, with with their Low Wing Loading, which gave unparalleled maneuverability at low to mid altitudes, also mitigated against it at higher altitudes.


No correlation at all. There is no rule that says if you have a low wing loading then you cannot fight at altitude. 


> The P-40 (as well as every US Fighter), had a more powerful engine and a heavier, stronger air-frame. This gave them, respectively, a higher service ceiling and superior dive performance. This enable the "dive and swoop" tactics that the Japanese were never able to counter throughout the war. These tactics were developed by General Chenault and the Flying Tigers.


These tactics were not developed by General Chenault. They were common practice in WW2 by the Luftwaffe as they knew that the 109 and 190 couldn't turn with the Spit and Hurricane. They were also standard tactics in WW1 by Spad XIII and SE5a fighters as these had the strength and speed to use them and they were not great in a turning dogfight.


> Thus, their fantastic victory to loss rate. The P-40 would use its higher service ceiling to gain an altitude advantage. They would then swoop down on their opponent in a single firing pass, and then use the momentum of the dive to regain altitude. The Japanese couldn't out dive them, and because their Low Wing Loading gave them inferior high altitude maneuverability, they couldn't out turn the P-40 in its dive either. As long as the P-40 (and all US fighters) did not get caught at low altitude or in a turning dog-fight, they would usually win.


The main reason why the majority of the early Japanese fighters (Ki43 and Zero) found it difficult to outmanoeuvre the allied fighters was because their controls became difficult even impossible to move at high speed. This was due to the air pressure on the control surfaces, it had nothing to do with the low wing loading. Me109's had a similar but not quite as severe issue for the same reason. It's a very serious mistake to assume that the Japanese didn't learn from their mistakes. The Ki84, Ki100, Raiden and Shinden were all aircraft that were at least as good as anything else in the air. Poor training, negligible fuel reserves and poor workmanship making the aircraft less effective, played a major role in reducing the threat to the allied forces.


> So, the short answer to the question is: in NW Europe, both the P-40 and Typhoon were equally bad. However the Typhoon became an excellent ground support plane in ways that the P-40 could not match. In the Pacific, the P-40 was an effective fighter, so long as it used the right tactics. The Typhoons were never tested in the Pacific.


Two brief comments here.
a) The P40 and the Typhoon were not equally bad. The Typhoon was a lot faster, climbed better, dived faster, cruised faster carried a greater payload, had much more protection, and could take on the 190 at any altitude. The 109 clearly had an advantage at altitude but up to about 20,000 the Typhoon was at least its equal.
b) Whilst the Typhoon wasn't tested in the Pacific there is no reason why it wouldn't have done well.

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


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 28, 2019)

wuzak said:


> That'd be the XP-60, which first flew a couple of months after the P-40F.



That might be the 3rd production P-40F which was fitted with such a radiator system but later returned to to stock. It is sometimes known as the YP-40F but no army records ever used that designation.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 28, 2019)

martinrn said:


> The Typhoon, with its heavy wing construction, excelled at this. It could carry a bomb/rocket load that the P-40 couldn't match. It was also very fast at sea level. In fact, no Allied or German plane could catch it down low. It was the only plane that could intercept the German V-1 rockets.



Tempest was very much capable for catching the Typhoon at any altitude, and was used to shoot down V1s. Together with P-51 and Spitfire.



> Where the P-40 excelled was against Japan. Japanese planes, with with their Low Wing Loading, which gave unparalleled maneuverability at low to mid altitudes, also mitigated against it at higher altitudes. The P-40 (as well as every US Fighter), had a more powerful engine and a heavier, stronger air-frame. This gave them, respectively, a higher service ceiling and superior dive performance. This enable the "dive and swoop" tactics that the Japanese were never able to counter throughout the war. These tactics were developed by General Chenault and the Flying Tigers. Thus, their fantastic victory to loss rate. The P-40 would use its higher service ceiling to gain an altitude advantage. They would then swoop down on their opponent in a single firing pass, and then use the momentum of the dive to regain altitude. The Japanese couldn't out dive them, and because their Low Wing Loading gave them inferior high altitude maneuverability, they couldn't out turn the P-40 in its dive either. As long as the P-40 (and all US fighters) did not get caught at low altitude or in a turning dog-fight, they would usually win.



P-40's service ceiling was not as good as Oscar's or Zeros. 
Low wing loading helps much better at high altitudes that at low altitudes.



> Remember, there are always engineering trade-offs when designing an airplane. The Laws of Physics tell us that the factors that make a plane maneuverable at low altitude will make it less maneuverable at high altitude. An engine optimized for low level performance will mitigate against it at higher altitudes. There are also speed vs maneuverability trade-offs as well as range vs weight trade-offs. An aircraft designer can either design an all-purpose plane that does many things average-ish, but does not excel at anything (P-51), or he can design a plane optimized for a specific role (F-6 Hellcat). It all depends on what the end-user tells the designer what it wants. The military try to envision future wars and a plane's role in that war. They will then give specifications to the designer as to what they want the plane to do, and the designer will make it. This is a long process, so if the military get their initial specifications wrong, it will take years to correct. The F-4 Phantom is an example of a plane that was used in a role that the military hadn't anticipated, dog-fighting with lighter, more maneuverable fighters, rather than being a stand-off, air-to-air missile platform. It took years to overcome this screw-up, and to develop the F-15 and F-16 to overcome it. An example of a purpose built plane done right is the Spitfire. The RAF envisioned a certain role for the plane and the designers build it exactly for this role. The RAF correctly foresaw the Battle of Britain and built a fighter to fit this exact scenario, a short-range, high-speed, high-altitude point defense fighter for use over Southern England. The Spitfire was designed and optimized for this specific role. Thus, it excelled. It was not as successful in other roles, such as bomber escort, where it was handicapped by its poor range.



So P-51 suddenly became average-ish fighter, that didn't excelled in anything? 
F-4, on aggregate, was the best fighter of 1960s, better than MiG-21 (yes, the very aircraft that shows two times in my every post) by a landmile. 
Spitfire was excellent in long range recon role, un-catchable by anything German bar jets.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Elvis (Mar 28, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> They were still test flying the thing in the spring of 1944. Production would have been a number of months away and issue to squadrons even longer.
> 
> Most P-40 squadrons were converting to P-47s or P-51s in 1944, so unless you think that pilots would be safer in a P-40Q than in a P-51C or later or a late model P-47D ????


One problem with P-40Q development was that in 1944 "piston & prop" interest was waning. The major players in this war were far more interested in developing jet technology....anyway, as someone so wisely stated at this forum many years ago, why re-invent the P-51 when it was already available.
...but maybe both planes had their place (P-51=high altitude "boom & zoom" type fighter; P-40=low altitude dogfighter) and why the P-40 lasted as long as it did
Would've been interesting to see how replacing the supercharger with a turbocharger, and replacing the regular prop with a 3-bladed "high effiency" version of 9.5 ft. diameter, would've effected P-40 performance (and if we're trying to decide which P-40 to apply this to, let's use the "N". I believe it was the most refined version, as it was the final series).

Elvis


----------



## Elvis (Mar 28, 2019)

tomo pauk said:


> F-4, on aggregate, was the best fighter of 1960s...


I beg to differ.
Ask anyone who flew one...F-106 could wipe the floor with the F-4, any day of the week.
The reason the F-4 hung around longer than the F-106 was because advancing time and technology eventually developed superior _Air Superiority_ aircraft, which was the F-106's primary, if not only, job.
The F-4 was seen as more of a "mule" that could be fitted with various munitions to carry out various jobs.
_Versatility_ was the F-4's saving grace, but it was far from the "best fighter " of the 1960's.

Elvis


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Mar 28, 2019)

wuzak said:


> That'd be the XP-60, which first flew a couple of months after the P-40F.



Hello Wuzak,
Shortround6 is correct. The photograph is actually of a "YP-40F".
This was just to illustrate that the idea of relocating the radiator had been thought of and even tried out but just not implemented for some reason.
The question for anyone who has flown a P-40 is whether or not it the CoG was a bit far aft normally and if the heavier engine just compensated for that.

Hello Glider,
One of the interesting and surprising differences between A6M and Ki 43 is that while both were somewhat limited in climb rate and maximum speed by engine power and a bit limited (though not quite as bad as people think) in diving speed for structural strength reasons, The Ki 43 did not lose as much maneuverability at high speeds.

I believe the real advantage of Typhoon over the P-40F would have been quite a bit of speed and a bit of climb rate. If one compares against later P-40s, there may be a lot less difference in climb rate. Diving speed is debatable because of the Typhoon's compressibility limitations that the P-40 did not seem to have. ....And of course the roll rate advantage belongs to the P-40.

In a dogfight of Typhoon versus FW 190A, I would pick the FW 190A to win. The firepower is pretty similar, the level speed isn't greatly different above sea level, there is nothing to choose in turning circles even with the heaviest 190A fighter, and the 190A has about three times the roll rate.

- Ivan.


----------



## wuzak (Mar 28, 2019)

Ivan1GFP said:


> Hello Wuzak,
> Shortround6 is correct. The photograph is actually of a "YP-40F".
> This was just to illustrate that the idea of relocating the radiator had been thought of and even tried out but just not implemented for some reason.
> The question for anyone who has flown a P-40 is whether or not it the CoG was a bit far aft normally and if the heavier engine just compensated for that.



I stand corrected.

On second viewing it is obviously not the XP-60 - standard undercarriage and only 3 guns in each wing.

The fuselage looks similar or identical to the XP-60, perhaps because both the P-40F and XP-60 were being developed at the same time.

"The designation YP-40F was unofficially assigned to P-40F Ser No 41-13602 used for experimental tests of the cooling system and the tail rudder. The coolant system was moved aft in several different configurations, including a mounting fitted inside a thickened wing-root section."

Curtiss P-40F Warhawk 

That appears to be one of the configurations that particular aircraft had. 

Looks like it was the 3rd production P-40F.

As regards to Curtiss using radiators mounted further rearwards, or under the rear fuselage, the XP-40 had a rear fuselage mounted system originally and the XP-46 had a belly scoop too.


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 28, 2019)

Elvis said:


> Would've been interesting to see how replacing the supercharger with a turbocharger, and replacing the regular prop with a 3-bladed "high effiency" version of 9.5 ft. diameter, would've effected P-40 performance (and if we're trying to decide which P-40 to apply this to, let's use the "N". I believe it was the most refined version, as it was the final series).



The P-40s used an 11ft prop, Not sure why you would switch to a smaller one even if it was "trick" I don't know if the P-40s were fitted with wide cord blades (at least wider cord than the original toothpick props on the Long noses) but the late P-40s used props about 70lbs heavier than the ones used on the long nosed planes.


----------



## wuzak (Mar 28, 2019)

Dan Fahey said:


> Just seems nonsensical that the P40Q program was not expanded.



An article about the XP-40 by William Pearce.

Curtiss XP-40Q Fighter 

Some bits from that article:
"XP-40Q development was initiated by 1943. "

"The XP-40Q-1 was the first aircraft, and it was built in 1943 from a P-40K-10 (serial 42-9987) that had been damaged in a landing accident on 27 January 1943. "

"The XP-40Q-1 had a 37 ft 4 in (11.4 m) wingspan and was 35 ft 4 in long (10.8 m)—about *2 ft (.6 m) longer* than a standard P-40. "

"The Q-1’s first flight reportedly occurred on 13 June 1943 from the Curtiss plant in Buffalo, New York. It is not clear if the aircraft suffered another accident, or if Curtiss was unhappy with its configuration and decided to modify it further. Regardless, by November 1943, the Q-1 had been modified and redesignated XP-40Q-2. "

"The Q-2 was damaged when it nosed over after a test flight on 24 March 1944. The aircraft was repaired and then sent to Wright Field, Ohio in mid-1944. The aircraft was damaged again when it ground looped while landing on 31 July 1944."

"The Q-2A was very similar to the final configuration of the Q-2—with a bubble canopy, clipped wings, and -121 engine."

"The Q-2A’s first flight occurred prior to the end of March 1944. The aircraft was plagued with engine trouble that resulted in a number of forced landings."

"Delivered to AAF in April 1944, the Q-3 suffered an engine failure during an early test flight. The aircraft was moderately damaged in the subsequent forced landing. At this time, other aircraft with superior performance were available, and there was no AAF interest in repairing the Q-3 because there was no need for a P-40Q."

You can see that the engine was unreliable and late. The XP-40Q was under development for 12-18 months and it showed no improvement over types that were already in production (P-51B, P-51D and P-47D) or about to be.

It was lightly armed, with only 4 .50" hmgs (same as P-51B, its true, though the P-51B had 2 with 350 rpg and 2 with 280rpg vs the P-40Q's 235 rpg), when the trend was towards heavier armament.

And, as mentioned by Shortround, the AAF was transitioning away from P-40s to newer types, though it was not complete by the end of the war.



Dan Fahey said:


> The bubble canopy would have helped in SA if nothing else was not changed.



The bubble canopy was first tried on a P-40K which had been converted a XP-40N.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Elvis (Mar 28, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> The P-40s used an 11ft prop, Not sure why you would switch to a smaller one even if it was "trick" I don't know if the P-40s were fitted with wide cord blades (at least wider cord than the original toothpick props on the Long noses) but the late P-40s used props about 70lbs heavier than the ones used on the long nosed planes.


Every spec I've ever seen on the P40 always lists a 3 bladed prop that was 9-10 feet in diameter.
Is it possible for you to post a link to the material you're referencing that says any of the _production_ P40's used an 11 foot prop?
...and to answer your question, they were never fitted with the high efficiency prop, thus my question.


Elvis


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 28, 2019)

Elvis said:


> Every spec I've ever seen on the P40 always lists a 3 bladed prop that was 9-10 feet in diameter.
> Is it possible for you to post a link to the material you're referencing that says any of the _production_ P40's used an 11 foot prop?



Page 228 of AHT. table 30.

It is also shown as 11ft in the Erection and Maintenance Instructions for the P-40N in both the 3 view drawings and the list of dimensions. 





> ...and to answer your question, they were never fitted with the high efficiency prop, thus my question.
> Elvis



They may not have been called high efficiency props. but something was going on for the props to gain the weight they did.

I would also note that just about all propellers are a compromise of some sort. We have to define what we mean by "efficiency" before we can rate how good a prop is. 
The prop that gives the best efficiency (measure for instance) by speed at critical altitude of the engine may actually suck at short take-off and quick climb at low altitude. 
Since the P-40s tended to operate at 20,000ft and under (sometimes way under) they didn't need props that worked well at high altitudes in thin air.

A prop is much like a wing, increasing the cord and adding blade area will lower the blade loading (wing loading) but it also increases the wetted area (drag) much like plane with a larger wing has more drag than a plane with a smaller wing. The air at 30, 000 ft is about 60% as dense as the air at 15,000ft and 37.4% as dense as the air at sea level.

Using a prop that gives the best performance at 25,000-30,000ft would actually hurt performance at sea-level, but not as bad as using a prop tailored for sea level at 30,000ft. 

If you go to Spitfire performance you will find tests of the P-40E and P-40F using different propeller blades. I don't know what the differences are but they sitting around using the same old propeller they had used on the P-40 no letter. For one thing they changed from a 25 degree pitch change to a 30 degree pitch change.


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Mar 28, 2019)

Elvis said:


> Every spec I've ever seen on the P40 always lists a 3 bladed prop that was 9-10 feet in diameter.
> Is it possible for you to post a link to the material you're referencing that says any of the _production_ P40's used an 11 foot prop?
> ...and to answer your question, they were never fitted with the high efficiency prop, thus my question.



Hello Elvis,
Shortround6 is correct. Here is a page from the P-40E-1 Erection & Maintenance Manual.
The Airplane Dimensions shows
76 inches Propeller Hub Height at One Load with Thrust Line level.
10 inches clearance of Propeller Tip at One Load with Thrust Line level.
Propeller radius == 66 inches, so Diameter is 11 feet 0 inches.

The P-40N Erection & Maintenance Manual which can be found here:
P-40 Flight Manual
(Post #9)
lists particulars on the Propeller (11 feet diameter) on Page 12 of the PDF.

Just for terminology's sake, I don't think they really had "High Efficiency" Propellers in this era.
What we are really looking for is a "High Activity Factor" propeller or a propeller with greater solidity.
Considering that the clearance was 10 inches in normal loaded configuration, then it sounds very possible to fit a propeller from a P-38 Lightning (11 feet 6 inch Diameter) without losing a great deal of clearance.
I have no idea what the weight difference would be though.
The power coefficient is what we are really interested in here and it goes up with Diameter^5 so it really doesn't take much increase in size to absorb a lot more power and the Lightning's propeller blades look to be much wider also.

- Ivan.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greyman (Mar 29, 2019)

For what it's worth A&AEE tests of Tomahawk II, Kittyhawk I and II all give 11 feet, 0 inches for prop diameter. Except when specifically noted a special airscrew is being trialed.


----------



## Elvis (Mar 29, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> Page 228 of AHT. table 30.
> 
> It is also shown as 11ft in the Erection and Maintenance Instructions for the P-40N in both the 3 view drawings and the list of dimensions.
> 
> ...


I'm beginning to realize my memory ain't what it used to be. 
I can't find any reference to a "high efficiency" prop either. I do remember it was the large 4 blade prop used on the P-51D, which it turns out was an Aeroproducts Unimatic (according to mustangmustangs.com).
What I did find was there was also a wide and narrow bade used on the P40.
This may account for the weight difference.
It appears the narrow blade prop was Curtiss Electric Part No 89301-3. The wide blade was Curtiss Electric Part No 89303-24W.
The narrow blade was apparently used on P40's D, E, F and K, while the newer wider blade prop was used on P40's L, M and N.
...and , of course, now that I need to find it, the only reference I can find to prop diameter agrees with what you guys said - 11 feet. 

Elvis
P.S. - what is "AHT"?


----------



## wuzak (Mar 29, 2019)

Maybe "high activity"? I believe that was the type of prop the P-38K used.


----------



## Glider (Mar 29, 2019)

Hello Glider,
One of the interesting and surprising differences between A6M and Ki 43 is that while both were somewhat limited in climb rate and maximum speed by engine power and a bit limited (though not quite as bad as people think) in diving speed for structural strength reasons, The Ki 43 did not lose as much maneuverability at high speeds.

I believe the real advantage of Typhoon over the P-40F would have been quite a bit of speed and a bit of climb rate. If one compares against later P-40s, there may be a lot less difference in climb rate. Diving speed is debatable because of the Typhoon's compressibility limitations that the P-40 did not seem to have. ....And of course the roll rate advantage belongs to the P-40.

In a dogfight of Typhoon versus FW 190A, I would pick the FW 190A to win. The firepower is pretty similar, the level speed isn't greatly different above sea level, there is nothing to choose in turning circles even with the heaviest 190A fighter, and the 190A has about three times the roll rate.

- Ivan.[/QUOTE]
The Typhoon had a VNE approx 50mph faster than the P40 and there is no doubt which is the fastest going downhill.
when looking at the 190 the Typhoon was faster but the 190 had the better role rate.


----------



## Stig1207 (Mar 29, 2019)

Elvis said:


> P.S. - what is "AHT"?



AHT

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Mar 29, 2019)

In the short time that the P-40F/L was built, around 2000 or approx 3 times the number of Typhoons's in 1942. In 1942, the P-40F/L was slightly slower at medium altitudes, but much slower at lower altitudes. It had a better range. Dive speeds were about the same in 1942. The Typhoon had a smaller turning circle but a worse roll rate. If I wanted to intercept Fw 190A tip and run raids then it has to be the Typhoon, although a P-40E-1/K available from later in 1942, with over boost would be acceptable. The Typhoon is a niche product, no doubt saved from cancellation by its ability to carry rockets and bombs. IMO, the P-40 is the better all round fighter.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Mar 29, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> In the short time that the P-40F/L was built, around 2000 or approx 3 times the number of Typhoons's in 1942.



Sure, because the Typhoon was only just ramping up production coming into 1942. While the P-40F was a variant on the P-40 airframe that had been in production since 1940, the P-40 itself based on an airframe that started production in 1938.




Kevin J said:


> In 1942, the P-40F/L was slightly slower at medium altitudes, but much slower at lower altitudes.



At around 12,000-13,000ft the Typhoon I was about 20mph faster and at 20,000ft the Typhoon IB was around 30mph faster. This is the Typhoon IB with the older spec Sabre II.

Maximum speed for Typhoon the IB/Sabre II was 376mph @ 8,500ft and 394.5mph @ 20,200ft.

The maximum speed of the P-40F was 350.5mph @ 12,800ft in LO and 364.5mph @ 19,270ft.

Typhoon IB Performance Data
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/P-40/P-40F_41-13601_PHQ-M-19-1440-A.pdf 

Another test, comparing speed with and without belly tank sway bars had the top speed at 18,000ft as 374mph.

IN MS gear the Typhoon was at 361mph @ 18,000ft and 384mph in FS gear.

In rate of climb the Typhoon was superior up until around 25,000ft. The Typhoon was about 1 minute faster to 26,000ft than the P-40F was to 25,000ft. Above about 25,000ft the P-40F held the advantage, but was still about 1 minute slower to 30,000ft. The P-40F had a higher ceiling by about 2,000ft. 

Later Typhoons with improved airframes and the Sabre IIA were considerably higher performing, and with the Sabre IIB even more so. The IIA and IIB started being put into Typhoons sometime in 1943.




Kevin J said:


> It had a better range.



Yes, about 90 miles on internal fuel.




Kevin J said:


> Dive speeds were about the same in 1942.



I don't know where that idea comes from.

It has been refuted by others above.

In any case, it is not the ultimate dive speed that counts, but the acceleration in a dive. This is where the Typhoon's corpulence helps it, gravity to the rescue. Plus, of course, having about twice the power.




Kevin J said:


> The Typhoon had a smaller turning circle but a worse roll rate.



The poor Typhoon pilot was stuck with having to accelerate away on the level, accelerate away in the dive or climb away. 




Kevin J said:


> If I wanted to intercept Fw 190A tip and run raids then it has to be the Typhoon, although a P-40E-1/K available from later in 1942



I don't know how well they would do. And there weren't too many P-40s of any description in Britain in 1942. 

Then there was the matter of the Mustang Is that Britain had been operating since early 1942. Surely they would be a better bet for catching the Fw 190s than the P-40E or K?




Kevin J said:


> The Typhoon is a niche product, no doubt saved from cancellation by its ability to carry rockets and bombs. IMO, the P-40 is the better all round fighter.



I don't know how you could possibly conclude that.

The Typhoon is superior in almost every respect, as _a fighter_. The fact that it can also carry bombs and rockets, with considerable armour added, for ground attack speaks to its versatility.

The reason why the Typhoon was largely, but not completely, transferred to ground attack roles is because Britain had a better home defence fighter in the Spitfire IX, the Spitfire XII was as good as the Typhoon as a low level fighter, and superior in some respects, though only arriving in early 1943. By late 1943, of course, the Spitfire XIV was in production. It's the same reason why not many P-40s were operated by the RAF in Britain, if at all. They were sent everywhere but the home front.

Come to think of it, the P-40 was not operated by the USAAF in Britain either. Preferring, instead, the P-38 and P-47, at that time.

So, in summary, the Typhoon:

was faster at all altitudes
climbed better
turned better
dived better
had far superior firepower (only a few Typhoon Is with 12 mgs were built)

while the P-40F could fly 90 miles further on internal fuel, had a better roll rate and a slightly higher ceiling.


----------



## Kevin J (Mar 29, 2019)

wuzak said:


> Sure, because the Typhoon was only just ramping up production coming into 1942. While the P-40F was a variant on the P-40 airframe that had been in production since 1940, the P-40 itself based on an airframe that started production in 1938.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Whilst, I agree with most of this, I think you'll find that it wasn't until the end of 1942 that the Typhoon had its tail strengthened so that it could pull out of a dive and the P-40 could be pushed over 500 mph although it wasn't recommended by the manufacturers, so for me the P-40 in 1942 is better as at least you come out of the dive even if there was some damage to the plane. As for top speed, 25 mph in top speed isn't going to lose you a dogfight. The top speed of the Typhoon is of course faster low down, but again by the end of 1942, there was increased boost available in the P-40F/L. In 1943 the Spitfire LIX/XII come along with adequate performance to intercept Fw 190A tip and run raids. The Typhoon in mid 1942 to mid 1943 is clearly the fastest low altitude fighter and best for intercepting Fw 190A's. In the East, the Soviets operating at very low levels coped with the P40E-1/K with over boost. I repeat, IMO, the P-40 was the better all round fighter and that the Typhoon is niche for the ETO.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fubar57 (Mar 29, 2019)

Comments from four RCAF pilots who flew Typhoons, written last year...

THE TIFFY & THE SPIT: Both Allied Aircraft Made Their Mark During The War As Did The Canadians Flying Them

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Mar 29, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> Whilst, I agree with most of this, I think you'll find that it wasn't until the end of 1942 that the Typhoon had its tail strengthened so that it could pull out of a dive and the P-40 could be pushed over 500 mph although it wasn't recommended by the manufacturers, so for me the P-40 in 1942 is better as at least you come out of the dive even if there was some damage to the plane.



Diving in a P-40 wasn't all beer and skittles. There were a lot of directional instability during dives, the reason for the lengthened fuselage on later models. A lot of trimming and rudder were required, and the stick forces for pull out were high.

From AHT, a NACA report noted "Difficulties were experienced with P-40 series aircraft in dive demonstrations, and there were inadvertent entries into spins in service operations".




Kevin J said:


> As for top speed, 25 mph in top speed isn't going to lose you a dogfight.



No, but that was for the earlier Sabre II with lower limits. 

But the better climb and acceleration in a dive or on the level would help win a fight.




Kevin J said:


> The top speed of the Typhoon is of course faster low down, but again by the end of 1942, there was increased boost available in the P-40F/L.



And the Typhoon. Oh, and more rpm.

The additional boost meat how much more speed? Remembering the overboost was at very low altitudes.




Kevin J said:


> In 1943 the Spitfire LIX/XII come along with adequate performance to intercept Fw 190A tip and run raids.



And more performance than a P-40 on overboost?




Kevin J said:


> In the East, the Soviets operating at very low levels coped with the P40E-1/K with over boost.



They also were quite happy with short service life of engines.




Kevin J said:


> I repeat, IMO, the P-40 was the better all round fighter and that the Typhoon is niche for the ETO.



That the Typhoon only served in one theatre does not make it a "niche" aircraft. Considering the theatre it operated in was probably the world's most defended airspace - certainly in terms of flak, and later with fighters.

There is nothing the P-40 could do in Africa, the Middle East, MTO, CBI or the PTO that the Typhoon I could not. 

That it was not sent there does not mean it was unsuited for those theatres, but reflects the needs of Britain and its priorities. And, of course, production.

While there were over 3,000 Typhoons built, a large number of them were built in later war years - 1943 to 1945.


----------



## ThomasP (Mar 29, 2019)

In response to martinrn's post#1,111

Sorry, but you have some of your physics wrong.

A lower wing loading (everything else being equal) allows a higher service ceiling. And depending on how much the difference is between the higher wing loaded aircraft and the lower wing loaded aircraft, the lower wing loaded aircraft may be able to have a higher service ceiling with a less powerful engine. Hence:

__________Service_____Military
__________Ceiling______Power
P-40D____31,000 ft____1150 BHP
P-40E____30,000 ft____1150 BHP
P-40F____34,000 ft____1280 BHP
P-40N____32,000 ft____1150 BHP
Ki-43-I___38,000 ft______950 BHP
Ki-43-II___36,000 ft____1100 BHP

It should be noted that the Ki-43-II had a Normal power climb rate at 20,000 ft that was more than the P-40N-5's Normal power climb rate as SL, possibly more than the 
P-40N-5's Military power climb rate.


Also, and I realize that what I am about to type may get some of the Americans on this forum knickers in a bunch, there were 3 main reasons for the high kill-to-loss rate of the AVG/Flying Tigers (these reasons are not intended to be in order of importance):

1. Most of the fighter aircraft they were flying against were what could be considered second class aircraft at the time (it was not until they met the Ki-43-I and A6M-1 that they faced real competition).

2. About 80% of their kills were bombers and light attack aircraft (many of them biplanes).

3. In Burma, in concert with the Commonwealth forces, the AVG /Flying Tigers units had an early warning network of landline and a few radio equipped observers at some distance from their airfields. This early warning network allowed the AVG/Flying Tigers to do 2 things - get up to altitude in time to meet the enemy on equal footing. In China, a similar early warning system was put together, though not as complete or capable. While operating in China it was not uncommon for the AVG/Flying Tigers to refuse combat. If the odds did not look acceptable, or if they did not have enough warning, the early warning system still allowed the AVG/Flying Tigers to take off and leave the area, preserving their aircraft for later combat.

(Please note that I am not accusing the AVG/Flying Tigers of cowardice or incompetence of any sort. If you only have 13 operational aircraft available and there are 30 enemy fighters and 50 attack aircraft of various types approaching, and you have no chance of engaging on reasonable terms, it may be the smart thing to do. When you add in the fact that the AVG/Flying Tigers were there primarily to help defend and support the Chinese, by preventing their positions from being bombed and troops from being slaughtered without reply - and not just to make ace or earn money - it makes a lot of sense to refuse combat sometimes.)

These factors have been mentioned many times in various histories written over the years, but they are not as sexy as the romantic views of air-to-air combat, so popular accounts tend to ignore them.


----------



## Kevin J (Mar 29, 2019)

wuzak said:


> Diving in a P-40 wasn't all beer and skittles. There were a lot of directional instability during dives, the reason for the lengthened fuselage on later models. A lot of trimming and rudder were required, and the stick forces for pull out were high.
> 
> From AHT, a NACA report noted "Difficulties were experienced with P-40 series aircraft in dive demonstrations, and there were inadvertent entries into spins in service operations".
> 
> ...



If you want to compare the Typhoon with the P-40F/L then lets stick to comparing it in 1942/43. So are you really suggesting that it was suitable for overseas deployment then, after all a similar number would have been built of each. It wasn't until the Tempest II and VI arrived, which were Typhoon developments, that it was deployed to the Far East and Middle East, both fighters being too late for WW2. The P-40F/L were deployed everywhere except for the ETO.


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 29, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> Whilst, I agree with most of this, I think you'll find that it wasn't until the end of 1942 that the Typhoon had its tail strengthened so that it could pull out of a dive and the P-40 could be pushed over 500 mph although it wasn't recommended by the manufacturers, so for me the P-40 in 1942 is better as at least you come out of the dive even if there was some damage to the plane.



A lot of the P-40s superior diving ability is hype.
The Manual for the N (and others) says it was red lined at 480mph IAS, why should we say it is OK to push the P-40 passed this and not OK to push other aircraft past their red line?
In training the P-40 was not supposed to be dived faster than 350mph IAS (page 61) and the pilots were told to leave 5-8000 ft for pullout. The plane also wanted to roll to the right in a dive, the higher the speed, the greater the tendency to roll.
The P-40 was not immune to compressibility, it just didn't operate very often in the air space that compressibility was a problem.
Page 67 in the manual, "Vertical dives from 20,000ft are not recommended because of the danger of compressibility."
If you have a P-38 doing 400mph at 25,000ft and it goes into a dive it can hit it's compressibility limit pretty quick. A P-40 is starting 30-70mph (depending one engine, and exact altitude) slower to begin with, has to accelerate up to the compressibility speed limit in the dive and is getting into thicker air where compressibility is less of a problem.



> As for top speed, 25 mph in top speed isn't going to lose you a dogfight.


It isn't just the straight line speed. The 25mph represents an amount of surplus power than can be used for climbing or turning a little harder without losing speed (or as much speed)

say you have a 375mph plane and a 350mph plane and they are both doing 300mph in a turn. The faster plane (enve if it is going the same speed) has more options, it can climb better while turning at 300mph, it can turn tighter (maybe not a lot) while still doing 300mph.




> The top speed of the Typhoon is of course faster low down, but again by the end of 1942, there was increased boost available in the P-40F/L.



We have to define "low down: because many P-40 (and P-39) fans want to use the 70 in pressure (or at least mid to high 60s) from the Allisons to showcase the low altitude ability of the Allison powered planes. Trouble is a good number of those "inches" goes away by even 5,000ft and are mostly gone by 10-12,000.
The P-40F/L was better at altitude but it started with a higher boost limit. Going from 48in to 60 in is only a 25% increase, going from 44in in an Allison to 60in is a 36% increase.



> In the East, the Soviets operating at very low levels coped with the P40E-1/K with over boost. I repeat, IMO, the P-40 was the better all round fighter and that the Typhoon is niche for the ETO.



The Typhoon had some problems for overseas deployment that get a bit glossed over, it's overhaul life for the Sabre engine was a bit short (understatement?) early in it's life, it was a beast to work on, it needed 48 spark plugs instead of 24 and plugs got changed on aircraft engines fairly frequently. It also assumes you have the proper spark plugs in stock at your supply depot in Cairo or Ishapore or where ever. 
It needed more logistical support than many other fighter aircraft so unless there was a real need instead of "nice to have" it wasn't going anywhere.

The Logistical support for the P-40 was already in place and aside form the Merlin engine didn't change with the change of engine. 

Bringing in the Russians is a total misdirection as I don't believe the Russians got any Merlin powered P-40s unless it was a small batch for testing?
title of thread being "which-is-the-better-fighter-p-40f-or-typhoon"

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


----------



## Glider (Mar 29, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> Whilst, I agree with most of this, I think you'll find that it wasn't until the end of 1942 that the Typhoon had its tail strengthened so that it could pull out of a dive


 Just remember that the number of Typhoons lost to this cause was less than 30. A serious weakness no one would disagree, but the implication that a Typhoon couldn't pull out of a dive until the end of 1942 is clearly wrong.


> and the P-40 could be pushed over 500 mph although it wasn't recommended by the manufacturers


 At which point the controls are solid and there is a significant danger of you digging a large expensive hole in the ground. The VNE of the P40 was approx. 50 mph less than the Typhoon, because it wasn't safe to do otherwise. At 500mph they were doing tests on the Typhoon re opening the canopy and the VNE was 525 mph which is fantasy speeds to an operational P40 pilot.


> As for top speed, 25 mph in top speed isn't going to lose you a dogfight.


 A couple of points
25mph is enough to lose a dogfight or evade being shot down unless the opponent is pointing directly at you at the start. The Typhoon would be out of gun range in about 20 seconds, however the true speed differential is a lot more than that.


> The top speed of the Typhoon is of course faster low down, but again by the end of 1942, there was increased boost available in the P-40F/L. In 1943 the Spitfire LIX/XII come along with adequate performance to intercept Fw 190A tip and run raids. The Typhoon in mid 1942 to mid 1943 is clearly the fastest low altitude fighter and best for intercepting Fw 190A's. In the East, the Soviets operating at very low levels coped with the P40E-1/K with over boost. I repeat, IMO, the P-40 was the better all round fighter and that the Typhoon is niche for the ETO.


 The Spit LIX wasn't as fast as the Typhoon and wasn't as good when intercepting the FW190. Second point add as much extra boost as you like to the P40, it still wouldn't match the Typhoon at the equivalent time. This also had extra boost, better fuels and so on.
Russia isn't relevant for a number of reasons. One Russia as a nation was far more interested at getting more Spitfires and P39s rather than P40's and of course they didn't get any Typhoons.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Mar 29, 2019)

Glider said:


> The Typhoon had a VNE approx 50mph faster than the P40 and there is no doubt which is the fastest going downhill.
> when looking at the 190 the Typhoon was faster but the 190 had the better role rate.



Hello Glider,
Going downhill isn't the whole game. It really helps to be able to stop going downhill when you want to and the Typhoon never really could do that for Compressibility reasons.

If you look at the data that Wuzak just posted about Typhoon performance, it doesn't really agree with what you are describing.
You need to look at those numbers and compare them with what was gotten from Faber's captured FW 190A that was tested against a few other aircraft including the Spitfire Mk.IX.
The general conclusion according to the report was: "Except for Turning Circles, the FW 190 was more maneuverable."
In climb rate, in these tests, the FW 190A was going uphill about 1000 feet / minute faster than the Typhoon Mk.IB
It was nearly dead even with the Spitfire for speed and climb up to 20,000 feet.
From these numbers, the Typhoon didn't have a speed advantage except perhaps at very low altitude.

- Ivan.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Mar 29, 2019)

Ivan1GFP said:


> Hello Glider,
> Going downhill isn't the whole game. It really helps to be able to stop going downhill when you want to and the Typhoon never really could do that for Compressibility reasons.
> 
> If you look at the data that Wuzak just posted about Typhoon performance, it doesn't really agree with what you are describing.
> ...


Faber's Fokker had a de-rated engine also.


----------



## fubar57 (Mar 29, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> Faber's Fokker had a de-rated engine also.


Bi-plane?

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Mar 29, 2019)

fubar57 said:


> Bi-plane?



I'm using the Russian terminology.


----------



## MycroftHolmes (Mar 29, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> Faber's Fokker had a de-rated engine also.



Faber's aircraft was tested at higher boost than the Luftwaffe allowed, so its speed and climb were exaggerated.


----------



## fubar57 (Mar 29, 2019)

Testing Faber's 190....Focke-Wulf Fw 190A - Flying to the Limit: Testing World War II Single-engined Fighter Aircraft

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


----------



## Greyman (Mar 29, 2019)

Ivan1GFP said:


> Hello Glider,
> Going downhill isn't the whole game. It really helps to be able to stop going downhill when you want to and the Typhoon never really could do that for Compressibility reasons.
> 
> If you look at the data that Wuzak just posted about Typhoon performance, it doesn't really agree with what you are describing.
> ...



I'm not sure what you mean by 'able to stop going downhill' and what that has to do with compressibility. I'm sure the Typhoon 'sank' more on pullout than the P-40, but 3,000 more pounds and a 60 mph higher dive limit is going to get you there.

During testing of Faber's 190, the AFDU figured the Typhoon Ib faster at all heights. Best advantages at 8,000, 10,000, 16,300 and 20,500 feet.

The 190 easily outclimbed the Typhoon, as you mentioned.

The 190 was at 1.42 ata, 2700 rpm and the Typhie was at +7 lb, 3700 rpm.


----------



## Elvis (Mar 29, 2019)

Stig1207 said:


> AHT


Thank you Stig.


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Mar 29, 2019)

MycroftHolmes said:


> Faber's aircraft was tested at higher boost than the Luftwaffe allowed, so its speed and climb were exaggerated.



Hello MycroftHolmes,
Faber's aircraft was tested with engine settings as if it were NOT a derated engine. 1.42 ATA is nothing extraordinary for the aircraft.
Then again, I doubt that it was tested with C3 fuel so maybe that also had some effect.
The stall speeds for Faber's 190 also seem to be a bit higher than expected especially considering that it was one of the early versions.



Greyman said:


> I'm not sure what you mean by 'able to stop going downhill' and what that has to do with compressibility. I'm sure the Typhoon 'sank' more on pullout than the P-40, but 3,000 more pounds and a 60 mph higher dive limit is going to get you there.
> 
> During testing of Faber's 190, the AFDU figured the Typhoon Ib faster at all heights. Best advantages at 8,000, 10,000, 16,300 and 20,500 feet.



Hello Greyman,
When the Typhoon hits compressibility, it really can't pull out of the dive until it gets down low enough so that air is denser and speed of sound is high enough so it is out of compressibility. Until then, the pilot can't really do much but go along for the ride.

What were the margins of superiority? From the numbers in the report posted in an earlier link, it seems like maximum speed would have been equal by 20,000 feet.

- Ivan.


----------



## Greyman (Mar 29, 2019)

Ivan1GFP said:


> When the Typhoon hits compressibility, it really can't pull out of the dive until it gets down low enough so that air is denser and speed of sound is high enough so it is out of compressibility. Until then, the pilot can't really do much but go along for the ride.



Do you have more information on this re: the Typhoon? Or I miss something from earlier in the thread ...
According to A&AEE tests the Typhoon could be dived to maximum limiting speed (525 IAS) with no real issue.

No AFDU figures on the margins of speed superiority -- but I agree from looking at everyone's testing of both aircraft they seemed to be remarkably similar 15,000 feet and above (1942ish versions of each aircraft, anyway).


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 29, 2019)

To try and keep the timeline straight.

Typhoon:
First batch of 250 Mk 1a and 1b. Delivered between September 1941 and June 1942. 
Second batch of 250 Mk 1a and 1b. Delivered between June 1942 and September 1942. 
Third batch of 700 Mk1b. Delivered between September 20th 1942 and *May 5th 1943*. 

P-40F.
First Delivery of production aircraft Jan 1942. 
P-40Fs go into action in NA Aug 1942 (any earlier?) 
Last P-40F us delivered in Jan 1943 (1311?) 
P-40Ls with Merlin's are delivered in the first 4 months of 1943. 
*April 28th 1943 *sees the last P-40L (700) leave the production line, last of the Merlin powered P-40s. 

AS to Ground attack. The Typhoons did not start carrying bombs until late 1942 and it was pretty much 250lb or 500lb bombs for quite a while.
However the P-40F seems to have been limited to a single 500lb bomb and a 100lb under each wing (according to the manuals?) what service squadrons did???
Typhoons with Rockets don't show up until Oct 1943 (?). It took a number of modifications to get the Typhoon cleared to use a 1000lb bomb under each wing.
In fact for a while even the planes carrying a 500lb bomb under each wing were reported as being built that way at the factory (different brakes for one thing).

What Typhoons could or could not do in the ground attack role in late 1943 or 1944 has little bearing on the subject of the thread as the Merlin P-40s had been out of production for months (if not a year by the Spring of 1944) Of course the ground attack capability of the late 1943 and early 1944 P-40s should not enter into the discussion either.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Mar 30, 2019)

Greyman said:


> Do you have more information on this re: the Typhoon? Or I miss something from earlier in the thread ...
> According to A&AEE tests the Typhoon could be dived to maximum limiting speed (525 IAS) with no real issue.
> 
> No AFDU figures on the margins of speed superiority -- but I agree from looking at everyone's testing of both aircraft they seemed to be remarkably similar 15,000 feet and above (1942ish versions of each aircraft, anyway).



Hello Greyman,
I did some poking around and the best source I can find at the moment is actually an audio interview with Philip Lucas that can be found here: (It is pretty entertaining and educational.)


Note that Mr. Lucas describes the maximum diving speed of Typhoon as 500 MPH IAS even though the testing took it 10% higher.

Even the Tempest which was supposed to have resolved the compressibility issue seems to have a much lower dive speed limit than I had thought, especially at higher altitudes. I haven't tried to convert the numbers in this report to their True Air Speeds, but that might be interesting.
Tempest V Performance Data

Regarding Typhoon, I really had not been terribly interested in it before this thread and haven't tried to accumulate information on that aeroplane. From some of these reports, there some pretty interesting characteristics in the descriptions. The Propeller Pitch range seems to be VERY strange.
The speed and climb rate discussion seems to depend quite a bit on the exact models being compared.

- Ivan.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greyman (Mar 30, 2019)

Ivan1GFP said:


> Hello Greyman,
> I did some poking around and the best source I can find at the moment is actually an audio interview with Philip Lucas that can be found here: (It is pretty entertaining and educational.)
> 
> 
> ...




Very interesting interview. Though I heard things a bit differently. My take on it was that the Typhoon 'had a problem' with compressibility because it was the first aircraft they had that was fast enough to even be able to run into the issue -- and not because it had inferior characteristics in that regard compared to, say, the P-40. I think his point was that they were on the cutting edge of this new business of supersonic airflow -- and it was due to the Typhoon that allowed them to break into that new realm.

The Spitfire was superior in that respect, but it had other characteristics that limited its dive speed before compressibility became a problem.

Lucas is correct in remembering about 500 mph being the limiting dive speed -- for the prototype, which he was talking about.

The AFDU figures for the Tempest V you linked there seem very high to me, and beat the Spitfire, Mustang, and Thunderbolt.


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 30, 2019)

The Hawker Tornado, sort of a Typhoon with a RR Vulture engine first flew in Oct of 1939, problems with the Sabre delayed the Typhoons first flight to Feb 1940.

The Spitfire, probably by accident, is one of the few aircraft of this era to avoid (for the most part) compressibility problems. 

to really run into compressibility problems you have to be able to fly high enough and fast enough to be near the limit before starting the dive (P-38 with turbos could almost hit the limit in level flight at the right altitude). If you fly low level, say under 15,000ft (?) you are never going to run into it. 

Until you get a plane to do 400mph and do it over 20,000ft compressibility was pretty much unknown.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Mar 30, 2019)

Greyman said:


> Very interesting interview. Though I heard things a bit differently. My take on it was that the Typhoon 'had a problem' with compressibility because it was the first aircraft they had that was fast enough to even be able to run into the issue -- and not because it had inferior characteristics in that regard compared to, say, the P-40. I think his point was that they were on the cutting edge of this new business of supersonic airflow -- and it was due to the Typhoon that allowed them to break into that new realm.
> 
> The Spitfire was superior in that respect, but it had other characteristics that limited its dive speed before compressibility became a problem.
> 
> ...



Hello Greyman,
It is certainly amusing that we both heard the same thing but came to different conclusions.
As I heard it, the first (British) aircraft that actually encountered "Compressibility" issues was actually the Tornado and not the Typhoon.
The Tornado started to pitch upward when it reached a certain speed and it wasn't even in a dive. The aircraft was flown with yarn tufts and it was found that the airflow would reverse direction at the belly radiator and wing fairings. The Interviewer commented at this point.
It surprises me that this problem was not already encountered by the Spitfire by this time.
The Typhoon sounds like it had the same problem as the Thunderbolt did: The wing lost lift in compressibility and the aircraft could not recover from a dive until lower altitudes (below 8,000 feet) were reached. The Thunderbolt eventually addressed this issue by the installation of dive recovery flaps under the wings starting with the D-30 model with some older aircraft being retrofitted.
Apparently this issue was never addressed with Typhoon.

Regarding the dive speeds for the Tempest: 370 MPH IAS at 30,000 feet works out to slightly above 600 MPH TAS, so it was quite a bit faster than I was thinking and it makes sense that this was quite avoidable in service use. I don't have a source for comparing these numbers with those of Spitfire and Mustang.

- Ivan,


----------



## Greyman (Mar 30, 2019)

Some broken links but; Dive limits

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Mar 30, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> The Hawker Tornado, sort of a Typhoon with a RR Vulture engine first flew in Oct of 1939, problems with the Sabre delayed the Typhoons first flight to Feb 1940.
> 
> The Spitfire, probably by accident, is one of the few aircraft of this era to avoid (for the most part) compressibility problems.
> 
> ...


From what ive read under 20,000 feet compresability was pretty much a non issue with the p38. There's a graph in one of my books that ive also seen around various places that shows the sliding scale of compresability( higher=slower of course) for the Lightning and as I remember even up to 25,000 feet it looked like you really had to be cookin ( close to 500 as I remember) to run into trouble but above that things get a bit more troublesome as the speed of compresability nears the high to mid 400s.


----------



## Leutnant (Mar 30, 2019)

Stop fighting, ladies! To put it in simple terms, without all the stuff that you don't need, the P-40 was a overall better airplane.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 30, 2019)

Yes, who needs better speed, better climb, better dive, and better armament in a fighter?
Without all that unnecessary stuff the P-40 is better.

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


----------



## Navalwarrior (Mar 31, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> In the short time that the P-40F/L was built, around 2000 or approx 3 times the number of Typhoons's in 1942. In 1942, the P-40F/L was slightly slower at medium altitudes, but much slower at lower altitudes. It had a better range. Dive speeds were about the same in 1942. The Typhoon had a smaller turning circle but a worse roll rate. If I wanted to intercept Fw 190A tip and run raids then it has to be the Typhoon, although a P-40E-1/K available from later in 1942, with over boost would be acceptable. The Typhoon is a niche product, no doubt saved from cancellation by its ability to carry rockets and bombs. IMO, the P-40 is the better all round fighter.


Resp:
In the May 2019 issue of 'Aviation History' magazine, it states in 1941 the Hawker Typhoon was the first British fighter (assuming he meant 'single engine') to exceed 400 mph (also assuming 'in level flight'). This seems to be a significant speed advantage over any P-40.


----------



## Kevin J (Mar 31, 2019)

Navalwarrior said:


> Resp:
> In the May 2019 issue of 'Aviation History' magazine, it states in 1941 the Hawker Typhoon was the first British fighter (assuming he meant 'single engine') to exceed 400 mph (also assuming 'in level flight'). This seems to be a significant speed advantage over any P-40.


It all depends what you are fighting and at what altitude.


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 31, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> It all depends what you are fighting and at what altitude.



Ok, please quote a fighter pilot that said a particular fighter was "no good, it is too fast to be a good fighter"

We have a test of a P-40F dated July 14th 1942, date of report not test flights. 
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/P-40/P-40F_41-13601_PHQ-M-19-1440-A.pdf

We have a test report for the Typhoon IB from Nov 1942

Typhoon IB Performance Data

The P-40F was limited to 48"/9lb of boost and 2850RPM for the climb so in combat it would be a bit better using 3000rpm but unless the boost limit was raised the difference is not going to be a lot. 

The Typhoon was also limited in climb, it was run at 3500rpm and 6lbs boost instead of the 3700rpm and 7lbs allowed for full throttle at the time. SO it;s combat climb is also going to be a bit better also. 

The Merlins were rarely, if ever, over boosted to the extent the ALlisons were at low level. At some point the Merlins were allowed to use higher boost 12lbs/54in? 

The sway braces and bomb rack may have good for 10mph on the P-40F.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Apr 1, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> It all depends what you are fighting and at what altitude.



Hello Kevin J,
The choice of comparison between Typhoon and P-40F was an interesting one.
Although the P-40F had the highest maximum speed AT ALTITUDE of anything before about the P-40N, it was also one of the heaviest of any of the P-40 variants. It didn't tolerate over boosting that the early Allisons did and as a result was one of the slowest at low altitude and didn't climb particularly well.
About the only things it really had going for it in a contest against a Typhoon were much superior roll rate and agility and of course reliability. There isn't a practical altitude at which the Merlin P-40 can control the fight unless the Typhoon pilot is incredibly stupid.
Remember that the Merlin P-40 with a single stage supercharger was only a medium altitude fighter at best and there is no altitude at which the Typhoon does not have a significant speed advantage.
The Typhoon does have a few disadvantages such as its initial lack of engine reliability, a vibration from the engine that fatigued its pilots and also carbon monoxide in the cockpit, but none of that really matters much once the fight has started.

- Ivan.

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


----------



## Kevin J (Apr 1, 2019)

Ivan1GFP said:


> Hello Kevin J,
> The choice of comparison between Typhoon and P-40F was an interesting one.
> Although the P-40F had the highest maximum speed AT ALTITUDE of anything before about the P-40N, it was also one of the heaviest of any of the P-40 variants. It didn't tolerate over boosting that the early Allisons did and as a result was one of the slowest at low altitude and didn't climb particularly well.
> About the only things it really had going for it in a contest against a Typhoon were much superior roll rate and agility and of course reliability. There isn't a practical altitude at which the Merlin P-40 can control the fight unless the Typhoon pilot is incredibly stupid.
> ...



Without wishing to state the obvious, about the same number of P-40F/L (2000) and Typhoons (1850) were built in 1942/43. IIRC, the P-40's score 592 in the Med where they are operated and the Typhoon, all the way up to the end of the war, with 1500 being built, although only one third of them were used as fighters; they score 260. So as a fighter plane, combat effectiveness is 3:1 in favour of the Warhawk? IIRC, the Warhawk wasn't fighting the Typhoon, it was fighting the Luftwaffe and Regia Aeronautica. In the ETO, I would prefer the Typhoon as I want enemy fighter bomber raids dispatched quickly as they're after my expensive and valuable industrial targets. In the MTO, all the enemy is after is my military and they're armed to their teeth and can shoot back, high max speed is not mission critical, and the Warhawk is of course more reliable and pleasanter to fly. The Typhoon has a brief moment of glory in 1942/43 as a fighter just like the P-40F/L. So which is the better fighter? The one with the better combat record? The one that can be operated globally? The one that is more reliable mechanically? The one which is more pleasant to fly? So its the P-40, naturally. Of course if War Plan Red had been implemented, our Typhoons would have seen off the Yankee Warhawks, but it never happened.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Stig1207 (Apr 1, 2019)

That is two distinctly different theatres, Kevin. There is no way of knowing what the results would have been if they were swapped; P-40 operated in the ETO and the Typhoon in the MTO.


----------



## Kevin J (Apr 1, 2019)

Stig1207 said:


> That is two distinctly different theatres, Kevin. There is no way of knowing what the results would have been if they were swapped; P-40 operated in the ETO and the Typhoon in the MTO.


Disastrous in both cases.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Apr 1, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> Without wishing to state the obvious, about the same number of P-40F/L (2000) and Typhoons (1850) were built in 1942/43. IIRC, the P-40's score 592 in the Med where they are operated and the Typhoon, all the way up to the end of the war, with 1500 being built, although only one third of them were used as fighters; they score 260. So as a fighter plane, combat effectiveness is 3:1 in favour of the Warhawk?



Not if the Warhawk had 10x the enemy encounters than the Typhoon.


----------



## wuzak (Apr 1, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> Disastrous in both cases.



Disagree.

There is no reason to suspect that the Typhoon would do worse in the MTO.

There are several reasons to suspect that the P-40 would do worse in the ETO.

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


----------



## Kevin J (Apr 1, 2019)

wuzak said:


> Disagree.
> 
> There is no reason to suspect that the Typhoon would do worse in the MTO.
> 
> There are several reasons to suspect that the P-40 would do worse in the ETO.



The problem with the Typhoon in the MTO would have been support from the manufacturers from what was a brand new engine and fighter. the Warhawk was an established design. I think it would have done quite well employed as an offensive weapon for duties over France, but as an interceptor, a failure.


----------



## michael rauls (Apr 1, 2019)

I think if the theaters had been swapped both planes would have done surprisingly well though not as well as they did in the theaters they actually were used in.
They seem to both have atributes that made them well suited for where they were used.
Maybe those making the descisions of where to deploy each type knew what they were doing, in this case anyway.
Both aircraft are, in my opinion, chronically under rated.

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


----------



## Milosh (Apr 1, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> The problem with the Typhoon in the MTO would have been support from the manufacturers from what was a brand new engine and fighter. the Warhawk was an established design. I think it would have done quite well employed as an offensive weapon for duties over France, but as an interceptor, a failure.



The Typhoon was sent to the MTO for evaluation. Not sure what the conclusions were.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Apr 1, 2019)

Milosh said:


> The Typhoon was sent to the MTO for evaluation. Not sure what the conclusions were.


They never used it there, nor the Tempest V (Typhoon II). The Tempest VI was used in the Middle East post-War. Tempest II's (Centaurus) were sent to the Far East as part of Tiger Force, but never used.


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 1, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> the P-40's score 592 in the Med where they are operated and the Typhoon, all the way up to the end of the war, with 1500 being built, although only one third of them were used as fighters; they score 260


After hundreds of posts we are back to using a flawed methodology to evaluate the planes? While interesting this "method" leaves too many variables accounted for to be a reliable indicator of a planes worth. 


Kevin J said:


> So as a fighter plane, combat effectiveness is 3:1 in favour of the Warhawk?


See above, and many posts earlier in the thread. 


Kevin J said:


> So which is the better fighter? The one with the better combat record? The one that can be operated globally? The one that is more reliable mechanically? The one which is more pleasant to fly? So its the P-40, naturally.



Hmmm, by these standards the Ki 43 was a much better fighter than the P-40. A much higher "combat record" (at least in 1942/43) Globally? not so much but it was operated over an area larger than the ETO and MTO put together. More reliable? we need squadron records but nobody has said (at least the early ones) were unreliable and there is no pesky liquid cooling system to deal with. And from all accounts the Ki 43 was delightful to fly. So the Ki 43 is the better fighter, _naturally _

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


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Apr 1, 2019)

Hello Shortound6,
While I agree with the points you are making, the Ki 43 actually did have its share of reliability problems in its time.
The Ki 43-I was prone to structural failures in its wings. At one point, the 12.7 mm rounds were having "ammunition failures" by exploding just as they left the muzzle and damaging the engine....

- Ivan.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Navalwarrior (Apr 1, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> Without wishing to state the obvious, about the same number of P-40F/L (2000) and Typhoons (1850) were built in 1942/43. IIRC, the P-40's score 592 in the Med where they are operated and the Typhoon, all the way up to the end of the war, with 1500 being built, although only one third of them were used as fighters; they score 260. So as a fighter plane, combat effectiveness is 3:1 in favour of the Warhawk? IIRC, the Warhawk wasn't fighting the Typhoon, it was fighting the Luftwaffe and Regia Aeronautica. In the ETO, I would prefer the Typhoon as I want enemy fighter bomber raids dispatched quickly as they're after my expensive and valuable industrial targets. In the MTO, all the enemy is after is my military and they're armed to their teeth and can shoot back, high max speed is not mission critical, and the Warhawk is of course more reliable and pleasanter to fly. The Typhoon has a brief moment of glory in 1942/43 as a fighter just like the P-40F/L. So which is the better fighter? The one with the better combat record? The one that can be operated globally? The one that is more reliable mechanically? The one which is more pleasant to fly? So its the P-40, naturally. Of course if War Plan Red had been implemented, our Typhoons would have seen off the Yankee Warhawks, but it never happened.


Resp:
If you are talking greater impact, then the P-40 gets my vote. It is all those things you stated. But I thought we were discussing which is better.


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 1, 2019)

Ivan1GFP said:


> Hello Shortound6,
> While I agree with the points you are making, the Ki 43 actually did have its share of reliability problems in its time.
> The Ki 43-I was prone to structural failures in its wings. At one point, the 12.7 mm rounds were having "ammunition failures" by exploding just as they left the muzzle and damaging the engine....
> 
> - Ivan.


Thank you, The P-40Es had problems with their wing guns and the P-40F had pretty much the same installation, they just didn't see action until end of July and/or Aug of 1942 so maybe the problems were worked out in the 7-8 previous months. 
P-40Fs also went through engines much faster in NA than Allison powered P-40s, in part due to the lower position of the air intake for the carb, 
For all I know the Typhoon may have been worse had it been deployed to NA. 
Point is the P-40F was not exactly trouble free and as you may have guessed (in fact I am sure you did) I was trying to point out that the criteria/metrics being used to judge the P-40F vs Typhoon are not very good ones as they are either difficult or impossible to quantify.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Apr 1, 2019)

Navalwarrior said:


> Resp:
> If you are talking greater impact, then the P-40 gets my vote. It is all those things you stated. But I thought we were discussing which is better.


First trial installation of a tropical filter on a Typhoon was in 1943. Production Typhoon's were fitted with tropical filters from late 1944, two years after the Warhawk was introduced in the MTO in 1942/43. We know the P-40F/L could have operated in either theatre in 1942.
Hawker Typhoon - Wikipedia 
Hawker Typhoon | BAE Systems | International

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 1, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> First trial installation of a tropical filter on a Typhoon was in 1943. Production Typhoon's were fitted with tropical filters from late 1944, two years after the Warhawk was introduced in the MTO in 1942/43. We know the P-40F/L could have operated in either theatre in 1942.
> Hawker Typhoon - Wikipedia
> Hawker Typhoon | BAE Systems | International




And we know that the P-40Fs were going through Merlin engines at a high enough rate (in part due to not enough spares being ordered to begin with) that the British broke down about 600 used/damaged Merlins to provide spare parts to the Americans for engine overhauls in the MTO. We also know that somewhere around 100 P-40Fs (records are not clear) were re-engined with Allison engines and designated P-40Rs. Accounts differ as to whether this was done in the US for training aircraft or if any were done in the field (depot) in combat theaters. 

P-40Fs were the 2nd best USAAF fighter available in numbers in late 1942/ early 1943. The P-38 was first. 

There were only 523 P-47s built in 1942 and 258 of them were built in Nov-Dec. P-47s won't go into action in the ETO until April of 1943, it goes into action in the SW Pacific in Aug 1943.

If given a choice between P-40Fs with engines not lasting as long as desired or P-40Ks which don't have the altitude performance desired what do you do? 
You use the P-40Fs and figure out a repair scheme to keep them flying.

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


----------



## stona (Apr 1, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> It all depends what you are fighting and at what altitude.



The Typhoon IB of March 1943 did 417 mph (TAS) at 20,400 feet with a three blade propeller, 427 mph with a four blade propeller. Climb to 20,000 feet was 7.4 or 6.9 minutes respectively with the two propellers.

It was cleared to dive in service at 500 mph at 5,000 feet carrying two 500lb bombs. Of course it was tested in significantly faster dives at Boscombe Down.

The P-40 F is not close to this performance. According to the graphs in Dean (America's Hundred Thousand) It managed just 300 mph at sea level and 365 mph at 20,000 feet. Time to 20,000 feet was 11.5 minutes!

Cheers

Steve

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


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Apr 1, 2019)

stona said:


> The Typhoon IB of March 1943 did 417 mph (TAS) at 20,400 feet with a three blade propeller, 427 mph with a four blade propeller. Climb to 20,000 feet was 7.4 or 6.9 minutes respectively with the two propellers.
> 
> It was cleared to dive in service at 500 mph at 5,000 feet carrying two 500lb bombs. Of course it was tested in significantly faster dives at Boscombe Down.
> 
> ...



Hello Stona,
Let's be fair. Those speeds are about the best results ever for the Typhoon Mk.IB.
Most of the test reports show more like 400 MPH plus or minus 5 MPH.
There are also sources that list the P-40F as hitting speeds in the low 370 MPH range.
It doesn't change the standings much but it is a bit closer than your numbers indicate.

Hello Shortround6,
I am somewhat surprised that the Merlin suffered so badly due to the location of its carb intake.
There was a plate to block off the opening and presumably draw air from a filtered source. 
The closed intake can be seen in quite a few photographs.
I believe the same kind of arrangement was done on later models of Allison P-40.

As for failures, I don't put them all into the same category.
If a failure to function causes the mission to end but does not prevent a return to base, I see that as quite different from a failure that prevents a return to base.
A gun stoppage is one thing. An exploding shell that wrecks your own engine or an exploding gun that blows a hole in your wing structure is quite different.
An engine that wears out too quickly and needs an overhaul may not be so good, but it beats the heck out of one that goes quiet without warning and without enemy action.

- Ivan.


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 1, 2019)

Ivan1GFP said:


> I am somewhat surprised that the Merlin suffered so badly due to the location of its carb intake.
> There was a plate to block off the opening and presumably draw air from a filtered source.
> The closed intake can be seen in quite a few photographs.
> I believe the same kind of arrangement was done on later models of Allison P-40.



It was not helped by the USAAF not buying enough spare engines and/or spare parts to begin with. 

I don't know what the problem was, only that a number of sources say that the Merlins were wearing out quicker and then they linked it to sand ingestion. 

Allison taking in air on top of the spinner, the Merlin from underneath. Neither one ever got anything like the Vokes filter on Hurricanes or Spitfires. 
I am not saying they didn't do something, only that if they did, it fit in the normal cowl contours. 

P-38s were supposed to be able to switch to air intakes inside the wheel wells, what they had for filters I don't know, or how well the intakes were sheltered from the sand when taxiing at 90-100mph.


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Apr 1, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> It was not helped by the USAAF not buying enough spare engines and/or spare parts to begin with.
> 
> I don't know what the problem was, only that a number of sources say that the Merlins were wearing out quicker and then they linked it to sand ingestion.
> 
> ...



Hello Shortround6,
Actually the Carb intake area on the short nose Allison P-40s had a bit of variation that isn't really obvious unless you are looking for it specifically, so it kind of depends on what you decide is "normal".
There are about three different shapes to the carb intake opening. One way to tell is that the length changed a bit with different models and also the angles are slightly different (Probably because there is more stuff underneath). I found this out when I was wondering why the tech drawings and photographs of actual aircraft did not agree in this area. The newer pieces look more bulged or curved.
Check how close the carb opening is to the Spinner line and what the angle of the opening is and the angle of the duct behind the opening.
The "problem" is that any of the later cowl panels will fit on the earlier birds and often on modern flying examples, the parts have been replaced.
Look for a small panel on each side of the cowl with a bunch of holes. The holes are the filtered air intake for the engine. The early models won't have those (at least not from the factory).

I believe on the Merlin P-40, it was much more obvious because the plate that closed off the intake was much more visible. In the attached photograph of a Merlin P-40 on take off, it is pretty obvious from the reflection that the intake is closed off and air is being drawn from somewhere else. I believe it is a filtered source.

- Ivan.

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


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 1, 2019)

Thank you for that.


----------



## stona (Apr 2, 2019)

Ivan1GFP said:


> Hello Stona,
> Let's be fair. Those speeds are about the best results ever for the Typhoon Mk.IB.
> Most of the test reports show more like 400 MPH plus or minus 5 MPH.
> There are also sources that list the P-40F as hitting speeds in the low 370 MPH range.
> It doesn't change the standings much but it is a bit closer than your numbers indicate.



They are Boscombe Down's figures. I don't know where Dean's figures are from, presumably the USAAF.

Both sets are for aircraft tested by their relevant research establishments and will exceed those of service aircraft, but the Typhoon, at 20,000 feet was typically 40-50 mph faster than the P-40 in question. That is a huge difference, next we'll be arguing that the Hurricane was as fast as a Bf 109 E! *A 365 mph fighter, in Europe, in early 1943, was obsolescent at best.*

The Typhoon far out performs the P-40 in almost every measurable criterion. It's difficult to spin that to the P-40s advantage, though it won't stop people trying.

Cheers

Steve

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


----------



## Kevin J (Apr 2, 2019)

stona said:


> They are Boscombe Down's figures. I don't know where Dean's figures are from, presumably the USAAF.
> 
> Both sets are for aircraft tested by their relevant research establishments and will exceed those of service aircraft, but the Typhoon, at 20,000 feet was typically 40-50 mph faster than the P-40 in question. That is a huge difference, next we'll be arguing that the Hurricane was as fast as a Bf 109 E! *A 365 mph fighter, in Europe, in early 1943, was obsolescent at best.*
> 
> ...



I think that you'll find that most of the Spitfires being operated over Europe up until the Spitfire LFIXc was introduced in the spring of 1943 were in fact Spitfire FVc/LFVb's. There were still Spitfire FVc/LFVb squadrons operational in 1944. The Spitfire FIXc's built were limited in numbers and had to be shared between the RAF, the British Commonwealth, our European allies, the Americans and of course the MTO. Of the 5656 Spitfire IX's built, 4000 were of the LFIXc variant, so I doubt if there were more than 20 squadrons, or 1000, Spitfire FIXc's operating in both the ETO and MTO between the Summer of 1942 and Spring of 1943. If the Spitfire FVc/LFVb can operate successfully in the ETO then so could the P-40F/L. 

Supermarine Spitfire (late Merlin-powered variants) - Wikipedia 

On the Eastern Front, the Soviets only introduced the Yak-9 towards the end of the Battle of Stalingrad i.e. January 1943. This also was a 365 mph aircraft.


----------



## wuzak (Apr 2, 2019)

The Spitfire IXs that were "shared" with the British Commonwealth were based in Britain, or in the MTO.

The Spitfire V could climb better and turn better than the P-40F, and had better firepower. 

By early 1943 the Spitfire V had a couple of tricks up its sleeve that the P-40 could not replicate.

A Luftwaffe pilot may have been confident in beating a Spitfire V with an Fw 190 or Bf 109F-4, but was he sure that plane he has spotted is a Mk.V? Or is it a Mk IX? Or is it a Mk XII?

Reactions: Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Apr 2, 2019)

wuzak said:


> The Spitfire IXs that were "shared" with the British Commonwealth were based in Britain, or in the MTO.
> 
> The Spitfire V could climb better and turn better than the P-40F, and had better firepower.
> 
> ...



In the MTO, the P40F/L was battling the same Luftwaffe fighters as well as the later Italian ones. They still scored well.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 2, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> I think that you'll find that most of the Spitfires being operated over Europe up until the Spitfire LFIXc was introduced in the spring of 1943



There were 4 squadrons of Spit MK IXs at Deippe, along with 4 squadrons of Mustang Is and 2-4 squadrons of Typhoons (I haven't looked it up) While that is certainly not the bulk of the the Raf it is also August of 1942 and not the Spring of 1943,
Jan of 1943 saw 15 squadrons of Mustang Is, `12 squadrons of Typhoons and 13 squadrons of Spitfire IXs. There were an awful lot of MK V Spits left but they were no longer carrying the bulk of the work or at least not flying without some support by Typhoons and MK IXs. 

A MK IX with a Merlin 61 might not be as bad as you think in the fall of 1942. Getting the LFIXc earlier might not have been needed as badly as you think. 
The German aircraft of late 1942 and very early 1943 were not the same as the German aircraft that began to be introduced in the spring and summer of 1943. The 109G-6 only began to be introduced in Feb/March of 1943 and far from instantly displacing all other 109s at least one factory was still building 109G-4s in July of 1943 (with two 7.9mm cowl guns)

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Apr 2, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> In the MTO, the P40F/L was battling the same Luftwaffe fighters as well as the later Italian ones. They still scored well.



Looking through a few pages of Volume Three of 'A History of the Mediterranean Air War - November 1942-May 1943' would suggest that this was not the case.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Apr 2, 2019)

stona said:


> They are Boscombe Down's figures. I don't know where Dean's figures are from, presumably the USAAF.
> 
> Both sets are for aircraft tested by their relevant research establishments and will exceed those of service aircraft, but the Typhoon, at 20,000 feet was typically 40-50 mph faster than the P-40 in question. That is a huge difference, next we'll be arguing that the Hurricane was as fast as a Bf 109 E! *A 365 mph fighter, in Europe, in early 1943, was obsolescent at best.*
> 
> ...



Hello Stona,
I am not disputing that the Typhoon had superior performance to a Merlin P-40.
What I am disputing is whether 417 MPH and 427 MPH are representative maximum speeds for a typical Typhoon.
I believe you are cherry picking your data to prove a point.

If you look at the tests here (done by the same people):
Typhoon IB Performance Data
I believe you will see the reason.
I believe 400 MPH plus or minus 5 mph is a pretty good summary of these tests.
That also matches up pretty well with most references that list the maximum speed as 405-410 MPH even though quite a few of those tested aircraft could not break 400 MPH.

I don't argue that the Typhoon was faster than a P-40F by a fairly large margin.
What I do not agree with is your conclusion that the speed difference is 40-50 MPH at 20,000 feet.
I believe that 25-40 MPH is a more realistic difference.
Now if you had stated that the speed difference was over 50 MPH at sea level, you would get no argument from me.

The Typhoon was not a slow aircraft but it wasn't particularly fast for the amount of installed power that it had.

- Ivan.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Apr 2, 2019)

The point is that the Typhoon widely out performed the P-40 across the board.

Whether it was 40 mph or 50 mph faster at 20,000 feet would obviously vary from aircraft to aircraft. In broad terms, the P-40 F was a 360 mph aircraft, the Typhoon at least a 400 mph aircraft.

I actually think it is ridiculous to make comparisons between two such different aircraft. 

Cheers

Steve

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


----------



## Kevin J (Apr 2, 2019)

I think the comparisons should be between the P-40F/L and Bf 109F/G, the Typhoon and Fw 190A.


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Apr 2, 2019)

stona said:


> The point is that the Typhoon widely out performed the P-40 across the board.
> 
> Whether it was 40 mph or 50 mph faster at 20,000 feet would obviously vary from aircraft to aircraft. In broad terms, the P-40 F was a 360 mph aircraft, the Typhoon at least a 400 mph aircraft.
> 
> ...



Hello Stona,
I would call it a 370 MPH versus 405 MPH if I had to pick a number.
No doubt some were faster and some were slower but this seems to me to be pretty fair numbers.

It does seem a bit weird to compare such different aircraft but I believe the common theme was that neither one was a particularly great success as a fighter. They were certainly useful for their time, but both had some serious problems.
As for the merits of such a thread, note that we are on Page 60 now and are still arguing.
I also believe that there are those here who have an emotional investment and take offense at any comment that THEIR baby isn't the greatest thing around.

As for "widely outperforming", I really dislike such generalizations.
The Typhoon had an almost 1000 HP advantage but for some reason, the early versions didn't climb much better than a P-40F.
The P-40F because of its extra weight also happened to be one of the slowest climbing of the short nose P-40s, so this is really not impressive.
I believe the issue was that the Propeller Pitch range was much too coarse, but there may be other reasons.
The Typhoon's climb rate was greatly improved in later versions.
The best climbing Typhoon and best climbing P-40 (definitely NOT a P-40F) appear to be fairly comparable.

As for speed, Typhoon had an advantage of around 50-60 MPH at sea level dropping to about 35 MPH by 20,000 feet.
The Typhoon has a significant advantage in diving speed and acceleration but also has a compressibility and control problem above 8,000 feet.

For maneuverability, Typhoon has a larger turning radius and much slower roll rate. P-40s have some of the best roll rates of fighters of the that time while the Typhoon is one of the worst.
This maneuverability advantage is probably all the P-40F has over the Typhoon but of course it is useful only if the other pilot is stupid enough to play your game.
I believe that is a pretty fair comparison of one versus the other.

- Ivan.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Apr 2, 2019)

The USAAF couldn't get 370 mph out of the ones they tested.

We're comparing the P-40 F with the Typhoon (unspecified). I couldn't care less about the rate of climb of other versions of the P-40. Remember that the P-40 was much lighter than the Typhoon. What the Americans call the 'basic' weight of the P-40 F was just 7,089 lbs, I doubt that any Typhoon ever took of without weighing 2,000lbs more than that (more than 25% heavier).

I don't have data for the P-40s rate of roll but I don't doubt that it was superior. The RAF established a mean rate of roll for the Typhoon (and other aircraft) by flying them at 250, 300 and 400 mph (IAS) at 5,000, 10,000 and 18,000 feet. For the Typhoon IB this rate was 54 degrees per second, which is not good.

I agree with your last paragraph. It's why I don't see the point of the comparison.

If your life depended on it, which aircraft would you choose?

Maybe that should be made into a poll 

Cheers

Steve


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Apr 2, 2019)

stona said:


> We're comparing the P-40 F with the Typhoon (unspecified). I couldn't care less about the rate of climb of other versions of the P-40. Remember that the P-40 was much lighter than the Typhoon. What the Americans call the 'basic' weight of the P-40 F was just 7,089 lbs, I doubt that any Typhoon ever took of without weighing 2,000lbs more than that (more than 25% heavier).



Hello Stona,
You seem to be trying to justify the lack of performance of the Typhoon despite its much superior engine power or is there another reason for bringing up the weight difference? I believe it was for other reasons but I'll play for a little bit.
I figure a Typhoon taking off at 9100 pounds would be a bit on the light side. Then again the gross weight of the P-40F without external stores is already at 8678 pounds. The Typhoon still would have a much superior power loading so there is probably some other reason the climb rate was so low. For the P-40F, the reasons were fairly obvious: It was a relatively heavy bird and didn't have a lot of engine power at low altitude.



stona said:


> If your life depended on it, which aircraft would you choose?



That is a good question. I have already given my answer twice and you can already gather what my answer would be if I had to fly one against the other from what I have stated in the comparisons.

How about we take this from other points of view.
I believe the answer would depend on when and where I was and the role I had.
If I was commanding a fighter force in CBI in 1942 (or depended on the actions of a fighter force), I would choose the P-40F. I would expect fewer losses due to mechanical failures and a greater state of readiness with fewer maintenance issues.
Having lesser performing fighters in the air beats having nothing in the air and numbers often beat quality and often performance really doesn't matter very much (such as when intercepting bombers or transports).
The same would apply to any location that is a little distant on the supply chain or had fairly long distance flights over less than friendly territory.
If I were a pilot in 1942 and didn't know what the opposition would be, I would still pick the P-40F in most cases unless the flights were over England or the just off the coast where there was a likely rescue in the event of an engine failure.
After D-Day and flying over continental Europe, I would pick the Typhoon. By that time, most the of bugs that could be fixed were addressed and the chances were that the missions were not far behind enemy lines anyway.
Back in high school, I came across a book by Roland Beamont about his time with the Typhoon. The thing that stood out the most was the great number of engine failures he described. One other thing that I remember about that book was that the artwork on the dust jacket had ventral fins on the Typhoon. (They were really the inner landing gear doors, but the artist apparently didn't know that.)

- Ivan.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Apr 2, 2019)

Ivan1GFP said:


> Hello Stona,
> I am not disputing that the Typhoon had superior performance to a Merlin P-40.
> What I am disputing is whether 417 MPH and 427 MPH are representative maximum speeds for a typical Typhoon.
> I believe you are cherry picking your data to prove a point.



The Typhoon had detail improvements to reduce drag and the Sabre engine gained boost and rpm.


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 2, 2019)

As far as the Typhoon not being deployed to other theaters, unless you are going to deploy large numbers (more than few squadrons) you are introducing a whole new spare parts logistic problem. Not just engines or a some crash/heavy landing spare parts but brakes and tyres which are consumables (anything else?) . The British may have trialed them in the Mid east to see what problems might arise should they be needed ( and it depends _when, _some in the Air Ministry held onto the idea that the Typhoon was future of RAF for a time after the MK IX Spit showed up). 

I have no idea what problems turned up or didn't turn up in the trials but it seems the Typhoons weren't needed. 

The P-40F may very well have been a 370mph Airplane, the belly shackles and sway braces were good for about 10mph. But you can't pick and choose at times. If you want the radius of action the drop tank gives you, you have to contend with the drop in speed. Early Typhoons did not have fittings for either bombs or drop tanks. 

Bringing in the Spit V really opens up a can of worms on the condition of the plane. Aside from the infamous Vokes filter we have the results of a MK Vb fitted with a Merlin 50 engine, 

forgetting the actual performance we have a test plane with.


Mk. VB wings with 1 x 20 mm. gun and 2 x 0.303" guns fitted in each. No stubs for further 20 mm. guns. Muzzles of all guns sealed, ejection chutes open. 
Wing tips not "clipped".
Aerial mast complete with aerial.
No I.F.F. aerials.
Balloon type hood.
External bullet-proof windscreen.
External rectangular rear-view mirror without fairing on forward side.
Temperate type air intake without ice guard.
Oil cooler exit duct not flared.
Indivdual ejector exhausts stubs of a flattened type.

This was in April of 1943 and we can see a number of variations from what might be considered "standard" at the time, some help the results, some don't.

We need to consider the condition/set up of the test plane and it's common usage.
The P-40F may have been a 370+mph plane with a clean belly but very few of them were flown that way in combat.

For the Typhoon make sure you are comparing a plane with cannon as how many had machine guns (114?). Likewise the Typhoons with 4 bladed props don't show up until many of the P-40Fs are being retired due to age. 
The Typhoon started it's career in Sept of 1941 with No 56 Squadron, considering the the prototype P-40F only flew in June or July of 1941 and the first production example wasn't completed until Jan 1942 _and _the P-40F didn't see combat until July/Aug of 1942 there was a fair bit of time when the Tiffy was better simply because it was there and the P-40F wasn't. 
The Typhoons career spanned almost 4 years *3 years 8 months) while the P-40Fs career was around two years or less. We have to be careful about picking which examples from when for our comparisons.

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


----------



## Kevin J (Apr 3, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> As far as the Typhoon not being deployed to other theaters, unless you are going to deploy large numbers (more than few squadrons) you are introducing a whole new spare parts logistic problem. Not just engines or a some crash/heavy landing spare parts but brakes and tyres which are consumables (anything else?) . The British may have trialed them in the Mid east to see what problems might arise should they be needed ( and it depends _when, _some in the Air Ministry held onto the idea that the Typhoon was future of RAF for a time after the MK IX Spit showed up).
> 
> I have no idea what problems turned up or didn't turn up in the trials but it seems the Typhoons weren't needed.
> 
> ...



Maybe deliveries of the Typhoon began in September 1941, but it wasn't operational until May 1942. 28 built in 1941, 686 in 1942, 1137 (1943), 1165 (1944), 299 (1945). In the case of the P-40 you get 1311 F by Winter 1942 and 700 L by Spring 43. While the RAF are wringing the bugs out of the Typhoon in the second half of 1942 in the ETO, the Warhawk is fully operational and being operated successfully in the MTO. By 1943, the Typhoon is dropping bombs and by 1944 firing rockets. Its speed below 10000 feet is faster than any other fighter until the Tempest appears in 1944. Its main enemy in 1942, the Fw 190A fighter bomber. In the MTO, the main enemy of the P-40F/L is the Bf 109F/G, 321 of its 592 victories are against these fighters. During the entire war the Typhoon only shoots down 260 enemy planes. In Summer 1944, one third of Typhoon squadrons are being used for air defence (ADGB), two thirds in 2nd TAF ground attack, and by this time the P-40F/L has been withdrawn from service.


----------



## Stig1207 (Apr 3, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> In the MTO, the main enemy of the P-40F/L is the Bf 109F/G, 321 of its 592 victories are against these fighters



Once again, this is not valid comparison. There is no way of knowing whether P-40F/L would manage to achieve 260 victories in the ETO, deployed in the same numbers and flying the same missions as the Typhoon, and vice versa.

Not all sources agree that 592 is the number of victories scored by USAAF P-40's in the MTO; it is the highest number being bantied about. However, whatever number of victories they got, they were shared by 16 squadrons. 

I don't know how many Typhoon squadrons shared the 260 victories?


----------



## Kevin J (Apr 3, 2019)

Stig1207 said:


> Once again, this is not valid comparison. There is no way of knowing whether P-40F/L would manage to achieve 260 victories in the ETO, deployed in the same numbers and flying the same missions as the Typhoon, and vice versa.
> 
> Not all sources agree that 592 is the number of victories scored by USAAF P-40's in the MTO; it is the highest number being bantied about. However, whatever number of victories they got, they were shared by 16 squadrons.
> 
> I don't know how many Typhoon squadrons shared the 260 victories?



IIRC by 1943, when the Typhoon squadrons were split between ADGB and 2nd TAF, there were 9 squadrons for Air Defence and 18 for ground attack. The P-40F/L would certainly not be flying the same missions as the Typhoon, but the missions assigned to the Spitfire Vc. I certainly wouldn't want to use them for Air Defence as they're slow climbing. Like in the MTO, I'd want to use them in an Air Superiority role.


----------



## wuzak (Apr 3, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> IIRC by 1943, when the Typhoon squadrons were split between ADGB and 2nd TAF, there were 9 squadrons for Air Defence and 18 for ground attack. The P-40F/L would certainly not be flying the same missions as the Typhoon, but the missions assigned to the Spitfire Vc. I certainly wouldn't want to use them for Air Defence as they're slow climbing. Like in the MTO, I'd want to use them in an Air Superiority role.



Air defence and air superiority would be roles taken by the Spitfire IX and XII in early 1943. No P-40 would be superseding those.

And, of course, a few Typhoons squadrons.


----------



## Kevin J (Apr 3, 2019)

wuzak said:


> Air defence and air superiority would be roles taken by the Spitfire IX and XII in early 1943. No P-40 would be superseding those.
> 
> And, of course, a few Typhoons squadrons.


Spitfire FVc/LFVb's as their useful for close escort. In rear areas the Vc for air defence.


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 3, 2019)

The two theaters are not directly comparable because the tactical situations were different. 

The Germans were operating very few bombers (as opposed to Jabos) and transports in the ETO. In 1942 and early 1943 the daylight bombing had yet to get started in really big numbers. The German daylight fighters only came up to "play" when they thought they had an advantage. One of the actions described earlier in this thread had something like 3 squadrons of fighters escorting either 4 or 6 bombers, There was no upside to the Germans making a determined attack on formations like that.

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


----------



## pbehn (Apr 3, 2019)

The Typhoon and Tornado were supposed to be the next generation of RAF fighters but events overtook them. They Tornado was dropped with its vulture engine, the Spitfire Mk IV (first Griffon)first flew in November 1941, the Spitfire Mk IX first flew 26 Feb 1942, The first Tempest prototype flew on 2 Sept 1942. The first production Tempests appeared in June 1943 from which date the Typhoon wasn't even the best fighter made by Hawkers let alone in service with the RAF or allies.


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Apr 3, 2019)

Is anyone else here getting a serious sense of Deja Vu?

I don't believe either of these two fighters was really that good or even the best for its time.
Both had a kind of character to them though. Both are attractive in their way but had their problems.
"De gustibus non disputandum est."

- Ivan.


----------



## Glider (Apr 3, 2019)

C an I ask where the 260 victories for the Typhoons come from?


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Apr 3, 2019)

Glider said:


> C an I ask where the 260 victories for the Typhoons come from?



The Luftwaffe?

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 3, 2019)

Another chart.





One can see how the activity varied in different theaters and how the activity in the ETO was different than in the MTO.

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


----------



## Navalwarrior (Apr 13, 2019)

Ivan1GFP said:


> Hello Stona,
> I am not disputing that the Typhoon had superior performance to a Merlin P-40.
> What I am disputing is whether 417 MPH and 427 MPH are representative maximum speeds for a typical Typhoon.
> I believe you are cherry picking your data to prove a point.
> ...


Resp:
Max speeds of 417 and 427 were likely calculated on a 'clean' aircraft. However, a few mph over 400 was realistic for the Typhoon. I am a big fan of the P-40 but I believe it was totally unsuited for the ETO, particularly as a fighter. I know Allisons were capable of speeds exceeding 400 (note the P-82 Twin Mustang in the 1950s) but they required a more advanced carburetors/super chargers.


----------



## Navalwarrior (Apr 14, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> View attachment 534158
> 
> 
> The two theaters are not directly comparable because the tactical situations were different.
> ...


Resp:
Keep in mind (at least in the MTO) that axis targets were more mobile than those in the ETO where more were fixed positions (as in factories in Germany) for the Allies especially in to 1944. And fixed positions for the Axis forces in the early years with targets in England and to some degree Russia.


----------



## Dan Fahey (Apr 19, 2019)

Navalwarrior said:


> Resp:
> Keep in mind (at least in the MTO) that axis targets were more mobile than those in the ETO where more were fixed positions (as in factories in Germany) for the Allies especially in to 1944. And fixed positions for the Axis forces in the early years with targets in England and to some degree Russia.



Key feature of the P40 it had a lot more range than the Axis Fighters. It was a more effective combat plane than anything the Germans had. It appears the P40 did more attacking than defending. Germans did a bit more defending then attacking. We have a lot of data on shootdowns. P40 did a credible job defending itself. Hardly see anything about ground operations where the P40 spent a good bit as a Ground Attack plane or bombing vessels at sea. The Tempest Typhoon Series were not sorted out enough in time. Wondering if the engine mechanics struggled to keep the planes Flying. They do not look easy to work on.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Milosh (Apr 20, 2019)

A nice book on the air war in North Africa, _Focke-Wulf in North Africa _by Arthy/Jenssen. Besides the normal text has tables for claims and losses.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Apr 20, 2019)

Dan Fahey said:


> Key feature of the P40 it had a lot more range than the Axis Fighters. It was a more effective combat plane than anything the Germans had. It appears the P40 did more attacking than defending. Germans did a bit more defending then attacking. We have a lot of data on shootdowns. P40 did a credible job defending itself. Hardly see anything about ground operations where the P40 spent a good bit as a Ground Attack plane or bombing vessels at sea. The Tempest Typhoon Series were not sorted out enough in time. Wondering if the engine mechanics struggled to keep the planes Flying. They do not look easy to work on.



Hello Dan Fahey,
Your conclusions regarding relative merits of the P-40 versus German fighters is "interesting".
In comparison against the FW 190 in its various versions, I don't see how the P-40 can be seen to be a "more effective combat plane".
There never was a production version of the P-40 which would have been a competitive air superiority fighter in the ETO. Even the fastest versions never could beat 380 MPH and while that might do in the Pacific, that was 1941-1942 era performance in the ETO. Various versions of the FW 190 were clearly competitive to the end of the war.
The FW 190 was a much superior load lifter and ground attack aircraft and some versions actually had pretty good range (Jabo-Rei).

I am not saying that the P-40 did not do very good work, but that is really a credit to its pilots and not to the superiority of the aircraft over its opposition.

- Ivan.

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


----------



## Dan Fahey (Apr 21, 2019)

Ivan1GFP said:


> Hello Dan Fahey,
> Your conclusions regarding relative merits of the P-40 versus German fighters is "interesting".
> In comparison against the FW 190 in its various versions, I don't see how the P-40 can be seen to be a "more effective combat plane".
> There never was a production version of the P-40 which would have been a competitive air superiority fighter in the ETO. Even the fastest versions never could beat 380 MPH and while that might do in the Pacific, that was 1941-1942 era performance in the ETO. Various versions of the FW 190 were clearly competitive to the end of the war.
> ...


The Fw190 was not used much in the Mediterranean. At least not as much as in Italy. Africa was the Italians and German Me 109. Fw190 was not used for ground attack until the later models. It was predominantly used as air superiority until the FW 190 F designed to replace the Stuka. Still down mid-low level fights the P40 was a better dogfighter than the FW 190. Especially considering grind crews figured out how to over boost the Allison. Interestingly the FW190 did not have that much height advantage over the later model P40s. 

When I read the history..the Allies did a lot more attacking of Axis Bases than the other way around. The P40 had a third more range with a bomb than the Me109 the P40s main opponent. Most of the P40s shot down were carrying bombs. Fighter to Fighter is was a more even exchange.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 21, 2019)

Dan Fahey said:


> The Fw190 was not used much in the Mediterranean. At least not as much as in Italy. Africa was the Italians and German Me 109. Fw190 was not used for ground attack until the later models. It was predominantly used as air superiority until the FW 190 F designed to replace the Stuka. Still down mid-low level fights the P40 was a better dogfighter than the FW 190. Especially considering grind crews figured out how to over boost the Allison. Interestingly the FW190 did not have that much height advantage over the later model P40s.
> 
> When I read the history..the Allies did a lot more attacking of Axis Bases than the other way around. The P40 had a third more range with a bomb than the Me109 the P40s main opponent. Most of the P40s shot down were carrying bombs. Fighter to Fighter is was a more even exchange.


However, the fact is, that the Fw190 debuted in North Africa in late 1942 with III./ZG2, II./JG2 and II./Sch.G2 with the Fw190A-4/Trop and Fw190A-5/Trop. The Fw190s attached to ZG2 and Sch.G2 inflicted a great many losses against Allied targets in ground attack.
The Fw190s of II./JG2 account for a considerable amount of Allied fighters during 1943 - Bühligen and Rudorffer were the top Fw190 combat Experten in North Afrika.

I know this fact paints a contrary picture to the previous statement, but there it is, like it or not.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Stig1207 (Apr 21, 2019)

Dan Fahey said:


> The Fw190 was not used much in the Mediterranean. At least not as much as in Italy. Africa was the Italians and German Me 109. Fw190 was not used for ground attack until the later models. It was predominantly used as air superiority until the FW 190 F designed to replace the Stuka. Still down mid-low level fights the P40 was a better dogfighter than the FW 190. Especially considering grind crews figured out how to over boost the Allison. Interestingly the FW190 did not have that much height advantage over the later model P40s.
> 
> When I read the history..the Allies did a lot more attacking of Axis Bases than the other way around. The P40 had a third more range with a bomb than the Me109 the P40s main opponent. Most of the P40s shot down were carrying bombs. Fighter to Fighter is was a more even exchange.



See Milosh's post and the suggested Fw190 in North Africa; you might just get a few more facts to base your opinions on


----------



## Milosh (Apr 21, 2019)

Here can be found the Luftwaffe claims.

http://don-caldwell.we.bs/jg26/claims/tonywood.htm


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Apr 21, 2019)

Dan Fahey said:


> The Fw190 was not used much in the Mediterranean. At least not as much as in Italy. Africa was the Italians and German Me 109. Fw190 was not used for ground attack until the later models. It was predominantly used as air superiority until the FW 190 F designed to replace the Stuka.
> .



Hello Dan Fahey,
You have already gotten comments about where the FW 190 was used, so I won't bother repeating.
Keep in mind that your original comment was that the P-40 was superior to ANYTHING the Germans flew and that is clearly not the case. The FW 190F/G were not always later models but actually started life as specialized variants I believe of the A-4 and A-5 series, so the ground attack versions came along much earlier than you might have thought.



Dan Fahey said:


> Still down mid-low level fights the P40 was a better dogfighter than the FW 190. Especially considering grind crews figured out how to over boost the Allison. Interestingly the FW190 did not have that much height advantage over the later model P40s.
> .



An early P-40E or P-40K with less supercharger would have been able to run in the neighbourhood of 60 inches of boost down near Sea Level. The problem is that this is not "mid-low level". It is distinctly LOW level. Note that in the testing against the Aleutian Zero, the P-39D with the same supercharger could not maintain this level of boost past 4,000 feet. In other words, a little TINY zoom climb and the P-40 can't maintain this WEP rating any more.
Even at this maximum boost, the engine output of the P-40 would only be equal to the MILITARY rating of the FW 190 and isn't that much difference in weight. With any kind of Emergency Power available, the FW 190 gains about 200-300 extra HP and a much larger advantage.
The Focke Wulf has the firepower, speed, climb, and roll rate advantage over the P-40 in just about every model. About the only thing the P-40 can do better is pull a tighter turn and only an idiot plays that game if they already have every other advantage.

Regarding Height Advantage, you might be correct if you try to match up the best P-40 against the worst FW 190, but keep in mind that the FW 190 also got a few improvements and there is no version of the P-40 that ever could keep up with a FW 190D or the late FW 190A/F/G.



Dan Fahey said:


> When I read the history..the Allies did a lot more attacking of Axis Bases than the other way around. The P40 had a third more range with a bomb than the Me109 the P40s main opponent. Most of the P40s shot down were carrying bombs. Fighter to Fighter is was a more even exchange.



As I commented before, the achievements of the P-40 do not appear to be because of superiority of the aircraft. There is no argument that the 109 simply had no range nor did it have that much load carrying capacity, but.....
The only model of the Me 109 that was reliably slower than even the fastest P-40 was the 109E. Even against the sad-sack Me109G-6/R6 that everyone uses for a speed comparison, the 109 is about 10 MPH faster and that is with a pair of cannon pods under the wings along with the weakest engine in the G series.
With the later G series and K series, the 109 was 50-65 MPH faster and again, there is no way any P-40 could keep up.

- Ivan.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 21, 2019)

Dan Fahey said:


> Most of the P40s shot down were carrying bombs. Fighter to Fighter is was a more even exchange.



And once again Dan, do you have documented evidence to back this up or is this your biased (and probably delusional) opinion


----------



## Glider (Apr 22, 2019)

Glider said:


> The question is what has that got to do with the relationship between G forces and speed. By the way stalling speed also has nothing to do with it and I am confident that every fighter could pull over 4G. It's nothing special.
> 
> So just to repeat myself where did you get the idea that the following statement has anything to do with reality?
> 
> _P-40s could sustain far more than 4Gs and the limit was basically what the pilot could endure. Of course any WW2 fighter will lose altitude in a turn though naturally. Usually you aren't pulling G's at all unless you are going pretty fast to begin with_


Schweik - you marked this posting as disagree, I would love to know what you disagree about it as your comment in italics has little if anything to do with reality.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Apr 22, 2019)

Glider said:


> Schweik - you marked this posting as disagree, I would love to know what you disagree about it as your comment in italics has little if anything to do with reality.



I thought you had noticed, G force and speed _are_ in fact closely related, there were several good posts on this in the thread. Your contention that G force has nothing to do with speed is completely wrong. That is why I disagreed.


----------



## Schweik (Apr 22, 2019)

martinrn said:


> The main problem with both the P-40 and the Typhoon is that they had terrible performance at high altitude. All German Me-109 and Fw-190 marks easily outperformed them at altitude. Most combat in NW Europe took place at high altitude, because Allied heavy bombers flew at high altitude. Thus, as fighters, both planes are equal failures. In North Africa, where most (but not all) bombing missions were lower altitude ground support missions, the poor high altitude performance of the P-40 and Typhoon was not as relevant. The P-40 (Kittyhawk) gave a decent account of itself in North Africa. It could hold its own against 109's at low altitude.
> 
> With thousands of P-40's and Typhoons built, something had to be done with them other than high altitude combat, which they were really bad at. Thus, attempts were made to convert them to ground attack planes. The Typhoon, with its heavy wing construction, excelled at this. It could carry a bomb/rocket load that the P-40 couldn't match. It was also very fast at sea level. In fact, no Allied or German plane could catch it down low. It was the only plane that could intercept the German V-1 rockets.
> 
> ...



This seems to imply that the Pacific and NW Europe were the only active Theaters in the War. In fact, from 1941-1943 NW Europe was one of the less active Theaters. P-40F and Ls (this thread discussion was about specific subtypes) contended with the Luftwaffe in the Med successfully whereas the Typhoon really never did manage to hold it's own in Air to Air combat. As for CAS, this too has been covered. The P-40 played critical roles in numerous important battles, from 2nd El Alamein to the invasion of Sicily and Italy, Anzio etc. It may not ultimately have been as impressive of a CAS plane as a 1944 Typhoon but it did more damage earlier on in key battles.

Typhoon and (merlin) P-40 squadrons engaged Axis forces at roughly the same rates for about the same amount of time. In both cases 1943 was the most active year for air combat.
In 1943 in both cases, only a few units were designated as fighter units, many were mixed fighter / fighter-bomber, and a few were only bombers.
The (merlin) P-40 had a much better combat record than the Typhoon during 1943.
The (merlin) P-40 had a high rate of availability and better maintenance record.
The Typhoon was faster and climbed better, but
The Typhoon was less maneuverable, in that it had a poor rate of roll and turn.
All the business about 'swooping' and light Japanese planes is basically 1950's - 1960's vintage cliche. It's a grotesque oversimplification like most of this post.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Apr 22, 2019)

Schweik said:


> I thought you had noticed, G force and speed _are_ in fact closely related, there were several good posts on this in the thread. Your contention that G force has nothing to do with speed is completely wrong. That is why I disagreed.


A sustained turn is, by definition, one that doesn't lose height, the plane can sustain a higher instantaneous turn but lose speed or height. The pilot can sustain a higher g in a instantaneous turn too. But a sustained turn doesn't lose height. I think I read here that most WW2 fighters could sustain a max of 4-5 G in turns.


----------



## Schweik (Apr 22, 2019)

> So, in summary, the Typhoon:
> 
> was faster at all altitudes
> climbed better
> ...



Don't think so.

P-40 F/L

Turned better
Rolled better
Handled better 
Did not experience violent vibration or 'flutter' in 4G turns
Didn't sink like a stone when it hit the water
didn't have huge high drag wings
Had a much better combat record for roughly the same number of sorties.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Apr 22, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> Whilst, I agree with most of this, I think you'll find that it wasn't until the end of 1942 that the Typhoon had its tail strengthened so that it could pull out of a dive and the P-40 could be pushed over 500 mph although it wasn't recommended by the manufacturers, so for me the P-40 in 1942 is better as at least you come out of the dive even if there was some damage to the plane. As for top speed, 25 mph in top speed isn't going to lose you a dogfight. The top speed of the Typhoon is of course faster low down, but again by the end of 1942, there was increased boost available in the P-40F/L. In 1943 the Spitfire LIX/XII come along with adequate performance to intercept Fw 190A tip and run raids. The Typhoon in mid 1942 to mid 1943 is clearly the fastest low altitude fighter and best for intercepting Fw 190A's. In the East, the Soviets operating at very low levels coped with the P40E-1/K with over boost. I repeat, IMO, the P-40 was the better all round fighter and that the Typhoon is niche for the ETO.



Agree with the above, but wanted to point out: 

Notable that P-40F/L's shot down numerous Fw 190 fighter bombers over Sicily and Italy in 1943 and early 1944 (at Anzio). So for "tip and run" raids maybe not so useless.
The 500 mph dive was safe enough to perform that one test pilot very routinely did it on over 2400 planes in their checkout flights. So it was unlikely to cause damage.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Apr 22, 2019)

wuzak said:


> Diving in a P-40 wasn't all beer and skittles. There were a lot of directional instability during dives, the reason for the lengthened fuselage on later models. A lot of trimming and rudder were required, and the stick forces for pull out were high.



It did require rudder trim, especially in the 'short tail' versions though this was lessened in the long tail (most P-40L and about half of the F).
That is hardly a major problem for an experienced pilot though.



> But the better climb and acceleration in a dive or on the level would help win a fight.



Engine power in the Typhoon was also offset by very high drag with that huge fat wing.



> That the Typhoon only served in one theatre does not make it a "niche" aircraft. Considering the theatre it operated in was probably the world's most defended airspace - certainly in terms of flak, and later with fighters.
> 
> There is nothing the P-40 could do in Africa, the Middle East, MTO, CBI or the PTO that the Typhoon I could not.



I believe the test aircraft had coolant problems, per a post upthread (I think by Fubar?). One wonders if the hundreds of Typhoons which _weren't_ flying missions from Britain in 1942 an 1943 couldn't have been used effectively in the Med if they could really contend reasonably well with Bf 109s and MC 202s. I have my doubts.

S


----------



## Schweik (Apr 22, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> A lot of the P-40s superior diving ability is hype.
> The Manual for the N (and others) says it was red lined at 480mph IAS, why should we say it is OK to push the P-40 passed this and not OK to push other aircraft past their red line?
> In training the P-40 was not supposed to be dived faster than 350mph IAS (page 61) and the pilots were told to leave 5-8000 ft for pullout. The plane also wanted to roll to the right in a dive, the higher the speed, the greater the tendency to roll.
> The P-40 was not immune to compressibility, it just didn't operate very often in the air space that compressibility was a problem.
> ...



This is all speculation to suit a preconceived agenda.



> It isn't just the straight line speed. The 25mph represents an amount of surplus power than can be used for climbing or turning a little harder without losing speed (or as much speed)
> 
> say you have a 375mph plane and a 350mph plane and they are both doing 300mph in a turn. The faster plane (enve if it is going the same speed) has more options, it can climb better while turning at 300mph, it can turn tighter (maybe not a lot) while still doing 300mph.



You can also turn with the nose down, which was in fact a favored tactic in the P-40 (as Robert DeHaven described his method for shooting down Zeroes). Sustained turning also is affected by drag which the larger Typhoon with the much bigger and thicker wing would suffer from more.



S

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Apr 22, 2019)

Glider said:


> At which point the controls are solid and there is a significant danger of you digging a large expensive hole in the ground.



If that was actually the case why would they do it with 2400 planes on checkout flights? All it meant was the pilot needed to use a little rudder trim.



> A couple of points
> 25mph is enough to lose a dogfight or evade being shot down unless the opponent is pointing directly at you at the start. The Typhoon would be out of gun range in about 20 seconds, however the true speed differential is a lot more than that.
> The Spit LIX wasn't as fast as the Typhoon and wasn't as good when intercepting the FW190. Second point add as much extra boost as you like to the P40, it still wouldn't match the Typhoon at the equivalent time. This also had extra boost, better fuels and so on.
> Russia isn't relevant for a number of reasons. One Russia as a nation was far more interested at getting more Spitfires and P39s rather than P40's and of course they didn't get any Typhoons.



Spit LIX had a vastly better combat record than the Typhoon and unlike the Typhoon was loved by it's pilots.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Apr 22, 2019)

Ivan1GFP said:


> Hello Kevin J,
> The choice of comparison between Typhoon and P-40F was an interesting one.
> Although the P-40F had the highest maximum speed AT ALTITUDE of anything before about the P-40N, it was also one of the heaviest of any of the P-40 variants. *It didn't tolerate over boosting that the early Allisons did *and as a result was one of the slowest at low altitude and didn't climb particularly well.
> About the only things it really had going for it in a contest against a Typhoon were much superior roll rate and agility and of course reliability. There isn't a practical altitude at which the Merlin P-40 can control the fight unless the Typhoon pilot is incredibly stupid.
> ...




I should point out that I already painstakingly transcribed and posted upthread first hand US pilot accounts of combat in P-40F/L where they mentioned overboosting between 55"-65" and outrunning German aircraft. A light (ala P-40L) apparently has an initial climb rate of 3300 at WEP (_not _overboost) so it's not as bad as claimed by some.

In a fight with a Typhoon, it could outrun any P-40 if co-E, but if the P-40 was above or in a higher E state the Typhoon would be in trouble because it couldn't turn.

Speed is very important for fighters but it wasn't the only thing that mattered.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## BiffF15 (Apr 22, 2019)

Schwiek,

Why did the factory pilot do 500 MPH dives on acceptance flights? And why didn’t Curtiss just up the limits in the flight manual?

My guess is it’s much more likely the factory pilot was “allowed “ to exceed flight manual limits as they were new aircraft and such maneuvers were below structural limits. Not the same as a line pilot doing it on a war weary plane.

Cheers,
Biff


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 22, 2019)

Schweik said:


> This is all speculation to suit a preconceived agenda.



All speculation?

The manuals were "speculating" about the dive speed limits? I gave you the page numbers, look it up.

as for the P-40 not operating very often where compressibility was a problem, well look that up too. 

How many aircraft had compressibility problems under 15,000ft. 





> You can also turn with the nose down, which was in fact a favored tactic in the P-40 (as Robert DeHaven described his method for shooting down Zeroes). Sustained turning also is affected by drag which the larger Typhoon with the much bigger and thicker wing would suffer from more.



The faster airplane can also "turn with the nose down" which is called losing altitude or a diving spiral. If you are the pursued aircraft then a shallow dive while turning will keep the speed up but it may not keep the faster aircraft from following. "turning with the nose down" does not eliminate the power advantage the nominally faster plane has.

Typhoon also has a lot more power to counteract the drag. That is what the extra speed represents. Surplus power in a particular situation as I tried to show. 

I think we know who has the preconceived agenda

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Apr 22, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> We need to consider the condition/set up of the test plane and it's common usage.
> The P-40F may have been a 370+mph plane with a clean belly but very few of them were flown that way in combat.



Actually, that isn't enitrely true. Memoirs and squadron histories specifically mention removing things like bomb shackles when they were prepping for fighter opposition. Basically they had two configurations, dirty / heavy and light / clean. The former was for mostly FB missions, the latter was for mostly air superiority missions. They did of course however still keep the extra fuel tanks. 324th FG P-40s almost always flew with 6 guns and wing bomb shackles, 325th FG typically just had the fuel tank and four guns until most of the air-to-air fighting was over.

Also I didn't bother to correct this the last time you made the claim but they _did _actually manage to fit two or three large bombs (up to two x 1,000 lbs or 3 x 500 lbs) on P-40s, and (the RAF and also the Russians) also did fit them with rockets. I think you know this because we have discussed it before.






This one which has been posted before has six 250 lb bombs.





This one has 3 x 500 lbs bombs





This one has a 1,000 lb bomb and 2x 500 lb bombs

The thing about the P-40 was that it was extremely versatile and kept exceeding expectations despite it's known limitations.

S

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 22, 2019)

pbehn said:


> A sustained turn is, by definition, one that doesn't lose height, the plane can sustain a higher instantaneous turn but lose speed or height. The pilot can sustain a higher g in a instantaneous turn too. But a sustained turn doesn't lose height. I think I read here that most WW2 fighters could sustain a max of 4-5 G in turns.


 I don't know about later ones but the Spit MK I (at 6lbs boost) and the 109E couldn't sustain more than about 3Gs. Planes with more power but the same (or nearly the same) drag could sustain higher G turns. But 5 Gs seems a bit high? The Spit MK I having to dive at a 5-10 degree angle to maintain a 4 G turn depending on speed.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Apr 22, 2019)

Stig1207 said:


> Once again, this is not valid comparison. There is no way of knowing whether P-40F/L would manage to achieve 260 victories in the ETO, deployed in the same numbers and flying the same missions as the Typhoon, and vice versa.
> 
> Not all sources agree that 592 is the number of victories scored by USAAF P-40's in the MTO; it is the highest number being bantied about. However, whatever number of victories they got, they were shared by 16 squadrons.
> 
> I don't know how many Typhoon squadrons shared the 260 victories?



Actually, the number is higher for P-40F/L because the RAF squadrons (260 RAF and 3 RAAF) both scored victories as well while flying Kittyhawk II. They also don't seem to count the 99th FS / Tuskegee pilots who claimd 17 victories in the P-40L.

here is the breakdown of all P-40F/L units I'm aware of, with their active time periods:

*33rd FG *(3 squadrons, *137 victories*, Nov 42 - Feb 44)
*57th FG *(3 squadrons*, *144 victories*, Aug 42 - Jan 44)
*325th FG (*3 squadrons, *133 victories*, Apr 43 - Oct 43 )
*324th FG* (3 squadrons, *66 victories*, March 43 - July 44)
*79th FG *(3 squadrons, *118 victories*, Dec 42 - March 44)
*99th FS *(1 squadron / independent - Tuskegee, *17 victories*, June 43 - June 44)
*27th FBG* (3 squadrons**, *0 victories*, Feb 44 to June 44)
*RAF 260 Sqn *(1 squadron, *23 victories* - source, Feb 42 to Nov 42)
*RAAF 3 Sqn* (1 squadron, *19 victories* - source, Sept 42 to March 44)
*Free French GC II/5 *(2 squadrons, *8 P-40 victories* according to this, July 43- Sept 43)
*49th FG? *(Pacific Theater 1-2 squadrons, don't know the number of P-40F claims or how long they were used)

There was a total of 25 squadrons flying the P-40F/L in the Med, not counting the 49th FG which flew some in the Pacific. By June of 1943 there were 20 squadrons.

So anyway based on the above, *P-40F/L has a total of 665 claims in the Med.*

It's worth noting that 260 Sqn RAF seems to have been the first unit to use the P-40F in combat, and 324 FG USAAF was the last.

S

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Apr 22, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> All speculation?
> 
> The manuals were "speculating" about the dive speed limits? I gave you the page numbers, look it up.
> 
> ...



Dive speed limits from the manuals were routinely exceeded - fact.

Perhaps you are forgetting that merlin P-40s were not limited to 15,000 performance ceiling, _their _critical altitude was actually just below 20,000 ft. But more importantly, P-40s (even the Allison ones) did uperate well above their performance ceiling. For example during the defense of Darwin where they did fairly well in spite of almost completely untrained pilots, or when flying escort over the Hump, or really just all the time.

The speculation comes in with your comments about just when and where P-40s would suffer from compresssibility. I don't know of evidence that they did, certainly not comparable to the problems with the P-38.



> The faster airplane can also "turn with the nose down" which is called losing altitude or a diving spiral. If you are the pursued aircraft then a shallow dive while turning will keep the speed up but it may not keep the faster aircraft from following. "turning with the nose down" does not eliminate the power advantage the nominally faster plane has.



No, I'm actually referring to a Low Yo Yo which was a standard technique used with P-40s in the Pacific








> Typhoon also has a lot more power to counteract the drag. That is what the extra speed represents. Surplus power in a particular situation as I tried to show.



Drag comes into play more when turning though doesn't it?



> I think we know who has the preconceived agenda



Yes, you! And you should really know better.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 22, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Actually, that isn't enitrely true. Memoirs and squadron histories specifically mention removing things like bomb shackles when they were prepping for fighter opposition. Basically they had two configurations, dirty / heavy and light / clean. The former was for mostly FB missions, the latter was for mostly air superiority missions. *They did of course however still keep the extra fuel tanks*. 324th FG P-40s almost always flew with 6 guns and wing bomb shackles, 325th FG typically just had the fuel tank and four guns until most of the air-to-air fighting was over.
> 
> Also I didn't bother to correct this the last time you made the claim but they _did _actually manage to fit two or three large bombs (up to two x 1,000 lbs or 3 x 500 lbs) on P-40s, and they RAF and also the Russians) also did fit them with rockets. I think you know this because we have discussed it before.
> 
> ...



And the speed tests say it was the under fuselage shackle and sway braces. No mention of underwing shackles.

This is pretty much a bit of misdirection in any case as most, if not all, of the heavy bomb loads were carried by Allison powered P-40s. Not the F or L. 

The F was pretty much limited to the under fuselage bomb/drop tank position. Manual says that up to a 100lb bomb could be hung on each wing (it may have been possible to use 3-5 really small bombs under each wing totalling 100-150lbs) 

It wasn't until well after the F that the P-40 was rated at 500lbs under the fuselage and 500lbs under each wing. The N (or at least some of them) was rated at 1000lbs under each wing and 500lb under the fuselage but this has little or no bearing on the question at hand, anymore than what the Typhoon could lug around in 1944 does.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Apr 22, 2019)

BiffF15 said:


> Schwiek,
> 
> Why did the factory pilot do 500 MPH dives on acceptance flights? And why didn’t Curtiss just up the limits in the flight manual?



The short answer is I don't know. The long answer is A) because he expected that to put the kind of stress on the airframe that he knew it needed to be able to handle, and B) (second part of the question) probably because the P-40 was while not a dangerous plane by ww2 standards, not a beginners plane either and they probably didn't want newby pilots getting themselves in trouble. It wasn't hard to manage a high speed dive but it did require using the Trim tabs to maintain control and if you didn't keep a calm head, that could be trouble. At 500 mph you get to the ground very quick. You only have what ... 20 seconds? to do what you need to do.



> My guess is it’s much more likely the factory pilot was “allowed “ to exceed flight manual limits as they were new aircraft and such maneuvers were below structural limits. Not the same as a line pilot doing it on a war weary plane.
> 
> Cheers,
> Biff



Sure but as they were still making P-40s until the end of the war, why are they necessarily in a war weary one? This admittedly goes beyond the scope of the thread though since P-40F/L weren't around that long.


----------



## pbehn (Apr 22, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> I don't know about later ones but the Spit MK I (at 6lbs boost) and the 109E couldn't sustain more than about 3Gs. Planes with more power but the same (or nearly the same) drag could sustain higher G turns. But 5 Gs seems a bit high? The Spit MK I having to dive at a 5-10 degree angle to maintain a 4 G turn depending on speed.


I cant remember where or who posted it, but was talking about the best of the WW2 era, mainly in respect of how much lower it was than what the plane and pilot could withstand in an instantaneous turn.


----------



## Schweik (Apr 22, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> And the speed tests say it was the under fuselage shackle and sway braces. No mention of underwing shackles.
> 
> This is pretty much a bit of misdirection in any case as most, if not all, of the heavy bomb loads were carried by Allison powered P-40s. Not the F or L.
> 
> ...



Well, it was _mostly_ done with Allison P-40s, but only because the P-40Fs were more often used for air superiority missions. But the RAF was putting heavy bomb loads on P-40D and E and the manuals said the same thing about wing bomb capacity for those. And similar with P-40K and M.

However, American units like 79th FG and 324th FG also did this with their P-40F/Ls and I can find proof of it though it will take some digging and I'll probably ahve to transcribe it from a book. 

The bottom line is that you know perfectly well there is nothing substantially different about the airframe or wings on a P-40F or L from a P-40E or N to prevent them from putting the same weight of bombs on it.


----------



## Milosh (Apr 22, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Actually, the number is higher for P-40F/L because the RAF squadrons (260 RAF and 3 RAAF) both scored victories as well while flying Kittyhawk II. They also don't seem to count the 99th FS / Tuskegee pilots who claimd 17 victories in the P-40L.
> 
> here is the breakdown of all P-40F/L units I'm aware of, with their active time periods:
> 
> ...



What were the losses?

In NA, the French unit had 18 P-40s claimed by Fw190s.


----------



## Kevin J (Apr 22, 2019)

First, I must admit that this is a Battle of Britain map.
Lets imagine that this is 1942/43 and I'm running the Air War in Europe. South of that thin blue line, I want Spitfire IX's to intercept high altitude bombing raids and Typhoons on standing patrols to counter low altitude tip and run raids. North of that thin blue line, Spitfire Vb/c's and P-40F/L's are both perfectly adequate for air defence, but I don't need the later. I want to run a daylight bombing campaign so I want a fighter with altitude performance and range so that they are above the enemy interceptors when they arrive on the scene. So I want Thunderbolts as the turbo superchargers of the Lightning at the time had reliability issues and the only Mustangs available at the time have low altitude engines.
Lets switch to the Med.




Range is important. I have no industrial targets to protect. I have to protect my army in the field, my ports, my bases, my shipping. I want to run both a tactical and strategic bombing campaign. Spitfires are needed as interceptors, Allison powered P-40's to provide cover for my army, Merlin powered P-40's to protect my tactical bombers and Lightnings to protect my strategic bombers. I don't need Typhoons.


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 22, 2019)

Chart from a P-38 manual





The P-38 was well known for operating close to *it's* compressibility limit even in level flight. Each plane is different and the P-40 may well have had a higher limit than the P-38.
However the P-40 was slower, especially at over 20,000ft so it was further away from it's limit before commencing to dive even at full level speed. 

The late war training manual for the P-40 says on* both* 61 and 67 "Vertical dives from above 20,000ft are not recommended because of the danger of compressibility".

There is a lot of room between a vertical dive and 45 degree angle dive but it appears the P-40 was NOT free of compressibility effects. 
I would also note any pilot flying over the Himalayas who put a P-40 into a steep, high speed dive was asking for trouble. They were crossing ridges (not individual peaks) that ran 14-16,000ft high. 

The problem many planes had with compressibility was it delayed when they could start pulling out of a dive. Say it took 6-8,000ft in order to pull out of a dive of a certain speed/angle. If the plane stayed below the compressibility speed range a pilot might be able to start pulling out at 10-12,000ft with plenty of room to spare. However if the plane was diving only 30-40mph faster it wouldn't respond to the controls properly and the pilot had to wait for the thicker, low altitude air to slow the plane (and the thicker air to change the mach number) before he could _start_ to pull out and he might not have enough altitude left to complete the pull out.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Apr 22, 2019)

Milosh said:


> What were the losses?
> 
> In NA, the French unit had 18 P-40s claimed by Fw190s.



I only have the losses for 325th and 79th FG, and the latter I would have to count, as they don't differentiate by type (they flew P-47s after P-40s)

325th FG lost 24 aircraft to enemy aircraft or "unknown" (12/12) vs 133 victories with the P-40, and 43 to all causes. You can see their 'operational summary' here.

79th FG lost about 50 while flying P-40s but I'm too lazy to count tonight (maybe tomorrow)


----------



## Schweik (Apr 22, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> And the speed tests say it was the under fuselage shackle and sway braces. No mention of underwing shackles.
> 
> This is pretty much a bit of misdirection in any case as most, if not all, of the heavy bomb loads were carried by Allison powered P-40s. Not the F or L.



I'd say the attempt at misdirection is on your part. The size of the bombs isn't relevant to the presence, or lack, of bomb _shackles_. Even 100 lb or 40 lb bombs require something to mount them on. The issue under debate was bomb shackles affecting drag. This is a US P-40F of I believe the 57th FG (it's mislabled as 33rd FG) with six small wing bombs.

They also used to have other things when configured in FB mode, for example 'screamers' or sirens often lifted from Ju 87 Stukas, used to terrorize ground forces when bombing, also extra radio masts or directional loops.


----------



## Schweik (Apr 22, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> Chart from a P-38 manual
> 
> 
> The P-38 was well known for operating close to *it's* compressibility limit even in level flight. Each plane is different and the P-40 may well have had a higher limit than the P-38.
> ...



None of this is actually relevant.

20,000 feet was (roughly) the critical altitude for the Merlin XX / 28 so that was where they had their best speed, for example in that RAF test at 370 mph, it was at 19,000 something feet. I am not going to link it yet again.

There is no known issue with the P-40 on compressibility - in theory any aircraft can reach compressibility if it dives strait down at full speed from 20,000 feet but we know they routinely did do vertical dives from that altitude and higher including in over 2400 checkout flights.

I think you are doing more misdirecting here. The P-38 was notorious for compressibility issues which were so bad it basically couldn't perform high speed dives of any kind from almost any altitude until they installed dive brakes on the later models. I don't know of any claims of wartime losses of P-40s to compressibility, even if the manual warns of the potential. If you dived to 500 mph in a P-38F you were very likely going to be in serious trouble. 500 mph in a P-40 wasn't a problem. This is a fact.

Actual P-40 fighter pilots accounts, including several I have posted in this forum, also routinely describe diving from high altitude - vertically. Split S followed by vertical dive was the standard escape maneuver (or one of them) used in the Pacific. There are even numerous accounts of diving and pulling out in a blackout so presumably they didn't consider compressibility a significant threat for that aircraft. You are speculating as to any actual effects, based on a warning in the manual and nothing else.

The question I have is why would you do that? I think you know better.


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 22, 2019)

Hmm, more misdirection??



Schweik said:


> I'd say the attempt at misdirection is on your part. The size of the bombs isn't relevant to the presence, or lack, of bomb _shackles_. Even 100 lb or 40 lb bombs require something to mount them on. The issue under debate was bomb shackles affecting drag. This is a US P-40F of I believe the 57th FG (it's mislabled as 33rd FG) with six small wing bombs.



Well, that would be a relevant photograph if it was accompanying a speed test that stated the plane was tested with either bombs or the just bomb racks in place. Since it isn't in that context it doesn't mean much.

Most of the tests of the P-40F show it hitting in the low 360s or high 350s, but most (or all) of the tests say the test planes were fitted with at least the belly rack/braces. 
I have no problem accepting that a _clean_ P-40F could hit 370mph since the difference is right in line with a number of other aircrafts speed difference with and without a center bomb rack/mount. But then how many of the P-40Fs were operated in combat in NA/Italy without the drop tank? You want the range the drop tank provides (especially on the L) you take the 6-10mph hit to top speed from the drag of the mount/braces. Just like the Bf 109 takes the hit to speed if fitted for a drop tank even if the tank is no longer on the plane in combat. 



Schweik said:


> There is no known issue with the P-40 on compressibility - in theory any aircraft can reach compressibility if it dives strait down at full speed from 20,000 feet but we know they routinely did do vertical dives from that altitude and higher including in over 2400 checkout flights.



I see, "_no known issue with the P-40 on compressibility_" the late war manual just mentions it twice (not once) just for shits and giggles?
Writers of the manual were being paid off by North American representatives? 

You actually have it backwards, " _in theory any aircraft can reach compressibility if it dives strait down at full speed from 20,000 feet_"

Most planes will NOT hit compressibility if they start the dive from under 20,000ft due to the thicker air. The real problems came with starting the dive above 20,000ft (well above in some cases) and exceeding the compressibility limit while still in the low 20s or high teens and then taking (if they were lucky) thousands of feet to slow down/regain control of the aircraft. 

Some aircraft broke in mid air and others just dove into the ground due to not having enough altitude to pull out of the dive once the compressibility effect was reduced/stopped due to the thicker air. 

This manual was written for student pilots using the P-40 as an advanced or transitional trainer. It does mention a few problems with older short fuselage planes, Like the higher effort needed to manage the controls in a dive and a certain condition that could cause the rudder to lock in the full left position (which could be solved by reducing the throttle). A lot of the Fs and all of the L had the long fuselage so this doesn't apply to them.

Reactions: Disagree Disagree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Apr 23, 2019)

Perhaps the "truth" for lack of a better word is somewhere in between. For whatever it's worth I have read several accounts of p40 pilots saying they dove them 5 and change without problems but does that mean it was without dangers and a good idea to do on a regular basis? I'm guessing probably not. At least seems like the capability was there if it was ever really needed.


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 23, 2019)

Schweik said:


> *There is no known issue with the P-40 on compressibility* - in theory any aircraft can reach compressibility if it dives strait down at full speed from 20,000 feet but we know they routinely did do vertical dives from that altitude and higher including in over 2400 checkout flights.


Actually, that's not correct.
To quote:
“We knew about Mach 1 going clear back to the P-36 and the P-40,” *said the late Herbert O. Fisher, the former chief production test pilot of the Curtiss-Wright Corporation*, which manufactured those early Hawk fighters—the retractable-gear successors to the big biplanes. “Nothing could go 600 mph in level flight, but pilots were beginning to dive fighters. We ran into compressibility back in ’38.”

It's also covered in the book "Curtiss P-40: Long Nosed Tomahawks" by Carl Molesworth.
In one chapter, leading P-40 Ace Bruce Holloway stated: "The P-40 terminal velocity was not high enough to encounter local compressibility phenomena, but it was great enough to run out of enough leg power on the rudder to keep the ball in the middle".

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Dan Fahey (Apr 23, 2019)

FLYBOYJ said:


> And once again Dan, do you have documented evidence to back this up or is this your biased (and probably delusional) opinion


Hey Flyboy....drop the dirge crap..! I am not your enemy and you don’t want to be, sonny! 
And isn’t it great I am allowed to have an opinion and POV from what I read and understand!
Whether you like it or not. I post information I think is correct! Try and have a sane dialog. 
Which you are having a problem with. Have no problem getting corrected and actually like it. 
Most of what I have are from books up to 50 years old seems badly embellished. Like Caiden’s books..
Even the stuff that is well supposedly researched shows many errors because new information has not caught up.

Reading excerpts from Axis pilots in North Africa they stated clearly they chose when to attack or avoid combat. Unless they had a distinct advantage they avoided combat. They Knew the direction and approximate time of every flight. Germans waited for the US and Brits to fly to the battle areas. We could hit their airbases easier than they could hit ours. You can put a bomb on a Me109 but you not going to get very far with it. When you meet your opponent everyday you kinda know where to find them. The main purpose of the Allied leadership was to wreck the Italian and German logistics then their armies. Toward the end of the African campaign fuel was so scarce the Luftwaffe Had a hard time sending any planes up to fight back. 

One other statistic that is consistent. Most of the US planes lost were involved on some ground support role. 
Either by AA, enemy fighter with a perch advantage, crashing from damage or running out of fuel RTB. 
Side note: What I do not understand well enough is how the Allies with a 4-1 Military advantage over the Axis in North Africa.
Struggled so hard to kick General Rommel and Axis out. 

The allies main opponent was not the FW 190 it was the Me109 sometimes a few Italian Aircraft. All could get height advantage on the Allied Fighter bombers. The Warhawks with better high altitude performance ran high cover over the fighter bombers. When P38s and Spitfires with a big enough auxiliary tank were available ran cover above them. The early FW190 were not designed as fighter bombers built a high wing loading. Mid - late 1942 rocket launchers added, then experimented with bombs then the dedicated F model for Ground Attack. By the time the F model came out the Germans were already well otw to losing WW2. From my knowledge they were sent to the Russian front and not North Africa. Plus they needed a longer airbase to take off from when loaded. FW190 did have better range and medium to high altitude performance. Which allowed a better energy envelop like the Me109. 

Once the energy was bled off where the Performance and Altitude range of the Warhawk was more equal. 
Warhawk in Fighter only mode was a deadly foe. 
Fighter vs Fighter win/loss ratio was damn near equal in ever dual. 
This stat is consistent in just about every US, Brit, Russian, Japanese and Axis record.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greyman (Apr 23, 2019)

GrauGeist said:


> It's also covered in the book "Curtiss P-40: Long Nosed Tomahawks" by Carl Molesworth.
> In one chapter, leading P-40 Ace Bruce Holloway stated: "The P-40 terminal velocity was not high enough to encounter local compressibility phenomena, but it was great enough to run out of enough leg power on the rudder to keep the ball in the middle".



Fits into what the British tests revealed:

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


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 23, 2019)

Dan Fahey said:


> Hey Flyboy....drop the dirge crap..! I am not your enemy and you don’t want to be, sonny!
> And isn’t it great I am allowed to have an opinion and POV from what I read and understand!


Dan...now would be a good time to have a cup of STFU.

Arguing and insulting the forum's Mods is a fast-track to the curb...


----------



## Dan Fahey (Apr 23, 2019)

GrauGeist said:


> Dan...now would be a good time to have a cup of STFU.
> 
> Arguing and insulting the forum's Mods is a fast-track to the curb...


Maybe be nice if he did not call me delusional...you think that is fair?


----------



## Dan Fahey (Apr 23, 2019)

Did the lengthen fuselage of the later model P40 have the same dive issues?


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 23, 2019)

Dan Fahey said:


> Maybe be nice if he did not call me delusional...you think that is fair?


The discussion is getting a bit heated and it really doesn't need to be.

Step back, take a deep breath and let it ride.


----------



## Stig1207 (Apr 23, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Actually, the number is higher for P-40F/L because the RAF squadrons (260 RAF and 3 RAAF) both scored victories as well while flying Kittyhawk II. They also don't seem to count the 99th FS / Tuskegee pilots who claimd 17 victories in the P-40L.
> 
> here is the breakdown of all P-40F/L units I'm aware of, with their active time periods:
> 
> ...



The quoted number of 592 is for *USAAF FG's in the MTO *not any for RAF/ Commonwealth or French victories, nor the 49th FG in the *PTO* . However, different sources give different totals for USAAF P-40's in the MTO. Ray Wagner in 'American Combat Aircraft' has a total of 481 victories and is also the source of 553 P-40 combat losses in the MTO.

On the breakdown of victories by units *USAF85 *grants e.g. 79th FG* 97* victories for the *duration *flying both P-40's and P-47's. The 57th gets *152 *credits for the duration and is the second group to convert to P-47's, so flying that type longer than any of the others. The 324th has *58* credits in the MTO and 30 something in the ETO,, those last in P-47's. I don't recall the numbers for the 33rd FG and haven't bothered counting the 325th.

Reactions: Disagree Disagree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Stig1207 (Apr 23, 2019)

Dan Fahey said:


> Fighter vs Fighter win/loss ratio was damn near equal in ever dual.
> This stat is consistent in just about every US, Brit, Russian, Japanese and Axis record.



Have you got these records?


----------



## BiffF15 (Apr 23, 2019)

Schweik said:


> The short answer is I don't know. The long answer is A) because he expected that to put the kind of stress on the airframe that he knew it needed to be able to handle, and B) (second part of the question) probably because the P-40 was while not a dangerous plane by ww2 standards, not a beginners plane either and they probably didn't want newby pilots getting themselves in trouble. It wasn't hard to manage a high speed dive but it did require using the Trim tabs to maintain control and if you didn't keep a calm head, that could be trouble. At 500 mph you get to the ground very quick. You only have what ... 20 seconds? to do what you need to do.
> 
> 
> 
> Sure but as they were still making P-40s until the end of the war, why are they necessarily in a war weary one? This admittedly goes beyond the scope of the thread though since P-40F/L weren't around that long.



Schweik,

A war weary aircraft is one that’s been over stressed multiple times. The more times it’s been “bent” the less life it has regardless of hours of flight on the airframe. Remember the only way the crew chief knew the plane was over stressed was if something was bent or the pilot confessed so rest assured many were not reported. If you want a more modern interpretation then google the Missouri ANG F-15 mid-Air structural failure. Plane was well below its lifespan but failed catastrophically. And inside the flight manual limits.

A line pilot doing what factory test pilots do is asking for trouble. When getting checked out at the edge of the envelope stuff pilots are usually taught by someone who has done it, via an incremental process so as not to get in too far over their head the first time they experience/ see something new. 

Your reasoning that because a single factory test pilot routinely exceeded the flight manual on a brand new airplane therefor re-establishes its limit in the field is incorrect. If it were correct then the flight manual would have been “corrected “ or changed to reflect that.

Cheers,
Biff


----------



## Schweik (Apr 23, 2019)

GrauGeist said:


> Actually, that's not correct.
> To quote:
> “We knew about Mach 1 going clear back to the P-36 and the P-40,” *said the late Herbert O. Fisher, the former chief production test pilot of the Curtiss-Wright Corporation*, which manufactured those early Hawk fighters—the retractable-gear successors to the big biplanes. “Nothing could go 600 mph in level flight, but pilots were beginning to dive fighters. We ran into compressibility back in ’38.”



This refers to actually reaching Mach 1- that is what I meant by "any plane could reach compressibiity if it went fast enough". This also suggests that P-40s actually _could_ reach close to 600 mph as in the two Curtiss tests.



> It's also covered in the book "Curtiss P-40: Long Nosed Tomahawks" by Carl Molesworth.
> In one chapter, leading P-40 Ace Bruce Holloway stated: "*The P-40 terminal velocity was not high enough to encounter local compressibility phenomena*, but it was great enough to run out of enough leg power on the rudder to keep the ball in the middle".



Which is the well known issue (particularly with the short fuselage versions) addressable by using rudder trim. To me the above is proof, or at least evidence, that compressibility was not even really an issue with P-40s unless you got close to Mach 1. Shortround comparing it to the drastic compressibility problems with the P-38 is clearly disingenuous.


----------



## Schweik (Apr 23, 2019)

michael rauls said:


> Perhaps the "truth" for lack of a better word is somewhere in between. For whatever it's worth I have read several accounts of p40 pilots saying they dove them 5 and change without problems but does that mean it was without dangers and a good idea to do on a regular basis? I'm guessing probably not. At least seems like the capability was there if it was ever really needed.




If it did damage to the P-40 to dive at 500 mph I would think they wouldn't do it in a checkout flight, right? You wouldn't want to hand over 2400 damaged planes to combat units.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Apr 23, 2019)

Greyman said:


> Fits into what the British tests revealed:
> 
> View attachment 535956



Nice find, thanks. Explains how they were able to pull out in a blackout.


----------



## Schweik (Apr 23, 2019)

Stig1207 said:


> The quoted number of 592 is for *USAAF FG's in the MTO *not any for RAF/ Commonwealth or French victories, nor the 49th FG in the *PTO* . However, different sources give different totals for USAAF P-40's in the MTO. Ray Wagner in 'American Combat Aircraft' has a total of 481 victories and is also the source of 553 P-40 combat losses in the MTO.
> 
> On the breakdown of victories by units *USAF85 *grants e.g. 79th FG* 97* victories for the *duration *flying both P-40's and P-47's. The 57th gets *152 *credits for the duration and is the second group to convert to P-47's, so flying that type longer than any of the others. The 324th has *58* credits in the MTO and 30 something in the ETO,, those last in P-47's. I don't recall the numbers for the 33rd FG and haven't bothered counting the 325th.



This is wrong, the numbers I posted are from the squadron histories and also the Osprey books.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 23, 2019)

Dan Fahey said:


> Hey Flyboy....drop the dirge crap..! I am not your enemy and you don’t want to be, sonny!
> And isn’t it great I am allowed to have an opinion and POV from what I read and understand!
> Whether you like it or not. I post information I think is correct! Try and have a sane dialog.
> Which you are having a problem with. Have no problem getting corrected and actually like it.
> ...


Once again your stupidity is abound - I've had enough.

"Caiden"? That alone is enough to remove all doubt. You have been an arrogant ass to myself as well as several other members of this forum and we've put up with it long enough. It's time for a time out until you pull your head out of your butt SONNY!!!


----------



## michael rauls (Apr 23, 2019)

Schweik said:


> If it did damage to the P-40 to dive at 500 mph I would think they wouldn't do it in a checkout flight, right? You wouldn't want to hand over 2400 damaged planes to combat units.


Verry true. I was thinking in terms of things getting out of hand, mostly with less experienced pilots but this is just conjecture on my part.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 23, 2019)

BiffF15 said:


> Schweik,
> 
> A war weary aircraft is one that’s been over stressed multiple times. The more times it’s been “bent” the less life it has regardless of hours of flight on the airframe. Remember the only way the crew chief knew the plane was over stressed was if something was bent or the pilot confessed so rest assured many were not reported. If you want a more modern interpretation then google the Missouri ANG F-15 mid-Air structural failure. Plane was well below its lifespan but failed catastrophically. And inside the flight manual limits.
> 
> ...



I thought the Missouri ANG F-15 crashed because of a faulty longeron that was not manufactured correctly. Cracks began long before the accident.

Maybe I am thinking of a different one?


----------



## Schweik (Apr 23, 2019)

BiffF15 said:


> Schweik,
> 
> A war weary aircraft is one that’s been over stressed multiple times. The more times it’s been “bent” the less life it has regardless of hours of flight on the airframe. Remember the only way the crew chief knew the plane was over stressed was if something was bent or the pilot confessed so rest assured many were not reported. If you want a more modern interpretation then google the Missouri ANG F-15 mid-Air structural failure. Plane was well below its lifespan but failed catastrophically. And inside the flight manual limits.
> 
> ...



Understood, yes aircraft can and did get bent, but that is again one of the things that was good about the P-40 being a little overbuilt. Somewhat less susceptible to that. But both airframes and engines were known to get clapped out. The famous black and red P-40 of 325th FG CO Robert Baseler (which he named 'Stud' and his crewchief kept renaming to 'Mortimer Snerd') was turned into a squadron hack precisely because it had become "war-weary". It was certainly a known phenomenon.







But they had replacements for those planes that did get worn out. Once they ran out of replacement P-40s (F & Ls, and also briefly P-40K in some units) they switched them over to the P-47s and later P-51s.

Also, as I said upthread, presumably if you knew what you were doing, 500 mph was safe, or they wouldn't have gone that fast in the checkout dive.

The factory test pilot I mentioned, Herbert O. Fisher actually went into the field and flew combat missions to help train pilots on how to push the limits on the P-40. This was one of the major problems that the British had with P-40s and other aircraft as well, they didn't do enough transition training and the pilots did not know how far they could push them for example in tight turns / when pulling G's. And presumably, how to safely execute very high speed dives. From the wiki:

_"At the request of the commander of the Flying Tigers, Claire Chennault, Chief Engineer Don R. Berlin sent Fisher abroad as the best way to have "imparted his experience on those courageous young fellows over there with knowledge they could not possibility have".[7] During 13 months overseas from 1943 on, despite his being a civilian test pilot, while in the China-Burma-India (CBI) theater, *Fisher flew as many as 50 missions to prove the P-40 under combat conditions. He also lectured and conducted P-40 flight demonstrations in almost every fighter base in the CBI, Middle East, North and Central Africa*.[5] _

So presumably he was teaching those pilots how to safely put a P-40 through it's paces.

As for the diving to 500 mph, this is the quote: _"20,000, strain the engine upward, then go inverted, throttle full forward, and nose it over, losing 10,000 feet or more at 500mph+. He knew it was almost impossible to tear a P-40 apart in a dive, which was a HUGE advantage over the Zero. He knew the operating parameters of that airplane and almost every rivet." _


Here is one of the now infamous 600 mph dive tests by Curtis Test pilot Bob Fausel.

htthttps://www.criticalpast.com/video/65675039340_P-40C-aircraft_pilot-aboard-the-P-40C_speed-record-with-661-miles-per-hour-drive


The P-40 flight manual was, incidentally, corrected. The maximum dive speed was amended upward several times, from 450 mph, to 460, to 480, to 485. Obviously they knew it could be flown faster than they had originally stated. The main issue was probably pilot training.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Apr 23, 2019)

I would also add, there seemed to be some build quality issues with some of the later model P-40s with things like hatches not staying compeltely closed, panels not fitting properly etc., though these were mostly P-40N I believe. Some of this was mentioned in testing reports.


----------



## Stig1207 (Apr 23, 2019)

Schweik said:


> This is wrong, the numbers I posted are from the squadron histories and also the Osprey books.



I don't know which are wrong or which are right, but the numbers I posted also stem from the US Airforce.


----------



## Schweik (Apr 23, 2019)

Stig1207 said:


> I don't know which are wrong or which are right, but the numbers I posted also stem from the US Airforce.



Post a link to your source.

The squadron histories, Osprey books etc. vary by 3 -5 claims, but that is nowhere near the variation you are describing. 

325th and 79th FG are the only two I have access to which get into the lists of actual aircraft claims _and losses _sortie by sortie, I have already posted the 325th losses here and can fairly easily count up the 79th. But you can find the others too with enough effort. With a _lot_ of effort you could count all the losses in MAW III and IV but you apparently already did that, right?

The normal oft-repeated numbers of 592 or 598 are total claims for the US fighter Groups but typically leave out the 17 claims by the independent 99th FS. Sometimes some or all of these claims by the 99th are added to one of the other groups that they flew with (they were attached to the 33rd, 79th and 324th fighter groups at various points during their history while flying the P-40). And they also briefly flew P-40N though it's unclear if in combat. So this also causes some confusion. In my list above I count their claims separately.

US P-40 units did not fly missions in the ETO so I'm not sure what you mean by that suggestion. They did fly missions in _Europe,_ mainly Sicily, Sardinia, Corsica and several other Mediterranean Islands, and over Italy, Yugoslavia and Southern France, but those regions are typically considered part of the MTO.

Some of the same FG which flew P-40s however that later transitioned to P-47s and then P-51s (like the 325th) did later fly bomber escort missions into Germany and so on, so that may be the source of your confusion.


Finally, while I do distinguish US from Allied P-40F/L claims in the Med, for purposes of this thread it's useful to also look at the latter, as we are comparing the aircraft not the nation. I did not include claims by the 49th FG in the Pacific - simply because I don't have them, but also because Typhoons never fought IJA or IJN aircraft so it's not a "like for like" comparison. I only mentioned that they were also using Merlin P-40s for a little while, they were not part of the total. The US total in the Med, if you include 99th FS, would be 615. The Allied total in the Med would be 665 as I already indicated.

Losses for the 325th FG are very well documented and, again come out to 24 lost to fighters and 43 aircraft total (including operational, engine and "other" losses). 

325th was one of the most successful units but that points to a fairly high ratio of claims to losses. Closely examining several of their combat encounters in MAW IV (some of which you can see upthread) shows their claims were fairly accurate too by WW2 standards, with an average of about 67% accuracy by my count. So the real ratio might be something closer to 90 victories for 20-24 losses in the air.


----------



## Milosh (Apr 23, 2019)

Luftwaffe claims of P-40s: in the first 6 months of 1943, Southern Front (MTO): Jan - 95, Feb - 60, Mar - 51, Apr - 36, May - 14, June - 17

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Apr 23, 2019)

Milosh said:


> Luftwaffe claims of P-40s: in the first 6 months of 1943, Southern Front (MTO): Jan - 95, Feb - 60, Mar - 51, Apr - 36, May - 14, June - 17



Interesting. What is your source? 

For a comparison you would need to look at RAF losses though as well because they were still using a lot of Kittyhawk I, Ia, and III (P-40D,E,K, and M) in the Med in 1943 and even some Tomahawks still (with additional Kittyhawk IV / N versions coming later in 43 I think) right to 1945. With the exception of 260 RAF and 3 RAAF for the time they had the Kittyhawk IIs, most of the RAF P-40 units in 1943 were flying pretty much exclusively fighter bomber units by around March so they didn't get a lot of claims.

The other thing is, the Luftwaffe probably 'claimed' more P-40s than those listed above because the Luftwaffe often claimed Spitfires or P-39s, or P-46s when encountering late model P-40s. 

We would also have to look at Italian claims because they certainly shot down a lot of Allied aircraft including P-40s.

Conversely, the Allied units often claimed Fw 190s when they were actually engaged with late model Bf 109G or MC 202 / 205.


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Apr 23, 2019)

Hello Schweik,
Welcome back.

Regarding the P-40's load lifting capability, it appears that some of the later models were able to carry 1500 pounds or so.
Now keep in mind that by the time those late P-40s were in production, the Merlin P-40 was out of production.
Perhaps the earlier versions of the wing racks did not have the strength of the later ones.
There is also the issue that the P-40F/L were heavier than equivalent Allison P-40s by a fair amount.
If you figure that the Maximum T-O weight is determined by the wings that didn't change and by the engine power at Sea Level, then 387 lbs extra in the airframe (P-40E to P-40F) is going to reduce the useful load by the same amount.

Regarding diving speed limitations: I have no doubt that the P-40 had enough structural strength for normal practical purposes.
My understanding is that in a high speed dive, the P-40 became directionally unstable and that was the real problem. This instability would also be considered a compressibility phenomenon. A very experienced test pilot may feel entirely confident in dealing with reduced stability and be able to re-trim the aircraft to retain as much control as possible but I suspect that the manual was written for keeping the average pilot out of trouble.

- Ivan.


----------



## Stig1207 (Apr 23, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Post a link to your source.



USAF85



Schweik said:


> US P-40 units did not fly missions in the ETO so I'm not sure what you mean by that suggestion.



The 324th flew P-47's in the ETO and were credited with more than 30 victories, on top of the 58 victories flying P-40's in the MTO that USAF85 grants them.


----------



## Schweik (Apr 23, 2019)

Ivan1GFP said:


> Hello Schweik,
> Welcome back.



Hi Ivan. Always enjoy your posts. Yeah I've been gone a while, day job and certain other obligations (to do with a different period of history and semi-legit / compensation etc.) take me away from this forum sometimes on and off. I do have to drop away abruptly sometimes, and may be again soon for a couple of weeks in early May.

But I really like this forum (when people aren't going nuts) and learn a lot here.

I didn't even catch how this thread got revived I blundered across it somehow. I saw Kevin was under siege and I felt I needed to contribute even though I don't really have the time right now.



> Regarding the P-40's load lifting capability, it appears that some of the later models were able to carry 1500 pounds or so.



Yes but for quite short trips. I believe the RAF worked out that the best 'heavy' load was about 2,000 lbs in the form of one 1,000 lb and two 500 lb bombs. For longer trips they would limit it to two 250 lb bombs and a fuel tank. Other configurations were one 1,000 lb bomb, three 500 lb bombs, one 500 and two 250 lb, or 6 x 250 lbs ... all of which you can see in photos I posted upthread.

Furthermore and this is the bigger thing, my understanding is that the heavier bomb carrying capacity was worked out _in the field_, initially by the RAF in the Middle East / North Africa, then later by Australian and American units in the Pacific and CBI, and then by American units in the Med and also in Russia. There may have been some kind of bomb racks on there for light bombs, but they seem to have worked out how to put heavier bombs on and securely enough etc. (and much later, rockets).

It's unclear if these were separate discoveries or if there was some kind of sharing of information but I think it was mostly the former at least in the early days of 1941- 1942. Some Australian pilots though did come from action in the Med back to Darwin etc.

Australian 28 victory* Ace Clive Caldwell is alleged to have been the instigator of the first attempts to put bombs on Hurricanes and P-40s back in 1941 due to what he perceived as the heavy risks of escorting Blenheims, which he saw as fairly useless in the bombing role anyway. The fighter bombers did prove to be much more accurate and effective as bombers and CAS planes but it's unclear if the tactic actually saved any fighter pilot lives as both bombing and escorting fighter bombers was quite risky.

Other pilots described the process in their memoirs. Canadian P-40 Ace Eddie Edwards talked about the risky experimental flights with heavy bomb loads. I'll see if I can find the reference.

Field mechanics were surprisingly good in some of these units. The 79th Fighter Group for example rather famously restored multiple captured Axis aircraft to flying condition including a Fw 190, a couple of Bf 109s, a Ju 88 and a SM 79 among others. RAF Units did the same, no easy feat considering the lack of manuals, rarity of spare parts, different fuel, fluids and lubricants etc. These aircraft were used as squadron hacks and - quite helpfully I think- as training tools, what you might call "aggressor" planes to familiarize pilots with enemy A/C. RAF Aces including Nicky Barr and James Edwards mentioned flying these and also flying against them in test flights (they were very impressed).















These three all 79th FG





RAF Bf 109



> Now keep in mind that by the time those late P-40s were in production, the Merlin P-40 was out of production.
> Perhaps the earlier versions of the wing racks did not have the strength of the later ones.



Again, I don't have the citations in front of me but my understanding is the heavy bomb loads were worked out in the field by the RAF as far back as 1941 or early 1942, using Kittyhawk I and Ia fighters initially (P-40D and E) and later with Kittyhawk III (P-40K and M) and only after that did Curtiss add heavier 'stock' bomb racks to the Kittyhawk IV (P-40N).




> There is also the issue that the P-40F/L were heavier than equivalent Allison P-40s by a fair amount.
> If you figure that the Maximum T-O weight is determined by the wings that didn't change and by the engine power at Sea Level, then 387 lbs extra in the airframe (P-40E to P-40F) is going to reduce the useful load by the same amount.



This also depends on things like how much fuel is carried and so on. P-40L with the 4 wing guns and no reserve tank, radiator armor removed, one radio etc. etc., is lighter than a normally loaded P-40E

P-40L-10 empty weight is 6,340 lbs, "loaded weight" is 8,020 lbs (4 guns)
P-40E-1 empty weight is 6,005 lbs, "loaded weight" is 8,280 lbs (6 guns and more fuel)



> Regarding diving speed limitations: I have no doubt that the P-40 had enough structural strength for normal practical purposes.
> My understanding is that in a high speed dive, the P-40 became directionally unstable and that was the real problem. This instability would also be considered a compressibility phenomenon. A very experienced test pilot may feel entirely confident in dealing with reduced stability and be able to re-trim the aircraft to retain as much control as possible but I suspect that the manual was written for keeping the average pilot out of trouble.
> 
> - Ivan.



You may have missed it, but upthread on the last page Grayman posted the procedure required for high speed diving in a P-40 - a little bit of elevator trim and 4 steps of rudder trim plus some right leg strength. If you read the report it actually describes pretty benign characteristics including a dive quite easy to pull out of (just quit pushing the stick forward), and _no_ actual compressibility issues. The requirement to use heavy right rudder in a steep dive (and also during takeoff) was so commonly encountered and well known among P-40 pilots, (who as several here have pointed out already routinely mentioned diving at over 500 mph in memoirs, interviews and personal accounts), that there was a running joke during the war about P-40 pilots having an oversized right leg. This goes back to 1941. Diving was as mentioned many times already, the standard escape maneuver in the Pacific and CBI. In the Med the Split S and dive was also used though without the same guarantee, however due to the torque on the Bf 109 which apparently couldn't be trimmed out, Allied pilots would roll left in the dive and then pull out, which worked to escape a pursuer though not always their wingman.

However, as I have mentioned before - 500 mph going down is risky, regardless of the aircraft, and if you have to remember to adjust trim it's not a good idea for a beginner. You reach pull out level in just a few seconds, after something like 20 seconds it's too late. Some experienced pilots basically considered having to adjust trim in a very high speed dive a nuisance and a distraction, but nothing that would actually prevent their doing it - to the contrary they had to do it all the time. One of the problems incidentally which is not mentioned in that report is that you had to quickly dial the trim the other way after pulling out of the dive. James Edwards complained about this a lot and noted that the problem was largely alleviated by the longer tail of the Kittyhawk II and III.

German pilots also mentioned the risks of diving against or with a P-40, which is why _their_ normal preferred escape maneuver was a high speed climbing turn to the right. Since the Bf 109 accelerated much better than the P-40 under normal conditions, presumably the issue with diving was the latter's dive speed and comparatively superior high speed *controllability* .

I do agree with you that the manual was written for keeping the average pilot out of trouble, especially while that pilot was still in training (i.e. before deploying to a combat area) after which local commander and fellow pilots would be giving instructions and advice which would supercede the manual or any standing orders.

S

* Caldwell scored 22 of his 28 victories in P-40s. He was also by coincidence friends with that test pilot Herbert O Fisher who I mentioned several times - the two of them got stuck in a demo flight of a C-46 when the landing gear wouldn't go down. After the difficult flight Fisher marked Caldwell as 'checked out' on the C-46.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Milosh (Apr 23, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Interesting. What is your source?



From the link I poster earlier.


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Apr 23, 2019)

Hello Schweik,

You got me on the bad math thing. 1000+500+500 = 2000 pounds, not 1500 pounds!
Your lightened P-40L would be just past the 10,000 pound maximum T-O weight (for the late P-40) with a 2,000 pound bomb load but under the right field conditions, it sounds plausible.

The diving issue and trim that I was describing wasn't a matter of just reducing control force. It was a being aware that the aircraft may go sideways very quickly and break up. There needs to be some rudder control remaining to counteract the yaw tendency BEFORE the aircraft goes sideways.
I actually had not missed Grayman's post regarding procedures and dive speed limitations.
Please observe that what is listed in the table is max permissible dive speeds and they are not at full throttle.
Manifold pressure is not stated, but engine speed is only 2600 RPM.

Just for comparison's sake, note that the A6M3 has a maximum diving speed of 410 MPH and the A6M5 has a 460 MPH maximum and these were some of the lightweights that the P-40 fought.

- Ivan.


----------



## Schweik (Apr 23, 2019)

And everyone knows the P-40 could easily outdive the A6M3 or A6M5 by a wide margin, so 460 mph seems a bit low for the P-40, or even 480.

From what I understand the main risk was of going into a spin, which did happen fairly often. I guess planes did also break up but nobody lived to tell about it. However as soon as force on the stick was relaxed the plane would come out of the dive and could lose speed rapidly in a zoom climb.


----------



## BiffF15 (Apr 23, 2019)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I thought the Missouri ANG F-15 crashed because of a faulty longeron that was not manufactured correctly. Cracks began long before the accident.
> 
> Maybe I am thinking of a different one?



You are thinking of the correct incident. It was one of the most over G’d F15s in the fleet and did have an improperly machined longeron. With modern tools and equipment, unlike what was used on WW2 aircraft... Which had been excessively over stressed, and the cracks propagated over time (war weary?) resulting in Mr. Toads wild ride for one unlucky guy.

Routinely exceeding limitations is not a good business practice with planes. It will bite you in the arse eventually, or worse the guy who flies it last. Your attitude towards what you think the limits of the aircraft should be based on what one guy did with a brand new airplane would not for a long combat career make.

Airspeed installation error, out diving the enemy (Zeros in your one example - does not mean they dove to their max speed every time) is not as convincing to me as it is to you. From knowing what I do about Zeros I would not be anxious to get one fast in a shooting match as I would feel like I was running around with my skirt up asking to get spanked. Terrible roll rate and very stiff stick is not it’s forte, so when a P40 rolled over and took the elevator down I would let it go (which would further reinforce the speed in dive advantage) but doesn’t mean the Allied pilot was doing 500+.

Cheers,
Biff


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 23, 2019)

BiffF15 said:


> You are thinking of the correct incident. It was one of the most over G’d F15s in the fleet and did have an improperly machined longeron. With modern tools and equipment, unlike what was used on WW2 aircraft... Which had been excessively over stressed, and the cracks propagated over time (war weary?) resulting in Mr. Toads wild ride for one unlucky guy.
> 
> Routinely exceeding limitations is not a good business practice with planes. It will bite you in the arse eventually, or worse the guy who flies it last. Your attitude towards what you think the limits of the aircraft should be based on what one guy did with a brand new airplane would not for a long combat career make.
> 
> ...



Oh, agreed completely. We actually use monitoring software to let us know when an aircraft has exceeded limitations. If one gets a ping, we take it out of service for inspection. Too far out of limits and we get the manufacturer involved.


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Apr 23, 2019)

Schweik said:


> And everyone knows the P-40 could easily outdive the A6M3 or A6M5 by a wide margin, so 460 mph seems a bit low for the P-40, or even 480.
> 
> From what I understand the main risk was of going into a spin, which did happen fairly often. I guess planes did also break up but nobody lived to tell about it. However as soon as force on the stick was relaxed the plane would come out of the dive and could lose speed rapidly in a zoom climb.



Hello Schweik,
This is one of those cases where I believe what "Everyone knows" might be a little exaggerated. The diving speed of the A6M2 was quite a bit lower and the reputation may have been based on that comparison.

From the description posted by Greyman (and other descriptions), it appears that the P-40 had a tendency to get tail heavy as speed increased. The solution for better control in a dive was to trim out those control forces because if this was not done, the pilot simply could not apply enough elevator or rudder control to keep the nose down and keep the plane from yawing to the right.
This is with the P-40 already trimmed for level flight at full throttle which presumably means maximum speed considering the altitude at the start of the dive. Imagine if it were trimmed for slower speeds.

The third condition listed was for trimming the P-40 for the dive. Note that forward stick pressure is still required and the rudder trim is not set at its maximum. Why would the instructions call for this? Why NOT use maximum trim?
Note also the last sentence about less tendency for recovery to be "too rapid". Does this mean overstressing the aircraft?

- Ivan.


----------



## Schweik (Apr 23, 2019)

I think it means risk of blackout due to G forces at the very least.

The dive characteristics of the P-40 are no mystery. There was no compressibility or flutter, no real problems with the control. It was the same issue on takeoff at full power - you had to use a lot of rudder and you needed to trim it out to be comfortable. 

I am no pilot, but from reading the memoirs of the pilots who flew them I would suggest the reason you wouldn't want to use maximum trim is because once you are out of your dive you have to trim it back again. It's best if you don't need to use trim at all but it's good to have the option.

I am Ok with some of y'all not believing they routinely dived at 500 mph - but I am thoroughly convinced. Pilots like Greg Boyington, Robert Scott, Phil Adair, James Edwards, Nicky Barr, Bob DeHaven, Benjamin O Davis and too many 325th, 79th and 57th pilots to keep all their names strait all mentioned diving the P-50 at 500 + mph - as I have pointed out repeatedly it was a standard escape maneuver widely used in the Pacific and also used in the Med and Middle East.

The test pilot also did this in checkout flights routinely on 2400+ aircraft. That is convincing enough for me. 

We also know the manual is overly conservative, at least compared to wartime conditions, on many things and not just maximum dive speed. Boost settings _also_ kept inching upwards in the manuals both for Allison and Merlin engined fighters, and yes by the way they did overboost the Merlins as well.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Apr 23, 2019)

BiffF15 said:


> Routinely exceeding limitations is not a good business practice with planes. It will bite you in the arse eventually, or worse the guy who flies it last. Your attitude towards what you think the limits of the aircraft should be based on what one guy did with a brand new airplane would not for a long combat career make.



Again, I don't think they would do that in a checkout flight if it was really risky to the airplane. His actual quote was something like "there is no way to damage a P-40 by stressing the airframe" which I'm sure is an exaggeration but the real threat there for a newer pilot would be to get into a bad spin I think (or black out and auger in)



> Airspeed installation error, out diving the enemy (Zeros in your one example - does not mean they dove to their max speed every time) is not as convincing to me as it is to you. From knowing what I do about Zeros I would not be anxious to get one fast in a shooting match as I would feel like I was running around with my skirt up asking to get spanked. Terrible roll rate and very stiff stick is not it’s forte, so when a P40 rolled over and took the elevator down I would let it go (which would further reinforce the speed in dive advantage) but doesn’t mean the Allied pilot was doing 500+.
> 
> Cheers,
> Biff



No it doesn't, certainly not every time, but they weren't taking chances and from reading their accounts, I suspect many of them dove absolutely as fast as they could - it sounds like you had to get to very high speed to get away especially from the Ki-43s by the way (and they couldn't always tell the difference). Keep in mind that hundreds of Allied aircrew were dying right and left in fights with Japanese aircraft, in the Philippines, Java, it was a "bloody shambles" to use Christopher Shores apt title, and the stiffening of the resistance at Milne Bay and New Guinea and Darwin was a very close run thing with extremely high casualties (upwards of 70% for some Australian Squadrons).

From the wiki for 75th FS RAAF:

_"No. 75 Squadron's casualties quickly mounted and were exacerbated by high rates of disease.[4] Squadron Leader Jackson was shot down and killed on 28 April, shortly after he had destroyed a Japanese fighter.[6] His younger brother Squadron Leader Les Jackson assumed command the next day. By the time two USAAF squadrons arrived to reinforce it on 30 April, No. 75 Squadron had been reduced to just three serviceable aircraft and a further seven Kittyhawks in need of repair. The squadron was withdrawn from operations on 3 May after losing two aircraft the day before. During its period at Port Moresby No. 75 Squadron was confirmed to have destroyed 35 Japanese aircraft, probably destroyed another four and damaged 44. *The squadron suffered twelve fatalities and lost 22 Kittyhawks, including six in accidents *"_

I have also read interviews how almost all of them had dysentary so bad they had to tape their pants shut over their boots so sh*t didn't get all over the cockpit. They also mentioned diving from 25,000 ft down to near sea level and then climbing back up again wasn't fun when you had dysentary gas bubbles in your guts. In short conditions were horrible, life was cheap, essentially, and these guys were fighting to their utmost limits and well beyond. It wasn't much better in the Middle East.

The thing about all these dichotomies between performance in the manual guidelines vs. pilot accounts - is that the aircraft lets remember, was _not _sufficient to survive in against a Zero, a Ki-43 or a Bf 109 or an MC 202 - all excellent aircraft, if flown according to the limits that the manufacturer and the Army thought were reasonable and wise. And the pilots generally were not as well trained either in the first year or two of the war. Even if they were basically equivalent - you had to push the limits to get an edge otherwise you are going to be facing 50/50 odds. The only way they survived was by routinely _exceeding_ those limits. That is the historical fact. That is what was complained about in the Allison overboosting memo and it's what was described by so many of the pilots. They had to figure out how to push the envelope to be competitive. And this in fact was one of the strengths or merits of the P-40: that they were able to do so and survive. This is one of the main traits it was praised for by pilots "it would get you home". I believe that is what they meant.

Luckily for Anglo-American (Aussie, Canadian, NZ, South African etc.) pilots, they had this remarkable Company test pilot Herbert Fisher who knew the exact limits of the aircraft very well and spent a year going around to "_every airbase in the CBI, Africa and the Middle East_" to paraphrase what I already quoted upthread, and even flew combat missions, to show them how to get away with pushing the aircraft to the edges of it's envelope. Not for his health I'm sure and I hope he didn't get Marlaria in the process. But because knowing exactly how far you could push the limits was very important for success and success meant survival in the sense of not being torn apart by cannon shells for those 22 year old combat pilots. They also had the good fortune to have fellow pilots like Nicky Barr among them who figured out how to pull G without blacking out and learned by experimentation (under the very imminent threat of death by heavy caliber bullets and cannon shells) that he could pull 6 or 7 G's in a P-40, and showed others how to do it.

War is extremely demanding and stressful, on men and machines. Almost all WW2 fighters, certainly Allied fighters in the early War, routinely had to be pushed to their limits and beyond in order for the pilot to survive. If you have an enemy aircraft right on your tail shooting 20mm cannon shells at you, and your choice is to dive faster and maybe extend away or stick to the manual limits and pull away gradually while hoping he doesn't hit you, in many cases the pilots clearly chose the former option. Obviously they had to walk a fine line because you most certainly still could destroy the plane or go into an uncontrollable spin you can't get out of, and die just the same.

S


----------



## michael rauls (Apr 23, 2019)

Ivan1GFP said:


> Hello Schweik,
> 
> You got me on the bad math thing. 1000+500+500 = 2000 pounds, not 1500 pounds!
> Your lightened P-40L would be just past the 10,000 pound maximum T-O weight (for the late P-40) with a 2,000 pound bomb load but under the right field conditions, it sounds plausible.
> ...


I've read a couple times including quotes from pilots that flew them that getting into the uper 300s in an A6m was asking for trouble including posible structural damage.
Not saying your wrong but but when you listed 460 mph as a max dive speed for them it certainly perked my interest. Could you elaborate?


----------



## Milosh (Apr 23, 2019)

I think some forgets that the ASI is not that accurate at high speeds, like in a dive.

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


----------



## michael rauls (Apr 23, 2019)

Milosh said:


> I think some forgets that the ASI is not that accurate at high speeds, like in a dive.


True but that would be a constant for all aircraft so any comparisons should still be valid, no?

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Apr 23, 2019)

Milosh said:


> I think some forgets that the ASI is not that accurate at high speeds, like in a dive.



It's a reasonable point for sure. It's also possible that certain things were just assumed since they were done so often. Memory of combat experiences doesn't seem to have always been super accurate.


----------



## Schweik (Apr 23, 2019)

michael rauls said:


> I've read a couple times including quotes from pilots that flew them that getting into the uper 300s in an A6m was asking for trouble including posible structural damage.
> Not saying your wrong but but when you listed 460 mph as a max dive speed for them it certainly perked my interest. Could you elaborate?



A6M5 is the later war model with the shorter wing


----------



## michael rauls (Apr 23, 2019)

Schweik said:


> A6M5 is the later war model with the shorter wing


I guess it had a much higher maximum dive speed than earlier modles?


----------



## BiffF15 (Apr 23, 2019)

michael rauls said:


> True but that would be a constant for all aircraft so any comparisons should still be valid, no?



I know of installation error, but would not assume it’s linear from one plane to the next (different types). Or the same type if airspeed indicators were made by different manufacturers.

Cheers,
Biff


----------



## michael rauls (Apr 23, 2019)

BiffF15 said:


> I know of installation error, but would not assume it’s linear from one plane to the next (different types). Or the same type if airspeed indicators were made by different manufacturers.
> 
> Cheers,
> Biff


True, any manufacturing shortcomings in airspeed indicators would varry by manufacturer but the physics that caused what seems to be universal inaccuracy at higher speeds would be.... well universal right?
That the p40 did or did not have a particularly inaccurate airspeed indicator and that this could be used to discount high speed readings to a greater degree than other aircraft would seem to be a seperate issue. 
And quite an interesting one i would love to know about. I've never heard or read about the Warhawk having a particularly faulty airspeed indicator but that certainly does not mean that this was not the case.


----------



## Schweik (Apr 23, 2019)

michael rauls said:


> I guess it had a much higher maximum dive speed than earlier modles?



I really don't know, I know it did have a faster level speed (350 mph vs ~320 for earlier types). Shorter (36' vs. 39') wings would mean less drag which I would think would be better in a dive.


----------



## Greyman (Apr 24, 2019)

My basic takeaway from the A&AEE tests are that;

Kittyhawk at 440 - 450 mph ASI the aeroplane comes out of the dive and yaws to the right against any force that can normally be applied by the pilot.

Typhoon at 510 mph ASI aileron and elevator controls remain light, rudder moderately heavy. It was considered a faster dive at 525 mph ASI would not have materially affected the control characteristics (the aircraft left the Establishment before last dive could be completed).


----------



## Schweik (Apr 24, 2019)

That isn't what it actually says. It comes out of the dive against any force applied the pilot - until he put in a little bit of trim. He says he had to apply trim and then he could control it.

And if that was the case why would the manual raise the dive speed to 485?

At 460 mph, with 4 divisions of rudder Trim, he was able to dive the aircraft "without any instability or control surface vibration occurring"


----------



## Greyman (Apr 24, 2019)

I think a desirable quality in a fighter is that its main controls actually control the aircraft in a dive above 450 mph.

If you're diving at 460 mph ASI - barely controlling your aircraft with trim and I'm behind you at 500 mph ASI with light and effective ailerons/elevator and moderately heavy rudder ... sounds like a sticky situation for you.


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Apr 24, 2019)

Schweik said:


> I think it means risk of blackout due to G forces at the very least.
> 
> The dive characteristics of the P-40 are no mystery. There was no compressibility or flutter, no real problems with the control. It was the same issue on takeoff at full power - you had to use a lot of rudder and you needed to trim it out to be comfortable.



Hello Schweik,
Most US fighters of the time were built for a maximum of 8G with ultimate structural failure at 12G.
If the pilot is blacked out pulling out from a dive, that would put it pretty close to the 8G maximum depending a bit on the pilot.

The yawing issue at Take-Off is just the opposite of what is going on in a high speed dive.
For one thing, it is in the opposite direction. It is also caused by different forces.



michael rauls said:


> I've read a couple times including quotes from pilots that flew them that getting into the uper 300s in an A6m was asking for trouble including posible structural damage.
> Not saying your wrong but but when you listed 460 mph as a max dive speed for them it certainly perked my interest. Could you elaborate?



Hello Michael Rauls,
The diving speed limit varied depending on the model. For the A6M2, those pilot accounts sound pretty accurate.
I just went back to look in the book "Zero" by Robert Mikesh to confirm what I was posting here.
On page 90, it gives a listing of some of the changes between models.
For the A6M5, the shortened wing improved diving speed to 360 kts (414 MPH).
With the A6M5a, the thicker wing skin panels raised diving speed to 400 kts (460 MPH).
The book doesn't explicitly state the following, so it is my interpretation:
The A6M3 Model 32 was the first version to have shortened wings.
There were some A6M?3 produced with the engine configuration of the -3 but the wing configuration of the -5.
The book states that there were probably around 50 or so airframes done this way as prototypes for the A6M5.
....so Some if not all of the short wing A6M3 were good for 360 kts in a dive. My belief is that it was all rather than some.
I intend to look for other sources to confirm.

When the A6M2 that was captured in the Aleutians was tested against US fighters, it was rated as comparable in dive acceleration and maximum diving speed to the F4F Wildcat. How unkind of the Japanese not to supply a manual for reference because the US pilots were certainly exceeding speed limitations to come to this conclusion.

- Ivan.

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


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Apr 24, 2019)

michael rauls said:


> True, any manufacturing shortcomings in airspeed indicators would varry by manufacturer but the physics that caused what seems to be universal inaccuracy at higher speeds would be.... well universal right?
> That the p40 did or did not have a particularly inaccurate airspeed indicator and that this could be used to discount high speed readings to a greater degree than other aircraft would seem to be a seperate issue.
> And quite an interesting one i would love to know about. I've never heard or read about the Warhawk having a particularly faulty airspeed indicator but that certainly does not mean that this was not the case.



Hello Michael Rauls,
There is a really nice story by Corwin Meyer about the speed difference between the Corsair and Hellcat (or lack thereof).
His claim is that it was due to the different locations of the static pressure port on the two aircraft. Airspeed is determined by the difference in pressure between the port at the end of the pitot which is facing into the direction of the airflow and the static port.
The problem he ran into was that under certain flight conditions such as low forward speed and a yaw which presented the static port into the air flow, the ASI would read near Zero.
The point is that if the airflow is not what is expected, the readings may not be what is expected.
it is pretty hard to find a nice clean location to put the sensors that does not get some odd airflow at some speeds.
My understanding is that this is the reason that there are often corrections in the aircraft manual for the readings of the ASI.

When these old and not so sleek propeller planes were going fast, often the local airflow would hit transonic speeds even if the entire aircraft was no where close to the speed of sound. These effects of "compressibility" were somewhat hard to predict and would often put shock waves or reverse airflow past odd parts of the airframe and result in nose tuck, loss of lift, loss of control effectiveness, reduction in stability, etc. Depending on location they may also be giving some odd readings to sensors that are supposed to read outside air pressure.

- Ivan.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Apr 24, 2019)

Greyman said:


> I think a desirable quality in a fighter is that its main controls actually control the aircraft in a dive above 450 mph.
> 
> If you're diving at 460 mph ASI - barely controlling your aircraft with trim and I'm behind you at 500 mph ASI with light and effective ailerons/elevator and moderately heavy rudder ... sounds like a sticky situation for you.



Hello Greyman,
Assuming that you are pursuing a P-40 in a Typhoon, WHY would the P-40 try to evade by diving????
Almost anything else would work better. The Typhoon can't turn inside the P-40 to follow and can't roll worth anything.
This is yet another case of playing the stupidest game possible or just trying to get killed.
Then again, if the Typhoon pilot hasn't figured out that dogfighting a P-40 isn't a good idea, he will probably find out pretty quickly.

You are also making the assumption that the Typhoon isn't high enough to encounter compressibility at which point Typhoon has even less control.

The reason the P-40 would be diving away from a Japanese fighter is because it almost certainly can't out turn the other guy and may not be able to out climb or out roll him either depending on what the Japanese fellow is flying.

- Ivan.


----------



## michael rauls (Apr 24, 2019)

Ivan1GFP said:


> Hello Michael Rauls,
> There is a really nice story by Corwin Meyer about the speed difference between the Corsair and Hellcat (or lack thereof).
> His claim is that it was due to the different locations of the static pressure port on the two aircraft. Airspeed is determined by the difference in pressure between the port at the end of the pitot which is facing into the direction of the airflow and the static port.
> The problem he ran into was that under certain flight conditions such as low forward speed and a yaw which presented the static port into the air flow, the ASI would read near Zero.
> ...


Yes ive read that quote about the speed of the Helcat and Corsair. Always wondered if it were indeed true.
My point about the inaccuracies of the airspeed indicator on the p40 were that in absence of any evidence that the p40 had
defect in this regard more so than other aircraft then the fact that speed readings would be off at higher speeds would be the same as other aircraft by way of comparison lest we discount the comparitive high speeds of all ww2 aircraft including say the p51 and Me262. Can't have a standard of critical analysis that only applies to the p40.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 24, 2019)

DarrenW said:


> Any chance we could make this a poll?



Only took 4 months, but there you go...


----------



## wuzak (Apr 24, 2019)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Only took 4 months, but there you go...



100% for the Typhoon so far. Case closed! 😛

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


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Apr 24, 2019)

michael rauls said:


> Yes ive read that quote about the speed of the Helcat and Corsair. Always wondered if it were indeed true.
> My point about the inaccuracies of the airspeed indicator on the p40 were that in absence of any evidence that the p40 had
> defect in this regard more so than other aircraft then the fact that speed readings would be off at higher speeds would be the same as other aircraft by way of comparison lest we discount the comparitive high speeds of all ww2 aircraft including say the p51 and Me262. Can't have a standard of critical analysis that only applies to the p40.



Hello Michael Rauls,
Evidence I have come across suggests that in general with similar model engines, the Corsair was just a touch faster.
There is a lot more to this discussion that we have gone through many times in these forums.
I believe that you are generally correct in regards to maximum speeds in level flight, but in regards to diving speeds when approaching "compressibility speeds", instrument readings are less reliable.
That is not to say that someone hasn't been able to determine the terminal velocity of the P-40; It is a statement that the pilot in the cockpit of that P-40 in a high speed dive may not have the proper instrumentation to figure out how fast he is really going.

When accuracy is really important, additional instrumentation is usually mounted and in places where airflow is not likely to be disturbed. Note the business on the wing tip of the Aleutian Zero in the attached image. Note how far forward of the Wing Leading Edge it sits. This aircraft certainly already had a working ASI or it would not have been safe to fly, so why mount extra equipment unless there is a lack of faith in existing instruments?

- Ivan.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Apr 24, 2019)

Ivan1GFP said:


> I intend to look for other sources to confirm.



Mitsubishi A6M - Maximum Diving Speeds:
Long Wing Versions - 340 kts (391 MPH)
A6M2 Model 21
A6M3 Model 22

Short Wing Versions - 360 kts (414 MPH)
A6M3 Model 32
A6M5 Model 52

Thicker Wing Skin Versions - 400 kts (460 MPH)
A6M5 Model 51a
A6M5 Model 51b
A6M5 Model 51c

- Ivan.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Apr 24, 2019)

Greyman said:


> I think a desirable quality in a fighter is that its main controls actually control the aircraft in a dive above 450 mph.
> 
> If you're diving at 460 mph ASI - barely controlling your aircraft with trim and I'm behind you at 500 mph ASI with light and effective ailerons/elevator and moderately heavy rudder ... sounds like a sticky situation for you.



Well, you are aware right that many of the renowned fighters of WW2 had stiff controls at high speed, notably both the A6M and the Bf 109. In the P-40 however, this was pretty easily trimmed out.

You are adding a little bit of spin to the report you posted, since he said he had to maintain foot pressure, but the description of the amount of control was quite sanguine.

I agree with Ivan that a P-40 pilot would be unlikely to dive if pursed by a Typhoon, turning tightly would be a safer way to evade, but more to the point, both aircraft could catch a Bf 109 in a dive. Only the P-40 could turn and roll with it though.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Apr 24, 2019)

Ivan1GFP said:


> The yawing issue at Take-Off is just the opposite of what is going on in a high speed dive.
> For one thing, it is in the opposite direction. It is also caused by different forces.



I think you'll find that the requirement for hard right rudder (and the joke about the oversized right leg) was mentioned both in diving and takeoff, such as in the book I linked upthread, and many others.


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Apr 24, 2019)

Schweik said:


> I think you'll find that the requirement for hard right rudder (and the joke about the oversized right leg) was mentioned both in diving and takeoff, such as in the book I linked upthread, and many others.



Hello Schweik,
On Take-Off, the aeroplane tries to yaw LEFT because of propeller torque effects, P-Factor, etc. Pilot applies RIGHT rudder to correct.
Please note that the description on Greyman's post states that the aeroplane yaws RIGHT and on the third test LEFT Rudder trim was applied to reduce that tendency to yaw to the RIGHT in the dive.
Yaw is in opposite directions because the cause is different.

If the yaw was all in one direction, the designers at Curtiss-Wright would have been fools not to just build in a couple degrees of offset into the fin and the problem pretty much goes away.

- Ivan.


----------



## Glider (Apr 24, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Well, you are aware right that many of the renowned fighters of WW2 had stiff controls at high speed, notably both the A6M and the Bf 109. In the P-40 however, this was pretty easily trimmed out.
> 
> You are adding a little bit of spin to the report you posted, since he said he had to maintain foot pressure, but the description of the amount of control was quite sanguine.
> 
> I agree with Ivan that a P-40 pilot would be unlikely to dive if pursed by a Typhoon, turning tightly would be a safer way to evade, but more to the point, both aircraft could catch a Bf 109 in a dive. Only the P-40 could turn and roll with it though.


 Plus of course only the Typhoon could catch it in a straight chase up to about 20,000 ft.


----------



## Greyman (Apr 24, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Well, you are aware right that many of the renowned fighters of WW2 had stiff controls at high speed, notably both the A6M and the Bf 109. In the P-40 however, this was pretty easily trimmed out.
> 
> You are adding a little bit of spin to the report you posted, since he said he had to maintain foot pressure, but the description of the amount of control was quite sanguine.
> 
> I agree with Ivan that a P-40 pilot would be unlikely to dive if pursed by a Typhoon, turning tightly would be a safer way to evade, but more to the point, both aircraft could catch a Bf 109 in a dive. Only the P-40 could turn and roll with it though.



And the Typhoon had better dive characteristics than those renowned fighters as well.

Many fighters stiffened up at high speed, true, but the issue with the P-40 is that the stiffness is accompanied by large changes in trim - enough that the pilot can't hold the aircraft straight without having to start messing with the tabs. Insurmountable problem? Of course not. But it's a relative non-issue with the Typhoon, especially at the speeds it starts effecting the P-40.

It seems to me this stiffening + trim change is the cause of the P-40's limiting dive speed, and nothing to do with strength/flutter/compressability issues. Which also might speak to why the limit was bumped up throughout the war, as training/experience allowed P-40 pilots to get quicker and craftier with their trim settings. 

Pure speculation though.


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Apr 24, 2019)

Greyman said:


> And the Typhoon had better dive characteristics than those renowned fighters as well.
> 
> Many fighters stiffened up at high speed, true, but the issue with the P-40 is that the stiffness is accompanied by large changes in trim - enough that the pilot can't hold the aircraft straight without having to start messing with the tabs. Insurmountable problem? Of course not. But it's a relative non-issue with the Typhoon, especially at the speeds it starts effecting the P-40.
> 
> ...



Hello Greyman,
Better dive characteristics is a matter of opinion. There is no question that the Typhoon suffered from some serious compressibility issues but just didn't tend to operate at a high enough altitude for that to be an issue. Ground Attack aircraft don't tend to operate at high altitudes.
As a fighter, it was fast at low and medium altitudes but didn't turn particularly well and roll rate was terrible. To me this sounds like an "interceptor" rather than an air superiority fighter because it simply didn't have the agility.

As for control stiffening, this isn't necessarily a bad thing to an extent because it makes it more difficult for the pilot to overstress the aircraft. According to pilot reports, the P-40 was much like the Me 109. It was quite agile but the pilot had to work at it. Controls were not light.

As for trim changes, the Typhoon wasn't immune either. Most aircraft have some longitudinal trim changes with increasing speed. Some just have more than others and the P-40 unfortunately had a lot of change in directional trim as well. Trim changes are the kind of thing that a pilot just gets used to when flying a particular type of aircraft to the point where cranking in a couple notches of trim is just a reflex when reconfiguring the aircraft such as when extending flaps or retracting the landing gear.

As for manuals, my belief is that the audience is always going to be a group of pilots with fairly minimal experience in the type because if you have flown an aircraft for a while, you probably are not going to forget what you have already learned.

BTW, Over the weekend, I picked up the book "Typhoon and Tempest at War" at a local show. 
It really makes for some interesting reading.

- Ivan.


----------



## Schweik (Apr 24, 2019)

Ivan1GFP said:


> Hello Schweik,
> On Take-Off, the aeroplane tries to yaw LEFT because of propeller torque effects, P-Factor, etc. Pilot applies RIGHT rudder to correct.
> Please note that the description on Greyman's post states that the aeroplane yaws RIGHT and on the third test LEFT Rudder trim was applied to reduce that tendency to yaw to the RIGHT in the dive.
> Yaw is in opposite directions because the cause is different.
> ...



Fair enough I stand corrected.


----------



## Schweik (Apr 24, 2019)

Greyman said:


> And the Typhoon had better dive characteristics than those renowned fighters as well.
> 
> Many fighters stiffened up at high speed, true, but the issue with the P-40 is that the stiffness is accompanied by large changes in trim - enough that the pilot can't hold the aircraft straight without having to start messing with the tabs. Insurmountable problem? Of course not. But it's a relative non-issue with the Typhoon, especially at the speeds it starts effecting the P-40.
> 
> ...



I actually think you are right about pretty much all of that, but I would make one change and add one thing.

Here is how I would write this sentence:

"The controls of many WW2 fighters, including most early war fighters stiffened up at high speed, but in the P-40 the stiffness could be easily alleviated by using the trim tabs."

I would add that the increases in dive speed were following field practices, rather than the other way around. When you had pilots surviving bloodbaths like 75 Sqn RAAF at Milne Bay, they came out of it with some hard won experience that they did share with colleagues. I suspect those guys knew exactly how fast they could dive those planes and how to do it properly.

However I do acknowledge that it was a nuisance and some pilots pointedly said so - James Edwards for one seemed to dwell on it quite a bit. He had them move (IIRC) the attitude indicator up high in the cockpit so he could see it without looking down in dives and during hard banking turns.

Finally I would point out that while the P-40 did not suffer from any flutter, comprissibility or other negative behavior at high speed, the Typhoon most certainly did.

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


----------



## michael rauls (Apr 24, 2019)

Ivan1GFP said:


> Mitsubishi A6M - Maximum Diving Speeds:
> Long Wing Versions - 340 kts (391 MPH)
> A6M2 Model 21
> A6M3 Model 22
> ...


Verry cool info. Thanks for posting it. That gives me a whole new view of the A6M.


----------



## wuzak (Apr 24, 2019)

I ask, was it necessary to dive to the limiting speed to evade a foe like the Zero?

Surely it was enough to extend away through acceleration and use superior high speed handling to manoeuvre away?


----------



## Greyman (Apr 24, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Here is how I would write this sentence:
> 
> "The controls of many WW2 fighters, including most early war fighters stiffened up at high speed, but in the P-40 the stiffness could be easily alleviated by using the trim tabs."



I'm no pilot but I don't think that's what trim tabs do. They are unable to alleviate control forces in any way, but they are able to introduce bias so that undesired force (large or small) can be checked. Any corrections welcome.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 25, 2019)

Greyman said:


> I'm no pilot but I don't think that's what trim tabs do. They are unable to alleviate control forces in any way, but they are able to introduce bias so that undesired force (large or small) can be checked. Any corrections welcome.



I’m not the most experienced pilot here (less than 500 hours), nor have I flown a high performance fighter, but trim does not get rid of stiffness (unless I have always been missing something) it lessens the pressure a pilot must assert on the flight controls to maintain the desired or stable attitude. For instance you trim the elevator to prevent having to apply forward pressure on the yoke/stick to keep the nose down and level. 

Unless that is what he meant by “stiffness”...

You can tell who is a new pilot, and not yet mastered the trim. They white knuckle the controls, have sore muscles, and the aircraft porposes, and it is hard for them to maintain altitude.

Also proper trim is essential to landing. Play with that trim wheel every time you change power settings, attitude, flap settings, etc. If you master that (and sight picture) you can fly a nice turn to base and then to final with proper speeds and descent.

Same with slow flight. At least in a Cherokee. You can pull power out, introduce 3 knotches of flaps, and the aircraft will maintain altitude, right above stall speed. You don’t get that trim right, you will wear yourself out, and not maintain altitude.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Milosh (Apr 25, 2019)

The Flettner tabs on the 109 are not trim tabs. On the P-51 the trim tabs worked like the Flettners. Don't know about other a/c.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 25, 2019)

Milosh said:


> The Flettner tabs on the 109 are not trim tabs. On the P-51 the trim tabs worked like the Flettners. Don't know about other a/c.



They are servo tabs...


----------



## Schweik (Apr 25, 2019)

My understanding is that the 109s had trouble turning in one direction (IIRC, to the right) when in a high speed dive. The P-40s and Spitfires could still turn at speed, though on the P-40 it required trimming out the rudder.


----------



## Navalwarrior (Apr 25, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Actually, the number is higher for P-40F/L because the RAF squadrons (260 RAF and 3 RAAF) both scored victories as well while flying Kittyhawk II. They also don't seem to count the 99th FS / Tuskegee pilots who claimd 17 victories in the P-40L.
> 
> here is the breakdown of all P-40F/L units I'm aware of, with their active time periods:
> 
> ...


Resp:
How do their victories compare to their losses of P-40s?


----------



## Navalwarrior (Apr 25, 2019)

Milosh said:


> Luftwaffe claims of P-40s: in the first 6 months of 1943, Southern Front (MTO): Jan - 95, Feb - 60, Mar - 51, Apr - 36, May - 14, June - 17


Resp:
Wow!


----------



## Mad Dog (Jun 22, 2019)

Schweik said:


> This is why this analysis is specifically between the P40 F and L (Merlin engined P-40s) vs. the Typhoon since these were the main variants used by the USAAF against the same (i.e. German - in the Med) opponents as the Typhoon.... so I think it's a reasonable comparison.



Not quite. The US in the NA/Med theatre had to use the P-40F as their main air superiority fighter as they had little else available. When they got Spitfire Vs, they used those for air superiority and interceptions rather than P-40Fs. The majority of P-40F combats were at low and medium altitudes, with a lot combats being against mediocre to fair opponents. By contrast, the Channel Front had some of the best of the Luftwaffe's fighters and pilots. By the period you mention (late 1942 through mid-1943 into 1944) the Typhoon was already the RAF's second choice as interceptor and air superiority fighter in the Channel theatre to the higher-flying Spitfire IX, mainly due to the nature of combat sorties over the Channel Front - lots of high-altitude sweeps and escorts. Even so, the Typhoon was still the primary choice for low-level interceptor of FW190 _Jabos_ over the Channel. Indeed, with D-Day fast approaching and some doubts whether Beamont's Hawker Tempest Wing was going to be ready in time, 263Sq RAF and their Typhoons were kept back from 2nd Tactical Airforce to provide low-level interceptor defense for the UK's South Coast harbors, because the Typhoon was still seen as *the best available option* *against the best enemy fighters at low level*. There is simply no way anyone would have considered the P-40F the best option for _any_ role by 1944.



Schweik said:


> not sure if Typhoons were used in the Pacific or CBI


In May 1943, three Typhoons were tested in Egypt with 451Sq RAAF, an experienced Hurricane IIc unit. As far as I know, those were the only Typhoons to operate outside the European Theatre. In the RAF's main theatre in the Far East (India/Burma) the incidences of land-based air combat were becoming so rare for the RAF by mid-1943, that they decided they already had enough Spitfires, and kept the Hurricane IIs for ground-attack. This was to simplify the logistics and maintenance picture. When they reconsidered with Tiger Force towards the very end of the War, the Tempest was already replacing the Typhoon.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Elvis (Jun 22, 2019)

Apologies if this was already discussed _ad nauseum_, but how was the different weight of the two engines addressed in this case?
I think the Merlin is about 300 lbs. heavier than the Allison, so what did they do to counter act that, or was any change necessary?

Elvis


----------



## Schweik (Jun 22, 2019)

Mad Dog said:


> Not quite. The US in the NA/Med theatre had to use the P-40F as their main air superiority fighter as they had little else available. When they got Spitfire Vs, they used those for air superiority and interceptions rather than P-40Fs.



Actually, that is completely incorrect - they used P-40F/L and Spit V simultaneously within the USAAF units and along with British / Commonwealth Spit V and Spit IX units through Anzio in 1944. P-40F/L got more of the escort missions, for example to Sardinia.



> The majority of P-40F combats were at low and medium altitudes, with a lot combats being against mediocre to fair opponents.



Again, factually incorrect and easy to check incidentally. US fighter groups flying P-40s went up against the elite JG 27, which they basically destroyed, JG 77, JG 2 and several other top Luftwaffe fighter groups flying the latest Bf 109 and Fw 190s, in addition to Italian pilots flying C.202 and C.205 which were good enough to give RAF Spitfire units plenty of trouble.



> There is simply no way anyone would have considered the P-40F the best option for _any_ role by 1944.


And yet it was in heavy use in 1944, long after they had retired the Hurricane from front line duties even as a bomber.




> In May 1943, three Typhoons were tested in Egypt with 451Sq RAAF, an experienced Hurricane IIc unit. As far as I know, those were the only Typhoons to operate outside the European Theatre. In the RAF's main theatre in the Far East (India/Burma) the incidences of land-based air combat were becoming so rare for the RAF by mid-1943, that they decided they already had enough Spitfires, and kept the Hurricane IIs for ground-attack. This was to simplify the logistics and maintenance picture. When they reconsidered with Tiger Force towards the very end of the War, the Tempest was already replacing the Typhoon.



They seemed to have failed the test which is why they continued to sit in England instead of being deployed in the Med where they were badly needed (especially if they were ostensibly better than the P-40s which were being so heavily relied on both for fighters and fighter bombers)

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


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 22, 2019)

Elvis said:


> Apologies if this was already discussed _ad nauseum_, but how was the different weight of the two engines addressed in this case?
> I think the Merlin is about 300 lbs. heavier than the Allison, so what did they do to counter act that, or was any change necessary?
> 
> Elvis


 I have no information on what else they did but according the manuals they changed the order they used the fuel in.
Allison powered Es and later and the F&L started using the forward wing tank (it was the one plumbed for the return line so you wanted some space in it fairly soon).
Once take-off and climb to a safe height was achieved the belly tank (if fitted) was selected, when that was used up the rear fuselage tank was selected. Here is where the difference kicks in. On the F&L the rear tank was drawn down to 35 US gallons remaining and the the fuel selector was switched to the front wing tank, then the rear wing tank and finally back to the rear fuselage tank to use the remaining 35 gallons (if needed).
On the Allison powered P-40s the rear fuselage tank was drained after the drop tank then the rear wing tank and the forward wing tank was used last (after starting and using about 15 gallons to begin with). Basicly they were using 35 gallons ( around 210 lbs) worth of gas in the rear fuselage tank as ballast to counter the heavier Merlin engine.

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


----------



## pbehn (Jun 22, 2019)

Schweik said:


> They seemed to have failed the test which is why they continued to sit in England instead of being deployed in the Med where they were badly needed (especially if they were ostensibly better than the P-40s which were being so heavily relied on both for fighters and fighter bombers)


Where in the Med were they desperately needed? The Axis powers surrendered in Tunisia in May 1943?


----------



## wuzak (Jun 22, 2019)

Elvis said:


> Apologies if this was already discussed _ad nauseum_, but how was the different weight of the two engines addressed in this case?
> I think the Merlin is about 300 lbs. heavier than the Allison, so what did they do to counter act that, or was any change necessary?
> 
> Elvis



The Merlin XX was about 75-100lb heavier than the V-1710.

The Merlin that was ~300lb heavier was the 60-series two stage versions.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 22, 2019)

wuzak said:


> The Merlin XX was about 75-100lb heavier than the V-1710.
> 
> The Merlin that was ~300lb heavier was the 60-series two stage versions.



for some reason the Packard Merlin was heavier than the British XX series. I don't know if it was the basic engine itself or some of the accessories? perhap only 60-70lbs but then I believe it needed a larger radiator and oil cooler?

OK, looked in Dean's AHT, and the Merlin went about 1518-1523 lbs (and a bit of production tolerance) while the Allisons went about 1307-1340lbs depending on Version.
Some of the other weights bounce around bit , like engine section, eng Accessories, Controls, starting and cooling and oil systems, the cooling systems did NOT actually vary that much, 305-306lbs for the Merlin and 294lbs for the Allison. 
I haven't checked all the different models listed but the power plant (as opposed to just the engine) might have been nearly 300lbs depending on exact model?

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


----------



## Elvis (Jun 22, 2019)

I have to agree with Shortround6.
According to EngineHistory.org.'s charts, the V1650-1 Packard Merlin used in the F/L scaled out at 1520 lbs.
The V1710-33 used in P40's B, C, E & G scaled out at 1340 lbs.
P40-E also used the -39 Allison variant which scaled out at 1310 lbs.
So if you average the two Allison engines to 1325 lbs., that still makes them 195 lbs, lighter than the Merlin.
I guess not as much difference as I remembered, but I remember a very generalized stat, too.
Interesting how they simply changed how they used the on-board fuel to balance the difference in weight.
Those boys were thinkin', that's for sure. 


Elvis


----------



## Schweik (Jun 22, 2019)

pbehn said:


> Where in the Med were they desperately needed? The Axis powers surrendered in Tunisia in May 1943?



They needed all the help they could get invading Italy. Anzio was a close run thing or weren't you aware?

Prior to that official test in 1943 Typhoons (or any purportedly superior aircraft) were even more badly needed as the Desert Air Force was suffering heavy casualties, especially before the arrival of the Americans with all the extra kit and manpower. However if the Typhoon was indeed suitable and deemed effective I would think they would have deployed at least some squadrons since allegedly (per the comments in this thread) they were not seeing a lot of action in England. Or were they? Which is it?


----------



## Schweik (Jun 23, 2019)

Elvis said:


> I have to agree with Shortround6.
> According to EngineHistory.org.'s charts, the V1650-1 Packard Merlin used in the F/L scaled out at 1520 lbs.
> The V1710-33 used in P40's B, C, E & G scaled out at 1340 lbs.
> P40-E also used the -39 Allison variant which scaled out at 1310 lbs.
> ...



The P-40F was definitely the heaviest P-40 up to that point, and the Merlin engine may have had a little to do with that though it wasn't the only thing. It is perhaps notable that the F was the first one to be so often systematically lightened in the field (by the removal of a pair of wing guns, some armor, and sometimes also some fuel capacity) that they followed up with the stripped factory version, the L. The L actually had a better combat record if we can believe the numbers in Mediterranean Air War though that may be attributable to increasing experience by the pilots.

I show the P-40E as anywhere from 5,920 to 6,350 empty and 8,280 loaded, with various numbers for gross the average being about 9,200 (but they sometimes overloaded them with as much as 1,500 lbs of bombs for short sorties)

I show the following weights for the Merlin engined hawks:

*P-40F-5-CU* (6 guns)
Empty - 6,590 lb
Loaded - 8,480 lb (partial fuel)
Max Gross - 9,350 (includes external fuel tank)

*P-40L-10 *(4 guns)
Empty -6,340 lb
Loaded -8,020 lb (partial fuel)
Max Gross - 8,950 lb (includes external fuel tank)

Sources for Merlin weights are

El Beid, Anis & Laurelut, Daniel. _Curtiss P-40 from 1939 to 1945_ (Planes and Pilots 3), Histoire and Collections, 2008. ISBN 2-913903-47-9 P. 34
Shamburger, Page & Christy, Joe. _The Curtiss Hawks_. Wolverine Press, 1972. Library of Congress No. 79-173429 pp. 231- 234

However the Allison engined P-40K was even heavier (10,810 Max Gross) so there were other things being added that were making weight accumulate

One thing I'm a little baffled by is that the RAF planes had to wear these very heavy and apparently very draggy vokes filters etc., but the P-40s using basically the same or very similar Merlin engine didn't seem to suffer that much from dust despite their huge chin radiator / oil cooler scoops and whatever filter they were using doesn't seem to have been all that bulky or heavy. I have come across a few references to a filter but I don't know any details.

P-38s also seem to have flown in the Med at the same time, albeit with some ongoing maintenance problems, without any giant filter systems either.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## slaterat (Jun 23, 2019)

The intake on the various merlin mks is located on the underside of the engine/fuselage, in a position that would ingest a lot more dust than an intake on the top of the engine/fuselage as on most allisons. The volkes filter on the Hurricane adds very little to the frontal area and only cost about 5-7 mph in top speed. The Assembly on the Spit V was much larger and clumsier looking but I believe it also housed a larger glycol header tank and/or oil tank, for additional cooling.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## slaterat (Jun 23, 2019)

I also believe that overall the volkes filters get far too much criticism post war. The filters allowed more planes to be in the air more often especially when logistics were stretched to the max. Its kind of similar to over boosting an engine, you get some extra performance but also reduced engine life, and maybe a higher risk of catastrophic engine failure.


----------



## slaterat (Jun 23, 2019)

When comparing engine weights the single stage single speed merlins, III ,45 and 46 weighed in at around 1375 lbs. The single stage two speed merlin X,XX,XXX weighed in at around 1450 lbs, while the two stage/two speed merlin 60 series weighed in at around 1650 lbs. So not much difference between a single stage ,single speed merlin or allison.


----------



## wuzak (Jun 23, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> for some reason the Packard Merlin was heavier than the British XX series. I don't know if it was the basic engine itself or some of the accessories? perhap only 60-70lbs but then I believe it needed a larger radiator and oil cooler?
> 
> OK, looked in Dean's AHT, and the Merlin went about 1518-1523 lbs (and a bit of production tolerance) while the Allisons went about 1307-1340lbs depending on Version.
> Some of the other weights bounce around bit , like engine section, eng Accessories, Controls, starting and cooling and oil systems, the cooling systems did NOT actually vary that much, 305-306lbs for the Merlin and 294lbs for the Allison.
> I haven't checked all the different models listed but the power plant (as opposed to just the engine) might have been nearly 300lbs depending on exact model?



Lumsden has the Merlin XX at 1,450lb and teh Merlin 28/V-1650-1 as 1,460lb.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 23, 2019)

A few points, By the end of April, beginning of May 1943 there were only about 1200 Typhoons built, and that is from Sept of 1941. Of those about 700 were built from Sept of 1942 to May of 1943. early deployment of the Typhoon to other theaters may have been governed by availability rather than any special needs or out of the ordinary faults of the aircraft. 

Anzio is a red herring. By Jan 1944 the Typhoon was both not the only game in town for a fighter bomber or air superiority aircraft. 
In April of 1944 P-51Bs start operating in Italy, (Wiki says that the Anzio operation lasted until June 5th) The 57th fighter group in Italy got P-47s in Jan 1944 to replace their P-40s, a 2nd group, the 79th starts requiping in March. 
I don't know when the P-38 groups in Italy started getting the newer P-38s. But the P-38J went into production in Sept of 1943. 

As to the weight of the Merlin V-1650-1, AHT agrees (or close enough, under 10lbs) with "The Merlin in Perspective" Rolls royce Heritage trust No 2. 

The tables at the rear of Lumsden book leave a little to be desired. It appears that there are a number of entries that are on the wrong lines or one number is used repeatedly in a column (especially weights) for it to be 100% trustworthy. At least the copy I have, other printings or editions may have fixed these problems? I am blaming type setters and proofreaders, not Lumsdens research.


----------



## Kevin J (Jun 23, 2019)

Schweik said:


> They needed all the help they could get invading Italy. Anzio was a close run thing or weren't you aware?
> 
> Prior to that official test in 1943 Typhoons (or any purportedly superior aircraft) were even more badly needed as the Desert Air Force was suffering heavy casualties, especially before the arrival of the Americans with all the extra kit and manpower. However if the Typhoon was indeed suitable and deemed effective I would think they would have deployed at least some squadrons since allegedly (per the comments in this thread) they were not seeing a lot of action in England. Or were they? Which is it?



Typhoon IB Performance Data Scroll down to AAEE test at Boscombe Down dated 31/7/43. Sea level speed increases from 343 to 357 mph from 1942 to 1943. So how much speed is lost if you have a tropical filter.

P-39 Performance Tests Scroll down to P-39N-1 test dated 17/10/42. Speed at 2700 feet is 358 mph. considering the air intake is above and behind the pilot, no doubt little speed would be lost by a dust filter.

I doubt that there would be little or any speed difference between the 2 fighters below 10000 feet. You could sling a large drop tank below the Cobra, so if you just want to patrol to intercept incoming Fw 190 fighter bombers, my guess is that the Cobra could overhaul one, if the Fw 190 dropped its bombs and used MW 50 then it could escape. You don't need the Typhoon in the Med in 1942/43 if you have the Cobra which would probably have a longer patrol time.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jun 23, 2019)

slaterat said:


> The intake on the various merlin mks is located on the underside of the engine/fuselage, in a position that would ingest a lot more dust than an intake on the top of the engine/fuselage as on most allisons. The volkes filter on the Hurricane adds very little to the frontal area and only cost about 5-7 mph in top speed. The Assembly on the Spit V was much larger and clumsier looking but I believe it also housed a larger glycol header tank and/or oil tank, for additional cooling.




I think you are missing my point - I was referring to the merlin engined P-40s not the Allison engined ones.


----------



## Schweik (Jun 23, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> A few points, By the end of April, beginning of May 1943 there were only about 1200 Typhoons built, and that is from Sept of 1941. Of those about 700 were built from Sept of 1942 to May of 1943. early deployment of the Typhoon to other theaters may have been governed by availability rather than any special needs or out of the ordinary faults of the aircraft.



They certainly hoarded their Spit IX's for longer than most in the Med would have liked, but every other aircraft they could try was thrown into the mix because it was a very hard fight.



> Anzio is a red herring. By Jan 1944 the Typhoon was both not the only game in town for a fighter bomber or air superiority aircraft.
> In April of 1944 P-51Bs start operating in Italy, (Wiki says that the Anzio operation lasted until June 5th) The 57th fighter group in Italy got P-47s in Jan 1944 to replace their P-40s, a 2nd group, the 79th starts requiping in March.
> I don't know when the P-38 groups in Italy started getting the newer P-38s. But the P-38J went into production in Sept of 1943.



I'll have to check MAW IV for P-51Bs and late model P-38s by the time of Anzio- I don't remember seeing any. They did have the A-36 P-51s being used as dive bombers pretty extensively, they had some P-47s coming into use toward the end of the campaign, and the need was great enough to pull P-39s off of "coastal patrol" duty and start using them as fighter bombers, though the Hurricanes were still left out of it.

The P-38s were used almost exclusively for high altitude bomber escort, mainly of B-24s and some B-17s. The Spitfires were used for short range tactical air cover (including over Anzio beach-head, which is where the Spit IXs were found most of the time during Anzio) and P-40F/L were used for the same tactical air cover missions (mostly to stop Fw 190 fighter bombers), as well as medium bomber (B-25 and B-26) escort (particularly over Sardinia) and fighter-bomber missions, including short range ones very near the Anzio beach-head and also as far away as over Yugoslavia. The P-47s, when they started becoming available, were used for the same mix of missions (sometimes in concert with the P-40s as they were gradually phased in).

However, as usual your comment is disingenuous, I mentioned Anzio as one of the better known highlights and critical moments of the Italian campaign, but I was referring to the whole thing which was bitterly fought, from Pantelleria and Lampedusa to Sicily, Salerno and onto Italy. Anzio was not a red herring it was one of the most intense and bitterly contested air battles of the Mediterranean Campaign.

The RAF in particular could have really used some Typhoons, if they were truly viable, in the second half of 1942 and early 1943.


----------



## Schweik (Jun 23, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> Typhoon IB Performance Data Scroll down to AAEE test at Boscombe Down dated 31/7/43. Sea level speed increases from 343 to 357 mph from 1942 to 1943. So how much speed is lost if you have a tropical filter.
> 
> P-39 Performance Tests Scroll down to P-39N-1 test dated 17/10/42. Speed at 2700 feet is 358 mph. considering the air intake is above and behind the pilot, no doubt little speed would be lost by a dust filter.
> 
> I doubt that there would be little or any speed difference between the 2 fighters below 10000 feet. You could sling a large drop tank below the Cobra, so if you just want to patrol to intercept incoming Fw 190 fighter bombers, my guess is that the Cobra could overhaul one, if the Fw 190 dropped its bombs and used MW 50 then it could escape. You don't need the Typhoon in the Med in 1942/43 if you have the Cobra which would probably have a longer patrol time.



The P-39s were good enough on paper, but not trusted by their pilots or commanders in the Med, and after a couple of debacles in North Africa where they got slaughtered, got relegated to coastal patrol missions. It wasn't until 1944 before they started making any real use of them as fighter-bombers / interdiction aircraft. The issue may have been training to some extent. 

P-39's also had the distinction of killing several of our Allied colleagues in the Free French and Italian Co-belligerant air forces in accidents, including in the latter a couple of their top surviving aces.

Maybe they should have brought some Soviet pilots in for cross-training.


My main question is, was the Typhoon in a similar "not really ready for prime time" situation vis a vis the Med in 1942-1944, either due to mechanical difficulties or fighting limitations or both.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Jun 23, 2019)

Schweik said:


> The RAF in particular could have really used some Typhoons, if they were truly viable, in the second half of 1942 and early 1943.



That's the problem - there weren't enough Typhoons to service the ETO and the Med at that time.




Schweik said:


> My main question is, was the Typhoon in a similar "not really ready for prime time" situation vis a vis the Med in 1942-1944, either due to mechanical difficulties or fighting limitations or both.



Or production.


----------



## Schweik (Jun 23, 2019)

wuzak said:


> That's the problem - there weren't enough Typhoons to service the ETO and the Med at that time.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Ok, so we are saying here that the Typhoons did have plenty of missions to fly from England in the early years? Because one of the reasons given as to why the P-40F had so much better of a combat record (so many more victory claims) is that the Typhoons didn't have any targets to tangle with. So are you saying that is wrong and they did? Were they routinely flying missions?


----------



## Kevin J (Jun 23, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Ok, so we are saying here that the Typhoons did have plenty of missions to fly from England in the early years? Because one of the reasons given as to why the P-40F had so much better of a combat record (so many more victory claims) is that the Typhoons didn't have any targets to tangle with. So are you saying that is wrong and they did? Were they routinely flying missions?



Statistics. 3300 built 1100 losses. 2/3 used for ground attack so don't expect aerial victories. 1/3 Fighters. So max 2200 available for combat duty. 730 for fighter duty. 260 victories IIRC. So about 3 fighters produced for every 1 aerial victory, which is about the average for Anglo-American fighters. N.B. Luftwaffe, 33,000 Bf 109's produced, 12,000 aerial victories or 2.75 to 1.

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


----------



## Schweik (Jun 23, 2019)

I'm not sure if I buy the "_2/3 used for ground attack so don't expect aerial victories_" part. Unless there is near total air superiority or they aren't trained for air combat at all, even fighter bomber units will usually get into air combat. In the Med it was typical to send one squadron as cover for two other squadrons flying fighter bomber missions, otherwise the latter would get wiped out. Even Hurricane units flying FB missions usually got some victories through 1942.

One of the reasons I thought Merlin P-40 and Typhoon made for a pretty good comparison is that they both had a similar mission profile (mostly used as fighter bombers with some fighter sweep, CAP and escort missions in the mix) and were produced in similar numbers. Vs. ~3,300 Typhoons, there were ~2,000 Merlin engined P-40s produced (1311 P-40F and 700 P-40L) almost all built in 1941 and 1942, and almost all of them used in combat. I don't know how many were lost, does anyone? They saw heavy use, equipping 5 US Fighter groups active in the Med (33rd, 57th, 325th, 324th, 79th) , 1 independent US fighter squadron (99th FS- Tuskegee), 1 US fighter bomber group (the 27th FBG), two RAF squadrons (RAF 260 and RAAF 3 sqn) and 2 squadrons of Free French (GC II/5). Plus the US 49th FG used them in the Pacific, mostly in the Solomons area. With three squadrons per US fighter group, at the peak around mid 1943 that is a total of 23 squadrons all involved pretty heavily in combat from mid 1942 through the third quarter of 1944, but mostly in 1943. However as P-40Fs were phased in gradually, and new fighter types were phased after them, in it was usually fewer units flying the P-40F at any one time. Probably about 12-15 squadrons that had them on average through their combat life.

In the Med by my count combining US, RAF, and Free French unit victories they claimed 665 victories, about 90% of them fighters*, mostly Bf 109 and MC 202.

Most of the USAAF and British / Commonwealth units that used the P-40 F/L / Kittyhawk II were primarily flying fighter bomber units, in fact 2/3 is probably a pretty good ratio of fighter bomber vs other sorties, though maybe for some it was closer to 50/50.

Only one US Fighter group, the 325th, was primarily flying fighter escort missions and even they also did fly fighter-bomber sorties. Maybe their ratio was reversed, i.e. 2/3 escort and 1/3 fighter-bomber sorties but they flew plenty of the latter. They scored 133 victory claims in just 7 months.

33rd and 57th FG were more typical, flying P-40s in a mix of Fighter bomber, escort, and fighter sweep missions for a longer period of time,
33rd from Nov 42 to Feb 44 for 137 victory claims
57th from Aug 42 to Jan 44 for 144 victory claims

And two others, the 79th and 324th, flew mostly fighter-bomber sorties, maybe 80% of the time. Even they managed victories, 324th making 66 victory claims in just over a year with the P-40 (from March 43 to July 44) and 79th claiming 118 victories (from Dec 42 - March 44).

The only one which scored no victories was the 27th FBG, who used P-40s for five months from Feb 44 through June 44, exclusively for FB missions. They were formerly using P-51 dive bombers (A-36) and had not been trained for air combat. As did P-47s (an aircraft in some ways more comparable to the Typhoon) when the US fighter groups listed above switched to using them. 325th FG continued scoring victories at a slightly better rate flying P-47s (they shot down 133 'confirmed' with the P-40 and 154 'confirmed' with the P-47).

*For example, according to the 325th FG records, of their 133 claims while flying the P-40, 95 of them were for Bf 109s, and 26 were for MC 202s, for 90.9% of all victories claimed.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jun 23, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Maybe they should have brought some Soviet pilots in for cross-training.


Nice try. Ignores the fact that the same Cobra, with all of its foibles, was a whole different beast in the hot, humid Med from what it was in the cold, dry Russian steppes. What worked well for Ivan may not work so well for Tony. Your tongue is about to poke a hole in your cheek, methinks.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Jun 23, 2019)

Schweik said:


> I'm not sure if I buy the "_2/3 used for ground attack so don't expect aerial victories_" part. Unless there is near total air superiority or they aren't trained for air combat at all, even fighter bomber units will usually get into air combat. In the Med it was typical to send one squadron as cover for two other squadrons flying fighter bomber missions, otherwise the latter would get wiped out. Even Hurricane units flying FB missions usually got some victories through 1942.
> 
> One of the reasons I thought Merlin P-40 and Typhoon made for a pretty good comparison is that they both had a similar mission profile (mostly used as fighter bombers with some fighter sweep, CAP and escort missions in the mix) and were produced in similar numbers. Vs. ~3,300 Typhoons, there were ~2,000 Merlin engined P-40s produced (1311 P-40F and 700 P-40L) almost all built in 1941 and 1942, and almost all of them used in combat. I don't know how many were lost, does anyone? They saw heavy use, equipping 5 US Fighter groups active in the Med (33rd, 57th, 325th, 324th, 79th) , 1 independent US fighter squadron (99th FS- Tuskegee), 1 US fighter bomber group (the 27th FBG), two RAF squadrons (RAF 260 and RAAF 3 sqn) and 2 squadrons of Free French (GC II/5). Plus the US 49th FG used them in the Pacific, mostly in the Solomons area. With three squadrons per US fighter group, at the peak around mid 1943 that is a total of 23 squadrons all involved pretty heavily in combat from mid 1942 through the third quarter of 1944, but mostly in 1943. However as P-40Fs were phased in gradually, and new fighter types were phased after them, in it was usually fewer units flying the P-40F at any one time. Probably about 12-15 squadrons that had them on average through their combat life.
> 
> ...


That's quite an impressive record for the p40s by any measure. All the more so considering the bulk of what has been written about them over the years.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jun 23, 2019)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Nice try. Ignores the fact that the same Cobra, with all of its foibles, was a whole different beast in the hot, humid Med from what it was in the cold, dry Russian steppes. What worked well for Ivan may not work so well for Tony. Your tongue is about to poke a hole in your cheek, methinks.
> Cheers,
> Wes



"Nice try?" Lol. I really don't get where some of y'all are coming from half the time. I was kidding a little but only about the political feasibility of it, I really was not being tongue in cheek in terms of the training angle. I'm quite serious. It just seemed unlikely to bring Soviet pilots in even though they did work with the Soviets on the design of late model P-39s and especially, the P-63.

What I meant specifically is that US pilots expressed a dismal level of trust in flying the P-39 which I suspect came down to training. There is a quote from one of the pilots in MAW IV to that effect though I don't remember it verbatim, the gist was the US pilots were afraid to put the P-39s through their paces (apparently with good reason given the number of fatal crashes) and couldn't wait to get out of them. The mystery of why the Soviets did so well with the P-39 and liked it so much is something many have tried to get to the bottom of. I certainly can't claim to know definitively but my theory is that it came down largely to training and experience in the following ways:

they were more used to 'twitchier' planes since many Soviet pilots transitioned from planes like the I-16, LaGG-3, or MiG 3 which were notoriously prone to stalls and spins.
they were forced to use it in Russia where for all it's faults it was one of their best available fighter options (they had Yak-1 and Yak 7 but not enough, and many pilots were going into combat in 1942 and even 1943 in far less capable types) vs. in the Med where there were other options, (though the US were forced to use P-39s in the Pacific for a while). So in Russia in other words there was a kind of training crucible where pilots either died or figured out how to fly P-39s in combat (or both, in many cases).
they spent a long time, including an initial 4 month workup, doing transition training and figuring out the P-39, where as some US and Allied units had relatively little transition training. The same was true for P-40s as well and they also had trouble, but eventually figured them out I think largely with British / Commonwealth help (most US units and in particular unit leaders embedded with RAF squadrons before going independent)
Your theory that the P-39 didn't fly as well in hot weather doesn't seem likely a complete answer to me. Do you have evidence of that? I can imagine some differences but I am doubtful that would fully account for the differences.

People think it's always winter in Russia but they have summer every year, and summers were hot in particular in certain parts of the Russian Front, notably in the Caucasas around the Kuban and Crimean zones where P-39s scored some of their more famous victories.

The high today in Tiblisi is expected to be 93 F / 34 C, and it's not even August yet.


----------



## Schweik (Jun 23, 2019)

At any one time by my estimate for Merlin P-40s in the Med (at roughly ~15 aircraft per US squadron, with 10-12 serviceable typically at any given time) 220 - 340 aircraft active in combat units during their combat life. I don't know how long a plane lasted in a front line combat unit in the Med before being deemed war-weary or getting shot down or written off, but they seemed to go through them pretty quickly. At one point they were so low on available replacements they had to substitute a squadron of P-40Ks in the 57th. 

I would guess about 3 months would be a pretty typical average lifespan in combat for a fighter aircraft in that Theater (maybe including an engine change). If that is accurate it would mean around ~900 - 1100 fighters used up per year on average, notably probably in the peak usage period of 1943. They were only used for a few months in 1942 and 1944 (and by fewer units), but this should account for most of the production run. Again that part is all just guesswork though.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jun 23, 2019)

They also did fly some long range combat missions to Soviet airfields, IIRC these were maybe some of the Romanian oil missions, with B-24s escorted by Mustangs or P-38s. So they probably rubbed elbows a bit there with Soviet fighter pilots. But P-39s didn't have that kind of range.


----------



## Schweik (Jun 23, 2019)

michael rauls said:


> That's quite an impressive record for the p40s by any measure. All the more so considering the bulk of what has been written about them over the years.



P-40s had one really serious major Tactical and Operational limitation: they couldn't fly well at high altitude. This meant they routinely got attacked from above, and it limited the way they could be used. It couldn't escort heavy bombers on high altitude strikes and couldn't completely win air superiority over Bf 109s, for example in defending the air base. 

But they were dangerous to tangle with at lower altitudes as many Luftwaffe pilots readily admitted, and the Merlin engined ones extended their performance ceiling well into medium altitude ranges, up to 20,000 ft, which made them much more viable in the Med since the typical bomber altitude was quite a bit lower than that, with dive bombers and fighter bombers attacking down to Sea level and medium bombers often flying in at 5,000 - 8,000 ft.

The Germans and Italians still typically had the upper hand in attacking from above, even against the Spitfire Mk Vs this seemed to be the case, but the P-38s and (especially) the Spit IX's which arrived in 43, could hang with them at high altitude, taking away the last real Luftwaffe advantage. In 44 the P-47s and then P-51s came into the Theater and the latter in particular seemed to have a very good record against the German fighters. 

The Bf 109 was a truly genius design but I think it was reaching it's limits by 1944. I know that won't go over well around here but it's just my $.02.

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


----------



## fubar57 (Jun 23, 2019)

Just to throw another number out there, the USAAF lost 2150 fighters to combat and accidents during 1944 in the Mediterranean Theatre. I don't know the breakdown of types

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


----------



## Schweik (Jun 23, 2019)

fubar57 said:


> Just to throw another number out there, the USAAF lost 2150 fighters to combat and accidents during 1944 in the Mediterranean Theatre. I don't know the breakdown of types



I believe there were 2 x FG of P-38s, 4 x P-47s, 2 x of Spitfires, 3 x of P-40s by the middle of 1944


----------



## Kevin J (Jun 23, 2019)

Schweik said:


> I'm not sure if I buy the "_2/3 used for ground attack so don't expect aerial victories_" part. Unless there is near total air superiority or they aren't trained for air combat at all, even fighter bomber units will usually get into air combat. In the Med it was typical to send one squadron as cover for two other squadrons flying fighter bomber missions, otherwise the latter would get wiped out. Even Hurricane units flying FB missions usually got some victories through 1942.
> 
> One of the reasons I thought Merlin P-40 and Typhoon made for a pretty good comparison is that they both had a similar mission profile (mostly used as fighter bombers with some fighter sweep, CAP and escort missions in the mix) and were produced in similar numbers. Vs. ~3,300 Typhoons, there were ~2,000 Merlin engined P-40s produced (1311 P-40F and 700 P-40L) almost all built in 1941 and 1942, and almost all of them used in combat. I don't know how many were lost, does anyone? They saw heavy use, equipping 5 US Fighter groups active in the Med (33rd, 57th, 325th, 324th, 79th) , 1 independent US fighter squadron (99th FS- Tuskegee), 1 US fighter bomber group (the 27th FBG), two RAF squadrons (RAF 260 and RAAF 3 sqn) and 2 squadrons of Free French (GC II/5). Plus the US 49th FG used them in the Pacific, mostly in the Solomons area. With three squadrons per US fighter group, at the peak around mid 1943 that is a total of 23 squadrons all involved pretty heavily in combat from mid 1942 through the third quarter of 1944, but mostly in 1943. However as P-40Fs were phased in gradually, and new fighter types were phased after them, in it was usually fewer units flying the P-40F at any one time. Probably about 12-15 squadrons that had them on average through their combat life.
> 
> ...



I'm probably being over generous to the Typhoon and its production to loss ratio is like the Thunderbolt at 4.5:1. Imagine a flight of four Typhoons going into attack in pairs. The first 2 get away with it, but when the second pair go in the AA is on the ball, and either the 3rd or 4th in the flight gets shot down. Losses were horrendous. Top cover was either Spitfires or Thunderbolts.

In the Med, I have USAAF victories of 592 and British Commonwealth of 420 for the Kittyhawk / Warhawk versions. Don't know what the Tomahawk totals were. Never added them up.

So the cost effectiveness of the Warhawk is far superior to the Typhoon and Kittyhawk as a production:loss ratio.

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


----------



## Kevin J (Jun 23, 2019)

Schweik said:


> "Nice try?" Lol. I really don't get where some of y'all are coming from half the time. I was kidding a little but only about the political feasibility of it, I really was not being tongue in cheek in terms of the training angle. I'm quite serious. It just seemed unlikely to bring Soviet pilots in even though they did work with the Soviets on the design of late model P-39s and especially, the P-63.
> 
> What I meant specifically is that US pilots expressed a dismal level of trust in flying the P-39 which I suspect came down to training. There is a quote from one of the pilots in MAW IV to that effect though I don't remember it verbatim, the gist was the US pilots were afraid to put the P-39s through their paces (apparently with good reason given the number of fatal crashes) and couldn't wait to get out of them. The mystery of why the Soviets did so well with the P-39 and liked it so much is something many have tried to get to the bottom of. I certainly can't claim to know definitively but my theory is that it came down largely to training and experience in the following ways:
> 
> ...



My take on the Russian successes with the Cobra is that they spent 6 months wringing out the bugs before going operational, also that the Russians had a more kamikaze attitude to combat, a fatalistic view on life.

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


----------



## Kevin J (Jun 23, 2019)

Schweik said:


> At any one time by my estimate for Merlin P-40s in the Med (at roughly ~15 aircraft per US squadron, with 10-12 serviceable typically at any given time) 220 - 340 aircraft active in combat units during their combat life. I don't know how long a plane lasted in a front line combat unit in the Med before being deemed war-weary or getting shot down or written off, but they seemed to go through them pretty quickly. At one point they were so low on available replacements they had to substitute a squadron of P-40Ks in the 57th.
> 
> I would guess about 3 months would be a pretty typical average lifespan in combat for a fighter aircraft in that Theater (maybe including an engine change). If that is accurate it would mean around ~900 - 1100 fighters used up per year on average, notably probably in the peak usage period of 1943. They were only used for a few months in 1942 and 1944 (and by fewer units), but this should account for most of the production run. Again that part is all just guesswork though.


 
The RAF reckoned 50 planes were needed for 6 months in the front line.


----------



## Schweik (Jun 23, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> I'm probably being over generous to the Typhoon and its production to loss ratio is like the Thunderbolt at 4.5:1. Imagine a flight of four Typhoons going into attack in pairs. The first 2 get away with it, but when the second pair go in the AA is on the ball, and either the 3rd or 4th in the flight gets shot down. Losses were horrendous. Top cover was either Spitfires or Thunderbolts.
> 
> In the Med, I have USAAF victories of 592 and British Commonwealth of 420 for the Kittyhawk / Warhawk versions. Don't know what the Tomahawk totals were. Never added them up.
> 
> So the cost effectiveness of the Warhawk is far superior to the Typhoon and Warhawk as a production:loss ratio.



I believe the 592 number is in part due to not counting the 17 victory claims that the 99th FS made while flying P-40s, plus a few other minor differences on specific squadron numbers due to some overlap with other fighter types (at some points you had both P-47 and P-40s being used by different squadrons within the same FG). I have 615 for US units (this is from the 17 by the 99th FS plus 6 from various other FGs. In addition four other Allied quadrons flew the Merlin engined P-40:

RAF 260 Sqn claimed 23 victories while flying P-40F and L
RAAF 3 Sqn claimed 19 victories while flying P-40F and L Source 

Free French GC II/5 (two squadrons) claimed 8 victories flying P-40F and L

I don't have the total for RAF Tomahawk kills either but could / should add them up from MAW when I have the time.


----------



## Schweik (Jun 23, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> My take on the Russian successes with the Cobra is that they spent 6 months wringing out the bugs before going operational, also that the Russians had a more kamikaze attitude to combat, a fatalistic view on life.



Yeah that is basically it. But I think you have to also consider that a lot of them were used to the really twitchy Russian planes like I-16, LaGG-3, MiG-3 etc.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jun 23, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> The RAF reckoned 50 planes were needed for 6 months in the front line.



Per squadron? That would be about 1500 planes per year which is a bit more than my guess but close enough to it.

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


----------



## fubar57 (Jun 23, 2019)

Compare Spitfire losses to Typhoon losses for 83 Group. Not a lot of difference though sortie difference was half

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


----------



## Schweik (Jun 23, 2019)

fubar57 said:


> Compare Spitfire losses to Typhoon losses for 83 Group. Not a lot of difference
> 
> View attachment 542703​



True but Spits flying a little more than twice the number of Sorties, and claiming 306 enemy aircraft. Even the Mustangs claimed 85 with only 4,300 sorties.


----------



## fubar57 (Jun 23, 2019)

Also the Spitfire only carried 1 bomb per 18 sorties so they would most likely be up where the enemy fighters were

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jun 23, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Per squadron? That would be about 1500 planes per year which is a bit more than my guess but close enough to it.


For any force, divide the number of aircraft produced by the number of squadrons using them, the loss or wastage rate is huge. losses in combat are a small part of it but a very decisive part.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fubar57 (Jun 23, 2019)

Schweik said:


> True but Spits flying a little more than twice the number of Sorties, and claiming 306 enemy aircraft. Even the Mustangs claimed 85 with only 4,300 sorties.


Curious as to why you left out part of my post to make your point


----------



## Kevin J (Jun 23, 2019)

fubar57 said:


> Curious as to why you left out part of my post to make your point


It was a great post fubar57. I expect the Spitfire pilots had to fly 2, 3 or 4 x the Mustang pilots' sorties just to fly the same distances and achieve the same flight hours. Divide the Spitfire sorties by 3 and they are flying twice the sorties and still achieving almost 2 x the Mustang's victories per accumulated sorties. Aren't stats amazing? Again, great post. meanwhile the Typhoons are being shot from the skies, most probably by Triple A.


----------



## pbehn (Jun 23, 2019)

Schweik said:


> They needed all the help they could get invading Italy. Anzio was a close run thing or weren't you aware?
> 
> Prior to that official test in 1943 Typhoons (or any purportedly superior aircraft) were even more badly needed as the Desert Air Force was suffering heavy casualties, especially before the arrival of the Americans with all the extra kit and manpower. However if the Typhoon was indeed suitable and deemed effective I would think they would have deployed at least some squadrons since allegedly (per the comments in this thread) they were not seeing a lot of action in England. Or were they? Which is it?


Once Africa was taken by the allies the war was on many fronts but there was only one enemy. Typhoons were in South England. If you use Typhoons in Italy you need to have planes in South England doing what the Typhoons did. The Typhoon was a completely different air frame and engine from all others in the med.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 23, 2019)

Schweik said:


> However, as usual your comment is disingenuous , I mentioned Anzio as one of the better known highlights and critical moments of the Italian campaign, but I was referring to the whole thing which was bitterly fought, from Pantelleria and Lampedusa to Sicily, Salerno and onto Italy. Anzio was not a red herring it was one of the most intense and bitterly contested air battles of the Mediterranean Campaign.



As usual, you make at statement that is not accurate and when called on it you claim that is not what you meant or that I am being dishonest in calling out the mistake. 

Nobody is saying the Italian campaign was not hard fought. But Anzio was not the Italian campaign or in any way is it "shorthand" for referring to the Italian campaign. 

I could say that your mention of Sardinia in connection to Anzio is disingenuous. By the time Anzio started both Sardinia and Corsica had been in allied hands for 4 months.
Both were used as air bases for aircraft supporting Anzio but P-40s were NOT escorting B-25s and B-26s over Sardinia during Anzio (operation Shingle) unless the escorting then duing take-offs and Landings.

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


----------



## pbehn (Jun 23, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> It was a great post fubar57. I expect the Spitfire pilots had to fly 2, 3 or 4 x the Mustang pilots' sorties just to fly the same distances and achieve the same flight hours. Divide the Spitfire sorties by 3 and they are flying twice the sorties and still achieving almost 2 x the Mustang's victories per accumulated sorties. Aren't stats amazing? Again, great post. meanwhile the Typhoons are being shot from the skies, most probably by Triple A.


Eh? When was a battle decided by flight hours. Immediately after D-Day both USA and UK forces moved to France to shorten the distance. They continued to do this with escort groups moving to France. Flying six hours on one mission isn't an aim it is a worst case. For close support you want as any planes over the area as possible in something like the cab rank system.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Jun 23, 2019)

pbehn said:


> Eh? When was a battle decided by flight hours. Immediately after D-Day both USA and UK forces moved to France to shorten the distance. They continued to do this with escort groups moving to France. Flying six hours on one mission isn't an aim it is a worst case. For close support you want as any planes over the area as possible in something like the cab rank system.


I've got my bean counter hat on, oops, sorry.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jun 23, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> I've got my bean counter hat on, oops, sorry.


There is a tendency to think range automatically wins every discussion and battle. Many conflicts were at very short range.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 23, 2019)

The last Merlin powered P-40 was delivered (at the factory in Buffalo NY) on April 28th, 1943. there were about 2260 Merlin powered P-40s built in total. 

As noted above it took until May 1943 (a few weeks later) for 1200 Typhoons to be delivered (granted the factories were closer to the Med) and sometime in the late winter of 1943/44 or early spring of 1944 to reach a total of 2200 Typhoons. ( 1800 had been delivered by Dec 7th 1943 and 2600 by June 6th 1944). 

This difference in when truly large numbers of Typhoons became available may help explain why it wasn't sent overseas. The fact that the Sabre engine was used in no other combat aircraft and would require a new supply chain might be another. There was a Merlin overhaul/rebuild facility in Cairo, Egypt for instance. I don't know if it handled only British engines but the provision of spare Sabres (in short supply in England) and spare parts plus suitable overhaul equipment might have been considered to large an investment for a limited amount of aircraft, just speculation on my part.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jun 23, 2019)

fubar57 said:


> Curious as to why you left out part of my post to make your point



Seriously? I just hit the f***n quote button! Did you edit it after you posted? WTF


----------



## fubar57 (Jun 23, 2019)

You will notice there is no edit in my post


----------



## Schweik (Jun 23, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> As usual, you make at statement that is not accurate and when called on it you claim that is not what you meant or that I am being dishonest in calling out the mistake.
> 
> Nobody is saying the Italian campaign was not hard fought. But Anzio was not the Italian campaign or in any way is it "shorthand" for referring to the Italian campaign.



I think you are putting your own mentality on me. Not everybody thinks the way you do breh. You were just doing your usual (and typical internet) thing of trying to zero in on some part of a statement and pretend it was everything somebody said, as a 'gotcha', like you tried to do several times just in the last few pages of this very thread.

I wrote: "They needed all the help they could get invading Italy. Anzio was a close run thing or weren't you aware?"

Invasion of Italy was Sept 43. Anzio was January through June 1944. It's two separate things. Anzio was the end, Sicily (July 43) and Salerno (Sept 43) were actually the beginning. The context was whether Typhoons could be used in the Med, were they needed. The fact is that the Allied forces in general and the DAF in particular were in pretty serious trouble right up to Torch in November 42. They barely won El Alamein (with USAAF help) and that was a very close run thing.

Tunisia was taken after the Americans arrived in force, but then the Anglo-Americans together took on a much bigger challenge - Italy. My argument was that they definitely could have used more and better fighters, as the P-40s were limited, the P-39s all but useless, the Spit Vs were good but short ranged, the Spit IXs were great but also short ranged, the P-38s didn't do so well and the P-47s were good but pretty late to the game.



> I could say that your mention of Sardinia in connection to Anzio is disingenuous. By the time Anzio started both Sardinia and Corsica had been in allied hands for 4 months.
> Both were used as air bases for aircraft supporting Anzio but P-40s were NOT escorting B-25s and B-26s over Sardinia during Anzio (operation Shingle) unless the escorting then duing take-offs and Landings.



I mentioned Sardinia because they were having tons of air battles over that Island in the first half of 1943.


----------



## Schweik (Jun 23, 2019)

fubar57 said:


> You will notice there is no edit in my post



That only comes into play if you edited it after some period of time like 2 or 3 minutes. I often edit mine due to a typo or something once or twice after I post. But if you say you didn't edit it I'll believe you, I just don't remember editing my response, in fact I was in a hurry because I had to leave the house (which is why I haven't posted in the thread for a couple of hours in spite of all the replies)

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jun 23, 2019)

I should say Anzio was the "end of the invasion" in the sense that it opened up the larger land war which as we all know bogged down in Italy.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 23, 2019)

I think you are the one that is playing "gotcha".

You make posts that are either incomplete or have confused timelines ( and let's face it, from Torch to the end of Anzio was over 1 1 /2 years let alone the NA campaign before Torch and the Italian campaign after Anzio). You take an outlier position and then get upset or accuse others of dishonesty when they ask for facts to back it up or question your version of events.
Guess what? that is what happens when you present an outlier position. 

I have a few outlier positions myself (like the Defiant gets a lot more credit than it deserves) but it is up to me to try to prove it. Not complain that people are against me when they question what facts I do have. Or claim that others are being disingenuous when they present counter arguments or knock a hole in one of my arguments. 

There are a lot of people on this site who have also done a lot reading over many years ( I have been reading about WW II aircraft for nearly 60 years and I am not an expert in all things).
You come across, whether intentionally or not, as being superior to many of us and we should accept your conclusions as fact. 
Guess what? when a lot of your details don't add up, or are wrong, or are part of a distorted timeline, you loose credibility. 

I have made a number of mistakes here on the Forum, some are typos, some are not remembering things correctly and some have been due to using either an out dated or mistaken source. I hope than when corrected I usually will thank somebody for the correction or at least double check with another source.

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


----------



## Schweik (Jun 23, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> I think you are the one that is playing "gotcha".
> 
> You make posts that are either incomplete or have confused timelines ( and let's face it, from Torch to the end of Anzio was over 1 1 /2 years let alone the NA campaign before Torch and the Italian campaign after Anzio).



So what? Are you deliberately losing the actual point of the discussion or did you just lose track of it? The Typhoon was around since 1941 right? About as long as the Merlin P-40 was surely. I still don't see a good reason why they couldn't have sent some to the Med, as throughout that long history and all the way back to the beginning, it was a struggle. The German opposition was good and the Italian Air opposition was pretty good too. That was the actual point I was trying to make, which you seemed to be trying to steer into some corner so you could pull of a 'gotcha' which is (from my perspective) totally pointless.



> You take an outlier position and then get upset or accuse others of dishonesty when they ask for facts to back it up or question your version of events.
> Guess what? that is what happens when you present an outlier position.



I would really like to see an example of where I got mad in the least at being asked for facts. If I post something 'outlier' it's because I have a bunch of facts handy to post, and would like to share them. Being asked about it is part of the process. I think you are once again, putting on me what is actually in your head.



> I have a few outlier positions myself (like the Defiant gets a lot more credit than it deserves) but it is up to me to try to prove it. Not complain that people are against me when they question what facts I do have. Or claim that others are being disingenuous when they present counter arguments or knock a hole in one of my arguments.



I only call you disingenuous when you are doing just that, being inaccurate or misleading on purpose.



> There are a lot of people on this site who have also done a lot reading over many years ( I have been reading about WW II aircraft for nearly 60 years and I am not an expert in all things).



Yeah man, I'm old too, I've been around too. I've read a lot too. There are a lot of old well informed, well read dudes on here who love WW2 airplanes and have superb libraries and in some cases flight time or at least time around these cool old Warbirds. That's what is great about it and why the conversations are often so interesting, why we all learn things here even on subjects we thought we already knew enough about to write a book (as I know many here have). I just don't get why some people have to pretend that they know _everything _though, none of us do.



> You come across, whether intentionally or not, as being superior to many of us and we should accept your conclusions as fact.
> Guess what? when a lot of your details don't add up, or are wrong, or are part of a distorted timeline, you loose credibility.



I don't know what you are trying to imply about a distorted timeline, but for the record I don't claim to know any more than anyone else on here. I just don't automatically accept that I know a lot less than anyone else on here in general. I can figure out that there are a few on here who know a lot more than me about specific things, we all have our areas of expertise. I tip my hat to you on engines and supercharges for example. But that doesn't make you god or give you special authority on a host of other subjects.



> I have made a number of mistakes here on the Forum, some are typos, some are not remembering things correctly and some have been due to using either an out dated or mistaken source. I hope than when corrected I usually will thank somebody for the correction or at least double check with another source.



I do the same. I've made plenty of mistakes too even though i try to be accurate. You and I maybe just rub each other the wrong way, but if you are trying to 'School' somebody and shut down a line of speculation (usually when you and I clash it seems to be about some kind of "what if scenario" that you find irritating for some reason) dont' expect me to just knuckle under to that.


----------



## pbehn (Jun 23, 2019)

Schweik said:


> I should say Anzio was the "end of the invasion" in the sense that it opened up the larger land war which as we all know bogged down in Italy.


We don't all know anything as an absolute certainty, we all have our opinions. The war was against the Nazi Military which was in a state of controlled collapse. The Western allies could have gone into Germany via Italy if Germany put no effort into defending it. Or via Normandy, or was Normandy a distraction for the main force in Calais? Or across the med into Southern France? The process and strategy was to exhaust German resources on land sea and air in the whole of Europe in concert with Russia who was doing the same.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jun 23, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Your theory that the P-39 didn't fly as well in hot weather doesn't seem likely a complete answer to me. Do you have evidence of that? I can imagine some differences but I am doubtful tha


Fubar, note: I just highlighted the entire last paragraph in Sheik's post and hit reply; but did it copy the whole thing? No it presented the truncated quote you see above. This happens a lot on this site for some unknown reason. I spend a lot of time deleting and requoting. If somebody quotes me incompletely, I don't suspect them of disingenuousness, I blame the software.
Schweik, I didn't intend to claim that climate was the ENTIRE reason for the difference in effectiveness of the Cobra, as many of the other reasons cited by you and Kevin J were also in the picture. The Cobra definitely had a golden opportunity in Russia where the combat was at low level and at lower density altitudes. Add to that the Soviets' willingness to innovate in both airframe configuration and training doctrine, and their higher risk tolerance, and you have a situation that allows a new reputation to be forged, which has huge benefits in pilot morale and esprit de corps. Big contrast with the Med, where the plane's lackluster reputation and performance in the hot climate and the entire establishment's lack of confidence in it stacked the cards against it.
Cheers,
Wes

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


----------



## wuzak (Jun 23, 2019)

Schweik said:


> So what? Are you deliberately losing the actual point of the discussion or did you just lose track of it? The Typhoon was around since 1941 right? About as long as the Merlin P-40 was surely. I still don't see a good reason why they couldn't have sent some to the Med, as throughout that long history and all the way back to the beginning, it was a struggle. The German opposition was good and the Italian Air opposition was pretty good too. That was the actual point I was trying to make, which you seemed to be trying to steer into some corner so you could pull of a 'gotcha' which is (from my perspective) totally pointless.



Some reasons have been presented to you.


There were very few Typhoons available in late 1941/early 1942
Early Typhoons were unreliable
Production was slow to ramp up - SR6 posted the production numbers - 1,200 Typhoons were built in the same time that 2,200 P-40Fs were built. Actually, the Typhoon was in production longer for those numbers.
There were no other Sabre powered aircraft, so a completely new supply line would have to be created 
The Home front was still the RAF's No.1 priority. That is why the Spitfire was held back from overseas deployment - the V and IX arrived in the MTO later than they may have otherwise.
The fact that the Typhoon wasn't sent to the MTO does not prove that it was unsuitable or inferior to the P-40F.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jun 23, 2019)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Fubar, note: I just highlighted the entire last paragraph in Sheik's post and hit reply; but did it copy the whole thing? No it presented the truncated quote you see above. This happens a lot on this site for some unknown reason. I spend a lot of time deleting and requoting. If somebody quotes me incompletely, I don't suspect them of disingenuousness, I blame the software.
> Schweik, I didn't intend to claim that climate was the ENTIRE reason for the difference in effectiveness of the Cobra, as many of the other reasons cited by you and Kevin J were also in the picture. The Cobra definitely had a golden opportunity in Russia where the combat was at low level and at lower density altitudes. Add to that the Soviets' willingness to innovate in both airframe configuration and training doctrine, and their higher risk tolerance, and you have a situation that allows a new reputation to be forged, which has huge benefits in pilot morale and esprit de corps. Big contrast with the Med, where the plane's lackluster reputation and performance in the hot climate and the entire establishment's lack of confidence in it stacked the cards against it.
> Cheers,
> Wes



Thanks for pointing that out about the quote feature, I hadn't really noticed. I may be a jerk sometimes but I'm not sneaky.

I hear you about the Cobra stuff. I gather hot humid weather has been brought up about the Solomons etc. too, I have to admit I don't grasp what the issue is precisely, why wouldn't affect P-40s as well for example. But I do get the idea from Russian sources that the P-39 seems to have had less problems in cold weather despite using basically the same engine. So maybe it was just in general more of a cold weather plane.

The altitude was definitely a thing, but a lot of the fighting in the Med was down low.

I think it mostly had to do with training. I think the Russians figured out how to fly the thing and get the most out of it, and we didn't. Clearly though it was a mix of issues so we can all take our pick so to speak.


----------



## Schweik (Jun 23, 2019)

wuzak said:


> Some reasons have been presented to you.
> 
> 
> There were very few Typhoons available in late 1941/early 1942
> ...



I didn't say it was inferior to the P-40F, not for that reason anyway. I was just asking why they never sent any to the Med. I think the strongest argument is the Saber engine supply chain thing. However I suspect it may have also had problems operating in that (pretty bad) environment.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 23, 2019)

From Zeno's war birds.

they have one for the P-39Q but it is sideways. http://zenoswarbirdvideos.com/Images/P-39/P39TOCLC.pdf

Now please note that the P-47 figures are for 0 degrees C and for both take off distances and climb call for a 10% increase for 10 degrees C of air temp. This is pretty standard across all of these charts. It could get cold in the dessert at times but 104 degrees F is 40 degrees C and a 40% reduction (I have no idea if it compounds) in climb rate and 40% increase in take-off distance and the above noted 10% increase (for 35 degrees ) in approach speed and 20% increase in ground roll are certainly going to affect operations and impressions of the aircraft. The P-40 would also suffer a similar or identical _percentage change. _but since it had a shorter take-off and lower landing speed to begin with the difference would become more pronounced at higher temperatures. 
It could get pretty warm in the Russian summer in certain areas but perhaps not for long enough ( months instead of weeks) to make it into many accounts? 

I am not sure some of the russian fighters would have been looked at favorably by American or British authorities in regards to handling qualities. The Mig-3 may have been the most notorious and the comment that experienced I-16 pilots had little trouble converting is damning with faint praise as the I-16 was known for have some handling issues of it's own that were rather similar to the Mig-3s.


----------



## Schweik (Jun 24, 2019)

I never said Russian fighters would have been thought of as having good handling - to the contrary. My point was that they had even worse handling (or more specifically, they were 'twitchier') than the P-39. As in subject to stalls and spins. An aircraft like that can have good qualities too, the I-16 for example had a great roll rate and a very low wing loading. But generally if I had a choice between a Hurricane or an I-16 I'd go with the Hurricane. The Hurri is better for newer pilots in general too on a larger scale, say if you have 1,000 of one vs. 1,000 of the other.

But that is what the Russians had so they probably had an easier time transitioning to the P-39. In fact some of them said exactly that in interviews. That was my point. Generally, in terms of build quality and reliability, it was an improvement - at least the radio worked.

I think the Anglo-Americans were more used to 'comfortable' planes that were a bit easier and more forgiving to fly.

The P-39 also had the added deficit that a lot of pilots were afraid to bail out of it due to the car-door type entry system. The Soviet pilots said it was better to ditch one than to try to bail out. Pilots bailing out in the Solomons did sometimes hit the tailplane.

However I suspect with sufficient training and tactics the P-39 could have been a better fighter in American hands. The Russians were fighting the same enemy as the Yanks were in the Med, sometimes the very same squadrons.


----------



## Stig1207 (Jun 24, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> Statistics. 3300 built 1100 losses. 2/3 used for ground attack so don't expect aerial victories. 1/3 Fighters. So max 2200 available for combat duty. 730 for fighter duty. 260 victories IIRC. So about 3 fighters produced for every 1 aerial victory, which is about the average for Anglo-American fighters. N.B. Luftwaffe, 33,000 Bf 109's produced, 12,000 aerial victories or 2.75 to 1.



If Bf 109's had a mere 12000 aerial 'victories' you can call me Meier.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jun 24, 2019)

Schweik said:


> I gather hot humid weather has been brought up about the Solomons etc. too, I have to admit I don't grasp what the issue is precisely


Air density (temperature, humidity, altitude) has a HUGE impact on aircraft performance, and a marginally performing plane feels it more than a strong performer. Take a tired Cessna 150 with 1600 hours on the engine since its third overhaul, stuff it with full fuel and 425 pounds of instructor and student, and go flying on a 5°F winters day. You will get adequate, but certainly not stellar performance. Now repeat on a 90°F, 95% humidity day in August, and you will find yourself driving a slugcraft that needs 3x the runway to get airborne, climbs slower than a thermaling glider, and has to be flown like a glider, searching for thermals and avoiding downdrafts. I once sank into a sinkhole in the hills in conditions like that and spent 45 minutes flogging the engine, with the stall horn singing, fighting downdrafts, searching for rising air, and looking for a place to put it down if necessary. Two big guys in a Cessna 150 makes for mighty tight accommodations.


Schweik said:


> The altitude was definitely a thing, but a lot of the fighting in the Med was down low.


The problem is that except for "ground tethered" missions like CAS, you can't COUNT on the combat being down low as long as the bad guys have altitude capable aircraft. On the eastern front down low is where the action was; in the Med it was all over the sky.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fubar57 (Jun 24, 2019)

http://zenoswarbirdvideos.com/Images/P-39/P39TOCLC.pdf​

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


----------



## Kevin J (Jun 24, 2019)

Stig1207 said:


> If Bf 109's had a mere 12000 aerial 'victories' you can call me Meier.


Okay, Meier, how many? I'm pretty sure I got the info from a youtube documentary on it. I always thought it was 15000 before that.


----------



## Stig1207 (Jun 24, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> Okay, Meier, how many? I'm pretty sure I got the info from a youtube documentary on it. I always thought it was 15000 before that.



Jg52 claimed more than 10000 victories and only flew the Bf 109. How many altogether were claimed by Jagwaffe pilots flying the 109 I don't know, but 12000-15000 is not even going to be close; though I would hazard a guess that it's probably about 3 times the numbers you are mentioning.


----------



## Kevin J (Jun 24, 2019)

Stig1207 said:


> Jg52 claimed more than 10000 victories and only flew the Bf 109. How many altogether were claimed by Jagwaffe pilots flying the 109 I don't know, but 12000-15000 is not even going to be close; though I would hazard a guess that it's probably about 3 times the numbers you are mentioning.


Okay, so you're talking about claims. Is that the total of confirmed, probables and damaged? IIRC during the BoB the Luftwaffe claimed to have shot down about 2000+ Spitfires and 1200+ Hurricanes, an over claim ratio of almost 4 to 1. You've got to wonder what these guys were on. Ah. I remember, crystal meths, pervitin.


----------



## P-39 Expert (Jun 24, 2019)

Schweik said:


> "Nice try?" Lol. I really don't get where some of y'all are coming from half the time. I was kidding a little but only about the political feasibility of it, I really was not being tongue in cheek in terms of the training angle. I'm quite serious. It just seemed unlikely to bring Soviet pilots in even though they did work with the Soviets on the design of late model P-39s and especially, the P-63.
> 
> What I meant specifically is that US pilots expressed a dismal level of trust in flying the P-39 which I suspect came down to training. There is a quote from one of the pilots in MAW IV to that effect though I don't remember it verbatim, the gist was the US pilots were afraid to put the P-39s through their paces (apparently with good reason given the number of fatal crashes) and couldn't wait to get out of them. The mystery of why the Soviets did so well with the P-39 and liked it so much is something many have tried to get to the bottom of. I certainly can't claim to know definitively but my theory is that it came down largely to training and experience in the following ways:
> 
> ...


It's the WEIGHT. Russian P-39s performed much better in climb because they fought them at around 7200# without wing guns, the IFF radio etc. The AAF flew them at 7650-7850#, even heavier for the Q. 450 pounds equates to 550fpm better climb. Completely different performance.


----------



## Schweik (Jun 24, 2019)

Well even that is a bit confusing because they took wing guns out of Hurricanes, Spit V's and P-40s in North Africa, and took out other things too to reduce weight, so why not do the same with the P-39s?


----------



## P-39 Expert (Jun 24, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Well even that is a bit confusing because they took wing guns out of Hurricanes, Spit V's and P-40s in North Africa, and took out other things too to reduce weight, so why not do the same with the P-39s?


No idea. May '42 Bell supposedly distributed how to take 1000# off a P-39. Now some of that was undoubtedly fuel which IMO the P-39 sorely needed. Just removing the wing guns and nose armor plate saved 300#. That alone would have added 360fpm climb.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jun 24, 2019)

My back is aching again reading this.

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


----------



## fubar57 (Jun 24, 2019)

LMAO


----------



## pbehn (Jun 24, 2019)

fubar57 said:


> LMAO


No matter where you start you end up putting them thar guns and tank in and out, I prefer it in N Africa to be honest.


----------



## Schweik (Jun 24, 2019)

pbehn said:


> No matter where you start you end up putting them thar guns and tank in and out, I prefer it in N Africa to be honest.



Don't feel bad, they did it to Hurricanes too, didn't help much though.


----------



## Schweik (Jun 24, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> I'm probably being over generous to the Typhoon and its production to loss ratio is like the Thunderbolt at 4.5:1. Imagine a flight of four Typhoons going into attack in pairs. The first 2 get away with it, but when the second pair go in the AA is on the ball, and either the 3rd or 4th in the flight gets shot down. Losses were horrendous. Top cover was either Spitfires or Thunderbolts.
> 
> In the Med, I have USAAF victories of 592 and British Commonwealth of 420 for the Kittyhawk / Warhawk versions. Don't know what the Tomahawk totals were. Never added them up.
> 
> So the cost effectiveness of the Warhawk is far superior to the Typhoon and Kittyhawk as a production:loss ratio.



Oh by the way, I have that DAF had 77 Tomahawk victories were scored in the Middle East / North Africa from a quote in a book, though I don't know if that includes South African squadrons - they ended up using Tomhawks far later than anyone else. Just need to count them up in MAW.

Pacific Victory Roll shows an additional 150 Australian and 99 New Zealand P-40 victory claims in the Pacific. US P-40 pilots claimed 660.5 in the Pacific

If only I could get hold of Soviet numbers...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Milosh (Jun 24, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Oh by the way, I have that DAF had 77 Tomahawk victories were scored in the Middle East / North Africa from a quote in a book, though I don't know if that includes South African squadrons - they ended up using Tomhawks far later than anyone else. Just need to count them up in MAW.
> 
> Pacific Victory Roll shows an additional 150 Australian and 99 New Zealand P-40 victory claims in the Pacific. US P-40 pilots claimed 660.5 in the Pacific
> 
> If only I could get hold of Soviet numbers...



What were the losses?


----------



## fubar57 (Jun 24, 2019)

GregP
mentioned from Francis Dean’s America’s Hundred Thousand, P-40: 67,059 combat sorties flown, 553 combat losses, 481 air kills, and 40 ground kills. ETO only supposedly


----------



## wuzak (Jun 24, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Well even that is a bit confusing because they took wing guns out of Hurricanes, Spit V's and P-40s in North Africa, and took out other things too to reduce weight, so why not do the same with the P-39s?



Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't guns removed from the Spitfire V for the specific task of intercepting very high flying German reconnaissance aircraft, namely the Ju-86P (or R?)?


----------



## Schweik (Jun 24, 2019)

wuzak said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't guns removed from the Spitfire V for the specific task of intercepting very high flying German reconnaissance aircraft, namely the Ju-86P (or R?)?



Yes, 145 squadron in Aboukir Egypt. They stripped everything out of a Spit VC and put in two 0.5 inch for a couple of special missions to get the Ju 86Ps in August of 42 (supposedly at 49,000 ft!) 

But they also more commonly removed a pair of the .303s from Spit V's in a few squadrons to improve roll rate and overall higher altitude performance against the Me 109s and Macchi 202s. There seemed to be a general dissatisfaction with the Spit Vs in the Med, not so much that they were worse than the 109s but that it was a little too even. I think the 109F, particularly the F4 was just a more even match for the Spit V than the early Emil had been for the Spit I and II.


You know by the way, it occurred to me that the P-47 had a unique engine for the Med, but it didn't seem to stop them sending it in as soon as they could.... so I'm less convinced by the supply chain challenge of the Sabre, at least beyond a certain point in time.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 24, 2019)

A few accounts claim (without giving any sources) that the Merlin powered P-40s went to North Africa to simplify the supply situation. I have no idea if this is true or not. On one hand it makes a bit of sense to try to standardize the P-40s in use by US forces, But there were certainly plenty of Allison powered planes not only in the theater but in use by US forces. Or perhaps (aside from 1-2 squadrons sent to Guadalcanal ?) they intended to keep all the Merlin powered planes in one theater rather than scatter then all over the world. 

I am just giving you something I read, I am not taking sides on this issue.

As far as the P-47 goes. It's engine wasn't unknown to the US Air Force in Italy (it was a bit late for NA) as the same basic engine was used in the B-26 Marauder, just without the turbo. 
So all of the stuff like cylinders, valves, pistons, rings , connecting rods, etc will pretty much swap back and forth. A few of the allies also used R-2800s in the Med, like the SAAF.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Mad Dog (Jun 24, 2019)

Schweik said:


> P-40F/L got more of the escort missions, for example to Sardinia.


 As with the DAF in the Desert, the P-40s got the escort job because they had much better range than the Hurricane or the Spitfire. The Spitfires originally sent to the Desert were kept back for interception and air-superiority over the battlefield. The P-40s over Sardinia were running diversionary raids whilst the Spitfires from Malta were doing the real air fighting over Sicily. See Operation Mincemeat for the Allied strategy. By the time the Allies landed on Sardinia in September 1943 the Nazis had mainly fled. I have five ME109s from III/JG77 lost during the whole invasion, but USAAF P-40 units made crazy claims, like 21 ME109s in a single combat (325th Fighter Group, 30th July 1943)! And, IIRC, the P-38s did most of the sweeps over Sardinia that cleared the Regia Aeronautica and Luftwaffe defenders before the P-40s even mounted their first escort. Sorry, not going to be convinced by over-claiming when it doesn't match reported Axis losses.



Schweik said:


> US fighter groups flying P-40s went up against the elite JG 27 which they basically destroyed....


 JG27 never recovered from the loss of their three best pilots in late 1942; Steinhausen to a Hurricane of 127Sq RAF, Stahlschmidt to Spitfire of 601Sq RAF, and Marseille to mechanical failure. No Warhawks involved there. By the time the Yank P-40s got involved, JG27 was hollowed out by two years of combat against the Commonwealth squadrons. It was so bad that the majority of JG27 was withdrawn to Sicily in October 1943. Indeed, the best day for the USAAF P-40Fs in the theatre was 19th April 1943, when 46 USAAF P-40Fs met a German air convoy of 60 Ju 52 transport aircraft and 21 fighters travelling from Tunisia to Sicily. But the P-40s had RAF Spitfires for top-cover. The Spitfires were the ones that shot down 16 of the escorts so the P-40s could get on with shooting down the transports. Another notable indication of how the P-40F wasn't needed after the arrival of the Spitfire V in 1942 was that RAF units like 112Sq swapped their Kittyhawk IIs for Kittyhawk IIIs as the IIIs had better low altitude performance for ground-attacks.



Schweik said:


> ".....JG 77....


 Again, after being ground down by the RAF.



Schweik said:


> .....JG 2 and several other top Luftwaffe fighter groups flying the latest Bf 109 and Fw 190s, in addition to Italian pilots flying C.202 and C.205 which were good enough to give RAF Spitfire units plenty of trouble.


 The Luftwaffe and Regia Aeronautica units in Italy themselves rated the Spitfire VIII and IX as their deadliest opponents. That's even compared to the P-51B and P-47D. I cannot find a single mention of an Axis pilot in the theatre saying he feared meeting a Warhawk, and that's even with the poor quality pilots being drafted in to Italian-based units by late 1943. So poor was the P-40 as an interceptor by late 1943 it was replaced in that role in Italy by the P-47, and the Thunderbolt in 1943 was hardly noted for it's good climb rate! The Warhawk was so poor at altitude that the P-40s could only survive over Guadacanal because of Grumman Wildcats flying top-cover.



Schweik said:


> And yet it was in heavy use in 1944, long after they had retired the Hurricane from front line duties even as a bomber.


 The RAF was still using plenty of Hurricanes in the CBI right up to VJ-day. The Indian AF still had eight squadrons operational as front-line fighter-bombers in 1945. And then there was specialist units like 6sq RAF, who were still operating anti-tank Hurricane IVs in the Middle East in 1946! They spent 1994 and 1945 flying Hurricanes on anti-shipping and ground-attacks over the Italian coast, Dalmation Isles, Yugoslavia, Corsica, and Greece, right up to VE-Day. Even the late model P-40M/N were replaced as fighter-bombers by the USAAF with P-47s in China and the Pacific by early 1945.



Schweik said:


> They seemed to have failed the test which is why they continued to sit in England instead of being deployed in the Med where they were badly needed (especially if they were ostensibly better than the P-40s which were being so heavily relied on both for fighters and fighter bombers)


 RAF Fighter Command jealously kept all the Typhoons in the UK because they were so in demand for low-level interception and later ground-attack. They resisted sending Spitfires to the Med until early 1942, only sending Spitfire Vs when they finally had the promise of Spitfire IXs for home-based squadrons. Even then, there were still 60 RAF squadrons in the UK flying Spitfires when the first ones were sent to Malta! As the 1943 tests with 451Sq showed, the Typhoon was more than capable of operating in the theatre. Did you stop to think that there were still Typhoon units fighting in Germany in 1945 - how many P-40F units were there flying over the Rhine in 1945? Yup, a big, fat zero!

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jun 24, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> A few accounts claim (without giving any sources) that the Merlin powered P-40s went to North Africa to simplify the supply situation. I have no idea if this is true or not. On one hand it makes a bit of sense to try to standardize the P-40s in use by US forces, But there were certainly plenty of Allison powered planes not only in the theater but in use by US forces. Or perhaps (aside from 1-2 squadrons sent to Guadalcanal ?) they intended to keep all the Merlin powered planes in one theater rather than scatter then all over the world.



I'm pretty certain after a lot of reading on the subject that they were sent to the Med, and hoarded by the Americans (with only 2 British / Commonwealth squadrons getting a couple of hundred of them) because they had the better altitude performance and therefore a better chance against the Bf 109. The F and L had a performance ceiling of about 20'000 ft or just under that. Of the Allison engined P-40s still in use at the time or coming online, the P-40E and K both had a critical altitude somewhere below 14,000 ft, some sources say 12,000 ft. The M, as you know because we've discussed it on here, had a critical altitude closer to 16,000 like the original Tomahawk, and the stripped down (early) version of the N which was used by the RAF in Theater, mostly in Italy, was around 17,000 or slightly better. All bad, basically, but the Merlin powered ones could fight quite a bit higher, maybe as much as 8,000 ft higher than most of the ones in use in the Theater when the Americans arrived.



> I am just giving you something I read, I am not taking sides on this issue.



Sides on what? On P-40F vs. Typhoon or something else? 

Maybe you can clarify a question for me. I read somewhere that the Spits were being used with the cropped impellers and the shortened wings specifically in the Med but haven't been able to confirm that, is that true or was that done just up in the Channel?



> As far as the P-47 goes. It's engine wasn't unknown to the US Air Force in Italy (it was a bit late for NA) as the same basic engine was used in the B-26 Marauder, just without the turbo.
> So all of the stuff like cylinders, valves, pistons, rings , connecting rods, etc will pretty much swap back and forth. A few of the allies also used R-2800s in the Med, like the SAAF.



That's interesting about the South Africans, what airplane is that? Venturas? Vickers Warwick?

Ok fair point about the B-26 though I think they came into the Theater around the same time didn't they? But the turbo is kind of a big deal and one of the more maintenance issue prone parts of the P-47 wouldn't you think?


----------



## michael rauls (Jun 24, 2019)

Mad Dog said:


> As with the DAF in the Desert, the P-40s got the escort job because they had much better range than the Hurricane or the Spitfire. The Spitfires originally sent to the Desert were kept back for interception and air-superiority over the battlefield. The P-40s over Sardinia were running diversionary raids whilst the Spitfires from Malta were doing the real air fighting over Sicily. See Operation Mincemeat for the Allied strategy. By the time the Allies landed on Sardinia in September 1943 the Nazis had mainly fled. I have five ME109s from III/JG77 lost during the whole invasion, but USAAF P-40 units made crazy claims, like 21 ME109s in a single combat (325th Fighter Group, 30th July 1943)! And, IIRC, the P-38s did most of the sweeps over Sardinia that cleared the Regia Aeronautica and Luftwaffe defenders before the P-40s even mounted their first escort. Sorry, not going to be convinced by over-claiming when it doesn't match reported Axis losses.
> 
> JG27 never recovered from the loss of their three best pilots in late 1942; Steinhausen to a Hurricane of 127Sq RAF, Stahlschmidt to Spitfire of 601Sq RAF, and Marseille to mechanical failure. No Warhawks involved there. By the time the Yank P-40s got involved, JG27 was hollowed out by two years of combat against the Commonwealth squadrons. It was so bad that the majority of JG27 was withdrawn to Sicily in October 1943. Indeed, the best day for the USAAF P-40Fs in the theatre was 19th April 1943, when 46 USAAF P-40Fs met a German air convoy of 60 Ju 52 transport aircraft and 21 fighters travelling from Tunisia to Sicily. But the P-40s had RAF Spitfires for top-cover. The Spitfires were the ones that shot down 16 of the escorts so the P-40s could get on with shooting down the transports. Another notable indication of how the P-40F wasn't needed after the arrival of the Spitfire V in 1942 was that RAF units like 112Sq swapped their Kittyhawk IIs for Kittyhawk IIIs as the IIIs had better low altitude performance for ground-attacks.
> 
> ...


I assume the incident you speak of in which the p40s shot down about 60 Ju52s is the Palm Sunday Massacre. Acording to Franz Stigler, the commanding German Officer, there were only two Schwarms for a total of 8 Bf 109s present and he and I believe at least one other 109 were shot down by the p40s. Several more by the Spitfires.


----------



## fubar57 (Jun 24, 2019)

South African Air Force SAAF Marauders, Martin B-26 Marauder.


----------



## Stig1207 (Jun 24, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> Okay, so you're talking about claims. Is that the total of confirmed, probables and damaged? IIRC during the BoB the Luftwaffe claimed to have shot down about 2000+ Spitfires and 1200+ Hurricanes, an over claim ratio of almost 4 to 1. You've got to wonder what these guys were on. Ah. I remember, crystal meths, pervitin.



Indeed, that is the claims; but your 'victories' that you are comparing to the production figures for the Typhoon, P-40, P-47, etc. are also claims or credited victories, not actual enemy losses.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jun 25, 2019)

Mad Dog said:


> As with the DAF in the Desert, the P-40s got the escort job because they had much better range than the Hurricane or the Spitfire. The Spitfires originally sent to the Desert were kept back for interception and air-superiority over the battlefield. The P-40s over Sardinia were running diversionary raids whilst the Spitfires from Malta were doing the real air fighting over Sicily. See Operation Mincemeat for the Allied strategy. By the time the Allies landed on Sardinia in September 1943 the Nazis had mainly fled. I have five ME109s from III/JG77 lost during the whole invasion, but USAAF P-40 units made crazy claims, like 21 ME109s in a single combat (325th Fighter Group, 30th July 1943)! And, IIRC, the P-38s did most of the sweeps over Sardinia that cleared the Regia Aeronautica and Luftwaffe defenders before the P-40s even mounted their first escort. Sorry, not going to be convinced by over-claiming when it doesn't match reported Axis losses.



Well, I'm sorry too but the claims over Sardinia do actually match Axis losses pretty well, I've posted a bunch of them in this thread, I can go back and find them for you. Mediterranean Air War Volume IV is your source. The P-40s were of course also fighting every day over Sicily, Salerno, Anzio etc. They were credited with "capturing" Pantelleria.



> JG27 never recovered from the loss of their three best pilots in late 1942; Steinhausen to a Hurricane of 127Sq RAF, Stahlschmidt to Spitfire of 601Sq RAF, and Marseille to mechanical failure. No Warhawks involved there.



Well no Warhawks there I agree since that is what the Americans called them (or not too many, there were some operational from mid 42), but RAF and Commonwealth pilots like James "Stocky" Edwards, Billy Drake, Nicky Barr and Clive Caldwell took out several leaders and experten from JG 27 in Kittyhawks.

Caldwell alone got 3 experten while flying a P-40 - he shot down Wolfgang Lippert (30 victory claims, commander of II./JG 27) on 23 November 1941, (Lippert subsequently died from wounds received while bailing out), he killed Erbo von Kageneck (69 victory "experten" of III./JG 27) on Dec 24 1941. He also shot down Stahlschmidt in February 1942 though he survived to die later.

James Edwards shot down at least two experten from JG 27 while flying P-40s, he shot down and killed Gunter Steinhausen (40 victrory claims, JG 27) on September 6 1942, and he also killed Otto Schulz (4.JG 27, 51 victory claims), who he blew out of the sky on June 17, 1942 while Schultz was strafing a Hurricane he had just shot down and his two wingmen circled above to protect him. The Hurricane pilot survived and saw the whole thing, though researchers didn't piece together what had happened until the 1970's. Edwards tended to underclaim and had only claimed this as a 'probable'.



> By the time the Yank P-40s got involved, JG27 was hollowed out by two years of combat against the Commonwealth squadrons. It was so bad that the majority of JG27 was



Well gee, that was over before you knew it huh? How come these excuses never work in reverse when the 'experten' were racking up victories against poorly trained pilots with barely any training on their aircraft? And so what was wrong with JG 77? Are we supposed to decide that the whole Luftwaffe had already blown it's wad by the middle of 1942?



> Another notable indication of how the P-40F wasn't needed after the arrival of the Spitfire V in 1942 was that RAF units like 112Sq swapped their Kittyhawk IIs for Kittyhawk IIIs as the IIIs had better low altitude performance for ground-attacks.



Actually, one of the two RAF squadrons which had the Kittyhawk II's and went to III's switched back specifically because of the increase in casualties. However there were two types of Kittyhawk III- the low altitude, but very powerful down low P-40K, and the higher altitude rated P-40M. RAF records are rarely clear as to which is which though they had more of the M. A lot of pilots like the K because it had ~1550 hp down low at WEP (not overboosting mind you, just regular WEP).



> The Luftwaffe and Regia Aeronautica units in Italy themselves rated the Spitfire VIII and IX as their deadliest opponents.



I think the Spit IX and VIII were indeed the deadliest opponents faced by the Luftwaffe, however I can indeed find you some noting they didn't like to tangle with P-40s. I'll post tomorrow as it's late now (along with some other details). All this was covered in this thread already which I encourage you to read.



> The RAF was still using plenty of Hurricanes in the CBI right up to VJ-day.



Yes but interestingly the RAF took Hurricanes out of front line service in the Med - even as fighter bombers- in early 1943, more than a year and a half before they started phasing out P-40s which they (the RAF) were still using in Italy in 1945.



> They spent 1994 and 1945 flying Hurricanes on anti-shipping and ground-attacks over the Italian coast, Dalmation Isles, Yugoslavia, Corsica, and Greece, right up to VE-Day. Even the late model P-40M/N were replaced as fighter-bombers by the USAAF with P-47s in China and the Pacific by early 1945.



That goes against my sources - do you have data on Hurricane units based in Italy?



> RAF Fighter Command jealously kept all the Typhoons in the UK because they were so in demand for low-level interception and later ground-attack.



This seems unlikely, and given the high rate of errors in the rest of the post, I wouldn't take your word for it. One of the claims has been that the reason Typhoons scored so many fewer victories than the P-40F (just the F mind you) is because they didn't fly that many missions until D-Day. So which is it?

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fubar57 (Jun 25, 2019)

Hawker Hurricane Mk.IV of 6 Sqn. being serviced in Foggia Italy, July '44

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


----------



## Schweik (Jun 25, 2019)

Ok I stand corrected, that's news to me. Do you have the unit?


----------



## fubar57 (Jun 25, 2019)

6 Sqn bases in Italy...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jun 25, 2019)

Some P-40 vs. Bf 109 stuff, from the Med (from posts upthread, but I know people aren't going to go back and hunt through all that so here is a refresher)

*Early Tomahawk vs. Bf 109 engagement Dec 1941*

(MAW Volume 1) page 329

_"On November 22, 1941 there was a significant engagement in which the Tomahawk was put to a hard test by the Bf 109F. At 1540 nine Tomahawks of No. 112 Squadron RAF were joined by thirteen Tomahawks of No. 3 Squadron RAAF for an offensive sweep over the Tobruk-El Adem area[7]. At roughly 1600 hours they were intercepted near Bir Hacheim by 20 Bf 109Fs attacking from 3,000 feet above [8]. During the subsequent hour long engagement, which took place near two German airfields, JG 27 fighters landed and refueled to rejoin the fight. In the melee DAF fighters claimed three Bf 109s shot down and four "probables", while JG 27 claimed 11 P-40s [9]. The actual losses were 6 Bf 109F-4s and 7 Tomahawk IIbs shot down and 1 badly damaged (the aircraft of future RAAF Ace Bobby Gibbes) [10]. In the aftermath of the bloody fight both sides were shaken. The Germans believed they had come out ahead but felt the losses were unacceptable , and therefore made the decision not to dogfight the Tomahawk with the Bf 109F in the future [11], and instead to rely on 'boom and zoom' tactics[12], which while effective, imposed certain Tactical limitations. "_ 

Detailed anecdote of Merlin / P-40F engagement with Bf 1o9s in 9 October 1942 here

*Comparing actual losses in both sides from July 1942 - March 1943 per Christopher Shores Mediterranean Air War. These are from Volumes II and III*

July 8 1942 (112 RAF and 3 RAAF Kittyhawk Is vs. LW Bf 109Fs) 4 Bf 109F and 1 Ju 87 lost / 0 P-40s lost.
Oct 13 1942 (USAAF 57 FG P-40Fs escorting SAAF Kittyhawk Is vs. LW Bf 109Fs) 3 Bf 109's / 1 P-40 lost.
Oct 27 1942 (USAAF 57 FG P-40Fs escorting RAF Hurricanes vs Lw Bf 109Fs) 3 Bf 109's lost / 0 P-40s lost.*
Dec 8 1942 (USAAF 57 FG P-40Fs and Ks vs JG 77 Bf 109F and G) 4 Bf 109s lost / 1 P-40 lost
Dec 30 1942 (3 RAAF Kittyhawk III vs. JG 77 Bf 109F and G) 4 Bf 109s lost / 0 P-40s lost
23 March 1943 (USAAF 79 FG vs. JG 77 & JG 51) 2 Bf 109s lost to P-40's / 0 P40s lost
24 March 1943 (USAAF 33 FG vs. JG 77) 2 Bf 109s lost (+4 lost for 'unknown reasons')/ 1 P-40 lost
29 March 1943 (USAAF 33 FG vs. JG 77) 6 Bf 109 lost (4 destroyed +2 crash-landed) and 3 He 111's and 1 Ju 88 / 2 P-40's lost (1 to AA)
31 March 1943 (USAAF 33 FG vs. JG 77) 6 Bf 109 lost (3 destroyed +3 crash-landed) and Ju 87 lost to P-40 / 1 P-40 lost**

*In an 8 day period in Oct 1942 where DAF P-40s (with some USAAF support) roughly 'broke even' against the LW, Shooting down 29 Bf 109's and 10 MC 202's for 31 P-40s & 3 Spits
** In the four USAAF vs. Luftwaffe clashes listed above between 23-31 March 1943 16 Bf 109s were lost (11 destroyed and 5 crash landed) +5 bombers / vs. 3 P-40s. 

*Combat with losses from both sides from May, June and July 1943 (operations against Sicily, Sardinia and Italy)*

*May 27 1943 (US 325th FG vs. Italian 51 and 42 Stormo) 3 x MC 202 lost / 0 P-40s los*t
May 28 1943 (US 325th FG and 14th FG [P-38] vs JG 27 and Italian 41 and 150 Stormo) 3 x Bf 109G-4 and G-6 lost**, 1 x Bf 109G (Italian) lost / 1 P-40 and 1 P-38 lost
June 6 1943 (US 325th FG and 52FG [Spit V] vs JG 27 and JG 53) 3 x Bf 109 shot down*** / 0 P-40 shot down
June 10 1943 (US 325th and 79th FG and 31st FG [Spit] vs JG 27 and JG 53, and Italian 161, 22, and 53 Stormos) 15 x Bf 109s lost, 8 MC 202 lost**** / 3 P-40s lost
*July 8 1943 (US 324th FG vs. JG 77 and JG 53 and Italian 150 Gr CT) 5 x German Bf 109G-6 lost and 1 x Italian Bf 109G lost / 3 P-40s lost
July 22 1943 (US 325th FG vs. Italian 22 and 51 Stormo) 4 x MC 205 shot down, (+ 2 x 205 'shot up by P-40s') 3 x MC 202 & 1 X D.520 shot down , Ca 309 shot down / 2 x P40 lost
July 26 1943 (US 325th FG vs. JG 53 and Italian 51 Stormo) 2 x Bf 109G shot down, 1 x MC 205 (+1 205 'shot up by fighters') / 0 P-40s lost
July 30 1943 (US 325th FG vs. JG 77) 6 x Bf 109G Shot down***** / 1 P-40 shot down*

Notice in particular July 8, 22, 26 and 30. These were days when P-40 units were fighting German and Italian fighters in areas where no other Allied fighters were operational.

Also on June 10, though Spitfires were also involved, they claimed 14, while US P-40F/L units claimed 21. Actual losses were 23 Axis fighters. *Even if we assume that all of the Spitfire claims were accurate, that still leaves 9 shot down by the P-40s*. If we assume roughly the same rate of overclaiming (65% of claims were real) the ratio was probably more like 9 by the Spits and 13 by the P-40s.

* it's unclear to me at this time if this includes Tomahawk claims or not.
** on this day P-40 pilots made claims for 6 Bf 109s, P-38 pilots claimed 2
*** one Bf 109 claimed by Spitfire pilots, 3 claimed by P-40s. One additional Bf 109 was reported shot down by defensive gunners on B-17s
**** 13 claims by Spitfire pilots 21 claims by P-40 pilots
***** There was also one claim by a Spitfire pilot, Shores says the loss of one 8./JG 77 plane may have been by the Spitfire or by 325 FG

Reactions: Informative Informative:
 3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jun 25, 2019)

fubar57 said:


> 6 Sqn bases in Italy...
> 
> View attachment 542785​



I have to admit I'm baffled, TO&E shows the Hurricane units all well away from the front in 43, maybe they moved them back in later..?

The Wiki for 6 Squadron RAF says they were using Hurricane IID, that is the tank buster ones, through Sept 1943. Then it says they were moved to Italy in Spring of 1944 with Hurricane IV's armed with rockets. Damn, news to me!

Reading my book "Hawker Hurricane, the Multirole fighter" I found this passage:


"_Hurricanes of 127, 213 and 274 Squadrons operated from bases in Cyrenaica, Egypt and Cyprus in unsuccessful operations against German forces in the Dodecanese Islands in September and November of 1943, some offensive sweeps were flown against German-occupied airfields in Crete.

Some Hurricane units were available for operations in the Italian campaign, - particularly 6 Squadron, which had fully recovered from the fighting in North Africa and arrived at Grottaglie in February 144 equipped ith Hurricane Mk IVs. The Hurricanees were normally armed with 40mm cannons, which were later discarded, and four 3 inche rocket projectiles (RP) - the new role being to attack Axis shipping and ports on both coasts of the Adriatic."_

Seems like maybe 6 Sqn was something of a special case possibly. I admit I wasn't aware of it though.


----------



## Greyman (Jun 25, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Maybe you can clarify a question for me. I read somewhere that the Spits were being used with the cropped impellers and the shortened wings specifically in the Med but haven't been able to confirm that, is that true or was that done just up in the Channel?



The main impetus for the cropped, +18 boost Spitfire Vs was for use in North Africa, where there was a pressing need to combat low-level Fw 190s. They wanted Spitfire IXs but apparently that wasn't happening -- so they asked for beefed up Mk.Vs.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Jun 25, 2019)

Milosh said:


> What were the losses?


635 Tomahawks were sent to the Middle East. The RAF, SAAF and RAAF each operated 2 squadrons. Of the six, 3 RAAF and 112 RAF scored 77 victories between them. At a guess, 200+.


----------



## Mad Dog (Jun 25, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Are we supposed to decide that the whole Luftwaffe had already blown it's wad by the middle of 1942?


 Yes. I'm not kidding, by 1942 the Luftwaffe was already having problems with shortened pilot training. The slow burn of losses had started gradually killing the Luftwaffe because it had never been structured for a long war. There were already shortages of fuel for training, and the aircraft for advanced fighter training were pre-War versions of the ME109 at best, meaning new fighter pilots often reached their frontline units with zero hours on the latest models. On the Channel Front, where such inexperience was considered suicidal, units like JG26 introduced a training _staffel_ to try and bring the new recruits up to speed. They started doing so in *1941*. At no time was a similar approach used by JG27 or any other unit in the Med, as there simply wasn't the time, aircraft, fuel or experienced pilots to spare for instruction in that theatre, and certainly not the drive to do so from the _Kommodores_. Much-lauded aces like Marseille didn't bother teaching their newbies, they simply flew with the same wingmen and let the newbies follow behind. 
By July 1942 even Goering couldn't duck the training issue. He did fudge a response by trying to absorb the _C schulen_ into the advanced _Ergaenzungseinheiten_, but that just shifted the chokepoint. Even in 1942, far too much of the trainee's flying hours had to be done in gliders simply because the training schools were over-stretched and fuel-starved. The real impact was hidden for a while by the poor quality of opposition faced in the Desert and in Russia. When that opposition got better fighters and better operational training, the Luftwaffe's decline was rapid and irreversible.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Mad Dog (Jun 25, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> 635 Tomahawks were sent to the Middle East. The RAF, SAAF and RAAF each operated 2 squadrons. Of the six, 3 RAAF and 112 RAF scored 77 victories between them. At a guess, 200+.


 Aces like Neville Duke said the Tomahawk wasn't a patch on the Spitfire, but he actually preferred the Tomahawk to the Kittyhawk.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Jun 25, 2019)

Schweik said:


> This seems unlikely, and given the high rate of errors in the rest of the post, I wouldn't take your word for it. One of the claims has been that the reason Typhoons scored so many fewer victories than the P-40F (just the F mind you) is because they didn't fly that many missions until D-Day. So which is it?



You do know that it is possible for the RAF to keep aircraft in Britain for defence without there being many encounters? That the Home Front was more important to the British government than the Africa campaign?

The Spitfire is another example. Often repeated here is that the Spitfire wasn't suitable for overseas deployment until the Mk.V. The reality is that they didn't have enough of them in Britain to spare, so even when the V became available it wasn't sent overseas for about a year.

I don't know how many missions were flown, but a mission does not mean an encounter with an enemy aircraft, let alone a shoot down.

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


----------



## Mad Dog (Jun 25, 2019)

OK, to put the argument to rest, let's consider how the majority of P-40s were shot down in the Desert. The Luftwaffe tactics were to enter the combat zone at an altitude above the P-40s, then attack with boom-and-zoom tactics, relying on the heavy punch of the cannon to get a kill on the first pass. Yeah, yeah, I know, Marseille, bla bla bla, but he was an (over-claiming) exception.
Now, consider the P-40F and the Typhoon Ib. The Typhoon can climb quicker and is faster at all heights, and it's no slouch in the dive, so it is highly likely the Typhoon pilot is going to use the same tactics. And the Typhoon is famous for being a stable gun platform in a dive. Should the Typhoon pilot get a shot on target, his four Hispano cannon are going to shred the P-40F. If he misses, he can out-zoom the P-40F and climb to position for another attack, or just fly off home. The Typhoon pilot will have the advantage of being able to dictate the battle, and unlike the ME019 pilot, he has the fuel load to stick around just as long as the P-40F. One-on-one may be an unrealistic scenario but I'd put my money on the Typhoon.


----------



## Mad Dog (Jun 25, 2019)

Schweik said:


> …...They barely won El Alamein (with USAAF help) and that was a very close run thing....


 Er, no. Montgomery was allowed to build up a massive advantage in men, machines and supplies. Rommel's defeat was assured, it was simply a matter of how big a defeat it was going to be. Monty chose to deliberately turn the Second Battle of Alamein into a WW1-style battle of attrition, because he knew he could afford to and Rommel couldn't. The Axis had lost every advantage they had held in previous campaigns - the Allies had more soldiers, more guns, more tanks and more planes. And it was also now all of at least equal if not better quality than the Axis equipment. Not only was Rommel forced to fight a stationary battle due to lack of fuel, but he had also lost the secret that had won him so many previous campaigns - MI6 had finally convinced the Americans to change their communications codes and plugged the monumental security hole of Colonel Bonner Fellers, the US military attache who gifted Rommel every move Auchinleck ever made. So, no, the Brits actually didn't need the USAAF help all that much. Indeed, supplying Sherman tanks was by far the most useful US contribution at Alamein.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 25, 2019)

Schweik said:


> I'm pretty certain after a lot of reading on the subject that they were sent to the Med, and hoarded by the Americans (with only 2 British / Commonwealth squadrons getting a couple of hundred of them) because they had the better altitude performance and therefore a better chance against the Bf 109. The F and L had a performance ceiling of about 20'000 ft or just under that. Of the Allison engined P-40s still in use at the time or coming online, the P-40E and K both had a critical altitude somewhere below 14,000 ft, some sources say 12,000 ft. The M, as you know because we've discussed it on here, had a critical altitude closer to 16,000 like the original Tomahawk, and the stripped down (early) version of the N which was used by the RAF in Theater, mostly in Italy, was around 17,000 or slightly better. All bad, basically, but the Merlin powered ones could fight quite a bit higher, maybe as much as 8,000 ft higher than most of the ones in use in the Theater when the Americans arrived.



You have 2 (or 3) critical altitudes, the engine maker gives a critical altitude of NO ram. Pilots manuals sometimes use that and sometimes a an altitude a bit higher (if you are doing even 160mph there is some ram) while full speed in level flight is often several thousand ft above that. But that starts to depend on the intake duct of a particular airplane. The P-40E & K might be able to make full military power in level flight at around 14,000ft, it depends on the individual airplane and engine. But when climbing that full military power will have stated to fall off at around 11,500ft (rated altitude of the engine in the E) and 12,000ft or so. The rated altitude of the engines in the P-40N Was 15,500ft. so in full speed level flight it would hold up to 17,000ft or better. However the V-1650-1 Merlin was rated 18,500ft so it would hold to about 20,000ft or a bit higher. 
This is pretty much what you said. However "_The M, as you know because we've discussed it on here, had a critical altitude closer to 16,000 like the original Tomahawk_" the original Tomahawk had two ratings, (???) 1040hp at 14,300ft or 1090hp at 13,200ft. there was no difference in the engine, that is just what happened when measured at the two different altitudes (no RAM). Why some charts/documents use one rating and other charts/documents use the other I have no idea. Power levels at altitude are based on a 59 degree F (15 degree C) day but the critical altitude is the altitude at which the throttle is fully opened and is not going to change much due to a change in temperature. (the air has the same pressure, there is just less of it per cubic ft).
The numbers you gave are certainly close enough to explain why some planes worked/flew the way they did compared to others, Just be aware that when climbing or in a hard maneuvering fight when airspeed is low the critical height is often several thousand feet below the level full speed altitude. 



Schweik said:


> Sides on what? On P-40F vs. Typhoon or something else?



I am not on either side of the Merlin P-40s to North Africa supply chain question as it depends on what exactly was meant and everything I have seen/read is secondary source or worse so the original thinking of the people who came up with the policy (if it even existed) is impossible to determine. If somebody has an official, memo/letter/directive great. 




Schweik said:


> That's interesting about the South Africans, what airplane is that? Venturas? Vickers Warwick?



They were Venturas. 
A P&W R-2800 B series engine was, from the rear of the power section/front of the supercharger, pretty much the same regardless of the type of supercharger used. Single speed single stage, two speed single stage, two stage or single stage with turbo (which was mounted separately) the supercharger section is what varied so a stock of parts for the power section (and reduction gear section) could cover most engine types until the "C" series showed up in late 1944 and *everything *was different.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jun 25, 2019)

Mad Dog said:


> Yes. I'm not kidding, by 1942 the Luftwaffe was already having problems with shortened pilot training. The slow burn of losses had started gradually killing the Luftwaffe because it had never been structured for a long war. There were already shortages of fuel for training, and the aircraft for advanced fighter training were pre-War versions of the ME109 at best, meaning new fighter pilots often reached their frontline units with zero hours on the latest models. On the Channel Front, where such inexperience was considered suicidal, units like JG26 introduced a training _staffel_ to try and bring the new recruits up to speed. They started doing so in *1941*. At no time was a similar approach used by JG27 or any other unit in the Med, as there simply wasn't the time, aircraft, fuel or experienced pilots to spare for instruction in that theatre, and certainly not the drive to do so from the _Kommodores_. Much-lauded aces like Marseille didn't bother teaching their newbies, they simply flew with the same wingmen and let the newbies follow behind.
> By July 1942 even Goering couldn't duck the training issue. He did fudge a response by trying to absorb the _C schulen_ into the advanced _Ergaenzungseinheiten_, but that just shifted the chokepoint. Even in 1942, far too much of the trainee's flying hours had to be done in gliders simply because the training schools were over-stretched and fuel-starved. The real impact was hidden for a while by the poor quality of opposition faced in the Desert and in Russia. When that opposition got better fighters and better operational training, the Luftwaffe's decline was rapid and irreversible.



Well, here is the thing.
JG 27 started pulling back in Sept of 1942 with two squadrons rotated out in October, and the last in December. JG 77 came into North Africa from June to Dec 1942 (with different squadrons coming in) and was still pretty fresh at that time. This corresponds to the phase in of the US merlin-engined P-40 units, starting with the 57th FG in June 1942. These were originally small elements attached to some of the British squadrons like 112, 250 and 260 RAF and 3 RAAF, but by October (2nd El Alemain) was a substantial contingent and were flying as independent units. 57th FG was fully operational by Aug 1942, 33rd FG by November, and 79th by December of 42. US P-38 units first arrived in November 1942.

The tipping point began around mid 1942 which was both when the Spitfires arrived (in small numbers at first) and when the Americans arrived with their P-40Fs and later, P-38s.

The arrival of the Yanks also coincided with three* important Tactical and Operational changes to DAF missions - first and foremost, to the use of wingmen and "finger four" formations (with assorted variations). According to at least one German pilot the Americans were the first ones he encountered doing this although it seems like the RAF started adopting the formations as well which may be unrelated. Second, was the RAF (or specifically, Australian) derived tactic of swinging into an attack as an entire squadron, guns blazing. This turned out to be a very effective way to break up a German 'bounce' from above, (quite important since most engagements with the Germans started with being bounced from above). Third, apparently due to an American impetus, was the switch in tactics to attacking Axis airfields with medium and heavy bombers, escorted mostly by P-40s which would then engage the German fighters that came up to defend. This was effective and had a lot to do with the destruction of both JG 27 and JG 77 in North Africa. A lot of Axis aircraft were destroyed by bombers on the ground and a lot of them were shot down as they climbed up from below to engage fighter escorts. This was made more possible by the new bombers brought into the Theater by the Americans - mainly B-25s and B-24s.

JG 27 was worn down by the RAF / DAF which was indeed mostly due to the British and Commonwealth pilots, JG 77 got there as the Yanks did and were in large part beaten by the Americans, specifically by escort fighters in those raids over their airfields. They were both broken** between third quarter 1942 and second quarter 1943, but they got only that way because of fierce fighting (and many casualties) by Allied forces. Neither unit was quite as hopeless in 1942 or 1943 as you suggest. Other German units like JG 2 (Fw 190, from Nov 1942) and JG 53 (Bf 109, from May 1942) were also involved in the campaign. Both were elite units.

I also think that too little attention is paid, and too little respect given to the Italian pilots in North Africa and their aircraft. In the early war they had obsolescent planes, though so did the Allies, and which side had the advantage went back and forth. But by 1942 the older cadre of CR 42 biplanes and open cockpit MC 200 and G.50 fighters was giving way to the excellent and quite deadly MC 202 and later in 1943, the MC 205, as well as more exotic types like the Re 2000 series and the rare but superb Fiat G.55. The venerable SM.79 meanwhile may have been the single most effective ship killer in the Med, certainly in the top three types***. Some of the Italian pilots may have been ambivalent about the war, and about Fascism in general which they had been enduring ten years longer than the Germans had by then, but they still gave a very good fight and showed a great deal of courage in many air battles, they were not the push-overs which seem to be assumed in the shorthand of the history.

As an aside, you seem to be a bit eager to engage in some Brit vs. Yank debating, but that is not the goal of this thread and what is more, quite a bit of that has already been discussed and hashed out upthread, which I'd again encourage you to read through or skim if you really want to wade into it. I really don't have a dog in that hunt - I think the Spitfire IX was the best fighter overall in the Theater full stop. The Spitfire mk V was more comparable with both it's competition and some of it's Allied stablemates but was still the best overall Allied fighter for 1942. I'm not claiming the P-40 of any version was the best fighter in the region, I am only suggesting that the historical record as we can currently percieve it shows us that it was a big more useful than had been previously assumed (or declared in the often misleading shorthand) and definitely was far from the worst.

The signals angle while quite interesting is certainly tangential to the discussion about comparing the two fighter types. Each of the major Allied powers, British and Americans, certainly made their mistakes and had their blind spots, as did some of the smaller countries involved, but thankfully they worked together, complimenting each others strengths and started to do so quite effectively by the third quarter of 1942 and from that point onward. In the Air in particular they seemed to have merged together well, and unlike the Luftwaffe the DAF was already quite good at being useful to the ground war. In 2nd El Alemain, on which battle I concede I am not an expert, from my understanding the air battle in general and CAS in particular was indeed quite important. Allied tank losses were very high and were nearing a tipping point, when air strikes for example took out some emplaced 88mm AT guns. I have the details somewhere and can dig them up if needed. Montgomerry notably formed a close relationship with the 79th Fighter Group as the result of some of these strikes, of which they were justifiably proud, and he continuously made use of them as a kind of CAS 'fire brigade' from that point onward.

The larger point we are addressing here is your claim that the air opposition was weak and worn out by the time the Americans got involved in the war. I would say that is far from the truth, the Axis air forces were strong and quite dangerous, and the battle was very hard fought. Commonwealth forces in general and DAF in particular were hard pressed for most of the first half of 1942 and the third quarter of that year in Tunisia etc. was a ferocious all out bloodbath comparable in scale and ferocity to some of the battles going on in Russia at that time. They could certainly have used the Typhoon, and they definitely needed the P-40.

The various arguments put forth as to why the Typhoon wasn't sent to the Med and more broadly why it didn't score more victories in the long period from 1941-1944 are somewhat plausible but not 100% convincing to me. Yes the Sabre would have been a new engine with a new supply chain, though this was partly true for the R-2800 of the P-47 and the B-26 (and the Ventura as well apparently). Yes the Typhoon was perhaps wanted for defense of the Home Island which certainly did take priority, but I think the Spitfire was ideal for that - however it is true that once Fw 190 raids started the Tiffy had an important role in countering them.

Overall however I suspect that if the Typhoon had performed more like the Tempest from an earlier period, and there is no real reason in my mind that it couldn't have (if they had made the wing a bit differently and sorted out a few other design problems) they probably would have sent some to fight in the Med and it would have made a big difference.

* There may have also been increasing use of overboosting engines but that is a bit controversial around here and we don't need to go down that tunnel, as I doubt it was as important as the three things I mentioned above.
** And were of course, quickly re-formed to rejoin the fight
*** Ok realistically I'd say Beaufighter, Ju 88 and then SM 79. But they were quite dangerous.

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


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 25, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Yes the Sabre would have been a new engine with a new supply chain, though this was partly true for the R-2800 of the P-47 and the B-26 (and the Ventura as well apparently).



Between P&W and Ford they built over 11,000 R-2800 engines in 1942 alone. Nash-Kelvinator had built their first 6 engine, the P&W Kansas plant was not delivering yet but was in the planning/construction stage. Supply of R-2800 engines and parts was in a whole different league than the supply of Sabre engine and parts.


----------



## Schweik (Jun 25, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> Between P&W and Ford they built over 11,000 R-2800 engines in 1942 alone. Nash-Kelvinator had built their first 6 engine, the P&W Kansas plant was not delivering yet but was in the planning/construction stage. Supply of R-2800 engines and parts was in a whole different league than the supply of Sabre engine and parts.



Ok but the turbo on the P-47 does add a bit of extra supply chain complication, albeit one the Americans were better positioned to handle.


----------



## michael rauls (Jun 25, 2019)

Mad Dog said:


> Er, no. Montgomery was allowed to build up a massive advantage in men, machines and supplies. Rommel's defeat was assured, it was simply a matter of how big a defeat it was going to be. Monty chose to deliberately turn the Second Battle of Alamein into a WW1-style battle of attrition, because he knew he could afford to and Rommel couldn't. The Axis had lost every advantage they had held in previous campaigns - the Allies had more soldiers, more guns, more tanks and more planes. And it was also now all of at least equal if not better quality than the Axis equipment. Not only was Rommel forced to fight a stationary battle due to lack of fuel, but he had also lost the secret that had won him so many previous campaigns - MI6 had finally convinced the Americans to change their communications codes and plugged the monumental security hole of Colonel Bonner Fellers, the US military attache who gifted Rommel every move Auchinleck ever made. So, no, the Brits actually didn't need the USAAF help all that much. Indeed, supplying Sherman tanks was by far the most useful US contribution at Alamein.


Well imho, to say that the Brits didnt need the Americans help in the theater kinda misses the point. Could the Brits have prevailed without help from the US? In my opinion absolutely and coversly the US could have eventually prevailed in the theater without help also but in either case it would have been alot tougher, more guys would have had to die, and ultimately that's not how it happened. Thank goodness

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jun 25, 2019)

I personally don't think either the British or Americans could have won decisively in North Africa on their own, especially if you include weapons (like trucks, tanks and planes) in addition to direct military involvement. Their assets and capabilities really complimented each others ability to fight, and their opponent was quite formidable.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jun 25, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Their assets and capabilities really complimented each others ability to fight, and their opponent was quite formidable.


Win, lose or draw, this is the salient point.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Jun 25, 2019)

michael rauls said:


> Well imho, to say that the Brits didnt need the Americans help in the theater kinda misses the point. Could the Brits have prevailed without help from the US? In my opinion absolutely and coversly the US could have eventually prevailed in the theater without help also but in either case it would have been alot tougher, more guys would have had to die, and ultimately that's not how it happened. Thank goodness



IMHO, the Americans would, like the Russians, have needed total mobilisation to win, a fleet the combined size of the RN and USN, their children working in factories, their entire black population conscripted as labourers, and their women folk too.
Military production during World War II - Wikipedia
World War II casualties - Wikipedia

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jun 25, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> IMHO, the Americans would, like the Russians, have needed total mobilisation to win, a fleet the combined size of the RN and USN, their children working in factories, their entire black population conscripted as labourers, and their women folk too.
> Military production during World War II - Wikipedia
> World War II casualties - Wikipedia


Are you referring to the Desert War, or the entire war? If entire war, I think you're right. If North Africa only, I think your "extreme total mobilization" is a bit of a stretch. I think it would have been long and costly, but we could have done it with the level of mobilization we did in fact have. That theater was over with by the time we reached our peak production levels in materiel and personnel.
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## Kevin J (Jun 25, 2019)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Are you referring to the Desert War, or the entire war? If entire war, I think you're right. If North Africa only, I think your "extreme total mobilization" is a bit of a stretch. I think it would have been long and costly, but we could have done it with the level of mobilization we did in fact have. That theater was over with by the time we reached our peak production levels in materiel and personnel.
> Cheers,
> Wes


Yes, total global war. If you throw everything at the French then you lose Guadalcanal. Rommel of course moves in to Tunisia, then Algeria and Morocco to help the French. Maybe the French don't come over to your side either?


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jun 25, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> Yes, total global war. If you throw everything at the French then you lose Guadalcanal. Rommel of course moves in to Tunisia, then Algeria and Morocco to help the French. Maybe the French don't come over to your side either?


Well with no British establishment in N Africa, it would have been a long, costly slog, having to learn the lessons of desert warfare the hard way, and having to root the Axis out of Egypt and Suez. Overlord would have been later, and VE Day as well. But the British could have concentrated their resources more on the Med, more effectively restricting supplies to Afrika Korps, and had more to prep with for D-Day.
In hindsight, this might have been a more equitable sharing of the burden, as the brits had already paid and were still paying the heavy price for that campaign, when the Johnnie-come-lately yanks come waltzing in and tip the tables at relatively little cost to themselves.
As for the French, I don't think prolonging the war in this way would endear them to the Nazis, only make them more digusted and hostile to their ever more desperate and brutal masters.
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 25, 2019)

To further beat up on the recently deceased horse that is the deployment of Typhoons to the Med. 
There were only 4991 Sabres built from 1939 til the end of 1945. 
In 1941 they built 220 engines, in 1942 they built 746 engines and in 1943 they built 1141 engines. By the end of 1943 they had built 2107 Sabres and 1851 Typhoon airframes. a bit under 14% spare engines and early Sabres were rather notoriously short lived engines. The US got in trouble in NA with the Merlin P-40s with around 20% extra engines. 

P&W and Ford together built more than twice as many R-2800s in 1942 than Napier did (using two factories) for the entire war. 

When Canada ordered engines from the US the standard contract added 20% more engines for a reserve over/above the number needed to equip the airframes.


----------



## michael rauls (Jun 26, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> IMHO, the Americans would, like the Russians, have needed total mobilisation to win, a fleet the combined size of the RN and USN, their children working in factories, their entire black population conscripted as labourers, and their women folk too.
> Military production during World War II - Wikipedia
> World War II casualties - Wikipedia


I was just talking about the theater as my post was in answer to a poster that had asserted that the Brits didn't need the help of the U.S. in such.
If the subsequent question is could the U.S. have won the global conflict without Britain or visa versa I still think the answer in both cases is yes. It's going to be a hell of alot tougher, go on alot longer, and I don't even want to think of the aditional tens of thousands of dead and wounded but simply pulling the U.S. or Britain out still leaves Russia in and barring a quick decisive victory and subsequent occupation by Axis forces which in the case of Britain and Russia we already know was tried and failed and in the case of the U.S. was impossible the war would nescesarily evolve into a war of attrition/production. In such a war the outcome for the Axis is a done deal.
They cannot outproduce the Russians and the British empire and they sure as heck can't outproduce Russia and the US.
I think the only posible barrier to total victory for the Alies in this scenario is the Allies political tolerance to sustain the greatly increased losses to achieve the same objective.
This is how it looks to me anyway.


----------



## Kevin J (Jun 26, 2019)

michael rauls said:


> I was just talking about the theater as my post was in answer to a poster that had asserted that the Brits didn't need the help of the U.S. in such.
> If the subsequent question is could the U.S. have won the global conflict without Britain or visa versa I still think the answer in both cases is yes. It's going to be a hell of alot tougher, go on alot longer, and I don't even want to think of the aditional tens of thousands of dead and wounded but simply pulling the U.S. or Britain out still leaves Russia in and barring a quick decisive victory and subsequent occupation by Axis forces which in the case of Britain and Russia we already know was tried and failed and in the case of the U.S. was impossible the war would nescesarily evolve into a war of attrition/production. In such a war the outcome for the Axis is a done deal.
> They cannot outproduce the Russians and the British empire and they sure as heck can't outproduce Russia and the US.
> I think the only posible barrier to total victory for the Alies in this scenario is the Allies political tolerance to sustain the greatly increased losses to achieve the same objective.
> This is how it looks to me anyway.



Well I guess that explains it all. $22 trillion of debt and still rising. War without end. The British Empire kept wars to about 7 years max then negotiated.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jun 26, 2019)

michael rauls said:


> They cannot outproduce the Russians and the British empire and they sure as heck can't outproduce Russia and the US.


Hold on just a minute! It might not be so simple as that. If Britain falls, the empire, industry, and Navy become Axis assets, and the stranglehold on raw material supply chains dissolves. Then Axis industry, along with its newly acquired assets, might very well outproduce the unlikely bedfellows, US/USSR. The blitz on London might be B36s from Bangor and Presque Isle rather than HE111s from France. And the US might be subject to invasion from the north.*
Cheers,
Wes
*Unless we follow Benedict Arnold's lead in 1775, and annex Canada. Some of the MAGAs around here like to think of Canada like the mainland Chinese think of Taiwan: as a rogue province separated from the motherland, and thus our rightful property.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Jun 26, 2019)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Hold on just a minute! It might not be so simple as that. If Britain falls, the empire, industry, and Navy become Axis assets, and the stranglehold on raw material supply chains dissolves. Then Axis industry, along with its newly acquired assets, might very well outproduce the unlikely bedfellows, US/USSR. The blitz on London might be B36s from Bangor and Presque Isle rather than HE111s from France. And the US might be subject to invasion from the north.
> Cheers,
> Wes
> PS: Unless we follow Benedict Arnold's lead in 1775, and annex Canada.


Well true. If the Germans actually managed to mount a successful amphibious invasion and occupation of the British Isles that would indeed complicate things.
However the original assertion by one poster and subsequent expanded suposition were that of the U.S. or Britain succeeding without each others help on the battlefield as I understood it anyway.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jun 26, 2019)

michael rauls said:


> However the original assertion by one poster and subsequent expanded suposition were that of the U.S. or Britain succeeding without each others help on the battlefield as I understood it anyway.


You mean like the British in the Med and North Africa pre-Torch? Or in BoB, or Hong Kong, or Singapore, or Rangoon? It's tough going it alone. Thank God for FDR. Or we might have sat the whole thing out, snug (and smug) behind our two oceans, profiting from the arms trade, and wound up with a world not to our liking.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jun 26, 2019)

P-39 Expert said:


> Just removing the wing guns and nose armor plate saved 300#. That alone would have added 360fpm climb.


With the P39, you've got to be careful about removing weight from the nose! Your climb performance gain comes at the cost of making an already twitchy airplane twitchier. Shifting the CG aft like that does give you the benefit of a slight reduction in drag, as the horizontal stabilizer doesn't have to generate as much negative lift, with its attendant induced drag. OTOH, pitch stability is reduced and stick force gradients get terrifyingly light. An enhanced performance mount for experten, but a handful for the less experienced.
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## michael rauls (Jun 26, 2019)

XBe02Drvr said:


> You mean like the British in the Med and North Africa pre-Torch? Or in BoB, or Hong Kong, or Singapore, or Rangoon? It's tough going it alone. Thank God for FDR. Or we might have sat the whole thing out, snug (and smug) behind our two oceans, profiting from the arms trade, and wound up with a world not to our liking.
> Cheers,
> Wes


Yes I certainly agree. It's going to be alot tougher without any one of the Allies. I do still think they prevail ultimately but fortunately we'll never know for sure how that would have turned out.


----------



## pbehn (Jun 26, 2019)

I presume any scenario without the British still has them in Malta?

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jun 26, 2019)

pbehn said:


> I presume any scenario without the British still has them in Malta?


Have to negotiate that one.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Jun 26, 2019)

pbehn said:


> I presume any scenario without the British still has them in Malta?


Ya, that's the trouble with the Brits didn't need the U.S.s help in in one theater or the U.S. didn't need whoevers help in this theater or that or the whole war for that matter proposed by the poster who's name escapes me at the moment. Unraveling the multiple tentacles of history and trying to figure how things would have played out is a complicated task indeed.
My point in response to that poster was that inho while either would probably have ultimately prevailed without the other it misses the most important point which is it's a darn good thing we did have each others help lest that victory be so much more costly.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## P-39 Expert (Jun 26, 2019)

XBe02Drvr said:


> With the P39, you've got to be careful about removing weight from the nose! Your climb performance gain comes at the cost of making an already twitchy airplane twitchier. Shifting the CG aft like that does give you the benefit of a slight reduction in drag, as the horizontal stabilizer doesn't have to generate as much negative lift, with its attendant induced drag. OTOH, pitch stability is reduced and stick force gradients get terrifyingly light. An enhanced performance mount for experten, but a handful for the less experienced.
> Cheers,
> Wes


The radio equipment would be moved from the tail cone up to right behind the pilot over the engine to restore balance after removing the 100# nose armor. Balance would have been untenable without this modification.


----------



## pbehn (Jun 26, 2019)

michael rauls said:


> Ya, that's the trouble with the Brits didn't need the U.S.s help in in one theater or the U.S. didn't need whoevers help in this theater or that or the whole war for that matter proposed by the poster who's name escapes me at the moment. Unraveling the multiple tentacles of history and trying to figure how things would have played out is a complicated task indeed.
> My point in response to that poster was that inho while either would probably have ultimately prevailed without the other it misses the most important point which is it's a darn good thing we did have each others help lest that victory be so much more costly.


The conflict in N Africa was what it was on land and in the air but it the sea battle was also critical.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Simon Thomas (Jun 26, 2019)

The way I see it is the Commonwealth ensured that the war was not won by the Axis and the US ensured that it was won by the Allies.

The US involvement in North Africa has to weigh up the US planes, tanks and squadrons that provided some help, with the significant damage caused by Fellers leaking information. The UK "stealing" the SS Ohio from the US and using it to get oil to Malta was also critical. (There is a rather good book on Operation Pedestal, but I can't recall the title at the moment) If the Rommel got all the supplies that were sent, then the situation at El Alamein would be rather different.

I am watching this thread tangent closely as my Grandfather was in the Australian 9th division and his brother was in the Australian 6th Division; between them they were in North Africa from the start until El Alamein.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Milosh (Jun 26, 2019)

P-39 Expert said:


> The radio equipment would be moved from the tail cone up to right behind the pilot over the engine to restore balance after removing the 100# nose armor. Balance would have been untenable without this modification.



I would like to see a Load and Balance chart for this mod.


----------



## Stig1207 (Jun 26, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Caldwell alone got 3 experten while flying a P-40 - he shot down Wolfgang Lippert (30 victory claims, commander of II./JG 27) on 23 November 1941, (Lippert subsequently died from wounds received while bailing out), he killed Erbo von Kageneck (69 victory "experten" of III./JG 27) on Dec 24 1941. He also shot down Stahlschmidt in February 1942 though he survived to die later.



MAW I does not connect Lippert's loss to Caldwell, who claimed 2 Bf 109's at two different times; there were in all 8 claims for 109's destroyed by Tomahawk pilots during the day, for 2 109's lost. Shores also attributes Kagenack's mortal wounding to either Maxwell or Thompson of 94 squadron. 



Schweik said:


> (MAW Volume 1) page 329
> 
> 
> _"On November 22, 1941 there was a significant engagement in which the Tomahawk was put to a hard test by the Bf 109F. At 1540 nine Tomahawks of No. 112 Squadron RAF were joined by thirteen Tomahawks of No. 3 Squadron RAAF for an offensive sweep over the Tobruk-El Adem area[7]. At roughly 1600 hours they were intercepted near Bir Hacheim by 20 Bf 109Fs attacking from 3,000 feet above [8]. During the subsequent hour long engagement, which took place near two German airfields, JG 27 fighters landed and refueled to rejoin the fight. In the melee DAF fighters claimed three Bf 109s shot down and four "probables", while JG 27 claimed 11 P-40s [9]. The actual losses were 6 Bf 109F-4s and 7 Tomahawk IIbs shot down and 1 badly damaged (the aircraft of future RAAF Ace Bobby Gibbes) [10]. In the aftermath of the bloody fight both sides were shaken. The Germans believed they had come out ahead but felt the losses were unacceptable , and therefore made the decision not to dogfight the Tomahawk with the Bf 109F in the future [11], and instead to rely on 'boom and zoom' tactics[12], which while effective, imposed certain Tactical limitations. "_



MAW I states that there were 2 combats during the day; a mid morning escort for Blenheims by 3 RAAF was interceptet by Jg27 resulting in the loss of 3 Tomahawks and 2 109's. In the afternoon engagement 6 Tomahawks from 3 RAAF and 1 from 112 Sqd were lost and 4 109's shotdown. So actual losses was 10 Tomahaawks and 6 109's in these combats.


----------



## Wildcat (Jun 27, 2019)

Stig1207 said:


> MAW I states that there were 2 combats during the day; a mid morning escort for Blenheims by 3 RAAF was interceptet by Jg27 resulting in the loss of 3 Tomahawks and 2 109's. In the afternoon engagement 6 Tomahawks from 3 RAAF and 1 from 112 Sqd were lost and 4 109's shotdown. So actual losses was 10 Tomahaawks and 6 109's in these combats.


I just had a look at 3 squadrons ORB for this date and can confirm the following losses - 
Morning escort
AN416 F/L Saunders
AN378 P/O Lane
AK510 F/O Watson
Afternoon sweep
AN244 W/C Jefferies (force landed & rescued)
AN410 F/L Knowles
AN373 F/O Roberts
AK390 F/O Kloster
AN305 P/O Lees
AN507 Sgt Simes (rescued)

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## P-39 Expert (Jun 27, 2019)

Milosh said:


> I would like to see a Load and Balance chart for this mod.


Me too. Moving radio equipment up from the tailcone to behind the pilot was a fairly common modification as shown in photographs.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 27, 2019)

You have to be sure that the photo is showing the complete radio.

Some P-39s mounted the IFF gear above the engine and the regular radio stayed aft. 

this is a sheet for the regular radio as used in P-39Qs (other P-39s may have had a different radio?) 





Better picture.




please note that this is the radio and does not include the 37lb dynomotor. 

The russians may have yanked the IFF gear and moved the communications radio. I don't know. They may have left the dynomotor in the original position.

Some aircraft equipped with IFF had components of the radio installation in 5-6 locations (or up to 9 if you include the antennas) as there were separate control boxes in the cockpit. 

Dyno motors were basically (I think) an electric motor running on voltage coupled to an electric generator making another voltage on the same shaft and possible using the same magnet structure. 24/28 volt motor turning a 400volt or higher generator. 
Even a small one could be heavy as anyone who has used old car generators and starter motors can tell you

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jun 27, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> Dyno motors were basically (I think) an electric motor running on voltage coupled to an electric generator making another voltage on the same shaft and possible using the same magnet structure. 24/28 volt motor turning a 400volt or higher generator.


12 or 24 Volt DC in; 120 Volt, 400 cycle AC out, and boy, do they whine. In the T34 it was right under the front seat and you could hear it over the engine, and that 400 cycle note (a very flat middle C) always bled through into your earphones.
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## Milosh (Jun 27, 2019)

How much electrical interference from mounting the radio above the engine?


----------



## gordonm1 (Jun 27, 2019)

My 2 cents, I'm not sure what the thread's purpose here was, the Typhoon was better at performance but never got the chance to prove it's worth so we have a comparison that is hard to make. 

Great P40 history here to add to my childhood fantasies. I picked up WWII history after tiring of Sci-Fi at my local library. The first book I checked out on WWII was "The Flying Tigers".

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


----------



## P-39 Expert (Jun 27, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> You have to be sure that the photo is showing the complete radio.
> 
> Some P-39s mounted the IFF gear above the engine and the regular radio stayed aft.
> 
> ...


Couple of radios, sometimes three, move however many you need for balance.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jun 27, 2019)

gordonm1 said:


> the Typhoon was better at performance but never got the chance to prove it's worth so we have a comparison that is hard to make.


They seldom if ever got to perform side by side in the same arena, so it's a theoretical discussion that lets every one exercise their scholarly research skills and advocate for their preferred interpretation. "Sci-Fi", if you will.
Cheers,
Wes

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


----------



## Kevin J (Jun 27, 2019)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Hold on just a minute! It might not be so simple as that. If Britain falls, the empire, industry, and Navy become Axis assets, and the stranglehold on raw material supply chains dissolves. Then Axis industry, along with its newly acquired assets, might very well outproduce the unlikely bedfellows, US/USSR. The blitz on London might be B36s from Bangor and Presque Isle rather than HE111s from France. And the US might be subject to invasion from the north.
> Cheers,
> Wes





gordonm1 said:


> My 2 cents, I'm not sure what the thread's purpose here was, the Typhoon was better at performance but never got the chance to prove it's worth so we have a comparison that is hard to make.
> 
> Great P40 history here to add to my childhood fantasies. I picked up WWII history after tiring of Sci-Fi at my local library. The first book I checked out on WWII was "The Flying Tigers".



My daily entertainment is to spot the government broadcaster that is telling the truth, so I always do BBC, RT followed by Press TV, always in that order. Then later I follow it all up on the internet with anyone labelled a conspiracy theorist.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 27, 2019)

P-39 Expert said:


> Couple of radios, sometimes three, move however many you need for balance.


 
go back and look at the data sheet for the SCR-522 radio, it has the dimensions of the radio and the dynomotor. Maybe you can jam all the radio gear under the canopy over the engine and maybe you can't, I don't know for sure. Russians may have yanked the IFF radio gear to make room. But saying you could jam in however many you need to move to get the balance to work out the way you want seems a little convenient. 
Maybe the P-39 is so fast, climbs so well and turns so well the pilot doesn't need vision to the rear?

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jun 27, 2019)

P-39 Expert said:


> Couple of radios, sometimes three, move however many you need for balance.





Shortround6 said:


> go back and look at the data sheet for the SCR-522 radio, it has the dimensions of the radio and the dynomotor. Maybe you can jam all the radio gear under the canopy over the engine and maybe you can't


Isn't it amazing the things that people who've never gotten their hands dirty in the guts of an airplane can accomplish that lowly grease monkeys like you and I can't?
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 27, 2019)

from this website: Aussie P-39 Airacobra – Emergency Defender 

What I don't know is what those boxes of electronics are, looks a bit much for just the IFF? And I Don't know if the original radio is still in the tail. 
This is about the most "stuff" I have seen over the engine of an Airacobra. and since it was a restoration there is some doubt as to the accuracy of the restoration job when it comes to radio placement. perhaps some licence as taken with radio placement for some reason/s? 

Period photos sometimes show nothing under canopy and sometimes boxes/structures that doesn't agree with each other.




Large box (?) over the forward part of the engine?




Shorter but wider box a bit further back?




Same or different?





Two boxes over the engine?

Lots of photos with no boxes. But without actually knowing what the radio fit was on each aircraft it gets awful hard to say what could and could not be mounted over the engine. 
There are drawings much like the one in post #1451 that show a box over the engine and it is labeled SRC 515 IFF.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jun 28, 2019)

Wildcat said:


> I just had a look at 3 squadrons ORB for this date and can confirm the following losses -
> Morning escort
> AN416 F/L Saunders
> AN378 P/O Lane
> ...



Yeah I think you are right, my numbers were off, looks like 9 Tomahawks shot down, 1 x force landed - 1 more lost to flak, for 6 x Bf 109 F-4s. There were also other engagements that same day in which 2 Hurricanes were lost, plus another written off after landing to pick up a mate, for 2 x Ju 88 and 2 x Ju 87

Mea Culpa, my excuse is that the RAF losses covered two pages - the whole entry for this one day was unusually long- and I missed the ones on the previous page. However whether it was 7 Tomahawks vs. 6 Me 109s or 9 vs. 6 it really doesn't change the point being made. Either way it's an unacceptable loss ratio for the Luftwaffe, and either way they apparently made the decision to change their tactics against the Tomahawks- sticking to attacking from above and breaking away, which was an effective tactic for a long time (especially if they could catch the DAF pilots napping) but not as nearly as decisive. Didn't cause as many losses and also meant they rarely made it through to get the bombers.

This is what Shores wrote about it:

_"Despite the fact that the Luftwaffe had clearly come off best from the day's actions, the cost was obviously considered too high, as it was to be the last occasion on which the 109s met Commonwealth fighters in force and dog-fought them. From this time onward they returned to their normal tactics of utilizing their superior speed and altitude performance to undertake dive-shoot-and-climb tactics, these negating the Tomahawks superior maneuverability and saving the Messerschmitt pilots from further heavy losses."_

I'd also add, the Tomahawk was the oldest, least well armed and had the least powerful engine of the P-40 variants fighting in the Med, the DAF units in question were new at the time and had little training particularly on the type. The Bf 109F2 was the _best_ Luftwaffe fighter available at that time I think, and the unit JG 27 was one of the elite of the Luftwaffe. 

So I think it was a good showing for the DAF pilots and their Tomahawks. Clearly it unnerved the Germans somewhat.

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


----------



## Kevin J (Jun 28, 2019)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Isn't it amazing the things that people who've never gotten their hands dirty in the guts of an airplane can accomplish that lowly grease monkeys like you and I can't?
> Cheers,
> Wes


Even I know from reading about the war on the Eastern Front that out of the P-40F and Typhoon, it was the little Cobra that was the best fighter.

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


----------



## Dan Fahey (Jun 28, 2019)

My take on the Typhoon vs P-40 and Hurricane. All are good planes.
Typhoon did not go through as much of the rugged day to day fighting the P-40 and other Brit fighters did.
It was a moderate improvement over the Hurricane which was kept relevant in Africa with more power and weapons.

The Better fighter was the one that was available all the time !
Had the P-39 and the early Mustangs been used as much.
P-51A would have been another big improvement if implemented.

Logistics, field upgrades and maintenance kept them in the game.
All three used Allison engines. Our pilot training was more robust.
Brits and American used the Merlin. 
Typhoon engine would have complicated logistics and maintenance.
Doable with enough trained mechanics.

P-40 flew in every Theater of Operation and often in miserable field conditions.
Placed third or forth number aircraft shot down. (Cannot find the Chart)
Interesting that none of the Russian P-40 shoot downs were added.
Which may have pushed it up to 2nd or 3rd.

Anyone got and data on Russian Air to Air Kills?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## P-39 Expert (Jun 28, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> View attachment 543000
> 
> 
> View attachment 543001
> ...


My point exactly. Two or three radios, move however many you need for balance up behind the pilot.


----------



## Kevin J (Jun 28, 2019)

Dan Fahey said:


> Anyone got and data on Russian Air to Air Kills?


Have a look in mxdoc.com, key word aces, but you have to add them up yourself. Lots of info on all fighters, all nations.


----------



## Glider (Jun 28, 2019)

XBe02Drvr said:


> They seldom if ever got to perform side by side in the same arena, so it's a theoretical discussion that lets every one exercise their scholarly research skills and advocate for their preferred interpretation. "Sci-Fi", if you will.
> Cheers,
> Wes


Not quite, the P40 did operate for a short while in Europe from bases in England but were quickly replaced by the Mustang or the Typhoon. Which may say something.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 28, 2019)

P-39 Expert said:


> My point exactly. Two or three radios, move however many you need for balance up behind the pilot.



It may be interesting, but difficult, to track the P-39s radio usage. When the P-39 was designed there was no such thing as IFF (Identification Friend or Foe) equipement. 

I don't know what kind of radio they started with but by the time the P-39K and L models were being built it seems they were switching from the SCR274 to the SCR 522. But no mention is made in the manual for the SCR 535 set. When you get to the P-39Q there is both the SCR274N and the SCR 522 are covered as communications radios, The SCR535 is covered as an recognition set with a number of paragraphs about the demolition charge. 
The P-39s mentioned carried either the SCR 74N _OR_ the SCR 533, not both. But apparently a P-39 with ether set could be fitted with the SCR535. 

It appears that the First plane in the above photos (the one restored in Australia and later sold to Russia) had an SCR274N radio set above the engine. This set used three receivers and two transmitters, each in it's own box, with switches so the pilot could change back and forth between them, each receiver or transmitter only handling one frequency. 

The SCR 522 set used 4 frequencies and the pilot could select which frequency with a control box much like an old push button car radio. The SCR 522 was an American copy of a British radio. 


I would suggest, but am certainly willing to be _proved_ wrong, that the P-39 only had one radio (using however many channels or frequencies that set had) in the tail. 
With the coming of IFF gear either the IFF gear or the communications radio had to go over the engine (with whatever set wasn't over the engine being in the tail?) 

you can't add 75-100lbs of radio gear over and above the original radio to the tail and have the CG come out right any more than you can take 70-100lb out of the nose right behind the prop. 

You also had to be able to service the radios once they are installed. The old radios were a far cry from even radios of the 1950s. Even on the 4 channel SCR 522 set the pilots manual says that after changing frequencies using the push buttons to give the vacuum tubes (valves) in the new frequency one minute to warm up before trying to use the radio.


----------



## Mad Dog (Jun 29, 2019)

Schweik said:


> …..This corresponds to the phase in of the US merlin-engined P-40 units, starting with the 57th FG in June 1942....


 Yeah, that would the period with Spitfires with top-cover. I'm not saying the US P-40Fs didn't do good and valuable service in the Desert and NA, but they only got going when they already had Spitfires Vs to cover them. By that point the Commonwealth P-40 units had gone a whole year with the Tomahawk and Kittyhawk, and they knew well that the Curtis just didn't have the altitude performance required. Clive Caldwell was one who stated that they did the best with what they had, but he would have given his right arm for some Spitfires instead of the Kittyhawks.



Schweik said:


> …..The arrival of the Yanks also coincided with three* important Tactical and Operational changes to DAF missions - first and foremost, to the use of wingmen and "finger four" formations (with assorted variations)….....


 Sorry, nothing to do with the USAAF's arrival. Units like 112Sq were already flying in a section of three pairs, the idea being this meant a section meeting a _schwarm_ would out-number the Germans. Back in the UK, the finger-four had been standard for Fighter Command for over a year, and was already being taught to the RAF pilots arriving in the Med by OTUs in the UK. But, what that has to do with the quality of the P-40 vs the Typhoon is moot - at the time the Typhoon was being used in the ETO as a low-level interceptor and for fighter sweeps. The Duxford Typhoon Wing flew their first Circus on 20th June 1942. In September 1942 the Typhoon was chosen as *the best available option* for intercepting the tip-and-run _Jabos_ over the Channel. No-one said "Hey, let's ask the Yanks to send some P-40Fs."



Schweik said:


> …..A lot of Axis aircraft were destroyed by bombers on the ground and a lot of them were shot down as they climbed up from below to engage fighter escorts. This was made more possible by the new bombers brought into the Theater by the Americans - mainly B-25s and B-24s.....


 And again, nothing to do with the P-40F vs the Typhoon. If the Typhons had been there they would simply have done the escort job better because they were faster and had a better operational ceiling and - at that point in the War - were better armed. In 1942 the RAF units flying Kittyhawks were cursing their Browning .50s for constant jamming under Gs. Even the Hispano II cannon in the Typhoons were operating more reliably. No2 and 5 SAAF pilots even asked if they could go back to their Tomahawks during this period and said they didn't want Kittyhawks, even the Merlin-engined P-40F!



Schweik said:


> …..JG 27 ….JG 77 ….JG 2 …. JG 53....


 Again, by the time the Yanks got to tangle with them they had Spitfires and P-38s flying top-cover, which took away the Bf109F/G's main advantage. By 1943, RAF units were switching from the Kittyhawks to Spitfire Vs as fast as possible, as were the USAAF units in theatre, because the P-40F wasn't up to the job of air superiority fighter. By 1943 the P-40 was a bomber in the Med and unheard of in the UK. Meanwhile, the RAF was busily equipping more and more UK-based squadrons with Typhoons.



Schweik said:


> As an aside, you seem to be a bit eager to engage in some Brit vs. Yank debating.....


 No, just amused by the illogic of your arguments for considering the P-40F better than the Typhoon.



Schweik said:


> …..The larger point we are addressing here is your claim that the air opposition was weak and worn out by the time the Americans got involved in the war.....


 The quality of Luftwaffe units peaked during the Battle of Britain. Luftwaffe units had started having problems with crew replacements by August 1940. They had barely recovered in June 1941 when they had to go into the meat-grinder of Russia. Whilst the _experten_ were still very dangerous all War, especially whilst they had superior fighters, the average Luftwaffe pilot declined in quality post-1940. By the time the 57th FG started flying the first USAAF Warhawk operations in the Desert in October 1942, that training problem had already taken a deep bite out of the quality of the Luftwaffe.



Schweik said:


> …..and they definitely needed the P-40....


 No, they _had_ to use the P-40 because they simply did not have enough better fighters available. The RAF only originally sent the Tomahawk to the Med in 1941 because they thought they would only being meeting Italian fighters like the Fiat CR42 and G50. They had already decided the P-40 was unsuitable for combat against the Bf109E, let alone the F. They had to upgrade to the Kittyhawk because they had to replace the Tomahawk quickly with something available. 

The biggest problem with the P-40F was it was little more than a P-36 with a Merlin 28, just as the P-40B/C was just a P-36 with an Allison V-1710. The P-36 was already falling behind European fighters like the Spitfire and ME109 when the XP-40 first flew in 1938. This was recognised by North American Aviation when they were asked to make P-40s by the British Overseas Purchasing Commission in 1940. NAA came up with the Mustang instead. The tragedy is that Ford had turned down the opportunity to make Rolls-Royce Merlins, which meant the first Packard V-1650s weren't available when the NA-73x (which became the P-51A) first flew in 1940. If the Mustang had been built from the start with the Packard Merlin, then the Commonwealth units could have switched from Tomahawks to P-51Bs in 1942. Now, I'd accept an argument that the P-51B was a better fighter than the Typhoon, and definitely far better than a P-40F.


----------



## Schweik (Jun 29, 2019)

Mad Dog said:


> Yeah, that would the period with Spitfires with top-cover. I'm not saying the US P-40Fs didn't do good and valuable service in the Desert and NA, but they only got going when they already had Spitfires Vs to cover them.



This sounds nice and logical but is just not factually true. Spitfires, when available, did indeed provide top cover over Allied bases. But there are two problems in the real world with your theory: First, they did not have the range to cover strike missions except to very close targets - this was the main role played by the P-40F in fact - second, there were never enough of them to cover the whole battlefield, which is why again the later model Kittyhawks were used. This is all fairly easy to verify now as we have books like Shores MAW series which lists the aircraft used, and what they were used for, on each given day. Within the DAF late model Kittyhawks (Mk II, IIa and III) were used to fly cover for older Kittyhawk Mk I and Ia, and for Hurricanes.

USAAF units were initially flying with DAF units and flew the same kinds of missions as the Kittyhawk II - escort, fighter sweep and fighter bomber. In the latter case a squadron of P-40s would fly cover for another squadron carrying bombs. Later, they flew escort for US Medium bombers, B-25s and B-26s, as well as for RAF Baltimores and Bostons.



> Sorry, nothing to do with the USAAF's arrival. Units like 112Sq were already flying in a section of three pairs, the idea being this meant a section meeting a _schwarm_ would out-



I said it coincided, I didn't say it "had to do with". The fact is the USAAF units were already flying 'finger four' formations of two pairs. The Germans commented on this. As I said already, the DAF seemed to adopt this strategy (in different variations) at just about this same time, i.e. third quarter of 1942. Why they didn't adopt it before (in the Med) is a mystery to me, and to some of the pilots on both sides. I believe it cost a lot of lives.



> And again, nothing to do with the P-40F vs the Typhoon. If the Typhons had been there they would simply have done the escort job better because they were faster and had a better operational ceiling and - at that point in the War - were better armed. In 1942 the RAF units flying Kittyhawks were cursing their Browning .50s for constant jamming under Gs. Even the Hispano II cannon in the Typhoons were operating more reliably. No2 and 5 SAAF pilots even asked if they could go back to their Tomahawks during this period and said they didn't want Kittyhawks, even the Merlin-engined P-40F!



How well the Typhoon theoretically would have done is speculation since they weren't used. My guess is that they would not have fared well against Bf 109s due to their poor maneuverability. P-38s had a similar problem / limitation. As for the 2 and 5 SAAF - they couldn't have gotten Kittyhawk II's even if they had wanted them since they always got the last planes available (which is why they were still flying Tomahawks in 1943). The Kittys went to the elite 260 RAF and 3 RAAF, who had two of the best records in the Med.

All fighters with wing guns had problems with stoppages, Spit V's in the Med certainly did as did P-47s when they arrived and Mustangs after that. The issues with the Kittyhawks were to a large extent (though not completely) resolved by the P-40F, K, L and M models.



> Again, by the time the Yanks got to tangle with them they had Spitfires and P-38s flying top-cover, which took away the Bf109F/G's main advantage. By 1943, RAF units were switching



Once again, factually incorrect. The Spitfires simply did not have the range to fly escort in most of the strike missions over German and Italian airbases which was the new strategy used by the DAF after mid 1942. The P-38s certainly did but when they fought at below 20,000, they tended to get mauled by the Luftwaffe and Italians. One group, the 14th Fighter Group, had to be pulled out of combat for a while. After that they were used mainly to escort B-24s at high altitude and often long range.

It was very much the exception, not the rule, that either Spitfires or P-38s were flying top cover for P-40F/L or Kittyhawk IIs



> By 1943 the P-40 was a bomber in the Med and unheard of in the UK. Meanwhile, the RAF was busily equipping more and more UK-based squadrons with Typhoons.


Once again, factually incorrect. The 325th Fighter Group was assigned as escorts to the 320h Bombardment group (B-26s)



> No, just amused by the illogic of your arguments for considering the P-40F better than the Typhoon.


I'm equally amused by the combination of strident assertiveness with lack of awareness of the basic facts on this topic.



> The quality of Luftwaffe units peaked during the Battle of Britain



Ok so you are saying that after 1940 the Luftwaffe was a push-over and victory claims by Allied pilots in the Med were "easy" and should be taken with a grain of salt, is that right?



> They had already decided the P-40 was unsuitable for combat against the Bf109E, let alone the F. They had to upgrade to the Kittyhawk because they had to replace the Tomahawk quickly with something available.



And yet even the lowly old Tomahawk could apparently shoot down Bf 109F-4s in fairly large numbers...

S

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


----------



## PAT303 (Jun 29, 2019)

The Spitfires simply did not have the range to fly escort in most of the strike missions over German and Italian airbases which was the new strategy used by the DAF after mid 1942. 

I've never understood why the British were so reluctant to fit internal LR tanks as well as drop tanks to spitfires, the single biggest gripe in every single theatre of operations it was used in was lack of range and not enough of them.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jun 29, 2019)

They more or less sorted it out, or anyway significantly improved the situation, when the Spit VIII finally arrived, though they came in rather slowly.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jun 29, 2019)

[QUOTE ="Schweik, post: 1485083, member: 73921"]As an aside, you seem to be a bit eager to engage in some Brit vs. Yank debating, but that is not the goal of this thread[/QUOTE]



Mad Dog said:


> No, just amused by the illogic of your arguments for considering the P-40F better than the Typhoon.





Schweik said:


> I'm equally amused by the combination of strident assertiveness with lack of awareness of the basic facts on this topic.


Let's hear it for divergent narratives of the same historical events. Good thing you guys don't frequent the same pub. If you guys were to settle your differences, it would spoil the entertainment value for the rest of us!
Cheers,
Wes

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


----------



## michael rauls (Jun 29, 2019)

Mad Dog said:


> Yeah, that would the period with Spitfires with top-cover. I'm not saying the US P-40Fs didn't do good and valuable service in the Desert and NA, but they only got going when they already had Spitfires Vs to cover them. By that point the Commonwealth P-40 units had gone a whole year with the Tomahawk and Kittyhawk, and they knew well that the Curtis just didn't have the altitude performance required. Clive Caldwell was one who stated that they did the best with what they had, but he would have given his right arm for some Spitfires instead of the Kittyhawks.
> 
> Sorry, nothing to do with the USAAF's arrival. Units like 112Sq were already flying in a section of three pairs, the idea being this meant a section meeting a _schwarm_ would out-number the Germans. Back in the UK, the finger-four had been standard for Fighter Command for over a year, and was already being taught to the RAF pilots arriving in the Med by OTUs in the UK. But, what that has to do with the quality of the P-40 vs the Typhoon is moot - at the time the Typhoon was being used in the ETO as a low-level interceptor and for fighter sweeps. The Duxford Typhoon Wing flew their first Circus on 20th June 1942. In September 1942 the Typhoon was chosen as *the best available option* for intercepting the tip-and-run _Jabos_ over the Channel. No-one said "Hey, let's ask the Yanks to send some P-40Fs."
> 
> ...


The p38s "providing top cover" you reference ARE a "yank" plane. But really that doesn't matter. Ultimately all the types, the p38, the p40, and the spitfire all had different strengths and weaknesses that complimented each other.
It really would have been alot tougher trying to accomplish the same objectives with only p40s, only Spitfires, or only p38s.
So thank God we had them all there when we needed them.
They were all nescesary.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jun 29, 2019)

XBe02Drvr said:


> [QUOTE ="Schweik, post: 1485083, member: 73921"]As an aside, you seem to be a bit eager to engage in some Brit vs. Yank debating, but that is not the goal of this thread






Let's hear it for divergent narratives of the same historical events. Good thing you guys don't frequent the same pub. If you guys were to settle your differences, it would spoil the entertainment value for the rest of us!
Cheers,
Wes[/QUOTE]

Within reason. Rehashing the same stuff over and over in the same thread every time some new enthusiast bursts through the door is tedious. At least in the pub you get some grim satisfaction.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 29, 2019)

Mad Dog said:


> The tragedy is that Ford had turned down the opportunity to make Rolls-Royce Merlins, which meant the first Packard V-1650s weren't available when the NA-73x (which became the P-51A) first flew in 1940.



This gets brought up a lot but Ford was not a magician. Packard was being talked to about replacing Ford in just a few weeks. The formal contract may not have been signed until Sept of 1940 but Packard had been in possession of most of the drawings that Ford had plus the sample engine for a number of weeks before the formal contract was signed.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 29, 2019)

Mad Dog said:


> The RAF only originally sent the Tomahawk to the Med in 1941 because they thought they would only being meeting Italian fighters like the Fiat CR42 and G50


Interesting...

MC.200AS was first operated by 374° Squadriglia, starting April '41.
MC.202 was first operated by 4° Stormo, starting July 1941.
Re.2001 was first operated by 2° (6° Stormo), starting summer 1941.

The RAF wasn't stupid and knew of the types I listed, considering that they had already tangled with these types in various places in the Med prior to the North African campaign.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jun 30, 2019)

Another interesting matchup would be a Typhoon against a MC 202 or 205...


----------



## Mad Dog (Jun 30, 2019)

GrauGeist said:


> Interesting...
> 
> MC.200AS was first operated by 374° Squadriglia, starting April '41.
> MC.202 was first operated by 4° Stormo, starting July 1941.
> ...



The MC202 came as a nasty surprise to the RAF in Septemer 1941 over Sicilly and Malta, long after the P-40C Tomahawks had been sent to the Desert. The decision to send the P-40s to the Desert was made because the Brits tricked the Italians into letting them test all their frontline fighters in December 1939, on the pretence that they would make an order for a "colonial fighter". Interestingly, the RAF rated the Reggiane RE2000 as the best available Italian fighter, better than the Macchi C200, and even tried to order 300 RE2000s. It's probably good they didn't as the Piaggio engine proved extremely unreliable. However, the RAF concluded from their tests that the Italian manufacturers were hampered by low-powered radial engines, and that the Italians did not have an engine in development that would change that picture in the immediate future. The _Reggia Aeronautica_ had a policy of insisting on radials as they thought them more reliable in colonial conditions and more resistant to combat damage. The Brits concluded that the Hawker Hurricane I would be superior to the Italian fighters and so didn't worry about sending the Tomahawks to the Desert. The Brits had no idea that Macchi would fit the inline DB601 into the Macchi C200 and failed to predict the Luftwaffe sending Bf109s. The Tomahawk did completely out-class all Italian fighters until the arrival of the MC202.

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


----------



## Mad Dog (Jun 30, 2019)

Schweik said:


> This sounds nice and logical but is just not factually true. Spitfires, when available, did indeed provide top cover over Allied bases. But there are two problems in the real world with your theory: First, they did not have the range to cover strike missions except to very close targets - this was the main role played by the P-40F in fact - second, there were never enough of them to cover the whole battlefield, which is why again the later model Kittyhawks were used.


 So that would be the air bases with Bf109s and Macchi 202s? You did pause to check the range limitations of both those types, right? Oh, no you didn't. The Bf109F/Gs had to be kept close to the battlefront because they were just as short-legged as the Spitfire. The Macchis were actually pulled back because more were destroyed on the ground by the LRDG and SAS than in the air. And hitting the Axis airbases had been a standard tactic looooooooooong before the P-40F arrived in theatre. Ernest "Imshi" Mason became an ace doing exactly that kind of raid on Italian airfields in a Hurricane in 1940-41. Mason died trying the same in a Kittyhawk . The SAAF in particular were doing such raids in Marylands and then Baltimores before the USAAF's arrival.



Schweik said:


> This is all fairly easy to verify now as we have books like Shores MAW series which lists the aircraft used, and what they were used for, on each given day. Within the DAF late model Kittyhawks (Mk II, IIa and III) were used to fly cover for older Kittyhawk Mk I and Ia, and for Hurricanes.


 Bobby Gibbes explained that the altitude advantage of the P-40F lasted exactly one mission. The Bf109s were surprised to find Kittyhawks over 25,000 feet, but the next day they just flew 2000 feet higher and the Kittyhawk IIs could do nothing about it. Given that the Typhoon also had much better range than the Spitfire the point is moot. The Typhoon would have done the escort job just as well if not better than the P-40F, especially as it was faster.



Schweik said:


> How well the Typhoon theoretically would have done is speculation since they weren't used.


 But Typhoons were used as fighters in the Channel Theatre when the P-40F was rejected for that theatre. I have pointed this out numerous times and you are still avoiding that point. You seem to be under the misconception that the P-40F was used in the Desert_ instead_ of the Typhoon by choice, whereas history shows the P-40F was replaced as soon as it could be by better aircraft, either Spitfires or Thunderbolts. 



Schweik said:


> Once again, factually incorrect. The Spitfires simply did not have the range to fly escort in most of the strike missions over German and Italian airbases which was the new strategy used by the DAF after mid 1942.


 See above. Wasn't a new strategy and the 109s' bases were inside the range of Spitfires.



Schweik said:


> I'm equally amused by the combination of strident assertiveness with lack of awareness of the basic facts on this topic.


 Try reading more widely.



Schweik said:


> Ok so you are saying that after 1940 the Luftwaffe was a push-over and victory claims by Allied pilots in the Med were "easy" and should be taken with a grain of salt, is that right?


 No, I just pointed out that the quality of the average _replacement_ pilot had dropped by 1942. I actually said the _experten_ were deadly all War, especially when they could take advantage of the superior altitude performance of the 109, as they did against the P-40F. You could start here, and do remember that Allied fighter pilots on average had 300-360 hours of flying training before they went operational, even in 1942.



Schweik said:


> And yet even the lowly old Tomahawk could apparently shoot down Bf 109F-4s in fairly large numbers...


 Which is not to say the Typhoon could have done a better job. Considering it was faster, had just as good range, had heavier armament, was as tough if not tougher, and could out-climb the P-40F, I'd say it is patently obvious that the Typhoon would have done a better job.

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


----------



## Mad Dog (Jun 30, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> This gets brought up a lot but Ford was not a magician. Packard was being talked to about replacing Ford in just a few weeks. The formal contract may not have been signed until Sept of 1940 but Packard had been in possession of most of the drawings that Ford had plus the sample engine for a number of weeks before the formal contract was signed.


True, but it amuses me that, of all the fighters available, it was the P-40 that got given the Packard-Merlin 28. Maybe a North American Mustang I with a Merlin 28 wouldn't have quite been a P-51B (the P-51B got the Merlin 60-series), but I suspect it would have been a lot better than a P-40F. Heck, I'd even have preferred a P-39D/P-400 with a Merlin 28 over a P-40F!

Reactions: Dislike Dislike:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jun 30, 2019)

Mad Dog said:


> So that would be the air bases with Bf109s and Macchi 202s? You did pause to check the range limitations of both those types, right? Oh, no you didn't. The Bf109F/Gs had to be kept close to the battlefront because they were just as short-legged as the Spitfire.



Their job was to protect the German troops from the Allied aircraft, specifically it was to shoot down bombers and fighter-bombers, and more rarely to escort Stukas and other Tactical bombers when the latter were attacking front-line Allied positions (which the Luftwaffe pilots said they hated doing). This required them to be in range of the _front lines_. Not to be within range of the Allied airbases which they rarely were. Again, this isn't new and I did not come up with this idea, the issue about the Spitfire's range is well known and has been for a long time. The role of the P-40's as escorts is also pretty well established. I'll quote a passage from a German ace on this subject later.



> Bobby Gibbes explained that the altitude advantage of the P-40F lasted exactly one mission. The Bf109s were surprised to find Kittyhawks over 25,000 feet, but the next day they just flew 2000 feet higher and the Kittyhawk IIs could do nothing about it. Given that the Typhoon also had much better range than the Spitfire the point is moot. The Typhoon would have done the escort job just as well if not better than the P-40F, especially as it was faster.



The Bf 109s could always attack from above - quite often they attacked Spitfire V's from above as well. What the DAF pilots needed to change was their Tactics in response to being bounced. The Germans could always use their attack from up high, but if they were limited to only attacking that way, it made it hard to get at the bombers and as the Allies finally adopted effective defensive tactics such as what I've already described upthread (both recently upthread and quite a way back many pages...) the Luftwaffe were less likely to get fighter kills that way either.

The P-40F/L much higher performance ceiling meant that it took longer for Bf 109s to get above them and they couldn't safely fight them (without taking casualties) from there on down to Sea Level. For some reason, prior to mid 1942, RAF were often flying missions including fighter sweeps as low as 6,000 -7,000 feet. Bobby Gibbes has also commented on this as did many of the other DAF and Luftwaffe Aces. When the Merlin engined units came into the Theater, both US and British / Commonwealth, they were able to take a much heavier toll on the German fighters. In most cases without any top cover.



> But Typhoons were used as fighters in the Channel Theatre when the P-40F was rejected for that theatre. I have pointed this out numerous times and you are still avoiding that point. You seem to be under the misconception that the P-40F was used in the Desert_ instead_ of the Typhoon by choice, whereas history shows the P-40F was replaced as soon as it could be by better aircraft, either Spitfires or Thunderbolts.



We have also discussed this, I certainly haven't avoided the topic, it's just already been hashed out (and then some). You'll have to forgive me if you come in on page 70 of a long running Thread and start bringing up things that were already debunked several times, and I don't spend a ton of effort digging up all the facts that had previously been posted.

Every WW2 combat aircraft had it's strengths and weaknesses. Some were Strategically significant, some Operational or Tactical in implications. Certain aircraft were generalists within a certain subset of conditions, others were suitable for more niche roles. The Spitfire for example was basically an interceptor. The P-51B on out was ideal as an escort fighter. And so on.

In my opinion the Typhoon had much more of a niche role - being very fast at low level like the P-51A, it was better at attacking or performing recon against an "integrated air defense network" - as in static targets, heavy AA integrated with a communications network, and eventually, radar. The Spitfire was already ideal (or the best available) for defense of the Home Islands which is why the newer types in particular (when they became available) were so jealously hoarded there.

The P-40 was a generalist, within certain limits. It was no good at high altitude and wasn't ideal as an interceptor, but remained suitable for a wide variety of conditions in many different Theaters from it's first introduction to combat through the end of the war. It shot down a lot of enemy aircraft during that time, and blew up a lot of enemy ground troops, tanks, bridges, railcars and shipping. It was used in the Med, in the Pacific from Alaska to Australia, in the CBI, and in Russia mostly as a fighter but also as a fighter bomber. In the Med, the conditions changed from the early days with the Tomahawk in 1941 to the introduction of the Merlin engined variants in mid to late 1942. But generally speaking it was used as an air superiority fighter through that entire period.

In Australia, even though it really wasn't good for the job, it had a better record as an interceptor than the Spit V did, for whatever combination of reasons.



> See above. Wasn't a new strategy and the 109s' bases were inside the range of Spitfires.



Actually, in most cases they were not. The battle-lines fluctuated a lot during the war so sometimes Luftwaffe and Regia Aeronautica bases were close enough for Spitfires to join strike missions, but most often they were too far away.



> Try reading more widely.



Try reading through the thread before you make a misguided attempt to pwn it.



> Which is not to say the Typhoon could have done a better job. Considering it was faster, had just as good range, had heavier armament, was as tough if not tougher, and could out-climb the P-40F, I'd say it is patently obvious that the Typhoon would have done a better job.



The fact that you think the outcomes of air combat would be obvious 76 years ago seems a bit dubious to me...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 30, 2019)

To all parties involved:

Let’s knock it off with the snide comments. This is not a kindergarten.


----------



## Mad Dog (Jun 30, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Their job was to protect the German troops from the Allied aircraft, specifically it was to shoot down bombers and fighter-bombers, and more rarely to escort Stukas and other Tactical bombers when the latter were attacking front-line Allied positions (which the Luftwaffe pilots said they hated doing). This required them to be in range of the _front lines_. Not to be within range of the Allied airbases which they rarely were. Again, this isn't new and I did not come up with this idea, the issue about the Spitfire's range is well known and has been for a long time. The role of the P-40's as escorts is also pretty well established. I'll quote a passage from a German ace on this subject later.
> 
> 
> 
> ...

Reactions: Dislike Dislike:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Mad Dog (Jun 30, 2019)

OK, you started the thread "Which is the better fighter, P-40F or Typhoon?", when it is obvious from your posts that you had already decided that you thought the P-40F was better and were completely unwilling to consider the copious evidence to the contrary. Indeed, you treat any criticism of the P-40F's record as some form of nationalist slight. The Typhoon wasn't just a bombtruck nor just used for defending against low-level _Jabos_. RAF pilots like Laurence "Pinky" Stark became aces flying sweeps over occupied France in the Typhoon in 1943 and 1944. I suspect you chose the Typhoon for your comparison because you realise how badly the P-40 stacked up against just about every other Allied fighter of the day. You failed. The Hawker Typhoon was the better fighter and it's continued use in Europe, right up until VE-day, long after the P-40 had been banished to less dangerous theatres, simply underlines the point.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Dislike Dislike:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jun 30, 2019)

Mad Dog said:


> OK, you started the thread "Which is the better fighter, P-40F or Typhoon?", when it is obvious from your posts that you had already decided that you thought the P-40F was better and were completely unwilling to consider the copious evidence to the contrary.



To the contrary, I really had no idea. Again, if you read the thread you'll know how it started - from another thread when in a debate about the merits of low-level fighters, I mentioned the Typhoon. Someone said the Typhoon was way out of the league of the P-40, and I said Ok let's hash that one out. I did not, at the time, know that the air-to-air victory claim totals of the Typhoon were less than 1/2 of the claims for just that one (Merlin Engined) subtype of the P-40. I did not know that roughly the same number of both aircraft had been produced during the war. I didn't know about the poor roll and turn performance of the Typhoon. I didn't know the full extent of the teething problems faced by the Typhoon or what numerous pilots who flew it had to say about it's suitability as a fighter. This all emerged during the course of the thread.



> Indeed, you treat any criticism of the P-40F's record as some form of nationalist slight.



I certainly have not done so. The Merlin engine, need I remind you, is a British invention. Criticizing one British airplane is not the same as criticizing British planes in general, nor is correcting the record of one American plane the same as praising them all. I pointed out several times in this and other threads that the Spitfire was the best Allied fighter and the Mosquito the best allied bomber, in my opinion. I am conversely not a fan of numerous US aircraft like the TBF. Accusations of national bias are totally unfounded.



> The Typhoon wasn't just a bombtruck nor just used for defending against low-level _Jabos_. RAF pilots like Laurence "Pinky" Stark became aces flying sweeps over occupied France in the Typhoon in 1943 and 1944.



Ok, maybe we should compare the number of Aces in each type. How many Typhoon aces were there? How many Bf 109s did Typhoon pilots claim destroyed?



> I suspect you chose the Typhoon for your comparison because you realise how badly the P-40 stacked up against just about every other Allied fighter of the day.



Nope, the thread started from an argument in another one, as I described above.



> You failed. The Hawker Typhoon was the better fighter and it's continued use in Europe, right up until VE-day, long after the P-40 had been banished to less dangerous theatres, simply underlines the point.



I honestly can't claim to know either way which was the better fighter, as I'm not a pilot and wasn't in the war. It is purely an exercise in speculation and an opportunity for members of the forum to dig up interesting facts pro- and con- in the argument. Some people seem to have been triggered by the very concept of making this comparison, which I acknowledge is in an outlier position from conventional narratives about the Air War, but we have learned over time many of those narratives were wrong. I think regardless of which side you took in the thread, quite a bit of data has emerged to make the case seem a bit closer than I personally expected.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Dislike Dislike:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jun 30, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Ok, maybe we should compare the number of Aces in each type. How many Typhoon aces were there? How many Bf 109s did Typhoon pilots claim destroyed?
> .


No, actually you cant. Setting off on a mission in a P-40 across the channel in 1943 to 44 was a great way to end your involvement in the conflict.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jun 30, 2019)

pbehn said:


> No, actually you cant. Setting off on a mission in a P-40 across the channel in 1943 to 44 was a great way to end your involvement in the conflict.



In my opinion, setting out in a Typhoon on a fighter sweep over Pantelleria in the same period would be similarly dicey, though at least you will die in a pretty place.

I don't see what that has to do with comparing the number of aces who flew either type. This new guy is claiming that the Typhoon was the mount of many aces, and not just against Jabo raids. So I'm just asking him to put his cards on the table.

S

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Dislike Dislike:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Jun 30, 2019)

Mad Dog said:


> OK, you started the thread "Which is the better fighter, P-40F or Typhoon?", when it is obvious from your posts that you had already decided that you thought the P-40F was better and were completely unwilling to consider the copious evidence to the contrary. Indeed, you treat any criticism of the P-40F's record as some form of nationalist slight. The Typhoon wasn't just a bombtruck nor just used for defending against low-level _Jabos_. RAF pilots like Laurence "Pinky" Stark became aces flying sweeps over occupied France in the Typhoon in 1943 and 1944. I suspect you chose the Typhoon for your comparison because you realise how badly the P-40 stacked up against just about every other Allied fighter of the day. You failed. The Hawker Typhoon was the better fighter and it's continued use in Europe, right up until VE-day, long after the P-40 had been banished to less dangerous theatres, simply underlines the point.


There were at least 3 units still flying the p40 in Europe on VE day. The 450th RAAF, and I believe the 250th, and 145th?although id have to double check the nomenclature on the 2nd two to be sure.
There was also a Russian front line unit still using them until the end at least according to one Russian officer although ive never been able to find out anything else about this unit anywhere else so take that one for what it's worth but there were at least 3 for sure and quite possibly more units still using the Warhawk on VE day in Europe.It had not bean banished to less dangerous theaters.
While imho I would agree with you that the Typhoon is the better plane as one would expect from a latter design I think the ultimate test of how an aircraft stacked up against other aircraft allied or otherwise is efficacy. If a design is successful as the p40 inarguably was then by definition it does not" stack up poorly against other designs". At least if performance is to be any measure..........and I can't think of a better one.


----------



## Schweik (Jun 30, 2019)

That has been part of the gist of the thread and the point I thought it might make (though again honestly, I didn't know how it would turn out). There are many ways to measure the merits of a wartime aircraft and just about all of them come up in various threads on this site. The most popular are related to performance: top speed, critical altitude and operational ceiling, rate of climb and dive, power to weight ratio and so on. Turbo's and two stage superchargers. Then armament. Then, range. Then maneuverability - rate of climb, dive, roll rate, turn rates (instantaneous and sustained).

Then there are the less easily quantifiable traits like handling and maintenance. Things like how often did the guns jam or how often did the engines break down. How often did they stall or go into spins and how easily could the pilot recover when they did. How often they suffered from serious design flaws and how long did it take to fix those.

Then there are things like pilot testimony, on both sides -pilots who flew them, Allies who fought alongside them and below them on the ground, and enemy pilots who fought against them.

Finally there are the quantifiable effects: ground targets destroyed, ships destroyed, air to air victories claimed, losses per sortie, number of aces, and, by consulting the records of both sides, verifiable victories in air to air combat.

Sometimes an aircraft that looks good by one set of criteria doesn't look as good by another. And sometimes an aircraft that did well or poorly in one well known Theater did the opposite in another place maybe not as well known.

The P-40 was an American plane, and the most famous unit was the Amercian Volunteer group in Burma. But it actually had it's most telling effects of the war in the hands of British, Australian, New Zealander, Canadian and South African Pilots... and by Russian pilots. American pilots also played an important role in some places but if we agree the Germans were the greater threat to the Allied cause, it was the British / Commonwealth and Soviet aces who flew the aircraft in the critical years of 1941 and 1942 who had the most effect on the outcome of the war. It was one of the aircraft critical to stabilizing the air war and helping to tilt the balance back into the Allied favor on many fronts.

When the USAAF arrived in force in the Med in 1942, they embedded with the DAF and learned their hard won lessons on how to use the aircraft against the German and Italian pilots they faced. The American pilots were lucky because they had a higher performing version of the plane, with a British designed engine that gave them better odds against their Axis foes. They also came in using tactics which had become standard Allied procedure, but which had sadly lagged in the MTO.

This gave them a little bit of an edge in terms of outcomes, not because of Spitfires or P-38s flying top cover because they usually weren't, not because the Germans were out of good pilots because that wasn't true either.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Dislike Dislike:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Jun 30, 2019)

Schweik said:


> To the contrary, I really had no idea. Again, if you read the thread you'll know how it started - from another thread when in a debate about the merits of low-level fighters, I mentioned the Typhoon. Someone said the Typhoon was way out of the league of the P-40, and I said Ok let's hash that one out. I did not, at the time, know that the air-to-air victory claim totals of the Typhoon were less than 1/2 of the claims for just that one (Merlin Engined) subtype of the P-40. I did not know that roughly the same number of both aircraft had been produced during the war. I didn't know about the poor roll and turn performance of the Typhoon. I didn't know the full extent of the teething problems faced by the Typhoon or what numerous pilots who flew it had to say about it's suitability as a fighter. This all emerged during the course of the thread.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I would agree that, although I still feel the Typhoon to be the better plane of the two, 
it certainly seems like a much closer contest to me now than i would have thought before reading the new information presented in this thread. Lot's of good stuff here about both planes I didn't know.


----------



## pbehn (Jun 30, 2019)

Schweik said:


> I don't see what that has to do with comparing the number of aces who flew either type.
> 
> S


If you compare aces then a Sopwith Camel will always outclass an F-22.

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


----------



## Schweik (Jun 30, 2019)

pbehn said:


> If you compare aces then a Sopwith Camel will always outclass an F-22.



Difference being there wasn't a 100 year time gap between when the Typhoon was used and when the P-40 was used  In fact not even a one year difference.

This does give me a little more insight into how badass you think the Typhoon is though...

Reactions: Dislike Dislike:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Jun 30, 2019)

Schweik said:


> That has been part of the gist of the thread and the point I thought it might make (though again honestly, I didn't know how it would turn out). There are many ways to measure the merits of a wartime aircraft and just about all of them come up in various threads on this site. The most popular are related to performance: top speed, critical altitude and operational ceiling, rate of climb and dive, power to weight ratio and so on. Turbo's and two stage superchargers. Then armament. Then, range. Then maneuverability - rate of climb, dive, roll rate, turn rates (instantaneous and sustained).
> 
> Then there are the less easily quantifiable traits like handling and maintenance. Things like how often did the guns jam or how often did the engines break down. How often did they stall or go into spins and how easily could the pilot recover when they did. How often they suffered from serious design flaws and how long did it take to fix those.
> 
> ...


Very interesting stuff. For my money dependability, handling characteristics, and stall/ spin qualities are the too often overlooked qualities that made a huge difference in how effective a design was.


----------



## pbehn (Jun 30, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Difference being there wasn't a 100 year time gap between when the Typhoon was used and when the P-40 was used  In fact not even a one year difference.
> 
> This does give me a little more insight into how badass you think the Typhoon is though...


There is no insight required, in my view of WW2 aircraft the Typhoon comes very low on the "impressed" scale. It did have 4 cannon and was fast and could match the FW190 in most areas though. It just needed a new engine, fuselage, wings and cockpit.


----------



## Mad Dog (Jun 30, 2019)

pbehn said:


> There is no insight required, in my view of WW2 aircraft the Typhoon comes very low on the "impressed" scale. It did have 4 cannon and was fast and could match the FW190 in most areas though. It just needed a new engine, fuselage, wings and cockpit.


Whereas the P-40F just needed replacing with a P-47 to be successful.

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


----------



## Mad Dog (Jun 30, 2019)

michael rauls said:


> There were at least 3 units still flying the p40 in Europe on VE day.....


 By "in Europe" I'm guessing you mean bombing in Italy against negligible aerial opposition. That's a far different proposition to the Typhoons flying over Germany in the last months of the War, when they could and did still meet all manner of Luftwaffe fighters, even jets.

Reactions: Disagree Disagree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Jun 30, 2019)

Mad Dog said:


> Whereas the P-40F just needed replacing with a P-47 to be successful.


The p40 was a mid 30s design( a p36 with a liquid cooled engine slapped on it) that was still in front line service in several theaters, including Europe till wars end.
That in itself is a stunning achievement but in addition it played pivotal roles in several theaters, had a far positive kill/ loss ratio( I've read alot of different figures here but all of them far in the positive, and according to one of the other posters here whom i have no reason to doubt it had the 3rd highest claims to planes produced ratio, behind only the p51 and I believe F6f.
I am honestly curious, not to be argumentative but honestly curious by what metric do you hold the Warhawk to be a failure? I am honestly willing to re consider my impression of it but so far im not seeing a reason to.


----------



## Mad Dog (Jun 30, 2019)

Schweik said:


> I did not, at the time, know that the air-to-air victory claim totals of the Typhoon were less than 1/2 of the claims for just that one (Merlin Engined) subtype of the P-40.


 I really don't think you want to get into a discussion about USAAF claims. If you want to go that route, then the P-40F shot down the whole Luftwaffe three times over! Please go and tell all the Mustang pilots they were lying, there were no Jerries over Berlin in 1944 because the P-40F FGs shot down all the Jerries in 1943.

Reactions: Optimistic Optimistic:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jun 30, 2019)

pbehn said:


> It just needed a new engine, fuselage, wings and cockpit.


You mean as in "Tempest"?

Reactions: Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Mad Dog (Jun 30, 2019)

michael rauls said:


> ….by what metric do you hold the Warhawk to be a failure?.....


 I don't, I just don't think it was as good a fighter as the Typhoon. But if you want the opinion of pilots that actually flew it, many DAF Commonwealth pilots actually refused to and asked for posting to Hurricane units instead! Even those that became aces in it were not blind to the P-40s many vices. As Jim "Eddie" Edwards put it:
_"In my estimation, the Kittyhawk was not an easy aircraft to fly properly and, as a result, we lost a good number of pilots while training. Some Hurricane pilots just flatly refused to fly it, *preferring to go back to the Hurricane squadrons*. In the first few months after conversion to Kittyhawks, all the squadrons lost heavily to the 109s. It didn't seem to matter whether they were sprogs, sergeant pilots or Battle of Britain veterans. The 109s still hacked them down._..."
With the instability of the Kittyhawk in the lateral plane at changing speeds, Jim said:
_"...in a dog-fight with violent changes of speed, it was all one could do to fly the aircraft...." _
Regarding the Kittyhawk II and III:
_"260 Squadron flew the Kitty IIs from 1 September '42 to 17 December '42, when the squadron received Kitty IIIs.....Eventually, with the Mk.III , the Kittyhawk became a good, stable fighting aircraft although it never did have enough power or climbing ability compared to the Me.109s or Spitfires.....The cruising speed of the Kittyhawk II was reasonably fast and equal to the Spit.V and the Mk.III was comparable to the Spit.IX. However, the Kittyhawk didn't jump when the throttle was advanced to full power and it didn't climb worth a damn like the Spitfire. It would turn inside the 109 but not as easily as the Spitfire."_
Hardly a ringing endorsement.

Reactions: Old Old:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jun 30, 2019)

Mad Dog said:


> By "in Europe" I'm guessing you mean bombing in Italy against negligible aerial opposition. That's a far different proposition to the Typhoons flying over Germany in the last months of the War, when they could and did still meet all manner of Luftwaffe fighters, even jets.



Wait I thought there weren't any good Luftwaffe pilots left by 1942? Which is it?

Reactions: Dislike Dislike:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Jun 30, 2019)

Mad Dog said:


> I really don't think you want to get into a discussion about USAAF claims. If you want to go that route, then the P-40F shot down the whole Luftwaffe three times over! Please go and tell all the Mustang pilots they were lying, there were no Jerries over Berlin in 1944 because the P-40F FGs shot down all the Jerries in 1943.


That goes for all types in all air forces mostly due to reasons not related to any intentional malfeasance. That is why claims are best used in a comparative manner and it that way are valid for comparison from the p40 to other types unless there is some reason to believe that p40 pilots were of inherently poorer judgement of events or of lesser integrity than pilots of other types.


----------



## Schweik (Jun 30, 2019)

Mad Dog said:


> I really don't think you want to get into a discussion about USAAF claims. If you want to go that route, then the P-40F shot down the whole Luftwaffe three times over! Please go and tell all the Mustang pilots they were lying, there were no Jerries over Berlin in 1944 because the P-40F FGs shot down all the Jerries in 1943.



Right, because USAAF pilots overclaimed more than German, Russian, Japanese or British pilots? 

This has been hashed out, please feel free to delve into it. We have comparisons of German and Allied claims and losses for every day of combat in the Med well into 1944, and the numbers do speak for themselves. I already reposted some of them recently.




By the way, I promised you a quote, here it is. It's from *Rudolf Sinner*, technical officer and pilot for II.JG 27. According to this he was a 39 victory experten. This passage is from Mediterranean Air War, Volume 2, by Christopher Shores, et al, pages 26 and 27. Bold emphasis is from me. He thought the P-40s weren't so great but he did note they were very good for bomber escort:

"_We only met British bomber formations occassionally. If we were able to attack, they were nearly always covered by a strong British fighter formation, and the attack generally split up into individual attacks between fighters. *The Curtiss P-40, although not as good an aircraft to hunt the Bf 109s in, was an excellent aircraft to fly close escort to bombers. It was very dangerous to attack a bomber formation escorted by the manouverable Curtiss's, and without prospects.* Another reason for the relatively light losses of the British bombers was the excellent tight and clean formation flying. They held formation even in heavy flak with admirable courage, and this enabled them to defend themselves with the very concentrated fire of their rear gunners, as well as helping the fighters covering them.

The Germans operated in the hunting grounds of the British fighters, mainly with bombers (Ju 87s in the majority of cases) *We did not fly many offensive missions with fighters*, and for the British fighters it was relatively easy to attack our bombers with good chances of success._"

and on DAF tactics:

_"Very seldom did we meet British formations of numerical inferiority. The rule was for two, four or six Bf 109s to meet enemy fighters in strengths of from 12 to 20 aircraft. *The British units always flew very low, and always in very senseless combat formations*. This pleased us, but we were unable to understand it. The British flying facilitated the German fighter pilots to see the enemy first, apoproach unseen, and choose the position of attack at will, while the British lost mobility and visibility. from one mission to the next I was afraid the British must recognize the cause of their helplessness, and change their formation to a looser one. But, God be praised! my fears were groundless! *I met my first fighter opponents flying correct tactical formations over Tunisia, and they were Americans. *I believe British tactics in Africa were wrong; they were based on numbers, 'flock tactics, and, as a last resort, defensive circles."_

and on the Spitfire:

_"It was unintelligible to me that the British built Hurricanes and used them against the Germans in 1942. Likewise I was astonished that they used the Curtiss for other tasks than bomber escort. These poitnts, together with insufficient armament (machine guns in the wings) and bada cannon ammunition, were a blessing to us. It was a mistake that the Spitfires arrived in Africa so late. In the course of my not too frequent encounters with Spitfire squadrons in Africa, I had the impression that the pilots were not using the very dangerous mertis of this type to the best advantage. The spitfire squadrons in Africa - contrary to those on the channel front - operated in a heavy and clumsy way. "_

It's possible this 'heaviness' he refers to was due to the effects of the Vokes filter, or possibly pilots not as well trained or as familiar on the type. Or just that the matchup between Spit V and Bf 109F4 or G2 was a lot closer than Spit I or II vs. Bf 109E4 etc.

Reactions: Dislike Dislike:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Mad Dog (Jun 30, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Wait I thought there weren't any good Luftwaffe pilots left by 1942? Which is it?


By 1945 the good ones left with good fighters, fuel and ammo weren't fighting against the P-40Fs over Italy, they were fighting over Germany. Please pretend otherwise, it just makes you even funnier.


----------



## Schweik (Jun 30, 2019)

michael rauls said:


> That goes for all types in all air forces mostly due to reasons not related to any intentional malfeasance. That is why claims are best used in a comparative manner and it that way are valid for comparison from the p40 to other types unless there is some reason to believe that p40 pilots were of inherently poorer judgement of events or of lesser integrity than pilots of other types.



Especially since most of the Aces who flew P-40s in the Med were British / Commonwealth pilots who went on to score many victories in other types like Spitfires etc. Why would they lie when flying P-40s and then suddenly become honest when they begin flying another type?

Reactions: Dislike Dislike:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jun 30, 2019)

Mad Dog said:


> By 1945 the good ones left with good fighters, fuel and ammo weren't fighting against the P-40Fs over Italy, they were fighting over Germany. Please pretend otherwise, it just makes you even funnier.



My understanding, and please correct me if I'm wrong, is that by June 1944 the Typhoon was being used almost exclusively as a bomber /or ground attack plane. This is why they didn't score many victories from that time onward. The _Tempest_ was probably tangling with and maybe shooting down Me 262s and Fw 190D's and other exotic baddassery of the Luftwaffe, but I don't think the Typhoon was.

I also believe most of the Luftwaffe war effort by 1945, such as it was, was actually 1) on the Russian Front where they were facing La-7s, Yak-3s and Yak 9s, and 2) against the heavy bombers and their escorts at high altitude, which would by that time in daylight be P-51s for the most part, right?

Reactions: Dislike Dislike:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Mad Dog (Jun 30, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Right, because USAAF pilots overclaimed more than German, Russian, Japanese or British pilots?
> 
> This has been hashed out, please feel free to delve into it. We have comparisons of German and Allied claims and losses for every day of combat in the Med well into 1944, and the numbers do speak for themselves. I already reposted some of them recently.
> 
> ...

Reactions: Old Old:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Mad Dog (Jun 30, 2019)

So please do point out the section where he mentions the experience of flying against the Typhoon? Oh, he doesn't! So all your post does is illustrate how easy he found it to shoot down P-40s. Again, not exactly a ringing endorsement.

Reactions: Dislike Dislike:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jun 30, 2019)

Mad Dog said:


> I don't, I just don't think it was as good a fighter as the Typhoon. But if you want the opinion of pilots that actually flew it, many DAF Commonwealth pilots actually refused to and asked for posting to Hurricane units instead! Even those that became aces in it were not blind to the P-40s many vices. As Jim "Eddie" Edwards put it:
> _"In my estimation, the Kittyhawk was not an easy aircraft to fly properly and, as a result, we lost a good number of pilots while training. Some Hurricane pilots just flatly refused to fly it, *preferring to go back to the Hurricane squadrons*. In the first few months after conversion to Kittyhawks, all the squadrons lost heavily to the 109s. It didn't seem to matter whether they were sprogs, sergeant pilots or Battle of Britain veterans. The 109s still hacked them down._..."



If you read what he wrote there carefully, he's referring to inadequate training on type. There was one squadron which went back to Hurricanes just as he described, they did not exactly excel in combat.



> With the instability of the Kittyhawk in the lateral plane at changing speeds, Jim said:
> _"...in a dog-fight with violent changes of speed, it was all one could do to fly the aircraft...." _
> Regarding the Kittyhawk II and III:
> _"260 Squadron flew the Kitty IIs from 1 September '42 to 17 December '42, when the squadron received Kitty IIIs.....Eventually, with the Mk.III , the Kittyhawk became a good, stable fighting aircraft although it never did have enough power or climbing ability compared to the Me.109s or Spitfires.....The cruising speed of the Kittyhawk II was reasonably fast and equal to the Spit.V and the Mk.III was comparable to the Spit.IX. However, the Kittyhawk didn't jump when the throttle was advanced to full power and it didn't climb worth a damn like the Spitfire. It would turn inside the 109 but not as easily as the Spitfire."_
> Hardly a ringing endorsement.



And yet he seems to have shot down 18 or 19 Luftwaffe aircraft in it, mostly Bf 109s, including two _experten_ - Otto Shulz on June 17, 1942 and Gunter Steinhausen on Sept 6, 1942.

All these quotes have been posted to the thread before. I have his memoir. Edwards, like Caldwell and Bobby Gibbes and Neville Duke and Billy Drake - talked about the inadequate training on the type and the bad tactics being the main reasons for the problems they did have.

Reactions: Dislike Dislike:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jun 30, 2019)

Mad Dog said:


> So please do point out the section where he mentions the experience of flying against the Typhoon? Oh, he doesn't! So all your post does is illustrate how easy he found it to shoot down P-40s. Again, not exactly a ringing endorsement.



Did you read this part? "_ *The Curtiss P-40, although not as good an aircraft to hunt the Bf 109s in, was an excellent aircraft to fly close escort to bombers. It was very dangerous to attack a bomber formation escorted by the manouverable Curtiss's, and without prospects.*_ "

This is basically what I said upthread. The Spit, once it got there, was used to defend the bases and fight close to the front lines. The P-40 was used as an escort, and in particular the (mostly American flown) Merlin engined P-40s were escorting large formations of B-25s and other medium bombers which basically wrecked all the German airfields in Tunisia and helped win the battles leading to the German collapse in North Africa.

Reactions: Dislike Dislike:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jun 30, 2019)

Anyway, I've said my piece on this, and the data speaks for itself at this point and it's all already been posted. That quote from Rudolph Sinner wasn't transcribed before here so far as I know but the effort doesn't seem appreciated. I sense a certain mounting hysteria, which means it's probably a good time for me to take a break from the thread for a day or two.

Reactions: Dislike Dislike:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Mad Dog (Jun 30, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Especially since most of the Aces who flew P-40s in the Med were British / Commonwealth pilots who went on to score many victories in other types like Spitfires etc. Why would they lie when flying P-40s and then suddenly become honest when they begin flying another type?


 Apart from the fact you just claimed the USAAF P-40F units won the War by themselves, the Commonwealth P-40 aces are all very clear - to a man, they say the P-40 was the worst fighter they flew! Many of the Allied aces went on to fly Spitfires, Typhoons and Tempests over Germany, and not one of them said "Gee, I wish I was flying a P-40F now!" Billy Drake was clear in his disdain for the Kittyhawk, as was Clive Caldwell, Neville Duke, Bobby Gibbes, Eddie Edwards, just to name a few. Please find me even one P-40F jock that later switched to the P-47 or P-51 and regretted it.


----------



## Mad Dog (Jun 30, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Did you read this part? "_ *The Curtiss P-40, although not as good an aircraft to hunt the Bf 109s in, was an excellent aircraft to fly close escort to bombers. It was very dangerous to attack a bomber formation escorted by the manouverable Curtiss's, and without prospects.*_ "
> 
> This is basically what I said upthread. The Spit, once it got there, was used to defend the bases and fight close to the front lines. The P-40 was used as an escort, and in particular the (mostly American flown) Merlin engined P-40s were escorting large formations of B-25s and other medium bombers which basically wrecked all the German airfields in Tunisia and helped win the battles leading to the German collapse in North Africa.


----------



## wuzak (Jun 30, 2019)

michael rauls said:


> I've read alot of different figures here but all of them far in the positive, and according to one of the other posters here whom i have no reason to doubt it had the 3rd highest claims to planes produced ratio, behind only the p51 and I believe F6f.



The most useless and pointless stat ever dreamed up in regards to comparing fighter aircraft.

Reactions: Disagree Disagree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Jun 30, 2019)

Mad Dog said:


> I don't, I just don't think it was as good a fighter as the Typhoon. But if you want the opinion of pilots that actually flew it, many DAF Commonwealth pilots actually refused to and asked for posting to Hurricane units instead! Even those that became aces in it were not blind to the P-40s many vices. As Jim "Eddie" Edwards put it:
> _"In my estimation, the Kittyhawk was not an easy aircraft to fly properly and, as a result, we lost a good number of pilots while training. Some Hurricane pilots just flatly refused to fly it, *preferring to go back to the Hurricane squadrons*. In the first few months after conversion to Kittyhawks, all the squadrons lost heavily to the 109s. It didn't seem to matter whether they were sprogs, sergeant pilots or Battle of Britain veterans. The 109s still hacked them down._..."
> With the instability of the Kittyhawk in the lateral plane at changing speeds, Jim said:
> _"...in a dog-fight with violent changes of speed, it was all one could do to fly the aircraft...." _
> ...


Fair enough. The early models certainly had a reputation for being somewhat unstable. So I have read. But latter models( and were still talking pretty early in the war) remidied this problem, at least from what I gather. I think if I were used to flying something as stable as a Hurricane I wouldn't want to change to an early model p40 either but the p40s did do better in combat. The p40 was certainly not perfect but it was by any measure I can think of successful. By the time time we get to the F/L versions( the subject of this thread) you've got a pretty good aircraft.
Just about everything got hacked up by the 109s at first but it didn't stay that way.
There are certainly quotes by pilots that didn't care for it but some pilots did as well.
Maybe not a ringing endorsement but not a damnation either. In those quotes I find that the p40 is as fast as the Spitfire and 109 and turns inside the 109 and that the later mdels were indeed stable. And I would add the p40 had quite a bit more range. Doesn't matter how good your performance is if you can't get to where the fighting is.That said if the fighting were in range I would certainly rather be flying a Spitfire but sometimes, many times, that extra range is critical.
There is enough good and bad in those quotes one can fish out a few things to back up there preconceptions either way.
I think it's certainly fair to say the p40 was not without it's falts but also had enough good qualities to make it successful by any measure. Certainly much more successful than one would have been lead to believe by most of that which has been written about it over the years.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Mad Dog (Jun 30, 2019)

"....This is basically what I said upthread....." No, you claimed that the P-40F was the greatest fighter since sliced bread was invented! The RAF use of the Kittyhawk for escorts bordered on the suicidal, but they had to *BECAUSE THE KITTYHAWK COULDN'T CLIMB NOR ACCELLERATE FOR SHINOLA, AND WASN'T FAST ENOUGH TO CATCH THE 109s*. Their tactics were to place themselves between the bombers and the 109s and hope to avoid the hit with a quick turn, because it was all they could do! I'll say it again -*THE P-40 WAS SO POOR AS A FIGHTER IT WAS ALL THEY COULD DO*! In Europe, with Spitfires, the RAF flew fighter sweeps ahead of and above the bombers at the same altitudes as the 109s, they couldn't in the Desert because they had to use the P-40. When the USAAF started flying escorts over Germany they DID NOT FLY CLOSE ESCORTS because it was a defensive tactic that put them at a disadvantage. But then they could be more aggressive because they had the P-47 by then, not the P-40F. Please go read up on Hub Zemke's 56th FG and the fan tactic.


----------



## michael rauls (Jun 30, 2019)

wuzak said:


> The most useless and pointless stat ever dreamed up in regards to comparing fighter aircraft.


Well don't know that I totally agree. It certainly isn't as useful in evaluating aircraft as other stats but it would seem to have some value in that it tells how much has been achieved by the gross number of a particular type produced. I used it only because I was trying to think of every possible stat by which to measure the effectiveness of a fighter aircraft in response to a poster asserting the p40 as unsuccessful.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Mad Dog (Jun 30, 2019)

michael rauls said:


> .....I think if I were used to flying something as stable as a Hurricane I wouldn't want to change to an early model p40 either but the p40s did do better in combat.....


 No. Pilots like Lance Wade scored just as heavily in the Hurricane in the Desert. Wade was to become the leading Allied fighter ace in the Med before his death in January 1944.



michael rauls said:


> …..In those quotes I find that the p40 is as fast as the Spitfire....


 That was cruising speed. The Spit Vc, even with the Vokes filter, was faster than the P-40F at all altitudes, and - more importantly - could climb and accelerate much better.



michael rauls said:


> ….I think it's certainly fair to say the p40 was not without it's faults but also had enough good qualities to make it successful by any measure......


 Agreed, but nothing to say it was better than the Typhoon. Quite the opposite.


----------



## Mad Dog (Jun 30, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Anyway, I've said my piece on this, and the data speaks for itself at this point and it's all already been posted. That quote from Rudolph Sinner wasn't transcribed before here so far as I know but the effort doesn't seem appreciated. I sense a certain mounting hysteria, which means it's probably a good time for me to take a break from the thread for a day or two.


 All your data showed was your lack of research, and the only hysteria is your rabid defence of the P-40F against quite plain evidence that it was, in no way, better than the Typhoon.


----------



## michael rauls (Jun 30, 2019)

Mad Dog said:


> "....This is basically what I said upthread....." No, you claimed that the P-40F was the greatest fighter since sliced bread was invented! The RAF use of the Kittyhawk for escorts bordered on the suicidal, but they had to *BECAUSE THE KITTYHAWK COULDN'T CLIMB NOR ACCELLERATE FOR SHINOLA, AND WASN'T FAST ENOUGH TO CATCH THE 109s*. Their tactics were to place themselves between the bombers and the 109s and hope to avoid the hit with a quick turn, because it was all they could do! I'll say it again -*THE P-40 WAS SO POOR AS A FIGHTER IT WAS ALL THEY COULD DO*! In Europe, with Spitfires, the RAF flew fighter sweeps ahead of and above the bombers at the same altitudes as the 109s, they couldn't in the Desert because they had to use the P-40. When the USAAF started flying escorts over Germany they DID NOT FLY CLOSE ESCORTS because it was a defensive tactic that put them at a disadvantage. But then they could be more aggressive because they had the P-47 by then, not the P-40F. Please go read up on Hub Zemke's 56th FG and the fan tactic.


Jeez man....... I thought we were coming to a midleground there but apparently not. I suggest you go back and read the thread.
I never claimed the p40 was the greatest or anything like that. If you look through the thread you will find that I constantly held the Typhoon go be the better of the two.
I just asserted that the p40 was alot better than its been given credit for over the years and actually did pretty well. And as politely as I could corrected a few statements I knew to be false about it such as it being no longer used in Europe later in the war.
Also typing your points in bold face type doesn't make them anymore vallid..................and for whatever it's worth im familiar with the Zemke Fan.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
1 | Winner Winner:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Jun 30, 2019)

michael rauls said:


> Well don't know that I totally agree. It certainly isn't as useful in evaluating aircraft as other stats but it would seem to have some value in that it tells how much has been achieved by the gross number of a particular type produced. I used it only because I was trying to think of every possible stat by which to measure the effectiveness of a fighter aircraft in response to a poster asserting the p40 as unsuccessful.



There are way too many variables and unknowns in that statistic.

For example, how many of the aircraft produced actually went to combat squadrons, and how many of those squadrons actually did the role that the comparison is about (eg fighter, fighter-bomber, ground attack).

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Mad Dog (Jun 30, 2019)

Schweik said:


> If you read what he wrote there carefully, he's referring to inadequate training on type. There was one squadron which went back to Hurricanes just as he described, they did not exactly excel in combat.


 No, he is quite clearly expounding how unloved the Kittyhawk was. The fact that pilots would rather go back to Hurricane units, *even to units still flying Hurricane Is*, just underlines how poor the Kittyhawk models were. And Hurricane units were shooting down plenty of Axis aircraft during the same period, including the kill you claim below for the P-40.



Schweik said:


> .....And yet he seems to have shot down 18 or 19 Luftwaffe aircraft in it, mostly Bf 109s, including two _experten_ - Otto Shulz on June 17, 1942 and Gunter Steinhausen on Sept 6, 1942......


 And that is more of a mark of how good a pilot he was rather than the capabilities of the P-40. No disrespect to Edwards, but he caught Schulz whilst he was busy strafing a downed Hurricane. No dogfight, no turning, no climbing, he just took a shot at Schulz as he came across him, and didn't stick around to fight the other 109s there. To be honest, he probably could have made that kill in a P-26 Peashooter! As regards Steinhausen, it not clear exactly what happened, but Edwards seems to surprised a 109 at low level whilst it was concentrating on shooting down a Hurricane, in a big furball. There is some who credit the kill to a Hurricane of 127Sq RAF. Either way, it has zero bearing on a comparison of the P-40F and the Typhoon. It's like claiming the Brewster Buffalo shot down some Mitsubishi Zeros, therefore the Buffalo must be better than the Vought Corsair! The "logic" is simply farcical.



Schweik said:


> .....All these quotes have been posted to the thread before. I have his memoir. Edwards, like Caldwell and Bobby Gibbes and Neville Duke and Billy Drake - talked about the inadequate training on the type and the bad tactics being the main reasons for the problems they did have....


 And, yet again, still not evidence that the P-40F was as good as the Typhoon. 

Consider that the P-40F was slower than a Bf109F or G, couldn't climb with either, and couldn't accelerate to avoid them either. All the P-40F pilot could do was turn and pray. The Typhoon was at least faster than the Bf109F or G at lower and medium altitudes, had a better chance of catching one in a dive or a zoom climb, and had a bigger punch to knock them down with. The Typhoon cruised faster and accelerated faster than the P-40F, which means it was also better equipped to dictate the fight or escape an attack, unlike the P-40, which had to go defensive and rely on turning ability. Pretend all you like, the evidence clearly shows the Typhoon was the better fighter.


----------



## Mad Dog (Jun 30, 2019)

Apologies, I thought I was replying to Schweik. He seems to need the bold type and a 2-by-4 to hammer the facts home.

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


----------



## Mad Dog (Jun 30, 2019)

Schweik said:


> My understanding, and please correct me if I'm wrong, is that by June 1944 the Typhoon was being used almost exclusively as a bomber /or ground attack plane. This is why they didn't score many victories from that time onward. The _Tempest_ was probably tangling with and maybe shooting down Me 262s and Fw 190D's and other exotic baddassery of the Luftwaffe, but I don't think the Typhoon was.
> 
> I also believe most of the Luftwaffe war effort by 1945, such as it was, was actually 1) on the Russian Front where they were facing La-7s, Yak-3s and Yak 9s, and 2) against the heavy bombers and their escorts at high altitude, which would by that time in daylight be P-51s for the most part, right?

Reactions: Dislike Dislike:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 1, 2019)

One final time. To all parties involved, knock it off with the snide insults. My patience is running out, and I don’t like being ignored.


----------



## michael rauls (Jul 1, 2019)

wuzak said:


> There are way too many variables and unknowns in that statistic.
> 
> For example, how many of the aircraft produced actually went to combat squadrons, and how many of those squadrons actually did the role that the comparison is about (eg fighter, fighter-bomber, ground attack).


I agree. It's not the most pertinent statistic I can think of but I don't think id say it's totally worthless. It does measure a certain amount of what they call in the investment world" ROI" ir " return on investment" for whetever the reasons it occurred. Some of those will most assuredly be inherent to the characteristics of the aircraft in question itself and many as you point out due to extraneous factors.
However, like I said I was just trying to list every possible measure of success or lack thereof for the purposes of the discussion.


----------



## Kevin J (Jul 1, 2019)

wuzak said:


> There are way too many variables and unknowns in that statistic.
> 
> For example, how many of the aircraft produced actually went to combat squadrons, and how many of those squadrons actually did the role that the comparison is about (eg fighter, fighter-bomber, ground attack).



I agree, but IMHO, production to victories, does give a good idea of cost effectiveness, and you do need to run your war as cheaply as possible. 

So with the Mustang, exactly how many never made it out of the States to operational squadrons? One figure I came across was 6000. This would put the USAAF Mustang on the pedestal as the most cost effective single seat fighter in WW2 as it means an average of one aerial victory for every Mustang that reached a front line squadron. 

In the Pacific the RAAF scored 125 victories with their 294 Kittyhawk I's, II's and III's. Once the Spitfire VIII takes over the fighter role and their P-40N's take on the fighter-bomber role, victories fall to just 24.

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


----------



## Mad Dog (Jul 1, 2019)

".....I also believe most of the Luftwaffe war effort by 1945, such as it was, was actually 1) on the Russian Front where they were facing La-7s, Yak-3s and Yak 9s, and 2) against the heavy bombers and their escorts at high altitude, which would by that time in daylight be P-51s for the most part, right? "…. And not a P-40F in sight! Not even the Soviets, who had long-since sent their P-40s to back-line units. The Typhoons were still finding the odd combat, despite concentrating on ground-attack. By the way, the USAAF over Germany claimed more German jet kills than were actually flown by all the Luftwaffe jet units on all fronts, but I suppose they were all old P-40F pilots, so that is understandable.

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


----------



## Kevin J (Jul 1, 2019)

Mad Dog said:


> ".....I also believe most of the Luftwaffe war effort by 1945, such as it was, was actually 1) on the Russian Front where they were facing La-7s, Yak-3s and Yak 9s, and 2) against the heavy bombers and their escorts at high altitude, which would by that time in daylight be P-51s for the most part, right? "…. And not a P-40F in sight! Not even the Soviets, who had long-since sent their P-40s to back-line units. The Typhoons were still finding the odd combat, despite concentrating on ground-attack. By the way, the USAAF over Germany claimed more German jet kills than were actually flown by all the Luftwaffe jet units on all fronts, but I suppose they were all old P-40F pilots, so that is understandable.


The Luftwaffe did even better in the 1940 BoB when they claimed to have shot down over 2000 Spitfires, which meant those built in 1941.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Mad Dog (Jul 1, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> I agree, but IMHO, production to victories, does give a good idea of cost effectiveness, and you do need to run your war as cheaply as possible.
> 
> So with the Mustang, exactly how many never made it out of the States to operational squadrons? One figure I came across was 6000. This would put the USAAF Mustang on the pedestal as the most cost effective single seat fighter in WW2 as it means an average of one aerial victory for every Mustang that reached a front line squadron.


 True, not going to argue that the Mustang wasn't a very good fighter. But that's the P-51, not the P-40.



Kevin J said:


> In the Pacific the RAAF scored 125 victories with their 294 Kittyhawk I's, II's and III's. Once the Spitfire VIII takes over the fighter role and their P-40N's take on the fighter-bomber role, victories fall to just 24.


 By the time the Spits arrived the chances of meeting the Japanese in air combat was slight, hence the drop in kills. The Spitfires were so under-utilised in the fighter role they were soon being used for ground-attack as well, something that angered experienced pilots like Clive Caldwell. In New Guinea, it was a similar fate for the P-39 compared to the P-38. The P-38 had the range to go looking for the elusive Japanese, whilst the P-39 did not. But when the Japanese showed up, the P-39 still managed to shoot them down. George Welch is credited with four kills over Pearl Harbor on December 7th 1941. He was flying P-39s with the 36th Fighter Squadron of the 8th FG in New Guinea and scored three kills, all in one day, the whole six months he was with them, simply due to the lack of opportunities for combat. As soon as he transferred to a P-38 unit he got more opportunities and racked up nine more kills in only three months. Like the P-39 units, the RAAF Spitfire units didn't have the range to go looking for the Japanese.

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


----------



## michael rauls (Jul 1, 2019)

Mad Dog said:


> True, not going to argue that the Mustang wasn't a very good fighter. But that's the P-51, not the P-40.
> 
> By the time the Spits arrived the chances of meeting the Japanese in air combat was slight, hence the drop in kills. The Spitfires were so under-utilised in the fighter role they were soon being used for ground-attack as well, something that angered experienced pilots like Clive Caldwell. In New Guinea, it was a similar fate for the P-39 compared to the P-38. The P-38 had the range to go looking for the elusive Japanese, whilst the P-39 did not. But when the Japanese showed up, the P-39 still managed to shoot them down. George Welch is credited with four kills over Pearl Harbor on December 7th 1941. He was flying P-39s with the 36th Fighter Squadron of the 8th FG in New Guinea and scored three kills, all in one day, the whole six months he was with them, simply due to the lack of opportunities for combat. As soon as he transferred to a P-38 unit he got more opportunities and racked up nine more kills in only three months. Like the P-39 units, the RAAF Spitfire units didn't have the range to go looking for the Japanese.


It would seem to me that claims to production or return on investment if you like would hold the same degree of validity whatever that may be whether it be used on the p51, the p40, or whatever. In other words, you can change the plane but the metric remains the same.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Jul 1, 2019)

michael rauls said:


> I agree. It's not the most pertinent statistic I can think of but I don't think id say it's totally worthless. It does measure a certain amount of what they call in the investment world" ROI" ir " return on investment" for whetever the reasons it occurred. Some of those will most assuredly be inherent to the characteristics of the aircraft in question itself and many as you point out due to extraneous factors.
> However, like I said I was just trying to list every possible measure of success or lack thereof for the purposes of the discussion.





Kevin J said:


> I agree, but IMHO, production to victories, does give a good idea of cost effectiveness, and you do need to run your war as cheaply as possible.
> 
> So with the Mustang, exactly how many never made it out of the States to operational squadrons? One figure I came across was 6000. This would put the USAAF Mustang on the pedestal as the most cost effective single seat fighter in WW2 as it means an average of one aerial victory for every Mustang that reached a front line squadron.
> 
> In the Pacific the RAAF scored 125 victories with their 294 Kittyhawk I's, II's and III's. Once the Spitfire VIII takes over the fighter role and their P-40N's take on the fighter-bomber role, victories fall to just 24.



If 3,000 fighters are made and only 200 are used in the fighter-only role, then the statistic is useless. Particularly if their use as fighters does not lead to much in the way of enemy contact.

It also does not value the role as a defensive aircraft, for example, which may involve a lot of sorties with no enemy contact. But still a valuable role.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Jul 1, 2019)

wuzak said:


> If 3,000 fighters are made and only 200 are used in the fighter-only role, then the statistic is useless. Particularly if their use as fighters does not lead to much in the way of enemy contact.
> 
> It also does not value the role as a defensive aircraft, for example, which may involve a lot of sorties with no enemy contact. But still a valuable role.



To me it makes a lot more sense than say the Corsair statistic of 19 victories per loss in aerial combat, as it takes into account training accidents, mechanical failures resulting in losses, wear and tare, write offs etc..


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jul 1, 2019)

michael rauls said:


> unless there is reason to believe that p40 pilots were of inherently poorer judgement than pilots of other types.


Of course! They consented to fly a Curtiss product. Isn't that proof enough?

Reactions: Funny Funny:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Jul 1, 2019)

wuzak said:


> If 3,000 fighters are made and only 200 are used in the fighter-only role, then the statistic is useless. Particularly if their use as fighters does not lead to much in the way of enemy contact.
> 
> It also does not value the role as a defensive aircraft, for example, which may involve a lot of sorties with no enemy contact. But still a valuable role.


After giving it some thought it seems that production to claims would have some validity as a statistic in one direction but not the other. That is seems there's no way a fighter aircraft gets to a high production to claims ratio without a good part of the reason being qualities inherent to the design itself( even with more oportunity you've still got tu shoot down the enemy) but a low ratio wouldn't nescesarily point to a defective design as there can be many mitigating factors as you pointed out.
That said it is certainly a crude metric to be sure. 
However, couple a high claims to production ratio and a kill/ loss ratio well into the positive and a low cost of production as we have here and it seems you've got a pretty successful aircraft from every angle for whatever the reasons.
What do think?

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


----------



## Kevin J (Jul 1, 2019)

michael rauls said:


> After giving it some thought it seems that production to claims would have some validity as a statistic in one direction but not the other. That is seems there's no way a fighter aircraft gets to a high production to claims ratio without a good part of the reason being qualities inherent to the design itself( even with more oportunity you've still got tu shoot down the enemy) but a low ratio wouldn't nescesarily point to a defective design as there can be many mitigating factors as you pointed out.
> That said it is certainly a crude metric to be sure.
> However, couple a high claims to production ratio and a kill/ loss ratio well into the positive and a low cost of production as we have here and it seems you've got a pretty successful aircraft from every angle for whatever the reasons.
> What do think?


In which case the P-40 outshines the Typhoon in both initial cost and numbers produced to victory ratio.


----------



## wuzak (Jul 1, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> In which case the P-40 outshines the Typhoon in both initial cost



Yes, the P-40 was cheaper to produce. That does not make it better or more capable.




Kevin J said:


> and numbers produced to victory ratio.



Which is why you like the statistic so much.

Number of victories by airframe is not the best comparison to start with, due to many factors, and victories per airframe produced is a much worse comparison.


----------



## pbehn (Jul 1, 2019)

If cost was ever an important stat the P-40 and Hurricane would still be in use. The cost of a P-38 only became a topic of discussion when there were single engine planes that could do the same job.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jul 1, 2019)

I did not ignore the moderation comment, and this post right here is my last reply to that particular forum member for 3 days in this thread. But this guy is saying things like "No, you claimed that the P-40F was the greatest fighter since sliced bread was invented!" and various other easily verifiable untruths, quite a few in caps etc.. He's basically trying to shout anyone down that disagrees with him.



Mad Dog said:


> Apart from the fact you just claimed the USAAF P-40F units won the War by themselves, the Commonwealth P-40 aces are all very clear - to a man, they say the P-40 was the worst fighter they flew! Many of the Allied aces went on to fly Spitfires, Typhoons and Tempests over Germany, and not one of them said "Gee, I wish I was flying a P-40F now!" Billy Drake was clear in his disdain for the Kittyhawk, as was Clive Caldwell, Neville Duke, Bobby Gibbes, Eddie Edwards, just to name a few. Please find me even one P-40F jock that later switched to the P-47 or P-51 and regretted it.



Please show me quotes from each of these pilots saying they had disdain for the Kittyhawk. P-40s were disparaged by Anglo-American military leadership and administrators, for understandable reasons (the altitude limitation was a serious flaw) but a lot of the pilots did like it and weren't shy about saying so. Some didn't that is certain, including some high scoring P-40 aces for example Neville Duke. But it's not hard to find those that did, for example contrary to your statement above, Billy Drake (see below).

AVG pilot Erik Shilling was a well known advocate for the P-40. Some of his comments included _"If you look up maneuverable in Webster's Dictionary, by all criteria the P-40 was more maneuverable. "_ and "_The P-40 was faster (354 mph with combat load vs a little over 300 for the Zero), the roll rate at 240-280 mph was 3 times faster and the aircraft could outdive the Zero." _

Australian P-40 quadruple P-40 Ace and 112 RAF sqn commander Clive Caldwell said the P-40 had "_almost no vices_" and that it "_would take a tremendous amount of punishment, violent aerobatics as well as enemy action_"

Nicky Barr, 3 RAAF P-40 double Ace noted: _"The Kittyhawk became, to me, a friend. It was quite capable of getting you out of trouble more often than not. It was a real warhorse."_

Robert DeHaven, 49th FG double ace and Silver Star winner, noted: _"If you flew wisely, the P-40 was a very capable aircraft. [It] could outturn a P-38, a fact that some pilots didn't realize when they made the transition between the two aircraft. " _

and

_"[Y]ou could fight a Jap on even terms, but you had to make him fight your way. He could outturn you at slow speed. You could outturn him at high speed. When you got into a turning fight with him, you dropped your nose down so you kept your airspeed up, you could outturn him. At low speed he could outroll you because of those big ailerons ... on the Zero. If your speed was up over 275, you could outroll [a Zero]. His big ailerons didn't have the strength to make high speed rolls... You could push things, too. Because ... f you decided to go home, you could go home. He couldn't because you could outrun him. [...] That left you in control of the fight."_

_Nikolai Golodnikov said in an interview:_

_"Actually, the P-40 could engage all Messerschmitts on equal terms, almost to the end of 1943. If you take into consideration all the 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 manoeuvre were good and fully competitive with enemy aircraft. Acceleration rate was a bit low, but when you got used to the engine, it was OK. We considered the P-40 a decent fighter plane"_

General Benjamin Davis of the 99th FS ("Tuskegee") had a lot of praise for and confidence in P-40s:

_"The P-40 operations in the Pacific and Europe were much like the F-86 and the MiG in Korea*. All the MiG's had to do was stay away from the F-86's; yet we had an eleven-to-one kill ratio of F-86's over MiG's**. Same thing with the P-40 and the Me 109. If the German fighters wanted to stay away, the P-40's couldn't get them. When the Me 109's came down to engage the P-40's we were superior."_

Charlie Hall also 99th FS said:

_"The P-40? Sure we liked them. Most of us got home that flew them. I don't think the real potential of that aircraft was ever realized. Anyway that's what we had and it did the job. I fought with four .50s. Took out the other two so I could carry more ammunition. "_

Tenth Air Force pilot Bob O'Neil (16th FS, 4 victories) ... who was stationed in the Assam Valley India and in Burma and fought over the 'hump' in the Himalayas, said:

_"I loved those P-40's. They had their faults; but they'd get you home when nothing else would. All our battles with the Japs were between 15,000 and 20,000 feet. We couldn't out-maneuver their fighters but we could out-dive them and the Hawk would take more punishment than anything we met. It was a sturdy, fine airplane."_

RAF 24-kill Ace Billy Drake (13 victories in the P-40) praised the heavy guns of the Kittyhawk and said in this interview:

_"Altogether, air to air it was just as good as anything we were liable to meet.” "The six 0.5 guns had a terrific effect" “If you were caught out, if you put it in a dive it went very fast”_

I can post plenty more examples if needed.

*General Davis was Director of Operations and Training, FEAF, Japan, fought over Korea and was commander of the 13th AF during the Korean War
**I know this isn't the actual ratio that is just a direct quote

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (Jul 1, 2019)

There is a lot of comment about the use of the Spitfire as a high level cover and the lack of range which impacted the targets that could be covered by the Spit V. A lot of this is true but one important factor seems to have been forgotten and that is the impact on the Luftwaffe. It would have been the Hight of folly for the Germans to assume that this raid or that, did or didn't have Spit V cover. 
The Luftwaffe had to work on the basis that any raid had the Spit V cover and plan/act accordingly. This would have limited their ability to patrol and the tactics they could use. A lesson that was repeated when the first Spit IX's arrived in the desert, as the impact they had was out of all proportion to the numbers deployed.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 1, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> In which case the P-40 outshines the Typhoon in both initial cost and numbers produced to victory ratio.




It ought to out shine the Typhoon, 1200-1300hp 12 cylinder engine vs 2200hp 24 cylinder engine. a 6100-6600lb empty weight airplane to an over 8000lb empty weight airplane,
I sure hope the P-40 was cheaper in initial cost. 

numbers produced to victories ratio has so many holes and big enough ones to drive a fleet of tractor trailers through all running parallel. 

The numbers for the British use of Typhoons and Spitfires over several months in 1944 has been posted at least twice. Same tactical air force, same theater, close to the same numbers of squadrons. same time period. Same enemy opposition. Yet the numbers of air to air kills and the number of bombs dropped are way off. 
You know, just maybe (heavy sarcasm) the planes were not tasked with the same job/missions during this time period even though operated by the same tactical air force.

This makes total nonsense out of the idea that you can compare different theaters at different times, against an enemy who's mix of aircraft is different and who has a different defensive set of problems of their own. Just saying there were 109s in NA and 109s in NW Europe therefore the defence was the same over looks pilot ability, fuel availability (both were short, bu thow short?) Priority of the defenders for engineering which types of air strikes/sweeps and so on. 

Neither plane operated in a vacuum, both had support from other types of fighters to a greater or lesser extent on different missions/days. 

One should note that the British (obviously delusional) built around 350 Typhoons after the US stopped making P-40s. and several hundred of the last P-40s built went directly to scrap yard/s. Fall of the 1944 and the US didn't want them and they couldn't find anybody else to foist them off on.

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


----------



## Schweik (Jul 1, 2019)

Ok, one more post sorry can't resist.

I'm not personally a fan of the production vs. victory ratio beyond a certain point. Someone posted statistics along these lines making the Defiant and the Fulmar look good. And I don't think victories can always be compared Theater to Theater. But it's hypocritical to say that victory claims aren't part of the assessment of a fighters value, and it's a bit hyperbolic to suggest that comparing a Typhoon and a P-40F, both of which fought the same main opponent (Bf 109s and Fw 190s) in the same time period with some of the same pilots and were produced in roughly the same numbers is the equivalent to matching up an F-22 with a Sopwith Camel. Both were primarily used as fighter bombers in that part of the world with a limited number used primarily as fighters, both for the most part faced the same aircraft. So it's not beyond the pale to take that factor in to consideration, I just wouldn't say it was the only or more important criteria.

As for the scrapyards, my understanding about the Typhoon was that almost all of them did end up in the scrapyard as soon as the war was over and nobody wanted them. Some P-40s by contrast were still being used into the 1950's.

The Typhoon was a very promising but also flawed design which was extremely fast, but it had long teething troubles and disappointing outcomes in the field from 1941- 1943, with it's problems being partly resolved by mid 1944. The design was only ultimately 'fixed' however by the introduction of the Tempest, Sea Fury and so on, which had outstanding performance and lived up to the promise of the original Typhoon design.

The P-40 speaking more broadly than just the P-40F, was also a flawed design which was never really fixed, only incrementally improved, but was rather replaced by other aircraft (mainly P-47 and P-51). However in spite of the flaws it to a large extent overperformed in terms of outcomes and remained in use far longer than expected. It peaked in utility in 1942 and 1943, but it was certainly obsolete by the second quarter of 1944. That it could still be used as a fighter bomber in Italy and as a fighter in Burma and the Pacific had to do more with the general decline of Axis air power and the complete and partial failure of a lot of other new Allied designs. The P-40 could get the job done without too many losses and as a result, so it kept getting put back into the breach as it were.

I thought it would be interesting to compare the two types - one a very advanced design with some flaws, the other a much more old fashioned design also with flaws but certain saving graces. The Typhoon was, in fits and starts and with a lot of setbacks on the way, slowly on it's way up to glory, albeit only realized in the Tempest. The P-40 was gradually on it's way down to obsolescence, but it remained useful far longer than it seems like it should have. I think they med somewhere in the middle.

As for how the Typhoon performed as a fighter, if you are really interested in that question (as opposed to just really wanting to win an argument) I recommend listening to the voices of actual Typhoon pilots, which you can do here, here, and here. I have yet to see that kind of dismal assessment from a P-40 combat pilot.

*Regarding the Spitfire V*
It was the best fighter on the Allied side when it arrived in the MTO. However I think the significance of it's presence was exaggerated in the historical shorthand about that part of the war and is still being done here in this thread. I previously posted a breakdown which you can read here of all the air combat in the Med for October of 1942, pulled from Shores. It might be worth revisiting some of the stats from that post:

In that rather important month, Spitfires made claims on 15 days, P-40 pilots (RAF and US together) made claims on 25 days.
Spitfire pilots made claims for a total of 35.5 victories on 15 days
P-40 pilots made claims for 85.5 victories (56.5 by RAF, 29 by US) on 25 days
Hurricane pilots made claims for 12 victories
Actual Allied Losses were 10 x spitfires shot down and 1 crash landed, 39 x P-40s of all types shot down (3 x USAAF) and 14 crash landed, and 17 x Hurricanes shot down and 2 crash landed, plus 6 bombers shot down.
Axis loses were 34 Bf 109s shot down (mostly F models, but 10 G models) and 7 crash landed, 10 x MC 202 shot down with 8 crash landed, 6 CR 42s shot down (all in one raid), and 18 bombers shot down (mostly Stukas).
Total Allied Claims vs. Axis losses (including crash-landed aircraft): 133 claims / 83 actual losses

From here you can see that by that point, in the time of the crucial battle of 2nd El Alamein, there weren't enough Spitfires in Theater yet and the P-40 units (still mostly RAF / Commonwealth at that point) were still bearing the brunt of combat against the Axis air forces.

There are two other points to keep in mind about the Spitfire in particular. First, Bf 109F4s and G2s could and did routinely attack Spitfire Vs from above. It was such a problem in fact that various attempts were made to lighten the Spit. Second, the Spitfires were simply around not in all parts of the front. The limited range also played a role in that. They didn't fly all the time either. What's more, the P-40s and the Spitfires often flew on different days. Nor did the German pilots particularly fear the Spitfires in the Med, as you may have noted in the German pilot testimony quoted upthread. The vokes filter seems to have hampered the Spitfires performance somewhat.

That said, in terms of outcomes, the Spitfires clearly punched above their weight. But so did the USAAF P-40 units and the RAF units flying the later model P-40s, if not quite to the same extent.

So I think the notion that the P-40 only achieved success in the later part of the Mediterranean Air War due to the arrival of the Spitfires is clearly incorrect.

Almost all the Allied victory claims against Axis fighters were by the Spitfires and late model (P-40F/L, Kittyhawk II and Kittyhawk III) P-40s. The Hurricanes and older P-40s (Kittyhawk I and Tomahawk) shot down most of the bombers.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 1, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Someone posted statistics along these lines making the Defiant and the Fulmar look good.



The Fulmar looks good. they only built about 600 of them. 

The Defiant numbers look like crap, they built 1064 of them. Number of _claims _after the summer of 1940 is around 50. There were only 2 saudrons operational in the Summer of 1940. 



Schweik said:


> comparing a Typhoon and a P-40F, both of which fought the same main opponent (Bf 109s and Fw 190s) in the same time period and were produced in the same numbers.



You are using a faulty timeline. Yes they fought at the same time but there were only 1200 Typhoons built by the time Curtiss stopped making P-40Ls, yes it takes time to get fighters from the US to the Med theater, but the production of Typhoons was such that they didn't reach the numbers of Merlin P-40s built until around 9-10 months after the last P-40L was built. 

There were more squadrons of Merlin P-40s flying for most of that period. And flying out of England the Typhoons had top cover available (but not always used, from Spit IXs for most of that time.) 

I believe there were 4 squadrons of Typhoons available at Dieppe and there were also 4 sqaudrons of Spit IXs? The Typhoons were NOT being used in large numbers as a general purpose fighter for most of the time the Merlin P-40s were in combat. By the end of 1942 there up to a dozen Typhoon squadrons either operational or working up (corrections please) but many of the newer ones were being tasked with cross channel ground attack missions and never really flew fighter sweeps or escort type missions. The Mission profile being pretty much a tip and run raid, get in, strafe or bomb and get out. No swanning about looking for a dog fight to get into. With 50-100 miles of water to cross both ways on most missions (few missions were from Dover to Calais) fuel management would be critical. If you are carrying drop tanks you are not carrying bombs. 


Your comparison is just too simplistic.


----------



## Schweik (Jul 1, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> The Fulmar looks good. they only built about 600 of them.
> 
> The Defiant numbers look like crap, they built 1064 of them. Number of _claims _after the summer of 1940 is around 50. There were only 2 saudrons operational in the Summer of 1940.



Yes, I mean production to victory claim ratio and other similar type comparisons like sortie to victory claim and so on. You do have to take in a wider picture. I think it's part of the analysis but certainly not definitive.



> You are using a faulty timeline. Yes they fought at the same time but there were only 1200 Typhoons built by the time Curtiss stopped making P-40Ls, yes it takes time to get fighters from the US to the Med theater, but the production of Typhoons was such that they didn't reach the numbers of Merlin P-40s built until around 9-10 months after the last P-40L was built.



I would still say the timelines overlap considerably. There were only ~2000 Merlin P-40s produced right? And their use fell off rapidly after 1943 precisely because there were so few produced compared to their high rate of use in the field during that intense period of combat from mid 1942- early 1944. Once the ones flying in the field were worn out or used up, there were no more replacements. After that the P-40F was over basically because Packard was making V-1650-3 for the new Mustang variants. The Typhoon had a slower ramp-up in terms of both production and use in the field but that ramp-up lasted longer.

So you can take that longer time period into consideration, including the Typhoons heyday after June 1944, or you can handicap it and compare 1943 with 1943, and say 1200 Typhoons in the field vs. 2000 Warhawks. Either way I think it is in the ballpark, it's not a perfect symmetry but it's actually fairly close as these things go. I think the objections are a bit overstated.



> There were more squadrons of Merlin P-40s flying for most of that period. And flying out of England the Typhoons had top cover available (but not always used, from Spit IXs for most of that time.)
> 
> I believe there were 4 squadrons of Typhoons available at Dieppe and there were also 4 sqaudrons of Spit IXs? The Typhoons were NOT being used in large numbers as a general purpose fighter for most of the time the Merlin P-40s were in combat. By the end of 1942 there up to a dozen Typhoon squadrons either operational or working up (corrections please) but many of the newer ones were being tasked with cross channel ground attack missions and never really flew fighter sweeps or escort type missions. The Mission profile being pretty much a tip and run raid, get in, strafe or bomb and get out. No swanning about looking for a dog fight to get into. With 50-100 miles of water to cross both ways on most missions (few missions were from Dover to Calais) fuel management would be critical. If you are carrying drop tanks you are not carrying bombs.



Well again, there is overlap. The intended use of the P-40s after mid-1942 was mostly as fighter bombers. DAF policy was to more or less ignore the Luftwaffe, since they outnumbered them, and to concentrate on affecting the ground war by attacking tanks etc. Which did turn out to be a better strategy than the Luftwaffe was using (help the experten rack up kills), but it was also somewhat short sighted as the Luftwaffe could not be ignored. The P-40s were used in spite of the intentions of the leadership as fighters and some of the US P-40Fs in particular pressed into service in fighter sweeps and escort missions mainly due to the lack of other suitable aircraft, the P-38 being a slight or partial disappointment. The P-38 ultimately settled into what seemed to be it's proper niche of long range, high altitude escort for the (surprisingly effective) B-24s, while the P-40s escorted medium bombers and did medium altitude, medium range fighter sweeps, and the Spitfires did interceptor and short range fighter sweep missions.

This was typical of the history of the P-40 in that it was intended to be basically on it's way out, into the lesser mission of fighter-bomber strikes, but it was pressed back into service as a fighter.

Didn't the Typhoon also sometimes escort Mosquitoes and other fast bombers? Seems like it would be ideally suited for that.



> Your comparison is just too simplistic.



Perhaps, I would say it's a limited comparison. Obviously anything purely hypothetical like this has to be. But the objections to it are a bit too categorical in my opinion. (Not to mention in some cases emotional)

S


----------



## Kevin J (Jul 1, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> It ought to out shine the Typhoon, 1200-1300hp 12 cylinder engine vs 2200hp 24 cylinder engine. a 6100-6600lb empty weight airplane to an over 8000lb empty weight airplane,
> I sure hope the P-40 was cheaper in initial cost.
> 
> numbers produced to victories ratio has so many holes and big enough ones to drive a fleet of tractor trailers through all running parallel.
> ...


I'm taking a simplistic approach to Typhoon use. There was one fighter to every two ground attack squadrons so only 1100 fighters to 260 victories. So 4 to 1. Merlin Warhawk production 1681 to USA. About 600 victories. So 3 to 1 ratio.
Spitfire victories in NW Europe. Griffon Spitfires, about 1000, victories about 1000. Excellent. 2nd TAF Merlin Spitfires, 400? Awful, except where's the opposition? Answer being destroyed over Germany by the USAAF.


----------



## pbehn (Jul 1, 2019)

XBe02Drvr said:


> You mean as in "Tempest"?


Of course, reading the posts here you would think it didn't exist, why would you keep Typhoons in service when the war ended if you have the Tempest.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jul 1, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Total Allied Claims vs. Axis losses (including crash-landed aircraft): 133 claims / 83 actual losses


And I think that if you consulted the rabid canine you'd discover that all of the overclaiming was by P40 pilots.

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


----------



## wuzak (Jul 1, 2019)

Schweik said:


> And their use fell off rapidly after 1943 precisely because there were so few produced compared to their high rate of use in the field during that intense period of combat from mid 1942- early 1944. Once the ones flying in the field were worn out or used up, there were no more replacements. After that the P-40F was over basically because Packard was making V-1650-3 for the new Mustang variants. The Typhoon had a slower ramp-up in terms of both production and use in the field but that ramp-up lasted longer.



You do realise that Packard didn't stop making 1 stage 2 speed Merlins (XX series)? That in fact they went to Britain as the Merlin 28 for use in the Lancaster and Mosquito (actually a different variant with reversed coolant flow), as well as to Canadian Hurricane, Mosquito and Lancaster production and Australian Mosquito production?

I don't have the numbers, but I believe that single stage engine production was well in excess of 2 stage production.

The P-40F and L came about because the original contract to build Merlins in the US required that 1/3 (3,000 from 9,000) of production was for US consumption. The only suitable airframe at the time was the P-40, so that is what was done. After the initial contract was fulfilled, the Merlin P-40 was dropped, but had the USAAF had the desire for more P-40Fs the Packard's production of Merlins was probably sufficient.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Jul 1, 2019)

pbehn said:


> Of course, reading the posts here you would think it didn't exist, why would you keep Typhoons in service when the war ended if you have the Tempest.


The Tempest, now thers a phenomenal plane that really hasn't got its due over the years.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jul 1, 2019)

wuzak said:


> You do realise that Packard didn't stop making 1 stage 2 speed Merlins (XX series)? That in fact they went to Britain as the Merlin 28 for use in the Lancaster and Mosquito (actually a different variant with reversed coolant flow), as well as to Canadian Hurricane, Mosquito and Lancaster production and Australian Mosquito production?
> 
> I don't have the numbers, but I believe that single stage engine production was well in excess of 2 stage production.
> 
> The P-40F and L came about because the original contract to build Merlins in the US required that 1/3 (3,000 from 9,000) of production was for US consumption. The only suitable airframe at the time was the P-40, so that is what was done. After the initial contract was fulfilled, the Merlin P-40 was dropped, but had the USAAF had the desire for more P-40Fs the Packard's production of Merlins was probably sufficient.



I read about Canadian production of Packard merlins, and it's a bit confusing since it said that those Merlin 28 etc. engines were taken out of Hurricanes for example when the latter were shipped over to the UK and replaced with British made Merlin XX's. My understanding had been that the US Packard plant was basically going flat out making -3 merlins for the P-51B/C/D/K from early 1943 onward, but I'd be glad to learn more details about that.


----------



## pbehn (Jul 1, 2019)

michael rauls said:


> The Tempest, now thers a phenomenal plane that really hasn't got its due over the years.


And almost indistinguishable from the Typhoon when in flight.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 1, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Well again, there is overlap. The intended use of the P-40s after mid-1942 was mostly as fighter bombers.



Well, that depends on which P-40 we are talking about doesn't it?
Since the P-40F which is the subject of this thread doesn't show up in combat until the very end of 1942 saying it was intended as a fighter bomber is bit much. (P-40 Production had ended months before and even the P-40K was being phased out of Production when the P-40F was going into combat.

ANd what did the US have for "fighters" in NA at the end of 1942? Some P-38s and P-39s and P-40s in somewhat equal numbers, or at least P-40s and P-39s assigned to Torch in somewhat equal numbers. ANd here we get into interpretations of "intended" as fighter groups have to be equipped and trained months before they are deployed into combat. 

Without actual memos or letters we are guessing as to what was "intended". They may very well have intended the P-40K and the following P-40M and N as fighter bombers although the provision of the higher altitude Allison with 125 less HP for take-off _seems _to belie that. 

The use of the P-40F in NA with it's best altitude performance for an American fighter (aside from the P-38)_ at the time. _also seems a bit counter to the Idea that the P-40 was intended as a fighter bomber at this time.


----------



## Kevin J (Jul 1, 2019)

pbehn said:


> And almost indistinguishable from the Typhoon when in flight.


If only Hawkers had stuck a laminar flow wing on the Hurricane in 1940, there would have been no need for either the P-40F/L, Typhoon or Tempest.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jul 1, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> If only Hawkers had stuck a laminar flow wing on the Hurricane in 1940, there would have been no need for either the P-40F/L, Typhoon or Tempest.


They were still changing dope wings for metal skinned ones in 1940 lol.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 1, 2019)

Schweik said:


> I read about Canadian production of Packard merlins, and it's a bit confusing since it said that those Merlin 28 etc. engines were taken out of Hurricanes for example when the latter were shipped over to the UK and replaced with British made Merlin XX's. My understanding had been that the US Packard plant was basically going flat out making -3 merlins for the P-51B/C/D/K from early 1943 onward, but I'd be glad to learn more details about that.



I don't believe there is any such thing as a Canadian Packard Merlin engine. I am not sure there was ever a Canadian Merlin (there were Australian ones) 

as for details please read :http://www.enginehistory.org/References/WWIIEngProduction.pdf 

or least see table 28 at the very end which gives Packard production by month and by single stage and two stage from Sept 1941 through Dec of 1944 (Packard built 7171 single stage engines in 1944)


----------



## Schweik (Jul 1, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> Well, that depends on which P-40 we are talking about doesn't it?
> Since the P-40F which is the subject of this thread doesn't show up in combat until the very end of 1942 saying it was intended as a fighter bomber is bit much. (P-40 Production had ended months before and even the P-40K was being phased out of Production when the P-40F was going into combat.



Your timeline is a bit off there. P-40F was in combat before Torch. Elements of the 57th FG were in action in July 1942 (embedded with RAF squadrons), with two complete squadrons operational in August and all three by October as an independent fighter group. RAF 260 had Kittyhawk II from Feb 42, and RAAF 3 from Sept 42.



> ANd what did the US have for "fighters" in NA at the end of 1942? Some P-38s and P-39s and P-40s in somewhat equal numbers, or at least P-40s and P-39s assigned to Torch in somewhat equal numbers. ANd here we get into interpretations of "intended" as fighter groups have to be equipped and trained months before they are deployed into combat.



Well I'm not sure what you mean, they certainly had a need for fighters. And the theory was that the P-40s would be doing more fighter bomber missions since DAF had already demonstrated their utility for that purpose. The theoretically more advanced P-39 and the categorically more advanced and higher flying P-38 were supposed to do most of the Air Superiority work. However the writing was already on the wall for the P-39s so plans started to change, and once introduced to combat in the Med they proved incapable of holding their own and had to be withdrawn from frontline missions. The P-38s did a lot better but they too proved to have some limitations, so the P-40F was put back into the fighter role by Dec 42 by which time no less than three US fighter groups (33rd, 79th, and 57th) were partly or fully operational with them, along with the two RAF squadrons. 



> Without actual memos or letters we are guessing as to what was "intended". They may very well have intended the P-40K and the following P-40M and N as fighter bombers although the provision of the higher altitude Allison with 125 less HP for take-off _seems _to belie that.



The P-40Ks only saw limited use in the Med, when 57th FG briefly ran out of P-40F/Ls one squadron was replaced with that type, of which they went through about 100 from what I understand. The RAF also got ~100 of them, which they liked a lot, but mostly got the P-40M instead which was definitely more suitable for fighter bomber missions and was generally used for that purpose. As was the P-40K for that matter in this Theater. As far as I know the US didn't use any P-40M in the Med, they were supposed to be for export only but they ended up with some in the Pacific and CBI.



> The use of the P-40F in NA with it's best altitude performance for an American fighter (aside from the P-38)_ at the time. _also seems a bit counter to the Idea that the P-40 was intended as a fighter bomber at this time.



I think they tried to make it as capable as they could, and it seems anecdotally that only by doing the field stripping, i.e. taking out the two guns and forward fuel tank, did the P-40F become considered to be suitable for fighting Bf 109s, and then just barely. But most of the units were intended for fighter bomber missions since that was the main mission of the DAF, and that is indeed what most of them did. The lack of suitable cover meant that they were first pressed into service as escorts for other P-40 units, and then as they seemed to be serviceable for that mission they were increasingly used as escorts for medium bombers, until in 1943 one of the newly arriving fighter groups, the 325th was officially assigned as an escort squadron to a B-26 bomber group which ended up operating a lot over Pantelleria, Sicily, Sardinia and southern Italy.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jul 1, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> If only Hawkers had stuck a laminar flow wing on the Hurricane in 1940, there would have been no need for either the P-40F/L, Typhoon or Tempest.


Great idea. Pray tell, how could they pull that off in the midst of the BoB? Jees, that and a Meredith radiator, and they wouldn't have had to bug NAA at all, and P38s would have gotten fixed sooner, and P47s would have gotten their long range tanks sooner, and the bomber boys would have got beaten up even worse waiting for their escorts to make the scene. Ain't speculatin' fun?
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jul 1, 2019)

What about putting a pair of Merlin XX engines in a Whirlwind circa 1942? Would that have been possible?


----------



## pbehn (Jul 1, 2019)

Schweik said:


> What about putting a pair of Merlin XX engines in a Whirlwind circa 1942? Would that have been possible?


No.

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


----------



## P-39 Expert (Jul 1, 2019)

Regarding performance of the P-40F vs the SpitV tropical, wwiiaircraftperformance.org shows the P-40F top speed as [email protected]' and the SpitfireV Trop as [email protected]'. P-40F was actually marginally faster than the tropicalized SpitV.
Climb rates show the SpitV Trop as [email protected]' and the P-40F as [email protected]'. SpitV Trop climbed a good bit better.
Typhoon as tested in November 1942 reflected speed of [email protected]' and climb of [email protected]'. Typhoon was clearly faster and climbed a little faster than the P-40F.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jul 1, 2019)

Schweik said:


> What about putting a pair of Merlin XX engines in a Whirlwind circa 1942? Would that have been possible?


They are bigger heavier thirstier engines requiring more cooling. You need a complete new plane with a Whirlwind cockpit.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jul 1, 2019)

Couldn't you say the same thing about putting a Merlin 60 on a P-51A? Or a V-1710 into a P-36?


----------



## pbehn (Jul 1, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Couldn't you say the same thing about putting a Merlin 60 on a P-51A? Or a V-1710 into a P-36?


Not really because the two engines fitted had about the same swept volume. The P-51 required about 65lbs of ballast in the rear (IIRC) a whirlwind would need hundreds, its been discussed on a few threads here.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greyman (Jul 1, 2019)

Much more of a size/weight difference between a Peregrine and Merlin than an Allison and Merlin.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Jul 1, 2019)

Greyman said:


> Much more of a size/weight difference between a Peregrine and Merlin than an Allison and Merlin.


Yes, so you could fit the, but fuel consumption goes up as does take off and landing speeds, and I guess you couldn't carry either drop tanks or bombs without re-stressing the air frame, so better to put the Merlins in the Gloster twin. Hell no, go with the Mosquito.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jul 1, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> Hell no, go with the Mosquito.


Seems like so often actual history points to the best answer.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Mad Dog (Jul 1, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> In which case the P-40 outshines the Typhoon in both initial cost and numbers produced to victory ratio.


 So, how many tanks did the P-40F destroy....? COUGH*Mortain*COUGH*Falaise Gap*COUGH On that metric, the Typhoon wins hand down.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Jul 1, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> In which case the P-40 outshines the Typhoon in both initial cost and numbers produced to victory ratio.


True but if my supposition is correct that the production to victory ratio is only useful in one direction i.e. it points to a good design if it is positive( because regardless of having the opportunity you still have to shoot down the enemy)but doesn't nescesarily point to a poor design if it's negative( or lesser than other fighters) because of the possibility of a multitude of mitigating factors like mission type or environment being present.
So while I think it would be reasonable to conclude, at least in a general sense, that the p40 was a successful design due to a good production to claims ratio I'm not sure if any valid comparisons between it and the Typhoon can be made using it.
At least that's the way it looks to me.
Certainly open to oposing views on this. Just kinda thinkin out loud so to speak.


----------



## Mad Dog (Jul 1, 2019)

Schweik said:


> …..AVG pilot Erik Shilling was a well known advocate for the P-40. Some of his comments included _"If you look up maneuverable in Webster's Dictionary, by all criteria the P-40 was more maneuverable. "_ and "_The P-40 was faster (354 mph with combat load vs a little over 300 for the Zero), the roll rate at 240-280 mph was 3 times faster and the aircraft could outdive the Zero."_


 So you want to pretend the Zero and the Typhoon are equivalent? Or the Zero and the Bf109 G or FW190? _Seriously!?!?! _ We're back to the "the Brewster Buffalo shot down some Zeros over Malaya, so it must be better than a Corsair" level of argument, I see.



Schweik said:


> _"[Y]ou could fight a Jap on even terms...."_


 So, how many of those Japs were flying FW190s? Your "ignore the apples, look how many oranges I can juggle" comparison is enthusiastic but futile.



Schweik said:


> I can post plenty more examples if needed.


 You can selectively post plenty more quotes that *in no way at all* show the P-40F as being comparable to the Typhoon. Every single one of the pilots you mentioned went on to happily replace their P-40s (and most of them did NOT fly the P-40F) with *better* aircraft, including - drumroll! - the Typhoon! 

Not one, in _any_ of your posts, supports your argument that the P-40F was somehow better than a Typhoon, whereas I have pointed out the performance and firepower advantages of the Typhoon, let alone the fact the Typhoon was still in the frontline in the toughest theater right to the end of the War, long after the P-40F had been sent to easier battles. You know you can't counter either the performance question or the frontline use, so you just try desperately to ignore it. "Hey, look at me juggle these oranges and pretend it makes a convincing argument!"

Just to try and open your eyes just a smidge, please look at the following performance figures for the P-40F, courtesy of Joe Baugher, compared with the test of an early Typhoon Ib (November 1942) without the four-blade prop or late-model Sabre engine (and these are the SLOWEST Typhoon figures I can find!):
P-40F: "Maximum speed was 320 mph at 5000 feet, 340 mph at 10,000 feet, 352 mph at 15,000 feet, and 364 mph at 20,000 feet...." *Loser!*
Typhoon: "Max. true level speed in M.S. supercharger gear - 376 m.p.h. at 8,500 ft. Max. true level speed in F.S. supercharger gear - 394 m.p.h. at 20,200 ft...." *Winner!*
P-40F: "An altitude of 10,000 feet could be attained in 4.5 minutes...." (that's roughly 2200fpm) "….and an altitude of 20,000 feet could be reached in 11.6 minutes...." (1724fpm). *Loser!*
Typhoon: "Time to reach 15,000 ft. - 6.2 minutes...." (2419fpm) "….Time to reach 25,000 ft. - 12.4 minutes....." (2016fpm) *Winner!*
And that must have been a really bad day at Duxford for the Typhoon, as many other tests from around that date already had the Typhoon breaking the 400mph barrier. To try and put it in Americanised terms you might comprehend, the Typhoon was simply in a different class to the P-40F, like comparing a NASCAR to a Cadillac Eldorado. You can sing the praises of your Caddie as long as you like and boast about how many Honda Civics you managed to beat away from the lights, but it's still just an overweight pimpmobile compared to the Typhoon.

When you're done eating crow you can downvote again, it won't change the facts.

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


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 1, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Your timeline is a bit off there. P-40F was in combat before Torch. Elements of the 57th FG were in action in July 1942 (embedded with RAF squadrons), with two complete squadrons operational in August and all three by October as an independent fighter group. RAF 260 had Kittyhawk II from Feb 42, and RAAF 3 from Sept 42.


I will give you that, numbers varied from a high of 72 to a low considerably below that at times. The 33rd fighter group was supposed to reinforce the 57th in Egypt but got grabbed for Torch. 





> Well I'm not sure what you mean, they certainly had a need for fighters. And the theory was that the P-40s would be doing more fighter bomber missions since DAF had already demonstrated their utility for that purpose. The theoretically more advanced P-39 and the categorically more advanced and higher flying P-38 were supposed to do most of the Air Superiority work. However the writing was already on the wall for the P-39s so plans started to change, and once introduced to combat in the Med they proved incapable of holding their own and had to be withdrawn from frontline missions. The P-38s did a lot better but they too proved to have some limitations, so the P-40F was put back into the fighter role by Dec 42 by which time no less than three US fighter groups (33rd, 79th, and 57th) were partly or fully operational with them, along with the two RAF squadrons.



Demonstrating a utility isn't quite the same as fielding a new engine in a fighter with much enhanced altitude performance and yet using it for the same old tasks.

There was no " theoretically more advanced P-39 " in mid to late 1942. Most people involved with planning Torch and the subsequent campaigns should have already known that the P-39 was NOT a fighter in the NA/European theaters. It was having trouble with the Japanese fighters in New Guinea and the South Pacific. Or perhaps you were being sarcastic? 





> The P-40Ks only saw limited use in the Med, when 57th FG briefly ran out of P-40F/Ls one squadron was replaced with that type, of which they went through about 100 from what I understand. The RAF also got ~100 of them, which they liked a lot, but mostly got the P-40M instead which was definitely more suitable for fighter bomber missions and was generally used for that purpose. As was the P-40K for that matter in this Theater. As far as I know the US didn't use any P-40M in the Med, they were supposed to be for export only but they ended up with some in the Pacific and CBI.



Well, if the Allison P-40 was intended to be a fighter bomber in mid 1942 they screwed up putting in the -81 and later engines. Losing almost 10% of your take-off power doesn't sound like good planning to me  Not to mention cutting the WEP rating from 60in to 57in. The -81 engines did improve performance at altitudes higher than around 5,000ft though. Fighter bomber for use in mountains? 





> I think they tried to make it as capable as they could, and it seems anecdotally that only by doing the field stripping, i.e. taking out the two guns and forward fuel tank, did the P-40F become considered to be suitable for fighting Bf 109s, and then just barely. But most of the units were intended for fighter bomber missions since that was the main mission of the DAF, and that is indeed what most of them did. The lack of suitable cover meant that they were first pressed into service as escorts for other P-40 units, and then as they seemed to be serviceable for that mission they were increasingly used as escorts for medium bombers, until in 1943 one of the newly arriving fighter groups, the 325th was officially assigned as an escort squadron to a B-26 bomber group which ended up operating a lot over Pantelleria, Sicily, Sardinia and southern Italy.



And here you have put your finger on one of the differences between the operational history/use of the P-40F and the Typhoon. The Typhoon only occasionally was used as an escort and for a good part of it's career it was the aircraft being escorted. Conditions and operations changed but for a good number of Typhoon missions if the German fighters got in gun range of the Typhoons the Spitfires had screwed up. 

I would also note that trying to compare a stripped P-40F or L shows just how far off the P-40 was. Not six guns but four .50s with how much ammo? AHT shows 235 rounds per gun for an L. Typhoon is carrying 140 shells for each of it's four 20mm guns. Taking out the forward wing tank leaves you with about 20% more fuel than a Spitfire rather than the almost 60% more fuel you have with the forward tank. Typhoon has about 50% more internal fuel than the P-40L with two internal tanks. Yes the Typhoon is larger and heavier but with that forward tank missing the Typhoon, at most economical speed at 15,000ft has about 50-60 miles more range than the P-40L going just about the same speed.

Reactions: Disagree Disagree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Mad Dog (Jul 1, 2019)

Schweik said:


> As for how the Typhoon performed as a fighter, if you are really interested in that question (as opposed to just really wanting to win an argument) I recommend listening to the voices of actual Typhoon pilots, which you can do here, here, and here....


 What, more selective quotes? Why not consider WHAT YOUR OWN TEST PILOTS SAID. Please try not to cry into your Wheatos at section h, according to USAAF test pilots:

_h. Maneuverability and Aerobatics
In general, handling during maneuvers and in aerobatics is *very good*. radius of turn is short, and the airplane *rolls well*...._

Which completely destroys the unsupported male bovine manure you have been pushing about the Typhoon having either a poor turn or roll.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 1, 2019)

Mad Dog said:


> So, how many tanks did the P-40F destroy....? COUGH*Mortain*COUGH*Falaise Gap*COUGH On that metric, the Typhoon wins hand down.



Falaise Gap? tanks destroyed? 
Seven, maybe eight if we are generous 

How many claimed? I think 132.  

The Typhoons did stop the attack but by killing all kinds of trucks and accompanying vehicles, tank kills were extremely rare.

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


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 1, 2019)

I would note on the subject of roll that any good ground attack plane has to roll pretty well as that is the way the plane is aimed. It has to be steady (no yawing, snaking or porpoising) and it has to respond well to the ailerons in order to correct onto the target, trying to shoot or bomb while in a skid is not going to be productive.

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


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 1, 2019)

Mad Dog said:


> What, more selective quotes? Why not consider WHAT YOUR OWN TEST PILOTS SAID. Please try not to cry into your Wheatos at section h, according to USAAF test pilots:
> 
> _h. Maneuverability and Aerobatics
> In general, handling during maneuvers and in aerobatics is *very good*. radius of turn is short, and the airplane *rolls well*...._
> ...



And someone continues to ignore me. 

Good job, you get the thread shut down for a few days, and get an official warning.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 1, 2019)

On a second thought, I will not close the thread. The majority of people here are capable of debating like civil adults even if they have differing views.

This is not a kindergarten. No more warnings given.


----------



## Schweik (Jul 1, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> I will give you that, numbers varied from a high of 72 to a low considerably below that at times. The 33rd fighter group was supposed to reinforce the 57th in Egypt but got grabbed for Torch.



I think maybe the C/O was embedded with the British for a while.



> Demonstrating a utility isn't quite the same as fielding a new engine in a fighter with much enhanced altitude performance and yet using it for the same old tasks.
> 
> There was no " theoretically more advanced P-39 " in mid to late 1942. Most people involved with planning Torch and the subsequent campaigns should have already known that the P-39 was NOT a fighter in the NA/European theaters. It was having trouble with the Japanese fighters in New Guinea and the South Pacific. Or perhaps you were being sarcastic?



No, what I'm saying is that the P-39 was still thought of in a lot of USAAF circles as the more modern aircraft than the P-40. Keeping mind the P-40 was a derivation of the P-36, whereas the P-39 was a brand new design with some radical new features, and comparatively very good streamlining. I believe they did not know that the P-39 was going to be a 'dud' in the Med though perhaps the possibility was starting to dawn on USAAF planners by the time of Torch (personally I don't think it was even a foregone conclusion, as I think part of the problem with the P-39 in that Theater was due to training and tactics). The reason the P-39 ended up in some major battles in the Pacific and why it was sent to the Med was because it was expected to be a good fighter.

As a more general point, I also don't think it was a broad assumption in 1942 that the Japanese fighters were pushovers (I don't think that myself today, but I know many here do). To the contrary, I believe a lot of people were still pretty scared of the Japanese War Machine at that point as it still looked pretty damn formidable. Also lets not forget the P-39 was doing well in Russia by late 1942, I don't know if the word got back to the US War Dept but I would assume it did. On the other hand bad experiences in the Pacific were also undoubtedly filtering back as well.

I believe hopes in US planning circles for the P-39 were probably fading leading up to Torch but established planning, which tends to have a certain amount of inertia in the military,. still had it as the better fighter in certain circles in the War Department. After all, it was faster and more heavily armed, and climbed better than the P-40. Newer hopes were being pinned on the P-38 to a greater degree of course, but they didn't know it would still be a few more subtypes in the queue before that fighter would reach it's full potential.

We can see all this stuff very clearly in hindsight but I don't think they knew everything at the time.



> Well, if the Allison P-40 was intended to be a fighter bomber in mid 1942 they screwed up putting in the -81 and later engines. Losing almost 10% of your take-off power doesn't sound like good planning to me  Not to mention cutting the WEP rating from 60in to 57in. The -81 engines did improve performance at altitudes higher than around 5,000ft though. Fighter bomber for use in mountains?



Well, lets compare the other major fighter bomber in the Theater after the P-40 - the P-47. Unlike the Typhoon that it often gets compared to, it was designed as a high altitude fighter and it was primarily at high altitude where it performed best, at 30,000 feet right? And yet it was pressed into service as a fighter bomber, in several of the very same fighter groups that had been flying the P-40F. In that role I would guess the Typhoon was actually better since the P-47 wasn't ideal for flying around near sea-level. Yet that is what it often had to do.

As for the evolution of doctrine here, I don't have any memos to quote from Washington, my perception on this are based from reading unit histories like the 79th FG for which I have two books, and the 57th and 325th FG and so on. I get the impression they really didn't know precisely what kind of missions these aircraft, by which I mean all the American aircraft particularly the fighters, would be flying. This is why they had such an eclectic mix - P-38s, Spitfires, P-39s, P-40Fs and Ls, and P-40Ks, A-36s and Beaufighters - and that is just in the American forces.

The analogy in my mind, is I do martial arts and I can tell you, before a tournament, you really don't know what kind of fight you are going to be in. Opponents are randomized so you don't know who you will face. Or which part of your 'game' you are going to need. So it's good to be as well rounded as possible. Prepare for long and short distance, grappling and striking, for a quick encounter or for a long battle of attrition. You can sort of pre-load your best techniques, but you can't actually predict what is behind the event horizon. I find, somewhat superstitiously, it is bad luck to even think about what happens after a match. Let alone what happens after all the matches, after you get through your pools and if you will make it into the eliminations.

Anyway I just get the impression the USAAF people didn't know exactly what they were going to be getting into in North Africa. They certainly brought a lot of different tools into the mix, and they had some idea, but they were facing what was for most of them, new opponents in the Germans and Italians.



> And here you have put your finger on one of the differences between the operational history/use of the P-40F and the Typhoon. The Typhoon only occasionally was used as an escort and for a good part of it's career it was the aircraft being escorted. Conditions and operations changed but for a good number of Typhoon missions if the German fighters got in gun range of the Typhoons the Spitfires had screwed up.



Well, it was the same with Hurricanes but they didn't start out that way. My theory is that with a fighter, the first few combats start to dictate how it will end up being used. No plan survives contact with the enemy.



> I would also note that trying to compare a stripped P-40F or L shows just how far off the P-40 was. Not six guns but four .50s with how much ammo? AHT shows 235 rounds per gun for an L. Typhoon is carrying 140 shells for each of it's four 20mm guns. Taking out the forward wing tank leaves you with about 20% more fuel than a Spitfire rather than the almost 60% more fuel you have with the forward tank. Typhoon has about 50% more internal fuel than the P-40L with two internal tanks. Yes the Typhoon is larger and heavier but with that forward tank missing the Typhoon, at most economical speed at 15,000ft has about 50-60 miles more range than the P-40L going just about the same speed.



The P-40L or stripped P-40F seemed to have limited range, but I guess that 20% made a difference. I believe they only did it when the air to air combat was intense, because you see a lot of these planes with the six guns in them too. How much fuel is needed even with the tanks in of course depends on the mission. Somehow they seem to have been flying P-40Ls on missions halfway across the Med. It's a bit of a mystery to me.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 2, 2019)

Schweik said:


> The P-40L or stripped P-40F seemed to have limited range, but I guess that 20% made a difference. I believe they only did it when the air to air combat was intense, because you see a lot of these planes with the six guns in them too. How much fuel is needed even with the tanks in of course depends on the mission. Somehow they seem to have been flying P-40Ls on missions halfway across the Med. It's a bit of a mystery to me.



There were 5 slightly different P-40Ls, You had the L-1 (short fuselage, 6 guns) of which 50 were built, the L-5 (220 built) which was the first "stripper" with the long fuselage (which all the rest of the Ls had) the L-10 (148 built) the L-15( 112 built) and the L-20 (170 built) All of the last four versions were "strippers", at least as built. What happened in the field might be a different story (forward tank added?/ an extra pair of guns fitted), some sources say only 201 or 203 rounds per gun. I don't know if they actually changed the ammo boxes or just loaded them with less ammo and a used a filler. 

The Tuskegee AIrmen of the 99th Squadron/325th fighter group had the P-40L-1s with short fuselages, six guns and all three fuel tanks. 

Of the 1302/1311 P-40F only the first 699 had short fuselages so confusion in photos might be somewhat common. The Ls were often used as replacement aircraft to units equipped with Fs. 

Range figures I gave were for clean aircraft, obviously P-40s used the center drop tank quite a bit and extended their range that way.


----------



## Schweik (Jul 2, 2019)

Of course. Internal fuel was definitely cut down though when they were lightened. Later on when the air to air combat diminished they configured them back in 'heavy' mode in some of the squadrons. You'll see quite a few P-40L with the 6 guns later on in Italy (including this one which they recently recovered from the sea).

The 99th moved from FG to FG, they started out with the 33rd, and there was some kind of controversy with the C/O Colonel Momyer* and they were almost sent home. Then they were with the 79th FG, and then the 324th.

I think they were given independent status some time in 1944.

* 33rd FG was under very heavy combat pressure around the time of Kasserine Pass which I think contributed to the problems.


----------



## Kevin J (Jul 2, 2019)

Mad Dog said:


> So, how many tanks did the P-40F destroy....? COUGH*Mortain*COUGH*Falaise Gap*COUGH On that metric, the Typhoon wins hand down.


My metric was 260 victories to 1100 fighter Typhoons produced, the other 2200 aren't counted, although I guess the 1100 combat losses could be assigned to the attack versions. So 50% loss rates? Well, not that bad, 75% could pretty much expect to get back after an attack.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 2, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> My metric was 260 victories to 1100 fighter Typhoons produced, the other 2200 aren't counted, although I guess the 1100 combat losses could be assigned to the attack versions. So 50% loss rates? Well, not that bad,* 75% could pretty much expect to get back after an attack*.


I

I am not sure how you figured the the bolded part. The Typhoon did see a lot of lossed but they also flew a lot of missions.

from : Hawker Typhoon
Your sources may vary.
" Day and night the increasing number of Typhoon squadrons launched attacks on the German transport system in occupied France, becoming adept at destroying railway trains. This was a dangerous duty, operating at low level against defended targets, and _380 Typhoons were lost during 1943 (many to flak)"_

and
"The main danger to the low flying Typhoons was posed by anti-aircraft fire, not enemy aircraft. Between D-Day and the end of the war in Europe some 500 Typhoons were lost in action. During this period the rocket armed Typhoons destroyed countless German tanks, firing just under 200,000 rockets in action. "

Which is 25,000 missions at eight rockets per mission for a_ loss rate of one airplane every 50 missions_ and we did not count any missions where the payload was bombs or where drop tanks were used and/or no underwing ordnance.

combat losses per number of planes built is a nearly useless metric as it leaves out the number of missions/sorties flown. It may tell you if a plane was heavily used or not (Brewster Buccaneer suffered few if any combat losses for instance) but it certainly doesn't give you any meaningful measure of a planes combat survivability. 
Many Typhoons flew 3 and 4 combat missions per day in NW Europe after D-day.

It also doesn't take into account certain enemy actions. 

Operation _Bodenplatte " _The eight Typhoon squadrons then based at Eindhoven lost nineteen aircraft destroyed and fourteen damaged, mostly on the ground."

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


----------



## Kevin J (Jul 2, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> I
> 
> I am not sure how you figured the the bolded part. The Typhoon did see a lot of lossed but they also flew a lot of missions.
> 
> ...



Oops, I was being a little bit sarcastic, but from what I've read (or seen), a flight of four goes into attack. The first two get away with it, by the time the next two go in, if the AAA is on the ball, then one of them will be shot down or hit, whatever the case may be. So in any attack you should have a 75% chance of getting away with it. Also, the Typhoon squadrons were constantly looking for pilots in 1944 because of their heavy casualties. As for being a useless metric, to me, it does make more sense than the American ones, like the Corsair's 19:1 victory ratio, because then you ask yourself the question: what's happening to all those planes if it's so brilliant? It also gives a fresh perspective as to why the Hurricane and P-40 were kept in production for so long when they were supposedly obsolete. I really get tired of constantly reading on these forums that the Hurricane was obsolete in 1940 as clearly it wasn't.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 2, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> I really get tired of constantly reading on these forums that the Hurricane was obsolete in 1940 as clearly it wasn't.



Being obsolete depends on both your opponent and the mission you are doing.

Against the Germans and the 109E the MK I Hurricane was obsolete. The MK II might have kept it in the game a bit longer if the Germans hadn't introduced the 109F. Shuffled off to fight the Italians with their CR 42s, G-50s and MC200s it was not obsolete in that theater until the Italians developed better planes (got German engines) and the Germans showed up. 
In the Far east it is certainly debatable if it was obsolete or if the crappy training and tactics doomed the Hurricane pilots. Bravery only takes you so far. Green pilots using crappy tactics are in a lot of trouble no matter what plane they are flying even when showing out of the ordinary courage.

Once the Hurricane switches to bomb carrier it has assumed a new role and has to be evaluated in that role, it is still obsolete as a fighter but is a whole lot more survivable than using Blenheim bombers to attack the same targets. Neither the Hurricane II or the Blenheim are much good against the FW 190 in a dog fight 




Kevin J said:


> As for being a useless metric, to me, it does make more sense than the American ones, like the Corsair's 19:1 victory ratio



I think you are confusing two things. the 19:1 ratio is false but it was _supposed_ to be the kill to loss ratio. Obviously this can be changed/affected by inflated claims (and.or not counting certain losses?) but the basic way of counting/figuring it makes a certain amount of sense. Our plane shot down 75 enemy airplanes in air to air combat and we lost 25 in air to air combat so we have a 3:1 victory ratio. Number of missions is left out and operational losses are left out but one might assume that if the number of missions changes a lot but both "our" plane and the enemy planes stay at roughly the same performance the victory ratio will stay the same, even if the totals change. 
You are right, it is often misapplied or figured out incorrectly.

Combat losses per number of planes built just has too many variables to actually tell you anything. Does combat include getting shot up/bombed while on the ground? It obviously includes losses due to ground fire, it may include mechanical failure (engine craps out over enemy territory and the plane goes missing/doesn't return to friendly base).
You might consider that an operational loss but unless you can access your opponents records all you know is the plane went MIA. 

For bombers they tried to figure out the losses per sortie. send out 100 bombers and 95 come back or only 90? IF only 90 you may run out of bombers faster than you can build them (or train crews) But if you send out 500 bombers and only lose 15 in one night you are doing really good. 

A few planes, like some Italian 5 series fighters might have a terrible loss to numbers built ratio, in part because they built so few, (MC 205 about 250-260 built?) and because they were bearing the brunt of the combat at the time. But unless you know the losses per number of missions flown or losses per number of times they actually met the enemy you don't know if the plane was doing any good (was worth the investment) or not. 

for a metric to be useful it needs to have as few variable as possible (and it can still be wrong)

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


----------



## pbehn (Jul 2, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> Falaise Gap? tanks destroyed?
> Seven, maybe eight if we are generous
> 
> How many claimed? I think 132.
> ...


I think the biggest affect was by shooting up fuel bowsers. On Typhoon losses I seem to have read about quite a few being forced to do a wheels up landing after blowing a tyre on take off, heavily laden on mesh runways.


----------



## Kevin J (Jul 2, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> Being obsolete depends on both your opponent and the mission you are doing.
> 
> Against the Germans and the 109E the MK I Hurricane was obsolete. The MK II might have kept it in the game a bit longer if the Germans hadn't introduced the 109F. Shuffled off to fight the Italians with their CR 42s, G-50s and MC200s it was not obsolete in that theater until the Italians developed better planes (got German engines) and the Germans showed up.
> In the Far east it is certainly debatable if it was obsolete or if the crappy training and tactics doomed the Hurricane pilots. Bravery only takes you so far. Green pilots using crappy tactics are in a lot of trouble no matter what plane they are flying even when showing out of the ordinary courage.
> ...



A fighter will only be obsolete when it can no longer counter its fighter opponents and not successfully conduct any sort of fighter mission. AFAIC the Hurricane I using 100 octane fuel in 1940 was as good as the Bf 109E.

In the ETO, this means to me for the day fighter version, Summer 1941 when the first production Spitfire Vb's started arriving and the Germans introduced the Bf 109F-4 and the Fw 190A. Prior to that the Hurricane IIb is still good as a bomber interceptor, for countering long range Me 110's and as close escort for Blenheims over the English Channel. Hurricane IIc's continued to be used successfully until early 1943 as a night intruder. So in the ETO total obsolescence in 1943.

On the Eastern front, the Soviet Hurricane IIB, with two 20 mm cannon and two 0.5 in machine guns could successfully counter the Bf 109F by means of a frontal attack. It had twice the firepower of the Bf 109F which it could out turn although it couldn't break off contact at will. Once the Bf 109G comes along with its 30 mm cannon, that's the point it becomes obsolete as a day fighter. In rear areas, it can still counter the Me 110 successfully and is still an effective bomber interceptor. The last Soviet Hurricanes were phased out of service in the PVO in 1944, which for me is its final obsolescence date.

In the Mediterranean when up against the Bf 109E or any radial engine Italian fighter, again no problems. It has a good turn of speed with boost below 15000 feet comparable to the Bf 109E and this is where the majority of the combat takes place, which it would as you are supporting an army in the field. Its really only when the Bf 109F arrives that its usefulness declines. You can use it as a fighter bomber, or even close escort for light bombers. Its performance at 7000 feet is less than but not by much to the Mc 202F. Most of its opponents are Italian with the Germans in a supporting role. Enter the Bf 109G and its all over. Fighter bomber and intruder work only. So 1942 for obsolescence.

At sea, anywhere, so long as it only opposes Me 110's there's no problem. The last Sea Hurricanes were phased out of service on Atlantic convoy duties in 1944. So obsolescence date 1944.

In the Far East, in combat with the Hayabusa, it all depended on who saw who first. As an interceptor and where radar was essentially bad or non existent, which was the norm, it did not do well against either the Ki-43-1 Hayabusa or A6M2 Reisen, although reducing the armament to six m/c guns helped. Although it struggled on in service as a fighter until 1944, IMO, the Hurricanes should have been replaced with Spitfire Vc's by late 1942 at the latest. I've only ever come across info that the Hurricane IIc fighter bombers out there had their cannon armament halved, which I'm sure would have aided manoeuvrability. Nothing I've read indicates that the RAF dropped or replaced the Vokes tropical filter, or used individual exhaust ejectors for extra exhaust thrust on its Merlin engines which amazes me. I would have thought they would or could have done something during 1942 to get a bit of extra performance. The USAAF was based in Assam at the time. Maybe they were doing most of the aerial fighting. It all seems a bit strange. I'd have to put 1942 down as the date the Hurricane became obsolete for anything but rear area tasks, and IMO 1944 for fighter bomber duties. It's only up against the Hayabusa which is not exactly the fastest of fighters although it is manoeuvrable.

Perhaps you'd like to say that the FM-1/2 were obsolete in 1943 even though they continued to give good service until the end of the war on escort carriers?

IMO we needed the Spitfire Vb (Trop) in both the Med and the Far East before the end of 1941, but I guess we'd blown them in the France Air Offensive of 1941.

Reactions: Agree Agree:

2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jul 2, 2019)

It's an interesting point - when a fighter reaches obsolescence for the front line, it shifts down a notch toward bomber interception, then another notch to things like rear area defense (PVO) or fighter bomber use, or it goes to another Theater. When it can't do that a role like a naval fighter on merchant convoys can still be quite viable. Certainly a Sea-Hurricane is very good defense against a FW 200 or He 115 way out in the Atlantic. In the Med on one of those convoys going to Malta maybe a little less but still far better than nothing.

What I don't get about the Hurricane is why didn't they just redesign the wing a little bit? The wingspan was huge at 40 feet and the wing was very thick. They cut the Zero down from 39 ft to 36 ft and it helped improve the speed. I suspect if they had done the same with the Hurricane they would have done better with them.

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


----------



## Milosh (Jul 2, 2019)

Late model 109s and 190s were top of the line and used as bomber interceptors.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jul 2, 2019)

Well the Fw 190s specifically modified to attack bombers were vulnerable to fighters.

Also a lot of obsolete planes like Bf 110, Ju 88, Me 210, Me 410, Do 217 etc. became useful, at least for a while, as heavy bomber killers, sometimes long after they had become obsolete as front line fighters or bombers.

Reactions: Dislike Dislike:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Jul 2, 2019)

Schweik said:


> It's an interesting point - when a fighter reaches obsolescence for the front line, it shifts down a notch toward bomber interception, then another notch to things like rear area defense (PVO) or fighter bomber use, or it goes to another Theater. When it can't do that a role like a naval fighter on merchant convoys can still be quite viable. Certainly a Sea-Hurricane is very good defense against a FW 200 or He 115 way out in the Atlantic. In the Med on one of those convoys going to Malta maybe a little less but still far better than nothing.
> 
> What I don't get about the Hurricane is why didn't they just redesign the wing a little bit? The wingspan was huge at 40 feet and the wing was very thick. They cut the Zero down from 39 ft to 36 ft and it helped improve the speed. I suspect if they had done the same with the Hurricane they would have done better with them.



The speed of the Spitfire could be improved by removing a cannon bulge and cannon from each wing plus individual exhaust ejectors, total speed increase almost 20 mph. The Sea Hurricane IIc of late 42 with an arrestor hook did 342 mph, 6 mph faster than its land based variant, so late 42 you should be able to build a Hurricane IIc doing about 349 mph, or perhaps a version with 2 cannon and four machine guns doing 350 mph. Then use the Aboukir air filter which didn't seem to result in any loss in speed. That gets you past the top speed of the Ki-43-II of late 42 and II-Kai of 1943. Use a two speed Merlin from the Mosquito and maybe you're looking at 315 mph at sea level and 350 mph from 13000 to 22000 feet, maybe 335 mph from 7000 to 10500 feet. So Hawkers could have built a better Hurricane II variant for service in the Far East, still slower than the P-40F/L but good enough to take on the Hayabusa for an extra year as a front line fighter. So why change the wing? All we need is an interim variant that can take on the Hayabusa or Reisen and come out on top.


----------



## Schweik (Jul 2, 2019)

Even on the Spitfire they made the clipped wing variant, apparently for the Med.

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


----------



## Kevin J (Jul 2, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Even on the Spitfire they made the clipped wing variant, apparently for the Med.


The clipped wings alone added 5 mph to the top speed below 20000 feet.


----------



## pbehn (Jul 2, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Even on the Spitfire they made the clipped wing variant, apparently for the Med.


You didn't actually have to make a clipped wing Spitfire you just take the ends off. By the end of the war all F and FR Mk XIVs were "clipped wing" this to stop wing wrinkling, usually it was to improve rate of roll at low altitude. similarly high altitude versions just had a longer tip bolted on.

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


----------



## Schweik (Jul 2, 2019)

Yes but that came later - modularization of the design so to speak. Kind of similar to what they did with the P-40L making 'heavy' and 'light' versions somewhat configurable. 

I'm interested though in when this was originally done with the Spit V in the Med, do you know details about it?

My understanding is that pilots generally disliked the extra long wing variants or mods of the Spits, though it brought the ceiling up to very high altitude.

Reactions: Dislike Dislike:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jul 2, 2019)

Schweik said:


> It's an interesting point - when a fighter reaches obsolescence for the front line, it shifts down a notch toward bomber interception, then another notch to things like rear area defense (PVO) or fighter bomber use, or it goes to another Theater. When it can't do that a role like a naval fighter on merchant convoys can still be quite viable. Certainly a Sea-Hurricane is very good defense against a FW 200 or He 115 way out in the Atlantic. In the Med on one of those convoys going to Malta maybe a little less but still far better than nothing.
> 
> What I don't get about the Hurricane is why didn't they just redesign the wing a little bit? The wingspan was huge at 40 feet and the wing was very thick. They cut the Zero down from 39 ft to 36 ft and it helped improve the speed. I suspect if they had done the same with the Hurricane they would have done better with them.




I should have mentioned Night fighters. And then the end of the line - it performs "Sterling Service" as a target tug. Or worse yet, a flying target....

Operation Pinball Frangible Bullets

Reactions: Dislike Dislike:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jul 2, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Yes but that came later - modularization of the design so to speak. Kind of similar to what they did with the P-40L making 'heavy' and 'light' versions somewhat configurable.
> 
> I'm interested though in when this was originally done with the Spit V in the Med, do you know details about it?
> 
> My understanding is that pilots generally disliked the extra long wing variants or mods of the Spits, though it brought the ceiling up to very high altitude.


 From wiki.

"The Focke-Wulf 190 certainly gave the British a shock", wrote Douglas Bader in his autobiography _Fight for the sky_; "it out-climbed and out-dived the Spitfire. Now for the first time the Germans were out-flying our pilots." They were also outgunning them. For the best part of the year, and until the arrival of the Spitfire Mk IX [the Fw 190] commanded the skies.[59]

From late 1942, in an attempt to achieve some degree of parity with the Fw 190, some squadrons received the L.F Mark VB. This version had reduced diameter supercharger impeller blades on the Merlin for optimum performance at lower altitudes and the wing-tips were removed and replaced by short fairings to improve their rate of roll.[60] These aircraft were unofficially known by their pilots as "clipped, cropped & clapped" Spits, referring to the fact that many of these Spitfires, thus modified, had seen better days.[61]

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jul 2, 2019)

But was this due to issues fighting over the Channel or with tip and run raids, or also in the Med? And did the Bf 109F have anything to do with it?

Reactions: Dislike Dislike:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jul 2, 2019)

Schweik said:


> What I don't get about the Hurricane is why didn't they just redesign the wing a little bit?


Sir Sydney was quoted in a long ago forgotten book as saying he always regretted not having the time and resources to redesign the Hurricane wing. It wasn't apparent until war clouds were on the horizon that the competition was leaving the Hurri behind, and then the RAF wanted something bigger, faster, and more powerful, and any interruption in Hurricane production couldn't be tolerated.
It being the first foray of monoplanism into a maneuverability mad air force, it was designed with a high lift positive G wing to dispel the anticipated complaints that it would "fly like a ten ton lorry". The real problem was the thick, Piper Cub-like airfoil with no quick and dirty modification options.
Cheers,
Wes

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


----------



## Kevin J (Jul 2, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> The speed of the Spitfire could be improved by removing a cannon bulge and cannon from each wing plus individual exhaust ejectors, total speed increase almost 20 mph. The Sea Hurricane IIc of late 42 with an arrestor hook did 342 mph, 6 mph faster than its land based variant, so late 42 you should be able to build a Hurricane IIc doing about 349 mph, or perhaps a version with 2 cannon and four machine guns doing 350 mph. Then use the Aboukir air filter which didn't seem to result in any loss in speed. That gets you past the top speed of the Ki-43-II of late 42 and II-Kai of 1943. Use a two speed Merlin from the Mosquito and maybe you're looking at 315 mph at sea level and 350 mph from 13000 to 22000 feet, maybe 335 mph from 7000 to 10500 feet. So Hawkers could have built a better Hurricane II variant for service in the Far East, still slower than the P-40F/L but good enough to take on the Hayabusa for an extra year as a front line fighter. So why change the wing? All we need is an interim variant that can take on the Hayabusa or Reisen and come out on top.


Also the dive speed of the Mk IV was 450 mph, so again, another useful feature. The IV used the same engine as the Mosquito.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jul 2, 2019)

Schweik said:


> But was this due to issues fighting over the Channel or with tip and run raids, or also in the Med? And did the Bf 109F have anything to do with it?


Fighting over the channel, tip and run raids were another issue, it didn't need a plane that matched the Fw 190 but was substantially faster. It isn't possible to stop such raids, they stopped them by chasing them across the channel. Without standing patrols even a Eurofighter couldn't stop a tip and run raid, Canterbury is 20 miles from the sea from North East and South. Dover is only 21 miles from Calais.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 2, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Yes but that came later - modularization of the design so to speak. Kind of similar to what they did with the P-40L making 'heavy' and 'light' versions somewhat configurable.



Not quite the same. The basic construction was always there.





The piece outboard of the end of the aileron could be unbolted and replaced by a very short fairing. This joint was always there. Sometimes the wing tips were unbolted for transport and placed in the cockpit. 

However be careful of what you ask for. They did find the clipped wing planes were up to 5mph faster but that was low level, up around 20,000ft there was little difference and things started to reverse, at really high altitudes the clipped wing plane was actually slightly slower if I remember right. 

The Hurricane wing tips were not designed to be detachable, for construction reasons or transport or any other reason. 




I am not Saying it couldn't be done (most anything can if you are will to spend the time and money) but how much can you "clip it" before you are starting to clip the Aileron? 

The Spit could loose 1ft 9in from each wing tip by changing to the short fairing. Can you cut that much off the Hurricane wing without impacting the Aileron? 

The Hurricane did get pretty much the same two speed engine the Mosquito got. It's just that the versions that were allowed 18lbs of boost (or higher?) don't show up until the Typhoon is in mass production and they are building Spitfire MK IXs. Some of the Hurricane MK IVs got the uprated engine and nobody tried to put the 20mm cannon back in the wings of those aircraft. 

The Hurricane was chosen in the middle of 1940 to get the two speed Merlin XX engine with the Hooker modified supercharger before the Spitfire because the Hurricane needed it in order to remain competitive as frontline fighter. It might have worked if the Germans didn't clean up the aerodynamics of the 109.

The Hurricane may not have been obsolete in 1940 but it was either obsolescent or approaching obsolescence. Lets not forget that the Hawker Tornado first flew on Oct 6th 1939. The Sabre powered Typhoons first flight was delayed due to engine problems. We have the luxury of knowing (with hindsight) that both engines had a number of problems and were either delayed or canceled forcing the British to make do with the Hurricane. The Hurricane filled in well and in many jobs but it had never been the first choice. 
Pointing out that the Hurricane could take on other countries 2nd string (obsolescent) fighters does not elevate the Hurricane to 1st string.

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


----------



## Kevin J (Jul 2, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> Not quite the same. The basic construction was always there.
> View attachment 543383
> 
> The piece outboard of the end of the aileron could be unbolted and replaced by a very short fairing. This joint was always there. Sometimes the wing tips were unbolted for transport and placed in the cockpit.
> ...



I agree that there was very little development potential left in 1940, but more could have been done with little or no disruption on the production lines in 1942/43 to make it a more capable fighter in the Far East. After all, the Soviets did it on the Eastern Front in 1941/42 and it worked well.


----------



## Schweik (Jul 2, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> Not quite the same. The basic construction was always there.
> View attachment 543383
> 
> The piece outboard of the end of the aileron could be unbolted and replaced by a very short fairing. This joint was always there. Sometimes the wing tips were unbolted for transport and placed in the cockpit.
> ...



It's funny, this entire thread and the comparison between P-40F and Typhoon originated with the notion that there was a valid niche for low and medium altitude fighters. I had mentioned the Typhoon as an example of a specialized low-altitude fighter which had a useful niche, then someone insisted that the Typhoon was way, way way beyond the P-40, so I thought to test it. And here we are 80 pages later.

It occurs to me the Spit V with clipped wings would be quite similar in many respects to a P-40F. Unless they changed the engine (which I know was also sometimes done at various points) it wouldn't be really a low altitude so much as a medium altitude optimized fighter. But the clipped wings and improved roll rate would help a lot down low as well.



> The Hurricane wing tips were not designed to be detachable, for construction reasons or transport or any other reason.
> View attachment 543384
> 
> I am not Saying it couldn't be done (most anything can if you are will to spend the time and money) but how much can you "clip it" before you are starting to clip the Aileron?
> ...



Well, I may be missing something and admittedly the angle isn't as sharp but it seems to me if you squared off those wings you would get almost as much as on a clipped wing Spitfire. Certainly at least 12-16" inches on each wing there no? Or is that just the foreshortening on the drawing?

The Hurricane needed not just a shorter but a _different _wing, as in at least a bit thinner. Maybe not spitfire thin but perhaps P-40 thin. Sydney Camm seemed to have a thing for thick wings. I gather the original intent was to substitute for not being a biplane any more.

But even cutting 2 - 4 feet off of the wing tips, that alone would probably give you another 5-10 mph of speed. Might affect altitude performance though of course. But in places like Burma and Russia I am surprised nobody tried it. It was done on so many other aircraft.



> The Hurricane did get pretty much the same two speed engine the Mosquito got. It's just that the versions that were allowed 18lbs of boost (or higher?) don't show up until the Typhoon is in mass production and they are building Spitfire MK IXs. Some of the Hurricane MK IVs got the uprated engine and nobody tried to put the 20mm cannon back in the wings of those aircraft.



I think because they knew it just had too much drag. Like the Firefly or one of those naval aircraft. Very powerful engine but still disappointingly slow. The main issue IMO was the wing, though they wanted it for the loiter time and range etc.



> The Hurricane may not have been obsolete in 1940 but it was either obsolescent or approaching obsolescence. Lets not forget that the Hawker Tornado first flew on Oct 6th 1939. The Sabre powered Typhoons first flight was delayed due to engine problems. We have the luxury of knowing (with hindsight) that both engines had a number of problems and were either delayed or canceled forcing the British to make do with the Hurricane. The Hurricane filled in well and in many jobs but it had never been the first choice.
> Pointing out that the Hurricane could take on other countries 2nd string (obsolescent) fighters does not elevate the Hurricane to 1st string.



Two things about the Hurricane which are interesting to me - one the performance in terms of outcomes fell off very sharply. Hurricanes were doing serious damage to the Lufwaffe in the BoB. I'm sure the integrated air defense helped a lot, but there is no denying that Hurricanes were sawwing down fleets of bombers and knocking out a good number of fighters too, including Bf 109s. 

Even later in the Desert, one of the things you notice reading Shores day by day accounts is that the Hurricanes were the best fighters for destroying bombers. The Stukas in particular seemed to have a surprisingly, (to me almost annoyingly since I admit I'm kind of rooting for the Allies) tendency to evade destruction. A squadron of Stukas gets jumped by Spitfires, 3 get shot down. They get jumped by P-40s, 2 get shot down and another 3 damaged. But when they get jumped by Hurricanes that is when they lose 6 or 8 planes, almost every time. I don't know what the difference is precisely but it seems to be real.

On the other hands Hurricanes seemed unable to get the Ju 88s a lot of the time, perhaps due to speed or altitude.


I would agree that 1942, the beginning of 1942, was probably the red-line for the Hurricane, certainly in the Med. At that point when used as a fighter they seemed to get really mauled almost every time. Every once in a while you find a day where the Hurricane pilots did some damage to the Germans. To be fair the Kittyhawks were only doing a little better but they usually shot down one or two enemy planes at least.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Milosh (Jul 2, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Well the Fw 190s specifically modified to attack bombers were vulnerable to fighters.
> 
> Also a lot of obsolete planes like Bf 110, Ju 88, Me 210, Me 410, Do 217 etc. became useful, at least for a while, as heavy bomber killers, sometimes long after they had become obsolete as front line fighters or bombers.



There was _Rüstsätze_ kits. The A-8/R2 replaced the outboard 20mm cannon with 30mm cannon. The A-8/R8 added extra armour and theses were not as nimble as the standard A-8 and /R2. The 210mm rocket launchers were jetisonable.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jul 2, 2019)

Seems like they had to be protected by escorts and got wacked by P-51s, P-47s and Spits when they weren't...


----------



## Kevin J (Jul 2, 2019)

Schweik said:


> It's funny, this entire thread and the comparison between P-40F and Typhoon originated with the notion that there was a valid niche for low and medium altitude fighters. I had mentioned the Typhoon as an example of a specialized low-altitude fighter which had a useful niche, then someone insisted that the Typhoon was way, way way beyond the P-40, so I thought to test it. And here we are 80 pages later.
> 
> It occurs to me the Spit V with clipped wings would be quite similar in many respects to a P-40F. Unless they changed the engine (which I know was also sometimes done at various points) it wouldn't be really a low altitude so much as a medium altitude optimized fighter. But the clipped wings and improved roll rate would help a lot down low as well.
> 
> ...



The problem with the Hurricane vs Ju 88 scenario was that once the Ju 88 had dropped its bombs it was nigh impossible to catch. A Ju 88 did 326 mph clean and could evade a Hurricane in a dive, the Hurricane only being capable of 410 mph. Even the Seafire IIc couldn't catch a Ju 88, and all an LIIc could do was to drive off but not shoot down Fw 190a's.

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


----------



## Schweik (Jul 2, 2019)

Wow 326 mph? I didn't realize they were that fast.

Ju 88's show up in Shores a lot as doing some real damage as fighters, which is amazing because they don't seem to have had any forward firing guns. They even shot down some P-38s.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 2, 2019)

Using the old retrospectroscope what the British needed to do was figure out that the Germans were in no position to mount bombing raids or a Blitz in 1942 while tied up with the Russians, at least not on the same scale as they did in 1940/41 and perhaps a few squadrons of Spitfires more could be released for duties in the Mid east or far east earlier than was done historically.

as for use on the easter front


Kevin J said:


> On the Eastern front, the Soviet Hurricane IIB, with two 20 mm cannon and two 0.5 in machine guns could successfully counter the Bf 109F by means of a frontal attack. It had twice the firepower of the Bf 109F which it could out turn although it couldn't break off contact at will. Once the Bf 109G comes along with its 30 mm cannon, that's the point it becomes obsolete as a day fighter.



Being restricted to using a head on pass as one of your few viable tactics is hardly an indication of being able to fight on near equal basis. If you can't break off and you have trouble initiating a fight (you have to wait for the 109s to decide to attack you) you don't actually have a very good fighter.

the 30mm gun was not the wonder cannon it is sometimes made out to be. It had a lower rate of fire and it's low velocity made deflection shooting more difficult (forget the nonsense about trajectory, the gun is pointed up to cross the line of sight and the trajectory arced a bit above before falling back down through the line of sight at a further distance). The G-6 with the two 13mm cowl guns was a useful increase in firepower even if not stupendous. The German 30mm was a better anti bomber gun.


----------



## Kevin J (Jul 2, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> Using the old retrospectroscope what the British needed to do was figure out that the Germans were in no position to mount bombing raids or a Blitz in 1942 while tied up with the Russians, at least not on the same scale as they did in 1940/41 and perhaps a few squadrons of Spitfires more could be released for duties in the Mid east or far east earlier than was done historically.
> 
> as for use on the easter front
> 
> ...



You're forgetting that the Russians had a kamikaze attitude to aerial combat. If they couldn't shoot their target down then they rammed it.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 2, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Wow 326 mph? I didn't realize they were that fast.
> 
> Ju 88's show up in Shores a lot as doing some real damage as fighters, which is amazing because they don't seem to have had any forward firing guns. They even shot down some P-38s.



Don't forget that Avro Ansons scored some of the first kills of the war against 109s (or claimed to) which hardly makes the Anson a first rate fighter plane. 
When you have hundreds of engagements there are always going to be some outliers on the spectrum. The outliers get mentioned because they are outliers/strange/interesting.

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


----------



## Schweik (Jul 2, 2019)

Well yeah, "interesting" is why I mentioned it. And one of the P-38 incidents was a squadron of lost planes that were being ferried across the Med ultra long range and they only had 50 rounds of ammunition on them. Still, it's impressive that the Ju 88 pilots attacked because they had no way of knowing that. And while a Ju 88 downing a P-38 is certainly an oddity and an outlier, it was not at all unusual for them to shoot down planes like Blenheims, Botha's, Walruses, Swordfish, Hudsons, and so on... and in daylight. Quite often! Which was my real point: those Ju 88s were predatory. I think they even got a couple of Sunderlands.

Seems like it might have been a good idea to mount a fixed 13mm mg or two on them they might have done even more damage.

Avro Anson shooting down a Bf 109 seems very unlikely... would love to know the details of that.... off to google!


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 2, 2019)

Uh, those were Ju-88A bombers right?
And not JU-88C fighters? 

There were over 1000 JU-88C series heavy day fighters built before they built one with radar to use as a night fighter. 
Some had the solid noses painted to look like regular bombers. 





one 20mm gun (usually a MG/FFM) and three 7.9mm guns.

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


----------



## Schweik (Jul 2, 2019)

Wow, that explains it! I had no idea! Awesome... crap now I must find a model of that in 1/72 scale...


----------



## Schweik (Jul 2, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> Uh, those were Ju-88A bombers right?
> And not JU-88C fighters?
> 
> There were over 1000 JU-88C series heavy day fighters built before they built one with radar to use as a night fighter.
> ...



So they painted fake nose cone markings to make it look like a bomber? I love it


----------



## gordonm1 (Jul 2, 2019)

My 2 cents, the P 40 bailed the British out of protecting their colonies which, could not produce enough enough biplanes and monoplanes to affect the German and Japanese offense. The Typhoon was a nice plane but it only was used near England, where it could be serviced and babied while it protected England, not the holy shit Empire.


----------



## Schweik (Jul 2, 2019)

Interesting take on it, they certainly did still have an Empire that I'm sure they hoped to keep, but more importantly for the war effort, a lot of their supplies and raw materials were coming from India via the Middle East so there were big Strategic / war -effort reasons to keep that area open and out of German control. They also needed to send arms to India to keep the Japanese from taking it over...


----------



## pbehn (Jul 2, 2019)

gordonm1 said:


> My 2 cents, the P 40 bailed the British out of protecting their colonies which, could not produce enough enough biplanes and monoplanes to affect the German and Japanese offense. The Typhoon was a nice plane but it only was used near England, where it could be serviced and babied while it protected England, not the holy shit Empire.


A whole 2 cents? I will use the ignore function.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Simon Thomas (Jul 2, 2019)

Schweik said:


> The Hurricane needed not just a shorter but a _different _wing, as in at least a bit thinner. Maybe not spitfire thin but perhaps P-40 thin. Sydney Camm seemed to have a thing for thick wings. I gather the original intent was to substitute for not being a biplane any more. .


From the Royal Aeronautical Society / https://www.aerosociety.com/media/4953/the-aerodynamics-of-the-spitfire.pdf

_Alan Clifton remarks that this choice went against the advice of the NPL, advice to the effect that “there was no advantage in going below a thickness chord ratio of 15%”. It appears that similar advice was given to Sydney Camm at Hawker during the design of the Hurricane. Roy Chaplin, a senior member of Camm’s team at that time, recalls in his contribution to Reference 32 that wind tunnel tests at the NPL on a Hurricane model produced the advice that “no improvement in drag would be obtained by reducing the thickness-chord ratio of the wing below 20%.” As mentioned in Reference 1, it appears that this advice arose from measurements obtained in the NPL’s Compressed Air Tunnel (CAT), running since 1932, which, it was later realised, could produce misleading results._

Seems Hawkers were sold a pup when told that the thick wing had the same drag as the thin wing. It was too late for the Typhoon, but it appears by the time they got around to the Tempest they were on the right path.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (Jul 2, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Well yeah, "interesting" is why I mentioned it. And one of the P-38 incidents was a squadron of lost planes that were being ferried across the Med ultra long range and they only had 50 rounds of ammunition on them. Still, it's impressive that the Ju 88 pilots attacked because they had no way of knowing that. And while a Ju 88 downing a P-38 is certainly an oddity and an outlier, it was not at all unusual for them to shoot down planes like Blenheims, Botha's, Walruses, Swordfish, Hudsons, and so on... and in daylight. Quite often! Which was my real point: those Ju 88s were predatory. I think they even got a couple of Sunderlands.
> 
> Seems like it might have been a good idea to mount a fixed 13mm mg or two on them they might have done even more damage.
> 
> Avro Anson shooting down a Bf 109 seems very unlikely... would love to know the details of that.... off to google!



The Ju88's used in combat over the Bay of Biscay were Ju88c the fighter version. They operated with some success but couldn't compare with the Beaufighters and later the Mosquito's that were deployed to deal counter their threat.


----------



## Milosh (Jul 2, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Wow, that explains it! *I had no idea!*  Awesome... crap now I must find a model of that in 1/72 scale...



That seems to a recurring theme.


----------



## Schweik (Jul 2, 2019)

Milosh said:


> That seems to a recurring theme.



You are right, I'm one of the few people who admit when I don't know something

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jul 2, 2019)

Simon Thomas said:


> From the Royal Aeronautical Society / https://www.aerosociety.com/media/4953/the-aerodynamics-of-the-spitfire.pdf
> 
> _Alan Clifton remarks that this choice went against the advice of the NPL, advice to the effect that “there was no advantage in going below a thickness chord ratio of 15%”. It appears that similar advice was given to Sydney Camm at Hawker during the design of the Hurricane. Roy Chaplin, a senior member of Camm’s team at that time, recalls in his contribution to Reference 32 that wind tunnel tests at the NPL on a Hurricane model produced the advice that “no improvement in drag would be obtained by reducing the thickness-chord ratio of the wing below 20%.” As mentioned in Reference 1, it appears that this advice arose from measurements obtained in the NPL’s Compressed Air Tunnel (CAT), running since 1932, which, it was later realised, could produce misleading results._
> 
> Seems Hawkers were sold a pup when told that the thick wing had the same drag as the thin wing. It was too late for the Typhoon, but it appears by the time they got around to the Tempest they were on the right path.



Wow, I definitely didn't know that, all these years I'd been blaming Sydney Camm. What a difference a wind tunnel makes...


----------



## Schweik (Jul 2, 2019)

Glider said:


> The Ju88's used in combat over the Bay of Biscay were Ju88c the fighter version. They operated with some success but couldn't compare with the Beaufighters and later the Mosquito's that were deployed to deal counter their threat.



Yeah the Beaufighter definitely seemed to be a Ju 88 "antidote" in the Med, at least when they were operating at low enough altitude. Shores points it out as one of the emerging surprises from his data, those Beaufighters were death-dealing machines.

Now I am wondering could the Ju 88C also carry out dive bombing?


----------



## pbehn (Jul 2, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Wow, I definitely didn't know that, all these years I'd been blaming Sydney Camm. What a difference a wind tunnel makes...


Its a discussion with a long history and many facets. Going back to even whether bi planes were better than monoplanes and how important turn performance was compared to top speed, thick wings versus thin wings is part of that. Camm designed the plane he wanted in the Hurricane it was a compromise as all are, not as good as the Spitfire but in September 1939 we didn't have many Spitfires but had so many Hurricanes, Hawkers had been exporting them. Thick wings on the Typhoon were possibly the wrong route for a pure fighter, but possibly an advantage on a fighter bomber. Its easy to say use a laminar flow wing in hind sight, the Typhoon/Tornado was flying before the P-51 was ordered AND Hawkers were investigating a thinner wing, from wiki "In March 1940, engineers were assigned to investigate the new low–drag laminar flow wing developed by NACA in the United States, which had been used in the new North American P-51 Mustang. A laminar flow wing adopted for the Tempest series had a maximum thickness-to-chord ratio of 14.5 per cent at the root, tapering to 10 per cent at the tip.[5][8] The maximum thickness of the Tempest wing was set further back at 37.5 per cent of the chord versus 30 per cent for the Typhoon's wing, reducing the thickness of the wing root by five inches on the new design.[5][8] The wingspan was originally greater than that of the Typhoon at 43 ft (13.1 m), but the wingtips were later "clipped" and the wing became shorter; 41 ft (12.5 m) versus 41 ft 7 in (12.7 m).[5]"

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jul 2, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Yeah the Beaufighter definitely seemed to be a Ju 88 "antidote" in the Med, at least when they were operating at low enough altitude. Shores points it out as one of the emerging surprises from his data, those Beaufighters were death-dealing machines.
> 
> ?


The Beaufighter was a good plane with the great misfortune to be replaced in most things by the Mosquito.


----------



## Schweik (Jul 2, 2019)

Well yes for night fighting and intruder bombing but not so much for Maritime, at least so far as I know. In the Med the Beaus still seem to be in the game well into 1944.

Reactions: Disagree Disagree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jul 2, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Well yes for night fighting and intruder bombing but not so much for Maritime, at least so far as I know. In the Med the Beaus still seem to be in the game well into 1944.


The Mosquito was used in maritime strike against ships trawlers and subs in the North Sea as well as other A/C.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Simon Thomas (Jul 2, 2019)

pbehn said:


> from wiki "In March 1940, engineers were assigned to investigate the new low–drag laminar flow wing developed by NACA in the United States, which had been used in the new North American P-51 Mustang.


What I find interesting about this, is that the British Purchasing Commission agreed in April to let North American to build a new fighter rather than make the P-40. How can the Tempest use a laminar flow wing design from the Mustang if it preceded the Mustang?


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 2, 2019)

Another thing that gets passed over a lot, and I mean a _*LOT,*_ is that no matter what kind of gee-whiz, super-duper, Flash Gordon aircraft you can come up with in the 1930s or even 1940-41, it has to operate from the vast majority of existing fighter and bomber bases. For the British that meant around 500yds of grass, and sometimes that was 500yds to the trees, not a low fence. Some bases were bigger but this size was so common that the specification that lead to the Manchester listed a catapult launch to get out of some of these small airfields. 
High lift devices were in their infancy (and there was no internet to spread the word  For the Americans the P-26 was the first Army aircraft to use flaps and the first version built didn't have them. they were added part way through the production run and retrofitted to existing aircraft. This was about 1934? The Gloster Gladiator was either the first British military plane (or first fighter?) fitted with flaps. The US went from those simple split flaps 






to the double slotted fowler flaps of the A-26 




in about eight years. 

The Data sheet for the Typhoon IB shows it taking off and clearing a 50 ft obstacle in 740yds at 11,400lbs 

Many of these planes took a longer distance to land than to take off.

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


----------



## pbehn (Jul 2, 2019)

Simon Thomas said:


> What I find interesting about this, is that the British Purchasing Commission agreed in April to let North American to build a new fighter rather than make the P-40. How can the Tempest use a laminar flow wing design from the Mustang if it preceded the Mustang?


The Tempest didn't precede the Mustang the Typhoon/Tornado (Vulture engine) did. It is a mistake to say wing design of the Mustang it was the aerofoil profiles that are important. The Mosquito used RAF profiles which were more of a laminar flow type but not as good as the Mustang's . In fact none are actually truly laminar flow, just some better than others at preserving smooth flow for longer over the wing.

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


----------



## wuzak (Jul 2, 2019)

Schweik said:


> So they painted fake nose cone markings to make it look like a bomber? I love it



Why not, the RAF painted yellow leading edges on unarmed bomber Mosquitoes, just like they had for armed Spitfires and Hurricanes.


----------



## pbehn (Jul 2, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> Another thing that gets passed over a lot, and I mean a _*LOT,*_ is that no matter what kind of gee-whiz, super-duper, Flash Gordon aircraft you can come up with in the 1930s or even 1940-41, it has to operate from the vast majority of existing fighter and bomber bases. For the British that meant around 500yds of grass, and sometimes that was 500yds to the trees, not a low fence.


Even during the BoB at least one squadron of Gladiators was used in south West England because they couldn't find a landing strip big enough.


----------



## wuzak (Jul 2, 2019)

Simon Thomas said:


> What I find interesting about this, is that the British Purchasing Commission agreed in April to let North American to build a new fighter rather than make the P-40. How can the Tempest use a laminar flow wing design from the Mustang if it preceded the Mustang?



If you read what pbehn said, Hawkers started to investigate laminar flow aerofoils that had been developed from NACA. The P-51 had a wing profile based on the same research, but I think the profile was different to that used in the Tempest.

Somebody may be able to confirm.


----------



## pbehn (Jul 2, 2019)

wuzak said:


> If you read what pbehn said, Hawkers started to investigate laminar flow aerofoils that had been developed from NACA. The P-51 had a wing profile based on the same research, but I think the profile was different to that used in the Tempest.
> 
> Somebody may be able to confirm.


Wiki says this about the Tempest, as you say it was the change in profile not a copy of a Mustang wing . "A laminar flow wing adopted for the Tempest series had a maximum thickness-to-chord ratio of 14.5 per cent at the root, tapering to 10 per cent at the tip.[5][8] The maximum thickness of the Tempest wing was set further back at 37.5 per cent of the chord versus 30 per cent for the Typhoon's wing, reducing the thickness of the wing root by five inches on the new design.[5][8]"

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jul 2, 2019)

wuzak said:


> Why not, the RAF painted yellow leading edges on unarmed bomber Mosquitoes, just like they had for armed Spitfires and Hurricanes.


I think the idea was not so much that it looked like a bomber but that it didn't look like what it was, a long range fighter.


----------



## wuzak (Jul 2, 2019)

pbehn said:


> I think the idea was not so much that it looked like a bomber but that it didn't look like what it was, a long range fighter.



Yes, and with the Mosquito it was to suggest to the Luftwaffe that it was armed, when it was not.

Just another example of attempted deception.


----------



## Greyman (Jul 2, 2019)

I thought the yellow leading edges were for the benefit of Allied AA crews.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Jul 3, 2019)

Greyman said:


> I thought the yellow leading edges were for the benefit of Allied AA crews.



It seems that you are correct - the yellow is for identification, but not just for AA crews.

After a quick google search it seems that they were only applied to fighters. 



> Taken from official R.A.F. sources for verbatim.
> 
> From: Fighter Command.
> 
> ...



RAFCommands Archive :: Fighter Aircraft- Yellow Leading Edges on wings.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 3, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Well the Fw 190s specifically modified to attack bombers were vulnerable to fighters.
> 
> Also a lot of obsolete planes like Bf 110, Ju 88, Me 210, Me 410, Do 217 etc. became useful, at least for a while, as heavy bomber killers, sometimes long after they had become obsolete as front line fighters or bombers.


Define "Obsolete".
The Ju88 remained an effective (and exceptionally versatile) aircraft through the war's end.
The Me410 still inflicted losses on the Allied bombers and so on.

The Fw190A-8s accounted for a considerable amount of Allied bomber losses but were still able to turn and fight if needed. They were up-gunned and up-armored, but they were not helpless if caught outside of their Bf109 top-cover.

And here's an "obsolete" Me410B-2/U4 making an attack on a B-17G of the 388th BG...fortunately, the Bk.5's round passed harmelessly through the outer portion of the B-17's wing. It could have been much worse...

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


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 3, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Also a lot of obsolete planes like Bf 110, Ju 88, Me 210, Me 410, Do 217 etc. became useful, at least for a while, as heavy bomber killers, sometimes long after they had become obsolete as front line fighters or bombers.



None of those planes had been designed or built as front line fighters. Except, perhaps, the Bf 110 but it was never intended to dog fight single seat, single engine fighters either. 

You could take a fast bomber and use it as a bomber destroyer against unescorted bombers. It doesn't mean the original bomber version is obsolete. You can stuff radar in the fast bomber and use it as a night fighter, still doesn't mean the plane is obsolete as a fast bomber. 

On the Allied side and disregarding the Mosquito you can use the A-20 as an example, used as a night fighter in early 1941, it was still being used as bomber in 1944 or later. 

for the Germans it wasn't so much a question of the bombers being obsolete or obsolescent as it was their priorities/needs had changed. The usefulness of small numbers of fast bombers (or single planes) doing tip and run raids against England vs trying to stop the Allied day and night raids that used hundreds of bombers. 
Remember that the Germans (or any defender) didn't need to shoot down every plane on a raid, if they can shoot down 10% or a bit less per raid the attacks will stop in fairly short order. 

A light or fast medium bomber has a performance advantage over slower mediums and most heavy bombers. Sticking a heavy gun battery in them was a quick and easy way to get an effective, even if not optimum aircraft into service quickly. It has little to do with the usefulness of the original bomber version as a bomber.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jul 3, 2019)

Well I think maybe y'all are missing my (and Kevin J's) point about obsolescence. In an attempt at good faith I will try to explain.

I would say that by 1944 aircraft such as the A-20, Beaufighter, Bf-110, Ju 88, Ju 188, Do 217, Me 210 and even the Me 410 were all obsolete in their main original and design purpose as daytime front-line fighters or bombers. A-20, Beaufighter and Bf 110 were obsolete even as night fighters in my opinion by that time.

The reason, in a nutshell, was enemy fighters and flak had improved sufficiently that a ~ 320 mph aircraft just wasn't safe on the battlefield any more. The P-51, P-38, P-47, Typhoon, Spit IX and later marks, Fw 190, and late model Bf 109, and the various late war Soviet fighters made flying around over Europe in any aircraft that flew less than probably 350 mph during the day (depending on cruise speed, range, altitude etc.) increasingly a death sentence. The Mosquito, late model Bf 110G etc. and (however rare) He 219 made it quite dangerous at night.

But the Beaufighter lived on quite successfully as a torpedo bomber / maritime interdiction / maritime fighter aircraft. Very successfully as it turns out from the records.
The Ju 88 was somewhat disappointing as a daytime bomber in the BoB but worked out well in Maritime raids in the North and Baltic Sea, in the Bay of Biscay and in the Med, as a tactical / dive bomber in Russia and the Med (up to ~ mid 1943) and for a while as a night fighter, and in other roles. Including as a heavy maritime fighter I'm just learning!
the Bf 110 failed as a day fighter but found a niche as a night fighter and, with sufficient fighter protection, a heavy fighter to use against bombers.
The Do 217 found a useful role as a missile carrier in maritime operations, and as a heavy fighter (if sufficiently protected).
The Me 210 and 410, though comparatively fast, did not work out as daytime fighters but excelled as night-intruders bomber killers so long as they had protection. If they didn't have fighter cover they got hacked down.
Some others didn't really find a niche by the time they became obsolete. A-20 was a great bomber up to mid 1943 but I think after that point it was just too vulnerable during the day and though it still had some value as a night-intruder it was not fast enough to be a good night fighter. Arguably it was still useful in the Pacific as a strafer and skip-bomber. This is also IMO why the P-40 did in fact become obsolete some time in 1944, too many fighters were hitting the ~400 mph mark and it was just left behind in speed.

But for most of the aircraft listed above, they did find another niche where they could still be useful. So obsolescence in one role leads to continued valuable service in another. Beaufighter was too slow to fly and fight much over Continental Europe by 1943 (with a few outstanding exceptions like dropping that flag on the Arc de Triumph in late 1942) but in the Pacific or Burma it was still a contender. Same for the P-40 which could still operate as a fighter-bomber in Italy and as a fighter or fighter bomber in the Pacific and CBI.

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


----------



## Schweik (Jul 3, 2019)

Found an interesting and dramatic account of Ju 88Cs vs a B-24 (PB4Y) over the Bay of Biscay


----------



## Milosh (Jul 3, 2019)

The 110 failed in the BoB because it was not used in its intended role.

The 210 had other issues.

The Me410A-1 was a light bomber. Initially, three _Umrüst-Bausätze_ (factory conversion kits) were available, *U1* contained a palette of cameras for the photo-reconnaissance role, *U2* two 20 mm MG 151/20 cannon with 250 rpg for the heavy fighter use, and *U4* used the 50 mm (2 in) _Bordkanone_ series weapon, the BK-5 cannon with 22 rounds (21 rounds to load and 1 extra round already loaded into the cannon), to turn either an Me 410A or B-series aircraft into a dedicated bomber destroyer

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jul 3, 2019)

The gist of this line of reasoning is that finding the role that fit in the real world (and in spite of enemy actions and kit) was part of what determined if a combat aircraft could be of use in the war. The intended or design use often didn't work out precisely as envisioned because "no plan survives contact with he enemy". 

I'm not sure the Bf 110 ever really worked as a day time fighter after the Battle of France, did it?

Reactions: Dislike Dislike:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Jul 3, 2019)

Milosh said:


> The 110 failed in the BoB because it was not used in its intended role.
> /QUOTE]
> 
> I think one can argue that the Me110's "intended role" didn't exist except in the minds of some Luftwaffe officers and not in reality. Of course, one could say that the P-38 never operated in its intended role, either.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (Jul 3, 2019)

It's often forgotten that the Me110 was good as its primary role at the start of the war. It only came unstuck when fighting the BOB, but before then it was a formidable aircraft, far more effective than the 109D which was its single engine equivalent.


----------



## Schweik (Jul 3, 2019)

It was feared in the Battle of France, but once it's speed fell below competitive level, it was a little too much of a sitting duck.

I'm not sure everyone realized until the war was well underway how hard it was to make a big plane with a wide wingspan go really fast. Very few designs achieved what the Mosquito did.

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


----------



## Mad Dog (Jul 3, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> Maybe they were doing most of the aerial fighting


 The USAAF's P-38s and Allison-engine P-51s were doing most of the air-fighting over the China-Burma front as they had the range required to get down to such target areas as the Rangoon oilfields. The Japanese kept their best fighters in the theatre, the Ki-44 "Tojos", for defending Rangoon. The Hurricanes and Spitfires didn't have the range to go looking for the Japanese or for attacking Japanese airfields, so they switched the Hurricanes to ground-attack over Imphal and the Arakan. The RAF had Spitfires by then for the interceptor role, and even P-47s for the long-range role (escorting RAF and USAAF Liberators to bomb the mentioned oilfields, docks and railway yards in Rangoon). The RAF's call for long-range fighters was so desperate from the Burma theatre that plans for RAF P-47 wings in Europe and the Med were scrapped and all RAF P-47s went to the Far East (apart from a few kept with a conversion unit in Egypt). The ETO units later got Mustangs instead. Air combat became so rare for the RAF units in Burma that even the Spitfires were used for strafing the Japanese supply lines. With no real driver to upgrade the Hurricanes there was no call for individual exhaust stacks or the like, it was more important to have a reliable plane with common components for easier supply and maintenance. In 1944 and 1945 the biggest threat to the Hurricanes in the Far east was the same as to Typhoons in Europe - AAA fire at low levels.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Mad Dog (Jul 3, 2019)

Schweik said:


> What I don't get about the Hurricane is why didn't they just redesign the wing a little bit?.


 That's because Sydney Camm was busy developing more modern replacements with a targeted airspeed of 400mph from early 1937. Hurricane production started in 1937, and Camm presented his two preliminary designs for the Hurricane's replacement in July 1937. His reasoning was that the Hurricane was pretty much old tech - the rear fuselage was wooden frames screwed to a metal space-tube frame and covered with linen right through until the end of production. He saw spending time and resources on the Hurricane as pretty much wasted, and instead concentrated on new, all-metal, monocoque-structured fighters. The first prototype of the Hurricane's replacement was flying in February 1940. You might have heard of it, it was called the Typhoon.....


----------



## Mad Dog (Jul 3, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> All we need is an interim variant that can take on the Hayabusa or Reisen and come out on top.


 Why bother when you already have the Spitfire VIII? The reason Hawker kept on making the Hurricane pretty much unchanged was because the Air Ministry placed truly massive orders in 1939, 1940 and 1941. They did the same with the Typhoon, to such an extent that the last production batch were built on one side of the Glosters site, were signed off as accepted by the Air Ministry, then wheeled across the site to be broken up for spares. They never flew, not even a test flight, but they had to be assembled for the contract to be completed.
One of the reasons was the contracts signed with Hawker made it just about impossible for the Air Ministry to cancel the orders, and that was the fault of a guy called Lord Beaverbrook. Lord Beaverbrook (or Max Aitken as he was then at the time) was a newspaper magnate who had a knack for managing mechanised production, but zero practical knowledge of what was actually needed by the RAF. Churchill hired him as the Minister of Aircraft Production in 1940 with one goal - boost the number of aircraft produced. And Beaverbrook was very good at organsing production efficiently. In the panic of 1940 he helped win the Battle of Britain by ensuring the RAF had a increasing number of fighters available whilst the Luftwaffe had a declining number. But he had the effect of boosting the production of a lot of planes which should have been on the way out, such as the Hurricane I, which were still being made in their hundreds on unfinished orders months after the Hurricane II was in service! IIRC, Hurricane Is were still being delivered to the RAF in late 1941 and Hurricane XIIs were being manufactured in Canada well into 1943! The Bristol Blenheim is another example, kept in production too long because Bristol had massive orders to fill.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Mad Dog (Jul 3, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Even on the Spitfire they made the clipped wing variant, apparently for the Med.


 The first clipped Spitfire wing was tried on the MkIII, which did not go into production, but was put into service in late 1942 in the ETO with the LFVb in an attempt to produce better speed and roll rate for combat with the FW190. Nothing to do with the Med.


----------



## Mad Dog (Jul 3, 2019)

Schweik said:


> But was this due to issues fighting over the Channel or with tip and run raids, or also in the Med? And did the Bf 109F have anything to do with it?


Nothing to do with the Med and nothing to do with the Bf109F. It was the _high altitude_ performance of the Bf109F during sweeps over France that caused the RAF problems, not its low-level ability. Clipping the wings was intended to increase the speed and roll-rate of the MkV at _low altitude_ in response to the FW190. The MkV could deal with the Bf109F at medium and low altitudes.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Mad Dog (Jul 3, 2019)

Schweik said:


> It occurs to me the Spit V with clipped wings would be quite similar in many respects to a P-40F.....


 Empty weight of the Spitfire Vc Trop was 5048-5065Lb, and 6220-6495Lb fully loaded, depending on the batch and fittings. The P-40F was *6590Lb empty and* *8500Lb at normal load*. The Hurri IIb Trop, 5675Lb empty, 7080Lb loaded, even with the weight of twelve Browning .303s, could still reach 20,000ft in nine minutes dead. A Spitfire Vc Trop (Merlin 45) could do it in only 7.3 minutes and the clipped Spitfire Vb was usually lighter than a Vc when loaded, so probably a whisker faster still. The P-40F took _*11.2 minutes*_ with a virtually identical engine to the Hurricane. The P-40F was simply grossly overweight, hence why it was outclimbed by even the Hurricane IIb.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Mad Dog (Jul 3, 2019)

Glider said:


> It's often forgotten that the Me110 was good as its primary role at the start of the war. It only came unstuck when fighting the BOB, but before then it was a formidable aircraft, far more effective than the 109D which was its single engine equivalent.


 The 110 only came unstuck in the BoB when it was ordered to fly as close escort to the bombers. That sacrificed the advantages of speed and height they used for their boom'n'zoom tactics. When allowed to roam freely on sweeps, they were deadly throughout the Battle. The close escort problem effected the 109s as well, it was just worse for the Bf110s. The next biggest problem for the 110 was production lagged loss rate, then it was cut because Messerschmitt said the ME210 was going to be great, only it wasn't, by which time the frontline 110 fleet was down to 60 aircraft!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 3, 2019)

We really need to get rid of the “dumb rating” that some people are constantly using. It serves no purpose other than stoking flames. 

It really is like a Kindergarten around here. And no Mad Dog this time I am not referring to you.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## Mad Dog (Jul 3, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> The problem with the Hurricane vs Ju 88 scenario was that once the Ju 88 had dropped its bombs it was nigh impossible to catch. A Ju 88 did 326 mph clean and could evade a Hurricane in a dive, the Hurricane only being capable of 410 mph.


 But the Hurricanes over Malta, both MkIs and MkIIs, shot down plenty of Ju88s. Their problem was not catching the Ju88s, it was getting past the large number of Bf109F escorts to be able to get a shot at the Ju88s. Sea Hurricanes on the Operation Pedestal run shot down Ju88s, and they were effectively Hurricane Is with Merlin IIIs and the 4-cannon IIc wing! Speed was not the issue.


Kevin J said:


> Even the Seafire IIc couldn't catch a Ju 88.....


 The landing at Salerno relied on Seafires, and the Germans were well-aware of their capabilities, only sending their Ju88s in at night. Not sure where you got the idea a Seafire couldn't catch a Ju88.


----------



## michael rauls (Jul 3, 2019)

Going back a couple of posts I've always felt it was to bad they didn't upgrade the Hurricane. From what I've read it was really stable and new pilots could master it fairly quickly. Those are valuable characteristics in wartime or anytime for that matter.
If they just kept cramming more power into it seems like they would end up with something that performed kida like the F6f, maybe no one outstanding performance area but pretty good at everything and those always desirable docile handling characteristics.
Maybe it wasn't practical as it would take away from newer types but doesn't seem like adding more horsepower as it became available would take to much redesign effort.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 3, 2019)

michael rauls said:


> Maybe it wasn't practical as it would take away from newer types but doesn't seem like adding more horsepower as it became available would take to much redesign effort.



More HP at what altitude? 

Some of the MK IVs got Merlin 27 engines which were rated at 1635hp at 2250ft in low gear and 1510hp at 9250ft in high gear using 18lbs of boost. (66in or so). That is about as good as it got for a single stage Merlin using 100/130 fuel. If you want more HP higher up you need a two stage supercharger and that is going to require at least some redesign.


----------



## michael rauls (Jul 3, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> More HP at what altitude?
> 
> Some of the MK IVs got Merlin 27 engines which were rated at 1635hp at 2250ft in low gear and 1510hp at 9250ft in high gear using 18lbs of boost. (66in or so). That is about as good as it got for a single stage Merlin using 100/130 fuel. If you want more HP higher up you need a two stage supercharger and that is going to require at least some redesign.


Ya that's what I was thinking. I know it would take take some redesign but nowhere near a whole new aircraft.......I think? And the Hurricane had such good qualities. If it were practical I suppose they would have done it but it seems like a good idea to me............Maybee thats why im not in charge of fighter design
Those Hurricanes with the 1635hp, you don't happen to know the speed and climb do you?


----------



## Mad Dog (Jul 3, 2019)

Schweik said:


> ….Beaufighter and Bf 110 were obsolete even as night fighters in my opinion by that time....


 Why? The ME110 was an effective night-fighter right up until VE-Day, simply because the majority of its targets were RAF bombers cruising at less than 200mph. IIRC, the leading Luftwaffe night-fighter ace, Heinz-Wolfgang Schnaufer, scored all of his 121 victories in Bf110s at night. And I know at least the USAAF's 417th Squadron were still flying Beaufighters as night-fighters as late as April 1945 over Germany.



Schweik said:


> The Me 210 and 410 …. excelled as night-intruders bomber killers so long as they had protection


 What? They didn't need escorts at night. And they very rarely were allowed to operate as intruders because Hitler preferred to have his night-fighters shooting down RAF night-bombers over Germany so the German public could see it happening. Please go read up on Operation Gisela.



Schweik said:


> .....A-20..... not fast enough to be a good night fighter....


 Please identify the Axis bomber you think was able to outrun and A-20/Havoc? An Heinkel 177 in a dive, maybe, but the more common Ju88, Ju188, Dornier 217 and He111 were pretty easy prey for the Havoc II. The Italians certainly never had a bomber that could outrun a Havoc II, nor the Japanese. Sure, there were _better_ alternatives which replaced the A-20/Havoc, such as the Mosquito, but that doesn't mean the A-20 was useless as a night-fighter, even by 1945.



Schweik said:


> .....Beaufighter was too slow to fly and fight much over Continental Europe by 1943....


 See 417th above, then read more widely.


----------



## wuzak (Jul 3, 2019)

michael rauls said:


> Ya that's what I was thinking. I know it would take take some redesign but nowhere near a whole new aircraft.......I think? And the Hurricane had such good qualities. If it were practical I suppose they would have done it but it seems like a good idea to me............Maybee thats why im not in charge of fighter design
> Those Hurricanes with the 1635hp, you don't happen to know the speed and climb do you?



With a small number of 2 stage Merlins, at least initially, you have to be really picky as to what aircraft you put them in. 

Note that W4050, the prototype Mosquito, was fitted with Merlin 61s around mid 1942, but the B.IX and PR.IX didn't go into production until mid 1943. 

I don't see what point there would have been putting the 2 stage Merlin into the Hurricane to keep it vaguely competitive, especially when that takes effort away from newer types (Typhoon and Tempest) and engines for more useful aircraft (Spitfire and Mosquito).

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Jul 3, 2019)

Mad Dog said:


> Empty weight of the Spitfire Vc Trop was 5048-5065Lb, and 6220-6495Lb fully loaded, depending on the batch and fittings. The P-40F was *6590Lb empty and* *8500Lb at normal load*. The Hurri IIb Trop, 5675Lb empty, 7080Lb loaded, even with the weight of twelve Browning .303s, could still reach 20,000ft in nine minutes dead. A Spitfire Vc Trop (Merlin 45) could do it in only 7.3 minutes and the clipped Spitfire Vb was usually lighter than a Vc when loaded, so probably a whisker faster still. The P-40F took _*11.2 minutes*_ with a virtually identical engine to the Hurricane. The P-40F was simply grossly overweight, hence why it was outclimbed by even the Hurricane IIb.



The clipped wing Spitfires not only lost altitude performance, they also lost climb performance.

However, the LF.V could probably have out-climbed the regular V/trop at low levels because of the additional boost from its 45M or 50M Merlin.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Jul 3, 2019)

wuzak said:


> With a small number of 2 stage Merlins, at least initially, you have to be really picky as to what aircraft you put them in.
> 
> Note that W4050, the prototype Mosquito, was fitted with Merlin 61s around mid 1942, but the B.IX and PR.IX didn't go into production until mid 1943.
> 
> I don't see what point there would have been putting the 2 stage Merlin into the Hurricane to keep it vaguely competitive, especially when that takes effort away from newer types (Typhoon and Tempest) and engines for more useful aircraft (Spitfire and Mosquito).


I guess that would be the reason why not, not enough of the two stage Merlins to go around. That's to bad. Didn't the Typhoon have a different engine though? Oh well, regardless I guess there were higher priorities for the limited number of Merlins to be had.


----------



## Mad Dog (Jul 3, 2019)

michael rauls said:


> Those Hurricanes with the 1635hp, you don't happen to know the speed and climb do you?


 Actually, the Hurri IVs got the Merlin XX, boosted to the same limits as the Hurri II. All the Merlin 27s were used for Mosquitos. The IV was a dedicated ground-attack version, so it also got lots of heavy armour plate, and ended up slower than the IIc.


----------



## wuzak (Jul 3, 2019)

michael rauls said:


> I guess that would be the reason why not, not enough of the two stage Merlins to go around. That's to bad. Didn't the Typhoon have a different engine though? Oh well, regardless I guess there were higher priorities for the limited number of Merlins to be had.



Yes, the Typhoon and Tempest had the Sabre.

The point I was making is that any resources directed to improving the Hurricane or updating it to fit the 2 stage Merlin would detract from Typhoon and Tempest development.

It is a similar story for the Griffon. It was redesigned in 1939 specifically to be suitable to fit in the Spitfire. Supermarine produced a Griffon/Spitfire Proposal and Hawker did the Hurricane?Griffon proposal. 

The Griffon was in even shorter supply, as they only made around 8,000 in total.


----------



## wuzak (Jul 3, 2019)

Mad Dog said:


> Actually, the Hurri IVs got the Merlin XX, boosted to the same limits as the Hurri II. All the Merlin 27s were used for Mosquitos. The IV was a dedicated ground-attack version, so it also got lots of heavy armour plate, and ended up slower than the IIc.



The Merlins for Mosquitoes were different to regular Merlins because they had reversed coolant flow, which was required to work with the leading edge radiators. 

Though otherwise identical, the reverse coolant flow Melrins had different mark numbers to the equivalent standard version.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 3, 2019)

Schweik said:


> The Me 210 and 410, though comparatively fast, did not work out as daytime fighters but excelled as night-intruders bomber killers so long as they had protection. If they didn't have fighter cover they got hacked down.



The reason they didn't work out as daytime fighters was that they were light bombers. Trying to use twin engine light bombers as fighters against single engine fighters was never going to end well for the twin engine plane no matter how many guns you stuffed in the old bomb bay.






throw in that cockamamee rear gun set up




Yes it had two 13mm guns firing to the rear but only in rarest of circumstances were you ever going to get both guns to fire at the same target at the same time.
About the only thing you can say for it is that the gunner didn't have to fight the windstream to aim the guns as it was power operated.

I am sorry but in many cases you examples of "obsolete" aircraft don't actually work the way you seem to think.

Like


Schweik said:


> The Ju 88 was somewhat disappointing as a daytime bomber in the BoB but worked out well in Maritime raids in the North and Baltic Sea, in the Bay of Biscay and in the Med, as a tactical / dive bomber in Russia and the Med (up to ~ mid 1943) and for a while as a night fighter, and in other roles. Including as a heavy maritime fighter I'm just learning!


The main JU-88 used in the BoB was the Ju 88A-1 with some help from the A-5. The Germans never made things simple, right after the BoB the main production was switched to the Ju 88A-4 with 5 ft more sing span, engines with several hundred more HP each and a much higher gross weight (could actually carry fuel and bombs at the same time) the confusing part is that the A-5 was an A-4 airframe with the engines (or only slightly better ones) than the engines used in the A-1 which did NOT make for sparkling performance.
The JU-88s of 1944 either had Jumo 213 engines or BMW 801 radials instead of the older Jumo 211 engines. These were the G series night fighters and the S series fast bombers.
In some cases they used one of the bomb bays full of nitrous oxide tanks to boost performance at altitude. 

You may have read an awful lot about the operational history of many of these aircraft ( I would say more than I do) but you seem to lacking in detail knowledge about the actual performance or armament of some of these planes. This makes reaching valid conclusions about the general course of development a bit difficult.

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


----------



## Mad Dog (Jul 3, 2019)

wuzak said:


> Supermarine produced a Griffon/Spitfire Proposal and Hawker did the Hurricane?


The Griffon and Hurricane is a sore point with the Fish Heads! 
The Royal Navy asked Rolls-Royce to develop the Griffon for naval use before the War started. The problem the Navy had was they needed more power for take off rather than at altitude, and Merlin development was already going the high-altitude route. They also aske Hawker to make a Griffon-engined and navalised Hurricane, with folding wings, in 1939. Hawker declined because they wanted to concentrate on the Typhoon/Tornado, and the Air Ministry stepped in because they didn't want Hurricane or Merlin production being hampered. So the RN got stuck with the two-seat Fairey Fulmar with the low-rated Merlin VIII. When they got the Sea Hurricane in 1941, it was a slightly modified Hurricane I with the conversion by General Aircraft Ltd, not Hawker, and without folding wings. They finally got something with the Griffin and folding wings in the Fairey Firefly in 1943, but seeing as that was a development of the Fulmar it wasn't really an improvement! I'm told it did take off very well, though.


----------



## Mad Dog (Jul 3, 2019)

wuzak said:


> The Merlins for Mosquitoes were different to regular Merlins because they had reversed coolant flow, which was required to work with the leading edge radiators.
> 
> Though otherwise identical, the reverse coolant flow Melrins had different mark numbers to the equivalent standard version.



True, the modified Merlin 27s were renumbered as Merlin 25s, IIRC.


----------



## Schweik (Jul 3, 2019)

michael rauls said:


> Going back a couple of posts I've always felt it was to bad they didn't upgrade the Hurricane. From what I've read it was really stable and new pilots could master it fairly quickly. Those are valuable characteristics in wartime or anytime for that matter.
> If they just kept cramming more power into it seems like they would end up with something that performed kida like the F6f, maybe no one outstanding performance area but pretty good at everything and those always desirable docile handling characteristics.
> Maybe it wasn't practical as it would take away from newer types but doesn't seem like adding more horsepower as it became available would take to much redesign effort.



I think the best way to improve it, albeit pure speculation since they didn't do it, but IMO reducing wingspan and if possible thinning the wings.

Otherwise you can end up with something like the Firefly - 1,700 hp (Griffon) and 316 mph


----------



## michael rauls (Jul 3, 2019)

Schweik said:


> I think the best way to improve it, albeit pure speculation since they didn't do it, but IMO reducing wingspan and if possible thinning the wings.
> 
> Otherwise you can end up with something like the Firefly - 1,700 hp (Griffon) and 316 mph


It's interesting to think about. With additional power and maybe a thinner wing I'm gonna take a guess and say it could have been good for 370, 380 maybe.
How would a fighter with a 380 mph top speed and the moaenuverability of the Hurricane and the handling characteristics of the Hurricane fair? Sounds pretty good but I suppose the guys making those descisions knew alot more than I do and they felt there were better ways to focus there efforts.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jul 4, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> The reason they didn't work out as daytime fighters was that they were light bombers. Trying to use twin engine light bombers as fighters against single engine fighters was never going to end well for the twin engine plane no matter how many guns you stuffed in the old bomb bay.



They were both heavy fighters and bombers - like a lot of fighters were effectively by that time of the war (albeit granted not that many with internal bomb bays - but you did have the mosquito). With the extra speed though they were supposed to take back the Zerstorer role from the Bf 110, but that never really happened. Being able to use them to attack B-17s and B-24s, with an escort, gave these designs a new life that made them useful again.

View attachment 543514

Great photo by the way.



> Yes it had two 13mm guns firing to the rear but only in rarest of circumstances were you ever going to get both guns to fire at the same target at the same time.
> About the only thing you can say for it is that the gunner didn't have to fight the windstream to aim the guns as it was power operated.



Apparently the remote control worked though and even one 13mm gun, so long as it doesn't jam, is pretty daunting for a pursuing fighter.



> I am sorry but in many cases you examples of "obsolete" aircraft don't actually work the way you seem to think.



Bf 110, Ju 88, Do 217 were definitely obsolete for daytime combat by 1944, and they were vulnerable to Mosquitoes at night. To me that is obsolete or pretty close to it. My whole point was that obsolete is a matter of degrees not really an absolute. At least until you get to the "target tug" role.




> The main JU-88 used in the BoB was the Ju 88A-1 with some help from the A-5. The Germans never made things simple, right after the BoB the main production was switched to the Ju
> (snip)
> You may have read an awful lot about the operational history of many of these aircraft ( I would say more than I do) but you seem to lacking in detail knowledge about the actual performance or armament of some of these planes. This makes reaching valid conclusions about the general course of development a bit difficult.



I readily admit I don't know about all planes in the war, like most people around this fourm I basically know more about the planes that interest me. That said, lets not make a mountain out of a mole hill. I knew there were fighter armed Ju 88 variants, I just thought those were used as night fighters and in the bomber destroyer role. I was never frankly interested enough in the Ju 88 to put together the aggressive maritime raids with the heavy fighter variants.

We all have our little areas of expertise, you know the engines very well as I have conceded before. I know a few types inside and out, I daresay I introduced a few things about the P-40 both operationally and developmentally that were not widely known around here. I may do so with a few other types like some of the Russian fighters, if I have the time. I do tend to focus more on the operational history and work my way back to developmental details from there, because that way you can avoid all the dead-ends and clutter that didn't actually go anywhere. 

But ultimately you need to cover both sides of the equation, otherwise you'll have a distorted understanding of the subject.

My actual historical field is another era entirely, and there is an interesting analogue in legal history. They used to think that in this era if you did X you would receive punishment Y, plain and simple, because that is what the law books said. For decades this was what was said about the period, punishments included a lot of Y meaning very harsh things. Then somebody started looking at the actual court records of actual cases. Aggregating dozens of them. And a different picture emerges. Turns out the real world punishment was not what the law required but was instead typically a much milder "A, B" or "C".

I think you can draw a similar comparison to WW2 Aircraft. If I looked at the Curtiss Helldiver on paper I might assume it was a great bomber. Almost 300 mph speed with a 1,900 hp engine, two 20mm cannons plus 2 defensive machine guns, 2,000 bomb load for dive bombing or a torpedo, 1,100 mile range. It looks pretty good. Only by reading operational history and pilot reports do you find out what a dud it really was, at least in the early days (and I'm not sure they ever really fixed it).

So I do think you have to look at planes from a few different angles.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jul 4, 2019)

michael rauls said:


> It's interesting to think about. With additional power and maybe a thinner wing I'm gonna take a guess and say it could have been good for 370, 380 maybe.
> How would a fighter with a 380 mph top speed and the moaenuverability of the Hurricane and the handling characteristics of the Hurricane fair? Sounds pretty good but I suppose the guys making those descisions knew alot more than I do and they felt there were better ways to focus there efforts.



I think if they could have chopped the wing down to 36' - you still probably would have had an exceptionally maneuverable and stable airplane, and almost certainly much faster. The Hurricane as it existed could out turn any German or Italian monoplane (and hang with the biplanes) but was too draggy and slow for front line combat by 1942, and was clearly struggling in 1941. But in 1940 it still looked dangerous as hell in terms of outcomes. The difference is being ~20 mph slower than the enemy planes vs. ~30 - ~50 mph slower. 

If you had a Hurricane that was as fast as a Bf 109F then the latter is in serious trouble I think. And the same Hurricane would be dominating the Zero in the Pacific as well.

I bet less drag might even mean more range though I know there is a tradeoff there. Bigger wings provide more lift...


----------



## pbehn (Jul 4, 2019)

Schweik said:


> I bet less drag might even mean more range though I know there is a tradeoff there. Bigger wings provide more lift...


The Hurricane was used increasingly for ground attack as a fighter bomber or with heavy cannon, for that you need the lift.


----------



## Schweik (Jul 4, 2019)

pbehn said:


> The Hurricane was used increasingly for ground attack as a fighter bomber or with heavy cannon, for that you need the lift.



A 36 ft wing for the weight of the Hurricane still gives you plenty of lift I would say. Should have no trouble carrying bombs or the 20mm cannon, though if you also had a thinner wing then you'd have to deal with cannon bulges maybe. However I don't think you'd have to have wings as thin as a Spitfire to get substantially better performance out of a Hurricane. They took the A6M2 from a 39 ft wing to a 36 ft wing on the A6M5, with only a moderate increase in engine power*, and it jumped up 20 mph in speed.

If the Hurricane Mk II could really make 330 mph, that would mean arguably a jump in speed to 355 mph. Maybe a few more streamlining efforts and some adjustment to exhaust etc. you might get to 360 mph and now it starts to maybe look plausible to put in a more powerful merlin. 360 mph would put it close to parity with a P-40F and yet it would be more heavily armed with 4 cannon and still quite a bit lighter, so probably better climb and performance ceiling. You also undoubtedly get better roll and a faster dive speed and dive acceleration with the shorter wing.

In fact in some ways that is probably a better fighter than a Typhoon lol.

*When they put the same engine on the A6M2 airframe it only increased the speed by 6.8 mph


----------



## Kevin J (Jul 4, 2019)

Mad Dog said:


> But the Hurricanes over Malta, both MkIs and MkIIs, shot down plenty of Ju88s. Their problem was not catching the Ju88s, it was getting past the large number of Bf109F escorts to be able to get a shot at the Ju88s. Sea Hurricanes on the Operation Pedestal run shot down Ju88s, and they were effectively Hurricane Is with Merlin IIIs and the 4-cannon IIc wing! Speed was not the issue.
> The landing at Salerno relied on Seafires, and the Germans were well-aware of their capabilities, only sending their Ju88s in at night. Not sure where you got the idea a Seafire couldn't catch a Ju88.


If speed wasn't an issue then the Seafire LIIc would never have been built or the Sea Hurricane Ib/c allowed 16lbs boost in its Merlin III.


----------



## wuzak (Jul 4, 2019)

Schweik said:


> I think if they could have chopped the wing down to 36' - you still probably would have had an exceptionally maneuverable and stable airplane, and almost certainly much faster. The Hurricane as it existed could out turn any German or Italian monoplane (and hang with the biplanes) but was too draggy and slow for front line combat by 1942, and was clearly struggling in 1941. But in 1940 it still looked dangerous as hell in terms of outcomes. The difference is being ~20 mph slower than the enemy planes vs. ~30 - ~50 mph slower.
> 
> If you had a Hurricane that was as fast as a Bf 109F then the latter is in serious trouble I think. And the same Hurricane would be dominating the Zero in the Pacific as well.
> 
> I bet less drag might even mean more range though I know there is a tradeoff there. Bigger wings provide more lift...



Cutting the wing down to 36ft would cut off half the ailerons. How would that work for manoeuvrability?


----------



## Schweik (Jul 4, 2019)

Actually, I was thinking of moving the ailerons  I know that would require a bit of a wing design but again, they did it on the Zero






A6M2 (source drawingdatabase.com)




A6M5 (same [URL='https://www.the-blueprints.com/blueprints/ww2planes/ww2-mitsubishi/1612/view/mitsubishi_a6m2_zero/']source)

And before anybody starts to say the A6M5 came late, the speed increase and the shorter wing both actually date back to the A6M3, which entered production in April 1942 Presumably the wing change didn't take that long.

So I figure the British had to be at least nearly as smart as the Japanese right? They should therefore have been able to do it.[/URL]


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jul 4, 2019)

michael rauls said:


> How would a fighter with a 380 mph top speed and the moaenuverability of the Hurricane and the handling characteristics of the Hurricane fair?


No way, Jose. You can have the speed OR you can have the maneuverability, pick one. If you chop and thin the wings, you're going to sacrifice maneuverability on the altar of speed. That fat, high lift wing and large ailerons, coupled with a light weight are what give you your maneuverability. That fat airfoil is essentially a low speed biplane-era feature, and could be replaced with a thinner higher speed section, but at the cost of greater structural weight and longer runway requirements. Your turn and burn fighter would likely turn into a boom and zoom machine.
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## pbehn (Jul 4, 2019)

Schweik said:


> A 36 ft wing for the weight of the Hurricane still gives you plenty of lift I would say. Should have no trouble carrying bombs or the 20mm cannon, though if you also had a thinner wing then you'd have to deal with cannon bulges maybe. However I don't think you'd have to have wings as thin as a Spitfire to get substantially better performance out of a Hurricane. They took the A6M2 from a 39 ft wing to a 36 ft wing on the A6M5, with only a moderate increase in engine power*, and it jumped up 20 mph in speed.
> 
> If the Hurricane Mk II could really make 330 mph, that would mean arguably a jump in speed to 355 mph. Maybe a few more streamlining efforts and some adjustment to exhaust etc. you might get to 360 mph and now it starts to maybe look plausible to put in a more powerful merlin. 360 mph would put it close to parity with a P-40F and yet it would be more heavily armed with 4 cannon and still quite a bit lighter, so probably better climb and performance ceiling. You also undoubtedly get better roll and a faster dive speed and dive acceleration with the shorter wing.
> 
> ...


If its a better fighter than the Typhoon it is on par with a Tempest. Are you seriously suggesting that a few mods to the Hurricane, unnoticed until today, would have the Hurricane on par with a Tempest? I think some anti Typhoon propaganda may have led you astray, the Typhoon was the only plane that could chase down FW190 tip and run raiders, Spitfires couldn't that is why the Typhoon was rushed to service, so I don't think any type of souped up or cut down Hurricane would either. You cant add up reductions in drag to produce super performance. The Spitfire was about 30MPH slower than the Mustang with the same engine, this was due to better wing design, better cooling design and better fit/finish. To uprate a Spitfire to be the same as a Mustang needs a completely new plane called a Mustang and probably different production methods and equipment, it is the same only more so with a Hurricane. In any case the RAF had Mustangs first with Allison and then with Rolls Royce engines.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## PAT303 (Jul 4, 2019)

michael rauls said:


> Going back a couple of posts I've always felt it was to bad they didn't upgrade the Hurricane. From what I've read it was really stable and new pilots could master it fairly quickly. Those are valuable characteristics in wartime or anytime for that matter.
> If they just kept cramming more power into it seems like they would end up with something that performed kida like the F6f, maybe no one outstanding performance area but pretty good at everything and those always desirable docile handling characteristics.
> Maybe it wasn't practical as it would take away from newer types but doesn't seem like adding more horsepower as it became available would take to much redesign effort.



If Hawker wanted to make a better Hurricane they should have just made MkVIII Spitfires instead, all straight from the factory with 96G main 32G combined leading edge and 65G rear tanks, that's the plane the Allies needed in '42.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jul 4, 2019)

PAT303 said:


> If Hawker wanted to make a better Hurricane they should have just made MkVIII Spitfires instead, all straight from the factory with 96G main 32G combined leading edge and 65G rear tanks, that's the plane the Allies needed in '42.


How many Hurricanes and Typhoons will you do without? Would you have enough Merlin 61s in 1942 to actually get any more Spitfires?

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Jul 4, 2019)

XBe02Drvr said:


> No way, Jose. You can have the speed OR you can have the maneuverability, pick one. If you chop and thin the wings, you're going to sacrifice maneuverability on the altar of speed. That fat, high lift wing and large ailerons, coupled with a light weight are what give you your maneuverability. That fat airfoil is essentially a low speed biplane-era feature, and could be replaced with a thinner higher speed section, but at the cost of greater structural weight and longer runway requirements. Your turn and burn fighter would likely turn into a boom and zoom machine.
> Cheers,
> Wes


Yes I know there is a trade off. Smaller wing=lest lift. That's why I didn't mention reducing wing area. Just a bit thinner to reduce drag a bit. I think a thinner wing would reduce lift also the shape being equal but not as much as reduced wing area? 
So nothing drastic. Just a somewhat thinner wing and more power. Seems like it isn't unreasonable to think you could get another 30, 35 mph and still retain most of it's good flight characteristics. I'm kinda thinking F6f. Alot of wing area but I don't think it had a particularly thick wing did it?
And it had verry good handling. So I've read anyway. 
I've just always liked planes that had a reputation for not being tricky to fly. Kinda odd for someone who's not a pilot I know but for whatever reason I always have. I was just thinking if you've got a design that really flys well like the Hurricane then it might be worth pursuing such modification/ improvements.

,

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jul 4, 2019)

michael rauls said:


> Yes I know there is a trade off. Smaller wing=lest lift. That's why I didn't mention reducing wing area. Just a bit thinner to reduce drag a bit. I think a thinner wing would reduce lift also the shape being equal but not as much as reduced wing area?
> So nothing drastic. Just a somewhat thinner wing and more power. Seems like it isn't unreasonable to think you could get another 30, 35 mph and still retain most of it's good flight characteristics. I'm kinda thinking F6f. Alot of wing area but I don't think it had a particularly thick wing did it?
> And it had verry good handling. So I've read anyway.
> I've just always liked planes that had a reputation for not being tricky to fly. Kinda odd for someone who's not a pilot I know but for whatever reason I always have. I was just thinking if you've got a design that really flys well like the Hurricane then it might be worth pursuing such modification/ improvements.
> ...


It just isn't as simple as that, the Spitfires wing was thinner than the Mustangs but had higher drag at most speeds. The Hurricanes inward closing undercarriage was contained in a box type structure which went quite a distance along the wing this contained the fuel tanks, as SR said the Ailerons go close to the end of the wing.


----------



## PAT303 (Jul 4, 2019)

pbehn said:


> How many Hurricanes and Typhoons will you do without? Would you have enough Merlin 61s in 1942 to actually get any more Spitfires?



I'd loose enough to guarantee the pilot's went to war with the best planes I could supply, which from 1941 is not the Hurricane. The engine problem is the biggest issue, what automotive makers in Britain could be used as a satellite factory to Roll's, Rover/Austin/AC Ace/SS(Jaguar)?.


----------



## PAT303 (Jul 4, 2019)

pbehn said:


> It just isn't as simple as that, the Spitfires wing was thinner than the Mustangs but had higher drag at most speeds. The Hurricanes inward closing undercarriage was contained in a box type structure which went quite a distance along the wing this contained the fuel tanks, as SR said the Ailerons go close to the end of the wing.
> 
> 
> View attachment 543573



I've always been lead to believe the elliptical wing was a clean design, it was the cumulative drag from the upright windscreen, R/T antenna, tail wheel, uncovered landing gear and cannon barrels that was the problem.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jul 4, 2019)

PAT303 said:


> I've always been lead to believe the elliptical wing was a clean design, it was the cumulative drag from the upright windscreen, R/T antenna, tail wheel, uncovered landing gear and cannon barrels that was the problem.


The Mustang wing had lower drag despite being thicker than the Spitfire, nothing to do with the elliptical form its to do with the aerofoil profile and the onset of turbulent flow. The Spitfires wasn't bad, just the Mustangs was better up to Mach 0.85. The next issue was cooling drag and the Mustangs set up was better, then comes details like wind screen uncovered U/C and the general shape and fit of panels.


----------



## Milosh (Jul 4, 2019)

I love how some people think the faery godmother would flick her magic wand and poof, a new Hurricane.

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


----------



## pbehn (Jul 4, 2019)

PAT303 said:


> I'd loose enough to guarantee the pilot's went to war with the best planes I could supply, which from 1941 is not the Hurricane. The engine problem is the biggest issue, what automotive makers in Britain could be used as a satellite factory to Roll's, Rover/Austin/AC Ace/SS(Jaguar)?.


 Until you get enough twin stage merlins to satisfy all Supermarine factories and your new Hawker spitfire factory it doesn't make one extra aircraft but you lose all your Hurricanes and Typhoons, the Spitfire Mk VIII was superior to the Typhoon in some but not all respects. There were 4 sites making Merlins in UK in WW2 when would you start building another and why? Why do you think the UK approached Packard?


----------



## PAT303 (Jul 4, 2019)

pbehn said:


> Until you get enough twin stage merlins to satisfy all Supermarine factories and your new Hawker spitfire factory it doesn't make one extra aircraft but you lose all your Hurricanes and Typhoons, the Spitfire Mk VIII was superior to the Typhoon in some but not all respects. There were 4 sites making Merlins in UK in WW2 when would you start building another and why? Why do you think the UK approached Packard?



It was just a reply to the question asked about improving the Hurricane, there only so much you can do to a sow's ear.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jul 4, 2019)

Milosh said:


> I love how some people think the faery godmother would flick her magic wand and poof, a new Hurricane.


Camm and his team were a bit dull thts why they went on to the Sea Fury Hunter Harrier etc.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Jul 4, 2019)

PAT303 said:


> I've always been lead to believe the elliptical wing was a clean design, it was the cumulative drag from the upright windscreen, R/T antenna, tail wheel, uncovered landing gear and cannon barrels that was the problem.



Low drag is very much in the details, whether it's in a WWII-era fighter or a 21st Century sailplane. The elliptical wing, by itself, just permits minimal induced drag for a given span* and a constant lift coefficient along the span. In the case of the Spitfire, the wing had washout, which increased the wing's induced drag. The elliptical planform was chosen to get enough depth to fit the armament and the retracted landing gear. Washout was added to improve the behavior around stall.


* One gets a different planform if root bending moment is held constant or for a non-planar wing

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


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 4, 2019)

For all the wing chopper advocates please look at the Spitfire again.

Due to it's construction (the original tips being pieces that bolted on to the rest of the wing) it was very easy to both cut the wingspan and extend it. 

Due to it's shape (the elliptical or semi elliptical shape) the wing _area_ actually didn't change all that much. cutting the wingspan 4 feet only cut 11 sq ft of wing area (about 4.5%) and when the extended tips were bolted on (3ft 4 in increase in span) there is only about 2.75% increase in area. The changes in climb and altitude performance were not due to the change in wing area alone but the change in aspect ratio of the wing. Aspect ratio has an effect on the overall efficiency of the wing. The higher the aspect ratio the more "lift" per sq ft of wing area in simplistic terms. It may not be a large percentage change but it does exist and helps explain some of the differences in performance. 

Cutting the wing of the Hurricane with it's blunter wing tips means a bit more square footage lost compared to the Spitfire (perhaps 1.5-2 sq ft?) and it means a loss of aspect ratio (although not quite the same as the Spit due to the longer wing to begin with.)

Speed gained or lost is proportional to the speed of the airplane since you are changing the drag, a change of 5mph on a 370mph airplane is not going to give you 5mph on a 340mph airplane. the drag at 370mph is about 18% higher than the drag at 340mph. Maybe you get 4mph?

And what do you loose? The Hurricane already did not perform as well as the Spitfire at high altitudes when they both had the same engine. SO you want to gain a little speed at the cost of climb and operational ceiling? Itis this kind of fixation on _speed _that got some designs in trouble when overall performance (including landing and take off) were considered.

As far as "just" moving the ailerons? that means you either make the flaps smaller (OK for landing, they didn't provide much lift, they were speed brakes) or you change the type of flap or make them larger by moving the hinge point forward and at this point the cheap and easy modification is becoming rather more complicated and expensive by the moment. 

I would also like to correct Pat202 a bit. He was right about when the TYphoon first flew but the Tornado (basically a Typhoon wing, landing gear and fuselage from the cockpit back) flew on Oct 6th 1939 about 3 1/2 months before the Typhoon which helps put the development schedule into perspective vs improving the Hurricane.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jul 4, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> It is this kind of fixation on _speed _that got some designs in trouble





Shortround6 said:


> the Tornado (basically a Typhoon wing, landing gear and fuselage from the cockpit back) flew on Oct 6th 1939 about 3 1/2 months before the Typhoon which helps put the development schedule into perspective vs improving the Hurricane.


Given the timing, the only worthwhile fixes for the Hurricane would have to be of the "quick and dirty" variety, and it's issues weren't given to that.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Jul 4, 2019)

pbehn said:


> Until you get enough twin stage merlins to satisfy all Supermarine factories and your new Hawker spitfire factory it doesn't make one extra aircraft but you lose all your Hurricanes and Typhoons, the Spitfire Mk VIII was superior to the Typhoon in some but not all respects. There were 4 sites making Merlins in UK in WW2 when would you start building another and why? Why do you think the UK approached Packard?



You could use all those XX series Merlins saved by not building Hurricanes in a Mk.III Spitfire (which is what the VIII was based on). 

Spitfire III > Spitfire V
Spitfire III >>>>> Hurricane II

But then the question would be, how many aircraft do you miss out on by changing the production facility from one that produces steel tube frame, wood and dope aircraft (except the wings) to one that makes an all metal stressed skin construction?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jul 4, 2019)

XBe02Drvr said:


> No way, Jose. You can have the speed OR you can have the maneuverability, pick one. If you chop and thin the wings, you're going to sacrifice maneuverability on the altar of speed. That fat, high lift wing and large ailerons, coupled with a light weight are what give you your maneuverability. That fat airfoil is essentially a low speed biplane-era feature, and could be replaced with a thinner higher speed section, but at the cost of greater structural weight and longer runway requirements. Your turn and burn fighter would likely turn into a boom and zoom machine.
> Cheers,
> Wes



As an aircraft design, lets keep in mind the Hurricane had a lot of lift to 'burn' - it was probably the tightest turning monoplane of the war or close to it. With a 36' wing (same span as the Spitfire) it would still be a tight turner, and would certainly still out-turn the Bf 109. Just not as quickly perhaps, but that would be offset by being faster and having a better roll rate, better acceleration, higher dive speed and so on.

I again draw the comparison to the A6M2 vs. A6M3 or A6M5. These were still extremely manueverable airplanes. Cutting the wings down 3' just made them more capable overall.


----------



## Schweik (Jul 4, 2019)

pbehn said:


> If its a better fighter than the Typhoon it is on par with a Tempest. Are you seriously suggesting that a few mods to the Hurricane, unnoticed until today, would have the Hurricane on par with a Tempest? I think some anti Typhoon propaganda may have led you astray, the Typhoon was the only plane that could chase down FW190 tip and run raiders, Spitfires couldn't that is why the Typhoon was rushed to service, so I don't think any type of souped up or cut down Hurricane would either. You cant add up reductions in drag to produce super performance. The Spitfire was about 30MPH slower than the Mustang with the same engine, this was due to better wing design, better cooling design and better fit/finish. To uprate a Spitfire to be the same as a Mustang needs a completely new plane called a Mustang and probably different production methods and equipment, it is the same only more so with a Hurricane. In any case the RAF had Mustangs first with Allison and then with Rolls Royce engines.



I was kind of kidding, but semi-serious. The Mustang may have been 30 mph faster but I'd still rather be in a Spitfire IX or XIV if I was in a fight with a skilled Bf 109 pilot.

If you really could have a faster rolling, faster diving, 30 mph faster Hurricane, vs. the early stages, still temperamental Typhoon, you might rather have 1,000 of the former handy as a military leader while they still work out the bugs on the latter (and they will still be in England to tackle the V-1s and the tip and run raiders)... the Typhoon still has more potential, and the Tempest, when they get around to making it, will be far beyond the potential of any Hurricane (or P-40). But in the mean time, in say mid 1942, those fast "Hurricane IXs" would be nice to have...


----------



## Schweik (Jul 4, 2019)

pbehn said:


> The Mustang wing had lower drag despite being thicker than the Spitfire, nothing to do with the elliptical form its to do with the aerofoil profile and the onset of turbulent flow. The Spitfires wasn't bad, just the Mustangs was better up to Mach 0.85. The next issue was cooling drag and the Mustangs set up was better, then comes details like wind screen uncovered U/C and the general shape and fit of panels.



The Mustang's wing was 'cleaner' but also lower lift I think right? or is it just that the Mustang was so much heavier? For a big wing it didn't seem to turn that well.


----------



## Schweik (Jul 4, 2019)

Milosh said:


> I love how some people think the faery godmother would flick her magic wand and poof, a new Hurricane.



It's not the fairey godmother, as I pointed out - Mitsubishi did it so why couldn't Hawker?


----------



## Schweik (Jul 4, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> For all the wing chopper advocates please look at the Spitfire again.
> 
> Due to it's construction (the original tips being pieces that bolted on to the rest of the wing) it was very easy to both cut the wingspan and extend it.
> 
> ...



If you look at those pictures of the A6M2 vs. A6M5, they basically cut out the wing outboard of the aileron, and extended the aileron itself to the wingtip. I believe they did reduce the aileron size but only slightly and that actually improved control a bit because it reduced stick forces.

Again, I've yet to hear anyone explain to me why if they could do it with the Zero they couldn't have done it with the Hurricane? Would it really be that hard to remove at least the wingtips? I doubt it.


----------



## Milosh (Jul 4, 2019)

The A6M Model 21 had folding wing tips.


----------



## pbehn (Jul 4, 2019)

Schweik said:


> I was kind of kidding, but semi-serious. The Mustang may have been 30 mph faster but I'd still rather be in a Spitfire IX or XIV if I was in a fight with a skilled Bf 109 pilot.
> 
> If you really could have a faster rolling, faster diving, 30 mph faster Hurricane, vs. the early stages, still temperamental Typhoon, you might rather have 1,000 of the former handy as a military leader while they still work out the bugs on the latter (and they will still be in England to tackle the V-1s and the tip and run raiders)... the Typhoon still has more potential, and the Tempest, when they get around to making it, will be far beyond the potential of any Hurricane (or P-40). But in the mean time, in say mid 1942, those fast "Hurricane IXs" would be nice to have...


In mid 1942 the RAF was receiving the Mustang Mk1 the Spitfire IX and the Typhoon, no souped up Hurricane was going to be catching a V1.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jul 4, 2019)

Schweik said:


> lets keep in mind the Hurricane had a lot of lift to 'burn


True, but that lift came at the cost of high induced drag, due to the fat, low speed biplane-era airfoil section. That blunt-tipped straight taper wing stands to lose more area in a clip job than does a pointier tipped wing such as Spit or Zero, and more importantly, more loss in aspect ratio, which counts heavily in high G maneuvering. Your L/D at high AOA and G will be negatively impacted, leading to more energy bleed in ACM. Also, you're going to sacrifice some aileron or some flap with attendant impact on roll rate or landing performance.



Schweik said:


> The Mustang's wing was 'cleaner' but also lower lift I think right? or is it just that the Mustang was so much heavier?


Yes and yes. The Mustang's "laminar" airfoil gave it lower drag for equivalent lift at cruising AOAs and speeds, but I think you'll find that advantage dwindling at higher AOA and G load. And it was definitely heavier, which never helps.



wuzak said:


> But then the question would be, how many aircraft do you miss out on by changing the production facility from one that produces steel tube frame, wood and dope aircraft (except the wings) to one that makes an all metal stressed skin construction?


A bunch! Skilled wood and dope workers don't adapt readily to sheet metal work, if one of my classmates at mech school was any example. He was a well to do entrepreneur and skilled wood worker who chose to put his custom furniture and boat building shop on hold and take up aircraft work as a lark. He was no stranger to aircraft, having built a homebuilt plane that was very Hurricane-like in its construction techniques. (A Spezio Tuholer, for you inquisitive types) He wanted to get his A&P license so he could work on certificated aircraft. Anyway, long story short, he found his woodworking habits hard to shake and tinbending to be a mind bending experience. Now imagine an entire factory of people like him. They're all craftsmanlike people, and they will eventually get there, but it won't be quick or easy.
Cheers,
Wes

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


----------



## michael rauls (Jul 4, 2019)

Milosh said:


> I love how some people think the faery godmother would flick her magic wand and poof, a new Hurricane.


Who said anything even remotely resembling" poof a new Hurricane" obviously adding a more powerful two stage Merlin and maybe a slightly thinner wing are going to be some work but certainly nowhere near as much as designing, testing, and getting into service a whole new design. And then the risk that maybe that new design doesn't work out so well and all that efort is for nothing.
I was just speculating that when you have a design that is as stable as the Hurricane it might be worthwhile to spend the man hours to persue those modifications.
Wing modifications and even quite drastic engine changes were successfully done on other types so it should not be insurmountable. It is quite posible that it would not have yielded dramatic enough results to justify the effort or it could have been the tendency to automatically think an all new type is going to be better or maybe a little of both I don't know. Some of us think it may have been worthwhile and obviously some of us do not and that's ok. I certainly respect the views of those who think not but to characterize that as " poof a new Hurricane"........ Come on ,really?

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jul 4, 2019)

pbehn said:


> In mid 1942 the RAF was receiving the Mustang Mk1 the Spitfire IX and the Typhoon, no souped up Hurricane was going to be catching a V1.


In mid 1942 NOBODY was going to be catching a V1....yet.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jul 4, 2019)

XBe02Drvr said:


> In mid 1942 NOBODY was going to be catching a V1....yet.



And anyway there was still also quite a need in the Med, in the CBI, in the Pacific, and in Russia, where the ground wars were raging. The Hurricane was seriously struggling as a fighter design by 1942. Considering they continued to use it for so long, an improved version would really have helped.

Because the Hurricane, aside from being stable, seemed to have some traits that made it *very *lethal if it could catch - lots of guns, stable 'platform', well grouped guns, good maneuverability... I'm not sure what the specific trait was, but assuming you didn't lose that entirely by shaving 1.5 -2 feet from each wing, I think that alone would have given it much better outcomes on many fronts, and that could have quite a knock-on affect.

I do hear your argument though about the nature of the wing making it harder or less beneficial to adjust, and of course it's all moot anyway since they didn't do it. 

Luckily they had the P-40


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jul 4, 2019)

michael rauls said:


> It is quite posible that it would not have yielded dramatic enough results to justify the effort or it could have been the tendency to automatically think an all new type is going to be better


Or it could have been that the available resources were already stretched a bit too thin.
Cheers,
Wes

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


----------



## Schweik (Jul 4, 2019)

Perhaps, but lets keep in mind a lot of factories were still cranking out things like Fairey Fulmars, Fairey Fireflies, Fairey Barracudas*, Curtiss Seamews, Lockheed Venturas, TBF Avengers, Bell P-39s, ... and first and foremost old style, (essentially 1941 vintage design) _Hurricanes_. Some of that capacity may have profitably redirected into making an improved variant of the Hurricane. I know that the Typhoon was supposed to be it's replacement but it took a while to get from that to the Tempest. In the mean time it might have been nice to have something more useful.

Not to pick on Fairey so much but those are just some examples that came to mind. Would it be a better use of that 1640 hp Merlin 32 in the Barracuda, which dragged it up to an underwhelming 228 mph, to put it into a faster low altitude Hurricane "Mk IX" capable of shooting rockets and dropping bombs?

My point is that there were a lot of planes being produced already by say late 1941 or early 1942 that weren't doing the Allied war effort much good.


----------



## pbehn (Jul 4, 2019)

Schweik said:


> The Mustang's wing was 'cleaner' but also lower lift I think right? or is it just that the Mustang was so much heavier? For a big wing it didn't seem to turn that well.


It was bigger and weighed about a ton more than a Spitfire.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jul 4, 2019)

Schweik said:


> My point is that there were a lot of planes being produced already by say late 1941 or early 1942 that weren't doing the Allied war effort much good.


But at the time, you'd have been hard pressed to convince the powers that be the these were no good, inertia being what it is.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Jul 4, 2019)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Or it could have been that the available resources were already stretched a bit too thin.
> Cheers,
> Wes


Yes that's what I meant. That it might not have yielded dramatic enough results to justify diverting limited resources from other efforts. If they had unlimited resources then everything is worth trying.


----------



## Currell (Jul 4, 2019)

As you may know, the Napier Sabre (the Typhoon engine) was a sleeve valve. There are none of the usual poppet valves used here. Napier was behind on the required metallury for the sleeves, and they often would seize. This improved with time. Also, prep at the factory was poor, with metal filings and shavings left in the engine, which again eventually was addressed. Of course, one cannot blame the inherent sleeve valve design for this problem.

I know, from classic car hobby experience, that when the sleeves wear out, they go quickly, just like an engine with worn out rings. Lots of smoke, suddenly! But I can't say that any of these Sabre engines were run so much (and not properly maintained) to reach this point. Currell


----------



## Schweik (Jul 4, 2019)

Currell said:


> As you may know, the Napier Sabre (the Typhoon engine) was a sleeve valve. There are none of the usual poppet valves used here. Napier was behind on the required metallury for the sleeves, and they often would seize. This improved with time. Also, prep at the factory was poor, with metal filings and shavings left in the engine, which again eventually was addressed.



Wow sounds like a 737-Max 8 assembly plant  Thanks for explaining that it fills in a few gaps.



> Of course, one cannot blame the inherent sleeve valve design for this problem.
> 
> I know, from classic car hobby experience, that when the sleeves wear out, they go quickly, just like an engine with worn out rings. Lots of smoke, suddenly! But I can't say that any of these Sabre engines were run so much (and not properly maintained) to reach this point. Currell



Could you, or somebody explain the basic concept of the sleeve valve in layman's terms? I gather the Beaufighter had them too, would that be Bristol Hercules? And yet they seemed to work out pretty well.


----------



## Macandy (Jul 4, 2019)

They never met in service, the Typhoon was NW EUrope only.
The P-40 did sterling work in Italy.


----------



## Dan Fahey (Jul 4, 2019)

Mad Dog said:


> Whereas the P-40F just needed replacing with a P-47 to be successful.


Key problem, they were so heavy they needed fields long enough for them to take off !
Big problem in New Guinee and their use was limited.
Not only that were as maneuverable down low!
They needed speed to be effective and that required altitude !


----------



## pbehn (Jul 4, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Wow sounds like a 737-Max 8 assembly plant  Thanks for explaining that it fills in a few gaps.
> 
> 
> 
> Could you, or somebody explain the basic concept of the sleeve valve in layman's terms? I gather the Beaufighter had them too, would that be Bristol Hercules? And yet they seemed to work out pretty well.


Quite a lot of engines had them, the sleeve in the cylinder covers and uncovers ports to allow inlet and outlet of the gas. They have advantages and disadvantages. There is a cut away rotating one in The Yorkshire Museum. it makes your head hurt watching it, pieces of metal seem to be moving in every possible direction.

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


----------



## slaterat (Jul 4, 2019)

Hind sight is 20/20 and in light of the problems with the sabre engine and the consequent delays with the Typhoon program, it may have been wise for the Air ministry to allow Hawker to further develop the Hurricane. The Griffon equipped Hurricane is one project that could of moved forward. There was also an old IIb Z3687 that was fitted with laminar flow wings as well as a Hurricane with a merlin 45. It really was a question of available resources.

The Hurricane achieved some amazing results for a derivative fighter designed in the 1930s and essentially unchanged from August of 1940. More than 50% of the kills claimed by the RAF during WW2 were by Hurricanes alone, an astounding number and one that validates the soundness of the original design.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jul 4, 2019)

pbehn said:


> Quite a lot of engines had them, the sleeve in the cylinder covers and uncovers ports to allow inlet and outlet of the gas. They have advantages and disadvantages. There is a cut away rotating one in The Yorkshire Museum. it makes your head hurt watching it, pieces of metal seem to be moving in every possible direction.



Wow! Rube Goldberg would be proud. That sucker most have had a ginormous oil pump with all that slipsliding going on. Wonder how much hosepower that valve mechanism consumed. I notice it has a less than 1:1 power/weight ratio.
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 4, 2019)

Schweik said:


> They were both heavy fighters and bombers - like a lot of fighters were effectively by that time of the war (albeit granted not that many with internal bomb bays - but you did have the mosquito). With the extra speed though they were supposed to take back the Zerstorer role from the Bf 110, but that never really happened. Being able to use them to attack B-17s and B-24s, with an escort, gave these designs a new life that made them useful again.



They were trying for a multi role aircraft but the idea that plane burdened with an internal bomb bay (larger fuselage and more weight) and a power operated rear gun mount and gunner could mix it up with single seat fighters was a non starter.

They didn't need an escort as long as the bombers didn't have an escort. Which they didn't during most of the Me 210s development period. It first flight was 2nd September 1939 but was such a failure that it took years to correct the problems and by that time the tactical situation had changed. The Me 410 made it's first flight March of 14th of 1942, over a year and half before escorted daylight bombers appeared over most of Germany. One could say that changing conditions made them obsolete even as they were being built and deployed but until American escort fighters show up the Big twins didn't need escorts.



> Apparently the remote control worked though and even one 13mm gun, so long as it doesn't jam, is pretty daunting for a pursuing fighter.


Not saying the mount didn't work, however it weighed several hundred pounds. Not what you want if engaging single seat fighters.

And if the single 13mm is daunting for a pursuing fighter then two .50 cal guns in a power turret must have been downright terrifying 





> Bf 110, Ju 88, Do 217 were definitely obsolete for daytime combat by 1944, and they were vulnerable to Mosquitoes at night. To me that is obsolete or pretty close to it. My whole point was that obsolete is a matter of degrees not really an absolute. At least until you get to the "target tug" role.



There was four years between the BoB and 1944. Large airframes can do more jobs than single seat fighters and their ability to do some of those jobs depends on their accompanying single seat fighters. Both the B-17 and B-24 saw very little improvement in power plants for a number of years and also limited improvement in armament (once large scale production started) for several years. Were they obsolete in 1944 or did the provision of good escort fighters allow them to stay competitive?

For most air forces it was the single engine/single seat fighter that lead the way, Both in technology and in combat. Without a first rate single engine/single seat fighter many other aircraft simply could not survive to do their jobs. So single engine/single seat fighters tended to go obsolete quicker than other planes. Because they were simpler to design, much fewer pieces, it was also easier to design and introduce new single engine/single seat fighters at a faster rate than multi engine aircraft.






> I readily admit I don't know about all planes in the war, like most people around this fourm I basically know more about the planes that interest me. That said, lets not make a mountain out of a mole hill. I knew there were fighter armed Ju 88 variants, I just thought those were used as night fighters and in the bomber destroyer role. I was never frankly interested enough in the Ju 88 to put together the aggressive maritime raids with the heavy fighter variants.



There are few other things you don't seem to know but I don't want to get into personal bashing. I will cover one of them in a separate post.



> We all have our little areas of expertise, you know the engines very well as I have conceded before. I know a few types inside and out, I daresay I introduced a few things about the P-40 both operationally and developmentally that were not widely known around here. I may do so with a few other types like some of the Russian fighters, if I have the time. I do tend to focus more on the operational history and work my way back to developmental details from there, because that way you can avoid all the dead-ends and clutter that didn't actually go anywhere.
> 
> But ultimately you need to cover both sides of the equation, otherwise you'll have a distorted understanding of the subject.
> 
> ...



If you ignore the dead-ends and clutter you don't really have good picture of what the higher ups intended or were thinking.


----------



## wuzak (Jul 4, 2019)

slaterat said:


> Hind sight is 20/20 and in light of the problems with the sabre engine and the consequent delays with the Typhoon program, it may have been wise for the Air ministry to allow Hawker to further develop the Hurricane. The Griffon equipped Hurricane is one project that could of moved forward. There was also an old IIb Z3687 that was fitted with laminar flow wings as well as a Hurricane with a merlin 45. It really was a question of available resources.



The question is would you have a Griffon Hurricane or a Griffon Spitfire?

When the Griffon was available in quantity, the Typhoon is well into production and the Sabres problems were being sorted. The Spitfire XII started operations in January (?) 1943 and the Firefly in March 1943. Napier had been taken over by English Electric in November 1942, 

The Merlin 45 was not a wonder engine. The reason that the Spitfire got the Merlin 45 was because there was not enough Merlin XXs to supply both the Hurricane and Spitfire, and the Hurricane needed it more. 

With the Merlin 45 the Spitfire had a maximum speed of ~370mph (Spitfire V), while the Merlin XX boosted the speed up to ~400mph (Spitfire III, 399mph with earlier Merlin X).

And when would a Hurricane with laminar flow wings be available?

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


----------



## Schweik (Jul 4, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> They were trying for a multi role aircraft but the idea that plane burdened with an internal bomb bay (larger fuselage and more weight) and a power operated rear gun mount and gunner could mix it up with single seat fighters was a non starter.
> 
> They didn't need an escort as long as the bombers didn't have an escort. Which they didn't during most of the Me 210s development period. It first flight was 2nd September 1939 but (snip). One could say that changing conditions made them obsolete even as they were being built and deployed but until American escort fighters show up the Big twins didn't need escorts.



They were intended for use over the battlefield, but planes like that were vulnerable to short range Tactical fighters too.



> Not saying the mount didn't work, however it weighed several hundred pounds. Not what you want if engaging single seat fighters.
> 
> And if the single 13mm is daunting for a pursuing fighter then two .50 cal guns in a power turret must have been downright terrifying



I would say a pair of .50's in a power turret was pretty terrifying (have you ever shot one or seen somebody shooting one?), which is why they would try to attack from directions where there weren't any. They were certainly dangerous to attack especially when you had multiple pairs of them from multiple aircraft all shooting at you at the same time.



> Both the B-17 and B-24 saw very little improvement in power plants for a number of years and also limited improvement in armament (once large scale production started) for several years. Were they obsolete in 1944 or did the provision of good escort fighters allow them to stay competitive?



Frankly I would say both - it was (they were) probably obsolete in it's initial intended role which was I believe unescorted daylight precision bombing. They never did work out as precision bombers first of all. Second Schweinfurt and Regansburg et al proved they couldn't fly unescorted. So yes, per the previously discussed theme of some kind of spiral of obsolescence with different layers, I'd say they slipped a notch to the second layer - requiring escorts to do their definitely non-precision bombing.

As you know I'm not really a fan of Strategic bombing in general or four engine heavy bombers specifically. I think the B-24 and B-17 made pretty good maritime patrol aircraft, superior to say a Fw 200.



> For most air forces it was the single engine/single seat fighter that lead the way, Both in technology and in combat. Without a first rate single engine/single seat fighter many other aircraft simply could not survive to do their jobs. So single engine/single seat fighters tended to go obsolete quicker than other planes. Because they were simpler to design, much fewer pieces, it was also easier to design and introduce new single engine/single seat fighters at a faster rate than multi engine aircraft.



We know that now with the benefit of hindsight, but during the war they did not actually know that for certain and kept trying to make twin engine fighters - and to some extent they succeeded. The P-38 ultimately, by say the J or L version, became (I would say) a fully viable day time high altitude fighter. The Mosquito was an excellent night fighter and intruder. The Beaufighter was a good night fighter for a while and remained a good maritime patrol / fighter -bomber through the end of the war. The Whirlwind was an excellent low altitude fighter. The Bf 110, for all it's flaws, was indeed a good night fighter until the Mosquito started making life risky for it. And the Me 210 / 410 program was supposed to be the successor to the Bf 110 which were going to bring it back up the spiral a turn or two.

So I think the twin engined fighter was perceived as a viable concept in WW2, at least to some people.



> There are few other things you don't seem to know but I don't want to get into personal bashing. I will cover one of them in a separate post.



Right back at you - I've caught you in quite a few mistakes but I chose not to belabour the point because it just makes people bitter. I'd rather learn from what you are willing to share from where your knowledge is more complete. But isn't it also a little boring to pretend that any one of us knows _everything_? If that was true what would be the point of having these discussions?



> If you ignore the dead-ends and clutter you don't really have good picture of what the higher ups intended or were thinking.



It's not really a matter of ignoring them it's just a matter of priority as to what you learn first. I am trying to learn the complete histories of many if not most WW2 military aircraft, usually it's worth the effort. I find the operational histories more interesting through.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 4, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Actually, I was thinking of moving the ailerons  I know that would require a bit of a wing design but again, they did it on the Zero.
> And before anybody starts to say the A6M5 came late, the speed increase and the shorter wing both actually date back to the A6M3, which entered production in April 1942 Presumably the wing change didn't take that long.
> So I figure the British had to be at least nearly as smart as the Japanese right? They should therefore have been able to do it.



You left out a drawing.






The original clip wing Zeke. They basically left off the folding tips. 





Although they did have to shorten the ailerons a bit?

The A6M5 kept the shorter span but rounded the ends instead of using the square tips.

The A6M also went through 3 stages of modified wing construction to increase the dive speed.



Schweik said:


> I again draw the comparison to the A6M2 vs. A6M3 or A6M5. These were still extremely manueverable airplanes. Cutting the wings down 3' just made them more capable overall.


The new engine in the A6M3 ( two speed supercharger and higher power) and the increase in cannon ammunition had nothing to do with their capability? It was all the wing clip? which was restored on the model 22 (which, confusingly, came after the model 32). The model 22a got a higher velocity 20mm cannon (barrels protrude from the wing)


----------



## Schweik (Jul 4, 2019)

Two other comments on that same subject - first, speaking of operational histories, this page, (there are multiple individual pages on that site) which I posted a link to earlier, has some great content on engagements between Ju 88C (yet another pretty successful twin engined combat aircraft that operated without escorts at least some of the time) and various other aircraft from B-24s to Beaufighters to Wellingtons. Quite fascinating if you like those kinds of "exotic" battles. Really enjoying that.

Second, there is another series of books I didn't know about until pretty recently called "First Team" which compares victories and losses from records on both sides in the Pacific - much like Shores has done and did both in the Pacific and in the Med. I just got the first book in the series and it's quite good so far. I'm sure many people here already know it and have it but some may not so I thought I'd mention it.


----------



## Schweik (Jul 4, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> You left out a drawing.
> 
> The original clip wing Zeke. They basically left off the folding tips.



Yes when they first clipped the wings on the A6M3 they lost the folding tips and also for reasons I forget, some of the fuel capacity.



> Although they did have to shorten the ailerons a bit?
> 
> The A6M5 kept the shorter span but rounded the ends instead of using the square tips.
> 
> The A6M also went through 3 stages of modified wing construction to increase the dive speed.



Yes to all of this, but so what?



> The new engine in the A6M3 ( two speed supercharger and higher power) and the increase in cannon ammunition had nothing to do with their capability? It was all the wing clip? which was restored on the model 22 (which, confusingly, came after the model 32). The model 22a got a higher velocity 20mm cannon (barrels protrude from the wing)



According to what I read (and this is mentioned on the Wiki) the engine power increase only improved speed by 6.8 miles per hour, hence the wing clip.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 5, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Not to pick on Fairey so much but those are just some examples that came to mind. Would it be a better use of that 1640 hp Merlin 32 in the Barracuda, which dragged it up to an underwhelming 228 mph, to put it into a faster low altitude Hurricane "Mk IX" capable of shooting rockets and dropping bombs?




Yep, the 1640hp at 2000ft Merlin 32 would have provided _oh so much more speed and climb_ than the 1635hp at 2250ft that the Merlin 24s and 27s used the Hurricane MK IVs did. 

A few Hurricanes did get Merlin 32s 





Apparently the increase in performance was NOT what is being claimed here. There were three such aircraft built.


----------



## Schweik (Jul 5, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> Yep, the 1640hp at 2000ft Merlin 32 would have provided _oh so much more speed and climb_ than the 1635hp at 2250ft that the Merlin 24s and 27s used the Hurricane MK IVs did.
> 
> A few Hurricanes did get Merlin 32s
> 
> Apparently the increase in performance was NOT what is being claimed here. There were three such aircraft built.



My theory was 1) clip the wings and then 2) put the more powerful engines on. I pointed out the Barracuda as an example of putting a nice powerful engine on an oversized draggy airframe - 216 mph or something like that.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 5, 2019)

Schweik said:


> My theory was 1) clip the wings and then 2) put the more powerful engines on. I pointed out the Barracuda as an example of putting a nice powerful engine on an oversized draggy airframe - 216 mph or something like that.


well you can stop Production the Barracuda and use the engines for Hurricanes, just as soon as you figure out how to get a Hurricane to carry a torpedo or a 1600lb AP bomb and Deliver it in a steep dive. 









Speed 228 mph (198 kn, 367 km/h) at *1,750 ft* (533 m) 
Yes the Hurricane was faster but around 2000ft depending on model (the MK IIC trop using 12lbs of boost was good for 245mph) the difference was not as much as you might think.
A MK IIa with eight machine guns and using 16lbs of boost was good for about 300mph, not the 340mph it went at higher altitude.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 5, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Yes when they first clipped the wings on the A6M3 they lost the folding tips and also for reasons I forget, some of the fuel capacity.


They had to make the fuselage tank smaller to fit in the longer engine with the 2 speed supercharger.





> Yes to all of this, but so what?



Well, you seem to be claiming a good part of the credit for increased capability to the clipped wing



Schweik said:


> I again draw the comparison to the A6M2 vs. A6M3 or A6M5. These were still extremely manueverable airplanes.* Cutting the wings down 3' just made them more capable overall.*



More powerful engine with better altitude performance, more powerful (or at least more firing time) armament, higher dive speed (which had to do with a strengthened wing not the clip job). bu the credit goes to the wing clip? I think a few nations could have used these magic wing clippers. 






> According to what I read (and this is mentioned on the Wiki) the engine power increase only improved speed by 6.8 miles per hour, hence the wing clip.



True but it rather ignores what else was going on. The Sakae 12 engine in the A6M2 was rated at 940hp for take-off and 950hp at 13,780ft (critical height for it's single speed engine) while the Sakae 21 was rated at 1130hp for take-off, 1100hp at 9,350ft and 980hp at 19,685ft, 

Max speed of 331.5mph for the A6M2 was at 14,930ft (using ram) while the A6M3 did 338mph ( I am not going to argue over 1-2mph considering the translations and conversions) but the A6M3 did it at 19.685ft. (?) This is much like the P-40E vs P-40F debate were the top speed doesn't seem to change much but the altitude at which certain speeds could be reached changed by thousands of feet. 

In any case the A6M3 despite being about 300lbs heavier is credited with a bit better climb and over 3000ft higher ceiling even with the smaller wing.


----------



## slaterat (Jul 5, 2019)

wuzak said:


> The question is would you have a Griffon Hurricane or a Griffon Spitfire?



To me the question is when you can have them. A Griffon powered hurricane in 1941-42 would be very useful.



wuzak said:


> The Merlin 45 was not a wonder engine. The reason that the Spitfire got the Merlin 45 was because there was not enough Merlin XXs to supply both the Hurricane and Spitfire, and the Hurricane needed it more.




Only partly true. The Air Ministry was very concerned about any interruption in supply of Hurricanes or Spitfires. (one only has to look at the debacle, caused by the Air Ministry , of changing the Hurricane from fabric covered to metal covered wings). The fact is that the Hurricane needed very little modification to accept the Merlin XX, which is why Hurricane II's were operational in September of 1940. On the other hand , the Spitfire production would be interrupted in converting production to the MK III because of the changes required to fit the merlin XX. When the Merlin 45 arrived very shortly later it could fit the MK I and II Spitfires without affecting production numbers making this a no brainer for the Air Ministry, Hurricane II's and Spit V's with hardly any lull in production.




wuzak said:


> With the Merlin 45 the Spitfire had a maximum speed of ~370mph (Spitfire V), while the Merlin XX boosted the speed up to ~400mph (Spitfire III, 399mph with earlier Merlin X).



Do you have a source for that? Thats pretty close to a 60 series merlin Spit 9 . 385 seems to be the number most often quoted for a Spit III, although I have never seen a primary source for its performance.


----------



## Schweik (Jul 5, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> They had to make the fuselage tank smaller to fit in the longer engine with the 2 speed supercharger.
> 
> True but it rather ignores what else was going on. The Sakae 12 engine in the A6M2 was rated at 940hp for take-off and 950hp at 13,780ft (critical height for it's single speed engine) while the Sakae 21 was rated at 1130hp for take-off, 1100hp at 9,350ft and 980hp at 19,685ft,
> 
> ...



Yes, I'm sure the two speed supercharger and better engine helped - obviously, but what made the difference in speed was clipping the wings. 6.8 mph improvement in speed from the engine, more than 20 mph improvement with the clipped wings. Nothing "magic" about it it's an historical fact.

Merlin XX as we know quite well had the two speed supercharger - whether you want a medium altitude plane or a low altitude determines whether you use the medium or low altitude Merlin, but the point is reducing the drag is what mattered most for the speed.

As for the Barracuda, what I remember about it's service record was pretty dismal. Barely over 200 mph is ok for a torpedo bomber in 1941 but it isn't in 1943.


----------



## fubar57 (Jul 5, 2019)

Zero Facts and Figures​

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


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 5, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Yes, I'm sure the two speed supercharger and better engine helped - obviously, but what made the difference in speed was clipping the wings. 6.8 mph improvement in speed from the engine, more than 20 mph improvement with the clipped wings. Nothing "magic" about it it's an historical fact.



What historical fact?????
I gave you speeds form one source for the A6M2 and the A6M3, perhaps you have a different source. However do NOT use the speeds from the A6M5 because even though they used the same basic engine. 




The A6M5 used a different exhaust setup that added a fair amount of thrust




Late model Zeros also had water injection but it didn't seem to help a lot. 



> Merlin XX as we know quite well had the two speed supercharger - whether you want a medium altitude plane or a low altitude determines whether you use the medium or low altitude Merlin, but the point is reducing the drag is what mattered most for the speed.



rather ignores the "historical fact" that the P-40F was 20-30mph faster than E over 20,000ft (the higher you went the greater the difference) of course the thinner air helped reduce the drag, assuming your engine still made power. 



> As for the Barracuda, what I remember about it's service record was pretty dismal. Barely over 200 mph is ok for a torpedo bomber in 1941 but it isn't in 1943.



So what, if may have been dismal but claiming that the engines should have gone to Hurricanes simply because they were faster rather ignores that the Hurricane could not do the Barracudas job. Barracudas were used to attack the Tirpitz. 

Under wing loads for the Barracuda. 4× 450 lb (205 kg) depth charges _or_ 6× 250 lb (110 kg) bombs. 

The Barracuda might have done better in service if it had the Merlin 27 engines from the Hurricane IVs. Might have been able to fly over the Indonesian mountains in better fashion.

An example of be careful what you wish for. Who would have thought a torpedo bomber needed to fly over mountain ranges, just stick low altitude engines in them.


----------



## Schweik (Jul 5, 2019)

I believe that is the version before they clipped the wing. It's kind of convoluted, there were many subvariants of the A6M3

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/japan/Zeke-32-TAIC-102C.pdf


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 5, 2019)

There were a number of variants of the A6M3 but none of them used the multiple outlet Exhaust thrust set up. 
US war time reports often got some of the details wrong.


----------



## Schweik (Jul 5, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> What historical fact?????
> I gave you speeds form one source for the A6M2 and the A6M3, perhaps you have a different source. However do NOT use the speeds from the A6M5 because even though they used the same basic engine.



I posted one.



> The A6M5 used a different exhaust setup that added a fair amount of thrust



Yes but I don't think it accounts for the entire boost in speed...



> Late model Zeros also had water injection but it didn't seem to help a lot.


 may have helped with altitude performance.



> rather ignores the "historical fact" that the P-40F was 20-30mph faster than E over 20,000ft (the higher you went the greater the difference) of course the thinner air helped reduce the drag, assuming your engine still made power.



The P-40F was only 4-10 mph faster than the E (per it's official rating) maybe more like 15 mph faster in real life, but that didn't amount to very much which irritated the crap out of the USAAF higher ups. Another reason they didn't like Curtiss or the P-40. On that plane though you couldn't really clip the wings because it was already heavy.



> So what, if may have been dismal but claiming that the engines should have gone to Hurricanes simply because they were faster rather ignores that the Hurricane could not do the Barracudas job. Barracudas were used to attack the Tirpitz.
> 
> Under wing loads for the Barracuda. 4× 450 lb (205 kg) depth charges _or_ 6× 250 lb (110 kg) bombs.
> 
> ...



I would have only bothered putting those engines into the Hurricanes if they had already clipped the wings, that is what we were talking about. I also concur with improving the exhaust stacks / thrust situation and any drag related improvements that were possible.


----------



## fubar57 (Jul 5, 2019)

The Model 32 also sucked at turning(Wiki unfortunately)


----------



## Schweik (Jul 5, 2019)

fubar57 said:


> The Model 32 also sucked at turning(Wiki unfortunately)



I think it still turned better than just about all the Allied planes which is the point... (maybe not a Hurricane though lol)


----------



## fubar57 (Jul 5, 2019)

It turned worse than the Model 21 it replaced


----------



## Schweik (Jul 5, 2019)

fubar57 said:


> It turned worse than the Model 21 it replaced



Well if you mean the A6M2, it turned so well that it ran rings around the Allied planes, but it also suffered from drag effects limited speed so they were able to boom and zoom it.

These things being closely related. Big wing = tighter turn / slower. Small wing (think Bf 109 with a 32' span) not so great at turning, but very fast for a given amount of horsepower. Most fighters in the mid war had around a 36 or 37' wingspan which was kind of the sweet spot. Later when they had planes with 2,000 hp engines they could get away with bigger wings again.

You could also look at it vis a vis turning circle. Based on that old Russian test we have all seen - if your "typical" ww2 fighter circa 1942 has a turning circle of 20 seconds, you want one of about 18 seconds if you want to be able to out-turn them. If the A6M2 had a turning circle of say, 14 seconds, that is great but it's a little overkill. Cutting down the wing size increases the turning circle somewhat but also increases speed, roll rate, dive speed, and so on.

It's a bit like replacing a biplane with a monoplane.


----------



## wuzak (Jul 5, 2019)

slaterat said:


> To me the question is when you can have them. A Griffon powered hurricane in 1941-42 would be very useful.



You would be unlikely to get Griffon Hurricanes in 1942, and you certainly would not in 1941.

Remember that the Griffon design was started in 1938, redesigned in 1939 in order to be able to fit in the Spitfire, development was suspended during part of 1940 (ie during the BoB). There weren't enough to put into production aircraft in 1942, the first production aircraft using the Griffon rolling out in early 1943.

And it certainly wouldn't be just a straight fitment. The Griffon was longer and heavier with more power and torque. The Spitfire fuselage required changes to the longerons (made in steel instead of aluminium) in order to cope. What changes would be required to fit it to the Hurricane?




slaterat said:


> Only partly true. The Air Ministry was very concerned about any interruption in supply of Hurricanes or Spitfires. (one only has to look at the debacle, caused by the Air Ministry , of changing the Hurricane from fabric covered to metal covered wings). The fact is that the Hurricane needed very little modification to accept the Merlin XX, which is why Hurricane II's were operational in September of 1940. On the other hand , the Spitfire production would be interrupted in converting production to the MK III because of the changes required to fit the merlin XX. When the Merlin 45 arrived very shortly later it could fit the MK I and II Spitfires without affecting production numbers making this a no brainer for the Air Ministry, Hurricane II's and Spit V's with hardly any lull in production.



The Merlin 45 and Merlin XX had the same supercharger and were the same physical size. Where one could fit, so should the other.

The first prototype Mk.III had a number of differences to the Mk.I and Mk.II, including a wing clip, retracting tail wheel and revised radiator.

The prototype first flew with a Merlin X, which used the pre-Hooker supercharger and was used in the Wellington II, Whitley IV and V (and VII?), early Halifaxes,.




slaterat said:


> Do you have a source for that? Thats pretty close to a 60 series merlin Spit 9 . 385 seems to be the number most often quoted for a Spit III, although I have never seen a primary source for its performance.



Morgan and Shacklady.

As I said, the prototype Mk.III had some aerodynamic improvements, so a Merlin XX powered Mk.II would probably be a little slower.


----------



## fubar57 (Jul 5, 2019)

Bigger wing = slower turn...

A6M2 Model 21 - wingspan 39 ft 4 in 
A6M3 Model 32 - wingspan 36 ft 9 in


----------



## Schweik (Jul 5, 2019)

fubar57 said:


> Bigger wing = slower turn...
> 
> A6M2 Model 21 - wingspan 39 ft 4 in
> A6M3 Model 32 - wingspan 36 ft 9 in



I would expect the Model 21 to have a tighter and therefore faster turning circle than the Model 32. But the Model 32 was still a much better fighter in an engagement (not in some other ways because it had less range). 

For example I believe in that Soviet test the Hurricane had a shorter turn time than a Spitfire, but the Spitfire was still a better fighter overall. See what I'm getting at?


----------



## Kevin J (Jul 5, 2019)

pbehn said:


> If its a better fighter than the Typhoon it is on par with a Tempest. Are you seriously suggesting that a few mods to the Hurricane, unnoticed until today, would have the Hurricane on par with a Tempest? I think some anti Typhoon propaganda may have led you astray, the Typhoon was the only plane that could chase down FW190 tip and run raiders, Spitfires couldn't that is why the Typhoon was rushed to service, so I don't think any type of souped up or cut down Hurricane would either. You cant add up reductions in drag to produce super performance. The Spitfire was about 30MPH slower than the Mustang with the same engine, this was due to better wing design, better cooling design and better fit/finish. To uprate a Spitfire to be the same as a Mustang needs a completely new plane called a Mustang and probably different production methods and equipment, it is the same only more so with a Hurricane. In any case the RAF had Mustangs first with Allison and then with Rolls Royce engines.


correction. It was called the Spiteful and very few were built.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Stig1207 (Jul 5, 2019)

slaterat said:


> More than 50% of the kills claimed by the RAF during WW2 were by Hurricanes alone, an astounding number and one that validates the soundness of the original design.



Astounding is an understatement; actually so incredible that it may perhaps be a myth?

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Jul 5, 2019)

Stig1207 said:


> Astounding is an understatement; actually so incredible that it may perhaps be a myth?


Maybe from 1939 - 1941 then I could believe it.


----------



## pbehn (Jul 5, 2019)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Wow! Rube Goldberg would be proud. That sucker most have had a ginormous oil pump with all that slipsliding going on. Wonder how much hosepower that valve mechanism consumed. I notice it has a less than 1:1 power/weight ratio.
> Cheers,
> Wes


I don't know TBH, as with horsepower consumed. There are a lot of parts in contact but no reciprocating valves pushing against springs. What I do know was the Sabre was a bit problematic when cold, even turning the engine over was a bit of a problem. They not only heated them but also continually ran them up over night to keep them warm to hot. The other thing is they were quieter because theres no valve clatter.


----------



## wuzak (Jul 5, 2019)

slaterat said:


> Do you have a source for that? Thats pretty close to a 60 series merlin Spit 9 . 385 seems to be the number most often quoted for a Spit III, although I have never seen a primary source for its performance.



Morgan and Shacklady, _Spitfire the History_.

Mk.III
Engines: Merlin RM.2SM (Merlin X), electric starting, 1,265hp @ 9,500ft, 1,145hp @ 16,750ft
Merlin Rm.3SM (Merlin XX), electric starting, 1,280hp.
Merlin 61

Coolant: 70% water, 30% glycol. 16.5 UKG in system

Fuel: 100 Octane. Capacity (fuselage) upper 53 UKG, lower 46.5 UKG, total 99.5 UKG

Oil: 6.8 UKG, consumption 1.75 to 2.0 UKG/hour

Armament: A (8 x 0.303") or B (4 x 0.303" + 2 x 20mm) wing or 4 x 20mm + 4 x 0.303"

Radio: TR1153

Performance (Merlin X): 
Max Speed:
340mph @ 5,000ft
360mph @ 10,000ft
369mph @ 15,000ft
400mph @ 21,000ft

Max Dive Speed: 450mph [presumably IAS]

Take-off Run: 250 yards

Climb: to 15,000ft 4.5 minutes, to 20,000ft 6.4 minutes

Service Ceiling: 39,000ft

Stall: flaps and undercarriage up, 93mph.

Landing Run: 600 yards


There were two Mk.III prototypes, the original one and a second converted from a Mk.I.


----------



## PAT303 (Jul 5, 2019)

If the production models met the prototypes performance figures the Mk111 would have been the hot rod to own until at least '43.


----------



## wuzak (Jul 5, 2019)

One of the reasons the Spitfire Mk.III did not proceed was because the fuselage was strengthened, which would have required changes to the production lines.

But no great reason why the Merlin XX could not be put into a Mk.I/II as was done with the Merlin 45 for the Mk.V.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 5, 2019)

It has been said that the Merlin XX was 4 in longer than the Merlin 45 due to the two speed drive set up. 
This is given as the reason that the Engine was not used in the Spitfire as to the needed design work. Obviously they fit in the much longer Merlin 60 series engines but that did take some redesign.

However there is at least one account of Spitfire MK IIs being fitted with Merlin XX engines long after they had been retired from front line units. They were being used for ASR work at the time. This may have been due to the Merlin XII engine no longer being in the supply chain or perhaps a desire for much more power near sea level? Or it may be a mistake or typo as to engine used?

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Jul 5, 2019)

This shows both the XX and 45 as being 70.6" long.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/Aircraft_Engines_of_the_World_Rolls-Royce_Merlin.pdf


Lumsden says single speed engines 69in long, 29.8in wide and 41.2in high, the 2 speed engine 71in long, 29.8in wide and 43in high.

2 stage engines are listed as 88.7in long. Shown as 78in long in the pdf.

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


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 5, 2019)

I wish somebody has access to any Hawker drawings (not fanboy art) of a Griffon engined version, it was talked about at Hawkers and bit of preliminary work done.

I could be wrong but I seem to remember that, in order to get the CG right the wings had to be swept forward, by how much I don't know but sticking in an engine hundreds of pounds heavier is not going to be a matter of unbolting the old engine and bolting the new one.

The Hurricane is a bit of an odd airplane, it was relatively large compared to many other fighters of it's era (say 1936-1940) and yet it's weight wasn't that far off. 

Since this is a thread about the Typhoon 

Plane............Hurricane (late)...................Typhoon (Late)

Wing span.............40ft...................................41ft 7 in
WIng area............257.5sq/ft......................279 sq/ft
Length.....................32ft...................................31ft, 11 1/2 in

The Spitfire was roughly 30mph faster using the same engine so any diversion of better engines to a Supercane is just going to get you an inferior fighter to the Spit using the same engine I don't know what the point is. 
And cutting 3-4 feet off the wing (wing area is still around 240sq ft or higher) is not going to add a whole lot of speed.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 5, 2019)

wuzak said:


> This shows both the XX and 45 as being 70.6" long.
> 
> http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/Aircraft_Engines_of_the_World_Rolls-Royce_Merlin.pdf
> 
> ...




Thank you, it does show a bit of confusion. Did you mean two stage engines in the last sentence?


----------



## wuzak (Jul 5, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> Thank you, it does show a bit of confusion. Did you mean two stage engines in the last sentence?



Yes I did!

i will fix that now.


----------



## pbehn (Jul 5, 2019)

wuzak said:


> One of the reasons the Spitfire Mk.III did not proceed was because the fuselage was strengthened, which would have required changes to the production lines.
> 
> But no great reason why the Merlin XX could not be put into a Mk.I/II as was done with the Merlin 45 for the Mk.V.


I think this was about production decisions. The MKIII was a new design of airframe but they already had a lot of I/II airframes waiting for engines, these were finished as Mk Vs, most of the modifications of the Mk III were eventually incorporated into the Mk V. The same happened when the Mk IX was created from modified Mk V airframes. You could read into that as a Mk IX being actually just a modified Mk I/II which was not the case.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jul 5, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> correction. It was called the Spiteful and very few were built.


The Spiteful was described by some as a Spitfire too far, it may have had a laminar flow wing that had a fantastic rate of roll but its stall performance was "disappointing".

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jul 5, 2019)

Apparently the Ju-88C was among other things, a P-40 killer! Maybe it's time to start another thread Lol:

_"Occasionally, the sea convoy escort missions were still flown. Those missions were performed jointly with selected bomber crews of KG 54 and 60 flying Ju 88As. On June 14, during one of such sorties, nine Beaufighters of 252 and 272 Sqns. attacked a group of freighters. The British pressed their attack unaware of a Ju 88C flown by Lt. Wiedow. The German pilot put his aircraft in a near-vertical dive and quickly got on one of the Beaufighters’ tail. The British aircraft performed a shallow left turn, only to be hit by accurate fire from behind. The aircraft’s starboard engine caught fire and moments later the Beaufighter, crewed by F/Sgt. Gael and Sgt. Amos, crashed in the sea among the convoy ships.
The following day more fighting took place over the convoys and Oblt. Albert Schulz claimed a Maryland. On the night of June 18 Ofw. Hermann Sommer jumped a single P-40 Kittyhawk of 260 Sqn. After a long fight the German crew won the upper hand and shot down the British fighter killing its pilot, Sgt. Carlisle. It was the 150th victory for I./NJG 2. "_

Have to look that one in up in Shores MAW...


----------



## pbehn (Jul 5, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Apparently the Ju-88C was among other things, a P-40 killer! Maybe it's time to start another thread Lol:
> 
> _"Occasionally, the sea convoy escort missions were still flown. Those missions were performed jointly with selected bomber crews of KG 54 and 60 flying Ju 88As. On June 14, during one of such sorties, nine Beaufighters of 252 and 272 Sqns. attacked a group of freighters. The British pressed their attack unaware of a Ju 88C flown by Lt. Wiedow. The German pilot put his aircraft in a near-vertical dive and quickly got on one of the Beaufighters’ tail. The British aircraft performed a shallow left turn, only to be hit by accurate fire from behind. The aircraft’s starboard engine caught fire and moments later the Beaufighter, crewed by F/Sgt. Gael and Sgt. Amos, crashed in the sea among the convoy ships.
> The following day more fighting took place over the convoys and Oblt. Albert Schulz claimed a Maryland. On the night of June 18 Ofw. Hermann Sommer jumped a single P-40 Kittyhawk of 260 Sqn. After a long fight the German crew won the upper hand and shot down the British fighter killing its pilot, Sgt. Carlisle. It was the 150th victory for I./NJG 2. "_
> ...


Correction to your post, scoring one ariel victory does not make one aircraft a "killer" of another.


----------



## fubar57 (Jul 5, 2019)

Could find anything in the 260 Sqn ORB for that date though it is hard to read through the watermarks


----------



## Stig1207 (Jul 6, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> Maybe from 1939 - 1941 then I could believe it.



1939 to the end of 1940?


----------



## Kevin J (Jul 6, 2019)

Stig1207 said:


> 1939 to the end of 1940?


They weren't replaced until end 1941 as fighters. Still scoring victories in 1941 over UK.


----------



## Stig1207 (Jul 6, 2019)

A couple of hundred claims in the ETO for the Hurricane in 1941; victories after the BoB dried up to a trickle.


----------



## Glider (Jul 6, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> They weren't replaced until end 1941 as fighters. Still scoring victories in 1941 over UK.


Over the UK possibly but the main thrust of the air war in Europe change to the UK attacking France and Hurricane were rarely used in that role. As pointed out by Stig claims dropped to a trickle because the RAF knew the Hurricane wasn't up to fighting over German held area's


----------



## Schweik (Jul 6, 2019)

pbehn said:


> Correction to your post, scoring one ariel victory does not make one aircraft a "killer" of another.



Did you notice this part:

"_Apparently the Ju-88C was among other things, a P-40 killer! Maybe it's time to start another thread *Lol:* _"

You know what Lol stands for right? Doesn't anyone around here have a sense of humor?

You get outlier incidents like this, sometimes due to special circumstances. I did mention Ju 88s shot down some P-38s once. Someone else mentioned Avro Ansons allegedly shooting down Bf 109s. Does that mean the Anson is a "Bf 109 killer"? Well if those claims could be validated (big if), in the most technical sense yes, but not really if it wasn't consistent.

Ju 88 could have caught a Kittyhawk with battle damage, or almost out of gas, or with an injured pilot, or just got lucky on the first surprise pass and did some damage that affected a subsequent dogfight. Or maybe attacking a Kittyhawk when you have superior E in a Ju 88C is sufficient to give you a chance... or maybe it's an unbsubstantiated claim like so many of them were.

I'll look it up in Shores though he does mention the pilots name so it won't be hard to check.


----------



## Glider (Jul 6, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Did you notice this part:
> 
> "_Apparently the Ju-88C was among other things, a P-40 killer! Maybe it's time to start another thread *Lol:* _"
> 
> ...


There is a phrase I sometimes use at work ' One Swallow does not a Summer make'. In this area 'A few kills does not a killer make'. 

I think I am right in the following.
The first 109 was shot down by the RAF was destroyed by a Battle.
A Ju52 was credited with two kills in the invasion of Norway
One of the first He111's shot down by the RAF was claimed by a Lysander
A Wirriway shot down a Zero
An Anson did shoot down a 109

There are endless examples but no one would claim these victories made the aircraft a Killer

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


----------



## Macandy (Jul 6, 2019)

Point to note, the P-40 was very much a second dickie aircraft in RAF service and the squadrons operating it didn’t get the best pilots.
Much is made of the high scores by experten like Marseille in the Mediterranean theatre, but many of the pilots he was facing were second rate in second rate aircraft by that point in the war.

In the hands of a skilled pilot, the P-40 was still a very worthy adversary right into 1944.


----------



## fubar57 (Jul 6, 2019)

LOL. You are about to set upon by "experts"

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jul 6, 2019)

Macandy said:


> Point to note, the P-40 was very much a second dickie aircraft in RAF service and the squadrons operating it didn’t get the best pilots.
> Much is made of the high scores by experten like Marseille in the Mediterranean theatre, but many of the pilots he was facing were second rate in second rate aircraft by that point in the war.
> 
> .


In all, 18 Royal Air Force (RAF) squadrons, four Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF), three South African Air Force (SAAF) and two Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) squadrons serving with RAF formations, used P-40s. That is a boatload of substandard pilots, can you explain how they were selected?


----------



## Kevin J (Jul 6, 2019)

pbehn said:


> In all, 18 Royal Air Force (RAF) squadrons, four Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF), three South African Air Force (SAAF) and two Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) squadrons serving with RAF formations, used P-40s. That is a boatload of substandard pilots, can you explain how they were selected?


Perhaps Fairey Battle pilots 😄


----------



## Kevin J (Jul 6, 2019)

Glider said:


> Over the UK possibly but the main thrust of the air war in Europe change to the UK attacking France and Hurricane were rarely used in that role. As pointed out by Stig claims dropped to a trickle because the RAF knew the Hurricane wasn't up to fighting over German held area's


They used them as close escort for Blenheim's and Hurribombers.


----------



## fubar57 (Jul 6, 2019)

Odd that Neville Duke would be called a second class pilot

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


----------



## pbehn (Jul 6, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> Perhaps Fairey Battle pilots 😄


Battle's were bombers the pilots who survived moved onto other bombers.


----------



## Kevin J (Jul 6, 2019)

pbehn said:


> Battle's were bombers the pilots who survived moved onto other bombers.


Shame. I'd have thought they'd be ideal.


----------



## pbehn (Jul 6, 2019)

fubar57 said:


> Odd that Neville Duke would be called a second class pilot


Obviously posted to the wrong outfit by mistake, the RAF couldn't even do incompetence correctly.

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


----------



## pbehn (Jul 6, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> Shame. I'd have thought they'd be ideal.


As far as I know even in the worst point of the BoB that wasn't considered.


----------



## Kevin J (Jul 6, 2019)

pbehn said:


> As far as I know even in the worst point of the BoB that wasn't considered.


It was but they only let a handful go.


----------



## pbehn (Jul 6, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> It was but they only let a handful go.


Did they make it to be serving fighter pilots?


----------



## Kevin J (Jul 6, 2019)

pbehn said:


> Did they make it to be serving fighter pilots?


Yes. Just 5 in BoB


----------



## pbehn (Jul 6, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> Yes. Just 5 in BoB


From how many transferred retrained?


----------



## Schweik (Jul 6, 2019)

Glider said:


> There is a phrase I sometimes use at work ' One Swallow does not a Summer make'. In this area 'A few kills does not a killer make'.
> 
> I think I am right in the following.
> The first 109 was shot down by the RAF was destroyed by a Battle.
> ...



Some of you people are very lacking in reading comprehension or a grasp of irony. 

First, for the ironically challenged, I did not mean that it was a 'P-40 killer' literally. It's rather ironic, speak of, that the same people who accuse me of being a P-40 fanboy now seem to get animated about the idea that I'm placing the Ju 88 above it.

So for the record, I am not. I do not think a Ju 88 can routinely handle a Kittyhawk under normal circumstances, any more than a Battle can handle a Bf 109 - however, I do think that a Ju 88 was a much more capable air to air combat combat aircraft than a Battle, a Ju 52, an He 111, a Lysander, a Wirraway or an Anson _put together_. And it was a fairly dangerous opponent way out to sea where one rarely found the single-engined fighters.


----------



## Schweik (Jul 6, 2019)

My understanding is that in the early war in the RAF, the best qualified pilots got sent to fly bombers, and quite a few died flying Battles and Blenheims early in the war.

As for Commonwealth / RAF Aces in the Med, Pacific or CBI, here is a few more who flew the P-40 specifically:

Name / Total / Total in a P-40 (if available) / Nation / note
Neville Duke / 27 / / UK / (8-10 in KIttyhawk and Tomahawk)
Clive Caldwell / 26 / 20 / Aus/
Billy Drake / 24.5 / 13 / UK/
James Francis “Stocky” Edwards / 19 / 12 / Can/
R J C Whittle / 11 / 11 / Aus/
Keith Truscott / 17 / / Aus/
John Lloyd Waddy / 15 / 11 / Aus / (first 12 kills in P-40, fought in Spitfires as well)
Andrew “Nicky” Barr / 12.5 / / Aus/
Peter Turnbill / 12 / / Aus / (5 kills on P-40 in Med, 3 kills in Pacific)
Geoff Fiskin / 11 / / NZ/
Bobby Gibbes / 10.5 / / Aus/
N Bowker / 10 / 9 / UK/
D W Golding / 8 / 8 / SA/
E C Saville / 8 / 8 / SA/
J E Frost / 14 / 7 / SA/
M S Hards / 7 / 7 / UK/
A C Bosman / 8 / 6 / SA/
A C Cameron / 6 / 6 / Aus/
O V "Pedro" Hanbury / 10 / 6 / UK/
R M Leu / 6 / 6 / UK/
Wilfred Arthur / 10 / / Aus / (4 kills in one sortie in Med, also fought in Pacific)
S/Ldr Leslie Douglas / 7.5 / / Aus / (Port Morseby and Milne Bay, all victories P-40)

I think the old canard about 2nd rate pilots or crew getting sent to those Theaters is a way to cover up for other types of neglect or poor leadership which did take place in them.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jul 6, 2019)

fubar57 said:


> LOL. You are about to set upon by "experts"
> View attachment 543899



You should be alright, no threat from the "experts" so long as you don't stray from established narratives.... but you might get sniped at from the sidelines if you do.


----------



## pbehn (Jul 6, 2019)

Schweik said:


> My understanding is that in the early war in the RAF, the best qualified pilots got sent to fly bombers, and quite a few died flying Battles and Blenheims early in the war.
> .


Early in the war the manning selection and training was obviously from before the war started.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fubar57 (Jul 6, 2019)

LMAO!!!!!!


----------



## Schweik (Jul 6, 2019)

fubar57 said:


> LMAO!!!!!!



You got your head around all that turn rate vs. wing span stuff yet?


----------



## Schweik (Jul 6, 2019)

pbehn said:


> Early in the war the manning selection and training was obviously from before the war started.



Several RAF pilots - for example Billy Drake- reported intentionally screwing up some tests so they wouldn't get assigned to bombers but to fighters instead. I don't know if this continued during the Battle of Britain or not, I'm just referring to what I have heard in interviews and read in memoirs. More than one mentioned it.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jul 6, 2019)

fubar57 said:


> LMAO!!!!!!


The Battle was withdrawn from the front line before the Battle of Britain started which is about as early in the war as the term "early in the war" can get.


----------



## pbehn (Jul 6, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Several RAF pilots - for example Billy Drake- reported intentionally screwing up some tests so they wouldn't get assigned to bombers but to fighters instead. I don't know if this continued during the Battle of Britain or not, I'm just referring to what I have heard in interviews and read in memoirs. More than one mentioned it.


You are displaying confirmation bias, you believe a fighter pilot to be superior to a bomber pilot, they are just different skills but equally demanding. When I get on a 747 I don't want the pilot saying "I know sod all about this lil sucker but I do aerobatics in a P-51 on weekends"

Reactions: Funny Funny:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jul 6, 2019)

You are assuming that I'm taking any position at all on bomber pilot vs. fighter pilot. I'm reporting the data, which is that some fighter pilots claimed they had to botch scores of some kind so they wouldn't get sent to fly bombers. I'd also say if true, it means that probably a lot of very good pilots died flying some of those early bombers in 1940-1942.


----------



## pbehn (Jul 6, 2019)

Schweik said:


> You are assuming that I'm taking any position at all on bomber pilot vs. fighter pilot. I'm reporting the data, which is that some fighter pilots claimed they had to botch scores of some kind so they wouldn't get sent to fly bombers. I'd also say if true, it means that probably a lot of very good pilots died flying some of those early bombers in 1940-1942.


Further confirmation bias, you consider a good pilot to be one flying fighters and those not good to be flying something else.


----------



## Schweik (Jul 6, 2019)

pbehn said:


> Further confirmation bias, you consider a good pilot to be one flying fighters and those not good to be flying something else.



Lol... are you Trolling me? I would say you are displaying your own confirmation bias here as well as poor reading comprehension. RAF pilots said that the RAF administration was placing the pilots who did best in tests into bomber squadrons. Some of these same RAF pilots themselves preferred to fly fighters so they manipulated things so that they could. 

I myself did not make a value judgement on bomber pilot vs. fighter pilot in any of that. I was reporting what the pilots themselves said.

If you think I did, you should try re-reading it and assess your own confirmation bias.


----------



## pbehn (Jul 6, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Lol... are you Trolling me? I would say you are displaying your own confirmation bias here as well as poor reading comprehension. RAF pilots said that the RAF administration was placing the pilots who did best in tests into bomber squadrons. Some of these same RAF pilots themselves preferred to fly fighters so they manipulated things so that they could.
> 
> I myself did not make a value judgement on bomber pilot vs. fighter pilot in any of that. I was reporting what the pilots themselves said.
> 
> If you think I did, you should try re-reading it and assess your own confirmation bias.


Well many pilots had an idea of what they would like to do, is that proof of that being what they were best suited to do? I have read an anecdote of a fighter pilot transferred out of the BoB as a fighter pilot and survived the war as a perfectly good bomber pilot. I can look it up if you like but I may have to read Bungays "The Most Dangerous Enemy" again.


----------



## Schweik (Jul 6, 2019)

l looked up June 14 and 15, the two days mentioned in that Ju 88 article, in MAW II. They are covered in pages 220 through 230. These were both busy days with a lot of activity, but it looks like a P-40, specifically a Kittyhawk I of 250 Sqn, was indeed lost on the 15th and a Ju 88 did make one claim which might correspond to it.

The combat seems to be related to "Operation Vigorous", part of a complex series of convoys and interdiction operations ultimately meant to resupply Malta but partly failed. Actions on the 14th and 15th occurred as Royal Navy ships passed through an area South of Sicily called 'bomb alley' by aircrews and sailors.

*June 14*
Kittyhawks from 260 sqn and Hurricanes from 238 sqn intercepted a raid by Luftwaffe bombers escorted by Bf 109s from JG 53. They lost two Kittyhawk Is and two Hurricane IICs (these are not mentioned in Shores summary though Shores says here Plt Of Jenkins and Oran of 238 sqn bailed out), while Ace James Edwards of 260 sqn appears to have hit and wounded one of the JG 53 pilots, but the stukas they were escorting were forced to turn back and did not bomb the convoy.

Then Tomahawks from 5 sqn SAAF took over the escort just as the convoy was attacked again by Stukas escorted by Bf 109F-4s of I.JG 27 and III./JG 53. Both sides made claims with 1 Tomahawk shot down and 1 force landed (these aren't listed in the summary either), while three Bf 109s from Stab III./ 7./ and 8./ JG 53 were shot down as were at least one Stuka from III./StG 3. The stukas attacked and hit one freighter, setting it on fire.

Then the convoy moved out of range of the P-40s and Beaufighters (from 272 and 252 sqns) and a single Hudson (from 459 sqn) had to take over protective cover duties, still in range of Bf 109s of JG 27 and JG 53. Another German air raid came and the Bf 109s shot down at least three Beaufighters and the Hudson with all crews kia. One Bf 109 was FTR. Shores says one of the Beaufighters may have been hit by a Ju 88C, but it may have been flak.

There were several more fights as both sides looked for survivors and continued to duel around the convoy. As night set Beaufighters engaged Ju 88s. At the end of the day the following Allied losses were reported:

2 x Kittyhawk I
2 x Hurricanes (not listed in Shores summary)
2 x Tomahawk (not listed in Shores summary, one crashed and one force-landed)
5 x Beaufighter two say "Shot down by Ju 88C"
1 x Wellington MiA
1 x Hudson IV shot down
1 x Liberator II crash landed

Axis losses were:

3 x Bf 109 shot down (all three say "lost to P-40")
3 x Ju 87 shot down (one "Lost to P40" two by AAA)
3 x Ju 88 shot down or crash landed (one crash landed at base, one ditched at sea)

*June 15*
The next day the Beaufighters clashed with JG 53 for the most part as a squadron of Beauforts went out looking for an Italian surface fleet. One Beaufort hit the Italian Battleship "Trento" setting it on fire. Then SM 79s, Cant 1007 and Cant 506 made several raids on the convoy, some being intercepted by Kittyhawk Is of 250 sqn and some by Beaufighters. Shores mentions a dogfight between a Hudson and two Ju 88s at wavetop level, the Hudson pilot claiming they damaged one and set it on fire, but it isn't in Shores claims list.

RAF lost 14 aircraft:
7 x Beauforts,
1 x Wellington,
1 x Baltimore
4 x Beaufighters
- plus one Kittyawk I which the report says was downed by flak.

The Axis lost 13 aircraft:
1 x Bf 109F-4 Trop from JG 27
1 x Ju 87 ('to ships AA')
1 x Ju 88 'shot down in combat'
1 x SM 79
3 x Cant Z. 506
1 x RS 14
5 x Ro. 43 float planes.

The Kittyhawk I pilot of 250 sqn was listed as a *Sgt Hannaford *who survived the encounter.

Most of the Axis claims were by Bf 109Fs of JG 53, plus two from JG 27, and two from the Ju 88 equipped night fighter group NJG 2. One of those was for a Maryland (probably the Baltimore) and one was for "t/c a/c" whatever that means. Could have been the P-40.

Shores notes mentions that the Beaufort pilots were "green" and hadn't been trained how to do torpedo runs.

I couldn't find any mention in Shores voluminous text for this day about Hannaford getting shot down. It says 250 sqn got engaged with some SM 79s around 1950 hours, claiming two. Sgt, later Lt Hannaford went on later in the war to earn a DFC while flying for 450 sqn RAAF

Distinguished Flying Cross : Flight Lieutenant H R Hannaford, 450 Squadron, RAAF

The citation mentions being "shot down by anti-aircraft fire during a strafing run over Sidi Resegh in Libya" on 16 June but nothing on the 15th. Presumably that was the same incident though and he was just rescued the next morning.


----------



## Schweik (Jul 6, 2019)

pbehn said:


> Well many pilots had an idea of what they would like to do, is that proof of that being what they were best suited to do? I have read an anecdote of a fighter pilot transferred out of the BoB as a fighter pilot and survived the war as a perfectly good bomber pilot. I can look it up if you like but I may have to read Bungays "The Most Dangerous Enemy" again.



I have the utmost respect for just about any military pilot, especially in WW2.


----------



## pbehn (Jul 6, 2019)

Schweik said:


> I have the utmost respect for just about any military pilot, especially in WW2.


Why the qualification "just about" what is your criteria for respect and what are your qualifications to set that that criteria?

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jul 6, 2019)

pbehn said:


> Why the qualification "just about" what is your criteria for respect and what are your qualifications to set that that criteria?



My qualifications are as greater deity of all pilots and all aircraft everywhere, from my perch on mount Cerberus high atop the underworld.


----------



## pbehn (Jul 6, 2019)

Schweik said:


> My qualifications are as greater deity of all pilots and all aircraft everywhere, from my perch on mount Cerberus high atop the underworld.


I rented a room from a guy who had a big farm house in Germany. Otto was in the equivalent of the RAF regiment, a LW soldier he served throughout the war and saw the 262 used in service do you respect him? Your respect seems to be very arbitrary.


----------



## Schweik (Jul 6, 2019)

Did he bequeathe you a large quantity of schnapps by any chance, and are you drinking it now?

Reactions: Dislike Dislike:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Graeme (Jul 6, 2019)

Glider said:


> A Wirriway shot down a Zero



I grew up with this, but a recent trip to the AWM revealed it was an Oscar....

Australian War Memorial: CAC Wirraway – The Unlikely “Zero Killer”

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jul 6, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Did he bequeathe you a large quantity of schnapps by any chance, and are you drinking it now?


I am asking you to clarify what you are saying, you seem to be deflecting.


----------



## Schweik (Jul 6, 2019)

I have answered several of your questions which seem increasingly odd today, and you don't seem to grasp what I have written. Why don't you give it a rest and if you are still curious tomorrow we can revisit it.


----------



## pbehn (Jul 6, 2019)

Schweik said:


> I have answered several of your questions which seem increasingly odd today, and you don't seem to grasp what I have written. Why don't you give it a rest and if you are still curious tomorrow we can revisit it.


No, I have looked back through and actually you havnt.


----------



## Kevin J (Jul 7, 2019)

pbehn said:


> From how many transferred retrained?


Out of 5. Bomber command was reluctant to release any as invasion was imminent.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jul 7, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Several RAF pilots - for example Billy Drake- reported intentionally screwing up some tests so they wouldn't get assigned to bombers but to fighters instead.





pbehn said:


> You are displaying confirmation bias, you believe a fighter pilot to be superior to a bomber pilot





Schweik said:


> You are assuming that I'm taking any position at all on bomber pilot vs. fighter pilot. I'm reporting the data





pbehn said:


> Further confirmation bias, you consider a good pilot to be one flying fighters and those not good to be flying something else.





Schweik said:


> Lol... are you Trolling me? I would say you are displaying your own confirmation bias here as well as poor reading comprehension.


Do you guys realize how silly this all sounds to the rest of us?
Cheers,
Wes

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


----------



## Stig1207 (Jul 7, 2019)

Schweik said:


> 2 x Hurricanes (not listed in Shores summary)
> 2 x Tomahawk (not listed in Shores summary, one crashed and one force-landed)



2 x Hurricanes.* 1* Tomahawk shot down and 1 force-landed. They are, oddly enough, listed on p. 148, ch 2 Disasters on the Gazala Line, along with some of the German claims and some of the the British claims are repeated


Schweik said:


> 3 x Bf 109 shot down (all three say "lost to P-40")



From the summary on p. 224:

Bf 109F4 Wnr 8680 Black <1+I combat landed *slightly damaged *, Lt Walter Hicke WIA (Shores attributes this one to Edwards' claim for a probable) 
Bf 109F4 Wnr 10163 White 6+I combat P-40; Lt Heinrich Hesse rescued next day (* In the narrative Shores suggests that Hesse went down in the fight with the Beaufighters ?!?*)
Bf 109F4 Wnr 10068 Black 9+I combat P-40 ; Lt Karl-Heinz Quaritsch MIA (Attributed to van der Spuy 5 SAAF)

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jul 7, 2019)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Do you guys realize how silly this all sounds to the rest of us?
> Cheers,
> Wes



Dude, that was all him...


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jul 7, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Dude, that was all him...


Takes two to tango. According to my old Kung Fu Sensei: "You must learn to choose your battles. It's a braver and wiser man who walks away from a fight he knows he would have won, realizing that victory was less important than the harmony it would disrupt." Or words to that effect. He was more eloquent than I could ever hope to be.
Cheers,
Wes

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


----------



## Schweik (Jul 7, 2019)

I did, actually. If you are going to go out of your way to ridicule somebodies posts you might want to read them carefully first. I can't tell with that guy if he's serious or not, his posts always seem to be a bit off to me. I was trying to be polite by answering his direct questions in spite of their incoherence, until it became clear he was more off than usual. Maybe he's a heavy drinker in general, maybe not, but I'd bet ten bottles of Schnapps that he was wasted last night.


----------



## Schweik (Jul 7, 2019)

Stig1207 said:


> 2 x Hurricanes.* 1* Tomahawk shot down and 1 force-landed. They are, oddly enough, listed on p. 148, ch 2 Disasters on the Gazala Line, along with some of the German claims and some of the the British claims are repeated
> 
> 
> From the summary on p. 224:
> ...



Good catch, that section was a bit convoluted and fairly poorly documented as you too noticed, I think. Of course there was air activity going on in two different 'spheres' simultaneously and Shores splits up the action sometimes which is where many of these omissions happen.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jul 7, 2019)

Schweik said:


> If you are going to go out of your way to ridicule somebodies posts you might want to read them carefully first.


I did, and have no intent to ridicule anybody, just provide a different perspective on you two gent's "friendly conversation". I also have no intent of getting into a back-and-forth with either of you over it. As far as I'm concerned, this exchange is over.
Cheers,
Wes

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


----------



## pbehn (Jul 7, 2019)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Do you guys realize how silly this all sounds to the rest of us?
> Cheers,
> Wes


I do, but I also am a loss to understand how the anecdotes of Billy Drake who first flew in the RAF 1936 has to do with the discussion. I see no evidence that the RAF considered the P-40 to be sub standard, they replaced Hurricane squadrons with P-40s of various types which were upgraded throughout the war. I see no evidence that the pilots using P-40s were substandard in fact much evidence to the contrary, and the fact that squadrons transitioned from Hurricanes to P-40s would suggest the idea that sub standard pilots were given P-40s is nonsense. Actually what I see is a view from across the Atlantic that the "Brits" hated American aircraft because they were American. This view is always expressed about planes that the USA didn't think much of either. Like the P-39 and the B-17 as first introduced. This view always ignores the obvious fact that the same Brits would have taken any amount of P-51s Catalinas Corsairs and literally dozens of other types.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Macandy (Jul 7, 2019)

pbehn said:


> In all, 18 Royal Air Force (RAF) squadrons, four Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF), three South African Air Force (SAAF) and two Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) squadrons serving with RAF formations, used P-40s. That is a boatload of substandard pilots, can you explain how they were selected?



The RAF husbanded it’s best pilots for the UK, if you were good, off to Spitfires, if you weren't terribly good, you got Hurricanes or ACC - the others? The SAAF pilots were generally not terribly proficient, often using terrible fighter tactics when bounced.
The primary job of the DAF was ground attack, not air superiority and it showed in a combination of often inferior planes and not first dibs of aircrew.
It was an aviation backwater that allowed experten like Marseille to shine - briefly.
Could have been worse, you could have been really dire and ended up in the Far East.


----------



## slaterat (Jul 7, 2019)

pbehn said:


> they replaced Hurricane squadrons with P-40s of various types


 
I don't know where you read this but it is almost completely false. RAF Hurricanes were never replaced by any P-40s in Europe. They were largely replaced by Typhoons by the end of 42. In fact the RAF never really thought any P-40 was good enough for front line service in Northern Europe, they very much preferred their Hurricane Mk IIs.

In the Mediterranean theater only only 250 and 260 Squads replaced Hurricanes with Kittyhawks, and those were very old clapped out Hurricane Mk 1s. The rest of the Hurricane squads were replaced almost exclusively by Spitfires mostly by the end of 43.

In the far East Hurricanes were largely, but not completely, replaced by Thunderbolts and some Spits by the end of 44.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 8, 2019)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Do you guys realize how silly this all sounds to the rest of us?
> Cheers,
> Wes



And on that note...

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


----------

